HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2019-05-07 #2REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 703 — 723 Third St. and 898 Lincoln Avenue — Request for an Environmental and Design
Review Permit, Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment for the redevelopment of two contiguous
Downtown parcels, currently developed with 15,000 sq. ft. of commercial space with a new, 6 -
story, 73 ft tall, multifamily residential building with 120 rental units, 121 ground -floor garage
parking spaces and 969 sq. ft retail space. The project includes requests for height and
density bonuses, and a front setback waiver; APNS: 011-278-01 & -02; Second/Third Mixed
Use East (2/3 MUE) District Zone. The project includes requests for height and density
bonuses, and a front setback waiver; APNS: 011-278-01 & -02; Second/Third Mixed Use East
(2/3 MUE) District Zones; Wick Polite of Seagate Properties, Inc., Applicant; 703 Third Street
LP, Owners; Downtown Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation
Project Site: 2/3 MU
North:
HO
South:
LO
East:
PQP
West:
2/3 MU
Lot Size
Goodwill
Required:
6,000 sf
Proposed:
27,367 sf combined
Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use
2/3 MUE
Commercial retail; office
HO
Private parking lot; retail
PD (1901)
BioMarin parking structure
P/QP
Public Transit Center
2/3 MUE
Goodwill
Floor Area Ratio (Max.)
Allowed:
1.5 FAR (41,051 sq. ft.)
Proposed:
1,581 sq. ft.
Height'
5'
Residential Density
Allowed:
54'+ 12 ' Height Bonus
Allowed: 45 units (1 unit per 600 sf of combined lot
Proposed:
73' (w/19' Height Bonus)
area; 61 units w/max.35% density bonus)
Proposed: 120 units (combined w/max. density bonus)
and concession for affordable housing)
Parking
Landscaping (Min.)
Required:
82 parking spaces
Required: 10% (2,737 sq. ft.; req. front yard setback)
Proposed:
121 garage spaces (109 mechanical lift
Proposed: >10% (>2,737 sq. ft.; setback waiver
parking spaces)
requested)
Setbacks
Required
Front:
5'
Side(s):
n/a
Street side
n/a
Rear:
n/a
Proposed
0'
0'
0'
0'
* Building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to top of roof deck of a flat roof
building.
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for the proposed redevelopment and
consolidation of two contiguous Downtown parcels, currently developed with existing 1- and 2 -story
commercial buildings and associated surface parking. The project proposes to construct a 6 -story, 73' -
tall, multifamily residential building with 120 units above 121 garage parking spaces. Of these 120 new
residential units, nine (9) are proposed to be affordable or below -market -rate (BMR) units (4 BMR units
at the very low-income household level and 5 BMR units at the low-income household level). All of the
residential units are currently proposed as `rental' or apartment units.
The project will require the following approvals:
• A `major' Environmental and Design Review Permit, for the new mixed-use building;
• A Use Permit to allow: 1) Residential uses in a commercial (2/3 MUE) zoning district; and 2) A
Parking Modification to allow the use of requested mechanical parking lifts to meet the parking
requirement for the project; and
• A Lot Line Adjustment for the consolidation of the two contiguous parcels.
The project requests two (2) concessions under the State Density Bonus law:
1. A seven -foot (7') height bonus above the 12' height bonus allowed for the site under the
General Plan by meeting the minimum affordable housing requirement; and
2. A 59 -unit density bonus above the 16 -unit density bonus allowed under the State Density Bonus
Law.
Both of these requested deviations from the applicable development standards (height and density) are
`major' concessions under the State Density Bonus law and require the submittal of a financial pro
forma by the applicant to demonstrate the deviations are necessary to meet the affordability
requirement. Due to the required financial pro forma, the project will require final action by the City
Council, following the review and recommendations of the Board and the Planning Commission.
On June 20; 2017, the Board provided Conceptual Design Review comments on the project, including
the need for a higher -quality `Gateway' design that eliminate upper -story projections over the sidewalk
and incorporate upper -story 'stepbacks' and ground -floor commercial space, particularly along the
Tamalpais Avenue frontage.
On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission also provided Conceptual Design Review comments on
the project that were similar to the Board's comments as well as minimizing driveways/driveway widths
along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage and providing high-quality design on all building elevations,
including the rear elevation adjacent to the Marin Color Service site at 770 2nd St.
On February 26, 2019, the Planning Commission held a study session to provide preliminary feedback
to staff and the public on the merits of the project, given that the project includes some major policy
questions. Topic areas included the proposed density bonus, the height bonus, the front setback
waiver, the stacked parking and the draft environmental (CEQA) findings.
Planning staff has concluded that the level of details provided in the formal application generally meets
the applicable design -related General Plan policies, Zoning Ordinance regulations and standards, and
Downtown design guidelines. Staff further concludes that the formal application generally meets the
Board's recommendations provided during conceptual design review. However, staff requests that the
Board provide its recommendations on the project's compliance with all pertinent design criteria.
Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Landscaping
• Whether the proposed allocation of landscaping and the planting palette is appropriate.
2
Usable Outdoor Area
• Whether the proposed allocation and type of usable outdoor area is appropriate, and the
amenities provided in the common outdoor areas are appropriate.
`Gateway' Design
• Whether the project incorporates appropriate 'Gateway' design, particularly at the corner of
Tamalpais Ave. and Third St., as requested by the Board.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site is comprised of two (2) contiguous developed Downtown parcels with a combined
27,367 sq. ft. lot size. The project site has three frontages: Third St., Lincoln Ave and Tamalpais Ave. It
is flat (<1 % average cross -slope) and located outside the Downtown parking district. The entire site is
located Within the 100 -year flood plain and must comply with FEMA requirements for finished grade.
The site is currently developed with approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of combined commercial space within
two, 1 -2 -story buildings and a surface parking lot.
Access to the project site is currently along all three frontages, Third St., Lincoln Ave and Tamalpais
Ave. The west portion of the project site (898 Lincoln Ave.) was originally developed in the 1940s and
has a long history of automotive sales and service uses. It is identified in the current General Plan as a
`housing opportunity' site. The east portion of the project site (703 Third St.) is relatively newer and was
developed in 1995 and until recently long -served the community as "Marin Filmworks". The east portion
of the site is immediately west of the City's Bettini Transit Center and southwest of the new Downtown
SMART station. The BioMarin campus lies south and southwest of the project site.
Project History:
On June 20, 2017, the Board provided Conceptual Design Review comments on the project, including
the need -for a higher -quality 'Gateway' design that eliminate upper -story projections over the sidewalk
and incorporate upper -story 'stepbacks' and ground -floor commercial space, particularly along the
Tamalpais Avenue frontage.
On July 25, 2017, the Planning Commission also provided Conceptual Design Review comments on
the project that were similar to the Board's comments as well as minimizing driveways/driveway widths
along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage and providing high-quality design on all building elevations,
including the rear elevation adjacent to the Marin Color Service site at 770 2nd St.
Following conceptual design review, the project was revised and reduced in scope. The number of units
were reduced, from 138 to 120. The number of parking spaces were reduced, from a total of 143
parking spaces (135 spaces provided by a mechanical jig saw parking lift system) to 121 parking
spaces (109 spaces provided by a mechanical jig saw parking lift system).
On February 26, 2019, the Planning Commission held a study session to provide preliminary feedback
to staff and the public on the merits of the project, given that the project includes some major policy
questions. Topic areas included the proposed density bonus, the height bonus, the front setback
waiver, the stacked parking and the draft environmental (CEQA) findings. The Planning Commission
indicated their support for the requested density and height bonuses and the front setback waiver for
greater community benefit in terms of more affordable housing (20% of the additional 59 units above
the State Density Bonus or 12 additional affordable units). The Planning Commission also indicated
they wanted to see heightened `Gateway' design, particularly at the Tamalpais Ave. and Third St.
intersection. Lastly, the Planning Commission indicated their support for reducing the number of
3
mechanical parking stackers to expand the ground -level commercial pedestrian experience, particularly
at the northwest corner of the project, at the Lincoln Ave. and Third St. intersection.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes redevelopment of two contiguous parcels with a new, 6 -story, 73 ft -tall,
multifamily residential building. The proposed structure would contain a ground floor with 121
parking spaces, common area, lobby, utility areas and a 3,733 sq. ft retail space. Floors 2-6 would
host 120 residential rental units. On top of the 6t" floor, a roof top deck is proposed with various
amenities. The proposed 120 units would be configured,as follows:
33 Studio units 342 - 539 sq. ft
44 1 -bedroom units 545 - 795 sq. ft.
43 2 -bedroom units 899 - 1,068 sq. ft.
The project does not include a condominium map. All existing development on the two parcels are
proposed to be demolished.
Affordability:
Nine (9) of the units are proposed to be affordable, with five (5) units affordable to very -low income
households and four (4) affordable to low income households. The five (5) very low-income units
represent 11 % affordability of the base project, while the four (4) low income units represents 9%
affordability. The provision of 11 % of the base project as very low-income units qualifies the project
for up to a 35% density bonus and up to three (3) concessions.
Density:
The project proposes to construct 120 rental units, which is 59 units above the maximum City density
allowed, plus the state mandated 35% density bonus. The -maximum local density for the site is 1
unit/600 sq. ft of land area, which equals 45 units (45.6 units rounded down to 45). The project
proposes to set aside 20% (or 9 units) of the base 45 units as `affordable'. This amount of affordability
makes the project eligible for a density bonus of up to 35% and up to three (3) concessions. The 35%
density bonus would result in 16 bonus units, for a total of 61 units. The project requests a concession
for the increased density above the 35% bonus, as one of the concessions for which they are eligible.
Given that the site is a mixed-use zoning district, it is also eligible for up to a 1.5 FAR (in addition to the
residential density). As proposed, the project would include a 3,711 sq. ft. retail space on the ground
floor, which equals a 0.13 FAR.
Site Plan:
Vehicular egress and ingress to the project site would be along two, 20' -wide, two-way driveways on
both the Tamalpais and Lincoln Ave frontages. Pedestrian access to the project site would be primarily
along the Third St. frontage though secondary pedestrian access is provided along both the Lincoln and
Tamalpais Avenue frontages. The project proposes development to the property lines, including the
front property line (Third St.) which requires a minimum 5 ft. landscaped setback. The lack of building
setback is mitigated by the architectural design which incorporates a 5 ft wide handicap ramp setback
and a 1 ft landscape planter for a total of 6 ft setback along 122 linear ft of third St (62% of the
frontage). The upper stories would be built within the property lines and portions of the upper four (4)
floors would stepped back. The project requests a.waiver to the 5 ft front setback development, as one
of their three eligible density bonus concessions.
