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 Appeal of Approved 7-Unit Multifamily Residential Bldg. - 104 Shaver Street____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: June 1, 2020 Disposition: Resolution 14808 Agenda Item No: 5.a Meeting Date: June 1, 2020 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen, AICP (SS) Community Development Director City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: APPEAL OF APPROVED 7-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BLDG. – 104 SHAVER ST. SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 14, 2020 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP19-013), AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED19-030) AND A VARIANCE (V19-003) ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 7-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING AT 104 SHAVER STREET; CASE # AP20-001. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s April 14, 2020 conditional approval of the Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variances to allow the construction of a new, 7-unit, multifamily residential apartment building. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 14, 2020, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a project which consists of the demolition of an existing two-story, single family residence and the development of a new, 7-unit, multifamily residential apartment building with garage parking and miscellaneous site improvements on a Downtown parcel. Project approvals included: •One (1) density bonus unit under the State Density Bonus law (up to a maximum 3 density bonus units were eligible); •Two (2) automatic concessions under the State Density Bonus law (up to a maximum of 3 concessions were eligible) to 1) Reduce street side yard setback; and 2) Increase the maximum allowable lot coverage; •A Use Permit for Parking Modifications to reduce the required parking, from 8 to 7 spaces; and increase the maximum percentage of compact parking, from 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces); and •Variances to reduce the required garage setback, and interior side yard setbacks. On April 16, 2020, two neighboring residents jointly filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. The appeal letter identifies two appeal points: 1) the project will create traffic SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 safety impacts and parking impacts within the neighborhood, and 2) existing flooding issues in the neighborhood will increase as a result of the project. Staff finds that the appeal points have no merit. The applicant has worked in concert with the Department of Public Works, Traffic and Engineering Divisions to create an access and parking plan that meets both the project needs and traffic safety requirements. The project will provide increased bicycle parking to offset the elimination of one (1) guest parking space and the Traffic Division has determined adequate street parking capacity exists in the vicinity of the site; the project will actually add one (1) street parking space by the elimination of a driveway curb cut along Third St. As required of any development in the City, the project is not allowed to increase stormwater runoff and project design includes the use of landscaped bioretention areas, which comply with Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) standards. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined that the project complies with: all applicable General Plan land use polices; the development standards for the High-Density Residential (HR1) District zone; the required criteria supporting the Parking Modification; and the findings for approval of the Use Permit, the Environmental and Design Review Permits and the Variances. BACKGROUND: On July 23, 2018, the applicant filed for Pre-Application to request preliminary feedback on this potential project. City Departments reviewed the preliminary project and conducted a follow-up meeting with the applicant in August 2018. Design Review Board Action: In December 2018, the applicant submitted for Conceptual Design Review to request preliminary design feedback from the Design Review Board (Board). On February 5, 2019, the Board provided Conceptual Design Review comments on the project, which included: 1) Parking needs to be re-evaluated to eliminate conflict with access and be compliant; 2) Explore encroaching into or eliminating the interior side yard setback in order to comply with the required minimum 10’ street side setback; 3) Reduce paving within the street side setback to provide a more pedestrian scale; 4) Explore increasing the width of the staircase along the Shaver St. frontage and making it the primary entrance to the upper units while reducing the width of the staircase along the Third St. frontage and making it the secondary entrance; 5) Explore providing more storage for the units; and 6) Increase the use of landscape planters around the common outdoor areas on the podium level. The formal planning applications were filed on April 25, 2019. On December 17, 2019, the Board reviewed the formal project for site and building design and continued the agenda item with the following consensus comments: 1) Contemporary design of project is appropriate for the challenging transitional site; 2) Eliminate the inconsistencies between the drawings within the plan set, particularly the elevation renderings to the floor plans for the upper staircase located at the corner of Third and Shaver Streets; 3) Provide details showing the ground-floor stucco and upper wood siding; 4) Eliminate the landscaped area underneath the cantilever upper-story decks on the east elevation; 5) The project shall provide compliant required on-site parking; 6) Garage parking shall be reconfigured to eliminate the potential for parking spaces #5-7 to backout directly onto Shaver St.; 7) All bicycle parking shall be secured; 8) Widen the third-story corridor; 9) Landscape plan shall clearly identify all bioswales, confirm adequacy of plant species in bioswales, reduce vine species to one, provide additional details on “biofiltration sod”, and eliminate the “drainage swale hydroseed” detail note. On February 19, 2020, the Board reviewed design revisions to the formal project and unanimously recommended approval of the site and building design, as presented (4-0-2 vote; with Members Paul and Rege absent). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Planning Commission Review and Action: On April 14, 2020, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed the project at virtual public hearing. The entire April 14, 2020 Staff Report to the Planning Commission with all Exhibits is provided. The approved project plans are included as Exhibit 6. Six (6) members of the public spoke in uniform opposition to the project. Their concerns included assertions that: • The project is underparked and should be parked at two (2) on-site parking spaces per unit; • While encouraged, the increase in bicycle parking is no substitute to replace vehicle parking; • The project creates safe sight visibility issues; • The construction of the project will negatively impact neighborhood parking; and • There is a lack of available street parking on Shaver, Hayes and Latham St. because they have no time restrictions (unlike the recent changes along Third St.). While the Commission preferred the project provide compliant parking (8 spaces), they ultimately determined the triangular-size site presented design challenges and the opportunity to create seven (7) Downtown units, including one (1) affordable housing unit and one (1) ADA-accessible unit, was too good to not approve. In conclusion, the Commission unanimously approved the project (6-0 vote), including the Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variances, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-12, subject to one additional condition of approval, requiring that all garage parking spaces shall be pre-wired to allow for future installation of Level 2 (240-volt) electric charging stations. Within the five (5)-working day appeal period immediately following the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, three (3) appeal letters were submitted to the City Clerk. Only one appeal letter (Exhibit 2) also included the required filing fee. The other two appeal letters have been included with the other public correspondence (Exhibit 4) received since the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. The appeal letter raises three appeal points; the project will create traffic safety impacts, parking impacts within the neighborhood, and existing flooding issues in the neighborhood will increase as a result of the project. Video proceedings of all three Board meetings and the one Planning Commission hearing on the project may be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and then clicking on hearing body under “archived videos” section and navigating to the date of the meeting or hearing. Project Description: Use: The project proposes to construct a new 7-unit, 35’-tall, multifamily residential apartment building with understory garage parking and associated site landscape and drainage improvements. All of the proposed units are proposed as two-bedroom units, 807-899 sq. ft. in size, with the exception of the ground-floor ADA-accessible unit, which is proposed to a one-bedroom configuration and 806 sq. ft. in size. The project does not include a condominium map; therefore, the units would be rental. The existing development on the site, a single-family residence, is proposed to be demolished. Planning Applications: The project requires the following Planning entitlements: • An Environmental and Design Review Permit for the proposed new multifamily residential structure; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 • A Use Permit for Parking Modifications to: 1) Reduce the parking requirement, from eight (8) to seven (7) on-site parking spaces, by eliminating guest parking; and 2) Increase the allowed compact parking ratio from 30% to 50% or from two (2) to four (4) compact parking spaces; and • Variances to: 1) Reduce the required garage setback five feet (5’), from 20’ to 15’; and 2) Reduce the required interior side setback, from five feet (5’) to zero. Affordability: One (1) of the units (0.6 units which rounded-up to nearest whole number, or 1 unit) is required to be affordable at the very-low income household level. This affordable housing requirement represents 16.7% affordability of the maximum allowable density (6 units). The provision of 16.7% affordability at the very low-income units qualifies the project for up to a 35% density bonus (resulting in up to 3 bonus units, 2.1 rounded up to 3) and up to three (3) concessions under the State Density Bonus law. Although the project is eligible for up to 3 bonus units, the project proposes one (1) State Density Bonus unit. By providing the 16.7% affordability, the project is also eligible for up to 3 concessions. The project requests two (2) automatic concessions; 1) a 20% reduction in the required street side setback, from 10’ to 8’; and 2) a 5% increase in the maximum lot coverage, from 60% (3,758 sq. ft.) to 65% (4,071 sq. ft.). Site Plan: The new multifamily residential apartment building proposes a zero interior side yard setback, which sits adjacent to the surface parking lot of the neighboring AT&T office building. A 20’- wide driveway along the Shaver St. frontage is proposed to provide vehicular access to the understory garage. Secured long-term bicycle parking is also provided within the garage which exceeds the minimum required (from 2 to 6 bicycle parking spaces). The project proposes to locate one (1) of the rental units on the ground-floor, behind the garage, and the remaining six (6) rental units evenly on the second floor (3 units) and third floor (3 units). The ground-floor unit is proposed to ADA-accessible. The six (6) upper-story units are proposed to be 2- bedroom configurations, 807-892 sq. ft. in size. The ADA-accessible unit is proposed to be a 1- bedroom configuration, 806 sq. ft. in size. Architecture: The project proposes a contemporary architectural design featuring lots of glazing (including glass railings), multiple exterior textures (two colors of textured stucco, anodized windows without trim) and ‘winged’ roof forms with lots of skylights. The new building is proposed to follow the curvilinear shape of the Third St. frontage through a series of successive 2 - 5’ stepbacks. In addition, the two upper stories are proposed to stepback from the ground-floor podium level to create common uncovered deck area along the Third St. frontage. Landscaping: The project proposes 1,724 sq. ft. of landscaping, located primarily along the Third and Shaver St. frontages. The project proposes to remove a total of four (4) existing trees on the site. The Landscape Plan for the project proposes a combination of trees, shrubs, grasses, vines and groundcovers, including 6, 24”-box container size replacement trees planted predominantly along the Third St. frontage. The project also proposes to install ‘green screens’, vine-covered metal screens, at the podium level along both the Shaver St. and Third St. frontages. Grading/Drainage: The project will include 443 sq. ft. of landscaped bioretention area along the Shaver St. frontage as a stormwater treatment measure. APPEAL: On April 16, 2020, a neighboring resident (Donni Uzarski) and her sister (Dale Wallis) filed a timely appeal within the 5 business day appeal period of the Planning Commission’s April 14, 2020 approval SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 of the project. Ms. Wallis submitted an appeal letter, separate from Ms. Uzarski’s appeal letter, but cited the same points of appeal. Ms. Uzarski and Ms. Wallis later requested consolidation of their appeals as co-appellants. A third appeal letter was received by the City during the appeal period from Charles B. Wilson, however Mr. Wilson did not submit the required appeal filing fee, therefore, that appeal is not valid. Staff has included Mr. Wilson’s appeal letter along with the other public correspondence received since the Planning Commission hearing (Attachment 5). ANALYSIS: A complete analysis of the project and its consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines is provided in the April 14, 2020 - Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits. The appeal letter (Attachment 2) lists three (3) points of appeal which are paraphrased by staff below in bold/italics and followed by staff’s response. Appeal Point #1 - The project approval will result in traffic safety impacts. Response: The traffic safety impacts have been considered and found to be consistent with traffic safety standards. During the Preliminary Review of this project, the driveway exiting out of the site was proposed on Third St. This was flagged as an issue by the Public Works Traffic Division given the potential conflict of vehicles entering/exiting the site from Third St. and vehicle speeds and limited sight distance conditions along Third St. The project was later revised to the current proposal, by moving the driveway exclusively onto Shaver St. The project is consistent with all applicable development standards within the HR1 District, subject to requested automatic concessions under the State Density Bonus law, Parking Modifications, and Variances. Some of the development standards for which the Variances were granted (reducing the street side yard and garage setbacks), could be related to safety. During the formal review of the project, sight distance and potential stacking/queuing of vehicles were considered by Department of Public Works staff, who determined that the project, as designed, was acceptable. This project further mitigates safety concerns by: • Locating the driveway as far away from the intersection as practical, which allows for better visibility, and access to Shaver St. for navigating the intersection. • Eliminating an existing secondary driveway curb cut along the Third St. elevation. • Incorporating the means to turn around on-site into their design. With constrained dimensions, they were able to provide a parking configuration which will minimize conflicts and keep maneuvering on-site, rather than occurring on the street. With these considerations, the applicant has worked with the Department of Public Works in developing an access and parking plan that meets both the project needs and traffic safety requirements. For further discussion, the applicant and their engineer may respond to detailed accommodations made in their design. The formal application and currently proposed plans were reviewed by the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, and found to meet their engineering standards and are therefore recommended for approval. On April 14, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed, including the review and input of staff and public comments, and ultimately conditionally approved the project. The approval (Attachment 1) includes two conditions of approval that further reduce site distance and queuing impacts: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 • Environmental and Design Review Permit Condition #39 – Requires confirmation on the building plans that the monument sign and landscaping located at the corner of Third and Shaver St. complies with the safe sight distance; and • Environmental and Design Review Permit Condition #41 - Requires that any garage gate system include remote activation to prevent queueing onto Shaver St. Furthermore, the project proposes the maximum density (6 units) allowed under the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation and the High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) zoning district. General Plan 2020 Housing Policy H-14b (Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Sites) requires approval of multifamily residential projects at the mid- to high-range of allowable density, which this project would attain. While the project site itself is not identified in the General Plan as a housing opportunity site, the adjacent parcel immediately north of the site (the AT&T office building located at 220 Shaver St.) is identified as a housing opportunity site. Appeal Point #2 – The project approval will result in parking impacts within the neighborhood. Response: The site is located Downtown, within the High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance (San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Chapter 14.18) identifies parking requirements for all uses within the City, including new multifamily residential development. The adopted parking standards for multifamily residential development within the Downtown, like this project, require the following parking: • One parking space for each studio and 1-bedroom unit and 2-bedroom units less than 900 sq. ft. in size; plus • One guest parking space for every five (5) units. Therefore, eight onsite parking spaces are required (7 for units, and one for guest), while seven spaces have been proposed. The requested reduction in parking was to eliminate the one guest parking space required. To support the reduction in required vehicle parking, the project proposes to increase bicycle parking, as is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The project is required to provide one (1) short- term bike rack with a capacity for two (2) bicycles. The project proposes to provide six (6) secured, long-term bicycle racks in the garage. Recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.18.090.D) codified portions of the 2017 Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study which allows excess bicycle parking to qualify for a reduction in vehicle parking. All requests for Parking Modifications require the review and recommendation of both the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, and the approval of the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director and the City Engineer support this request for Parking Modification to reduce the number of vehicle parking spaces, from eight (8) to seven (7) total parking spaces, in exchange for providing a surplus of bicycle parking in an area determined to have ample street parking in the vicinity of the site. Guest parking functions as an intermittent use. The 2017 Downtown Parking and W ayfinding study identified that while parking in this area of downtown may be fairly well utilized, there remains some capacity for on street parking in and around this site. In addition, this development would eliminate an unused curb-cut on Third St., which will add back an on-street parking space. Separate from this project, the City is in the process of developing plans for improvements on the entire Third St. corridor. These improvements are anticipated to improve the safety of traffic flow SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 and street parking along the corridor. With these improvements, street parking may be better utilized. During construction some temporary impacts may be necessary, however the applicant is required to develop a construction management plan to reduce these temporary impacts and coordinate with neighbors. Based on all of these factors, it is not anticipated that this project will add any impact to street parking that exceeds what would otherwise be permissible without the parking modification. As discussed in Appeal Point #1 the applicant has developed a plan that allows vehicles to turn around on-site, which improves safety. In order to accommodate this and to meet other requirements, the number of compact spaces has increased. For reference, in the downtown area standard parking spaces are 18’. Many passenger vehicles are smaller than this dimension. Coordination among the residents or owner may be implemented to ensure that the spaces provided are distributed to meet the needs of the development. The applicant may be able to address this concern directly with a parking management plan on site. Appeal Point #3 - Existing flooding issues in the neighborhood will increase as a result of the project. Response: Localized flooding in this area (along with many parts of the City) may be observed when blockages to the storm drainage system occur. City streets maintenance staff frequently clear catch basins of leaves and other debris. However, these blockages can still occur when large rain events occur at the same time, during the fall when leaves drop from trees. City crews proactively monitor and clean catch basins throughout the City. To reduce the likelihood of these blockages, the public can also assist by performing regular maintenance of leaves collecting along their properties, to prevent them from reaching the drainage system and catch basins. City staff will continue to respond during rain events as well as provide preventative maintenance ahead of the fall/winter periods. If a blocked drain is observed, the community can contact the Department of Public W orks. With regard to this project, the formal project submittals included a Geotechnical Investigation Report (Visha Consultants Inc., dated January 25, 2019; see Attachment 3). Soil borings on the site encountered groundwater at 15’ below the ground surface. Based on monitoring well data for sites located in the vicinity, a seasonal high groundwater table of 8’ below ground surface is anticipated, though actual groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations. The geotechnical investigation report for the project determined that the subsurface groundwater will not affect the proposed grading and construction required for the project, provided recommendations presented in the report are implemented to earthwork and foundation design. The project plans also include both a Drainage Plan (Sh. C-2) and a more detailed Drainage Management Plan (Sh. SD-1) which identify stormwater runoff (surface and roof) directed to landscaped bioretention areas for absorption prior to entering the City’s stormwater drainage system. Any new development is required to meet stormwater treatment and retention requirements. Bioretention is identified to be incorporated into the landscaping plan. These requirements are uniformly applied to projects throughout the City. The specific details of the bioretention will be included as part of the building permit phase, however the sizing and location has been included on the entitlements to ensure that the necessary stormwater treatment and retention can be accommodated within the proposed design. In addition, Shaver St. has a branch of the drainage system that connects to San Rafael Creek. A portion of the San Rafael Creek has been mapped by FEMA with a special flood hazard area along the creek according to the Flood Insurance Study. As part of the development standards required of SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 any development, the project is not allowed to increase runoff, and this is typically accomplished with bioretention. The applicant has proposed to include bioretention according to the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) standards. The performance of these facilities was analyzed by MCSTOPPP and it was determined that they meet requirements. Therefore, no additional analysis was required for this project. Based on the above, the project complies with current flood hazard and storm water requirements and would contribute additional run off to the system. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this appeal to the City Council, has been conducted in accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood group (Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and the Downtown Business Improvement District) at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. In addition, notice of each hearing was posted at the site, at the northeast corner of the Shaver Street and Third Street intersection, at least 15 days prior to each hearing. Copies of the public hearing notice and notification map for the City Council hearing are attached as Attachment 4. All public comments received by staff on the project prior to the Planning Commission hearing are included as Exhibits 7 and Exhibit 8 of the April 14, 2020 Staff Report to the Planning Commission All correspondence received after the Planning Commission hearing and part of this appeal are included as Attachment 5. Planning staff has received 84 public comments at the time of distribution of staff’s report to the City Council. Some of these comments are from outside the immediate neighborhood of the project and some are from outside of San Rafael. A majority of these comments (83) are in opposition to the project and, generally, focus on the same concerns as those outlined in the appeal points (primarily traffic safety concerns and parking impact concerns, though also the assertion that the project is out of scale with adjacent residential neighborhood). FISCAL IMPACT: In accordance with the City’s master fee schedule, the appellant was required to submit a $350 appeal fee. This review and processing of this project is a private development and does not have a direct fiscal impact on the City budget. The planning review and processing of these applications is subject to 100% cost recovery fees, paid for by the applicant, including the appeal. Construction of the project would generate building permit review and inspection fees, based on the valuation of the project, to be used to cover staff time to review the plans and inspect the project. The project will also be subject to required impact fees, including traffic mitigation fees. The project would generate five (5) new net peak hour vehicle trips, which would be subject to the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $21,230 (5 x $4,246/new peak hour traffic trip) to assist in funding needed off-site transportation improvements. All utility connections (sewer, water, gas/electric) will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. Further, all public improvements along the site frontages will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. Once constructed, the project would also result in an increase to local property tax revenues, which would fund/offset costs of providing additional ongoing public services to the site occupants. OPTIONS: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 The City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project (Staff Recommendation). 2. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project with modifications or additions to the conditions of approval. 3. Continue the matter and direct staff to return with additional information to address any comments or concerns of the Council. 4. Direct staff to return with a revised resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission decision, thereby denying the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission’s Condition Approval 2. Letter of Appeal to City Council from Donni Uzarski and Dale Wallis, dated April 16, 2020 3. Geotechnical Investigation Report 4. Public Hearing Notice and Notification Map 5. Public Comments Received since Planning Commission hearing April 14, 2020 - Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits Attachment 1-1 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 RESOLUTION NO. 14808 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP20-001) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 14, 2020 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP19-013), AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED19-030) AND VARIANCES (V19-003) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 7-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH GARAGE PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (GRADING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING) ON A 6,264 SQ. FT. DOWNTOWN LOT LOCATED AT 104 SHAVER ST. (APN: 011-254-40) WHEREAS, On July 23, 2018, the applicant filed for Pre-Application to request preliminary feedback on this potential project. City Departments reviewed the preliminary project, conducted a Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting to review all comments, provided written comments to the applicant on August 30, 2018 and conducted a follow-up meeting with the applicant to answer any follow-up questions from the Pre-application letter; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2018, as required by San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.25.030 (B), the applicant filed for Conceptual Design Review to request preliminary design feedback from the Design Review Board (Board); and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the Board provided Conceptual Design Review comments on the project, which included: 1) Parking needs to be re-evaluated to eliminate conflict with access and compliant; 2) Explore encroaching into or eliminating the interior side yard setback in order to comply with the required minimum 10’ street side setback; 3) Reduce paving within the street side setback to provide a more pedestrian scale; 4) Explore increasing the width of the staircase along the Shaver St. frontage and making it the primary entrance to the upper units while reducing the width of the staircase along the Third St. frontage and making it the secondary entrance; 5) Explore providing more storage for the units; and 6) Increase the use of landscape planters around the common outdoor areas on the podium level; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2019, formal project applications were submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, requesting a Use Permit (UP19-013), an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and Variances (V19-003) for the current project; and WHEREAS, the project proposes the maximum density allowed under the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation and the High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) zoning district. General Plan 2020 Housing Policy H-14b (Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Sites) requires approval of multifamily residential projects at the mid- to high-range of allowable density, which this project would attain. While the project site itself is not identified in the General Plan as a housing opportunity site, the adjacent parcel immediately north of the site (the AT&T telecommunications switching facility located at 220 Shaver St.) is identified as a housing opportunity site; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Board reviewed the formal project for site and building design and continued the agenda item with the following consensus comments: 1) Contemporary design of project is appropriate for the challenging transitional site; 2) Eliminate Attachment 1-2 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 the inconsistencies between the drawings within the plan set, particularly the elevation renderings to the floor plans for the upper staircase located at the corner of Third and Shaver Streets; 3) Provide details showing the ground-floor stucco and upper wood siding; 4) Eliminate the landscaped area underneath the cantilever upper-story decks on the east elevation; 5) The project shall provide compliant required on-site parking; 6) Garage parking shall be reconfigured to eliminate the potential for parking spaces #5-7 to backout directly onto Shaver St.; 7) All bicycle parking shall be secured; 8) Widen the third-story corridor; 9) Landscape plan shall clearly identify all bioswales, confirm adequacy of plant species in bioswales, reduce vine species to one, provide additional details on “biofiltration sod”, and eliminate “drainage swale hydroseed” detail; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, the Board reviewed design revisions to the formal project and unanimously (4-0-2 vote; Paul and Rege absent) recommended approval of the site and building design, as presented; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly noticed hearing to consider Use Permit (UP19-013), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and Variance (V19-003) applications, and accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 20-12 (6-0 vote), approving the Use Permit (UP19-013), the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and the Variances (V19-003), subject to the addition of a condition of approval requiring that all garage parking spaces be pre-wired to allow for future installation of Level 2 (240-volt) electric charging stations (Condition 4, ED19-030); and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2020, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action was filed by Donni Uzarski, a nearby resident, and her sister Dale Wallis, as co-appellants. The appeal letter raises three (3) appeal points: 1) the project will create traffic safety impacts; 2) the project will create parking impacts within the neighborhood; and 3) existing flooding issues in the neighborhood will increase as a result of the project; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP20-001), accepting and considering all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning 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 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Appeal Point #1 should not be sustained, as substantial evidence in the record shows that the project approval will not result in adverse traffic safety impacts, as follows: 1. The Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, staff has found that the project meets their engineering standards for traffic safety. During the Preliminary Review of this project, the driveway exiting out of the site was proposed on Third St. This was flagged as an issue by the Public Works Traffic Division given the potential conflict of vehicles entering/exiting the site from Third St. and vehicle speeds and limited sight distance conditions along 3rd St. The project was later revised to the current proposal, by moving the driveway exclusively onto Shaver St. Attachment 1-3 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 2. The project is also consistent with all applicable development standards within the HR1 zoning District, subject to requested automatic concessions under the State Density Bonus law, Parking Modifications and Variances. Some of the development standards for which the Variances were granted (reducing the street side yard and garage setbacks), could have potential safety implications; however, Department of Public Works staff considered sight distance and potential stacking/queuing of vehicles and determined that the project, as designed, meets traffic safety standards. This project further mitigates safety concerns by: • Locating the driveway as far away from the intersection as practical, which allows for better visibility, and access to Shaver St. for navigating the intersection; • Eliminating an existing secondary driveway curb cut along the Third St. elevation; and • Incorporating the means to turn around on-site into the design. With constrained dimensions, the applicants were able to provide a parking configuration which will minimize conflicts and keep maneuvering on-site, rather than occurring on the street. 3. On April 14, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the project with the following two additional conditions that further reduce site distance and queuing impacts: • Environmental and Design Review Permit Condition #39 – Requires confirmation on the building plans that the monument sign and landscaping located at the corner of Third and Shaver St. complies with the safe sight distance; and • Environmental and Design Review Permit Condition #41 - Requires that any garage gate system include remote activation to prevent queueing onto Shaver St. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Appeal Point #2 should not be sustained, as substantial evidence in the record shows that the project approval will not result in adverse parking impacts within the neighborhood, as follows: 1. The site is located Downtown, within the High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) zoning district. San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Chapter 14.18 identifies parking requirements for all uses within the City, including new multifamily residential development. The adopted parking standards for multifamily residential development within the Downtown, like this project, require the following parking: • One parking space for each studio and 1-bedroom unit and 2-bedroom units less than 900 sq. ft. in size; plus • One guest parking space for every five (5) units. Therefore, eight onsite parking spaces are required (7 for units, and one for guest), while seven spaces have been proposed. The requested reduction in parking was to eliminate the one guest parking space required. To support the reduction in required vehicle parking, the project proposes to increase bicycle parking, as is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, the project is required to provide one (1) short-term bike rack with a capacity for two (2) bicycles. The project proposes to provide six (6) secured, long-term bicycle racks in the garage. Recently adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.18.090.D) codified portions of the 2017 Downtown Parking and Attachment 1-4 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 Wayfinding Study which allows excess bicycle parking to qualify the project for a reduction in vehicle parking. The requested parking modification has been approved by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Planning Commission in view of the provision of a surplus of bicycle parking in an area determined to have ample street parking in the vicinity of the site. 2. Guest parking functions as an intermittent use. The 2017 Downtown Parking and Wayfinding study identified that while parking in this area of downtown may be fairly well utilized, there remains some capacity of on street parking in and around this site. In addition, this development would eliminate an unused curb-cut on Third St., which will add back an on-street parking space. 3. Separate from this project, the City is in the process of developing plans for improvements on the entire Third St. corridor. These improvements are anticipated to improve the safety of traffic flow and street parking along the corridor. With these improvements, street parking may be better utilized. During construction some temporary impacts may be necessary, however the applicant is required to develop a construction management plan to reduce these temporary impacts and coordinate with neighbors. it is not anticipated that this project will add any impact to street parking that exceed what would otherwise be permissible without the parking modification. 4. The applicant has developed a plan that allows vehicles to turn around on-site, which improves safety. In order to accommodate this and to meet other requirements, the number of compact spaces has increased. For reference, in the downtown area standard parking spaces are 18’. Many passenger vehicles are smaller than this dimension. Coordination among the residents or owner may be implemented to ensure that the spaces provided are distributed to meet the needs of the development. The applicant may be able to address this concern directly with a parking management plan on site. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Appeal Point #3 should not be sustained, as substantial evidence in the record shows that the project complies with current flood hazard and storm water requirements and project approval will not result in an increase in flooding issues in the neighborhood, as follows: 1. The Geotechnical Investigation Report by Visha Consultants Inc. dated January 25, 2019 submitted in support of this application indicates that soil borings on the site encountered groundwater at 15’ below the ground surface. Based on monitoring well data for sites located in the vicinity, a seasonal high groundwater table of 8’ below ground surface is anticipated, though actual groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations. The report determined that the subsurface groundwater will not affect the proposed grading and construction required for the project, provided recommendations presented in the report are implemented to earthwork and foundation design. 2. The project plans also include both a Drainage Plan (Sh. C-2) and a more detailed Drainage Management Plan (Sh. SD-1) which identify stormwater runoff (surface and roof) directed to landscaped bioretention areas for absorption prior to entering the City’s stormwater drainage system. Any new development is required to meet stormwater treatment and retention requirements. Bioretention is identified to be incorporated into the landscaping plan. These requirements are uniformly applied to projects throughout Attachment 1-5 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 the City. The specific details of the bioretention will be included as part of the building permit phase, however the sizing and location has been included on the entitlements to ensure that the necessary stormwater treatment and retention can be accommodated within the proposed design. 3. Shaver St. has a branch of the drainage system that connects to San Rafael Creek. A portion of the San Rafael Creek has been mapped by FEMA with a special flood hazard area along the creek according to the Flood Insurance Study. As part of the development standards required of any development, the project is not allowed to increase runoff, and this is typically accomplished with bioretention. The applicant has proposed to include bioretention according to the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) standards. The performance of these facilities was analyzed by MCSTOPPP and it was determined that they meet requirements. Therefore, no additional analysis was required for this project. 4. Localized flooding in this area (along with many parts of the City) may be observed when blockages to the storm drainage system occur. City streets maintenance staff frequently clear catch basins of leaves and other debris. However, these blockages can still occur when large rain events occur at the same time, during the fall when leaves drop from trees. City staff will continue to respond during rain events as well as provide preventative maintenance ahead of the fall/winter periods. If a blocked drain is observed, the community can contact the Department of Public W orks. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP20-001) and upholds the Planning Commission’s April 14, 2020 conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP19-013), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and Variances (V19-003), which allows the construction of a new 7-unit, multifamily residential apartment building with garage parking and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a Downtown parcel located at 104 Shaver St., based on the following findings: Use Permit (UP19-013) Findings A. The proposed new multifamily residential development with Parking Modifications to reduce required parking from eight (8) to seven (7) spaces and to increase the percentage of allowable compact parking from 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces), as revised and conditioned, will be in accord with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and the purposes of the High -Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) District, in which the project site is located, given that; 1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table (Exhibit 3; 4/14/20 Planning Commission Staff Report) the proposed project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020; 2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 4/14/20 Planning Commission Staff Report) the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3. The proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of the HR1 District, given that; a) The project will provide for high-density residential development in the HR1 District, a high-density residential zoning district; b) The project will Attachment 1-6 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 provide a wide variety of housing opportunities in terms of housing type (market- rate, ADA-accessible and affordable residential ‘rental’ units) and sizes (1- bedroom unit 806 sq. ft. in size and 2-bedroom units 807- 899 sq. ft. in size), c) The project will help promote San Rafael's Downtown area as a viable commercial and financial center, and as an urban center with a mixture of civic, social, entertainment, cultural and residential uses due to its unique location in the Downtown (one block south of Fourth St.); future residents are anticipated to frequent existing and future businesses in the Downtown and help achieve the City’s goal of ‘alive-after-five’ by helping to activate the Downtown in the evenings and on weekends; d) The project will help create an inviting appearance along both the Third St. and Shaver St. frontages by installing new street trees and landscaped setbacks; e) The project has been reviewed by the appropriate City department and non-city agencies and determined that adequate infrastructure exists to meet all new service demands; and f) On February 19, 2020, the Design Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the project, determining the project design will protect and enhance the existing land use development pattern and character within the immediate surrounding neighborhood, which is a mixture of high-density multifamily residential to the south, commercial to the north and east and duplex residential to the west. B. The proposed new multifamily residential development with Parking Modifications to reduce required parking from eight (8) to seven (7) spaces and to increase the percentage of allowable compact parking from 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces), as revised and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public healrth, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City, given that; the project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, non-City agencies, the appropriate surrounding neighborhood groups (Downtown Business Improvement District, and Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), interested parties, the Design Review Board at three (3) separate meetings (conceptual review on February 5, 2019 and formal project review on December 17, 2019 and February 19, 2020) and conditions of approval have been included to mitigate any potential negative impacts anticipated to be generated by the proposed project; Both the Public Works and Community Development Directors support the Parking Modification to reduce required parking, give that; bicycle parking will be increased (from 2 to 6 secured/garage bicycle parking spaces) and the area surrounding the project site has been determined to have ample street parking beyond Shaver St. and Latham St.; Both the Public Works and Community Development Directors also support the Parking Modification to increase the percentage of compact parking for the project, from a maximum of 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces) to help provide greater maneuverability within the garage area; and C. The proposed new multifamily residential development with Parking Modifications to reduce required parking from eight (8) to seven (7) spaces and to increase the percentage of allowable compact parking from 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces), as revised and conditioned, will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, given that; as documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 4/14/20 Planning Commission Staff Report). Attachment 1-7 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) Findings A. The project design, as revised and conditioned, will be in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), given that; 1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table (Exhibit 3; 4/14/20 Planning Commission Staff Report), the proposed project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020; 2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 4/14/20 Planning Commission Staff Report), the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3. The proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits, given that; the project will maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the City, as determined during the review of the project by the Board during three (3) separate meetings (conceptual review on February 5, 2019 and formal design review on December 17, 2019 and February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, the Board unanimously recommended approval of the site and building design, as revised and presented. B. The project design, as revised and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the High-Density Residential (HR1) District in which the project site is located, given that; 1. The project will be consistent with the maximum allowable density for the site, which is 6 units based on 6,264 sq. ft. of total lot area, subject to a request for an automatic density bonuses under the State Density Bonus law after meeting mandatory affordable housing requirements (By providing 1 affordable rental unit, the project is eligible for up to 3 bonus density units. The project proposes 1 density bonus unit); 2. The project will be consistent with the maximum height allowed (Uniform Building Code 1997) for the project site, which is 36’ (The project proposes a 35’ building height); 3. The project will be consistent with the minimum required front yard setback, which is 15’ front (Shaver St. frontage); 4. The project will be consistent with the minimum required street side yard setback (Third St. frontage), subject to the approval of a requested setback reduction as an automatic concession under the State Density Bonus law after meeting mandatory affordable housing requirements (reduced from 10’ to 8’); 5. The project will be consistent with the minimum required interior side yard setback (shared with the commercial office at 220 Shaver St.), subject to the approval of a requested setback reduction as a Variance (reduced from 5’ to zero or 0’) and separate findings have been made below; 6. The project will be consistent with the minimum required garage setback (Shaver St.), subject to the approval of a requested setback reduction as a Variance (reduced from 20’ to 15’) and separate findings have been made below; Attachment 1-8 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 7. The project will be consistent with the maximum allowable lot coverage, subject to the approval of a requested increase in lot coverage as an automatic concession under the State Density Bonus law after meeting mandatory affordable housing requirements (increased from 60% to 65%); 8. The project will be consistent with the minimum landscaping requirement for the project site, which is 50% of the required front and street side yards (The project proposes 489 sq. ft. of required front yard landscaping where 466 sq. ft. is required and 1,031 sq. ft. of required street side yard landscaping where 627 sq. ft. is required); 9. The project will provide 1,552 sq. ft. of private and common outdoor recreational area or an average of 212.7 sq. ft. of outdoor recreational area per unit where a minimum of 700 sq. ft. or an average of 100 sq. ft. is required; 10. The project will be consistent with the parking requirement, subject to the approval of a requested Parking Modification, to reduce the required parking from 8 to 7 on-site parking spaces by elimination of the required (1 space) guest parking and separate findings have been made above; 11. The project will be consistent with the compact parking space requirement, subject to the approval of a requested Parking Modification, to increase the percentage of compact parking spaces from a maximum of 30% to 50% (increased from 2 to 4 compact spaces) and separate findings have been made above; 12. The provisions of Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) most recent water conservation and new ‘graywater’ requirements apply to the project, where MMWD approval is required prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit; and 13. The proposed project will be consistent with review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits (Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance), by proposing a consistent, high-quality architectural design (colors and materials; scale; bulk and mass; fenestration and articulation) throughout the project site. C. The project design, as revised and conditioned, minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given that; 1. The project design includes storm water retention areas or ‘bioswales’ which will have the effect of creating a ‘no net change’ in the rate of storm water drainage on the project site, as determined and recommended for approval by the City Engineer after reviewing submitted drainage plans for the project; 2. The project site is already significantly developed and disturbed and neither contains, nor is immediately contiguous to, recognizable wetlands, creeks or similarly sensitive environmental features, and it has not been identified in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (Exhibit 38 – Threatened and Endangered Species) as a general location were threatened and endangered species have been previously observed or maintain a suitable habitat for their likely presence to be found; and 3. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), as determined by staff (see determination below). D. The project design, as revised and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City, given that; the project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, non-City agencies, the appropriate surrounding Attachment 1-9 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 neighborhood groups (Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and Downtown Business Improvement District), interested parties, and the Design Review Board during three (3) separate meetings (conceptual review on February 5, 2019 and formal design review on December 17, 2019 and February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, the Board unanimously recommended approval of the site and building design, as revised and presented. Variance (V19-003) Findings A. Because of special circumstances are applicable to the site, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict application of the side yard setback requirements and retaining wall height deprives the properties of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) District, given that: the site is a triangular-shaped corner lot (Third St. and Shaver St.) which eliminates the rear yard and has an average width of 48’ where a minimum 60’ lot width is required. These inherent lot characteristics significantly impact site design; B. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with development limitations on other properties in the vicinity and within the same HR1 District, given that: there exist multiple lots in the vicinity of the site, within the same city block and within the same HR1 District zoning designation, which have similar existing legal nonconforming development encroachments into the required yard setbacks, including, but not limited to, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111-117, and 220 Shaver St. and the existing single-family residence located on the project site; C. Granting the Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized in the HR1 District in which the site is located, given that. 1) Multifamily residential land use is permitted by right in the HR1 District; and 2) The project will essentially continue the existing interior side yard setback encroachment, from the existing single-family residence constructed on the project site; and D. Granting the Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare, given that; 1) The project will be compliant with the required front yard setback (15’) and street side setback, to subject to the approval of a requested setback reduction as an automatic concession under the State Density Bonus law after meeting mandatory affordable housing requirements (reduced from 10’ to 8’); 2) The project will be compliant with the required safe sight distance/vision triangle (15’) for the driveway along Shaver St., subject to final review of the landscape plan by the City Engineer; 3) The project will not negatively impact the use or enjoyment of the existing, active outdoor recreation areas, or solar access, on the immediate adjacent property at 220 Shaver St., which is setback approximately 75’ from the common interior side property line; and 4) The project has been reviewed by the appropriate City departments and non-city agencies, including the Chief Building Official and the Deputy Fire Chief, who have recommended approval of the project after determining the project design complies with all applicable building and fire codes. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings Attachment 1-10 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 Pursuant to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines Section 15061, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). A Class 32 categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines applies to this in-fill development project by meeting specific criteria listed below: a) The project is consistent with all applicable General Plan and policies and Zoning Ordinance regulations as documented by the attached consistency tables (see Exhibits 3 and 4); b) The proposed development is located with the city limits on a project site no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses given that the project site is 6,264 sq. ft. (0.13 acre) in area. The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of San Rafael and is surrounded by urban development; c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, are or threatened species given that the project site, and all of Downtown, is not identified in the General Plan (Conservation Element; Exhibit 38, “Threatened and Endangered Species” map) as containing suitable or critical habitat to sustain threatened and endangered species; d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality given that appropriate studies were conducted, submitted and reviewed by the appropriate city departments. The results are that no significant impacts would result from the project which cannot be mitigated with standard conditions of approvals e) The project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services given that the site is currently served, and will continue to be served, by City services and non-city agency service providers and the applicable service providers have indicated, through design or conditions, support for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s April 14, 2020 conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP19-013), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030 and Variances (V19-003), which allows the construction of a new 7- unit, multifamily residential apartment building with garage parking and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a Downtown parcel located at 104 Shaver St., subject to the following conditions of approval: Use Permit (UP19-013) Conditions of Approval General and On-Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This Use Permit approves a Parking Modification to allow the elimination of guest parking (1 space) and the reduction in total required on-site parking, from eight (8) parking spaces to seven (7) parking spaces. 2. This Use Permit approves a Parking Modification to allow the increase in percentage of compact parking spaces for the project, from 30% (2 spaces) to 50% (4 spaces). Attachment 1-11 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 3. This Use Permit does not allow the subsequent conversion of the approved residential ‘rental’ units or apartments without a separate Tentative Map application submittal to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in compliance with Subdivision Ordinance (currently Sections 15.02.02 - .04 of the SRMC), and review and approval by the Planning Commission. It is strongly recommended that Tentative Map approval be obtained prior to Building Permit issuance for the project. A Tentative Map application shall also require submittal to amend this Use Permit and the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) for the project 4. This Use Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change- of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions. This Use Permit will fully vest once a building/grading permit is issued and ‘substantial construction’ is commenced or a time extension request is submitted to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of original approval, or by June 1, 2022 (‘Substantial construction’ is defined as the pouring of all required foundations and the installation of vertical components, such as exterior walls). Failure to obtain a grading/building permit and commence ‘substantial construction’ or submit a time extension request by the specified date will result in the expiration of this Use Permit. 5. This Use Permit shall run concurrently with the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and Variance (V19-003) approvals. If the Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variance approvals expire, this Use Permit approval shall also expire and become invalid. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) Conditions of Approval General and On-Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented to the Planning Commission at their April 14, 2020 hearing, and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as submitted for building permits, subject to these conditions. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Planning Commission and may require review and recommendation by the City’s Design Review Board. 2. The approved colors for the project are a combination of smooth stucco finish (Dryvit Natural White 103, Freestyle and Dryvit Mountain Fog 132, Freestyle) along the ground- floor base and clerestory and tongue-and-groove horizontal wood siding (Thermory Ash Cladding C20, ¾” thickness) along the upper stories. Black composition roof singles (CertainTeed Landmark Designer “More Black”) and dark bronze anodized casement and sliding window, door and roof flashing are also approved. Any future modification to the color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation prior to approval by the Planning Division. Attachment 1-12 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves the demolition of one (1) single- family residence on the site and the construction of a new 7-unit, multifamily ‘rental’ residential building with ground-floor garage parking and associated site improvements (drainage and landscaping). 4. All garage parking spaces shall be pre-wired to allow for future installation of Level 2 (240- volt) electric charging stations. 5. All ‘off-haul’ of excavation, delivery of materials and delivery/pick-up of construction equipment shall occur during off-peak weekday hours, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only. 6. Consistent with the standard noise ordinance requirements for construction (SRMC Chapter 8.13), all grading and construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays. All grading and construction activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and State- or federally-recognized holidays. 7. Final landscape and irrigation plans for the project shall comply with the provisions of Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) most recent water conservation ordinance and graywater recycling system requirements. Construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall be pre-approved by MMWD and stamped as approved by MMWD or include a letter from MMWD approving the final landscape and irrigation plans. Modifications to the final landscape and irrigation plans, as required by MMWD, shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. 8. All new landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic drip system and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion. 9. All site improvements, including but not limited to the site lighting, hardscape, and fencing/gates shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner. 10. 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. 11. All public streets and sidewalks and on-site streets which are privately owned that are impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping. 12. All submitted building permit plan sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of approval. 13. If archaeological or cultural resources are accidentally discovered during excavation/grading activities, all work will stop within 100 feet of the resource and the qualified archaeologist will be notified immediately. The qualified archaeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning Division and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of the find and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No Attachment 1-13 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 work shall occur in the vicinity until approved by the qualified archaeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. Prehistoric resources that may be identified include, but shall not be limited to, concentrations of stone tools and manufacturing debris made of obsidian, basalt and other stone materials, milling equipment such as bedrock mortars, portable mortars and pestles and locally darkened soils (midden) that may contain dietary remains such as shell and bone, as well as human remains. Historic resources that may be identified include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, structural foundations, cabin pads, cans with soldered seams or tops, or bottles or fragments or clear and colored glass. 14. If human remains are encountered (or suspended) during any project-related activity, all work will halt within 100 feet of the project and the County Coroner will be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify FIGR within 24-hours of such identification who will work with Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. No work shall occur in the vicinity without approval from Planning staff. 15. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 16. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 17. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, processing and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse the City for City Attorney expenses and costs within thirty (30) days following billing of same by the City. Attachment 1-14 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 18. This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions. This Environmental and Design Review Permit will fully vest once a building/grading permit is issued and ‘substantial construction’ is commenced or a time extension request is submitted to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of original approval, or by June 1, 2022 (‘Substantial construction’ is defined as the pouring of all required foundations and the installation of vertical components, such as exterior walls). Failure to obtain a grading/building permit and commence ‘substantial construction, or failure to obtain a time extension within the two-year period, will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit. 19. This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run concurrently with the Use Permit (UP19-013) and Variance (V19-003) approvals. If the Environmental and Design Review Permit expires, the Use Permit and Variance approvals shall also expire and become invalid. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permits Community Development Department, Building Division 20. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project sponsor shall submit verification that the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have been met and necessary permits have been issued for demolition of the existing buildings. 21. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit written verification from a pest control consultant indicating that the project site has been serviced to eliminate rodents. 22. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. Public Works Department 23. Prior to demolition permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan for review and approval of the traffic division. All traffic from any off-haul of demolition materials shall be conducted outside of the A.M. or P.M. peak hours (after 9:00 A.M and before 4:00 P.M.). 24. All construction staging shall occur on-site or another site with appropriate approvals from property owner. No staging shall occur on City right-of-way without review and approval of the Public Works Department. 25. A plan for the demolition shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. This plan shall indicate the haul/truck routes, size of trucks to be used for hauling off-haul and the frequency/times of any off-haul. Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits Community Development Department, Planning Division 26. To reduce potential temporary construction and grading noise impacts on the project site to meet the City’s 90 dBA noise limit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Attachment 1-15 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 Community Development Department, Planning Division, that the project complies with the following: A. Construction contracts specify that all construction and grading equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices. B. Property owners and occupants located within 250 feet of the project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15-days prior to commencement of construction or grading of each phase, regarding the construction or grading schedule of the project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet (50’) shall also be posted at the project site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved the Community Development Director (or designee), prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction or grading activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents and business owners can inquire about the construction or grading process and register complaints. C. The General Contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member would be designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and would be present on- site during construction or grading activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction or grading noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the Community Development Department, Planning Division, within 24- hours of the compliant and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Director (or designee). All notices that are sent to residential units and business owners immediately surrounding the project site and all signed posted at the project site shall include the contact name and telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator. D. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (or designee) that construction and grading noise reduction methods shall be used where feasible. These reduction methods include shutting-off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction and grading noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction and grading staging areas and occupied residential and commercial areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools. E. Construction and excavation/grading off-haul truck routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, assisted senior living facilities, hospitals, etc.) to the greatest extent feasible. F. During construction and grading, stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. 27. The project sponsor shall inform the contractor, general contractor or site supervisor of these requirements and shall be responsible for informing subcontractors of these requirements and for implementing these measures on the site. Attachment 1-16 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 28. Any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid prior to grading or building permit issuance. 29. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the building shall be fully-screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 30. An acoustical study, by a qualified (licensed) acoustical engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, for review and approval with recommendations on window, balcony door, and exterior wall STC rating requirements to comply with acceptable interior noise levels (40 dBA in bedrooms and 45 dBA in all other rooms) and outdoor common areas (60 dBA) adopted by the City. This acoustical study also shall review any alternate means of achieving outdoor air and confirm that any mechanical ventilation system will not compromise the noise reduction provided by the recommended window, balcony door and wall assemblies. The construction drawings for the project shall incorporate all measures identified in the acoustical study to mitigate ambient noise impacts. 31. A Lighting Plan/Photometric study shall be submitted for review and approval with the Building Permit plans and shall provide the following illumination levels: a) A minimum of one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap at all exterior doorways and throughout the vehicle parking area; b) A minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap on all outdoor pedestrian walkways and common areas; and c) A maximum one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap at all property lines. 32. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, for review and approval of both Community Development Department and Department of Public Works. The CMP shall include a. Projected schedule of work, b. Projected daily construction truck trips, c. Proposed construction truck route, location of material staging areas, d. Location of construction trailers, location of construction worker parking, e. Designated contact information for contractor and property owner to be posted on site in case of noise or other construction-related activities. f. Statement that the project shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code), g. Statement that no construction truck traffic shall encroach into any of the surrounding residential neighborhood streets at any time, and h. Statement that the existing roadway conditions on Third St. and Shaver St. shall be memorialized on digital recording format prior to the start of construction and that the project sponsor shall be required to repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic. i. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail. 33. The project shall mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with construction and grading activities by preparing and submitting a Dust Control Plan to the City of San Rafael Community Development Department for review and approval. This Dust Control Plan shall implement BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) established standard Attachment 1-17 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 measures (Basic Construction Mitigation Measures) for reducing fugitive dust emissions, including but not limited to: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure; Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)). Clear signage shall be provided for grading and construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked be a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 34. The Project sponsor shall inform the contractor, general contractor or site supervisor of these requirements and shall be responsible for informing subcontractors of these requirements and for implementing these measures on the site. 35. A dust control / noise control coordinator shall be designated for the Project. a. A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the site with the telephone number and the name of person regarding dust or construction complaints. This person shall be the applicant or contractor team and shall have the authority to take corrective action. The coordinator shall respond to any complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours of receipt. The BAAQMD phone number and City of San Rafael phone numbers shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. b. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the form, design and content of the sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 36. The project shall comply with the City’s affordable housing requirement with State Density Bonus (currently Section 14.16.030 of the SRMC) by providing a minimum of one (1) affordable housing unit(s) at the very low-income household level. The project sponsor is required to enter into a BMR (below market rate) agreement with Marin Housing Authority (MHA), deed-restricting the income level for occupancy of the affordable unit(s), and obtain City Council approval of the BMR agreement. The configuration of the BMR unit(s) shall reflect the generally configuration of the project by providing one (1) 2-bedroom BMR unit(s). This BMR unit may ‘float’ throughout the building on a yearly basis since the project provides “rental” units. The BMR unit(s) shall be comparable in size, finishes and unit mixture to the market rate units. By complying with the City’s affordable housing requirement, the project is approved for two (2) concessions under the State Density Bonus Attachment 1-18 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 law: 1) An increase in maximum lot coverage, from 60% to 65%; and 2) A decrease in the required street side setback, from 10’ to 8’. Department of Public Works 37. Show the proposed grading on the construction drawings, including cut and fill amounts. For projects with earthwork of 50 CYDS (cubic yards) or more, a grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works (111 Morphew St.). Any grading permit submittal shall include a site-specific erosion and sediment control plan 38. The project is proposed as a new apartment building. However, if subdivision is pursued to create condominium units, additional frontage and infrastructure improvements may be required, including but not limited to, installation of a storm drainage system to connect to existing facilities and full-width street repaving of non-moratorium streets. 39. The applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Land Development Engineer, Department of Public Works, that the monument sign and landscaping located at the corner of Third and Shave St. complies with the safe sight distance or vision triangle requirements pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the SRMC. 40. It is recommended that the trash enclosure not swing into the accessible aisle. However, at a minimum, the trash enclosure shall include self-closing mechanisms so that the accessible aisle will be kept clear at all times. 41. Due to the reduced garage setback, any garage gate system shall include remote activation to prevent queueing onto Shaver St. 42. An encroachment permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works prior to any work within the Right-of-Way. 43. Show the frontage improvements on the construction drawings. New sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be required for the length of the property along Shaver St., including the existing curb ramp on the adjacent property (220 Shaver St.). New sidewalk, curb, gutter for the existing unused driveway apron shall be required along Third St., including those areas currently not in compliance with accessibility requirements. During construction and prior to repaving, the City may install conduit within disturbed areas of the frontages. The applicant shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works. 44. This project proposes new impervious surface. Show all new impervious surface (created or replaced). Projects over 5,000 square feet of total new impervious area are regulated under MCSTOPPP (Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program) requirements. Projects over 2,500 square feet but less than 5,000 square feet of total new impervious surface area are considered “small projects” under MCSTOPPP. Provide a stormwater control plan, which includes a written document, in addition to an erosion control plan, according to the amount of total new impervious surface area. A stormwater facilities maintenance agreement may be required. More specific information is available from MCSTOPPP, hosted on the Marin County Website. See tools and guidance, and post construction requirements at: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and- redevelopment-projects. Attachment 1-19 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 45. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance; which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. 46. A traffic mitigation fee shall be required at building permit issuance. Based on the proposed plans, the project results in an increase of 5 new net peak hour (2 a.m. and 3 p.m.) traffic trips and shall pay a traffic mitigation fees of $21,230 (currently $4,246 x 5). San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) 47. If a new or separate sewer lateral is proposed to extend to the sewer mainline, please include Civil/Utility plans with the construction drawings which comply with SRSD Standards for review and approval. 48. New sewer connection fees are required for the new residential units prior to building permit issuance. 49. Credit for existing plumbing fixtures has not been calculated. In order to receive credit for these fixtures in the existing buildings proposed for demolition, the project sponsor shall submit plans to SRSD which include a full inventory of the existing facilities accompanied by photos. Community Development Department, Building Division 50. School fees will be required for the project, calculated by, and to be paid to, the San Rafael City School District, prior to issuance of a building permit (currently located at 310 Nova Albion Way, San Rafael, CA 94903). Proof of payment shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of the building permit. 51. Prior to any use or occupancy of this building or structure or any portion there of a “Certificate of Occupancy” must be issued by the Chief Building Official pursuant to California Building Code Section 111.1. Failure to secure a “Certificate of Occupancy” is a violation and will result in a $500 citation per day that the violation continues. 52. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the current editions of the California Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Fire Code, California Energy Code, Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 53. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings to include: a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) g) Structural Calculations h) Truss Calculations i) Soils reports j) Green Building documentation k) Title-24 energy documentation Attachment 1-20 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 54. Based on the distance to the property line (and/or adjacent buildings on the same parcel), the building elements shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC Table 601 and exterior walls shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC Table 602. 55. Cornices, eaves overhangs, exterior balconies and similar projections extending beyond the floor area shall conform to the requirements of CBC 705.2. Projections shall not extend beyond the distance determined by the following two methods, whichever results in the lesser projection: a) A point one-third the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where protected openings or a combination of protected openings and unprotected openings are required in the exterior wall. b) A point one-half the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where all openings in the exterior wall are permitted to be unprotected or the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. c) More than 12 inches into areas where openings are prohibited. 56. The new building contains several different occupancy types. Individual occupancies are categorized with different levels of hazard and may need to be separated from other occupancy types for safety reasons. Under mixed-occupancy conditions the project architect has available several design methodologies (accessory occupancies, non- separated occupancies, and separated occupancies) to address the mixed-occupancy concerns. 57. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8 “Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of Opening Protection.” To calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected: • 15% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 3’ to less than 5’ from the property line or buildings on the same property. • 25% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 5’ to less than 10’ from the property line or buildings on the same property. • 45% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 10’ to less than 15’ from the property line or buildings on the same property 58. The new building shall have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. For new buildings, the address shall be internally-illuminated or externally-illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Number shall be a minimum 6 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for commercial applications. The address shall be contrasting in color to their background (SMC 12.12.20). 59. Any demolition of existing structures shall require a permit. Demolition permit submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notice. All required permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be obtained and documentation provided prior to building permit issuance and any work commencing. Attachment 1-21 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 60. A grading permit is required for 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. 61. Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of the new building, geotechnical and civil pad certifications are to be submitted. Building pad locations will have to be surveyed and marked prior to placement of foundations. 62. Ventilation area required, the minimum openable area to the outdoors is 4 percent of the floor area being ventilated CBC 1203.5.1 or mechanical ventilation in accordance with the California Mechanical Code. 63. 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 or shall provide artificial light in accordance with CBC 1205.3. 64. Walls separating purposed tenant space from existing neighboring tenant spaces must be a minimum of 1-hour construction. 65. All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). 66. You must apply for a new address for this building from the Building Division. 67. Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign and shall be compliant with the safe sight distance/vision triangle (Section 14.16.295 of the SRMC). 68. In the parking garage, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of .75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area pursuant to CMC Table 4-4. 69. In the parking garage, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or trap discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWIPP. 70. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ 2” where required for accessible parking. 71. The project shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with requirements of Title-24, California Code of Regulation. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities may be required. Improvements shall be made, but are not limited to, the following accessible features: a) Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival b) Routes of travel between buildings c) Accessible parking Attachment 1-22 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 d) Ramps e) All public entrances f) Sanitary facilities (restrooms) g) Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided) h) Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements i) Accessible special features, (i.e., ATM's point of sale machines, etc.) 72. The site development of items such 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. 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. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these requirements to the extent possible. 73. Multistory apartment buildings with three (3) or more residential units or condominium buildings with four (4) or more residential units shall provide at least 10% of the dwelling units, but no less than one (1) dwelling unit, which comply with the accessible requirements per CBC 1102A.3, as follows: a) The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests in CBC Section 1150A. b) At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level, served by an accessible route. c) All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route. Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms or hallways. 74. Minimum shower size in the fully accessible room must be a minimum of 60” wide by 30”. 75. Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2%. 76. When parking is provided for multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of residents, at least 5% of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade-level entrances of multifamily dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance. 77. 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 Attachment 1-23 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 501 to 1,000 Two percent of total 1,001 and over Twenty, plus one for each 100 or fraction thereof over 1,001 78. At least one (1) disabled parking space shall be van-accessible, 9’ in width plus an 8’-wide off- load area or 17’-wide overall. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces shall be van accessible. 79. The proposed residential units shall meet the sound attenuation requirements of CBC Chapter 12. In particular, the residential units facing Third St. may require special glazing and/or sound attenuation features to compensate for the adjacent traffic/street noise. 80. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the average unit square footage. New multi-family dwellings must comply with the “Green Building Rating System” by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 65 and 75 points. Additionally, the energy budget must also be below Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15%. San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau 81. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the current editions of the California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 82. Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems: a) Fire Sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) b) Fire Underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) c) Fire Alarm plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) 83. Show the location of address numbers on the building elevation. The new building shall have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not quality as meeting this requirement. Numbers shall contrast with the background and shall be Arabic numbers or letters. Numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated in all new construction or substantial remodels. Number sizes are as follows: For residential, 4”-tall numbers with ½” stroke. For commercial, 6”-tall numbers with ½” stroke. Larger sizes may be required for the fire code official or in multiple locations for buildings served by two or more roads. 84. As the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building. a) The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. Attachment 1-24 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 b) The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26’. c) Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building. 85. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be designated “fire lanes”; with curbs painted red and contrasting white lettering stating “No Parking Fire Lane” and signs shall be posted in accordance CFC Section 503.3 and to the satisfaction and approval of the San Rafael Parking Services Division. 86. When a building is fully sprinklered, all portions of the exterior building perimeter shall be located within 250’ of an approved fire apparatus access road. 87. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following: a) Designated fire apparatus access roads. b) Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs. c) Onsite fire hydrants. d) Fire Department Connection (FDC). e) Double detector check valve. f) Street address sign. g) Recessed Knox Box h) Fire Alarm annunciator panel. 88. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the new building (A recessed mounted Knox Box # 3200 Series; surface mounted Knox Boxes are permitted at all other entry points). The Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane. Note the Knox Box must be installed from 72” to 78” above finish grade; show the location on the plans. See https://www.knoxbox.com/commercial-knoxboxes/. 89. The nearest fire hydrant to the project site, located at the northwest corner of Third and Shaver St., shall be upgraded (Residential model: Clow 950. Commercial model: Clow 960). 90. The project sponsor shall contact MMWD (Marin Municipal Water District) to make arrangements for the water supply serving the fire protection system. During Construction Community Development Department, Planning Division 91. Applicant/contractor shall comply with all conditions of approval related to Construction Management Plan, and other conditions related to construction impacts. 92. The following measures shall be implemented during the demolition process: a. Watering shall be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and breakup of pavement. b. All trucks hauling debris from the site shall be covered c. Dust-proof chutes shall be used to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. d. A dust control coordinator shall be designated for the project. The name, address and telephone number of the dust coordinator shall be prominently posted on-site and shall be kept on file at the Planning Division. The coordinator shall respond Attachment 1-25 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 regarding dust complaints promptly (within 24 hours) and shall have the authority to take corrective action. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) 93. District records indicate that the property’s current annual water entitlement is insufficient to meet the water demand for the project and the purchase of additional water entitlement will be required. Additional water entitlement will be available upon request and fulfillment of the following requirements: a) Complete a High-Pressure Water Service Application. b) Submit a copy of the building permit. c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges. d) Complete the structure’s foundation within 120 days of the date of application. e) Comply with the District’s rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a meter per structure per use. f) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation. Indoor plumbing fixtures shall meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape, irrigation, grading and fixture plans shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation should be directed to the District’s Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You may also find information on the District’s water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org. g) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the Districts review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1558. h) Comply with California Water Code – Division I, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537, which requires individual metering of multiple living units within newly constructed structures. i) Installation of gray water recycling systems is required when practicable. Pacific Gas & Electric 94. Electric and gas service to the project site will be provided in accordance with the applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E’s website at http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE- 5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 95. The cost of relocating any existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead facilities to underground shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or property owner. 96. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Prior to Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 97. Prior to occupancy of any of the units, a post-construction report from an acoustical engineer shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying that the multifamily residential units Attachment 1-26 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 comply with the interior and common outdoor area noise standards as prescribed by State Administrative Code standards, Title 25, Part 2. 98. Prior to occupancy of any of the units, a post-construction report from a lighting engineer shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying that the lighting levels of the project comply with the City’s recommended lighting levels (see SRMC Section 14.16.227). 99. Prior to occupancy, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City identifying that the project Geotechnical Engineer inspected the project during the construction and the project complied with their recommendations and that all recommendations were property incorporated during construction of the project 100. Final inspection of the project by the Community Development Department, Planning Division, is required. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 101. The landscape architect for the project shall submit a letter to the Planning Division, confirming the landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved project plans and the irrigation is fully functioning. After Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 102. Following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90-day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned off during daylight. Variance (V19-003) Conditions of Approval General and On-Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This Variance approves a deviation or reduction in the required garage setback, from 20’ to 15’. 2. This Variance approves a deviation or reduction in the required interior side yard setback, from 5’ to zero (0). Department of Public Works – Land Development Division 3. Due to the reduced garage setback, any garage gate system shall include remote activation to prevent queueing onto Shaver St. Attachment 1-27 File Nos. AP20-001, UP19-013, ED19-030, & V19-003 Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits Community Development Department, Planning Division 4. The applicant shall obtain confirmation from the Land Development Engineer, Department of Public Works, that the landscaping along the driveway complies with the safe sight distance or vision triangle requirements pursuant to SRMC Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance). I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 1st day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk April 16, 2020 To: San Rafael City Clerk, and /or Planning Department Re: APPEAL to 104 Shaver Street project, San Rafael Hello, My name is Donni Uzarski and I attended your Planning Department meeting via YouTube on April 14, 2020 at 7pm. My interest was to hear more about what was planned for 104 Shaver Street. This was my first experience sitting in on your meeting. I appreciate all that you do to maintain San Rafael's planning projects. My parents bought a multi-home, mixed-use parcel in the early 70's which is located on Shaver at Latham. Ponsfords Place Bakery at 117 Shaver Street is the corner of the property. I have lived here for 25 of the past 45 years. I know the flow and the rhythm of this neighborhood very well. I am in favor of creating housing, and was happy to hear the environmental considerations, the ADA and the low-income considerations. During the meeting, I wrote in and asked to be heard under PUBLIC COMMENT In the chat box. My first concern was addressed but I was not allowed to respond to what I believe a false answer. The chat box would not let me add my complete list, so I have written all of my concerns here in this letter. I am all for adding housing in San Rafael, especially ADA and low-income housing. This project seems to want the biggest bang for the buck, disregarding the impact on neighbors by cramming too many units on this property. It ignores the very real, current safety and traffic dangers of this neighborhood. I believe the current residents WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED having additional cars needing to travel tight turns, narrow streets and needing to park in the neighborhood. I believe my concerns can help this project align with the actuality of living on Latham and Shaver Streets. I have 3 main concerns about this project: • Three Traffic considerations- 1. There is very real danger making the right hand turn from a busy 3rd Street, onto NARROW Shaver Street. There have been several fender benders and side swipes at that specific corner . over the years as the quickly travelling, turning car must make a tight turn to get onto Shaver and the cars waiting at the signal to cross 3rd Street cannot get out of the way. Side swiping and fender benders are not unusual there. 2. The short block between 2nd and 3rd . Shaver used to be a highspeed cut-through road for cars travelling from 4th to 2rd • The signals are no longer synched. Traffic has slowed because it is no longer an efficient way to get to 2nd Street. Often there will be 4 or even 5 cars waiting on the short block between, for the next scheduled signal and the last car or two are left hanging out in traffic. I have witnessed many close calls there. Resynching the traffic lights would encourage too-fast traffic down Shaver, so I do not know how to remedy the dynamic. 3. I wonder what will be the result of a resident of 104 tries to enter the lot while another 104 car is trying to get out, considering the extra maneuvering needed. Will it cause the 1st car to wait out on Shaver Street, causing extra clogging on an already narrow street? Can this project reduce the number of units to increase its parking capacity on site and NOTexpand beyond established setbacks? The variances ask to expand the footprint of this project and will encroach on the narrow street/sidewalk. Rather than reducing the front setback, can this project be asked to actually WIDEN the portion of Shaver Street that they will face? I believe this is a big safety issue. • Parking in the neighborhood- At the video meeting, it was stated that only one guest car would be likely to park on the street. I disagree. From what I understand, six of the seven units designed for 104 Shaver will have two bedrooms. One unit is a one-bedroom ADA unit on the ground floor. It stands to reason that either a family and/or 2 driving adults will be in each of the other units. It is quite probable that 104 could be home to 13 cars-Two cars for the six units, one for the ADA unit. With only seven parking spaces being on site, that could realistically add an additional six cars out in the neighborhood, not including guests. The parking on Latham and Shaver and 3rd Streets is very tight 7:45 am until 6:00 pm because people that work on 4th Street fill up the neighborhood as soon as residents drive away to work. Six additional cars parked on the street will greatly impact current residents. When the buyer first purchased the property, 4 or 5 company cars began parking on the neighborhood streets. Small white cars labeled with the business name ... Fontana, I believe. It made a negative difference for those of us that must park on the street, especially having to carry groceries or small children the additional distance. Can this project have fewer units to enable full responsibility for all their tenant parking and not cramming the property beyond established legal setbacks? • Ground Water-Creek and Natural Spring are almost directly underneath- • Having researched San Rafael archives, historically, this area was where the first residents of San Rafael would come to bottle their water. There is a natural spring and creek under Latham, 3rd and Shaver. The creek only sees daylight beginning at the far end of Latham and then pops back into view over by the carwash on E Street and flows past Wild Care. • A few years ago, ATT did a large project to mitigate having to pump out their basement several times a day (on sunny days) and almost 24/7 on rainy days. They had to reroute their pumped water rather than continue pumping it into the surface gutter along Shaver, creating a terrible rat infestation and algae growing along the entire gutter. Every day, still, ATT must pump out ground water, but I believe it at least goes into the rain water drainage below ground. • 30 years ago, the bakery burned down and needed to be rebuilt. The contractor had to have a pump going continually to be able to pour the foundation and the foundation had to be designed in accordance with the soft ground and active under street waterway. • The nejghborhood floods easily, especially with a rainstorm in a high tide. The neighbors, myself included, go out in the rain when the grates clog up or when the water simply has nowhere to go because of the high tide. At times, it migrates several feet onto the sidewalks on lower Shaver and Latham Streets until the tide recedes. Have there been hydrology and soils reports completed? It may impact the design. A final comment would be that, at the end of the video meeting, the contact information to appeal this project was given very quickly and not very clearly. I hope I caught the exact email to respong to: cityclerk2@cityofsanrafael.org ? The woman also stated the appeal period would end February 20th, yet the current meeting was taking place on April 14. I assume that the 5 days to appeal would end, rather Saturday April 18? I am not sure what the next step is in this process, so may I request advise or response sent to my email? donniuza@gmail.com Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Respectfully, Donni Uzarski Latham Street, San Rafael, Ca 94901 April 16, 2020 San Rafael Planning Commission Community Development Department 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Via email and U.S. Mail city.clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org Re: Appeal .of decision to allow 7 apartment development of 104 Shaver Street To Whom It May Concern: My family has owned property at the corner of Latham and Shaver since the early 1970's. A member of my family has occupied that residence since 1984, and we are all very familiar with the surrounding businesses, community, and the difficult parking situation faced by residents and businesses in that area. We were aware that this project would be discussed at the planning meeting on April 12, 2020, and I sent in a letter to object to the project. My letter was apparently dismissed and disregarded, with a staff comment about there being plenty of parking three blocks away. It appears the planning commission has no idea about the realities and hardships ofthe community they serve. There were three issues that have not been considered by the planning commission, · and all are significant and weigh against this project: Parking, traffic and potential accidents, and flooding. Parking Currently, there is no parking allowed on 3rd Street, as it is a major thoroughfare (which leads to the next issue -traffic and accidents). Current residents must therefore share their neighborhood street parking with surrounding businesses, as the businesses do not have ample parking on site for their customers. 4th Street is metered, and business customers often come into our neighborhood for free parking. This causes more traffic in our neighborhood, and residents must hunt for parking, often blocks away from their own homes. Many of the residents are elderly and have occupied their homes in this neighborhood for decades. Many homes have little, if any, off-street parking. (Just one case in point, an elderly gentleman has a driveway, but it is too short to accommodate his truck. Remember, many of these residences were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s when they had hitching posts outside. Because he is not allowed to block the sidewalk, he must park on the street.) There is not enough parking, day or night, just for residents of this neighborhood. Adding an apartment complex with seven two-bedroom residences and only seven on-site parking spots will increase the number of cars that will compete for street parking on a daily and nightly basis. There will also be no parking for guests at this new complex. So the City is allowing a resource that cannot accommodate its current occupancy to be further impacted. For staff to declare there is ample parking three blocks away is to disregard the very real hardships endured by the elderly population of this neighborhood. They cannot carry groceries three blocks to their homes; requiring that they do so to accommodate further development is unconscionable. Would staff consider disallowing the future tenants of the proposed development to park in the neighborhood, and instruct them they must park three blocks away? If this project is allowed to proceed, we would request that the City consider some sort of parking limitation in our neighborhood. Either reserved parking for each resident outside their home, or neighborhood parking permits with no other parking allowed. Business customers will have to use the metered parking on 4th Street if the businesses do not have on-site parking. But that is what they should do, rather than taking up our neighborhood parking. Future tenants of the proposed development should be denied parking permits for the Shaver/Latham neighborhood, as they already have what the City of San Rafael apparently considers adequate parking on their premises. Additional p·arking could be created by the City of San Rafael to alleviate these issues. It has come to my attention that the WestAmerica Bank branch at 1515 4th Street will close in July, 2020. As this is located at the corner of Shaver and 4th Street, perhaps the City ·should acquire the property with its parking lot, and provide neighborhood permit parking; this lot is within one block of most of the residents, which is far superior to the alleged "ample" parking three blocks away. Traffic and Potential Accidents: Third Street is the main thoroughfare from. Interstate 80 to San Anselmo. It is busy. Always. The intersection in question where this apartment complex will be built is a blind, sharp corner as it is in regard to the turn onto Shaver Street. It is also on a hill descent. The planned building will likely block the view of residents leaving Shaver onto 3rd Street, and people turning right may not see oncoming traffic due to the obstruction. People exceed the speed limit as it is. Adding a visual obstruction that adds more traffic to that particular corner and our neighborhood is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, traffic turning from 3rd Street onto Shaver are already moving at a high rate of speed, and round the turn very quickly. We have already had many a near accident as the vehicles coming into the neighborhood come close to ~lipping vehicles on Shaver waiting at the stoplight. This problem will be exacerbated by further blinding the turn with the project at 104 Shaver Street, and the driveway outlet at that corner to allow seven vehicles to enter and leave into an already dangerous situation. If this project is allowed to proceed, there should be updates to the speed limit, enforcement, and traffic and pedestrian light controls to make the intersection more safe. We should not have to wait for the accidents to start happening before there is a response. Flooding: There is a creek bed that runs at the bottom of the hill 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The AT&T building adjacent to the proposed apartment complex floods daily and requires a sump pump to operate multiple times a day to keep the flood waters out of their basement. If this project is allowed to proceed, measures should be taken so that flooding will not occur in the building, nor impact the surrounding residents. Closing: I and my family are very disappointed that our concerns were neither allowed to be expressed nor considered at the recent meeting. It calls into question the usefulness and even th _e validity of the planning process and of public comment, which is an integral part of any city operation. These concerns are valid and impact the entire neighborhood, and yet the City seems intent on ignoring them. You all have a responsibility to the community you serve. Development may be a part of our community and the future of our City, but it must be done responsibly. This is not responsible. This apartment complex should not be allowed to proceed due to the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood. But if it is allowed to proceed, I hope the City will take these concerns seriously and address them during the planning and building phase of this project. · The flooding issues must be addressed. The intersection must be made safe. And parking must be reserved for residents of this neighborhood. If you have any questions or wish to further explore the views of the people who live in your community, please feel free to reach out to us. Sincerely, Dale M. Wallis GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 104 SHAVER STREET SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Fontana Construction Inc. 1945 E. Francisco Blvd, Suite N San Rafael, CA -94901 Project No. ·18-0507 January 25, 2019 . By Visha Consultants Inc. 11501 Dublin Blvd, #200 Dublin, California 94568 . RE EVED · \ o ~J ?l. 19 :L .-Ni \NG Visha Consultants January 25, 2019 To: Fontana Construction Inc. 1945 E. Francisco Blvd, Suite N San Rafael, CA 94901 Attention: Mr. Stevan Fontana Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Apartment Building Construction 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, California Project No. 18-0507 In accordance with your r~quest and authorization, Visha Consultants Inc., has completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed apartment building construction project, to be located at 104 Shaver Street in San Rafael, California. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal (Proposal No: P18- 0507U) dated May 21, 2018, updated November 14, 2018 and your notice to proceed. Based on our investigation, it is our professional opinion from a geotechnical viewpoint that the subject site is suitable for the proposed apartment building and associated improvements, provided our geotechnical recommendations presented in this report have been implemented into the design and construction of this project. This report summarizes our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations for the proposed constructions within subject site. Visha Consultants should review the foundation plans prior to release for bidding and construction. Further, Visha Consultants should observe and test site grading and structural foundation excavations. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Visha Consultants has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions · during site grading and foundation construction of this project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions regarding this material. Please let us know if we may be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, VISHA CONSULTANTS, INC. ·/; -. ! i !,d i ' i . \":• t l Arasa ~ Singanayaham, P.E., G .. , Vice President Distribution: (2) Addressee ; l,.. V ~ '--- Vishnan, Gopalan, P.E., G.E. President 11501 Dublin Blvd, #200, Dublin, California 94568 rn Phone: (510) 501 3240/(408) 623 3467 • Website: www.vishaconsultants.com. January 25, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS . Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 .1 1.2 1.3 _1.4 1.5 Site Description Proposed Development Scope of Work _ Field Investigation La _boratory Testing 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS 2 .1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2 .4.3 2.5 Subsurface Geotechnical Conditions Groundwater Vari ation in Subsurface Conditions Faulting and Seismic Hazards Surface Fault Rupture Liquefaction Lateral Spreading Structural Seismic Design Parameters 3.0 RECOMENDATIONS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 . 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 General Earthwork Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction Foundation Design Mat-Slab on Grade Import So i l Utility Trenches Drainage Parking Lot, Access Road Pavements and Exterior Flatwork 4 .0 5.0 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW LIMITATION REFERENCES Figure 1 - Figure 2 - Figure 3 - Figures 4a&4b - Figure 5 - Figure 6 - Table 1 - Table 2 - Site Location Map Boring Location Map Log of Boring (B-1) Log of Boring· (B -2) Atterberg Limit Test Expansion Index Test Results LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES lnsitu Moisture Content and Dry Density Test Results lnsitu Moisture Content and No 200 Sieve Analysis Test Results ATTACHMENT A: LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT (DENSIFICATION) ANALYSIS Project 18-0507 Page 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 ATTACHMENT B: ASFE-IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 11 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 - 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of our investigation and site review was to summarize the pertinent readily available geologic and geotechnical data, obtain additional site-specific data, and evaluate this data with respect to the proposed development within the subject site. A brief description of the proposed development and the scope of services provided during our study are outlined below: 1.1 Site Description The subject site is located on the northeast corner of 3 rd Street and Shaver Street, in San Rafael, California (see Figures 1 and 2). The site is bounded by 3rd Street on the south and east, Shaver Street on the west, and a commercial building compound on the north side. The subject site presently has a two- story wood-framed building structure, appeared to be founded on concrete slab on grade and perimeter and interior strip foundations. The building is presently used as an office. At the time of the investigation the site had shrubs and landscaping grass outside the building footprint with few small trees. The site grades are relatively flat with site elevation of approximately 26 feet above mean sea level (based on Google Earth). 1.2 Proposed Development Based on information provided on the architectural plan (Mike Larkin Architecture, 2018) we understand the proposed development will consist of demolishing the existing two-story building including the existing footings and constructing a three-story apartment building, site paving, and associated improvements. The proposed building will be most likely a wood framed building structure that will accommodate 6 apartment units and ground parking spaces. The ground floor will be primarily used as parking garage, while the 2nd arid 3 rd floor will accommodate livable spaces for apartments. The . structural wall loads or column loads of the proposed structure is not available at the time of this report. A site grading plan was not available at the time of this report. 1.3 Scope of Work Our scope of work for this investigation included the following items: • Reviewed of available published geological hazard maps, topographical maps, and geotechnical reports for the site region. • Notified and coordinated with USA North to clear any underground utility pipelines in the vicinity of the site. • Performed a geotechnical field investigation including drilling, sampling and logging of two, 8-inch diameter soil borings up to 40 feet below existing ground surface, obtained relatively undisturbed tube soil (Modified California) samples, SPT bag samples, and bulk soil samples for soil classification and laboratory testing. • Performed required laboratory testing based on soil type encountered. • Performed a geological hazard evaluation for site liquefaction. Page 1 of 12 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 • Prepared this geotechnical investigation report summarizing the soil conditions encountered, and provide recommendations for site preparation, compaction requirements, ·foundation type, minimum depths & widths, bearing capacity, and California Building Code design parameters for the proposed apartment building. 1.4 Field Investigation On January 3, 2019, two (2) soil borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 40 feet below existing ground surface utilizing a track mounted drill rig (CME 55) owned and operated by Britton Exploration. The exploratory borings were drilled utilizing an 8-inch diameter, hollow stem augers and sampled using an automatic trip hammer for driving the samplers. Approximate location of the boring is depicted on the Boring Location Map (Figure No. 2). Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using 1 3/8-inch I.D (Inside Diameter and 2-inch O.D (Outside Diameter) standard penetration sampler driven 18-inches with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30-inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. The number of blows required for each 6-inches of drive penetration were noted and recorded on the boring logs (Figures 3 and 4). During the drilling operation bulk soil samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed in-place samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler, 2-3/8-inch I.D. (inside diameter), or 3-inch O.D. (outside diameter) and driven 18-inches with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30-inches, in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. The number of blows to achieve 6-inch increments or number of field blows per 6-inches and sampling penetration depth was recorded on the boring logs (Figures 3 and 4). Sampling and logging of the borings was conducted by an engineer from our office who also transported the samples back to Visha Consultants' laboratory. Soil classifications include the use of the Unified Soil Classification System described in ASTM D-2487. Detailed description of the soils encountered, penetration resistance, laboratory test results, and other pertinent information are provided in the test boring logs presented in Figures 3 and 4. After logging. and sampling the soil, the exploratory borings were grouted with neat cement utilizing a trime pipe. 1.5 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed in the Visha Consultants' laboratory on representative soil samples to provide a basis for development of design parameters . Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and -Materials (ASTM) procedures. The laboratory testing program consisted of the following tests: • Particle Size, No. 200 Wash (ASTM D1140) -used for soil classification . • In-situ moisture and dry density (ASTM D 2937) on California sleeve samples, used to determine in situ moisture content and in situ dry density of soil samples. • Atterberg Limit Test (ASTM D4318) -used for soil classification and expansive nature of the soil. • Expansion Index Test (ASTM D4829) -used to determine expansive nature of the soil. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Figures 5 and 6, and Tables 1 and 2. The in-situ moisture content, percentage and passing No.200 wash test results are also summarized on the log of borings (Figures _3 and 4). Page 2 of 12 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS 2.1 Subsurface Geotechnical Conditions Based on review of geologic maps (USGS, 2006) and our observations of materials encountered during our field investigation, the subsurface materials consisted of alluvium in the upper 30 feet underlain by Franciscan Complex melange (bedrock). The geology map (USGS, 2006) shows the site is mantled by shallow Holocene alluvium, underlain by Pleistocene alluvium at depth. Based on our observation of soil samples obtained from site drilling and field standard penetration test data, the upper 15 feet of soils appeared to be Holocene alluvium consisting of lean clay with varying amount of sand and gravel. From the depth of 15 feet to 30 feet, the soils appeared to be Pleistocene alluvium consisting of medium dense to dense clayey sand with gravel. Bedrock (Franciscan Complex melange), was encountered at a depth of 30 feet below ground surface, recovered as very dense silty gravel in the SPT samples. The upper 3 to 3.5 feet of the surface materials consisting of sandy clay with gravel was observed soft to medium stiff. The soils become relatively stiffer (stiff to very stiff) below the depth of 3 to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Based on Expansion Index testing and visual classification of onsite soils, the surface clay layer in the upper 5 feet is expected to exhibit medium expansive potential. The alluvium encountered at shallow depths (less than 3.5 feet) are expected to be moderately compressible and considered not suitable to support structural improvements at its present condition. The lean clay layer observed between the depth of 3.5 feet to 15 feet is relatively stiff and slightly compressible. 2.2 Groundwater Ground water was encountered at 15 feet below ground surface in both soil borings. Based on review of available ground water data and monitoring well data (Geotraker.com), for sites located within one mile of the site, the depth to ground water in the site vicinity varied between 8 feet and 13 feet below ground surface. Thus, we estimate a seasonal high ground water table of 8 feet below ground surface is reasonable for this site. However, it should be noted that due to shallow perched ground water conditions the actual groundwater levels will fluctuate depending on yearly and seasonal rainfall variations and other factors, and may rise after rainy season. It is our opinion that the groundwater will not affect the proposed grading and construction of the apartment building foundation. 2.3 Variation in Subsurface Conditions Our interpretations of soil and groundwater conditions, as described in this report, are based on data obtained from a limited number of our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing for this study. The conditions may vary between the exploration locations. Our conclusions and geotechnical recommendations are based on the interpretations of limited number of subsurface explorations. Careful observations should be made during construction to verify our interpretations. Should variations from our interpretations be found, we should be notified to evaluate whether any revisions should be made to our recommendations. Page 3 of 12 I January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 2.4 Faulting and Seismic Hazards 2.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture The subject site is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. California Geologic Survey (CGS), defines an active fault as one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional active faults systems such as Green Valley Fault and Hayward Fault system. Review of available California Geological Survey fault data (CGS, 1974, 1982 a, 1982b, & 2010) indicates the subject property is located approximately 8 miles northeast of active San Andreas Fault and 8.5 miles southwest of Hayward Fault. The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of the nearby major faults is unknown with certainty but is considered very low. 2.4.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by strong seismic ground motion. The majority of liquefaction hazards are associated with geologically young (Holocene), loose, saturated, granular, non-cohesive sandy and silty soils, and low plastic clayey soils under groundwater table or within perched groundwater conditions. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and the ability of the soil to support foundations is reduced. The liquefaction evaluation and analysis for the site, is performed in general accordance with the guidelines presented in California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). Based on available groundwater data (see Section 2.2) the depth to historical high groundwater depth at the site vicinity is estimated to be 8 feet below existing ground surface. Published geologic map (USGS, 2006) and our observations of soil layers encountered in our soil boring indicates the site is mantled by a layer of Holocene aged alluvium in the upper 15 feet, underlain by Pleistocene alluvium up to 30 feet below ground surface. Very dense bedrock was encountered below the depth of 30 feet below ground surface. Liquefaction analysis was performed to assess the liquefaction potential of the soil layers that are susceptible for liquefaction. A detail description of liquefaction analysis and seismic settlement calculation is presented in Attachment A. The analysis results indicated that the layer of clayey sand located between the depth of 15 and 25 feet is susceptible to liquefaction when subject to the site design ground motion parameters estimated for this site. The estimated total thickness of liquefiable layers is approximately 10 feet, and located below 15 feet from ground surface. The near surface (upper 3.5 feet) soil will be removed and re-compacted as engineering fill, and the soil layer between 3.5 feet and 15 feet below ground surface is consisted of stiff to very stiff lean clay with a Plasticity Index (Pl) of 15. According to Criteria published by Jonathan D. Bray & Rodolfo B. Sando (2006), and R.B. Seed et al (2003), fir:1e grained soils (clays and silts) of moderate to high plasticity (Pl>12) are generally considered not susceptible for liquefaction, except fine grained soils with plasticity index greater than 12 and less than 18 could liquefy at high water content to liquid limit (LL) ratios (We > 0.85*LL) under significant cyclic loading. Laboratory test results performed on in-situ soils obtained from the soil borings, indicates that the clay layer observed below the ground water table (8 feet below the ground surface), is medium plastic and had a Pl values greater than 12. Further, the in-situ moisture content in the two cases tested, Page 4 of 12 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 were less than 0.85LL values. Thus, the clay layer encountered in the upper 15 feet is considered not susceptible to liquefaction. The soil layer located between 15 and 25 feet is granular and may be susceptible for liquefaction. The analysis results show that the clayey sand layer observed between the depth of 15 feet and 25 feet had a factor of safety less than 1.2 and potentially liquefiable. However, based on guidelines provided by Ishihara (1995), "Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations During Earthquakes", surface manifestation of liquefaction related distress (such as sand boil) to affect the proposed development considered low. Further, settlement caused by liquefiable soil layers, will cause ground settlement. The effect of potential differential settlement caused by soil liquefaction should be considering in the proposed building design. Based on our analysis we estimate the post construction total seismic densification (liquefaction settlement) for the design basis seismic event is estimated to be 1.2 inches. We estimate differential seismic settlement may be on the order of 0.8 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet or across the building footprint. 2.4.3 Lateral Spreading Seismically induced lateral spreading involves lateral movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. Lateral spreading is characterized by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved over the liquefied soils towards and open face or towards a sloping ground. The potential for lateral spreading at subject site is considered low due flat nature of site and it's vicinity, and the depth to the liquefiable soil layers being deeper than 15 feet below ground surface. 2.5 Structural Seismic Design Parameters The following structural seismic design parameters were calculated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), 2016, Chapter 16, Section 1613 for the subject site: Design Parameters Design Value Site Class D Mapped Spectral Acceleration at Short Period (Ss) 1.5 g Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1 Second (S1) 0.6g Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Period (Sos) 1.0 g Design Spectral Acceleration at 1 Second (Soi) 0.6g Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAm) 0.5 g The design values were calculated utilizing a software program published by ASCE (ASCE 7 Hazard Tool) which follows the procedures stated in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Publication ASCE 7-10 and CBC Chapter 16, Section 1613. For the calculations Latitude (37.9724) and Longitude (-122.5345) coordinates were used, which were obtained from Google Earth Maps. Page 5 of 12 ( January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 3.0 RECOMENDATIONS 3.1 General Based on our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following is a summary of the geotechnical conditions and factors that may affect the proposed development on the site. The upper 3 to 3.5 feet of the surface materials consisting of sandy lean clay with gravel, was observed soft to medium stiff. The soils become relatively stiffer (stiff to very stiff) below the depth of 3 to 3.5 feet, below the ground surface. Thus, the upper 3.5 feet of surface soils within the site at the present condition is considered not suitable to support structural fills and structural improvements, such as structural foundations. Geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following section (Earth Work) to over excavate the near surface earth materials and replace it as engineered fill within the building structural improvement area. Based on Expansion Index testing and visual classification of onsite soils, the surface clay layer in the upper 5 feet is expected to exhibit medium expansive potential. The clayey sand layer observed between the depth of 15 feet and 25 feet is potentially liquefiable and may cause seismic settlement on the order of 1.2 inches. Considering medium expansive nature on shallow clay soils, and potential seismic settlement of underlying soils, we recommend the proposed apartment building be founded on a mat foundation designed in accordance with the ge~technical recommendations presented in this report. The following recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during grading as field conditions dictate. Further, these recommendations may be revised when site grading plans and building structural loads are reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Specific recommendations are presented in the following sections. 