4
Architecture:
The project proposes a contemporary design with large, deep-set windows, varied textures of exterior
materials and an expansive `earthtone/woodtone' color palette which would provide a unifying visual
form along all of the building elevations. A 22' -tall brick veneer podium supports three (3) upper floors
with stucco exterior with horizontal dark brown cementitious wood boards creating accent areas.
Dimensional bronze metal coping separates the mid floors of the project and the upper two floors,
which is punctuated by more stepback, greater use of the horizontal cementitious wood boards and the
introduction of vertical gray corrugated siding at each of the four corners of the proposed new building.
Large recessed storefront windows are proposed along the ground floor of all three frontages.
Recessed balconies are proposed along all of the upper floors of all three frontages.
An O -shaped landscaped courtyard is proposed on the podium/2nd floor level which opens to the sky.
The amenities proposed for the courtyard create a more centralized reflective seating area. The
amenities proposed for the rooftop create groups of more intimate seating areas with amenities
including cooking/grilling/dining areas, firepits, and skills games (foosball, darts and cornhole) An
expansive photovoltaic solar panel energy system is proposed to share the remainder of the roof. The
project proposes a tall (22') ground floor, to allow the installation and operation of mechanical parking
lifts. At the time of submittal, the applicant provided the attached Project Description (Exhibit 2). A
Material and Color Board has been prepared by the applicant and will be presented during the
Commission study session.
Building Height:
The project proposes a building height of 73 ft to the roof deck, composed of 6 stories. The height limit
for the site is 66 ft (54 ft base height plus a 12 ft height bonus identified by the General Plan), for
residential projects that provide required affordability. The project proposes an additional 7 ft above the
allowed 12 ft height bonus (fora total of 19 ft bonus), and this extra height is being requested as a
.concession, as one of their concessions under the State Density Bonus law.
Parking:
The project proposes to provide 121 parking spaces onsite. All parking would be on the ground floor
and that this level would have a taller plate height, (22 ft tall) to accommodate the mechanical lifts. 109
of the 121 spaces would be provided through mechanical jig saw lifts and the remaining 12 spaces
would be non-mechanical lift spaces for electric vehicle (EV), visitor, ADA and car share
Through State Density bonus law, projects that are within 'h mile of a transit facility are required to
provide 0.5 parking space/bedroom. In this case, the project includes 163 bedrooms, therefore 81.5
(82) parking spaces would be required to meet the parking required for the residential portion of the
project. Since the project site is located outside the Downtown Parking District, the project is also
required to provide 3-4 (969 sq. ft. of ground level commercial space at 1 space per 250-300 gross
building sq. ft., generally) parking spaces to meet the parking required for the nonresidential portion of
the project. The project proposes to provide 121 parking space, which is 35-36 spaces in excess of the
required parking. The reduced parking requirement does not count as a concession or waiver, under
State Density Bonus law.
Landscaping:
The project proposes 12,555 sq. ft. (46%) of site landscaping, where a minimum 10% (2,737 sq. ft.) is
required. New street trees are proposed along all three building frontages on the ground -floor. A
combined 4,528 sq. ft. of landscaped area is proposed on the podium (2nd floor) -level between a central
courtyard and common outdoor deck areas along the front (Third St. elevation) and rear (adjacent to
the paint store located at 770 Second St.) building elevations. A landscaped rooftop amenities area,
5,317 sq. ft. in size, is also proposed. In addition, the project proposes raised Corten steel planters
along the ground -floor of the Third St. frontage. Details on specific landscaping species are not
provided at this time.
5
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
There are numerous General Plan policies applicable to this project. The General Plan contains many
competing policies that need to be weighed and considered. Consistency with a General Plan is
determined by reviewing and weighing the goals and polices of all elements of the San Rafael General
Plan 2020. Overall, the project would be consistent with most of the applicable San Rafael General
Plan 2020 policies.
The General Plan land use designation of 2/3MU allows office use, office support and service uses and
residential uses as part of mixed-use development. This requirement for mixed use was identified as an
issue during Conceptual Review as the project proposed residential -only use at the time. However, the
formal submittal has been modified to include reasonable ground -floor commercial space and would
therefore be consistent with Land Use Policy LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories). Although the
building height and density exceed the standards established by the General Land Use Element
Policies LU -8 (Density of Residential Development) and LU -12 (Building Heights)/LU-13 (Height
Bonuses), staff finds that there are adequate justifications to support these deviations, including: 1)
requesting concessions/waiver under the State Density Bonus law allows the City to consider the
deviations through a financial pro forma as it demonstrates that the number of units proposed and the
height are needed to make the housing project.economically feasible; 2) the project does not utilize the
1.5 FAR allowed for non-residential intensity on the site, but instead provides additional residential
density; 3) the FEMA flood zone requirements to raise the building site and plate height needed to
support stacked parking cause the need to increase the height about the height limit; and 4) Downtown
Station Area plan recommendation to allow higher density in these locations.
The project site is the most appropriate housing site in San Rafael due to its direct proximity to SMART
-station,. Bettini, Transit Center, U.S. Hwy. 101, and Downtown as a whole. As such, the western half of
the project site (898 Lincoln Ave) is listed as an underutilized mixed-use site in Appendix B of the
General Plan, as a Housing Opportunity site per H-14 (Adequate Sites) which requires the City to
maintain sufficient supply of land for multi -family housing. Housing Policy H-15 (Infill Near Transit)
further encourages higher densities adjacent to a transit hub, focusing on the priority development are
around the Downtown SMART station. The project also would be in accordance with Housing Policy H-
18 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) by providing 20% affordable housing units or 9 units.
The project design likely would be in accordance with Community Design Policy CD -5 (Views), which
seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of St. Raphael's church bell tower,
hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways.
Neighborhoods policy NH -37 (Hetherton Office District Design Considerations), the project site is
located within the "Netherton Gateway" District of Downtown. Design considerations for this area call
for "...high-quality and varied design with landmark features that enhance the District's gateway image".
New building design should:
• Emphasize gateway character by incorporating transitional treatments such as accent elements
and public art,
• Stepback upper stories;
• Ground -floors include a pedestrian scale; and
• Include useable outdoor areas, courtyards and arcades that are landscaped, in sunny locations
and protected from freeway noise.
The revised design has better responded to the design criteria, in that; 1) the large storefront windows,
Corten steel raised landscape planters and the brick veneer podium all contribute to the pedestrian
scale of the ground -floor; 2) the upper stories have been setback along with staggered (patios), the
1.1
partial Third St setback and landscape planter enhances the pedestrian scale of the sidewalk
experience, 4) The Third St and Tamalpias corner retail provides outdoor seating and exposures; 5)
public access to the proposed bicycle valet and storage provides for enhance pedestrian interaction. 6)
the rooftop amenity package provides open air recreational areas protected from the noise of Highway
101, and 7) the podium courtyard and rooftop provide landscaped common or shared outdoor areas
which are open to the sky and protected from surrounding ambient noise levels. Staff finds the project
complies with the design considerations of the "Hetherton Gateway" District, as adopted in the General
Plan.
The project would generate 33 net new AM peak hour trips (7- 9am weekdays) and 26 PM net new
peak hour trips (4-6pm weekdays). This number of new trips was modeled and found to comply with the
Level of Service (LOS) standards prescribed in Circulation Element Policy C-5. The proposed
development would occur when adequate infrastructure, including circulation and utilities, are available
(Land Use Policy LU -2).
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The project has been reviewed for consistency with the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. Overall, the
project would be consistent with all applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception
of height, density and front setback, and the applicant has requested concessions to these standards
under the State Density Bonus law.
Chapter 5 — Commercial and Office Districts
The project site is located within the Second/Third St. Mixed Use East (2/3 MUE) District, a Downtown
Zoning district. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards
for the 2/3 MUE District, including maximum density (600 sq. ft. of lot area/unit), minimum setbacks (5'
front), building height limit of 66 ft. (54 ft. + 12 ft. height bonus) and minimum landscaping (10%
including required front -setback).
As designed, the project would conditionally comply with the maximum density and height standards for
the 2/3 MUE District with a 19 ft. height bonus with the approval of a concession under the State
Density Bonus law for a height bonus and a density bonus above the 35% allowed. (see discussion
below).
The project also would conditionally comply with the minimum setback requirement with a setback
waiver as another concession under the State Density Bonus law for meeting the City's affordable
housing requirement (20% or 9 units). The project would comply with the 10% minimum landscape
requirement when calculating the total landscaping provided by ground -level planters, 2nd floor
courtyard, balconies on levels 2-5 and the rooftop deck. Private and common outdoor area is
encouraged rather than required in the Downtown districts. The project includes balconies for many of
the units and a common courtyard and roof top deck to provide this requirement.
In prior version of the project, there was no retail component provided in the project and there was a
consistency issue noted with Section 14.05.022 of the Zoning Ordinance, which clearly states that
residential uses in the 2/3 MUE District are allowed only as part of mixed-use projects. The project has
been revised to include a reasonable size retail space on the ground floor. Providing more retail on this
site is limited through the parking and other utility common functions that are provided on the ground
floor
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
Whether the proposed allocation of landscaping and the planting palette is appropriate.
7
• Whether the proposed allocation and type of usable outdoor area is appropriate, and the
amenities provided in the common outdoor areas are appropriate.
Chanter 16 — Site and Use Reaulations
Affordable Housing Requirement
Pursuant to Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, projects
proposing 21 or more housing units are required to provide 20% of the proposed units as `affordable'
housing units. The base density for this site is 45 units (27,3167 sq. ft. lot/600 sq. ft. density standard).
The project proposes to set aside 20% (9 units) of those 45 units as affordable. The City's inclusionary
housing ordinance requires that for rental projects, 50% of the inclusionary units (or 5 units in this case)
be eligible to very low-income households (<50% county median income) and the remaining 50% of the
affordable units (or 4 units in this case) be eligible for low-income households (50%-80% of county
median income)
The provision of five (5) units as affordable to very low-income households represents an affordability of
11 % of the base project in that income category. Under the State Density Bonus law, 11 % of total base
units affordable in the very low-income category entitles the project to a 35% density bonus (15.75
bonus units, rounded up to 16 bonus units). The 35% density bonus would result in a total of 61 units.
This affordability level would also allow the project to seek up to three (3) concessions (concessions
requested by the project are: 1) 19' height bonus, where 12 ft is identified; 2) density bonus above the
35% to allow 59 additional units, above the 16 allowed by state density bonus law; and 3) a front
setback waiver under the State Density Bonus law.
All three of the proposed concessions requested by the applicant, are considered major concessions
(SRMC 14.16.030,H.3.b.v) and therefore are subject to approval of the City Council and require that the
applicant demonstrate through a financial pro forma that the concessions are needed to make the
project financially feasible.
As part of the formal submittal, a financial pro forma was submitted by the developer and has been
peer reviewed by a 3rd party economist hired by the city to confirm its conclusions:
Density Bonus (Automatic)
By providing 5 of the 9 'affordable' units as very low income, project is eligible for an automatic
35% density bonus or a total of 16 additional 'density bonus' units above the 45 base units, for a
total of 61 units.
Additional Density Bonus (Discretionary)
The project proposes a total density of 120 units, 75 units above the maximum allowable density
on the site and 59 units above the `automatic' 35% state density bonus provided by complying
with the City's affordable housing requirement. The State Density Bonus law allows a City to
establish a procedure to consider a bonus above 35% if it chooses.
At this point, the applicant has indicated that they are not proposing more affordable units
than the required 20% and they seek a concession through demonstrating that the project in
financially infeasible without 120 total units.
The applicant has provided a to a financial pro forma demonstrating that the additional density
bonus results in "identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions" (underline added)
to the project. This concession requesting a density bonus above the maximum allowed under
the State Density Bonus law is discretionary, allows staff to hire a consulting economist for peer
review (at the applicant's cost) and requires City Council review and approval. The results of the
peer review of the financial pro forma are found below in the discussion section.
Height Bonus Concession (Discretionary)
The project requests a 19 ft. height bonus, from the maximum allowable building height of 54 ft
to 73 ft. In the 2/3 MUE District, both the General Plan and Section 14.16.190 allow a height
bonus up to 12 ft (from 54 ft to 66 ft) for complying with the City's affordable housing
requirement as an automatic concession, which is granted if the project provides 20%
affordability.
The project requests a 19 ft bonus, which exceeds the 12 ft automatic concession by 7 feet,
therefore the applicant has requested a major concession to the height standard. Under the
City's Zoning Ordinance (SRMC 14.16.030.H.3.b.d, concessions not identified 14.16.030.H.3.a
are considered a major concession and require submittal of a financial pro forma. If approved,
the concession counts concession under the State Density Bonus law.
Setback Waiver Concession (Discretionary)
The project also requests a waiver of the required 5' landscaped front setback for portions of the
Third St frontage as a concession under the State Density Bonus law for meeting their required
20% affordable housing requirement. This concession requesting a waiver of the required 5'
landscaped front setback, like the additional 59 -unit density bonus above the maximum allowed
under the State Density Bonus law, is discretionary, allows staff to hire a consulting economist
for peer review (at the applicant's cost) and requires City Council review and approval.
At the time of formal project submittal, the applicant provided a financial pro forma
demonstrating that the waiver of the required 5' landscaped front setback results in "identifiable,
financially sufficient and actual cost reductions". (underline added) to the project. In addition, the
proposed 0 ft front setback for portions of the building front is compatible with the surrounding
built environment as discussed below.
Staff supports the requested setback waiver concession.
Building Height Exclusion
Pursuant to Section 14.16.120 (Exclusions to Maximum Height Requirements) of the Zoning
Ordinance, architectural and screening features, and utilities which extend above the maximum
allowable building height, may be excluded from height calculations with an Environmental and Design
Review Permit. The project proposes a steel shade trellis over the outdoor seating areas and elevator
and staircase over runs on portions of the roof deck area which increases the overall height on portions
of the project approximately 10', from 73 ft to 83', where a maximum 54' building height is allowed (66'
with height bonus). Similar to the 4' parapet which surrounds the roof, the rooftop trellis and
elevator/staircase over runs are architectural features and are excluded from building height
calculations, based on the following:
• It is an integral shade structure for the common roof deck amenities for the residents; and
• It is an architectural or design feature which screens the elevator and staircase shafts for the
residential units.
Sight Distance
Pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the Zoning Ordinance, driveways shall provide a
sight distance triangle of 15' from the curb return, or as determined by the City Engineer. The project
proposes a 20' -wide two-way driveway along both the Tamalpais and Lincoln Ave frontages, which also
comply with the required 15' sight distance triangle
Chapter 18 — Parking Standards
The typical parking requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance (SRMC 14.18.040) does not apply
to this project, given that it qualifies for reduced parking through the State Density Bonus law. Through
this law, projects that are within 'h mile of a transit facility are required to provide 0.5 parking
space/bedroom. In this case, the project includes 163 bedrooms, therefore 81.5 (82) parking spaces
are required to meet the residential parking requirement. Since the project site is located outside the
Downtown Parking District, the project is required to provide 3-4 parking spaces to meet the
nonresidential parking required. The project proposes to provide 121 parking space, which is 35-36
spaces in excess of the required parking. The reduced parking requirement does not count as a
concession or waiver, under State Density Bonus law and is inclusive of required ADA and guest
spaces. Given that the required parking is established under a state law, this reduced number of
parking spaces also does not require a Parking Modification.
The project also proposes to use mechanical parking lifts to primarily meet the required parking for the
project; 109 of the 121 parking spaces are proposed to be provided by mechanical parking lifts, though
not the 12 ADA -accessible parking spaces, loading, ride share/care share or electric vehicle charging
spaces. The project proposes to use a three-level, semi-automatic, mechanical parking lift system
(CityLift Model 3LP) with horizontal and vertical shifting platforms. The parking space dimensions of this
mechanical parking lift are:
• 17' 3/4" length;
• 6'6 3/" — 6' 10" width;
• 6' 5" — 7' height;
• 5,200 — 6,000 lbs. load per vehicle; and
• 33 seconds average retrieval time.
The CityLift Model 3LP operates without pit. The driver remotely engages the system, similar to a
garage door opener, where the parking `platforms' will automatically shift to an empty space. Parked
vehicles are automatically retrieved by entering the parking space number into the adjacent keypad.
Access may be secured by adding metal gates which open automatically only after the shifting process
is completed. The Board may learn more on the CityLift Model 3LP through the following link:
https://cityliftparking.com/solutions/puzzle-mechanical-parking. CityLift mechanical parking "Puzzle"
stackers are currently operating in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco and Healdsburg. The
Avalon Public Market in Emeryville (6701 Shellmound St.) is most similar in scale of mechanical
parking stacker system as proposed by the project. The Avalon Public Market is a 7 -story, mixed-use
building with 211 units above a 155 space, 3 -level "puzzle" stacker system without a pit and adjacent to
public transit. Staff will coordinate a future opportunity to visit the Avalon Public Market or another
location with a CityLift Model 3 mechanical parking "Puzzle" stacker system.
These proposed mechanical parking stackers are a departure from the parking facility design
envisioned by the Parking Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which is providing parking on a more
established horizontal or side-by-side configuration. A Parking Modification will be required, through a
Use Permit, with the recommendation of the Public Works Director and the Board, to allow mechanical
parking lifts. The dimensions of the parking spaces provided by the mechanical parking appear to meet
the City's minimum standards for Downtown (8.5'x 18') 'standard' parking spaces.
The proposed parking also complies with all other applicable parking standards. Under the Zoning
Ordinance, residential projects are not required to provide clean air vehicle parking or EV (electric
vehicle) charging stations, an off-street loading/unloading space or bicycle parking. The project
proposes 1 tandem loading space, 4 EV ready spaces, 1 tandem ride share drop off space, and 1 car
share space, and 2 visitor spaces. The project also proposed 32 bike storage spaces, although only 1
space is required for the nonresidential uses and none for residential uses.
10
Chapter 22 — Use Permits
As discussed previously, the project will require Use Permit approval to allow: 1) Residential uses in a
commercial (2/3 MUE) zoning district; and 2) Parking Modification to allow use of mechanical parking lifts
to primarily meet the parking requirement for the project.
Residential uses area encouraged in the Downtown and in mixed-use development/redevelopment
project to help meet the City's housing needs and "alive -after -five" vision. Automated parking or other
mechanical parking devices is one of the strategies identified in the Downtown Parking/Wayfinding
Study as an innovative parking solution to maximize valuable parking space areas. Therefore, staff
recommends that granting a Use Permit for both these features is appropriate.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
This project typically would require Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the Planning
Commission, given that; it proposes to construct a new mixed-use structure. However, the City Council
will have final decision on the project, based the recommendations of both the Board and the Planning
Commission, due to the major concessions requested (additional 59 -unit density bonus above the state
mandated 35% bonus, 19 ft height bonus, and waiver of required 5' landscaped front setback) under
the State Density Bonus law. The pertinent review criteria for Environmental and Design Review
Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits),
are as follows:
• Site Design. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in
the vicinity. The development should have good vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access.
Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to provide easy access to building
entrances. The traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be considered. Major views of theSan
Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills should be preserved and
enhanced -from public streets- and public vantage points. In addition, .respect. views of•St. Raphael's
Church up "A" Street.
Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in
the building elevation; b) pedestrian -oriented design in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient
design; d) provision of a sense of entry; e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal
attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location.
• Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area.
Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding
landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. Natural materials and
colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be
colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function.
• Walls, Fences and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and
loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of
mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building
and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project
design.
• Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site and
existing tree shall be preserved as much as possible. Water -conserving landscape design shall be
required. A landscaped berm around the perimeter of parking areas is encouraged. Smaller scale,
11
seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian -oriented streets while high -
canopy, traffic -tolerant trees should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets.
The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits require that the proposed design
(architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development `relate' to the predominant
design or `character -defining' design elements existing in the vicinity.
The scale and quality of the existing development located south of the core Downtown (Fourth St.) and
near U.S Highway 101 is changing, primarily due to the ongoing development of the BioMarin campus.
Low profile (1- and 2 -story) development is being replaced with much taller (5- and 6 -story) buildings.