3.2 Earthwork Excavations Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural fill areas, driveway areas, building structural footings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions. Vegetation, roots, existing foundation concrete, utility lines and other debris should be removed and disposed offsite within the proposed building and structural improvement area. All topsoil should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils and/or structural improvements. Considering anticipated soil disturbances caused by removal of exiting foundations, utilities and existence of soft to medium stiff nature of shallow clayey soils, we recommend the upper 3.5 feet of the soils should be over excavated within the proposed building footing print. The lateral extent of the over excavation should be at least 3 feet outside of the building footprint. Upon completion of excavation, the bottom of excavation should be observed by a representative from Visha Consultants and confirms the bottom of the excavation are founded on native undisturbed stiff soils. After approval, the bottom of the excavation should be scarified in place, and compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The over excavated soils are suitable to use as backfill material and shall be placed in thin layers and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 3.3. Page 6 of 12 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 The walls of excavation in the clayey soils and less than 5 feet in height should be able to stand near vertical with proper bracing, provided proper moisture content in the soil is maintained. Excavation and temporary construction slopes should be constructed in accordance with the current OSHA safety standard and local jurisdiction. Further, when excavating adjacent to existing structural improvements such as a house foundation, the contactor should take necessary precaution not to undermine the structural elements supporting any structures (such as footings, slab). Trench excavations and open cut excavations adjacent to existing foundations should be above an imaginary plane having an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending down from the bottom edge of the foundations. The stability and safety of excavations, braced or unbraced, is the responsibility of the contractor. 3.3 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction Onsite excavated soils or imported soils meeting the requirements in Section 3.6, which are free of any vegetation, tree roots or other deleterious materials, with an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight can be used as fill materials. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches thick in loose condition. Onsite fill soils should be placed and compacted at near optimum moisture content as observed in the ASTM D1557 relative compaction test, and compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Fill placement and compaction should be observed by Visha Consultants representative to verify proper moisture content and degree of compaction. In no case should the subgrade soils be allowed to become dried out with severe shrinkage cracks. This usually requires periodic watering until all areas are covered with concrete footings. 3.4 Foundation Design Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations, the seismic parameters and the recommendations presented in the most recent California Building Code. Considering medium expansive nature on shallow clay soils, potential seismic settlement of underlying soils, and slight compressible nature of clayey soils at depths, we recommend the proposed apartment building be founded on mat foundation designed to the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report. In general, the mat foundation should be designed in accordance with structural considerations, the seismic parameters provided in Section 2.5 of this report, and the recommendations presented in the 2016 California Building Code. The mat foundation be thickened along the perimeter to a minimum 18 inches deep (measured from the bottom of the mat or below the exterior grade) whichever provide the deeper embedment. The interior footings (if needed) can be designed with a minimum 12-inch deep and 18 inches wide (measured below the bottom of the mat slab). The slabs should be structurally reinforced so that they are capable of spanning a minimum distance of 10 feet across zones. Corners and edges should be capable of cantilevering at least 5 feet. Page 7 of 12 \-- January 25, 2019 The following soil parameters can be utilized for the mat foundation design: Allowable bearing capacity: 1000 psf (pounds per square foot) Modulus of subgrade reaction*: 60 pci (pounds per cubic inches) Project 18-0507 * _ The Modulus of subgrade reaction above is for a 1-foot square plate (Based on Tezaghi's method-Figure ~ of Navy Design Manual, Chapter 5, NAVFAC DM 7.01) and does not consider the dimensional effect of the foundation loading area. Lateral bearing capacity: 250 psf/foot up to 1,500 psf maximum lateral bearing. Sliding Coefficient: Soil against structural concrete 0.30 The allowable bearing pressures are for the total dead load and frequently applied live loads. These values· may be increased by one third }"/hen considering loads of short duration, such as those imposed by wind and seismic forces. Settlement Estimates Static Settl'ement: Based on anticipated foundation loads -(assumed 1200 pounds per feet wall loads) and less than S kips per corumn load, we estimate static •post construction primary consolidation settlement will be on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 inches. Thus, we recommend the proposed mat foundation be designed considering a differential settiement on the order of 0.5 inches ac_ross a horizontal distance of 30 feet be considered in the design. Seismic Settlement: The seismic settlement analysis for the site indicates a total settlement of 1.2 inch. Thus,· the proposed mat slab should be designed to tolerate a differential settlement of approximately 0.8 inches across a horizontal distance of 30 feet. - 3.5 Mat-Slab on Grade The Mat-slab design (concrete mix, reinforcement, joint spacing, moisture protection and underlayment materi_als) is the purview of the project Structural Engineer. The subgrade that support slab-on-grade floors should be prepared and compacted to the requirements of Earthwork, and _Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction (Sections 3.2 & 3.3) of this report. The structural slab should be underlain by a minimum 6 inches layer of granular base. The base materials should consist of clean, free draining¾ inch crushed rock. Where migration of moisture vapor through siabs would be detrimental, the rock should be covered by a . minimum 10-mil thick moisture retarding plastic membrane. Moisture retarders do not completely eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. It should be noted that placement of the recommended plastic membrane, proper mix design, and p_roper slab underlayment will not provide a waterproof condition. If a waterproof condition is desired~ we recommend that a waterproofing expert be consulted for slab design. Page 8 of 12 Jan~ary 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 3.6 Import Soil Any import soil materials should be evaluated by Visha Consultants prior to importing. Laboratory testing should be performed to confirm if the soil properties are suitable for proposed project. Any import soils should be very low to low expansive (expansion Index less than 51), free from over size materials (materials greater than 3 inches, and free from significant organic materials (organic content less than 3% by weight). 3.7 Utility Trenches The onsite soils or import soils (if similar to onsite soils), are generally suitable as trench backfill provided . they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter (or governing agency requirement) and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 ~percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D 1557). Proper bedding and shading materials should be provided per manufacturer recommendations based on pipe types. Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and all applicable Cal OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the 11 competent person" required by Cal OSHA standards. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles due to the excavation and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Visha Consultants does not consult in the area of safety engineering. 3.8 Drainage All drainage should be directed away from structures by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. We recommend that final grades be selected so that a g~ntle slope (minimuni 5 percent within 10. feet away from exterior footing) is provided to divert all surface water away from the planned foundations, slabs, and paving. Paved areas such as parking lots, and concrete pavements shall be · minimum 2 percent sloped away from the building. Water collected from the gutter/down spout shall be connected to a properly designed drainage system, such as an area drain or sub-drain, and discharged away from the foundation. At no time should water be allowed to pond adjacent to foundations, slabs .and paving. 3.9 Parking Lot, Access Road Pavements and Exterior Flatwork As a minimum, exterior concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and driveways or ramps should have the edges thickened to at least 6 inches. Construction or weakened plane joints should be spaced at intervals of 8 feet or less for driveways,· ramps, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Driveway, ramp and other concrete slabs should be reinforced using No. 3 Rebar, 18 inches on center in both directions, placed at mid-thickness. Curbs, gutters, driveway and ramps constructed of concrete should be underlain by a minimum of 0.50 feet of compacted aggregate base. Page 9 of 12 ( January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Visha Consultants be provided the opportunity to review the following items. The geotechnical engineer should review the project foundation plans prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to evaluate whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively incorporated in plans and other construction documents. Review findings should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer. Observation and testing should be performed by Visha Consultants representatives during grading, over excavation, soil backfill and compaction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from that encountered in the previously excavated borings. Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and fault locations and the ability to provide appropriate revisions during construction, if required. Visha Consultants should observe the excavation of footing to make sure the footing bottoms are stiff and compacted fill. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Visha Consultants has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during foundation excavation and construction of the projects, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. The owner and contractor may wish to conduct a pre-construction evaluation of surrounding (existing) structures or public improvements prior to construction on this site. Page JO of 12 January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 5.0 LIMITATION This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This report should therefore be updated after a period of three years in the light of changes on the site, future planned construction, and then then current applicable codes. This report was prepared for Fontana Construction Inc. based on it's needs, directions, and requirements. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Fontana Construction Inc. and it's successors of the property, with whom Visha Consultants has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Visha Consultants from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Visha Consultants. The conclusions and opinions presented herein were prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices at the time of the investigation. In the event that recommendations are made by others, these are not the responsibility of Visha Consultants Inc., unless we have been given the opportunity to review and concur in writing. Page 11 of 12 ( January 25, 2019 Project 18-0507 6.0 REFERENCES California Building Code, 2016, Chapter 16 and 18. CGS, 2008, California Geologic Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117A. CGS, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ CGS, 1974, Special Studies Zones, Bolinas Quadrangle, Official Map date July 1, 1974. CGS, 1982a, Special Studies Zones, Mare Island Quadrangle, Official Map date (revised) January 1, 1982. CGS, 1982b, Special Studies Zones, Richmond Quadrangle, Official Map date (revised) January 1, 1982. Ishihara, 1995. Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations During Earthquakes, Proceedings of 117th Asian Regional Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 2, 1995. Jonathan D. Bray., 2003, Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, Thesis Paper, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Mike Larkin Architecture, 2018, Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations, Sheets AO, Al, A2.1, A2 .2, A2.3, A3.1, A3 .2, A4, & AS, dated December 8, 2018. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, (NCEER), 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, dated December 31, 1997. Ross W. Boulanger, M. and I. M. Idriss, 2006, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering© ASCE / November 2006 / 1413. Seed, R. B., et al. _2003_. "Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework." EERC-2003-06, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California. USGS, 2006, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2918, Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region, By R.W. Graymer, B.C. Moring, G.J. Saucedo, C.M. Wentworth, E.E. Brabb, and K.L. Knudsen, 2006 Page 12 of 12 Report Figures and Tables Figure 1 -Site Location Map Figure 2 -Boring Location Map Figure 3 -Log of Boring (B-1) _Figures 4a&4b -Log of Boring (B-2) Figure 5 -Atterberg Limit Test Figure 6 -Expansion Index Test Results Table 1 - Table 2 - lnsitu Moisture Content and Dry Density Test Results lnsitu Moisture Content and No 200 Sieve Analysis Test Results Fai,rfax :m.~lp'rJ is ~tsh~if , an I:=' Bayt,iatl,. Estuaffi · , Rese·rfrc .,·" 1.04 Shaver Street . , ,,f . . . _ S~~ Rafael, California~<~$~ . . . ' ,, > .. . . ·ti~ ''., . ----~ MHl ,,VaHey ,, Berkeley V " Pie :· .. :.: ... 'ti 'dn 1·tt at:~ K Not to scaJe (Based on Gooa~~~J h· . · . . . -~ ~ ~ ~)' .. VICINITY MAP Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street San Rafael, California .... ,,,, ....... ,..;.. ... .,. •. Project No: 18-0507 January 2 5, 2 0 19 Figure 1 BORING LOCATION MAP Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street San Rafael, California Project No: 18-0507 January 25, 2019 Figure 2 @) VISHA CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING 8-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLER: Paul ON-SITE REP : Arasan Singanayaham/Kanthan Uma GROUND ELEVATION : 26 ft (Estimated from Google Earth Maps) DATE : January 3, 2019 HAMMER TYPE: 140 lbm Automatic Hammer (80% hammer efficiency) WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE) BORING DEPTH : 20 feet COMPLETION : DEPTH 15.0 1-----------+-------------------------------1 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger METHOD OF BACKFILL: Hole Backfilled with Neat Cement DRILLING EQUIPEMENT: CME 55 Track Mounted Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Britton Explorations FT. 2 .5 5 .0 7.5 STRATUM BLOW DEPTH ELEV. 23 .5 ... - 21 .0 - 18.5 ~ COUNT 0.. :E ~ N-Value = - X 3 6 8 3 5 5 3 6 9 SAMPLE No/TYPE 1/Bag 2/MODCAL 3/SPT 4/SPT POCKET PEN. (tsf) 0.75 1.5 2.25 OTHER TESTS OR COMMENTS Dry Density 94 .1 pcf 10 .0 ~ 16.0 12.5 15.0 . 17.5 20 .0 13.5 11 .0 8 .5 6.0 2 4 5 6 11 10 9 10 9 NOTES : 5/SPT 6/SPT 7/SPT PROJECT NAME: Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, California LABORATORY MC LL Pl -#200 24.3 ELEV. 11 .0 AFTER 6 HRS . DEPTH ELEV . STRATUM DESCRIPTION FT . FT. FT . SANDY LEAN CLAY with gravel (CL): medium _ stiff, dark gray, moist, medium plastic. - --------------------11 _ LEAN CLAY with sand and gravel (CL), stiff, light gray, moist, medium plastic - - ,_ become very stiff, low plastic -become yellowish brown, with orange stains _ medium plastic -CLAYEY SAND with gravel (SC), light yellowish • orange brown, orange and yellow stains, -medium dense, wet -color changed to light yellowish brown - Boring Terminated at 20 feet below ground surface Project No: 18-0507 Figure 3 @ VISHA CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 2 DRILLER : Paul ON-SITE REP : Arasan Singanayaham/Kanthan Uma GROUND ELEVATION : 26 fl (Estimated from Google Earth Maps) DATE : January 3, 2019 HAMMER TYPE : 140 lbm Automatic Hammer (80% hammer efficiency) WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE) BORING DEPTH : 40 feet COMPLETION : DEPTH 15.0 1-----------+-----------------------------1 --- DRILLING METHOD : 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger ELEV. 11 .0 METHOD OF BACKFILL: Hole Backfilled with Neat Cement AFTER 6 HRS. DEPTH ELEV. FT . FT. FT . 1-----------+-----------------------------1 DRILLING EQUIPEMENT : CME 55 Track Mounted Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Britton Explorations STRATUM BLOW DEPTH ~ COUNT 1----....... -----t ::iE FT. ELEV. ~ N-Value 2 .5 23.5 5 .0 21 .0 7.5 18.5 10.0 ·-· 16.0 . 12 .5 13.5 15.0 " 11 .0 17.5 8.5 20.0 6 .0 5 4 6 5 7 9 3 4 5 5 7 5 8 9 11 NOTES: SAMPLE No/TYPE 1, Bag Sample 2/SPT 3/MODCAL 4/SPT 5/SPT 6/SPT POCKET PEN. (tsf) 0 .5 1.25 1.75 OTHER TESTS OR COMMENTS Dry Density 104 pcf PROJECT NAME: Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, California MC 19 .6 22 21 16 .1 LABORATORY LL Pl 35 15 -#200 59 STRATUM DESCRIPTION SANDY LEAN CLAY with gravel (CL): soft to medium stiff, dark gray, moist, medium plastic. _ LEAN CLAY with sand and gravel (CL), stiff, light gray, moist, medium plastic Color changed to light yellowish orange brown, --and become low plastic - " become medium plastic -CLAYEY SAND with gravel (SC), light orange 20 " brown, orange and yellow stains, medium dense, -wet continuous on next sheet Project No: 18-0507 Figure 4a ~ VISHA CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING B-2 SHEET 2 OF 2 DRILLER: Paul ON-SITE REP : Arasan Singanayaham/Kanthan Uma GROUND ELEVATION : 26 ft (Estimated from Google Earth Maps) DATE: January 3, 2019 HAMMER TYPE : 140 lbm Automatic Hammer (80% hammer efficiency) WATER LEVEL DATA (IF APPLICABLE) BORING DEPTH : 40 feet COMPLETION: DEPTH ELEV. DEPTH ELEV. 15 .0 t----------+-------------------------------4 --- DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Hollow Stem Auger METHOD OF BACKFILL: Hole Backfilled with Neat Cement DRILLING EQUIPEMENT: CME 55 Track Mounted Rig DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Britton Explorations STRATUM BLOW DEPTH FT. ELEV. 22.5 3.5 25.0 1 .0 27.5 -1 .5 30.0 · ---4.0 ·-- 32.5 -6 .5 35.0 -9.0 37 .5 -11.5 ~ COUNT 0.. :z ;,; N-Value 8 9 10 15 21 24 ~ 50/3" ~ 50/3" SAMPLE No/TYPE 7/SPT 8/SPT 9/SPT 10/SPT POCKET PEN . (tsf) 0.75 OTHER TESTS OR COMMENTS LABORATORY MC LL Pl -#200 11.0 FT. --- AFTER 6 HRS . FT. --- FT . --- STRATUM DESCRIPTION _ CLAYEY SAND with gravel (SC), light orange brown, orange and yellow stains, medium dense, -wet - _ color changed to olive brown, become dense, moderate cementation noted - -------------------BEDROCK SIL TY GRAVEL (GM), Very dense, damp, dark -gray. 40.0 _14 _0 i=t::::;:;:.;:=:::i..,__5_0/_2_"_.__11_/_S_PT_....._ ___ _._ ______ .....___---1. __ .1....-_.....___.....__ __________________ --1 NOTES: Boring Terminated at 40 feet below ground surface due to refusal to drilling PROJECT NAME: Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, California Project No: 18-0507 Figure 4b LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT (ASTM D 4318) 60 --.---------,-----,------,----.-----.----.----.---.-----, For cla sification f fine gra ned soils fine gr ned fracti n of coar e graine CH/OH _ 50 -------f----+-----+----------------------1---~ ~ >< Q) "C C: ~ 40 '(3 +i 1/) cu a: 0 ---f<----+--------;1------+---+-----+----+----+----+----+--------1 0 10 Liquid Limit (LL): Plastic Limit (PL): Plasticity Index (Pl): Project Name: Site Address : Boring No.: Sample No.: Sample Description: 20 35 20 15 30 40 50 60 70 Liquid Limit (LL) Percent Passing #200: Moisture Content: uses Classification Proposed Apartment Building Tested By: 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, CA Input By: 8-2 Checked By: 80 AS AS GV 5 Depth (ft.): 10-11.5 LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL) @ VISHA CONSULTANTS Project No. 18-0507 90 21 CL 100 Date: 1/15/2019 Date: 1/17/2019 Date: 1/20/2019 Figure No. 5 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS· ASTM 4829 Test Results Expansion Index 57 Molded Dry Density (pcf) 103 Moisture Content as molded (%) 12.7 Initial Degree of Saturation as molded(%) 53.8 Classification of Expansion Potential per ASTM D4829 Expansion Index (El) Expansino Potential 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Greater than 130 Very High Sample Description: SANDY LEAN CLAY with gravel (CL) Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft.): 1-3 ft Boring No .: B-2 Project Name/Location: Proposed Apartment Buidling I 04 Shaver Street, San Rafael , CA Date Sampled 1/3/19 Tested By: AS Date: 1 /15/19 Project No. : 18-0507 Checked By: GV Date: 1 /20/19 Rev. 10-2014 (@ Visha Consultants Figure 6 .....J BORING NUMBER B-1 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2 -z Oo SAMPLE NUMBER/TYPE 2/MODCAL 3/MODCAL 1/BAG 5/SPT 6/SPT Cl) - 0 I-z <( <( ~ DEPTH, (ft) 2.0 4.5 1.0 10.0 15.0 w !±: .....J I-a.. z TOP CL CL CL CL SC ~ w VISUAL SOIL <( 0 Cl) -CLASSIFICATON BOTTOM CL CL CL CL SC POCKET PENETROMETER (tsf) SOIL AND Sleeve (g) 1068.6 1151.1 Cl) TARE NUMBER G K p M A-2 I- I WET SOIL AND TARE (g) 372.1 401.5 402.0 347.8 392.1 (.9 w s DRY SOIL AND TARE (g) 333.2 360.3 365.1 315.6 362.1 TARE (g) 173.1 173.6 177.1 162.1 175.2 WET DENSITY (pct) 117.0 126.7 Cl) I-MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 24.3 22.1 19.6 21.0 16.1 .....J ::) Cl) DRY DENSITY (pcf) 94.1 103.8 w 0::: @ P . N /Add Proposed Apartment Building TABLE 1 roJ. ame ress: 1 O Sh S S R f I C rt · 4 aver treet, an a ae , a I orrna MOISTURE & DENSITY Proj. Number: 18-0507 Visha Consultants Inc. OF SOIL (ASTM D 2937) Test Date: 1/15/2019 Technician: AS Rev. 01-14 Boring Number: B-2 B-2 Sample Number: 1 6 Depth (ft.): 1-3 15-16.5 Sample Type (Ring, Bulk, SPT): BAG SPT Soil Description: CL SC Moisture Content Wet Weight of Soil+ Container (g): 435 .6 392.1 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g): 405.2 362.1 Weight of Container (g): 166 .7 175.2 Moisture Content(%): 12.7 16.1 Notes El moisture lnsitu moisture Container ID: L A-2 Dry Weight Before Wash Dry Weight of Sample+ Container (g): 405.2 362.1 Weight of Container (g): 166.7 175.2 Dry Weight of Sample (g): 238.5 186.9 Container Number: L A-2 After Wash Dry Weight of Sample + Container (g): 265.3 325.3 Weight of Container (g): 166.7 175 .2 Dry Weight of Sample (g): 98 .6 150 .1 Weight Retained on #4 Sieve (g): 19 .0 33.0 Percent Retained #4: 8.0 17.7 Percent Passing #4: 92.0 82.3 Percent Retained #200: 33.4 62.7 Percent Passing #200: 58.7 19.7 @ Project Name : Proposed Apartment Building 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael, California PERCENT PASSING Project Number: 18-0507 No. 200 SIEVE Tested By : AS Checked By: GV Visha Consultants Inc. ASTM D 1140 Date: 1/15/2019 Date: 1/20/2019 Table 2: -200 Test Results Attachment A LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT (DENSIFICATION) ANALYSIS January 25 , 2019 Project 18-0 507 ATTACHMENT A Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement (Densification) Analysis Liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlement calculations were performed in conformance with the standard procedures suggested in Special Publication 117 A Implementation (CGS, 2008) and National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Workshop (NCEER, 1997). Based on mapped Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Peak Ground Acceleration corrected for the site class (PGA) (CBC, 2016 and ASCE 7-10) for the site, a peak ground acceleration of 0.5 g was considered in the liquefaction/settlement analysis. Based on USGS seismic deaggregation of seismic sources (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/), a maximum credible earthquake moment magnitude of 7.27Mw, contributed by San Andrass Fault was considered in the analysis. Liquefaction potential analyses and earthquake-induced settlement calculations were performed utilizing the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech, 2015). The liquefaction and seismic settlement calculations utilize the field Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) blow counts data corrected for soil fine contents, hammer energy efficiency, and other physical engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils (determined from field and laboratory tests). A ground water depth of 8 feet below ground surface was used in the analysis based on available water table data for the site vicinity. The near surface (upper 3.5 feet) soil will be removed and re-compacted as engineering fill, and the soil layer between 3.5 feet and 15 feet below ground surface is consisted of stiff to very stiff lean clay with a Plasticity Index (Pl) of 15. According to Criteria published by Jonathan D. Bray & Rodolfo B. Sancio (2006), and R.B. Seed et al (2003), fine grained soils (clays and silts) of moderate to high plasticity (Pl>12) are generally considered not susceptible for liquefaction, except fine grained soils with plasticity index greater than 12 and less than 18 could liquefy at high water content to liquid limit (LL) ratios (We > 0.85*LL) under significant cyclic loading. Laboratory test results performed on in-situ soils obtained from the soil borings, indicates that the clay layer observed below the ground water table (8 feet below the ground surface), is medium plastic and had a Pl values greater than 12 . Further, the in-situ moisture content in the two cases tested, were less than 0.85LL values. Thus, the clay layer encountered in the upper 15 feet is considered not susceptible to liquefaction. The liquefaction analysis results show that the clayey sand layer observed between the depth of 15 feet and 25 feet had a factor of safety less than 1.2 and potentially liquefiable. Based on guidelines provided by Ishihara (1995) on "Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations During Earthquakes", surface manifestation of liquefaction related distress (such as sand boil) to affect the proposed development considered low. However, settlement caused by liquefiable soil layers, will cause ground settlement. The effect of potential differential settlement caused by soil liquefaction should be considering in the proposed building design. Based on our analysis we estimate the post construction total seismic densification (liquefaction settlement) for the design basis seismic event is estimated to be 1.2 inches. We estimate differential seismic settlement may be on the order of 0.8 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet or across the building footprint. The liquefaction analysis results and summary are attached in the following pages: <( en ::::, j 0 en {i Q) I- '5 6 e Cl. i ::J LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 104 Shaver St, San Rafael Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=B ft Surface Elev.=26 Shear Stress Ratio (ft) O 0 ~~~~~~~ Factor of Safety Settlement Raw Unit Fines 0 1 5 0 (in .) 1 0 SPT Weight % I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I 10 127 10 12 127 Nolq 20 125 19 20 19 125 17 30 50 135 Nolq 50 135 Nolq 40 50 135 Nolq fs1=1.20 SO CRR -CSR fs 1-- S = 1.18 in. 50 135 15 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Saturated Unsaturat. - 60 70 ii Visha Consultants Inc. Magnitude=7.3 Acceleration=0.5g Soil Description Plate A-1 Liquefy.sum ************************************************************************************ ******************* LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com ************************************************************************************ ******************* Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report. Licensed to, 1/27/2019 9:28:30 PM Input File Name: E:\Engineering\Projects\2018\18-0507 104 Shaver street, San Rafael_Geotechnical Investigation\Liquefaction analysis\Liquefaction Analyses B-2.liq Title: 104 Shaver St, San Rafael Subtitle: Surface Elev.=26 Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 15.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.5 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.30 Input Data: Surface Elev.=26 Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole=50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 8.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 15.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.5 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.30 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara/ Yoshimine 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, 7. Borehole Diameter, 8. Sampling Method, 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , Plot one CSR curve (fsl=User) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: No Page 1 Ce= 1.3 Cb= 1 Cs= 1 User= 1.2 Liquefy.sum * Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % 2.00 10.00 127.00 Noliq 5.00 9.00 127.00 Noliq 10.00 12.00 127.00 Noliq 15.00 20.00 125.00 19.00 20.00 19.00 125.00 17.00 30.00 50.00 135.00 Noliq 35.00 50.00 135. 00 Noliq 40.00 50.00 135. 00 Noliq 45.00 50.00 135. 00 Noliq 50.00 50.00 135. 00 15.00 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=l.18 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=l.18 in. Differential Settlement=0.589 to 0.777 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat . S_dry S_all ft in. in. in. 2.00 2.00 0.39 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 3.00 2.00 0.39 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 4.00 2.00 0.39 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 5.00 2.00 0.39 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 6.00 2.00 0.38 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 7.00 2.00 0.38 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 8.00 2.00 0.38 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 9.00 2.00 0.40 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 10.00 2.00 0.42 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 11.00 2.00 0.44 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 12.00 2.00 0.45 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 13.00 2.00 0.47 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 14.00 2.00 0.48 5.00 1.18 0.00 1.18 15 .00 0.54 0.49 1.10 1.18 0.00 1.18 16.00 0 .54 0.50 1.08 1.15 0.00 1.15 17.00 0.54 0.51 1.06 1.11 0.00 1.11 18.00 0.52 0.51 1.00 1.06 0.00 1.06 19.00 0.44 0.52 0.85* 0.99 0.00 0.99 20.00 0.42 0.53 0.79 * 0.90 0.00 0.90 21.00 0.34 0.53 0.64* 0.74 0.00 0.74 22.00 0 .33 0.54 0.62* 0.57 0.00 0.57 Page 2 Liquefy. sum 23.00 0.33 0.54 0.60* 0.39 0.00 0.39 24.00 0.32 0.55 0.59* 0.20 0.00 0.20 25.00 0.32 0.55 0.57* 0.01 0.00 0.01 26.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 2.00 0.56 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 2.00 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 2.00 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 2.00 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 2.00 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 2.00 0.54 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 2.00 0.54 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 2.00 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 2.00 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 2.00 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 2.00 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.00 2.00 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 2.00 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 2.00 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 2.00 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 2.00 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone ( F. S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure= atm ( 1. 0581 tsf); Unit Weight pcf; Depth= ft; Settlement= in. 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf (ton/ft2) CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from Unsaturated Sands S_all Total Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands Noliq No-Liquefy Soils Page 3 Attachment B ASFE-IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnica l engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a.civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is un ique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnicaJ engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one • -not even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one or iginally contemplated . Read the Full Report Serlous problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include : the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its .size , and configuration; the location of the structure on the site ; and other planned or existing site improvements , such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifica lly ind icates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made . Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a park ing garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse , • elevation, configuration·, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • compos ition of the design team,_or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geoiechnfcal engineers cannot accept responsibilily or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsur fa ce Conditio ns Ca n Cha nge A geotechnical engineer'ing report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed . Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by : the passage of time ; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods , earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions . Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable . A minor amount of additional testing or analys is could prevent major problems . Mos t Ge otechnic al Fin dings Are Prol ess ional Op ini ons Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken . Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface condit ions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report . Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions . A Report ·s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construct ion recommendations included in your report . Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opin ion . Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports .has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also reJa1n your geotechnical engineer to review perti., nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpreta geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectwral or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation . To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is tar less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. Tb help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled ''limitations'' many of these provisions indicate where geotecbnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end , to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineershould respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron:... mentai study dlffer significantly from those used to perform a geotethhltal study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Ass~stance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies .should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight .by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping bu ilding surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information . ASFE THE BEST PEDPll OH EARTH 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring , MD 20910 . Telephone : 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail : info@asfe .org www.asfe .org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the expr?SS written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06085 .0MRP ~ SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF ONLINE PUBLIC HEARING -CITY COUNCI~ ~ THECITYWITHAMISSION You are invited to view and participate online the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 104 Shaver St. -Appeal of the Planning Commission's April 14 , 2020 Conditional Approval of a Use Permit (UP19-013), an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED19-030) and a Variance (V19-003) allowing the construction of a new, ?-unit, multifamily residential apartment building with garage parking and associated site improvements on a 6;264 sq. ft. Downtown parcel; APN: 011-245-40; High-Density Multifamily Residential (HR1) District; Stevan Fontana, Vantana LLC, owner; Mike Larkin for Larkin Architecture, applicant; Donni Uzarski, appellant; File Nos.: AP20-001. State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15332 [Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects]. If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally-sensitive area, further study may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, June 1, 2020, 7:00 p.m. COVID-19 ADVISORY NOTICE: Consistent with Executive Orders No.- 25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the Marin County March 16, 2020 Shelter in Place Order, the San Rafael City Council hearing of May 18, 2020 WILL NOT be physically open to the public and the meeting will be streamed live to YouTube at www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael. Instructions on how to participate online, will be available on the YouTube channel. You will also be able to comment through a conference call during the meeting (number will be provided on agenda) FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Steve Stafford, Senior Planner at (415) 458-5048 or Steve.Stafford@cityofsanrafael.org. City offices are currently closed to public walk-in during the Shelter in Place order, but you may contact the planner for more information . You may also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You may comment on the project on line or via conference call. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to grant of deny the appeal of the project approvals. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You may send a letter to Lindsay Lara, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, 1400 5th Ave, San Rafael, CA 94901 or via email Lindsay .Lara@cityofsanrafael.org .. You may also comment online during the meeting using a chat feature on YouTube or through a conference call (number will be provided on agenda). At the above time and place, all written correspondence 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 filed with the Court not later than the 90 th day following the date of the Council's decision . (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) 5/14/2020 D 104 Shaver St Project -300' Noticing Radius While we strive to produce maps with good accuracy and wit h current accompanying 0 Sh S P • 3 00' N • • R ~ta, .1,he accuracy of the information herein cannot be guaranteed. This map was 1 4 aver t roJ ec t -. ot1 c1ng a~JU~d using programetric computer aided drafting techniques , and it does not represent legal boundary survey data. as-lJf & ~!,(:'~C's~ L~.J ; -~1 1Yl!.'".t {l '""j ~"'.J~-~ ~Q') ~ ~ As .:_~ 1 ~(\J, t-,... .,.:;;;;, . . ..,,~ .I ,!,,.~ ~ t. .i. . ,,..,,..._; , ~ ,_ 1...JI /J 1--• I-. ,_ I,!__,• .,J, /-._ 1~]1 ·, ,..._.__ ""-.... ..... I-m Q 4THsr o &i too t 62 2 1 G 210 f1 gis.cityofsanrafael.org/sanrafael/fusion/widgets/Print/printpage_ms.php?mapfile=C%3A%2FOSGeo4W%2Ftmp%2Fsess_Sebdf78c4a216%2FSanRafael.map&mapname=SanRafael&centerxy=5975302... 1/1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (4 15 ) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: lndi Young Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:14 PM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giuc:lice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Comments: Shaver Lane Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:21 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: Comments: Shaver Lane I'm a customer of the Ponsfords Bakery popup on Shaver Lane ... been going there for many, many years. Usually I walk there. The few times I've driven, I've parked on Third street across from the Oil Changing place, right near the property that is going to be developed. I hear that the requirement for parking on -s ite is only 1 car per apartment. I distinctly recall heari ng how that used to be code back in the 60's but now everyone has two cars . (Es pecially true if it's a roommate situation, but usually true if it's a family.) So, how is it that this deve lopment of 7 apartments only has 7 car parking spaces on site? That neighborhood is already bursting at the seams with cars. I beg you to require 2 car spaces on the property so that the new residents there don't end up having to park 9 blocks away and fight for the few on-street spots there are. Th is means 14 spaces on the property. If that can't fit, then please reduced the number of apartments until you can have two car spots on the property for each apartment. Make things better! Don't make them worse, please .© We would love new neighbors, but not more cars. lndi Young Researching the Problem Space Upcoming Online Global Courses: Mental Model Diagram Usage -How to guide your org's strategy, co nduct gap analysis, assess strengths and weaknesses in your support, and set up metrics that actually measures your support as a pe rso n pursues their purpose Framing Your Study-Research is knowle dge-cre ation. What ki nd of knowledge does your org t ru ly need? Instead of reacting to requests, start laying the foundation of how to explore. lndi w ill he lp you get started. 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:23 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Street Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Haruko Johnston< Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:11 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Street City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by · the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has 1 been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Haru ko Joh nston 2 Steve Stafford From : Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (4 15) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: DAVID B NOYES Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:23 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW : 104 Shaver St. Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:49 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cit ofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver St. Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support ·of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and custom·ers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part Qf Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the l likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Marc Foose Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:23 AM Steve Stafford; Al icia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Street appeal Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:58 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John .Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael .org> Subject: 104 Shaver Street appeal City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a variety of reasons. First off the right hand turn onto Shaver Str eet is on a blind corner where drivers mu st slow quickly, assess the current stop light.traffic moving perpendicular to Third street then make a right turn onto Shaver if there's space. As this street is narrow often t imes the traffic moving through to Second street blocks the entire road requiring one to wait to make that right. This creates a very unsafe condition as traffic on Third Street is moving quickly down the hill and drivers are not expecting to see a stationary car blocking the traffic lane. Do to the blockage those waiting to make the right hand turn must wait an entire light cycle for the Shaver street traffic to move forward. The other issue is that the small section of street between Third and Second street can only support a line of three vehicles often backing this section up as well . Do to parking on both sides of Shaver street this has become really a one lane road any additional traffic using this bypass or increasing parking activity will only hei ghten the challenges for street safely . Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there i s not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy ra i n, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Marc Foose Marc Foose FOOSEWORKS Home Improvement Specialist General Contractor Referrals are greatly appreciated! 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -38 06 From: Diane Demee-Benoit Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26 , 2020 9:23 AM Steve Stafford; Alici a Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 3rd & Shaver Street development Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 4:25 PM To: City Clerk <C ity.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsan r afael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <.John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 3rd & Shaver Street development Dear Mayor Phillips and Council M embers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down t he h ill . Making that t ight right turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide into the o ncoming t raffic. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added v isibi lity problem. I understand that the house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few un-metered parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19 , Downtown workers parked here all day . There simply is no t enough street parking for those that li ve here now. If this proj ect goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely "hardscaped." Currently, when there's heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood . 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Str eet will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding rea li ties. Siincerely, Diane Demee-Benoit 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Linds ay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 20 20 9:23 AM Steve St afford; Ali ci a Giudice; Ra ffi Boloyan FW: Con cern ed Vis itor of Shaver and Lath am Streets Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Offic e: (4 15) 48 5 -3065 Mobile: (41 5) 827-3806 From: Suzanne Alfandari Sent: M onday, May 25, 2020 5:44 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafae l.org>; Kate Colin <Kate .Colin @cityofsanrafael.org >; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bu she y@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gam blin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew Mc Cullough ! It • , ll t • I /,'l t • I • ael.org>; City Clerk <Ci t y.Cl erk 2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Cc: Donni Uzarski - Subject: Concerned Visitor of Shaver and Lat ham St re et s gary.phillips@cityofsanrafael .org >, <kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org>, <maribeth .bushey@cityofsanrafael.o rg >, <iohn .gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>, <andrew.mccullough@cityofsanrafael.org>, <city.clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: D o nni Uzars ki City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Council members: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down t _he hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few 2 untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. · Sincerely, Suzanne Alfandari SuzanneAlfandari .com 4 ons San Rafael, California 94901 Mayor Gary Phillips City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth A venue, Room #203 San Rafael, California 9490 l Regarding: June 1, 2020 San Rafael City Council Meeting Subject: 104 Shaver Street Dear Mayor Phillips May 23, 2020 sent via: city .cl erk2@ci tyofsanrafael.org . The developer of the subject apartment building is asking for several allowances to build a seven unit multi-family apartment building. Looking at the plans it is apparent to this observer that each unit, with the exception of unit #1, could easily house two couples. There is reason to believe that the tenants in the new Whistlestop building at Third and Brooks could be so mandated as most are elderly and many no longer driving; thi s project is a very different thing altogether. Allowing one parking space for a possible four adults is quite outrageous. Is there going to be a requirement in the unit's CC&Rs t hat mandates this very limit ed parking allowance? That only one tenant is allowed to own a car? Such a restriction will not happen otherwise . This neighborhood, referred to in city staff documents as in the "Downtown" is actually within the "West End" which I understand begins at E Street extending down Second, Third and Fourth to the '¥est city boundary. The Latham/S haver area is very characterful and family friendly but currently experiences unmanageable parking issues. Should this property be built as planned, the influx of a possible 24 adults with only six vehicle spaces available (ADA parking NIC) means there may be up to 18 additional vehicles filling the neighborhood. I do not claim to understand all the ramifications of state law and the recommendations outlined in the Planning Commission staff report for the April 14, 2020 meeting. I do believe the standard shou ld be at the minimum one vehicle per bedroom plus an allowance for guest parking. The first proposal presented for Conceptual Des ign Review for six units in February 2019 consisted of five 2-bedroom units. Somehow they were here again asking to reduce the "official" re quirements from 9 spaces to 6, including the ADA space. Shaver Street, where garage access is proposed, i s very narrow with parking a11owed on both sides. Should thi s propos ed development be allowed to proceed the congestion in this quiet n eighborhood will be greatly impacted. Traffic and parking studies should be required and the requirement for CC&Rs to limit vehicles relating to this project must be included in the council's decision should they allow the project to proceed. Sincerely, cc: Kate Colin, Vice Mayor Maribeth Bushey Andrew McCullough John Gamblin Steve Stafford, Senior Planner Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 100 Block of Shaver Ave. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Marstin Tallant< Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 1:21 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bu shey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew M cCu llough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: RE: 100 Block of Shaver Ave. City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Gary Phillips and Council Members: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street current plans for building in this neighborhood. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner whe.re drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that right, tight turn 1 onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn and this project will amplify the situation. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner over time, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been driven into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few non-timed parking streets in the We.st End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. As I visit Ponsfords Place Bakery on a regular basis, I am always confronted with parking issues. Long weekend holidays, like the present, gives one a better sense of the parking issue; no one is leaving due to COVID0-19 which equals over-parking, if that is possible. There is the charm of the West-end neighborhood. It is a very pleasant street to drive and walk down. There are not many neighborhoods with this charm. The homes are affordable, if that is possible in Marin, and allows first, 2 and maybe only, first time buyers to own property near employment. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hard-scaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re-evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. 1.Reduction of Units from 7 to 5: This would still qualify for High Density bonuses in California. 2.AFTER Covid-19: A TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT to be done to study SAFETY, at 3rd and Shaver, AND a PARKING ANALYSIS on Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets. 3.SAFETY for children riding bikes to school. According to the Bicycle Safety Map for San Rafael School District it is unsafe for bikers to use Shaver/3rd in the morning commute, but they still do. 3 4.Preserve the neighborhood as one of small, irreplaceable cottages. 5. Sincerely, Marstin Tallant 4 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: diane greenberg Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Shaver Street Houses Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 1:46 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Marib~th Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael .org>; Subject: Shaver Street Houses City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by 1 the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords _Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not en9ugh street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Diane Greenberg 2 Diane Greenberg "What day is if?" It's today," squeaked Piglet. My favorite day," said Pooh. H AA Milne 3 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mo bi le: (415) 827-3806 From: David Weckler Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26 , 2020 9:22 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Ratti Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Street, San Rafae l, project Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:02 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 104 Shaver Street, San Rafael , project City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of the 104 Shaver Street project. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically , without the added visibility problem . The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times . Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the 1 few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently , there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. I have had to park illegally or many blocks away to be able to pick up purchases at Ponsford's Place bakery. Requiring clearly half or fewer parking spots than the number of cars certain to be associated with these units, means the project will make life miserable for everyone else who lives or visits in the neighborhood. Please don't approve a pre-failed project! If this project goes forward as proposed , it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the A TT building are completely hardscaped. Currently , when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, David Weckler 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9 :22 AM To: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan Subject: FW: 104 Shaver Street Overly High Density Apartments Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Neil Bloomfield Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:14 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Fwd : 104 Shaver Street Overly High Density Apartments email address now corrected! Neil Jon Bloomfield Bloomfield Law Group, Inc A Professional Corpo ration CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any d isclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited . Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please contact Neil Bloomfield at njbloomfield@njblaw .com or by telephone at 415-454-2294 X 18. Thank you . ---------Forwarded message --------- From : Neil Bloomfield Date: Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:03 PM Subject: 104 Shaver Street Overly High Den si ty Apartments To: San Rafael City Clerk2 <cityclerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>, Kate Colin <kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org>, John Gambli n <john.gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>, Andrew McCullough <andrewmccullough@cityofsanrafael.org>, Maribeth Bushey <maribeth.bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>, Mayor Gary Phillips< ar hilli s cit ofsanrafael.or > Cc : Donni Uzarski , Neil Bloomfield Dear San Rafael City Clerk, Mayor Phillips, and San Rafael City Council Members: 1 I live at about one block away from 104 Shaver Street, and I work a one block away from 104 Shaver street in the opposite direction. I am presently handicapped due to a very recent ankle replacement surgery (9 days ago) after a recent knee replacement surgery. There are no handicapped parking spots on Latham at all, and parking is extremely scarce both on Latham, on Shaver, and on Hayes. My home is on the corner of Hayes and Shaver. With 104 Shaver Street as it is, essentially vacant, parking is between difficult to impossible on Latham, on Hayes, and much of the time also on Shaver. With the development, parking will be impossible to beyond impossible. And I will have to park many many blocks away, at this time when it is difficult to impossible for me to walk without a walker. The proposed changes are too dense for this neighborhood. The proposed development adds 7 or more cars without off street parking, and without counting visitors to 7 units. The parking on site is meagre and limited. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of 2 Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid 19, Downtown workers parked here all day . There simply is not enough street parking for those of us that live and work here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. WestAmerica Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. As a resident I already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Thank you in advance for re-evaluating this project and for substantially increasing its off street parking requirement and for substantially lowering its density. I am opposed to this project in its present form. Neil Jon Bloomfield Bloomfield Law Gro up , Inc A Professio n al Corporation San R afael, CA 9 4 901 SincerelyYours, Neil Bloomfield Resident, San Rafael 3 CONFIDENTIAUTY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please contact Neil Bloomfield at njbloomfield@njblaw.com or by telephone at 415-454-2294 X 18 . Thank you. 4 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:23 AM Steve Sta fford; Alic ia Giud ice; Raff i Boloyan FW: New Build ing Developments Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 2:54 PM Subject: RE: New Building Developments City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make .this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on t~e west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will 2 increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Elizabeth Briggson Resident of San Rafael & San Anselmo for 28 years. Please do not ruin this beautiful downtown area, which is sweet as it is, and already FULL up to capacity . Thank you 3 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM To: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan Subject: FW: Please don't allow this parking and flooding n ightmare to happen Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Georgia Kahn Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:30 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin cit ofsanrafael.org>; Andrew M cCu llough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; Donni Uzarski ; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Please don't allow this parking and flooding nightmare to happen City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on 3rd Street is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill. Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a 1 few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsford's Place Bakery. Prior to Covid-19, downtown workers parked here all day. There is simply not enough street parking for those that live here now! Do the math: 6 units with 2 master suites and 1 unit with 1 bedroom = 13 bedrooms. 2 cars per unit = 13 cars. 4 cars per unit = 26 cars. The building itself will have 7 parking places. So 6-19 cars will need street parking, adding to an already impossible parking situation. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the AT&T building are completely hard- scaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. Perhaps a smaller building with fewer units and parking for all its residents and their guests. The people who now 2 live in this neighborhood are already coping with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. The City of San Rafael should not add to them. Sincerely, 3 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Importance: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415 ) 827 -3 806 From: Barbara Hart Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giud ice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Proposed 104 Shaver Project High Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 12:36 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John .Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.or >· Cit Clerk <Cit .Clerk2 cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate .Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; 'Donni Uzarski' Subject: Proposed 104 Shaver Project Importance: High Barbara Hart San Rafael, CA 94901 • City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Council Members: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corne_r of Shaver has been cras hed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsford Place Bakery's. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not. enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the AT&T building are completely hardscaped . Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of · Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re-evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, park ing and flooding realities. Sincerely, Barbara Hart 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message--- From: Jeanne Cronis campbell Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Street Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:46 AM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 104 Shaver Street Dear Mayor Phillips and Council Members: I have lived in Gerstle Park for 40 years. San Rafael was once a charming city, but with the plethora (of past & proposed) building projects, and the "Smart" Train, traffic and density has increased, and the City has lost its charm. Additionally, this is a t ime when we are supposed to be distancing ourselves; is it really wise to increase density in the City? Further, with Covid-19 I imagine there will be failing businesses in San Rafael which will likely lead to empty buildings; perhaps some of those could be converted or used for housing instead . That would be a better use of resources. I would also point out that many large office buildings that have been built in the last ten years or so still have vacancies. In short, it is not "business as usual" anymore; surely each of you are aware of this. And to think that business will return to the way they were in the past is short-sighted. PLEASE STOP over building San Rafael. I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a b l ind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. 1 Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Curreptly, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood . Please re evaluate this project. Please listen to your constituents. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Jeanne Cronis Campbell 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: In Support of the Appeal Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Sharon F Oda Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 11:51 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: In Support of the Appeal City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much· worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has 1 been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham . flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed . This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Pushpa Oda 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Bo loyan FW: 104 Shaver Street project -APPEAL Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-30 65 Mobil e: (415) 827-3806 From: Richard Whittaker Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:07 AM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Ph i llips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h cit ofsanrafael.or >· Cit Clerk <Cit .Clerk2@cityofsanrafae l.org> Cc Subject: 104 Shaver Street project -APPEAL City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: As residents of the nearby Gerstle Park neighborhood, my wife and I share the following concerns about the proposed 104 Shaver Street project: We are writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project we are concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow 1 quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that bL:JSY corner ·is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live 2 with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Richard and Alison Whittaker San Rafael CA 94901 3 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara , CMC. CPMC Office: (41 5) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -380 6 From: Etty Dolin Lind say Lara Tuesd ay, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM Steve St affo rd; Alici a Gi ud ice; Raffi Boloyan FW: o bj ection to complex at Sh aver/3rd Sent: Monday, May 25, 202 0 10:09 AM To: ~ity Clerk <City.Clerk2 @cityofsanrafae l.org >; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsa nrafael.o rg>; Kate Co lin <Ka t e .Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Mari be t h Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.o rg>; John Gamb lin <J o hn.Gam blin@cityofsanrafael .org>; Andrew M cCull o ugh <Andrew.M cCullough @ci t yof sanrafael.org> Cc : Subject: objection to complex at Sh ave r/3rd Please accept my o bj ect to t he approva l of a condo minium pro ject at Shav er/3rd and respo nd t o the requests o f the SHAVER/LATHAM NEIG HBORHOOD . An o ppo r t unity to get add'I funds must be balanced by t he need s o f the neighbo r hood where t he new project resides and am counting o n my r epresentative s to balance t he i r considerations fairly to all. OVERKILL WILL KILL SAN RAFAEL Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons . It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few a ccidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time . It is one of the few untimed park ing streets in the West End neighborhood . Currently , there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this projec t goes forward as proposed , it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain , the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety , parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Etty Dolin 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mob ile: (41 5) 82 7-38 06 From: Liz Salin < Li ndsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM Steve Staffo rd; Al icia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Appea l of 104 Shaver Street Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:32 AM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate .Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h ci ofsanr f el.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: Appeal of 104 Shaver Street May 25, 2020 City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael"CA Dear Mayor. Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic 1 on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this · much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for tho.se that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. 2 Sincerely, Liz Salin 3 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tu esday, May 26, 2020 9:22 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Shaver St Lin_dsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (4 15) 827-3806 From: Suzanna Rumon Sent: Monday, May 25, To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafaeLorg> Subject: Shaver St City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has 1 been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Suzanna Rumon Gerstle Park San Rafael, CA 94901 •Oakland, CA 94621 2 Suzanna Rumon Sent from my mobile Small buttons, big fingers 3 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Indira Guerrieri Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 9:22 AM . To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phlllips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h@cit ofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: Writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Council members: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn . The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west comer of Shaver has been crashed into several times . Parking has been a major problem for the neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood . Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and for customers like me of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, I was told that downtown workers parked there all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live there now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when the city has heavy rains, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood . Please re evaluate this project. The residen1s already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Indira Guerrieri, San Rafael resident 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From : Summer Huff Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Appeal the plans for 104 Shaver St Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 8:35 PM To: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City c~ > •./.I······•: Cc: Subject: Appeal the plans for 104 Shaver St City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street . I live directly across the street at reviewing the plans for the project I am deeply concerned about several key matters. After First is my concern on safety. Shaver St is a particularly narrow street and it crosses the ever-busy Third St. The turn for Shaver when driving on Third St happens after a big slope, and cars on Third tend to be going quite fast. The visibility is already very limited; it is a tough angle in which cars must cu t to turn right onto Shaver. These plans have been granted variances to be closer to each street sidewalk, expanding their footprint, which will limit visibility that much more. Countless times have I tried to turn right onto Shaver St from Third St, but am unable to even fit my small SUV at the turn because there is a car waiting at the red light at Sh aver and Third St that doesn't allow my car to turn into Shaver street entirely. Slowing with your turn signal on and p raying you don't have to come to a full stop on Second St if you cannot fit onto Shaver due to another car is certainly not safe as it is. Additionally, inside of my house I have heard several crashes out of my window. Another concern is the actual issue of parking in our neighborhood. It has never been plentiful or abundant, as the building plans asserted. I was alarmed to learn that that the spaces allotted to 104 Shaver St far under-number the amount of residents that will move in. Simply put, it is really competitive now and I am opposed to there being that many more cars to compete with parking on my block and beyond. To touch on this point, it has yet to be addressed - where will all the construction vehicles will park? Last but not least, I am concerned about what this means for our watershed . If this project is accepted, it will get rid of the permeable soil on the west side of the street. The two major buildings on our block (West America and AT&T) are "hardscaped ". I 've seen it flood on my block after heavy downpours. 1 I am ask ing you to please re-evaluate this project. The safety, parking, and floodi ng realit ies are serious. Sincerely, Summer Huff Summer Huff 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: marti sukoski Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9 :21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giud ice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Concerned about parking housing development Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 9:03 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: Concerned about parking housing development As a concerned citizen of Marin County, I feel the housing project on Shaver/3rd Streets needs to be modified as the neighborhood cannot accommodate so many more cars on the Street. I want to see addressed the following in the June 1 City Council meeting: 1. Reduction of Units from 7 to 5 2. A traffic impact assessment be done to study Safety at 3rd and Shaver and a parking analysis o Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets. 3. The safety for children riding bikes to school, as it is unsafe for bikers to use Shaver/3rd in the morning co mmute, but they still do. Thank you, Marti Sukoski 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Peter Roberts Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver street.j Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 8:10 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John .Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h ci ofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> C Subject: 104 Shaver street.j City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal oxf 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the proj~ct I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of 1 Shaver and part of Latham flood . 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed . This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Peter Roberts. 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 ----Original Message---- From : Jill Myers< Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Project at 104 Shaver Street Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:42 AM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John .Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h@cit ofsanrafael.or >· Ci Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael .org> Cc: Cc: Subject: Project at 104 Shaver Street City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for t'1is neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped . Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood . Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. 1 Since rely, Jill Myers 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Street Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415} 827-3806 From: Karen Schell Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 3 :36 AM To: Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: 104 Shaver Street Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visjbility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when we have heavy rain, the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood . 1 Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Siincerely, Karen Schell Sent from my iPhone 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (4 15) 82 7-3806 From: Judy Schriebman Li nds ay Lara Tue sday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alici a Giudice; Raffi Boloya n FW: Shaver St reet Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:41 PM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John .Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.o rg>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullo <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: Shaver Street Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: I am wri ting in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the proj ect I am concerned for a number of reasons. Safety: It is on a b lind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Thi rd is movi ng very fast as it comes west down the hill. Making that tight turn onto a narrow street o ften causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that bu sy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn. This project will make that much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. The structure will further limit vis ibility, creating an even more unsafe situation. Limited Parking: Parking has been a major problem for t his neighborhood for a long time. It is a planning myth that high density reside nts will not have ca rs because they are near services or on bus routes. Many people i n multifamily apartments have more than one car, which means they are parking on the street, and in densely parked neighborhoods, this means additional driving around trying to find parking. In San Rafael, as in most of Marin, we remain car dominated. It will take some time to shift this historical pattern, but not supp lying adequate resident parking pushes resident parking onto already crowde d streets. Shaver Street is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood. Currently, there is not enough parking for the res i dents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live there now. Watershed/Flooding Issues . If this project goes forward as proposed, i t will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west side of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Currently, when there is heavy ra in, the 100 block of Shaver and parts of Latham already f lood. 104 Shaver i s even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood . Increased imperviousness upstream also adds a small but cumulative effect downstream , by moving waters off roof, streets and paved areas on increasing impacted storm drains. With Sea Level Rise, this upstream impervi ousness will continue to add to the flooding in downtown, as well as locally. The city should be evaluating the capacity of the storm drain system before adding any 1 more impervious pavement; and in fact should be creating detention basins and taking away imper:vious structures wherever possible to help attenuate heavy rainwater leading to flooding. Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Judy Schriebman 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara , CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message---- From: Margaret Eldridge Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Ratti Boloyan FW: Protect the Parking for the hous ing residents on Shaver and Latham Streets Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 2:33 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: Protect the Parking for the housing residents on Shaver and Latham Streets I visit friends who live at These houses are all in the same t i ny neighborhood. When I visit my friends in the evenings, when most of the local residents are home, I cannot find an available parking space near their houses. I always end up parking up on Fourth St or in the WestAmerica bank parking lot. The new apartment complex proposed for the corner of Shaver and Third Streets needs to provide adequate on-site parking for the number of tenants up to 2 cars per tenant family occupying that space. There is ZERO street parking in the surrounding neighborhood and additional cars will result in an untenable situation. San Rafael City counci l MUST not agree to the developer's plan to allow more cars to be parked in a residential area t hat has no additional parking available . City Council MUST consider the quality of life for their existing taxpayers. Sincerely, ..... 4903 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:21 AM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver Appeal Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Amy Likover Sent: Saturday, May , I I I I ' :t: To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; Jim Schutz <Jim.Schutz@cityofsanrafael.org>; Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Appeal Mayor Gary Phillips Councilmembers Lindsay Lara, City Clerk City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth A venue San Rafael, CA 94901 May 22, 2020 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Re: Appeal of 104 Shaver St. Development, June 1 You will be asked to reconsider the 7-unit housing development at 104 Shaver Street on June 1st • At issue is a 13-master bedroom building with 7 parking places s1;t11dwiched between Third and Fourth Streets in an over- parked neighborhood with narrow streets. The development is located on an already dangerous corner where Third Street curves and where residents regularly witness "near misses." The consequences of an under parked development at such a comer are predictable: there will be more congestion and closer calls making what is currently a charming historic neighborhood less livable. Instead, this development should have fewer units and more onsite parking to accommodate residents and their guests. Otherwise, it is bad planning! We consider the charming neighborhood of Shaver/Latham an example of what makes San Rafael so special. It is a multi-generational urban neighborhood with an historic flavor. Given its location, we consider it fragile. As you know in your own neighborhoods, striking the balance of safety and livability is critical. It is 1 this dynamic that makes a place viable. The City's approval of the under-parked site at I 04 Shaver Street will push the neighborhood out of whack. When we built our single-family house in 2010 we were required to provide 4 off-street parking places. At times, we have needed them as will people living in this new development. It is not unreasonable to require 2 parking places per apartment at a minimum. We ask you to consider Shaver/Latham your own neighborhood. By lessening the number of units and adding more onsite parking, the new development would add rather than detract from Shaver/Latham. Yours truly, ~er 01 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 48 5-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Ximena B Li n dsay Lara Tu esday, M ay 26, 2020 9:2 1 AM Steve Staffo rd; Alicia Giudic e; Ratti Boloya n FW: Regard i ng 104 Shave r Street project Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 8 :53 PM Cc: Subject: Regarding 104 Shaver Street project City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Council members: I am writing in support of the appeal of 104 Shaver Street. After reviewing the project I am concerned for a number of reasons. It is on a blind corner where drivers must slow quickly. The traffic on Third is moving very fast as it comes west down the hill Making that tight turn onto a narrow street often causes the cars to swing wide. The visibility on that busy corner is further compromised by the angle of the turn . The project will make this much worse. There have been quite a few accidents on that corner historically, without the added visibility problem. The house on the west corner of Shaver has been crashed into several times. Parking has been a major problem for this neighborhood for a long time. It is one of the few untimed parking streets in the West End neighborhood . Currently, there is not enough parking for the residents and customers of Ponsfords Place Bakery. Prior to Covid 19, Downtown workers parked here all day. There simply is not enough street parking for those that live here now. If this project goes forward as proposed, it will essentially erase all permeable soil on the west s ide of the street. West America Bank and the ATT building are completely hardscaped. Cu rrently, when we have heavy rain , the 100 block of Shaver and part of Latham flood. 104 Shaver is even lower and very near to the historic San Rafael Creek bed. This will increase the likeliness that 3rd Street will also flood. 1 Please re evaluate this project. The residents already live with adverse safety, parking and flooding realities. Sincerely, Ximena Bervejillo ''Edua,ting the mind without educating the heart is no edua,tion at a//1' Aristotle 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Cc: Victoria Sievers < Monday, May 25, 2020 4:08 PM Paul Jensen; Bill Guerin; Steve Stafford; Gary Phillips; Kate Colin; Andrew McCullough; John Gambl in; Maribeth Bushey Lindsay Lara; Donn i Uzarski Subject: 104 Shaver St. Appeal To: Paul Jensen, Bill Guerin, Steve Stafford, Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers From: Vicki Sievers, Sun Valley Re: 104 Shaver St. Appeal I am writing in support of the Appeal made by the neighbors of the 104 Shaver project. As a regular pedestrian and driver through the 3rd -4th St./Shaver/Latham area for 40 years, I am well aware of the already-challenging issues presented by the intersection of major arterials with narrow residential streets. The points made in Appeal letters with respect to Safety, Traffic Congestion and Parking are serious and valid. For example, the loss of on-street parking places alongside the addition of several new vehicles (due to insufficient off-street parking at the new structure) seem.s untenable. Increasing ADA and BMR-inclusive housing is an important goal, but a balance can be made between infill/density-Increase and gentle regard for safety and quality of l ife in a historic neighborhood. Reducing the number of units and adding realistic on-site parking could achieve such a balance. Thank you for your careful consideration. 1 24 May 2020 City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael , CA 94901 Public Works Department Community Development Department Parking City Clerk Senior Planner City Council Attention : Paul Jensen, CD Director Bill Guerin, PW Director Bill Myhers, Parking. Linds~y Lara, Clerk. Steve Stafford , Plann ing Gary Ph i llips, Mayor Kate Colin , Vice Mayor Andrew McCullough Maribeth Bushey John Gamblin Via Email Due to Covid-19 Shelter in Place (SIP) Restrict ions paul.jensen@cityofsan rafael.org bill .querin@cityofsanrafael.org bill. myh ers@cityof sanrafael .org lin say. lara@cityofsan rafael. o rg steve .staffo rd @cityo f sa nrafael .org gary.philli ps@cityofsanrafael.org kate . col in@cityofsanrafael.org a nd rew. m ccu llough@cityofsan rafael . erg m a ribet h.b ushey@cityofsan rafael.o rg john.gamblin@cityofsa n rafael.o rg Re: 104 Shaver Street proposed project Our neighborhood (Shaver/Latham/Hayes/F Street) is very threatened by the proposed building project at 104 Shaver Street, on the corner of 3rd Street. This Appeal seeks the Council's intervention to help find compromises that will lessen the dangerous impacts on our established neighborhood. The development application has now been appealed because it was fast tracked with exemptions to former requirements and waivers , while public participation and scrutiny were ignored earlier and false statements were made by Staff. Covid requirements have hampered due process and we know that essential assessments and studies, of traffic safety and the current parking situation , have not been conducted and as a result, the actual realities of the Shaver- Latham-Hayes-F Streets neighborhood were not addressed. Our major concerns are: safety, parking , drainage and flooding . 104 Shave r Street proposed proj ect Dr. Da le Wallis, Co-Appellant SAFETY Page 2 24 May 2020 Third Street is a major commute arterial. Traffic moves above the speed limit as it crosses E Street, down the curved slope towards Shaver Street. Ahead are visual distractions and the hazards of cars entering Third Street from Valvoline Oil, numerous AT&T trucks, and , during the afternoon commute, the setting sun decreases v isibility for drivers, Drivers intending to make the 70 degree right turn onto Shaver must signal and slow, causing hard braking and near rear-end collisions when following drivers are inattentive or blinded by the sun. Drivers familiar with the potential danger of the tight corner, know that they must slow down quickly and execute a careful maneuver onto Shaver Street. Frequently , the turning car swings wide across lanes into on-coming traffic at that corner. Shaver Street is narrow and circulation limited , inviting additional sideswipes. There have been three automobile accidents in this exact area in the past two weeks. On school mornings, ~lusters of bike-riding children wait on Shaver Street to cross 3rd at the signal. A wide swinging car may cause grave injury to those children . The San Rafael School District does NOT recommend bicyclists use this intersection to bike to school ; nonetheless, the children used it every school day before the Shelter in Place was established . This is an existing condition that the proposed project will exacerbate by increasing density. It is a s ituation that cannot be adequately studied and evaluated due to the Covid Shelter in Place restrictions . These safety concerns are known and shared by residents , several of whom report either being hit or almost hitting someone in the north Shaver crosswalk when cars attempting the turn from 3rd to Shaver, confront tight turn , the change of speed , the narrow opening due to narrow street width , and reduced visibility. Just three days ago, on Monday, May 18, 2020, there wa s an accident on Third, just before Shaver in whi c h one of the cars required being towed. The City of San Rafael chart (0- 0175017-FINAL-REPORT-Appendix-C-2019-May-24.pdf) of t raffic accidents confirms and documents that this is a dangerous traffic spot. The project at 104 Shaver proposes 65% lot coverage with the building, then further includes vegetation and trees between the oversized structure and Third Street. The current situation is difficult, even with the house set well back from Third Street, due to the presence of large trees which block the view of the upcoming intersection. As shown on t he plan drawings, th is project will grossly exacerbate the visual impediment, making this even more of a ·blind intersection, and compounding the already high danger of vehicular accidents and injuries. The Planning Commission allowed the developer to expand the project's footprint beyond the norm. While an increase from 60 to 65% may appear inconsequential, the added mass will increase existing visibility problems for drivers trying to make the turn from Shaver into 3rd Street traffic flow. While the landscaping shown in the drawings is attractive, the inclusion of trees lining Third Street effectively blocks the driver's view of the upcoming intersection . 