Staff supports the 6 -story scale proposed by the project. Determining the predominant design character
is a little more difficult. Structures within the adjacent BioMarin campus are integrated with a cohesive
architectural design with coordinated fagade treatments. The project proposes a similar contemporary
design though with unique fagade treatments (brick with Corten steel planters at the podium level and a
mixture of stucco and vertical and horizontal fiber cement board siding at the upper levels), greater
articulation, stepping back the upper stories and a more `residential' window proportion.
The project design has been revised to include equal, high-quality design attention to all four building
elevations. In addition, the formerly proposed building encroachments over the sidewalk have been
pulled back and no parts of the upper stories project over the public right -of- way (ROW).
One of the reoccurring comments provided by both the Board and Planning Commission during
Conceptual Design Review is the project needs to exemplify a building design worthy of its `Gateway'
location; particularly the northeast corner (Tamalpais Ave. and Third St.) of the building closest to the
Downtown SMART station needs to create an architectural 'statement'. The project plans include a
`Gateway' option (Sh. A0.2A) which proposes to accentuate the `Gateway' corner by; 1) -Extending the
brick fagade treatment from theground level up levels 2-4 to create the appearance of;a, `tower' ,
approx:.50'-wide along both the Tamalpais Ave. and Third St. frontages; 2) Further highlighting the
uniqueness of the `Gateway' .corner and the appearance of a 'tower' design with Corten steel panels,
similar to the ground -level planter. material, on levels 5-6; and 3) Expanding the steel, rooftop trellis to
'cap' the 'Gateway' tower or corner. While staff finds the project represents a large step forward with a
new `Gateway' design overall; staff wonders if the unique finishes proposed for the Tamalpais Ave. and
Third St. intersection should translate better to the pedestrian or street level .
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the project incorporates appropriate 'Gateway' design, particularly at the corner of
Tamalpais Ave. and Third St., as requested by the Board.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The San Rafael Design Guidelines have been developed as interim criteria that implement design -
related General Plan Policies. The site is located within the Second/Third Corridor and Environs.
Second/Third Corridor and Environs
Second and Third Streets are to be attractive, landscaped major transportation corridors. While
increased pedestrian safety and comfort is desired on Second and Third, greater pedestrian use of the
cross streets is encouraged. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Second/Third and
Environs area of the Downtown, where the following specific design guidelines apply:
To provide visual interest, long and monotonous walls should be avoided.
Building walls should be articulated;
To create a boulevard effect along Second and Third Streets, varied landscape setbacks are
appropriate;
12
Additional high -canopy, traffic -tolerant street trees are strongly encouraged;
Where possible, residential buildings in this area should orient to the more pedestrian -friendly
side street, and
Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized to prevent vehicular conflicts.
The project proposes to orient pedestrian activity through the lobby area both through the main entry on
Third St and at the northwest corner of Third St./Lincoln Ave. The pertinent Downtown Design
Guidelines recommends orienting this lobby entrance to one of the more pedestrian -friendly side
streets, either Tamalpais or Lincoln Avenues, where possible.
Downtown Station Area Plan
The project site is identified as a "potential development opportunity site" within the Downtown Station
Area Plan (SAP). Maximum development is assumed; a five -story mixed-use building with retail uses
on the ground -floor facing Tamalpais Avenue (fronting the SMART station). No on-site parking is
assumed for the ground -floor retail uses, even though the site is located outside the Downtown Parking
District. Auto access and egress occurs on Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenues. The following are
recommended land use policy changes from the SAP that are applicable to the project site:
Short -Term
• Reduce minimum parking requirements to one (1) space for two-bedroom residential units and
1.5 spaces for 3 -bedroom units.
• Allow tandem parking spaces.
Long -Term
Allow one-half space per residential unit to be located off-site in a municipal parking facility.
• Allow off-site parking for ground -floor retail uses.
• Allow unbundled"parking, where parking spaces are leased separately from; residential units.
• Allow bicycle parking in lieu of some portion of the required on-site parking.
• Adopt a Form -Based Code and eliminate maximum density and FAR (Floor Area Ratio) limits.
Together with requiring no more than one parking space per unit, a Form -Based Code may
allow up to 200 residential units within maximum allowable building height and setbacks
required on the site.
• Allow development `bonuses' (like reduced parking), beyond concessions under the State
Density Bonus law, in exchange for community benefits. Examples of community benefits
include amenities to support the more transit -oriented surroundings such as wider sidewalks
and landscaping, open space or plazas, provisions for car -sharing, and additional affordable
housing units above the minimum 20% requirement.
• Allow shared parking between daytime retail uses and nighttime residential uses.
• Allow stacked parking or parking lifts, to meet required on-site parking.
• Explore reconstruction of Tamalpais Avenue to serve as a "Complete Street" to serve all travel
modes. In concept, Tamalpais Avenue may be converted to one-way northbound travel with a
Class II bicycle lane, pull-out staging areas and wider sidewalks.
The proposed project would be consistent with most of the applicable recommendations in the Station
Area Plan document. The project has been revised to include a small ground -floor commercial use at
the northeast corner of Third St/Tamalpais Ave. Some of the short-term and mid-term recommended
changes of the SAP were implemented by the City through recent zoning ordinance amendments. The
project proposes reduced parking (see discussion above), a wider sidewalk along the Tamalpais Ave.
frontage (existing sidewalks along the Lincoln Ave. and Third St. frontages were widened previously.)
and increased landscaping (street trees and raised planters) along all three frontages. The project
proposes to meet a bulk of its parking requirement with mechanical parking lifts, which create both
stacked and tandem parking configurations.
13
Good Design Principles
On August 14, 2017, an Ad Hoc City Council Sub -Committee convened to discuss "Community
Design," with a primary focus on Downtown development. The Ad Hoc Sub -Committee included Mayor
Phillips, Council Member Andrew McCullough, two members of the Design Review Board (Eric
Spielman and Stewart Summers) and two members of the Planning Commission (Larry Paul and Jack
Robertson). The initial purpose of the meeting was to determine if there are adequate tools and
resources to facilitate and achieve good design in development in San Rafael. The Sub -Committee was
provided with an inventory of our current resources (all referenced in this report), which are abundant
and comprehensive. The inventory of documents and regulations include the following:
✓ Downtown San Rafael Vision — 1993
✓ General Plan 2020 Policies & Programs for Downtown — 2004
✓ San Rafael Design Guidelines (Interim) — 2004
✓ Zoning Regulations for Downtown — 2004
✓ Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan — 2012
Mayor Phillips assigned Board Member Paul the task of forming a working group to review these
resources and to develop a more concise and consolidated list of key criteria. The goal was to develop
an informational handout ("City of San Rafael Expectations for Good Design") that can be provided to
developers/applicants. Board Member Paul formed a small Working Group of local design professionals
and residents to review the above planning documents and regulations and consolidate them into more
concise criteria. This working group presented their findings and a "Good Design Guidelines for
Downtown" slideshow to the Council on February 5, 2018.
There are next steps, which will include making a checklist with these and adopting them, however,
staff has provided the applicable criteria from this presentation applicable as Exhibit 5.
The project complies with many of these 'good design' criteria. Tamalpais Ave. is identified as a
`_gateway' to the Downtown with excellent visibility from all transportation modes -'(pedestrian, bicycle
and transit) and the transit center. The project activates the Tamalpais Ave street front by providing a
small (969 sq. ft.) ground -level commercial retail space at the corner of Tamalpais Ave. and Third St.
The project supports Tamalpais Ave. as a `pedestrian street' by minimizing driveway cuts to a single
driveway with a 20' width and providing ample street tree pockets with grates. Larger and taller
buildings, like the project, are anticipated along the Second and Third St. corridors to create a
`boulevard' setting. A `base, middle and top' design strategy, similar to the project design, is
encouraged though not required. The height and bulk of the project is mitigated by stepbacks,
articulation and use of varied exterior materials.
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency
The project proposes to allow construction of a new multifamily residential structure over the current
property boundaries of two adjacent legal Downtown parcels. As one of the conditions of approval, the
project subject to the lot consolation provisions pursuant to Chapter 15.05. of the Subdivision
Ordinance. If the project is approved, staff will work with the applicant and the City Engineer to
consolidate the project site into one parcel which must be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
The project is proposed as a rental project only. The applicant has not indicated their make them
individual condo units.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 20, 2017, the Board (Planning Commission Liaison Schaefer) reviewed the proposed
Conceptual Design Review application and provided the following general comments:
14
• Site requires a heightened `Gateway' design. The concept design is too boxy and should
incorporate greater vertical and horizontal articulation.
• Massing of concept design is looming due to crowding of sidewalk right-of-way (ROW) with upper -
story encroachments. Limit ROW encroachments to architectural features only and reduce to
maintain pedestrian -friendly cross -streets (Tamalpais and Lincoln Avenues).
• Portions of the upper stories should step back.
• Ext. color palette is too bright.
• Ground floor commercial space along Tamalpais Ave. is important link to pedestrian -friendly
vision.
• Provide comprehensive and generous amenities in common areas, including trellis over portions
of the courtyard. Consider adding a gym and enlarging the rooftop common area.
• Consider cladding staircase towers in glass or a similar design feature.
• Guest parking, EV charging stations and a loading/unloading area should be provided in the
garage.
• Limit the driveway curb cuts on pedestrian -friendly cross -streets by providing a single drive-thru
driveway and better garage circulation; and
• Board is supportive of mechanical parking lifts though additional details are needed, including
dimensions, queuing, turning access, cross-sections, real-time video of use.
The Board provided comments only on the Conceptual Design Review and took no further action. A video
of this June 20, 2017 meeting may be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings and then navigating to
the archived section for DRB and selecting the 6/20/17 meeting date.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Conceptual4Design Review by both the Board and the Planning Commission, the subsequent
study session by the Planning Commission and the formal project review has-been conducted in
accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of
Public Meeting was -mailed to all property owners, residents, businesses arid -occupants within a 300 -
foot radius of the project site and the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Downtown Business
Improvement District, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assn. and the Federation of San Rafael
Neighborhoods), a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of this Board meeting. Additionally,
notice has been posted on the project site, along the Third St., Tamalpais Ave. and Lincoln Ave.
frontages, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of this meeting.
Public comments received on the project since Conceptual Design Review are attached as Exhibit 6
These comments are mixed; some in support of the project and others in opposition to the project. Any
comments received after distribution of the staff report, will be forwarded to the Board under separate
cover.
Planning staff has also created a digital webpage on the project which has been uploaded with links to
both the current plans and supportive studies and is updated to coordinate with all meeting and hearing
notices for the project. This project webpage may be found at.hftps://www.citvofsanrafael.oLg/703-3/.
CONCLUSION
The project has been revised and refined since the Conceptual Design Review in 2017 and appears to
have addressed many of the main concerns. Through these revisions, the building no longer projects
over the right of way, a commercial space has been added to the ground floor, the building design has
changed, and the number of units has been reduced to 120 units. However, through the revisions, the
building height has increased from 66 ft to 73 feet to address some technical requirements (flood zone,
mechanical puzzle stackers). The Board requests heightened `Gateway' design from the project, which
has been provided. The project further proposes unique materials, colors and finishes for the mid -
15
(levels 2-4) and top- (levels 576) floors at the Tamalpais Ave. and Lincoln Ave. intersection to highlight
the part of the project which is the closest connector to the Downtown SMART station. Staff finds this
greater 'Gateway' design on the upper levels at the Tamalpais Ave. and Lincoln Ave. intersection
should also extend down to the pedestrian or street level.
The project request three concessions under the state density bonus provisions (density, height and
front setback). A financial pro forma has been submitted and reviewed by an independent economic
who concluded that the assumptions and methodologies are sound and that the concessions are
necessary to make the project financially feasible.
In evaluating the project at this site, staff finds that this site is one of the most appropriate locations in
the entire City to add a significant amount of housing. The proximity to transit, downtown and
transportation make this an ideal location for new housing. The size of the project has been
demonstrated to be necessary to make it economically viable, given the high land and construction
costs. In addition, smaller rental units are a housing type that are needed in the community.
Furthermore, the site is listed as a housing opportunity site in the General Plan and envisioned for
greater height and density through the Station Area Plan.
Staff requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Analysis section of this report
and any other modifications the Board would like to see in the project design.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location map
2. Applicant's Project Description
3. GP Consistency table
4. ZO Consistency table
5. Summary of."Good Design Principals" for Downtown
6. Public comments
Full-size and reduced color plan sets have been provided to the Board only. Digital copy of the project
plans can be viewed at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/703-3/.
cc: Wick Polite — Seagate Properties, Inc.; 980 Fifth Ave.; San Rafael, CA 94901
.T 3 c i
a ai
EE -0
O 0-�
U
U c 6
ro
N
�M�
on U
c
M C: z
u � F
u - _
ro�ai -
os'�
cn
s
4i E u �
o w TO:
- —
c a =_ y
oo
0) (U L
try)
N
,}'
co �
co
tA
M
a
� z
N
N
N
Van Meter Williams Pollack LLP _ UN9NNVId
Architecture Urban Design _ .%0Z
703 Third Street, San Rafael CRAGOAH
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.19.2018
The following is a project description of the key elements and features of the proposed project as
well as a narrative on how the revised design addresses previous review comments, by the City,
Community and Design Review Board.
Overall Design Concept
The building design of 703 Third Street takes cues from traditional urban buildings which might
have been found in downtown many years ago and overlays a modern character based in historic
design principles. The building is designed to make a gateway statement while also allowing for
an elegant, well-proportioned background building, setting the tone of restraint for other new
interventions into the downtown in the future. The building's central site necessitates quality
materials and timeless architectural style, designed without a "back" anticipating that it will be
viewed from all directions around downtown San Rafael.
The project site is .63 acres, combining a total of 4 parcels, bounded on the North by Third
Street, West by Tamalpais, East by Lincoln Avenue and to the South by Marin Color Paint
Service property which fronts Second Street._The development proposal includes 120 apartments
including studios, one and two bedroom apartments. There will be nine BMR units; five very
low and four low income homes. There will be 121 parking spaces including tandem 3 -level
stackers, 2 loading/drop-off spaces, 3 accessible spaces, 4 spaces prepared for electric vehicles
charging, two visitor spaces and one car share space within the garage. The ground floor also
includes a retail space fronting on Tamalpais of approximately 970 s.f. as well as a bike lounge
which is being looked into as potentially being open to the public, and a lobby and management
space for leasing, mail and meetings. The building is 6 stories tall, including a concrete podium
and 5 stories of wood frame residential construction above. The 6th floor is stepped back creating
private roof decks and there is a large common roof deck above. In addition, the buildings is
recessed and stepped back at various locations on all sides.
The design respects the pattern of the downtown by creating a strong base, middle and top to the
building. The transparent and active street frontage extends the length of Third Street, anchoring
Tamalpais Avenue with a retail space and the corner of Lincoln Avenue with active management
and lobby spaces. Just off the central lobby is an innovative bike lounge emphasizing diverse
modes of travel in the downtown transit area. To accomplish this active frontage the parking has
been designed using tri -level tandem stackers which reduce the garage parking area and
minimize the needed access points to one each along Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenues. Utility
areas are moved to the rear corners of the building to minimize impacts to the pedestrian realm
on Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenues.
The building base is a strong brick veneer podium which is taller than typical to house the
parking stackers as well as the raised finish floor required by to address the flood plain, ever
present in the downtown area. A partial arcade along Third Street allows for the covered entry to
EXHIBIT 2
the lobby as well as a ramp for an accessible entry to the retail space and to the management
area. The main lobby entry is accented by a marquee, while the building lobby storefront fagade
extends up the building as a transparent light organizing the entire Third Street elevation. The
active street frontage has strong transparent storefronts, which are set within a column pattern
with concrete base and brick above it. The storefronts also have highlights of planters set
between the columns below the windows in key locations along the sidewalk. Each column is
also highlighted by a light fixture, providing added lighting for pedestrians walking along the
street.
Floors two through five make up the building body which is primarily exterior plaster. Floors 2
through 4 are the primary middle form, and level 5 creates a band of lighter colored plaster,
reducing the apparent mass and helps to organize the middle of the building. The mid/body has
recessed windows which are combined with panels to provide a vertical fagade element. The
windows are recessed, providing shadows and relief to the facade, rather than bays, which would
otherwise extend over the sidewalk. This further reduces the mass of the primary body of the
building.
The corners at Tam and Lincoln have been accented by thin vertical corner elements to address
the desire for a gateway feature at the entry to the downtown. Balconies have been added at key
locations to emphasize the vertical elements and further break up the building massing. The
building no longer extends beyond the property line, or over the sidewalk at any location. The
lobby glazing and recessed stair elements provide further relief, changing material and breaking
down the body mass. The rear fagade has been modified, particularly at the corners, where
setbacks allow for windows and eliminated the original blank walls which faced second street.
The building base extends -around the -rear property line elevation and screens the Marin Paint
Service building. Above, the building body maintains a similar architectural style and detail are
as the other street facades. The corners at Lincoln and Tamalpais have small vertical tower
elements which signify unique two level townhouse apartments which anchor this very important
and visible elevation of the building.
The top floor of the building steps back five to eight feet from the story below, reducing the
visual impact of this tall building. This concept was discussed with the City in a Council
presentation by Steve and Breeze Kinsey, showing how a building step -back can relieve much of
the masses appearance at the upper level. The change of material at the upper floor, the step -
back and sunscreen awning provide a strong parapet or "top" to the building, which was a stated
desire by the design review committee.
The building has a number of amenities, which support downtown living. One of them is corner
retail at Tamalpais and Third Street. A bike lounge, which includes secure bike parking as well
as work bench and work stations which allow for routine bike repairs. This area is designed as a.
lounge where riding enthusiasts can congregate and coordinate rides and events as well as relax
and socialize. We are looking into, whether there is the potential or need for SMART riders to
use the bike lounge for regular storage of their bikes to reduce the need for commuters to take
their bikes on the SMART trains. The podium level includes common spaces for exercise, and a
business center/meeting conference room which supports home/work activities. Additional
management space on the ground floor may provide future retail or other support once the
building is initially leased up and if there is market demand.
The courtyard and roof deck are the two primary open spaces which are part of the building's
amenities. The podium courtyard is a more contemplative space with a central sculptural bench
and a strong simple form landscape emphasis. It's meant to be a quieter space for residents to be
in, or look down upon. Its landscape will be designed anticipating mostly shade, and while lush
with color, it is meant as a respite from the urban downtown. The planters will have dual roles
as some will be C3 planters to provide stormwater management and improve water quality.
While final stormwater management design has not been completed we anticipate a combination
of C3 treatment planters and the need for retention and slow release of water from storage
facilities under the building, accessed from the garage drive area.
The roof deck, in contrast to the courtyard, is the active amenity laden area which provides wide
views of downtown, Mount Tamalpais, the Canal and even the Bay. It includes barbeque areas
and large dining table seating. A number of groups can entertain concurrently with various
activities such as corn -hole and gaming tables as well as seating areas and fire pits to collect
around for evening conversations. The elevator extends to the roof providing easy access for all.
It has been combined with a steel frame and trellis which allows for both permanent or
temporary .covers to provide shade for table seating in more intimate outdoor rooms. The deck
areas are defined by both pavers and wood decking and large planters with small trees, which
can be seen from below, adding visual interest and highlighting the activity on the top of the
building. The active roof deck areas are screened from mechanical equipment by low walls and
planters. The remaining portions of the roof are planned for solar thermal and photovoltaic
panels for hot water and to offset the electrical house loads as funding allows.
Given the location and construction it is anticipated that the development will achieve a high
level of sustainability, anticipating a green point rated building which could also -meet LEED
Gold standards or above. This development represents a new model of downtown living for the
City of San Rafael. Next to the SMART station, transit center, bike corridors, HWY 101 and
across from Bio Marin and other employers, In addition the "walkability" to downtown of this
new community will add vibrancy to an area of San Rafael, which has spoken to these goals of
high density, transit -oriented, market rate and affordable housing for many years, with little
results. This is an opportunity for the City of San Rafael to realize its policies and see its vision
come to reality.
The project is requesting the following Concessions under the City's and State's density bonus
Regulations:
1. No front setback on Third Street in lieu of the 5' setback requirement. Other existing
buildings on Third Street do not have this 5' setback.