104 Shaver Street proposed project Dr. Dale Wallis, Co -Appellant Page 3 24 May 2020 Moreover, this project proposes to add a driveway opening into Shaver Street just beyond the corner of Third. They have been offered a variance that reduces the garage set back by five feet, so cars could extend onto Shaver Street. This will be hidden from traffic making the turn, and likewise, the traffic exiting the proposed development will not be able to see the oncoming traffic from Third Street until it is upon them -the vehicles entering and exiting in this driveway will neither see , nor be seen and unable to avoid turning traffic. This further increases hazards posed to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The corner of Shaver and Third is a very dangerous place to add greater congestion. PARKING The 7-unit multi-family structure, as proposed , contains 13 Master bedrooms. It is not unreasonable to assume this may attract up to twenty-six (26) driving adults. One of the 8 required parking spaces has been eliminated at the developer's request by variance and new bike offsets, so the project only provides 7 on-site parking spots. The on-street parking on Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets is already saturated . In order to accommodate the driveway for this project, an additional existing on-street parking space will be eliminated. When another 7 to 19 cars need street parking in a neighborhood already suffering a glut of on-street parked vehicles , the hardsh ip created far outweighs the benefit of 7 units. Adding heavy equipment and vehicles on the corner and along Shaver Street during 18-24 months of construction is untenable. Before construction begins, we would like to know where the crew and vehicles will be parking. Construction congestion will be more than a nuisance for us, we are afraid of accidents and limited emergency vehicle response . Although 104 Shaver is on Shaver Street, directly across from our West End Village neighborhood , it has reportedly been re-zoned as 'downtown', with concomitant variances in regulations; is that a just designation for our community? The single family, two bedroom, one bath home currently on the property has been in existence for approximately 113 years, and reflects the architectural style of our neighborhood ; it is an error that this property with a Shaver Street address was not included in the West End Village zoning. The City Council Staff Report (November 6 , 2017) actually supports reducing the number of units on this parcel. According to the report, "Higher residential densities were adopted for the Downtown with ranges from 15-32 dwelling units/acre for the West End Village to 32-64 dwelling units/acre in the Fourth Street Retail Core, Hetherton Office and SecondfThird Corridor districts." https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/cc-110617-staff-report-gp2040/ Additionally, this 3-story, 7 unit, modern structure does not comport with the San 104 Shaver Street proposed project Dr. Dale Wallis, Co-Appellant Page 4 24 May 2020 Rafael General Plan for the West End Village, which states that " ... new buildings will typically range from one to two (2) stories with opportunities for occasional three (3) story mixed use commercial/residential buildings wh ich complement the older buildings in the district." Were this a mixed-use building, additional parking would have been required. This project takes undue advantage (three stories, non- conforming architecture) of allowances for a mixed use project while remaining a residential project and thereby avoiding the necessity for sufficient off-street parking - it is a design hybrid, which does not fit with the charm and character of this historic (130 year old) neighborhood. As a Shaver Street property, and clearly architecturally part of the West End Village community, the 15-32 dwelling unit limit should apply to the parcel at 104 Shaver Street. This parcel is 6,264 square feet, which is 14.38% of an acre in size. Multiplying the acre % by the range of dwelling units yields 2 .1 to 4.6 dwelling units for this parcel -not seven! Why not lessen project density to no more than 4 units? Is it responsible planning for the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission to fully acknowledge the current parking reality, ignore it and then approve the project making statements such as, "This is going to cause grief' and "Let's see how it works as far as I'm concerned. We'll find out." Nowhere in the hearings did Design Review Board members or Planning Commissioners mention calculations or studies done to support that the project area contains either ample or even adequate on street parking. The "Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study Staff Report" relied upon findings by Kimley-Horn and Wiltec Traffic Data Services, which as relates to the West End Village (figures 17 and 20) show orange (85-89%) and red (90-100%) occupancy rates for on-street parking on Hayes, Latham , Shaver and F Streets both during the week and on weekends during the surveyed time period in 2015; parking availability has only gotten worse since then. In that same report, parking areas as shown in Figure 34 do not distinguish between public and private parking. For example, a parking lot is shown on Shaver at Latham, but it is private, gated parking for AT&T only. The reality for every current res ident, is that existing parking n~eds significantly exceed existing parking availability. Additionally , every car in 104 Shaver's garage will be required to make a 3-point turn to orient their car to a forward driving position to get out of the driveway. Like AT&T's gated entry, only one vehicle can use the driveway at a t ime; meanwhile street traffic stacks, waiting, and adding to drivers' frustration. The project was granted another variance allowing 50% compact spaces instead of the required 30%. As acknowledged by the project architect, there is no way to mandate renters must own compact cars that fit the as-designed garage spaces. When asked at the DRB meeting where would the guy with the F150 park, 104 Shaver Street proposed project Dr. Dale Wallis, Co -Appellant Page 5 24 May 2020 the response from another ORB member responded, "That's the guy parking on the street." Future renters with full size vehicles , or those who may feel unequal to the necessary turning maneuver will avoid this burdensome task and back out onto Shaver Street, adding to the existing traffic hazards and endangering pedestrians and bicyclists. Or renters may decide not to use the garage at all , creating an even greater parking problem for the surround ing community. FLOODING I hired Paul Torikian of To rikian Associates , to conduct a soils report on Shaver Street in 2014. In the report , he states that " ... unconsolidated deposits of clay , silt, sand and gravel transported and deposited by streams. The site is located in a wide old stream bed which is part of Sun Valley . The valley extends through downtown San Rafael, including areas between 4t h street and 2 nd street, where Shaver street is located." " ... Shaver Street is located at the lowest elevation of this area . Gravity flow to take care of the ground water from foundation drains will not be possible . Both for surface run-off from the side yard and the run off from the roof may require a sump pump ... to de-water the property during heavy rains." The proposed development at 104 Shaver lies within 30 feet of the former San Rafael Creek bed. This is not a dormant waterway : it floods when there is a confluence of heavy rain and a h igh tide. There is nowhere for surface water to go when our low-lying area drains fill up . Rain runs off the hard surfaces and migrates up onto the sidewalks on the lower section of Shaver Street, encroaching to the fence line at 111 and 115 Shaver, making the sidewalk impassible. The corner at 117 Shaver, with its ADA curb is completely submerged and therefore, non- compliant. Typically , several hours are needed fo.r this to recede. This occurs fairly frequently when it rains . Our neighborhood has a substantial number of seniors living alone . Several use walkers, and several more must have an aide accompany them on their walks. City records estimate between 15-20% are elderly; that understates the actual senior population in this specific neighborhood. City Staff has stated their position that a three-block walk from parking to their homes is not considered a problem. We disagree with that assessment on behalf of our elderly. It cannot be disputed that this becomes a very signific ant issue when the sidewalks are flooded and impassible. We also have several families with young children and a trip to the grocery store can cause several 3 block back and forth trips, made worse in rain conditions . Currently, we are in drought conditions . That does not justify failure to consider increasing Bay water intrusion caused by sea level rise, our neighborhood's exi sting high-water table , and the extreme rain events that have become part of our changing climate. 104 Shaver Street proposed project Dr. Dale Wallis, Co -Appellant Page 6 24 May 2020 How will the tenant in the garage level ADA unit maneuver should heavy rain cause flooding? The expanded 65% lot coverage at 104 Shaver reduces permeable land for rainfall absorption. Removing the 4 native Coastal Live Oak trees currently on the property further limits absorption and negatively affects both carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat in our urban environment. The proposed rep.lacement trees are deciduous maples; their leaf litter may block surface drains. This will increase the volume of storm water runoff that has to be absorbed . The project's bioswales max out at the 10-year flow. This property is in a 100-500 year flood zone. It is indisputable that the AT&T building , immediately adjacent to 104 Shaver, must pump ground water from its basement at least twice a day due to the existing high level of ground water here, even in the absence of h igh tides and storms. They had to conduct an extensive remediation project several years ago to redirect the pumped water into a below ground drainage system. Although surface waters have been redirected underground through pipes , the ground water table remains quite high. I have personal knowledge of the surface and subterranean water challenges of this neighborhood because I was involved in the reconstruction of the bakery at 117 Shaver Street after it burned down in 1991. The contractor had to perform extensive additional work to mitigate the high ground water and saturated soil conditions when constructing the foundation . Several neighbors on the 1500 block of 3rd Street use sump pumps to keep their below ground levels free of pooling water. Please, consider that the proposed decrease in permeable land combined with the fact that the entire east side of Shaver Street is hardscaped (A TT building and parking lot, West America Bank, the oil change place and the car wash on 2 nd>, will increase the volume of storm water runoff that must be sent to our already overburdened sewer system. Why make a bad situation.worse? It is likely that the intersection of Third and Shaver will experience flooding as a result , compounding the traffic hazards on a main arterial. Unresolved drainage should not be minimized as the ground level ADA unit may be affected both inside the proposed garage and in the driveway or walkway should a mobility-restricted tenant face a problem entering, or trying to exit, during a storm-high tide event. That the proposed project will exacerbate current surface water problems remains an unresolved concern to be addressed in the future by the project's civil engineer and city staff. Will neighborhood res idents' experiences and comments be part of that process or is this a ministerial function from which we, the residents most affected, are excluded? 104 Shave r St ree t p ro posed proj ect Dr. Da le Wallis, Co-Appellant REQUESTS: Page 7 24 May 2020 Current SIP practices are preventing the city from due diligence. SIP practices have also impacted the ability of our neighbors to participate in this process. As a consequence, we are threatened by both the virus and the City's failure to accomplish: • A full Traffic Impact Assessment be conducted at the intersection with evaluation of the impact of a driveway and added traffic for the project, to include impacts on vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety • A full Parking Study of Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets. • A hydrology report to be conducted to establish what the likely increases in run-off are and what m itigation strategies shou ld be employed, and also investigate best foundations for this 3-story structure . • A soils study to determine whether liquefaction is a justified concern . We are asking for the following mitigations: • That the City Council ask for this project to be re-evaluated, and take seriously the public comments that have been sent in but ignored thus far. • Consider reducing the density from 7 units to not more than 4 units to · better reflect the realities of the parking, traffic, and flooding issues already existing in this community. • Our neighborhood be outfitted with parking striping , corrected curb cuts and red zones to maximize available on street parking • That the 2 -hour parking along 3rd Street-between E and G Streets be returned to 24-hour parking. • That the City Council consider making parking on Hayes, Latham, Shaver and F Street {between Latham and 4 th Street) limited to two hours, with exemptions for resident park ing permits (limited to two per residence at a reasonable cost -and that the residents of 104 Shaver not be allowed resident parking permits as their needs for parking can be accommodated with their on-site garage and Third Street. Respectfully submitted, Dale M. Wallis, DVM co .. Appellant Ma.y 24, 2020 Public Comment regarding Application for 104 Shaver Street San Rafael City Clerk (Lindsay .lara@cityofsanrafael.org) San Rafael City Council (gary.phillips@cityofsanrafael.org, kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org, john.gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org, maribeth.bushey@cityofsanrafael.org, andrew.mccullough@cityofsanrafael.org) San Rafael Community Development (paul.jensen@cityofsanrafael.org) Steve Stafford, S_an Rafael Senior Planner (steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org) San Rafael Parking Division bill.myhers@cityofsanrafael.org San Rafael Public Works (bill.guerin@cityofsanrafael.org) To Whom It May Concern, I am aware that an appeal has been filed seeking a reevaluation of the application for 104 Shaver Street. My biggest concern with this application is the street parking. Having lived at ~ith my wife for the past 5 years, I have noticed that street parking has increasingly become more and more difficult. When I learned that this project was going to potentially add 19 cars to the immediate neighborhood, I was astonished. Where are all these extra cars going to park? The first houses in this neighborhood were constructed circa 1880. At that time, there was not any consideration given to automobile parking on the street. The original houses did not even have driveways. These original dwellings rely on street parking at no fault of their own. I am completely in favor of developing additional dwelling units in the City, but not at the expense of making the residents in the area disaffected. The decision to approve this application is irrevocable, so if an inappropriate decision is made by the City Council, the resi dents will have to live with the consequences forever. I've had an opportunity to review the preliminary plans and it seems like everything is up to Code, including all of the set-back variances and housing density bonuses. This appeal is asking the City Counci l to look beyond the Code by showing some benevolence and compassion by doing what is right for the residents and exercising some restraint by not granting 100% of the Applicant's requests. Can you please consider reducing the number of units from the maximum allowable to a smaller, more reasonable number? That would lessen the park ing problem from something that will become a permanent burden on the residents into something that is, at least, slightly less unfavorable. Another way that the site could accommodate more parking is to add another story to the building. This story could be subterranean. Although this may not be the most economical solution for the Applicant, it should be given som.e serious consideration to help reduce the already adverse street parking problem for the res i dents. Page 1 of2 May 24, 2020 Public Comment regarding Application for 104 Shaver Street There are other actions that should be considered as a condition for approval of this application. One would be the establishment of a residential parking permit system in the Shaver, Latham, Hayes, F and 3rd Street neighborhood. In San Francisco, a residential parking permit costs $144 per vehicle, per year. The City of San Rafael could easily implement a similar system. The 2-hour parking restrictions on 3rd Street should also be rescinded. The 3rd Street parking spaces should then be further restricted to residential parking permit holders only. Covid has also introduced multiple levels of urgency and complexity to the appea l process. Some concerned residents do not even have access to the technology needed to virtually attend the City of San Rafael meetings on YouTube . Those that are able, have found it very difficult or impossible to place Public Comment with the on-line time restrictions. During the YouTube meetings that I have observed, individuals were not always able to get their comments acknowledged by the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission or the City Council. And at other times, I've witnessed the City Council hear the public comments on YouTube and then proceed with a motion to approve without even one word of discussion . I am hoping that for the June 1st YouTube Appeal Meeting, the City Council will take the time to respond and discuss any public comments that are presented to them. In summary, I am appealing to the City Council to ameliorate the parking problem by : • Reducing the number of dwelling units from the maximum allowable by Code to a lesser, more reasonable number • Increasing the number of on-site parking spots by adding another story to the bui lding • Establishing a residenti al parking permit system for the neighborhood, similar to the one in San Francisco • Eliminating the 2-hour parking restrictions on 3r d Street and including the 3rd Street Corridor in the residential parking permit zone. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, Joe Uzarski cc: Page 2 of2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (4 15) 485-3065 Mob il e: (415) 827-3806 From: Garril Page Lindsay Lara Friday, May 22, 2020 10:25 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: City Council : 104 Shaver Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:09 AM To: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullou h@cit ofsanrafael.or >· Ci Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: City Council: 104 Shaver City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael CA Dear Mayor Phillips and Councilmembers: May 22, 2020 re: 104 Shaver Street I write in support of the Appeal by the existing neighborhood, a community willing to welcome new housing, but finding the density of the current proposal extreme. The 104 Shaver project makes full use of provisions intended to accomplish the worthy goal of creating more housing, and there is nothing unusual about a developer pushing the envelope to maximize return. What makes this project unique is whether the city will allow the project's excessive density and under-parking to negate the worthy goals of increased housing and diversity. The intent is not to kill the project; it is an attempt to give life to a more beneficial project. These are responsible, contributing residents of San Rafael; do not dismiss their action as NIMBYism. They come to this Council knowing it is no easy task to create successful infill housing. This Appeal seeks to prevent the application of new ordinance provisions in a heavy-handed manner so abusive that useful zoning tools are overturned. If push back evolves into backlash, San Rafael loses. Creating successful model for infill house is a win. It is a task better done w ith a scalpel than a tire iron. The loss of landmarks that define and anchor a diverse group of residents is an growing consequence of increased population and density. Often, the affected community transitions into an isolated neighborhood surrounded by businesses that come and go, blight and benefit. The project area is living through upgraded zoning's incompatibility with a surviving historic residential neighborhood. This project is a death knell for the defining structure, a visual 1 reminder of San Rafael's history for one hundred years, now zoned 'Downtown Commercial'. The old house is more than period architecture on an ample, level yard where apple, fig and oak trees brought verdancy; it has served as a welcome buffer between the commercial and residential neighborhoods. A Downtown Commercial designation also has brought this neighborhood increased vehicular challenges: trucks and traffic from from AT&T, a tire store, the kwik-lube and new offices as well as punitive metered parking on adjacent streets . On-street parking is not available in the area immediately adjacent to the property. Worse, the project removes existing on-street spaces and, without mitigation, adds a significant number of new vehicles. In each Design Review Board and Planning Commission hearing on this project, there were concerns expressed over parking, vehicular ingress and egress, access for municipal services, drainage, circulation and safety. The property owner and his architect heard the same concerns at all four hearings. Every one of these concerns can be alleviated by lessening project density as Petition by the surrounding community requests. It is ironic that this community suffers a parking dearth resulting from years of relaxed parking requirements while city-permitted residential density and commercial construction increased in the area. The consequences are obvious to the residents of Shaver, Latham, Hayes, and F Streets, and they spill over to Third and Fourth Streets. If the project Applicant ought not be penalized for the current lack of on-street parking, neither should the residents and taxpayers living here as the city of San Rafael ignored parking provision, and promoted density and zoning changes. To what extent should new, relaxed parking modifications burden them both? The parking modification options are a relatively new allocation of generous tradeoffs favoring development in an attempt to respond to housing needs. This project tests whether blanket or reasoned application of these regulations will be more effective in achieving the goals of the ordinance. This Appeal brings the Council an opportunity to reexamination the function and future of the ord inance as applied to one specific site . Does storage for six bicycles appropriately mitigate the impact of constructing seven multi-family units at 104 Shaver Street? Will compact parking provisions encourage use of mass transit or become a city enforcement problem? As Design Review attempted to address apparently dysfunctional elements of the project, the Applicant's architect agreed that rather than accept constraints of the project, renters will park on-street, and back out of the garage onto Shaver. These are unmitigated harmful consequences of the seven unit allowances. Shaver at Third is a busy, dangerous intersection for pedestrians and vehicles. The site's challenges to development are no reason to ignore safety. The stated intent to defer final, detailed resolution of important, specific questions asked about parking, circulation, and drainage elements to a pending, future Staff permitting process seems unaccountably optimistic. For example, the architect states the project will provide an unusual amenity: onsite managerial staffing to move renters' cans for trash pickup and return the cans to storage. On which curb the fourteen cans will await garbage service is undefined. Questions about site drainage in an area with documented high water table and flooding were never answered. These may impede ADA use, creating another enforcement issue as well as exacerbate surface runoff from lot coverage expanded to 65%. What recourse exists to correct non-compliance should the onsite manager or other resident use be found for the designated ADA-or BMR-units? This Appeal's request for reexamination is valid and justified: after four hearings, unquestioning endorsement of zoning modifications applied to this project are by the Dep't of Public Works and Community Development alone. Design Review Board and Planning Commission hearings ended with approval that was conditioned by recognition of Staff support followed by expressions of "Let's see how it works ... we'll find out", and "Hopefully, this is going to work". The votes may have been unanimous, but the endorsement of parking offsets was tentative. Although they appeal this project's density, residents support ADA-and BMR-inclusive housing. It is the Council's decision whether new housing comes to the neighborhood as a project that integrates, or, one that alienates. Five units could be welcomed whereas seven units forever burden this community with an under- parked, repudiated project. 2 Yours Sincere ly, //s// Garril Page San Anselmo 3 @ AT&T VIA EMAIL and USPS May22,2020 Mr. Steve Stafford Senior Planner City of San Rafael Planning Division 1400 Fifth A venue Patricia McNulty Transaction Manager San Rafael, CA 94901 Steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org AT&T Inc. El Segundo, CA 90245 RE: Response to the Construction of an Apartment Complex adjacent to the AT&T Switching Facility located at 220 Shaver Street, San Rafael, CA Dear Mr. Stafford: AT&T is the owner and operator of the telecommunication switching facility located at 220 Shaver Street in San Rafael, CA. AT&T is also aware that there is an approved residential project for a new 7-unit apartment complex ( 104 Shaver St.) that is to be built, with no setback, on the southern property line of the AT&T Shaver Street facility. While supportive of new development and improvement in the neighborhood, AT&T would like to provide commentary concerning this new project. It is imperative that the City of San Rafael and the community be aware of the critical nature of AT&T's Shaver Street facility, which is a key component of the AT&T telecommunication network within the area, providing vital services to business, institutional and residential customers throughout the City of San Rafael. Critical communications-ranging from high-speed internet to 911 dispatches-flow through this telecommunication switching facility, which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. It is extremely important to emphasize that the complexity and importance of this facility is not inherently visible or apparent from casual observation. AT&T hopes that the City of San Rafael will take this into account and potentially impose conditions of approval for this new apartment complex to ensure reasonable compatibility with the AT&T Sl)aver Street facility. Concerning the facility, AT&T would like to make it known for the record the following: Usage: The AT&T Shaver Street facility is not an office building. It is an equipment and telecommunication switching facility that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. The facility provides telecommunication services to the neighboring areas and is fully dedicated to computerized systems that forward, receive and route voice, data and digital information, ranging from internet traffic to 911 dispatches. Because of the critical nature of this facility, it operates continually, night and day . Height: The proposed apartment complex will be taller than the AT&T Shaver Street facility. Therefore, operational noise from the facility may impact the residents of the new complex, in particular if balconies are planned along the shared AT&T property line. The facility's HVAC equipment-which ensures that the facility's vital telecommunication equipment doesn't overheat-runs consistently throughout the day and evening. This is no t equipment that can be shut off or scheduled to run on certain days or particular times of the day. Without 24/7/365 HVAC availability, the facility cannot operate within acceptable internal temperature standards. Lightning: For security, the facility is continually illuminated during the night. Some light may be visible from the apartment complex. Employee activity: Employees come and leave this facility 24/7/365. The facility is generally less busy in the evening, however emergency situations can increase evening activity. AT&T technicians perform tasks which include standby generator runs, maintenance for network equipment, and maintenance of HV AC equipment and other ancillary systems (backup power). The developer and future tenants of the new apartments should be made aware of the amount of activity at this site. Generator: In the event of a power failure in the area, the AT&T facility features a standby generator that is installed for the purpose of providing backup power to operate the facility. During power outages, this generator will run continually until power is restored. The generator will also be operated for at least I time per month as part of a regular maintenance and testing routine. AT&T hopes that the City of San Rafael will take the aforementioned points into consideration concerning the nature of the AT&T facility and its relationship with the new apartment project. AT&T would like the City of San Rafael to consider imposing appropriate conditions of approval on the apartment complex to ensure reasonable compatibility with existing land uses. For example, the developer/owner of the apartment complex should include notification to all tenants (within their lease) that the facility next door is a telecommunication facility, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that the facility and its equipment-including ~V AC equipment -must run consistently, even during the early morning hours and the evening. In closing, please rest assured that AT&T sees itself as a valuable and important member of the San Rafael community. AT&T is committed to working closely with the City of San Raf~el to advance the development efforts of the city in a mutually beneficial manner. Please contact me directly at 312.219.1676 or contact our zoning consultant, Stephen Slater at 818.625.9013 if we can assist you further with this matter or if you desire additional information. Sincerely, Patricia McNulty Regional Manager -Transactions AT&T Services Corporate Real Estate-Western Region Cc: M. Leslie Hovey, AT&T Scott Moffatt, AT&T Stephen Slater, Blu Croix Ltd. Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: Steve Stafford; Raffi Bo loyan; A licia Giudice Subject: FW: HELP SAVE OUR FRAGILE SHAVER/LATHAM NE IGHBORHOOD ! Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office : (4 15) 48 5-30 65 M obile: (41 5) 827-3806 From: Deborah Welsh < Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:26 PM To: Ci Clerk <Cit .Clerk2@cit ofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: HELP SAVE OUR FRAGILE SHAVER/LATHAM N EIGHBORHOOD! To whom it may concern , The proposed project is problematic for several reasons. The turn from 3rd onto Shaver is a blind turn now. If you allow th is big bu il ding that comes out almost to the street there will be even less visibility. There have been several accidents on that corner a lready. The street is very narrow. I drive a SUV and many t imes I have had to pull into the AT & T driveway to let another SUV or truck pass. I lived at or a period of time and visit there often . The parkin g is mo(e than d ifficult. If even 10 more cars are added it will be almost impossible to park in the neighborhood . C hildren ride their b ikes going to and from school. It is al ready dangerous, but with a working driveway so c lose to the turn onto Shaver I think it will be even worse. Please review th is proj ect further and ask for a smaller proj ect with less units and parking for all the residents. Thank you, Deborah Welsh, a concerned citizen of San Rafael 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara , CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message---- Fr.om: Maggie Brind'Amour Sent: Thursday, May 21, 202 Lindsay Lara Thu rsday, May 21 , 2020 10:19 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raff i Boloyan FW: Shaver/Latham Neighbo rhood I I I • ~ To : City Clerk <City.Cler.k2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: Shaver/Latham Neighborhood I am writing to ask that you reconsider the current approved construction of the 7 unit building on the co rn er of Shaver/3rd Street in San Rafael. I appreciate the building of a multi unit complex to add living space to downtown but not enough consideration has been given to how this will impact the already over crowded street parking in the neighborhood. Thank you, Maggie Sent from my iPad 1 Steve Stafford From: Lind say Lara Sent: Th ursday, May 21 , 2020 3:18 PM To: Subject: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Shaver St/3rd St Proje ct Pending Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 M obile: (415) 827-3806 From: Ti m Jones Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:36 PM T · · · rafael.org > C Subject: Shaver St/3rd St Project Pending Living in a high density neighborhood presents several hurdles to best serve those in that community. You need to do your job to see that the following is met. 1. Reduction of Units from 7 to 5-Th is would still qualify for High Density bonuses in California. 2. AITTR Covid-19: A TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT to be done to study SAFETY, at 3rd and Shaver, AND a PARKING ANALYSIS on Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets. 3. SAFETY for children riding bikes to school. According to the Bicycle Safety Map for San Rafael School District it is unsafe for bikers to use Shaver/3 rd in the morning commute, but they still do. · Concerned Gerstle Park Residents, K Delaney and T Jones 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (41 5) 827-3806 From: Hanna Noel Lindsay Lara Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:58 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: Public Comment Regarding 104 Shaver Street Project Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 7:51 PM To: City Clerk <Cit .Cl erk2@cit ofsanrafael.or > Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: Public Comment Regarding 104 Shaver Stree t Project To whom it may concern , My name is Hanna Noel and I am a baker who has worked at Ponsford 's Place at or years. I feel fortunate to work at the neighborhood bakery that is tucked into this lovely community. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 104 Shaver Street Project. I worry about the already dangerous nature of the 3rd and Shaver St. intersection, as well as limited street parking and resulting traffic. The corner where 3rd St. meets Shaver St. is a tight one w ith low visibility. I make this turn onto Shaver on a regular basis and always exercise caution . If there is one car waiting at the red light on Shaver St, it's a tight pass particularly if it's an SUV or truck. Every once in a wh ile there will be two cars waiting at that same red light , and this is what really causes worries . There have been occasions when I couldn't pass because one veh icle was an SUV or another wasn't properly pulled as close to the right as possible . Whenever this happens, I hope that there won't be a distracted d river turning from 3rd to Shaver, not expecting to find me there , waiting to be able to pass. This is an accident waiting to happen. This intersection that I'm talking about is right around the proposed parking entrance for the 104 Shaver Project. This will definitely cause more congestion and greatly increase the likelihood of an accident on this corner. To add to this issue, th is proposed project consists of six two-bedroom units and one one-bedroom unit, yet there are slated to be only seven parking spaces. Even the requirement of one guest parking space has been waived. If these two-bedroom units could potentially house two couples, it's almost guaranteed there will be overflow onto street parking far exceeding the conservative estimate of six that we've been given. It seems 13 extra cars vying for street parking would be more likely. Neighborhood parking is already difficult to find especially s ince many people working on 4th Street choose to leave their cars in our neighborhood where parking has no time limit. When parking is scarce I often observe cars idling as they wa it for a spot. I also see cars making multiple loops around the block hoping that a space will free up. This clogs up the streets and creates hazards in a very family oriented neighborhood where children are often outside. I'm sure that neighborhood residents will continue to exercise caution when driving these streets, but I am worried about vehicles that aren't familiar with the dangers of the 3rd and Shaver St intersection. This includes customers of Ponsford's Place as well as vehicles using Shaver to connect between 3rd and 4th streets. It's clear that housing is difficult to find in San Rafael , I know because I very recently experienced this firsthand . Of course the city could benefit from more housing options, but if this is at the expense of neighborhood safety it would appear there are fundamental flaws that need to be reconsidered. Why. can't the number of units be reduced allowing for more on-site parking? Since construction has not yet begun , there is still time to turn this into a · project that has the full support of the immediate community. Thank you for your time and consid eration . Best regards , Hanna Noel Baker at San Rafael CA 94901 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lind.say Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mo bil e: (415) 827-3806 From: Tina Caraco Lindsay Lara Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:58 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: 104 Shaver Project Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 9:40 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Re: 104 Shaver Project To Whom It May Concern: I have lived on Shaver Street over the past 10 years and now have considerable concern in regards to both the pre sent parking situation in our small neighborhood (consisting of Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets), as well as what will unquestionably materialize -and further intensify-with the future construction of the multiple units at 104 Shaver. It is true that there is a need within California to add more housing to accommodate an increasing population, and the city is wise to address this situation by permitting more residential units where the nee d is great. How eve r, solving one problem shouldn't create unnecessary other problems fo r homeowners in an existing neighborhood, especially as there are elements of the problem that could be easily addressed and rem ed ied. Persona lly , I hav e fe lt the tremendous exasperation of driving countless times around the block in search of parking, which was made more challenging when additional family members came to li ve with me, bringing their own veh icles. Many households in this neighborhood also have additional adults resi ding in the home who have their own car, as well as there being a number of homes having narrow driveways (most homes here were built around I 912) that prohibit, or do not easily accommodate a mod em car. What I can detennine th at would greatly all eviate some of the ex isting parking problems are: 1. Daily monitoring and enforcement of the 72 hours time limit. From where I live I can see weekly (if not almost daily) violation of this city ruling. It's frustratingly quite common to have cars left in this neighborho od for many days-well exceeding the limit. Many cars are parked for 1-3 weeks. One young man, on behalf of his boss who owns a nearby business, continually parks a small fleet of cars here on a regular basis and a verages 2 weeks non-consecutive days of parking for each car parked. 2. Create more intelligent and efficient parking by striping the parking spaces which would prevent wasted spacing between parked cars. On a daily basis I witness how, by not providing painted outlined parking spaces, there are many large gaps in between cars parked, thereby pre venting greater maximization ofpar~ing. 3. Another remedy would be to allow the resident s to obtain affordable 'residential only parking permits' fro m perhaps 6pm to 6am in order to s afeguard some additional park ing for neighborhood res id ents . In closing, I would like to further share so me concerns about the size of the unit to be built, which will most certainly add to the blind s pot at the juncture of Shaver and 3rd streets . There have been too many close call s of potentially disastrous situations involving 1 drivers, bikers and pedestrians, of which quite a few are younger children on their way home from school. I, myself, have been involved in a few close calls and on one occasion hit by a biker as I wa s going through a green light on Shaver and 3rd street. Thanking you in advance for your consideration and review of our petitions. I remain hopeful and anticipate that these matters can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Most sincerely, TinaCaraco 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent To: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:04 PM Subject: Raffi Boloyan; Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice FW: Project at 104 Shaver Street Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Offi ce: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 : To rafael.org> Cc: Subject: Project at 104 Shaver Street Please distribute the following to all members of the San Rafael City Council : When the Shaver Street project is considered by the City Council on June 1, I hope all concerned will realize that they have a responsibility not only to the developer of a new apartment building, but a responsibility to maintain the livability and identity of a cheri shed part of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood, namely the Shaver and Latham Streets area. Overflow parking and increased traffic caused by allowing seven units on this property will have a deleterious affect on this whole area . The project's lack of adequate parking spaces is completely unacceptable. There seems to be a myth that people in units close to downtown do not have cars. This is completely untrue; there will be at least one car for each bedroom. A developer of a project this size should not be allowed to have an impact on neighboring streets. Parking problems there will spread to the whole Gerstle Park neighborhood, as will increased traffic. Neighborhood streets are already being used as shortcuts for speeding cars ; we can't handle more. I urge the City Council to require the number of units to be downsized and the number of parking spaces to be increased to reflect reality. The Shaver/Latham area is not just any place-it is uniquely filled with small historic houses that give a sense of special character to residents and businesses. This character shou ld be protected by the City of San Rafael. I write as a former 50-year resident of Gerstle Park. I still own a house on Ross Street (where my tenants have to struggle mightily with parking problems.) I am also a member of the Steering Committee of San Rafael Heritage, but I am not writing on behalf of Sari Rafael Heritage, as our group decided not to pursue protection of the house that will be razed. However, as an individual and property owner, I am very concerned about development decisions that would compromise the livability and historic flavor of a lovely old neighborhood. We all share the understanding of San Rafael's need for more housing, but the City Council must promote housing without hurting what is already wonderfully there. Very truly yours, 1 Cynthia Landecker Santa Rosa , CA 95401 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Origina l Message----:. From: Lauren Vorhees Lin d say Lara Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:04 PM Steve Stafford; A licia Giudice; Ratti Bo loyan FW: Shave r 3rd constructi on Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2 :05 PM To ra~~~ a l a }. • • O' I Cc Subject: Shaver 3rd construction Dear City of San Rafael; Please reconsider the size and parking availability of this project. I fully support in fill housing in San Rafael, but this street i s already too narrow with too little parking for the neighborhood. I visit a close friend here often. I always struggle to find parking, and there a frequently near misses with the two way traffic on this street. Please do a parking and traffic analysis, and consider childre n rid ing their bikes to school in this entire neighborhood before you permit this project. Thank you for your attention, • . I I . t I .. 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Will Beckman Lindsay Lara Monday, May 18, 2020 10:18 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Shaver St Development Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:45 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Shaver St Development I would like to also voice my concerns about the lack of parking for the planned development on Shaver St. a mere seven parking spaces for seven units is unrealistic given that there is zero parking space at the moment I this area. Aside from the proposed building being on a very tight corner adjacent to a busy street all parking spaces in the area are full. For a long time parking enforcement in the area of Shaver and Latham has been erratically enforced by the city and it has been left up to the residents to work the many issues regarding parking on out on their own. It has worked because people has been diplomatic and understanding but this development will likely create an untenable situation. If this project has indeed been approved then the city is going to need to have a plan or some concessions to deal with the parking situation Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -306 5 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: mike horan Lindsay Lara Monday, May 18, 2020 10:18 AM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 194 Shaver St. Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 1:50 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 194 Shaver St . To Whom it may concern, I just wanted to start off with how much I am concerned about the further degradation of the Shaver, Latham and Hayes neighborhood where this current project is planned. Has anyone from the planning board in San Rafael or Marin County walked or driven this neighborhood before making any final decisions? If you did, you would find a neighborhood literally choked with parked cars, many parked in places that are an accident waiting to happen! A good percentage of those parking spaces are taken by downtown merchants and residents who have no parking of their own ... so they take the spots that rightfully belong to the people who live in the houses of this neighborhood. Much of this situation could be solved by issuing reduced rate parking privileges to those people who can produce proof of residency/business owner. The development of 104 Shaver Street, as planned, will make the parking issue in the neighborhood much worse and in fact, will spill over into other neighborhoods. I'm still trying to figure out why one project like this has to affect so many in such a negative way! Still, even if the present parking situation were alleviated, the bigger picture will always remain. The resources are limited in Marin county. You can see these stack and pack places going up all over and each one brings more congestion and traffic to clog the roads. How many of you folks do the early morning commute anywhere in the bay area? I'll bet not many. Just trying to move through the residential streets of most towns in Marin during late afternoon is an exercise in futility. You want to add more?!? I know the hows and whys that drive such projects. I've lived in San Rafael for 32 years now. I've seen a lot of change and much of it is not improving the quality of life for Marin's residents . I know there's endless pressure from ABAG to make Marin more like the east bay. Have Marin residents weighed in on that decision? Will they be allowed to? This 11 If we're not growing, we're dying" mentality has to stop. How about applying a little bit of common sense when dealing with such issues. It couldn't hurt!! For the record, I'm only affected by what happens remotely. I have off street parking, so I'm not one of those who call it a luxury to park "only a hundred feet" from where I live, but this type of thing is happening all over Marin. A snowball rolling down hill getting bigger and bigger and because of it, Marin will continue to lose more and more of what made it special to begin with. Please reconsider the 104 Shaver Street project. Thank you, Mike Horan,. an Rafael, Ca. 94901 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message- From: Rachael Zucker Lindsay La ra Monday, May 18, 2020 3:29 PM Steve Stafford; Raffi Bo loyan; A licia Giudice FW: Shaver Street Project Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 2:48 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Donni Uzarski Subject: Shaver Street Project To whom it may concern, I am asking you to pease re~evaluate your. decision to build a three-story apartment building in the Ponsford's Place neighborhood. I am a Ponsford's customer and parking is al r eady bad in the area. It is a beautiful, sweet neighborhood and this decision would irrevocably change its atmosphere. I have also heard there are already traffic issues concerning safety in the area. I hope you will take this decision seriously. Thanks, San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobil e: (415) 827-3806 From: Sharron Ames Lindsay Lara Monday, May 18, 2020 3:29 PM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: HELP SAVE OUR FRAGILE SHAVER/LATHAM NEIGHBORHOOD! Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 3:01 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: HELP SAVE OUR FRAGILE SHAVER/LATHAM NEIGHBORHOOD! Please know -this new project is VERY VERY bad for the neighborhood! We frequently visit this area to see friends and visit the bakery. There is already major challenges in finding parking! Please find another solution for this property . Perhaps you can consider a duplex? With commensurate with the design style of the neighborhood. Thanks for listen ing! Sharron Ames 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: {415) 827-3806 -----Original Message----- From: Stacey Counts Lindsay Lara Monday, May 18, 2020 7:27 PM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Ratti Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver St. New building Sent: Monday, May 8, 2020 7:10 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 104 Shaver St. New building To Whom It May Concern, The proposed 7 unit apartment building at 104 Shaver St in San Rafael is too large in my opinion. Certainly more than the proposed 7 spaces are needed since several of the units have two bedrooms. Those household occupants could own two cars . My friend used to live on F St a few years ago and I noticed then that Latham St and Shaver St have very little parking. Also, turning off from high speed Third St to Shaver St involves a quick deceleration around a sharp corner. It is important to have a setback in that area to avoid crashes resulting from the large amount of prospective residents at that location. Please lower the density of occupants of the new building since the neighborhood can 't support them. Please preserve quality of life for the current residents of the neighborhood, most of whom live in lovingly maintained historic houses. Thank you, Stacey Counts San Anselmo. Sent from my iPhone 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 · Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Lara Monday, May 18, 2020 11 :31 PM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: 104 Shaver Construction Project Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 10:56 PM To . . .. . '(;) . -· --· .. Cc • Su J 104 SHAVER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT POSITION STATEMENT I am in favor of more housing. I compliment the City mavens helping provide for it. Any observant human supports it. "Who wouldn't?" is an easier answer. In regard to the 14-bedroom project presently anticipated at 104 Shaver Street, I'd just as soon it was 7 story or 12 story. But OFF-STREET parking is the only way San Rafael will avoid urban nightmare as has happened in neighborhoods in San Francisco. SAN RAFAEL PLANNING City Planning deems a benefit to a neighborhood with every decision the City makes. Wisdom supports va l ue defined by 1) tax dollars to City Coffers, and 2) Neighborhood's vitality: its long-term value survives or dies on the "desirability" of a place. Its attraction. Thus making a neighborhood more desirable is the paragon of Planning. 104 SHAVER STREE T PROJECT lmpactful items in the case of the 104 Shaver Street project, are parking and pedestrian safety: PARKING West End Neighborhood parking is an issue to even the most casual observer. I have had visitors unable to park within 3 blocks. Today, the neighborhood is presently used as primary parking for mahy residents. Yet, niuch of the street-parking capacity is regularly clai!l)ed by park-and-ride bus commuters, also business owners and their customers. Visitors to neighborhood addresses cannot readily park. Slow crui sing for parking space is now commonly seen . Lack of parking impacts neighborhood "desirability" scores. Simultaneously decreasing pedestri an visi bility thus increasing danger to pedestrians. MAKING A BAD SITUATION WORSE I am at a loss to understand upon what matter the City chose to applaud a 14-bedroom, 7-unit housing project, when the project's conservative need for 20 parking places has been cut down to only 7-off street parking slots. The extra 13 vehicles will choke an already narrow Shaver Street plus choke immediate blocks down Latham, Hayes, and F Streets, at the least. But the reality is worse. Worst case parking ana lysis shows 34 off-street parking spaces needed . NATURE OF ATTRACTION Today, most two bedroom un its are commonly occupied by tenants of one to four adults. Even if you average two adults per bedroom, each with vehicle, a 14-Bedroom project still needs 28 off-street parking places. Only 7 in the unlikely event that a single adult rented each unit: a very unlikely scenario that's not sensible. 28 parking spaces prior to counting additional v isitor parking demands . ADULTS DRIVE VEHICLES When the property owner advertises their rental for prospective tenants who will live and park t he re, rather than renting two bedrooms for just one adult, the property will be more valuable and serve state low-income housing thresholds better with 28 off-street parking spaces. The result for the owner is higher rents from a couple with or without child, or four adults. Shaver's potential to accommodate more vehicle and pedestrian traffic during rush hours would be terminated should the City elect to give away the public street to one 14-bedroom project. Dumping an additional 13 parking vehicles into the West End neighborhood is bad planning because it's bad for the neighborhood. It will get a worse reputation: "you can 't park there." ·OPTION THE CITY IS FORFEITING Today with vehicles parked on both sides of Shaver Street, barely any but a single vehicle in either direction is possible. The width of Shaver Street cannot accommodate 4-vehicle widths. Pushing a modest 13 more vehicles out to the streets, let alone the 28 to 34 the 104 Shaver project could create, makes an existing situation worse, makes the neighborhood less workable, less safe, and less "desirable." We want the builder of 104 Shaver to have his units. We also want him and the City to have off-street parking that's sensible. Off-street parking is the life blood of attractive neighborhoods. 2 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 7:25 AM To: Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: Density housing Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 Fro Sen To: Cc: Subject: Density housing To whom it may concern, Today while discussing the upcoming project at 104 Shaver with a friend I told her that as a farmer's daughter I have been appalled with the land that has been covered up with housing developments in the Sacramento Valley since I was a teenager in the 70s. Year after year the Sacramento Area has grown by thousands of acres at the destruction of fertile farm land . While the downtown has been allowed to decay. I have traveled extensively to parts of the world that have high density housing. For a short time I lived in Japan. I lived In a 5 story building. While most families in Japan do not have multiple cars, there were still two parking places for each apartment's cars. In Paris and London many people do not have cars, but their public transportation is superb. Ours on the other hand, is not. I am in favor of high density housing. It feels, in the case of San Rafael, that we are putting the cart before the horse. We do not have Bart. Our Smart Train doesn't run often enough. The buses are not enough. If you miss your Metro in Paris there is another one in 10 minutes. That is not the case with our public transportation. We are Californians. We drive cars. If It raining I do not think that people are going to walk blocks to catch a bus or a mile to the Transit Center. The transit center was put in with lack of parking too. If we are going to go to San Francisco for social engagement in the evening public transportation is inadequate. California historically has built the housing before the infrastructure. This needs to be reversed. If Marin County wants the State money to support High Density Housing we need to put in the infrastructure first. At one time Marin had a train that ran though all the little towns to take people· to the ferries. They were removed and converted to bike and walking paths. This is another example of poor planning on the part of the planners. 1 The proposed project at 104 Shaver if built as proposed will be a nightmare. Today I was on G street and saw two projects going In there. How many more cars do you think our little neighborhood can take? How many more cars can 2nd and 3rd streets take? What are you going to say when San Anselmo also wants the High Density State money? More cars ... there Is a limit. We are already overloaded. The streets can't really be widened. The downtown area was built in the 1800s. Our streets were laid out then. They have not been upgraded iri size. Just imagine that when they were laid out they were for horses and wagons, then later Model Ts. They were all about the same size. Now we have more SUVs than we have smal l cars. We just can 't accommodate any more projects in our neighborhoods. Please reconsider the project at 104 Shaver. Maybe a parking lot for downtown workers would be a better choice. Thank you, Lydia Lee 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 M obile: (415) 827-3806 From: Chris Solberg Sent: Thursday, Ma Lindsay Lara Friday, May 15, 2020 10:3 4 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: Proposed p roject @104 Shaver St. To: · · · afael.org> Cc: Subject: Proposed project @104 Shaver St. To whom it may concern, In the case of this particular project, I fear that there has been a rush for approval without taking into consideration the nature of the neighborhood and the concerns of its' residents, the effects on traffic and parking , and the safety problems that this project will exacerbate. As a 10-year resident of Shaver St., I will say that safety is of grave concern. We have many more small children living on our block than we had just 10 years ago. Shaver Street is narrow, not nearly wide enough for 2 cars to pass comfortably. My pickup has had the driver's side mirror knocked off a half dozen times and it has been hit twice, while parked , on both sides of the street. My wife's cars have been hit while parked here as have many of our neighbors'. In addition, it also seems that people traversing the neighborhood consider Shaver St. a speedway. We are a designated safe bikeway for our school children and it is anything but safe. The corner of 3rd St. and Shaver St. is a source of constant worry. Drivers speed down the hill on 3rd at breakneck speed. 3rd St. veers right there and that corner is a definite blindspot. To turn right from 3rd on to Shaver, is to take your life in your hands. Oftentimes there is not enough room on Shaver to complete the turn. Our neighbor at 103 Shaver St. has had to build increasingly stout walls at the corner to protect his property. On at least 2 occasions, a car has ended up right at his son's window , come by and see what I am talking about. On our block, from Latham to 3rd Street, there are 16 on-street parking spaces, if everyone pays attention. There are 4 off-street parking spaces. We have a bakery on the corner with no customer parking . There are 11 units on our block, averaging 2 cars per unit. As there are no time limits on our block, workers from 4th St. and the surrounding neighborhood also park here when possible. This puts a real strain on the neighborhood and neighborhood relations . We used to have 20 or so spaces available on 3rd St. but 2 were turned to a red curb and the rest are now 2-hour parking. Adding the proposed project with minimal on-site parking will further strain the neighborhood and our ability to operate in a neighborly fashion. As a long-time resident and general building contractor , I would ask that you re-evaluate this project while taking into consideration the points I have made here and the feelings of the neighbors. Please solve the traffic flow issues, the safety concerns and the parking congestion that is already stressing myself and my neighbors. 1 Sincerely, 2 Steve Stafford From : Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Whom It May Concern : Wednes d ay, May 13, 2020 3:20 PM City Clerk Steve Stafford; Donni Uzarski 104 Shaver Street I am a co-appellee with my sister, Donni Uzarski, on the above named project. I request my appea l application be added to hers, and included for consideration. I am adding the following public comments to this file: In the course of researching the background on this proposed project at 104 Shaver Street, it came to my attention that the City of San Rafael apparently has a plan to create "bouleva r ds" of Second Street and Thi rd Street, in which multi- fami ly housing (apartment buildings, condominiums, etc.) line both sides of both streets. This is highly ill-advised on mul tiple grou nds, and impact s the project at 104 Shaver Street as among the first few multi-family housing proposals. I have already commented on the complete lack of parking in the area of Shaver, Latham, and Hayes Streets. I h ave already co m mented on the sharp, 70 degree turn from Third Street on Shave r, the dispa rity of the speed of t r affic travelling downhill on Third vs. the slowness of traffic on Shave r, the narrowness of Shaver Street which makes such a turn likely to cause a coll ision, and the fact t hat the v i ew of the turn is obstructed. All of these prior comme nts sho u ld be part of the re co rd , but in case they are not, they are incorpo rated herein as though fully set forth. The reason for this addendum is the fact that a high pressure gas line r uns underneath Second Street (see map below). By state law, I have to advise my tenants on Shaver St r eet of th e exi stence of this line, as it is a factor t o be considered by tenants in the ir decision to rent -whether t hey wish to live within 500' o f a major g~s l ine or not. The project at 104 Shave r Street lies w ithi n approximat ely 120' of the gas line, well within the state-recogni zed dange r zone. In addition, the City's pl ans to make boulevards of multi-family housing running directly along both sid es of Second St reet and both si d es of Third Stree t potentially exposes severa l hundreds of persons to living within the state - determined 500' danger zone of this gas line. Moreover the added t raffic on Second St r eet due t o the proposed increased housing density can on l y add sign i ficant wear and t ear to these roadways, making repa i r and repl acement issues more frequent, and potentially putti ng undue str ain on the buried gas lines. The Ci t y's planned high density housing project s within th is corridor (500' to either sid e of the high pressure gas line) are ill-advised, and should be discarded . In the event of a breach as happened in San Bruno, Sa n Rafael has been put on noti ce and will be l ia ble for property damage and l oss of li fe. 1 This map is taken from the interactive map on the PGE website (https://www.pge .com/en US/safety/h ow-the-system- works/natural-gas-system -overview/gas-transmission -pipeline/gas-transmission-p ipe li nes.page ); it was downloaded today, May 13, 2020. Th e blue line shows the high pressure gas lines buried under San Rafael city streets -note the gas li ne runn ing under Second Street from Lindaro through to where Second, Third and Fourth Streets all merge enroute to San Anselmo. The scale line shows that 104 Shaver is within approximately 120' of the line running under Second Street. Dale Wallis 2 May 12, 2020 Steve Stafford STEVEN SCHOONOVER Attorney at Law VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org City of San Rafael Planning Dept. 1400 Fifth Ave. San Rafael , CA 94901 Re: 1 O, ~ Shaver Street Appeal Filn No.: ED19-030; UP19-013;V19-003 Dear Mr. Stafford: Consider this an addendum to my letter comment conveyed to you yesterday pertaining to the above-referenced project. I've copied the San Rafael City Attorney since there are significant legal implications to the City's insistence on proceeding with processing of planning applications and Planning Commission reviews of projects during the County Health Officer's, and the Governor's Shelter in Place orders. In my previous comment to you in connection w ith the appeal I noted the following: "I also question whether the City is legally entitled to pursue this project given that the public is prevented from reviewing the 104 Shaver file by the County Heath Officer's orders and the fact that City Hall and the Planning Department are both closed for business. You could easily shelve consideration until the SIP Orders are relaxed sufficiently to give the public their lawful opportunity to investigate." The Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code § 6250 et seq ., declares the public policy of the State: "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and decla res that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." The PRA was enacted "for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies.' [Citation.] Legislative policy favors disclosure. [Citation.] 'All public records are subject to disclosure unless the Public Records Act expressly provides otherwise." American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal. App. 4th 55, 66. San Rafael, CA 94901 Steve Stafford May 12, 2020 Page 2 of 3 "Unless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press , but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity." Ibid., quoting Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119. I don't suggest the public currently has no access to Planning Commission meetings. It does, albeit on an understandably truncated fashion due to virus concerns . One of the problems stemming from the City proceeding with planning hearings and approvals arises from the fact that the Marin County Superior Court is closed for civil proceedings. Civil court proceedings have been barred since the imposition of the Marin County Health Department's, the Governor's and Chief Justice's stay at home and related orders, thus any potential Court challenges to planning or City Council approvals simply cannot be mounted , leading to due process denials. We don't know when the courts will re-open, and in the meantime, your Department is approving projects granting vested rights that will then have to be undone in the courts pending a re-do of the public process. Citizens currently have no civil remedy available should the need arise. Any interested citizen who wishes to thoroughly inform herself or himself about the 104 Shaver and any other project is barred from doing so, since all the planning files are located in the City Planning Department, none are on line other than those attached to applicable agendas, and the Planning Department is and has been closed for business. Government Code § 6253 provides: (a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided . Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. I acknowledge that the City wisely closed its Planning Department doors to the public due to the threat of Covid-19 infection. What is legally objectionable is the City's failure to suspend all Planning hearings and approvals and related City Council proceedings when interested citizens are unable to inform themselves fully about pending projects and make well-informed decisions about whether they wish San Rafael , CA 94901 E-mail: Steve Stafford May 12, 2020 Page 3 of 3 to comment or to appeal a decision that they oppose. Of course, the agenda with selected attachments concerning the 104 Shaver project can be found on-line, but what are the folks without electronic access supposed to do to access them? I'm aware of no law mandating that every adult must have an electronic device with which to inform themselves. City and County libraries, as well as the Marin County Law Library are and have been closed since the first Health Department Order mandating individuals stay-at-home, so library computers are unavailable. One has no way of knowing whether what's posted on-line attached to the agendas constitutes the entire 104 Shaver project file, or only a portion of it carefully selected by the Planning Department, nor is one able to find out because the hard-copy file isn't accessible. The complete inaccessibility of the courts makes it even more imperative that Planning Commission approvals be put on hold , as citizens currently have no way to access the courts to challenge Planning Commission and City Council decisions, as normally is their right under the law. Instead the City blithely marches forward processing and approving development applications, hoping nobody will notice the fatal legal flaws in the process . The approval of the above-referenced project, as well as other project granting vested and other rights that the City approved during Planning Department and Court closures , are void for the above reasons. Any projects in the pipeline must be put on hold until such time as civil court closures end and the Planning department files are made public once again as required by Government Code § 6253. If they are not, they will be challenged in court, when the courts resume civil operations. SS/jd cc: Donnie Uzarski Robert Epstein Esq. San Rafael , CA 94901 E-mail : Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415 ) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Claire Long Lindsay Lara Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:54 PM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Ratti Bo loyan FW: Please do not allow new apartments Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:44 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Please do not allow new apartments Dear City Clerk, As a former resident of Shaver Street, I urge you not to allow a new apartment building to be constructed. I lived at a rental on Shaver Street for two, almost 3, years. A lack of parking in the neighborhood was a huge problem for residents. There is no way that the Shaver Street neighborhood could accommodate the parking needs that an additional apartment building would require. Sincerely, Claire Long 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (41 5) 485 -3065 Mobil e: (415) 827 -3 806 From: Carol Adee Lindsay Lara Tuesda y, M ay 12, 2020 3:54 PM Steve Stafford; A l ici a Giudice; Raff i Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver St. issues Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:43 PM T . afa~D~> Cc To Whom it May Concern, I frequently visit friend s and shop at businesses in the area near the proposed bu ilding at 104 Shaver Street. I am sho cked and saddened that a single family home in a congested neighborhood would be replaced by a multi-unit str ucture with only 7 parking spaces. It is often a c hallenge to park now and I have had to pa r k 2 or 3 blocks away from the home or business I am visiting. I am certain that allowing this structure will have a negat ive effect on the residents and businesses in the area . They (and those of us who visit) sh o uld not be forced to suffer t he consequences of this poor planning decision. Without adequate parking, neighbors will find themselves in conflict with each other, businesses will lose customers (there are already times when I have j ust given up because there were no parking spa ces) and home values will decrease. Even recognizing the wider Bay Area plan to build with more density, this project seems reckless and without regard for current residents and businesses. I live in Terra Linda ne ighborhood where other high density housing is p lanned. I would like to be certain that precedents are not being set that will negatively effect my quality of life and home value as well. Please reconsider the plans fo r 104 Shaver St. and build confidence among all San Rafae l residents that our needs are al so being considered when building projects are planned. Thank you, Carol Adee San Rafae l, CA 94903 I think every musician unders tands the Pied Piper story. Music is this great, seductive force that draws you on, and youfollow wherever it may lead. -Ellen Taaffe Zwillich 1 STEVEN SCHOONOVER Attorney at Law COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEtlT Of PARTM£NT CITY OF SAN RlfAEl May 11, 2020 Steve Stafford VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL 2teve .stafford@cityofsanrafael.org City of San Rafael Planning Dept. 1400 Fifth Ave. San Rafael , CA 94901 Re: 104 Shaver Street Appeal File No.: ED19-030; UP19-013;V19-003 Dear Mr. Stafford: I support the appeal for the reasons set forth below. Additionally, although not argued by the appellant, I note that the last time I had an opportunity to review the file for this project (pre-SIP Orders), I found no evidence that the City had conducted any evaluation of whether the s ite constitutes a historical or archeological resource as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15064.S(c). Public agencies must, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource and mitigation measures should consider in-place preservation of such resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126(b )(3). Since 104 Shaver was, according to what you told me, built in 1904, and it behooves your Department to conduct a full evaluation pursuant to CEQA mandates. Not to mention the City's Code and General Plan impose a duty on the C ity to evaluate h istoric resources prior to permitting demolition. I also question whether the City is legally entitled to pursue this project given that the public is prevented from reviewing the 104 Shaver file by the County Heath Officer's orders and the fact that City Hall and the Planning Department are both closed for business. You could easily shelve consideration until the SIP Orders are relaxed sufficiently to give the public their lawful opportunity to investigate. 1. Traffic Considerations -The appellant is correct -this project adds to existing traffic hazard on Shaver Street. I drive this route frequently to access Fourth Street from the Gerstle Park neighborhood south of Second Street. Mostly because the traffic lights at Shaver/Third/Second streets are improperly timed, traffic backs up on Shaver in the short space between Second and Third waiting for the light to change . Assuming this problem can be resolved, going north on San Rafael, CA 94901 'T May 11, 2020 Page 2 of three Shaver from Third Street is already hazardous enough due to the narrowness of the Shaver and the cars parked on both sides of the street. I'd hazard a guess the City traffic engineer would concede this point. You are considering a 2020 project on a street that meets early 1900's standards, and this must be taken into account. Turning right onto Shaver from Third Street is also hazardous for the same reasons given in the paragraph above. As the appellant points out, the potential problems posed to Shaver Street traffic by vehicles attempting to leave the project at the same time vehicle is trying to enter could eas ily cause a traffic back-up onto Third Street, and a collision. Not a w ise approach. 2. Parking in the Neighborhood -Every time that I've ever driven in this neighborhood, and it may be as often as 10 times monthly for the past 20 years (I get my mail daily at Mailbox Services on Fourth Street), it's quite rare to observe any parking on Shaver or in that small neighborhood. There's no excuse to add to the neighborhood's burdens by adding what will certainly be more than "one addit ional vehicle." That's a myth that developers and the City promote to ram through these projects. I po int to the Ka iser Medical Offices on Third Street as a prime example. The City was warned about insufficient parkin when that project was proposed, and the City scoffed . Now you have people endlessly driving around the block search ing for a parking space because Kaiser's garage is normally full. Another glaring example is the Franciscan Manor apartments on D Street and Antonette, near where I live. The City failed to require sufficient parking when that lovely edifice was built in 60's, and the evidence is everywhere, all day and all night on Antonette, Wolfe Avenue and , D Street-wall-to-wall cars. Adding to the existing parki ng problems on Shaver and envi rons isn't wise and needs to be re-examined. 3. Hydrology -The appellant is correct when she questions whether there have been any hydrolog ical studies done. Since I cannot access the project file, I have no way of knowing if the City of San Rafael has done any screening to determine if there any issues that require environmental investigation (see Title 14, California Code of Regulations§ 15060.) Has there been an initial threshold study as CEQA requires? A negative declaration? The potential for an increase in neighborhood flooding would certainly warrant further study, especially in light San Rafael , CA 94901 Steve Stafford May 11, 2020 Page 2 of three of sea level rise, and the fact that the entire area, West End, Gerstle Park, Bret Harte already have extremely high water tables. Add a known underground spring and the area may very well be unable to handle the major loss of permeable soil this project will cause. S incerely, SS/jd , San Rafael, CA 94901 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent To: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:09 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice Subject: FW: Comment on Shaver/3rd proposed building Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Marianne Alsop Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 11:36 AM -... m a.• ~• To: rafael.org> Cc: Subject: Comment on Shaver/3rd proposed building We wish to record our opposition to the proposed multi=-residential structure in the Shaver/Latham neighborhood of San Rafael. Our reasons for opposition this are: Structure does not reflect the nature and character of the housing in the neighborhood. Too many residences included in this building. Not enough parking for the planned residences. Huge impact to traffic in the area which is already busy. Need for Parking Analysis on Shaver, Latham, Hayes and F Streets. Sincerely, Dave and Marianne Alsop San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Pamela Giusto-Sorrell Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 Lindsay Lara Monday, May 11, 2020 9:09 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Bo loyan; Alicia Giudice FW: Shaver and 3rd development . -. .,. To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Shaver and 3rd development San Rafael C ity Council , T he proposed development on the corner of 3rd and Shaver is another sign of not trying to maintain the history and charm of San Rafael. A 7 unit development is c razy! That is a small, older neighborhood that is struggling as it is w ith limited parking ! How is it that you can take a single family home and turn it into 7 UNITS with the possibility of up to 26 people living there? And 3 storied high? You have approved a building that has no architectural appeal for that of a historical neighborhood. What obligations do you have to the long time homeowners, renters, and businesses in that neighborhood who support San Rafael ? What right does the City of San Rafael have to disrupt so v iolently th is small neighborhood? What of all the vehicles? What do you say to the businesses already established there for over 50 years that lend to the community and unique feel when you all but end any possible parking for their customers? This is a quaint neighborhood that has squeezed as much as it can out of its limited area and still is a function ing neighborhood. Beyond the overcrowding , Shaver Street and 3rd is an unsafe corner. The turn for Shaver comes up qu ickly and many times I have almost been back ended slowing down to turn onto that street. Not to mention any pedestrians trying to cross there. You take your life into your harids when walking across 3rd street as the corner is at a blind intersection. Add up to 26 more cars into the equation turning onto that street, attempting to pull into the limited 7 parking spaces , and conversely turning to pull out of that property! This is a disaster in the making. As a long time resident of San Anselmo since 1964, and a homeowner in Gerstle Park since 1993, I'm saddened to see the county I love continue to make moves that go against the city and the people who live and pay taxes here. It's completely understandable the need for more housing. Surely there are properties vacant that are a better fit for this proposal? What about the corner of 5th and Lincoln ? What about turning some of the abundance of office space into apartments? What about the closed up stereo repair next to Ritter House? What about more live/work apartments on 4th street? Why is it our own C ity Council abusively approves a building of in a small and quaint neighborhood that they wou ld not want being bu il t next to their own homes? Adjustments MUST be made to this initial plan. And as well as hopefully the alteration of this plan, why is it that the utility on Shaver with the large fenced In yard that never has vehicles in it, not encouraged to open up that parking to the neighborhood? I hope the City of San Rafael will reconsider and save our historical neighborhoods I Pamela Giusto-Sorrells 1 2 Steve. Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (4 15) 827-3806 From: Tom Cummings Lindsay Lara Monday, May 11 , 2020 9:09 AM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: 104 Shaver Development Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 3:34 PM To: <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Development Dear City of San Rafael - ; City Clerk Please reconsider the size of this development. I don't believe you realize how desperately inadequate existing parking is on Latham Street. My wife and I have lived at or the past 23 yea rs. Many times we have found our driveway blocked by patrons of Po nsford's Bakery at Shaver and Latham . If we find a strange car blocking our driveway my practice is to walk the half block to the bakery and announce loudly that such-and- such car is blocking us in or out and I'm about to call the cops. The city has basically turned Latham Street into a free parking lot for 4th Street businesses by designating our street a 3 day parking area. Consequently numerous employees of 4th Street businesses arrive at Latham Street between 6 and 8am, as the residents of Latham Street leave for work, and grab their free parking spot for the day. l n addition, many smart phone parking apps like Way and Parkito direct folks looking for free parking to Latham Street, so even folks unfamiliar with the neighborhood are directed to our street for park ing. Finally, as a 2 car family w ith a small driveway, occasionally I've been forced to park on the street blocking my own driveway because there's literally no other place to park for blocks around. There are two little red zones on either side of our driveway. Our driveway is small so if I block it I'm a foot or more in a red zone . Twice I've been ticketed for parking in a red zone, which is simply outrageous because I'm blocking MY OWN DR IVEWAY When I visited City Hall to complain I was told there was nothing they could do. If the mayor got a ticket for blocking his own driveway I bet something could be done about it. Thus it goes in the endless Latham Street parking battles. Please pay attention to the people that live on this street! Thank you, ~~~ Tom Cummings 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:19 AM To: Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice Subject: FW: concern over safety issues at the comer of 3rd St. and Shaver Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Rebecca Vollmer Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 1:29 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: concern over safety issues at the corner of 3rd St. and Shaver Dear San Rafael City Council, I am a resident of San Rafael and am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose the multi story, multi unit apartment building planned for this small sweet neighborhood. As a regular visitor of the bakery on Shaver St. I know that there is already a lot of traffic going through this small neighborhood. Such a large structure with so many units will over load this area , bringing more traffic issues than there already are. Please, please re-evaluate the plan to replace a single family house with a huge apartment building . I can be reached a Sincerely, Rebecca Vollmer and my address is San Rafael, CA 94901. 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:29 AM To: Raffi Bo loyan; Steve Stafford; A licia Giudice Subject: FW: A request for a project o n Shaver street to be re -evaluated Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office : (41 5) 485-3 065 Mobile: (4 15) 827-3806 From: Betsyann Gallaghe Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8 :25 AM To: City Clerk <Ci ty.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate .Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org>; im Schutz <Jim.Schutz@cityofsanrafael.org>; Paul Jen sen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Fwd: A request for a project on Shaver street to be re-evaluated From: Betsyann Gallagher Date: May 6, 2020 at 8 :18:59 AM PDT T . . . Cc Subject: A request for a project on Shaver street to be re-evaluated Dear San Rafael City Council, Please re -evaluate the project of growth and the knocking down of an old home and replacing it with a 3 story, 7 unit apartment building in the neighborhood of Shaver street. The parking is a lready bad in this neighborhood and this new building will add more cars on the street. Can they built parking under the building for the new tenants? This would be reasonable when t hey are adding so many new dwellings to the space. Everyone has cars, and cars need space to park. Just add parking und er the new building! What is driving this growth in an already crowded neighborhood? Are they thinking about the charm of this neighborhood? Are they respecting the neighbors? I have friends who live off of Shaver street and when I visit them it is a lready ha rd to park and I must drive around for a while before I find a place . I am also a customer at the bakery, Ponsford's Pla ce, and parking is again an issue. Please re-evaluate this building project! Stop this monstrosity! Betsyann Gallagher Bolinas, Ca , 94924 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 Lindsay Lara Monday, May 4 , 2020 10:34 AM Raffi Boloyan Steve Stafford FW: Project 104 Shaver ----Original~ From: Su Yi ----- Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:29 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Project 104 Shaver Hi Lindsay Lara- I have reached out to you re-my parking concerns as a small neighborhood tenant in downtown San Rafael. My husband and I have raised our kids here ..... this is a well bike ridden area especially for kids that attend Davidson middle school, Sunvalley elementary and San Rafael high school. More cars more concerns for the children that ride their bi kes to school. I also want to convey to the city council a few other things re this apartment complex project issue. Shaver and Latham Street are so narrow and dangerous for pedestrians, bikes and cars. We have lived here for almost 15 years and I have almost hit a person while driving down 3rd Street. It was a sunny day, I was making that right turn onto Shaver and a car was tailgating me. I did not see the man who was going to cross the street but luckily he was able to foresee that I was unable to stop and waited for me to make that narrow turn. Whew! I have also heard similar stories from neighbors . . And that staggered stoplight on 3rd and 2nd Street have caused a few bottlenecks for drivers as well... .. This neighborhood has many residents that are not single family dwellings already. I understand we need more affordable housing in the Bay Area but the city needs to respect the people that already live here. With all that has been sent to you regarding issues with this apartment project, I hope the city of San Rafael will at least PULL OUT THE 2 HOUR PARKING restrictions on 3rd Street between E and G Street SO WE CAN COME HOME AND NOT WQRRY 'ABOUT TRYING TO FIND LEGAL PARKING WHERE WE LIVE especially because more residents work from home these days . Thank you for listening ... Respectfully, Su Yi and Ed Ford Thank you, Su Su Yi • New York, NY • 10016 • 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara , CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Message----- From: Connie Green< Lindsay Lara Monday, May 4, 2020 12:17 PM Raffi Boloyan; Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice FW: Opposition to build 3 story apartment building in San Rafael , CA Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 8:26 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Opposition to build 3 story apartment building in San Rafael, CA To: The City of San Rafael Re : Proposed building of Apartment building on corner of 3rd Street and Shaver Street From: Connie Green -Former tenant at 111 Shaver Street I ask for the Town of San Rafael to re-evaluate the building of a 3 story apartment building in this densely populated neighborhood. This is a community of residents who have lived here for many years. The streets are tree lined, and children ride their bikes, while others push baby carriages or walk their pets. It is a very busy, pedestrian area. There is also NO parking available on most days, not even for the residents as they return home from work. When the Ponsford Place bakery is open, the parking problem is further problematic. Please reconsider the building of this apartment building. I ask you to think about the community, and the people who have made their homes here . Thank you . 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 .Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: candace Yoshida < Lindsay Lara Monday, May 4, 202012:17 PM Steve Stafford; Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan FW: 104 Shaver St. Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 3 :26 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver St. Dear Planning Commission: I live at issues. and I protest the size of the proposed building on Shaver due to the parking problems and safety The turn onto Shaver from 3rd is quite hazardous. I am 75 and walk a lot. I was crossing Shaver from the east side at 3rd, stepped off the curb, and a car turned the corner at the same time and hit me. I fell back on my bottom and fortunately just had a few scratches. Davidson bicyclists ride their bikes down Latham on weekdays and turn on Shaver to cross 3rd and 2nd streets. These children already have a difficult time maneuvering through the morning traffic on Shaver and the intersections. This is a very dangerous intersection. Please reconsider the size of this project and increase onsite parking for the safety of the residents and school kids. Sincerely, Candace Yoshida 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (41 5) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Tenney Ford< Lindsay Lara Monday, M ay 4, 2020 12:17 PM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice FW: Project at 104 Shaver. Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:44 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Fw: Project at 104 Shaver. - 0 -• Forwarded Messj ae -- From: Tenney Ford • To: city .clerck2@cityofsanreafael.org <city.clerck2@cityofsanreafael.org> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020, 11 :38:20 AM PDT Subject: Project at 104 S haver. I've written on this topic once before. With this email I will have fully expressed myself. I'd like to know why this project needs to be so large at the expense of so many in our neighborhood? At this time there is one unit on the property,. If the project was scaled down to 4-5 units with 8 off- street parking spaces, it would mean a 4-5 fold increase in units and not too much negative impact to the neighborhood. Why can't the project be scaled back? . The intersection of 3rd & Shaver is a problem, especial with so many more cars that will be coming and going with all the new units on that corner. Many times in my years on Latham St I've been coming WB on 3rd and had my turn onto Shaver blocked by traffic, especially if there is a truck, waiting for the red light on SB Shaver to change. Shaver is a ve·ry narrow street and one must excersize a great deal of care, especially after dark and when raining. With the WB traffic coming down the hill on 3rd close behind me, I'm always worried that someone not paying attention will rear- end me as I slow to turn carefully. I've had to continue on to Hayes to turn .right and it presents the same hazard of getting rear-ended, plus the approach to my house is more danger9us from Hayes than from Shaver. I've seen some accidents in my years here. A final word about the petition being signed in hard copy. I know that at least 3 neighbors would like to sign it, but are afraid to go out to sign the petition because of the Covid situation. They even have their groceries delivered. Please, if this project is approved as the builders want, can't we at least have the 2-hour parking limit removed from 3rd St between E St and G St? Its would help a great deal. City governments are supposed to help with problems in the comm~nity, not make them worse. Thank you for the chance to express my concerns . A. Tenney Ford 1 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From : Ceyrena Kay < Lindsay Lara Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:19 PM Raffi Boloyan; Alicia Giudice; Steve Stafford FW : In Support of 104 Shaver St multi-family housing Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:55 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: In Support of 104 Shaver St multi-family housing To Whom It May Concern: It's come to my attention that some of my neighbors are against this project and are doing their best to be vocal about thei r opposition. Since it's always those against something that are louder and more motivated, I wanted to take the opportunity to say that I fully support building more multi-family housing in this area and thi s project in particular. I live a block away and was happy to see that this difficult lot was going to be developed into multi-family housing. Although some of their concerns, such as traffic turning onto Shaver from 3rd St, is valid, in general the scale and scope of this housing Unit would be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood and great use of that very challenging corner lot. I hope that the planning department will be thoughtful and proactive about addressing traffic concerns for the area but I have full confidence that the benefits of this project outweigh any minor inconven iences that may arise for us as neighbors. Please don't let a vocal minority of NIMBY activists get in the way of much needed housing projects. I hope that me taking the time to wri te this email is representative o f a m uch larger silent majority that supports progress and growth in our community. Sincerely, Ceyrena Kay Ceyrena Kay Steve Stafford From: Lindsay La ra Sent: Tuesday, April 21 , 2020 10:06 AM To: Raffi Boloyan; Steve Stafford; A licia Gi udice Subject: FW: APPEAL to 104 Shaver Street project, San Rafae l Lindsay Lara, CM~. CPMC Office: (41 5) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Donni Uzarski Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:11 PM To: City Clerk <City .Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Fwd: APPEAL to 104 Shaver Street project, San Rafael This was sent to me by former Planning Commissioner Gayle Wittenmeier-Mills. I would like it included with my appeal letter of 104 Shaver Street. Donni ---------Forwarded message -s- From: George and Gayle Mills Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3 :25 PM Subject: Fwd: APPEAL to 104 Shaver Street project, San Rafael To Donni, If this letter is helpful, feel free to use it. I tried sending it to the City Clerk, but it bounced back. Good luck, Gayle Mills Begin forwarded message: From: George and Gayle Mills Subject: APPEAL to 104 Shaver Street project, San Rafael Date: April 20, 2020 at 12:18:40 PM PDT To: cityclerk2@cityofsanrafael.org To: San Rafael Planning Commissioners and Members of the San Rafael City Council Re: 104 Shaver Street Project Date: April 20, 2020 Dear Commissioners and City Council: 1 As a former San Rafael Planning Commiss ioner, I would like to support the owner, Donni Uzarski donniuza@gmail.com, in his/her appeal r egarding the project at 104 Shaver Street. This letter is in response to Uzarski's letter, not to my own review of t he project. I have lived in San Rafael over 50 years, mostly in the West End /Sun Valley areas, and know Mahone Creek, the name of that underground st ream cited by Uzarsk i. It begins at the Tamalpais Cemetery and, before mitigation done in my Sun Valley ne ighborhood in the last few years, frequently flooded various locations along 5th Avenue . I can well imagine the f looding in Uzarski's neighborhood and support the need for hydrology and soils reports. I have also frequented Ponsford's Bakery, at the corner of Latham and Shaver, risking life and limb to make the t ight turns into and o ut of Shaver. I agree with Uzarski that decrea se in street parking and increase in the numbers of ingress and egress from Shaver to 2nd and 3rd would only increase vehicular dangers. A traffic study would be prudent before approv ing this project. "Can this project have fewer units to enable full respon sibility for all their tenant parking and not cramming the property beyond established legal setbacks?" Uzarski's concerns are valid and significant. I would also ask planning commissioners to evaluate the entry/exit points for on-site parking. As commissi oners know, both Shaver and Latham are very narrow streets, impacted by on-street parking a lready. An additional 13 cars seeking entrance onto either of these streets should trigger a traffic study. In closing, I would like to say that the cu rrent Latham/Shaver neighborhood is a city treasure. Its existing housing stock of historic homes with a corner bakery harkens back to another age, yet at the same time, offers residents exactly what today's city leaders look for in ideal living conditions: pedestrian proxim i ty to transportation, services and the heart of the ci ty. I encourage the planning commission and ci ty council t o protect this small, neighborhood gem by fol.lowing best planning practices. By putt ing valid concerns of existing neighbors who know the area intimately, before the requests of a developer, city leaders will earn the trust and respect of its citizens as well as responsible developers who want to improve, not denigrate, the charm and living experiences in existing neighborhoods. Yours truly, Gayle Wittenmeier-Mills Former San Rafael Planning Commissioner San Rafael, CA 94901 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -30 65 Mobile: (415) 827 -3806 From: Sunny Lee Lindsay Lara Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:40 PM Alicia Giudice; Raffi Boloyan; Steve Stafford FW: 104 Shaver Street approved plan for 7-unit 2-bedroom apartments complex Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 11:33 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org>; Gary Phillips <Gary.Phillips@cityofsanrafael.org>; Kate Colin <Kate.Colin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Maribeth Bushey <Maribeth.Bushey@cityofsanrafael.org>; John Gamblin <John.Gamblin@cityofsanrafael.org>; Andrew McCullough <Andrew.McCullough@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Donni Uzarski Subject: 104 Shaver Street approved plan for 7-unit 2 -bedroom apartments complex Hello All, Hope this email finds you all well and safe. Thanks for your time reading this in advance. I'm writing to send my deep concern regarding the approved plan for 104 Shaver Street -the large 7-unit 2-bedroom apartment complex currently with only 6 onsite parking space . I have my close associate lives on Latham St, I am having very difficult time to find a parking space along Latham street every time we have to be at her place to work together. New apartment will burden many residents. There's already exasperated right turn situation {110 degree angle) from 3rd Street to Shaver Street. And there are not enough room for 2 vehicles to pass each other due to parked vehicles on both sides of sidewalks. If there 's a vehicle waiting signal already, vehicle turning onto Shaver will have to wait along 3rd street corner and it's dangerous. Unfortunately, many houses in this neighborhood has been ~uilt without a garage and many don't offer driveway between the buildings. I hope you'd actually go to this neighborhood and wa lk from Shaver to Latham street to count houses with garages/driveways. My associate tells me many employees from the businesses along 4th street park all day at Shaver and Latham streets. Please reconsider the number of onsite parking of the new apartment complex. This is directly impact my work with my associate resides on Latham street. I wish I have known about this approved design plan early on, but it just got my attention on Friday. We are all very busy working parents. I'm sorry to say but it's not easy to be at the 7pm council meetings to learn about planning revi ew and · express o.ur concerns. We hope there's a better way to communicate to the residents early on for such large building like this. Sincerely, 1 Sunny l ee 2 Steve Stafford From: Lind say Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:02 PM G Schlegel Subject: RE: Appeal of deci si on to allow 7 apartment devel o pment of 104 Shaver Stre et Hi Gretel -The deadline to file an appea l is today at 5 p.m. Are you interested in filing? If so, please follow the instructions below: 1. Submit a letter outli ning specific rea sons/points for appeal (we need specific reason) and name and contact info of appellant(s) 2 . Submit the appeal fee for CC appeal o $350 is they are a resident o $4,476 if they are a non-resident Due to Covid-19 our offices are closed; however, there is a drop box located right outside the doors in the back parking lot. You are welcome to drop your letter and the check in the drop-box, and let me know i t was subm i tted. We will accept your appeal as complete when we receive it. Another option is that you can email me your letter and put the check in the mail to the City Clerk's office. Either one is fine with me. Thank you! Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Offi ce: (415) 485 -3065 M o bile: (415) 827-3806 From: G Schlegel Sent: Tuesday, Apn 1, To: City Clerk <City .Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Appeal of decision to allow 7 apartment development of 104 Shaver Street To Whom It May Concern: As a re sident on Shaver street a few blocks down from the p,ropo sed apartment at 104, I am opposed to any project being built without adequate on-si te parking. The businesses on 4th St reet do not have adequate park i ng, so their overflow fills the neighborhood of Latham and Shaver Streets; this occurs day and night, since the Mayflower Inn operates well into the evening. The homes on Latham and Shaver by and large do not have much, if any, off-street parking, so the residents must al ready compete with the business traffic for parking spaces . There are many nights returning from work that I cannot find parking near my home and have to pa rk many b locks away or in the 2 hour parking on F street and then have to relocate my car if possible. There are many times returning from grocery shopping that I have to park many blocks away and try to navigate getting everything home. 1 The proposed development at 104 Shaver Street will exacerbate this situation. Thi s was a single family home on the corner of 3rd Street and Shaver. There is no parking on 3rd Street. Adding eight units to the neighborhood, with only seven parking spaces is wholly inadequate. A single family residence will often !louse two adults, each with their own vehicle. An eight unit project should offer 16 parking spaces at a minimum for their residents and guests. If this project is allowed to proceed, we would request that the City consider some sort of parking limitation in our neighborhood. Either reserved parking for each resident outside their home, or neighborhood parking permits with no other parking allowed. Business customers will have to use the metered parking on 4th Street if the businesses do not have on- site parking. But that is what they should do, rather than taking up our neighborhood parking. Future tenants of the proposed development should be denied parking permits for the Shaver/Latham neighborhood, as they already have what the City of San Rafael apparently considers adequate parking on their premises . This neighborhood is made up of single family homes; putting in eight apartment units should not be allowed by zoning . It will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, many of whose re sidents have been living here for decades. This project as described will destroy any ability of neighborhood residents to park in their own neighborhood. Many residents only have on-street parking and must depend on the space in front of their homes being available. This is already strained by the overflow from 4th Street; I implore the City to not add to thi s burden by approving this project. This apa rtment complex should not be allowed to proceed due to the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood. But if it is allowed to proceed, I hope the City will take these concerns seriously and address them during the planning and building phase of this project. The intersection must be made sa fe. And parking must be r eserved for residents of this neighborhood. Sincerely, Gretel Schlegel, DVM 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 9:13 AM Te rry Odgers RE: Attachment to Appeal filed by Donni Uzarski regarding project at 104 Shaver St. San Rafael Thank you for writing to us . I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is fil ed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. Lindsay Lara , CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Origi nal Messag From: Terry Odgers Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:00 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Attachment to Appeal filed by Donni Uzarski regarding project at 104 Shaver St. San Rafael City of San Rafael Regarding the proposed project at 104 Shaver St. in San Rafael, I would like to express my concerns regarding safety and parking. The proposed project will have a new wide driveway located on Shaver St. very close to Third St., which is a very busy intersection. Vehicles often travel West on Third St. at a fairly high rate of speed, and often make a right turn onto Shaver St. This will no doubt increase the leve l of danger at that intersection, as their are currently many families with young children that use these streets for walking and biking. The proposed new driveway would eliminate two existing street parking spaces from an already overcrowded street, that cannot afford to lose any existing parking spaces . The proposed new 7 unit building, having mostly two bedroom units, will potentially have 12 to 14 resident vehicles, and with only 7 proposed new parking spaces in the building, the additional vehicles will be attempting to park on the overcrowded street, a street that will be los ing 2 existing spaces (new driveway). With currently only 7 spaces proposed, where are the residents guests supposed to park? I know many current residents already need to park some distance from their residents because they are unable to park on their block. My opinion is the project should have less units with more parking spaces for res idents and their guests, and the parking spaces should be able to accomodate full sized vehicles and not just a compact vehicle. Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 9:10 AM Meg Reilly RE: 104 Shaver St -Parking Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Meg Reilly Sent: Friday, Apri W I , ,. .,. To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver St -Parking Dear Sir: I believe appeal and further review of this project is needed. Parking is already oversubscribed in the project area. More off street parking should be incorporated into this project. Senior Planner, Steve Stafford (415) 485-3066 is handling this project. Thank you. Meg Reilly 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Monday, April 20, 2020 9:20 AM Paula Doub leday Subject: RE: 104 Shaver St project Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. Lindsay Lara, CMC. CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (4 15) 827-3806 From: Paula Doubleday Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 9 :55 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver St project I'm writing in support of the 104 Shaver St. project. I've read through the whole staff report and think this is the perfect solution at this location. I few months ago when we could gather at meetings, I attended two housing workshops with the City Planning department. What i learned was the difficulty in getting projects completed to add to our huge housing need in San Rafael. This project meets those goals by making small concessions (changing park ing spot sizing, 2 ft. setback allowance next to a parking lot, etc.) that help make the project affordable. Let's not stop these projects that have taken so long (with no neighborhood objections) and get the construction moving. I don't understand how this is not a win-win for the neighborhood and this tough triangular lot. Bringing small families to our downtown neighborhood increases community activity, people walking and biking, using our local businesses. All good things for Downtown. Please deny this appeal and let this project proceed. Paula Doubleday San Rafae l 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 9:20 AM Tenney Ford RE: Project at 104 Shaver St. Thank you for writing to us. I will be forward ing your correspondence to Pl an ning Divi sion staff so that i n the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed . Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (4 15) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Te nney Ford Sen_t: Sunday, April 19, 2020 11:57 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Proj ect at 104 Shaver St. My name is A.Tenney Ford and I live at just around the corner from the project. My home phone is I and email at I am very distressed that the developer is only planning 1 off-street parking space per unit. The parking in this ne ighborhood is very tight and hard to find. We are just off the main commercial district of Fourth St and lots of people who have business on Fourth St park hereabouts because it is free and unlimited. On normal days, particularly weekdays , parking is hard to find. One must often park out on Third St where there is a 2-hour limit. If there are to be 7 units, we are looking at the necessity of parking probably 4 or more vehicles on the street. The streets in this neighborhood are narrow and often 2 cars can't pass , and when there are trucks it is not easy, to say the least. And those 4 or more extra vehicles on the street are in addition to our already over-crowded parking problem. I'd be willing to bet that nobody f rom the City has been down here to look at the situation on a normal weekday . I think that the developer should be required to provide MORE than the 8 off-street spaces required, rather than the 7 they want a variance for. At the very least, the City should remove the 2-hour limit along Third St west of E St all the way to H St. It would seem that the developer is seeking to make a lot of money at the expense of the people who live here. Thank you for considering the situation here that we must endure every day. A. Tenney Ford 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 12:35 PM Deborah Beckman RE: 104 Shaver St Project Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal Is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-38 06 From: Deborah Beckman Sent: Monday, April 20 , 2020 11:31 AM To: Sirima Pinit <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael .org>; donniuzaj@gmail.com Subject: 104 Shaver St Project ; City Clerk My letter to city clerk of San Rafael, as a home owner on Latham street, is one of disappointment of the people in charge of this project. The parking component of this project is way detrimental to the people that live in the neighborhood and surrounding streets. Finding and financing additional housing is something we all want, so people can live and work in San Rafael. But, okaying limited parking for the units being built, is poor planning and will eventually lead to painful traffic results and the lessening of a lovely residential neighborhood. All this for more property taxes. You may; as poor planners, get away with This now, but this is nothing to be proud of. You could have done better. 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 12:35 PM Jill Warren RE: Re project at Shaver and 3rd st Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing ~n appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 · Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: Jill Warre Sent: Monday, Apri 20, 2020 10:46 AM To Cc Su I • • • 'I.I • • .. • • • . . ..... . . . . .,~ ... Dear City Clerk, I have been made aware of the limitations regarding the planned construction at 104 Shaver St in San Rafael. I would also like to appeal the plan, as it does not appear to take various factors into consideration. I agree with the points made by residents of Shaver St, Donni Uzarski and her sister, Dale Wallis. 1) The parking in the area is a problem, especially as, even though there will be parking for 7 at the location, 6 of the apartments will be 2 bedroom, so there would need to be more spaces avai lable. Parking in the area is at a premium. 2) The street is already narrow and it would be hazardous for cars turning onto Shaver from 3rd St encountering ones exiting #104. 3) The water issues mentioned in Donni's email are definitely a concern. It would be a shame to push this project forward in this t ime of Stay At Home, which limits full participation in meetings. San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lind say Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 9:19 AM Tom Cummings RE: 104 Shaver Street Parking Thank you for writing to us . I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Divi sion staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed . Undsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (41 5) 485 -306 5 Mobile: (41 5) 82 7-3806 From : Tom Cummings Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 8 :20 AM To: Terri Cummings Subject: 104 Shave r Street Parking City Clerk <City.Clerk2@ci tyofsanrafae l.org> I live at around the corner from 104 Shaver. There is NO parking on either of these streets. The City o f San Rafael has already basically turned our historic little neighborhood into a parking lot for 4th Street by zon ing Latham Street 36 hour parking, thus encouraging 4th Street day workers to park on Latham Street all day for free. If Ci ty Hall allows a 7 parking spot variance for 104 Shaver Street, you will be making a bad situation worse . Latham Street should be zoned 2 hour parking except for residents, that would force day workers to use the City parking garages located on 4th Street and add to the City's coffers. Don't believe me? Try driving Latham Street mid-week and trying to find a parking place. You won't find one. Sincerely, Tom Cummings -omeowner 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Monday, April 20, 2020 9:12 AM Cindy Clawson RE: Attachment to the appeal fi led by Donni Uzarski regarding the project at 104 shaver st. Thank you for writing to us , I w ill be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instructi on on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara , CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Origi nal Message-- From: Cindy Clawson Sent: Saturdav, To : City Clerk Subject: Attachment to the appeal filed by Donni Uzarski regarding the project at 104 shaver st. Dear city council, I am the owner o nd would like to voice my concerns about the proposed project at 104 Shaver street. 1. Safety. The parking garage as designed sits near the corner of Third and Shaver. The parking garage allowing 7 compact spaces is designed as a entrance and a exit with only enough space for one car to do so at a time. This means cars may be trying to enter and exit the garage at the same time, possibly having to wait on Shaver St. The garage is designed such that some of the spaces/cars may actually have to back out onto Shaver st. since there is not enough turn around space in the underground parking structure. Cars typically are driving down Third St. at a high rate of speed as they turn onto Shaver street. This is the exact corner the proposed garage opening will be. This will be a huge problem and dangerous as cars may be trying to exit and enter the building. 2. Parking. The street parking in the area is very limited. The proposed building garage will be taking away at least 2 street parking spaces on Shaver street. The lack of park ing is complicated by the fact that Third street has a 2 hour parking limit and that most of the houses·, built around 1900, have limited or no off street parking. Allowing 7 two bedroom units with only 7 mostly compact parking spaces, with no guest parking, will send an overflow of cars onto the street to find parking that is already overcrowded. Assuming most two bedroom units will have at least 2 occupants it is naive to assume they will only have one car. Please reconsider the size, number of units and parking involved with this project. Thanks for your consideration. ~ San Rafael Ca . 94903 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Monday, April 20, 2020 9:11 AM Jenny Kerr Subject: RE: 104 Shaver Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be Included In the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 48 5-306 5 Mobile: (415 ) 827 -3806 From: Jenny Kerr Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:29 PM To : City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Fwd: 104 Shaver ----------Forwarde From: Jenny Kerr . .. . ~ ... Date: Thu, Apr 16, Subject: 104 Shaver • • • A l l'. To : city.cler k2 @cityofsanrafael.com <city.c1 erk2 @c ityof san rafael.com> Dear City Clerk, I am a Gerstle Park resident and am writing to request that the decision to construct the seven -unit bu ilding project at 104 Shaver be appealed. This project clearly will be a detriment to the neighborhood for numerous reasons, at least being in adequate parking. It was passed as an add itional tax revenue without due consideration of the negative impact on the neighborhood or its residents . Thank you in adyance for considering your civic duty. Sincerely, Jennifer Kerr San. Rafael, CA 94901 l April 18, 2020 San Rafael Planning Commission Community Development Department 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Via email city.clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org Re: Appeal of decision to allow 7 apartment development of 104 Shaver Street To Whom It May Concern: I live at and I am deeply concerned about the proposed apartment development on the corner of Shaver and 3rd Streets. Parking is already difficult and extremely limited in our neighborhood, day and night, seven days a week. This is a particular hardship for many of my neighbors who are elderly and longtime residents of the neighborhood. These folks need to be able to park in close proximity to their homes, and they deserve the opportunity to do so. Adding an apartment complex with seven two-bedroom residences and only seven on-site parking spots will certainly increase the number of cars that will compete for street parking. It is unreasonable to assume that each of the seven households in the development w i ll only own one vehicle. If this project is allowed to proceed, I would urge the City to consider some sort of parking limitation in our neighborhood. Perhaps reserved parking for each resident outside their home, or neighborhood parking permits with no other parking allowed. In addition to the impact on street parking, the.precise location of the development will only intensify the danger of what is already a dicey traffic situation. The intersection in question where this apartment complex will be built is a blind, sharp corner regarding the turn onto Shaver Street. It is also at the bottom of a hill descent. The planned building will likely block the view of residents leaving Shaver onto 3rd Street, and people turning right may not see oncoming traffic due to the obstruction. There is also an inherent bottleneck created when vehicles are waiting at the stoplight on Shaver. This problem will be exacerbated by further blinding the turn with an apartment building at 104 Shaver Street, and the driveway outlet at that corner to allow seven vehicles to enter and leave into an already precarious situation. Adding a visual obstruction that adds more traffic to that particular corner and our neighborhood is a recipe for disaster. If this project is allowed to proceed, there should be updates to the speed limit, enforcement, and traffic and pedestrian light controls to make the intersection safer. We should not have to wait for accidents to start happening before there is a response. Sincerely, Charles B. Wilson Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:45 AM Angela Tucker Subject: RE: 104 Shaver Street Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will let you know how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: {415) 827-3806 -----Original Message--- From: Angela Tucker Sent: Thursday, April f 11 W • W. a • To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Street To whom it may concern, I live downtown, so I know there is a shortage of parking in that area. We do not want an apartment building at that corner. Angela Tucker 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:46 AM lydia Subject: RE: 104 Shaver Street. Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: lydia Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:57 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Street. My name is Lydia Lee. I live at Shaver and Latham are streets used by people that work downtown as free parking streets. Most of the housing on Shaver and Latham have no off street parking. Parking is already over impacted. The new building will have at least two cars per unit with only one parking place allotted to it. This means that in addition to all the extra downtown people we will have at least an additional 7 cars with no parking . They are actually moving the driveway and by doing that we are going to lose a parking place we currently have. If we leave our house around 8 AM and come back within an hour there is no parking on Shaver or Latham to park. There is parking usually on 3td street but it is 2 hour parking. It is inconvenient to have to remember to go and move your car. It is easy to get busy and forget that your car is in a ticketed spot. In addition , in the evening it is already hard to get a spot if you don't get here within a short time after the workers leave. By adding a minimum of 7 new families it is going to make it almost impossible. Before this went to design review I went to every house in the neighborhood and all but one person signed a petition to fight the lack of parking for the new project. I went to every house in a two block radius. We understand that the property needs to show a return on investment but the community that lives here deserves some consideration as well. I have spoken to the parking enforcement officer that works our street. She told me that if we had permit parking the cost would be $500 per car per year. We are all renters on this street and and additional $1000 a year would be prohibitive. A price of $25.00 per car would be more reasonable. That would cover the cost of printing and processing the paperwork. It would serve the community. I would suggest to alleviate some if the parking problems that 3rd, Shaver and Latham Streets be made into permit parking streets with a two hour limit for none permit holders Monday through Friday . This would allow residents to park closer to their homes. Currently while downtown is closed there is no parking problem on Shaver or Latham. Thank you for your consideration . .. Sent via the Samsung Ga laxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:46 AM Su Yi ; City Clerk Subject: RE: 104 Shaver Street . Thank you for writing to us . I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appea l, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 ---Original~ From:SuYi .._....... Sent: Thursday, April 16, 20201:40 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject : 104 Shaver Street To whom this may concern- As a person who lives a block away from 104 Shaver- The parking is a VERY VERY BIG CONCERN!!! If this apartment building is going to go up-the city needs to do something re the parking situation!!! Take away the 2hour parking situation on 3rd street for those people who will reside there .... for two blocks and give the people who live around here the option for yearly parking permits! I!!! It's getting outrageous that in the suburbs -we can not find parking! l I l And also you need to change back the timing on those lights between 3rd and 2nd Street via Shaver! 11 ! A concerned neighbor on Latham Street- Su Yi Sent from my iPhone 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, Apri l 17, 2020 9:47 AM Marcia King Subject: RE: 3rd & Shaver Deve lopment Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Divi sion staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 ----Original Mess-e----- From: Marcia Kin Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:37 PM To: City Clerk <C ity.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 3rd & Shaver Development I've just been .made aware of the size of this development and the inadequate parking provisions for it. PLEASE imagine that YOU or YOUR RELATIVE live on Shaver or in neighborhood and approve what you would want. So not cool to h;we to park far away at night or with groceries, which I've experienced already living just 2 blocks away. PLEASE insist upon underground parking or 2 spaces per 2 bdrm apt., plus several guest spots as well. Thi s is not close enough to downtown or transit center to presume car-less tenants. The setback variance is also not good for visibility. The apartments just up the road are flush with 3rd but the home across the street is set back, so not the same situation. I know we need housing and soon but it needs to be workable for all concerned, not just developer pockets! I look forward to hearing about/seeing the revised plans! Thank you community members, for doing the right thing. Marcia King 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:44 AM Candace Yoshida Subject: RE: 104 Shaver St. Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will let you know how to proceed . Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 M obile: (415) 827-3806 From: candace Yoshida Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 9 :54 AM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver St. Dear City Clerk, I want to go on record to p rotest the large condo project approved at 104 Shaver St. I live around the corner on Latham and drive and/or walk down Shaver every day. I have had to pull into someone's driveway to allow the cars to pass coming the other way. The street is tiny and should probably be a one way street. Trucks often get caught there and no one can get through. In addition, this area is one of the worst the parking areas in San Rafael and you want to reduce the condo parking requirements? Why? Shaver St. at 3rd and 2nd has gridlock occur several times a week. Middle School bicyclists from the whole West End area use Latham and Shaver. They have to dodge the morning commute cars which is quite dangerous as it is now. Yes, we need more housing and I do not object to a few condos there, but please reduce the number of uni ts! Sincerely, Candace Yoshida San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Friday, April 17, 2020 9:47 AM martha RE : To City of San Rafael Planning Department and City Clerk Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: martha Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:42 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: To City of San Rafael Planning Department and City Clerk April 16, 2020 I live barely two blocks from 104 Shaver Street and travel almost daily in this neighborhood via electric wheelchair. I see many middle school children on bikes having to cross here every day to and from school. There are other little old men and women like me who must use this comer to cross the street. Also a lot of nannies pushing babies and t oddlers across here. We're all nervous about your plans to build a multi unit apartment bldg. WITH ONLY STREET parking at this corner. Bad idea. That comer i s already dangerous. You know that I am very concerned that this project plans on encroaching outside of standard setbacks and does not plan to improve the tight comer on Shaver and 3rd Street. It is a very dangerous location because it is not a 90 degree angle for drivers turning off of 3rd. I t will be a completely blind corner from 3d to Shaver and Shaver to 3d, West. I have witnessed several accidents at this specific location because o f the angle of the turn and because Shaver Street is quite narrow. This is a wonderful, neighborhood already burdened with inadequate parking spaces. It includes a fabulous bakery, Ponds ford Place. The lack of parking availability greatly impacts potential customers trying to frequent this local jewel. There is N O parking around here and you are planning to add to the problem. I am hoping further conversation will happen before there is a death o r more at this location. I imagine the city will be held responsible in such a case. Thank you for your time, ~ San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lin dsay Lara Friday, April 17, 2020 9 :47 AM ben madrigali; City Clerk RE : In protest of proposed development at 104 Shaver St. Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff so that in the event an appeal is filed your correspondence will be included in the staff report. If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will provide instruction on how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (4 15) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 From: ben madrigali Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:53 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael .org> Subject: In protest of proposed development at 104 Shaver St. Good Day, My name is Benjamin M. Madrigali, I live at an Rafael. I am Writing to protest the proposed number of units, and easement adjustments in the development plans for 104 Shaver St. The neighborhood cannot sustain parking for even another potential 2-4 cars, and the corner of third and shaver is already tight and narrow, especially co nsidering the traffic on third. In the interest of the people of San Rafael, placed here in opposition of an out of town developer, please require that the current plans be downsized. With regards, Benjamin M. Madrigali 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent To: Subject Lindsay Lara Friday, April 17, 2020 9:42 AM Doug RE: 104 Shaver Street Thank you for writing to us. I will be forwarding your correspondence to Planning Division staff in the event an appeal is filed If you are interested in filing an appeal, please let me know and I will let you know how to proceed. Lindsay Lara, CMC, CPMC Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 827-3806 -----Original Messa e----- From: Doug Sent: Wednes ay, pn To: City Clerk <City.Clerk2@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 104 Shaver Street Just wanted to lodge my object ion to the permit to turn a single home property into a multiple apartment project in our neighborhood which is already suffering with congestion. It's a nightly fight to find parking. And you're adding Two more cars per apartment to the existing problem. It seems irresponsible to make the congestion worse ... And make exceptions to the zoning for this project. I live just around the corner a San Rafael. I've been here for 20 years and between the homeless roaming our neighborhoods every evening coming on the property and stealing and the la ck of parking on the street the quality-_of-life has declined Dramatically. Doug Neiman l Ma}' 21, 2020 To S:m Rafael Cily Cou1wil, Belween W90 and 2005, I ,ic;ilc<l a dear friend on Shaver Slrcct, al least Lwice a week, on my way to work at Pucci's in Fairfax. I always had to park a block or 2 away, even hack tJ1cn. My liiencl told me then tfott the people that worked on 1"' street parked their cars there all day. My friend also shared with me that several of the single slory homes on Latfoun had been built up Lo make duplexes an<l triplexes in the 70s aud 80s which had started dogging the street'> with more resident ca.rs. I asswne the City of S,m Rafael hm1Cled out pennitc; for the exlra growth, but what did they do to e1_1surc that parking would be available:> Now I hear that someone w:mts to put up an apartment building on the rnmer, but not provide enough parking for tJ1eir lemmtsi'i1 This is a crazy ,md W1sa.le idea! Cars c,m barely drive past each other there without one of them having to pull into a driveway. I avoid these street'>, except Lo go Lo Ponsfords Place, because they arc so constricted. Now there will he MORE c;u-s?i> It makes sense to me that the size of a building should he delenninc<l by how much parking it cm1 provide. Measure twice, cul once. I doubt the building will be tom down once e,·eryone realizes what a mist.ake it was. I support the idea of reevalualing Lhis projecL Otherwise it will impac t the residents day after day, year aft.er year, while the decision makers and the developer can just walk away mid not have to deal with the harm they i.nllict on the neighborhood. Please do the RIGHT thing. F:m -Novato, California 1·, '\ /; r. '~11)00 ·1 \ t[.L,t,J // , L.l.../ L E Y\Ave-lOYlCem ~u{-: -----,........ Sh~ver Stree;f • lex>JiAAN'{ UN rrs • NO· t RAFFlG or<..Pft---- ?--,IS • ...... ---at3 i s {/1 .Yt ✓ SANDOJ\3£P \:-tE:leg~- Wu ./ .~ . n /V N 12 y r::;.~) l-\ ~~l-?1\,\t-~vlL- ~ f o~~\ ✓ M ; I,~ Ho ra.\r\. ~ 11'\ \'i~'Ki>N\. "I ~ ,. ~~ S"'-.,--Q /·A~~ , ~ C>~\\;, \v\ ®YDl-e s , L ,o-.D ✓ ~----' .' D / ~ --- (\ , Y\.-,'r [ /' r ~,l lri'"' / \_'j V\ u v'\.. V\ Ll\ \;, {X t' l ~ ' !fa~ t '~~ ~re:ss We, ha.ve, ~rtWl'l a);; l04 ~a. 1 • (X) M · ~ Units t ~~~ o f\lO 1 RAA=l $1Uv,./ • ND B--..-----~ NO S TOV'f • DAN6El US IN.TERS=Olet'1 ttt'3i ~-ce_ J-f\-r . r.~-··; I I E11 noa ~tl\a /\ . (o.f'v\ C.>.~~1~'-S .. 1f f V 1' L),4 ~ V\I\ l'Nf_J-ta:. , -;\cf ha-ri, e__ \'.'._~ p,R__ ic~ MO\J,· 1 -VL '- ~ti1fR Kf)L('fZ7i .J-\\\ V JY c·\s 13 ( \ "''/\ \) V-V\c c; V'\ .:)f{D i~t /-fl}tci -141 Wen~~ • ot k:)1.1-SY~r~ . q -f •Too Onitsfw-i:.:=:. · ~ • 5--.. ..... d 3mant 6~ • T mff,t ~~ ♦-R AW' lfAS Nor l~N ~ ll·~ E ·, N....,,._, ~ 'W;l~ 00 ~ (_~ -+ ~ ¥; 0-rt l-c l ~~,\ A. . , l C ~ WE bute awe"'7 oh?ot-tk ~F.,.. ~ I 04 5~ Stvee (-\o'l \J •Ta,Matt~Uri.ts -Gr7parb~ s • So.fe1:, a..+ 3M anA. Shawer. . • Traffi" '"1fU,t t p.,-~·,sAs~c~ HA5ND["8~tx>Ncl • N~ 4=wvrss e:NI {&) \ Y~)20ZO(J) Wt!:: M'~concun~tkfu!..~= .. l~ ~ver~d-. -10 S 'tjS • Too l'M.nj Units fi>r 7 ~\~S , • So.fet"'1 a,;t 3~ ~ 6~\eC' • Tro.ffic. \m~ cf Ptttt1 · A c~ ........... #11" HAS Nor BEEN oNC / jN" CP. ivi {6 / .,..,, 6AAf!.iJ t1 NIN if 13 l II\ LCt ~ ~ ~· -s ~\'o~ ~v-L-v {c,""' l~~~'<l3 1 · \\\~,Ut G.l u.~$r-~), rell I {;)A _ / IC f1 (r12 P wo o~J f d.M 0o> !JJ ~ o ~ Ema.ii w~ '1a.ve, conamst.th?vt -f11L.-p~ed; a>t(E) l04 ~er5tvut..;~ (~1. • ~ IMN'I VNms ~ 7 ~~ Sput',S • SAFBI Y aJ-'45n:l../6~d"~ 0 •T~c, l~ t P~t~ A~tMOT s ~AVE Nm: Se&--1 OoNE .1 ~ A~reas ~ w~ Mve CDVlw,"1 Ab)IJ't th~ p~ ~, 04 S\'\A\/o-' anet @ •TOO~ UNITS fl>r7~~~s •SAA:-1" d" 3~/S~ • Tn1ff1C-lm~ ~ P~t11Assessmtnts I-WE, NOT '861:N ~6 ! JI\J /Vic -=--" _J . ['/C( E,'1 (½ .joE u~ARS kl (H} We . vtA.~ @l(UY) o..bout-+~ pt>J!it: • \04S~St • Too MM~ Unit.s for 7 ~~ spues • SAFE IY ~t 3ni/6M~ • Tr~fftc. l mput. • 1'~·'11As~ tV\S Nor SEEN OONE" I a • • No.nie. AG\&rtSS 5~ I ~~ ~Tfl/OJ Jcl"oouJDV LJ:( .. fl_G'-<-l. '6VlV\' m "$ r: S& ~ :.r~~~ t<( ;~-\-/fl ~ f\J , \6(1\ J Wf= ~e.coV\UMS tAbovt. theptb~ --' \ 0 4 ShtA.V~r 5t~d='. •T«>~ UMRS fot-7 fW""''t'I" se4as • SAFETY &,t 3W?A )t 6~~ o •T~ff,C. I~ • P~~A~.s HAVE NO"( 85N 'DONE/ ~t-, --=-====-=I: em~ K'r>~ J .. '-'~ ~s I Se,.~ -p..a , ..... ,n~ ;rt¢ fi'l WE hA.ve-con~m~ -.bout-the. P~Ject-d-@ \ 0 4-6ho-VV Stre~ . • 100~ 1Jvl,t'S fov-ipul'lrl!j ~f'M-c.e.s • 5AP61'{ o.:t 3ni ~ ~e..-St-, · T n..ff it lmfW-t ~ P~il'ri Asse.ssmMts \-tAW -~-Qe&f.J Co"'-IE .1 NAM~ AdA~ss ~I ~~1'l 11~ ~\)\=t\)"V rn A R_IHPr (J) B(2. ( ~w 'R2l\N K.. D If'-\ lJt----l --Z.l 0 WE ~VC-e#IUt"t'IS &.bollt +w,_ p"!,~c.t ~ _ l04 S~u-strcet. ~ • lbO .MAM'-4 UMrtS fW"7~ spw4t s • SAF&:r/ d 3r4A ~5~se;. · T ~ff iG. IM~t -_ -P~iwt A,sesSMerd-£ · '~A\I& Nor_ 8EM..l t>ot-.1e ! N-.mc-Actke&s El'NU( 1'1Amc, ~n-,.s~ EAAA I ff). ~y C0 _,,.,. i7P1)-I \7frJ~ £ 1)1 Af\) t\d\ \ye\- Wt VIL~CtMums ~~f\'CF-'" \ ....... s ,__ ~ ~ ---- • SAffif'/ o.k 3wA ~ s~ s+ . •Tro.ffic I~ ~~~A~~ \-IAVB wor BeeJ Oor-J e /