2. Building Height: 73' height in lieu of 66' which includes the height bonus for affordable
housing. This is requested in response to the Public Work's and FEMA's requirement
that the occupied and essential facility areas be raised l+' above the flood plain. In
addition, the required height of the parking for three level stackers to be provided above
grade, requires additional ground floor podium height of five to seven feet to
accommodate mechanical parking stackers and other equipment clearances.
The development is not asking for a parking concession as State legislation allows for parking
requirements of not more than .5 spaces per bedroom for housing within one half mile of a major
transit facility. This would require 81 parking spaces. Parking, is being provided at 1:1 + ratio
for residential units consistent with the Downtown Station Area Plan Private Parking Strategy
recommendation in lieu of City-wide parking standards. Also as recommended in the Station
Area Plan, parking is being provided in an innovative way, through parking lifts which are
inherently "unbundled", and the parking will be separate from the residential unit, allowing an
individual to select not to own a vehicle. The overall parking strategy also includes loading
spaces within the garage, "Uber/Lift" drop off spaces and three spaces will be prepped and one
open space provided for electric vehicle charging. There is temporary bike parking on the
sidewalks and permanent parking within the building in the bike lounge and possibly in other
locations as needed. We believe that this location immediately across from the major transit
facility in Marin County is the perfect location to use the policy strategies which the City has
proposed for the downtown station area.
Parking lifts are being used to provide the needed parking in a more space efficient manner. The
parking lifts are organized into 5-6 groups, that share controls, allowing multiple people to
access their vehicles simultaneously. It is estimated that when ordered it will average 45 seconds
to retrieve one's vehicle. You may see a video of how this type of lift works at the following
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzAarYWXJHE , We believe this parking system will be
efficient and effective in allowing residents to have their vehicle "on demand" while not
requiring expansive parking areas which would make downtown developments less attractive.
There will be backup power for the lifts and, in case of an emergency, it is estimated that the
garage could be emptied in approximately 15 minutes. The vehicles ground level spaces could
be removed more quickly and the raised vehicles could remain and be protected from water
damage in case of a major flood.
703 Third Street represents a model transit oriented development for downtown San Rafael. It is
high density and close to -transit. It provides a range of housing opportunities and -affordability,
It balances the desire for less reliance on autos with the need for parking. It will provide for high
quality urban living for those that desire to take advantage of downtown San Rafael's amenities
and those that want to be close to transit and/or downtown employment opportunities. The
design reflects the traditional principles of buildings in San Rafael, while meeting
contemporary desires for urban living and looking into the future as downtown San Rafael
continues to improve and expand the quality downtown we all desire.
77,
�I
s
�0+ ho 0 N y N N
o a) W O
a) � W � OTr V � •�'� �" � +'� �O ^� � � Jam' p � •y �
rOn .� vi
'd 'C ��0 N bA p Oa
q vii
Q .� ` o o`
vc a.
Cd
a
:� '-
0 -104 04 Cd o
P4 b
o G4
4.
U N`cdc}e"`�� c�yU�3yYo�CZ a�
o�o
U .0 8 �� NO v
mai
rA
NO
d O
Ed n
aC�
t4:;� '0
a4)N
O a3 a) O
M
U
Cd
U O N
mp3.
U 0't$'5'"� 0o 9 Oo
oN �d
to
0
U c "
00 ,Q" ' •,
•+����+'
M�
+�•O
c, 0+N�I'd
0 t � N
o `�oqa'd
'd'
0 MN U p >, O
Cd
�� O O O 13 Cdti
•�
^p
p M M •� N U a) a) C � � �" O 0 i0 -i x U . � N b •,� � G -b '"
Q"
O N v cd m a) O a) O .d U_ C
0
a� , O
N. H + y O p i G .fl � p O
o
ai >
y x�c Wq
oa)
cNV]
o�. .0-
a "M as U ;9 O 0a o'
N
wOo as
rNy
> O1bA �OU0
O cd "; �cd O
vp
n
c� 5
0 0
PL
.�. u rn a) Uy
rn O 't% �
�1
�
a�..,i > •
0 � `� O O � �O a� N F7 O c�d
vii 'i � bA � � � O
• � v,
U H m N F. 3 cC .2 U 'ate B u mo" ,P. bOA
cX 'C O
ani a)
>���
bo .o°�'�o
rA Cd cd
mo "p U O a
.a U 9-0
y'G
c'd
F
by v o o El� o
0 ice.
�>�ow°
00.
0.0
4 •� p> O s- 0,0
"" vi b
9 -cQ, A �
co, a0i W cps W .0 , ' con3
oo � to cid
.a
a bn 0 ad
o o a a
ons, b w 'o�� �,+, a ��~ o o a
O 3 O' N M4� O2 U N y N - N O 4r n
N ict bA .� 'MN U N N ti s.. U t" �' y !�" �.., �' w 'L� 4.. N
" ,� iU-+ .� C s.�•
0(D
U .� .i•+. ,b o N 'C .L1 ��, +� U O �i o U v)
++ bA t p s. N 2 7� ' � � �. � A O cl
~ �"' N -,-, N ,s..,-' •O C i�. a N „� cn O MN W. •}' '
0, 0 N C/] •ri (,I •;
7�1
o 75 14 75
A�0 oyan�sco�¢
gP
o t4 cc 0. .5 '
OO>-°a,°
U O. .p cc
Cd cc
�yo�o°��pc.o cn°
,-040-�w
v' O p Ni �" c 0 O 5.• t"u b cd
c� .- -- N U bA
bo
'� cn c 3 c w ^ '0 4'. b a rO ami co .� �, c d
w a �'� ° a>i ;; cd `o �..
°
'lz �• o aoO �O v ��' �
w•� '�8
.
CO o dA
cr
b `d .fl a) a . ° Cd N
pp w y ° gyp' p a^Ci G Y `+ 4� .1 ,- °� °� o
o
ca, U N" a�' �y
cd yCd o Urn cd 00
a
x a°i ua °°. on °
T -i cd 'y O ° �" U Vi �,� N ,� yU� c� i� U pp
> +N•-� v� pN TD.0NcH a�sVy N
�N 0
1. 04r� as.. 4N 40
O O >° 1EL �
G ,0 ;.fl .- vl r- 'N N q .� y U N m'C U3N U) O
y c`" o +- + ^cyon o
U ani 4 ~ ca '" o °� �1 y ° C� 'O sU b 0
' N U O O" 6" O v O N, U C
b
b �
� U
a' cd ce a o
N w y
0
O vU t
R w y
U o
o
U
4"
'd bA S." 4 id
zo O U 0
o°"d°'"a
A-�'� •� Vii , � �
U
N y O U N N
O y NU O
cd N ti
y N O $:I,`/� N
t], N O O N 's 0.
• V1 ° ' T. '�n �" N �" cd cto N
>i o��agcH,octd c� 40.ai
4-4
d`+-4d,�, °'-S-6 •� U K
a0i Cd
° .4 a0i +� Fi >
O a v,.s� "o M^ .,cp O o+ m>� O Y1 f
o
'Cad cid �+., 0 bA N ..°. tU�" M
p4.4 0 � � � +� � b 'ami N C4+s � Cd 0
'240, 0a� oA �c o .� 'a Wa 2 " � �
� w � .� o o 'er 0, abi o
�. N
xi
: o o
'0 c
.0 (DId
-o
y0 onU u� >>i �`�'�Cd
oma.• o °° Y O o cb
d
� �
� � � � x � p � � � '� p• ^, � r .� .d +� v? c� ani .� a0�i �''� �
a) C4. �ao 0 0 3 €b m ogip, >i
CD 05
`n .d _ C m N 6. w>T. O
> �" O O N w O N+ O s o p +w c
cd ++ bA
C
04 N on
O cUi o 0 o v p U p
Ud o �v UdW 9 i� AU, o 2K a W o v,eG
ui
0 y +� .d
C40 O
c;s b p y 00
cc 14A
> 'P N �oo'�wa
p.o 0on U
' ani v ° U
O
U4-4
0 a� w
w
U
F
0
N_
«S
rU+
0
Ccb
9
w
0
a
wb
0
y P. � 3 N o
PQ ami o Cd
E �u.oN'�p. 'Od .
V
�. p. it � 0 s. N
p O
oda.
41�3oNo
y ° p
y ¢
00
�.
y CC � U F••i L. U N i�
O UY�
o w o v
'O bo 0
M
O
.O •� o N O
J:L,
0
�O°
N p 0
00 �. 0 0 c�
V Q",tzj �" 'C3 0
o 02),
o° .- 3 O
0 ss
cd
°�
b~ '" O O V U O
a� 3.0
S�. U
cd 0
6o > to A. o 3 P. °��' ° •
_ b
.u) cd
�J N 'O -d 'O •� 'N
O
N y
° o Eb a3i 'o
Eb
ami 3 .18 'CA .�
07'80
U
.� , ...
o
K
Id +; N �+ 0 8
0
0,0 N U V'm i
ss.
d cd V �
0v 0 O
a� ,� O a� O
0 o O
00 cda�v a
O , O
mi
�i ppqq O � N
Cd
cd
cn Cd
U ra Cdy O LP
� torn 3b max=
V
On o� .•
0
Uvaa3,�•3a,���
0
N O
sN
aVi U • ra•' O
0 o Y b Q
o'
bn Ob
rL
a ss
V
cd
Q 0 `b r.
bq
ra
0
o t.)
0.5,0 a
UHC a� �A
U
c .00
0
0
bA ' rcd�
^� -d
C .Y N b4 N
e
b �
>,
y � a
N
m cd o
�I%d
W
ami •�
� ��•.'=y{�
O O (D
O +
u.� U
�.� y cUd
o-1 0
O •b 7.•.5
3
o iG
a�
o
'd y
i o N°
o too
"
0�
p N T'3
�aoi
U Q
N
m e OU N
N W y m3 7r
W
Ocd
0
v o
co
N•
U
N
o
��..,, �+
0 -d 0' y
O
y
O �. �" N ai
!], y
y
Q
U N U
bA y •� U
N 43
U ^a g U
.Ur , �
O
M
v' .0
O 3
O -- A
Q O
cd U
co
¢�
o
O Cd O •�
i/] p .�' •��' •� ren
3
o�
UvI
o0o�
Uo
opo i•o°'00
U
0
Eli
0
o
p,
-1 , X00 U3 �cd
� p
�. o.��
ON
To
72 p
U
b0
�°
0b`'-'�
3�
� 2.
y a N
.a �����
IZ
�
4��
4a
•� � ,� .� p;
C �
0 ;,a•--,
b;;p a0'a o a
A�
H o`° �.�
-d cd
0
L7
g
�l 0 a .d �" ° P"
z
o ani v
v � d � o � � 'v � C7
x
`►�" � �' °
x A v � � 'v o
iA•l
,
.�I
w
O a) O O .9 � •^,
bA P. 0"d o `*-, ani O O O
^�' U U CD 01-
4,
'-
� � ani �" O '+� M p. � a) � 0 •U � bA •..
oO
Id0.o. 30 3�tJ
�0 �o Uc°
.aa) -��'c�
m bb
to G ^C 3 O a) o
o _
N O z Q" N bA O
'b U V} ii �" `� •+--i L" p y
, " m
C%� 3 cd ° V 4.. SOS" cv]d
No° i o U O
°rte �cq °� � �noobq �_� �,°�� ar)$a)'�
aoi o o ° �.. o Y 3
> Cd aw�i P. � b = -dam 3 2 cd o 3
O p O U O a) ¢ y c� Y > W Y Q
W 'A�' p. o '" �° bA > '� ai O s0 O bA
0'A
O O
o
4(5 tj
3 pO y . Q. cd aO � .� 'a) cd v Q
> � +, O a) a) .d t8 > ca N O
o
a 'cl o o y C 5d a0i 'O ani
a) In ��' ;�� o'er, �.o�;�
«i OOy, oOi. 0 3ido OO" v' ccm 0 + 0 cd
7:1 U N O �� ¢•' �
Q0n
4� 4 '
gyp O
w
pO
In
p •U•
O ff.O O O O o U -00
� O p O O O O
En
cn l—� N �1. U¢ z z zc� P- s. Q 0-8 z O c' ¢ cd U U
OO
cid O O O �-+ s.• rn U
o c c o
a)� —
0 Pu
O �' U 'C v, a) O O 4� 3D,
cd . �. I 0 0 :a o •'� U co O mQ F p cd
a) O +� O O `''-'2 ed bb
a 0. o Z o
•ate+ •� �
O bA o O a) O,'=-+ c�
'Cl
_Cj
�+
O p U cC F. 1. O rn cd
bJDY .-r �i Y O ca 0
A U � � � In
o
0 bA O Y .Y �+ y V X� 'C .2 U
.o y
,o 3 �, O Z IDD by bA ,% 2 (�; �
.�, N bQ a) (1) •fes." �+ V cd E U O
a) s., O . rn
71,
�I
W
En
a�oi�CA
°'Hv,�oo
75b
°
a�
a� ou •� � pq � o IJ �°
N ^d p q p O
U
O O y
cc 3
000
0 U
^d N
a�0, tp. O
_ O rn�Ow
N O O O
C7
R. �%" ami O
too
P4 •.n O �+ r•+ 3 uz °
9 4] O O
0.
,—
� w 'm
O
cid N •� ,� � ,moo � Lp �
b O
p
. ryi •+U+ C1� N p V
> p ...
U ric U ti) p PQ ° ttR Q. 0
oria• ° c P.
w o 62
"04rA
- -0 � o.° a
+o
��-' > ;� '� •� � 0' .� �' � >, `� 3 -d' ��', v� `� � � � •,��, ami a >+ c� � � •� x p � a~
O U ° _2 .. o Iq x ami on °� ami ami o Q,ro
C, U m w y o tU w p bh
y. E� N 0q O N y
�.to t J zo In
Cd c�w� Cd
to >^� � c ouxw o �U °o
� � c o �
0,0
^a V1:1]
w'. N �N N .�•�"'G¢' °^3' U U 'a'��NU:d my.'0 =
O
a 2 °a O
v¢,
N
0 moG w°maU 4,dmo
i ���conon ,o
aAy
cc 0
W c�
0; " 3 0 ° '�~, mlaoi `� ami 0 a`�i x W ri o A .5>
A x�� ti�� o 0� a
N
oZ.
�H
00
U
y
°O o
oU
N
�o
N
�a
o
A �,•" M
w C'J
U �
wHw
IN
N
cL7, O N bA
+5
O O y �°t". -0 4" U O N
N N ..N.i O 4�+ p N O
•Ori N .r N 7 T Y •~ N it
O O O
W bq O N
°Ha.
.24--0
OA +:
H bOjp.C.' cd 'O U � +� •� � O ^cy .� .� N
+•+ U C N C
x 0.w o o°,°o ami O a• o
0 0 ', Cd c ^o ° R c k c
oo 0 o 'on
0 • e
O 4
U iiO i ate•• pU
id CLQ
gi
�I
W
0
'b
Q%
a
0
N
O
N
N
•�
M
�
o
0
U
.ti
xi
N
O � N
Urn's
cl
cc
0A �� Q
3 0A
0°n
c
> o o
o
a�
lot
-0 �
° � � 3 �
on ° :o
c o
oo
'c�
�
,� N
�pqami
6p
•> �•a
F-• ..moi :y j
U
.fir N
40,
C
Iz
L O
i+ Y.
"
Ln
4, '
O
co
^�' 0
0
m cC :d U
O
C
•y G
b
L °
ani�p�p
O p
� o
� �
ani � a>i
~~
W
� '
° 3 �n
v� al 00
U o 4� -a -a
.fl 3 0
U
T� U
go
•�
�
Y,�
��, U
y
Off' �j..,
O +�- •� U cd -
N U chi
�s
cn
sw
o�
��
q�
�0'�
�� �0.>o�
�.�cd
���cp
��
Ei
m�
���
j�,
p0 .>
:,oo
�k
cs
°°° `° �
� �
o
A ^ ;� m
0SE �
s
ti
o0En
=1 ,
Ci O
C 3
pNq
o�
� `�
En Mo U) °'
�,
o 0 0
�a�
O
b
y
w
U 0 v ,l u, C' G U
cok"�
x
o
R)
s
o
o. Y `� o
an
�q
N
O
44 O «t
H O
y�jy3,"4�09C,23
aim
o
0 >
h>
o
i�
a� +�ti b j �.
'd
o n
o°i
O U
p�Nj
p H H y •� 4�
O vNi
TJ r-•+ 4J
m���-°.°b�
x cd U
N
U Q
`ti
W H h
Ln
o�3
ccCq
>,
42.
� a .� �
•
•
•
•
�, o +; � � � ani y o �
� x y � �
�°
•'�"
O v
y
s
O., O
.cdI
U �
y •Y
QA
L
O
U
V -O
O
A o
W
4 °
Q
Z ,
40
g.
�E
w
p Cp
Y
O Y
m� y
N cd
Y
I p
> p
N
" O
O
Nm
m
c5 -6
N
w o o a�
G�
a bp
•d+' .O cd
p m
b o
aoi '
o to U '
aoi ' �'•,'
A a� O
71
Cd
40
M
aP44-4
-o aoi O ��
`� > �
°
°° o p
�
m y -0
K O cq3bo
Cd
0 0
0 �
�H
xi3`'� a
�. aHcd
m •� .:
ai (uo a
o a N
°' ^J5 o
m
ai ai _d
ami i
G�� •^ Q.'.� a0i
vi O V V] M 0 4i•4
o
ai
m .QJckl > N
ami �' ° •� ^a
�' a? °' b H
00 00
Cd
o> C
p 00
z•.. P°e'l �' «i
> �
�wd
p t';8
o
0A
'
'C mi t
o9 2 U
aw
'.Cd
;-4�
o
opYb
0003
,flma�
orb
m
o a�a�.
y
06-8 v o PIZ, •sa
m UOUrim,
Q NV1,y Y ..
°
}�A
nS�N
N
O m
y0 N U
vi
CA
Q U5 °
o� c
rA
�6.0
Pk � .� �
�; Cd � � � oA � � �
�
(41CA
gbo
04)
-3 o
�
U
d')
N O N
o++
o
O .n sy l( IZ s..
> • '� .ficd
r! a 's
wo
�'i �c�•� �'
A cd o � U �,�v• �
� �'
� � � U� � ami ¢,
Via, �`�� .00,o
�'`n
�„A'S
•a�'��o�
�na� an'��c�>,�•o'b�'
i1
�
'UQ. •�O �
> O
O Z O
Oy'
.
O 02 gb
O O
o�
N
p
•a ...
m> �, p
N O aU)
pr c13 'vii O }0.
�. m
0�.00 V1P W A�
' U O O y
l+ U cd -0 U
'd
p b
W
U 0 N
° bA v, aa)
bA O 4cqs N 'd
cd �, 15 bA
0-0
C13 CIS
b cd
o
En
Cd
b � � 0. cc
Uo 4°�' cUd U a
� o •a cd
cri
Cccd0 A� in,
N � '�. .� ,� � � � w ,� •cid
PO. cid
. w Ld
vi
•U" y "C f. b �1. v O
H 3 C's Z
F.
N
O
>
ti
� O
H `�
� •� � �
�
obi °
14)
p
h
.9b
_
O
O to p
obi
w .z
z
go
SZ
w
o
5�
U
"D
a vn
a ^�
oz
•HE .�
o
ai O
�
ti 4:1y
� ,C,
ti
. 00
to
o
cs o 0
o
Uv�A
z% R,o�iQ
U 0 N
° bA v, aa)
bA O 4cqs N 'd
cd �, 15 bA
0-0
C13 CIS
b cd
o
En
Cd
b � � 0. cc
Uo 4°�' cUd U a
� o •a cd
cri
Cccd0 A� in,
N � '�. .� ,� � � � w ,� •cid
PO. cid
. w Ld
vi
•U" y "C f. b �1. v O
H 3 C's Z
zi
�I
W
n
U
%� �
cd Q1 N
Worn
v O
24.lo
">"4Cd cd
3
QCA
Cd
>
o
ace 8>-a�oon'o0
Cd
C's
4.
°
o
a�
a
"o o;
O
U
0 0U
N
b^
.o >
ti ; 0
OM
o
cc
Y
oA
O
O
>°
a
o
0
`
a� CA cd
C)Cd
t
�° Q 3 0 O
PL
w
o
cdcd
a
o^d�
ani o++"
o
CN °
°o' 3
>,
p ti cd
o�
cd }�+ oE� onl^d
U
3
C0
3
o
°
o ani
H° o.a�
a d o
w
�.
° .
->°.
v�
U >
°J Y -a
°
F�
°•gt
o cdyob
°'.off
C w° 0�U��
a� -d
NrNi
°
^' 0
>,• Y Y R
c ami
� 'Y
°
o
° `
'
°
oamiC 30'ox
Z0Y
Cd
o�;.o�'o
�c��x4.,uCd
CAS
Q,'
y cd
�+„'
U � O N
fes' R . G:
s
'C
�d
H�
cC
0¢
0 0
O vi
Z� U� C N U�
� a�
O '%~"
-0 cd
oA
�°
cd0��
N
E
-0
Z
'Oa Oi
OO•OO
cn
Ni C § C
C O
o
p. a a Cd
x "o 0
>
°d
A
01) .� 0o~b'o
ami
•
• • •
•
•
�,z �" n cd p•�"'O
�A�+
yZw
Y
U vi
0ElY
U va A b 0
x
y
0
o
V]1
Y
14 Cd
0
Cli
0 Cd
r]�OoD
0Cd
W .o a b
as
VNqq
m.
y .2
b$ .
¢•;° �
'nM
v
>
Y ° c0
oA meq+ 0A•�
a� �
N -a �•' ;-�
CSA
�' 'O CUA • N v�''i N
ct,Ed
O
V 0
°'
i
>cl
3
�° A 0
o O
a. �
� � � Edd
Q 0
own � a� •Y
'Vl
� cd
° ° • �, °
VU] m o
c .daU�
SO4 Y
Id') G� i+,
Ute+ 2 p
Q �i
O 0 CA .� N
y ' 0
TO V
Uy
v O O
U i. .d
U o° Y n
' O O 'C
C
Qr
(D
G
OU> Q b OU
U U
b�A(4�
cd
Q•�j,
M
OCd
urs
?,�d
xi��4��C7r�
. • •
-Z
U v
MI
b
m ;.r. - =
ai C ,0 N
bA� N G O N
bb 'd
N
C�3 p O
v rte.' y N 00, U U
oz cd
Cl) a� o
O cc
� Q. •`nr Enal 0
'A
L!1 N i••. 'C A
cqs
N_ O 0 U
o o O +
O O � O O
z In o
a? oo v
OvNi�❑❑ .ter
d id U N y�
s., • C T3 O .N. O
Cid � U U
�N 00 v yvMi"�•�
cd o �,
^C 0 O t
0•�j M " .�Ur 'b
ti
>2o
U rn a
IE a
U o
40,ra-
O
v o *j ,s7
7� 2� -:2 41
4i
U bA r; In
~ —� y FVy �9
o Chid
U -0 b a
b
o % -C
O 'Ly .per.U Z3 y""
p n 'C O a
0 p C
N U O
p U �G Oi
U
CN vl by 7' ! O
a cd O � o Q a� U� 0 -p 4:1
tb 'C"d ~b
Off. 0 O o WA% O
Cd
Cd
CV v p" v Q
U � ( - • • • •
W
OI
W
a� I �; .I by
$�030�
cd
O N O
U18O
4'"-� •� U
O_ 4_�
�aUi ani
C4
UCd
6
> O by '
30 4,
aniEl
cd C ;.j
°
a o
y 3
�>•0C3
F� o ¢.N
°r°�°
U 'ccc� �bA
3
> +'�-' b�A '� O
45 S"
cd N >
�U.
O
3
id�'�.'a O.
,s"- vIi
r!
oCd�,�
Q bA
U
o .� oCA
Gn° ai O
on
Cd Cd
a. a� �yC6y'
O
U
Ocd
>
aUi
v
�I--I •ti
'�
i•ylo,
d-+
3
O
�
•� � 3 �
M � y0 � O
m
:dadaIn
sz
A.o
o
yQ0
y T o pCc* b°
X00
Ln
�A
Uva °'S
Cd
U
N r-•+ �CCd
'onby
Cd
a�.��
s �9ba�����
> p p .a
N p 4" w p
�G 0 p N
N O cd U
OU cd n
N
m •.�," �, O
vi
,s". .b � � cd
� .� x, cd rn �' N
Off.
O ,_.., bA •�-.
O �,
V ,9 �i bb + O
•tom."
cd
a N
Js
O N bb
O
a� id
ca'C',
V bb
^O cd
U ^fl >
O 0 o U
O U
p
bA
O U 0 OZ p
N
p
O
^y = U
O cd O; 0
N p . S-'�'
R! ,.� N
ren Z
'?r 4� cd y cd �+
>a N
p
'N
ti
3 `
+oo O �; U t8U ani
3 �s
C4
�14
°
0 3 >-d
> N
3•� �
> C,3 , vi
3 ''y �.� Q ed
O U ;
o
ft
bA
i.
.�
M ° �
�� Q"3
�� �'� �'n
00 3
°`
MI
in.CIS
o °o
3 Q a3i
p
�
° ^ wOd
to
y
c� O Cc
0�
a aa� a •a 00 Q. P.
00
Z
44
rn O O
so
n U
'G v
00
A Q.
aCi O + CyyCy rc
"°" N
60
o
Cd -a °
o
a O
°'.� °A�
°
oU onS
'
A N G U Q. O Ocd
-a cow
4
a1
3JD
0
CC
12
U r O
h `�
cd U O .>
n i""
U" V N Q. N C
�'
2-0 o y,°+
o
oaQ� a�
00
cd cd
>It o� ° 3 �• °�' c a O U
N O N c
a� %. O Cd > 'G ) V.
°
U.
p
U U tO a
N
aj
° +M
Cd O
raN
Q. •.. O w Q. U Cd +r y
°
>p.
!a .�-, o
O G > y N ami o ^
cd
'
M Cc
,
zo��
�U'd a"
°' .o�
o�
OQ
¢
s0-0
o0°
°�y
m° Qo•
o°
m o�Aa
'rtAw
3
.
Cd n
Oo 0
d
YO� -0
cd .
P'A wto
A
Q O
p ��
+Oya+�
N�.3".
++ N�
'�N a�
F••i O�.,�
� Cd UO
O N s'v
0O
•v-ya+
M
'P
xvai�
N
V A.i�a
p mU � •�
= 10
,O
0 `
O °°
cd
N a> 'i C O
Uw,yp.
q
�p
avi
Q0.o
U"O"
ai Os�
° a
HU-Szz�zU
UU
4a
w
Ob
�:o
a
c
%.2
�
U
O + a 2O >C
N
+n•'
o �
� -> P.4 o
P�In
w c A 0 o a>i � 3 a q >
'
� ...
X30 j>,,' •..-cs�a� ago c,
�
bW } U
V.
73 A
d_,cdV
co
mb 40, o cd
y0
rim 0p.
00
29 0 41
O
4
r U0 to O
>,
Q sem." N 0 ami N Q
p v
'
C � Qy " W
Q N
a
o • �n ' °
0-0 a
°' '°�+
o. -d a� U O
Y -o -0 a .r a .'aami
3
ami
P. c id
-a
a' . �..�'~• a
. y n ��. ° =C" 006,
C
ado��o
i
A o a>i
0,0
Aa�.�a�UU
AaAQ..,-aAQ.•av�Q.v,W
Ao
U Q. U A •a
U E w a c 4, 'a
U Q. 2. • • .
GJ
9w
W
N
A
'C3 O
y
N vi
`n 4.
N yv w
N
U Q. ^C N ¢''ua N
A N N 'd •�''Ur
O
�. N N O p
Y
Cc 0
0
U
i�r ^C +3 cd Cd
U cd0
cd
Cd
O � � � �pyp rte''
boO
S�• s.• V � •.r �U+y
Wbo °'5.
� °' � � � a•'
ami p � � `" ami v •� •°^'
a Q. H • ? c
o p.
c� y cd N by 0 44- " U
O a> cd ani
cc
Cd
y bA
U
iy
y V •� g 4,
5
.sa'
O O M N y0 +' N O
'040-S N
Od
3 v ° � " U R bp.�
4)
�
a �
a> Op -' � z 0 cd "0Cc
bA a U�y . 'C "O�'
rn O N O .a U O
•�'� N 3•n
�a°
%'� Q W"
5
0 761)
°
f/i �'A ,yy O U
y�
V [��•]� i••I �"I..1 V] 'O `I1/ •�y�...%yt �•I•.I d% .� �••� �% •i�l
0
y^'
•r�.a ¢I (,,,, V
'N i••1 V i•1 (� V �J lV a ° �'q Y•3 4%
o 0 cd
ami I
�
R°',�Ua
.s..
o>
�; As
•�
'ani
4-• °
�
N •� y�,�
N ~ �
•:�
r�y U is
'd
E5
0
y..� N
05
Cd
ani
a
�3
�
a
p
Rv���°'
�•�3.��3
v
U 04 7S
U
U ee
91
�I
W
a >1 'd N (C
�
� a
d O cd a�
� w 4 U o
. ODOb
¢+ > � E••i v
a�
p. 3 Cn
ami cc A o cn
� N O � U •�
�✓
Cd C'. a�
U cd
N
a � •�='
aUi .fl �
Q n `� ed
w
t�. a�
= 0
:1
O U
U
.6U
O .
O >-20
a> bA
a
O o s.
0 U
U
O
N >,
V � >
U
o
0
U
ti
P. O
U V]
42�o�oa
bp�o
�,��
opo,
''s �
"aC44Cd
A
r
v
„�
c b�
a� bb
o�a.�W
°
y
W
a�
>o
o > co y p
�
A Y
goy
O O
a �
P
�
O A
�
A
�
s, m v,
Q �+ �
p
�
41.1
C.,
' b i b
w
C O G_A
�
c"i
a¢ 0B y
W
00
•p
QI
y w
H
.O
.�.+.+
CIS�.
N
bo
(z
0
Cd�� �.�w
v m o A
R3
a�a ° off+
P.
aAi
•� � � �
H •�
� U
0.1
� � � ��
o
-a cs
�
> ai
� > ai
�n .9�
°
:� aAi a
�
r a� O N
V
�I
-ftl
> i
U
U �
• � � � �
rte+ rte"-+ C���+y . �
y0 �
A
00�
O
B bb�"
c o
on o
all
3 b
v
.� W °
U
Ow
�
U
o o
;�
�,Z
m 0
`�o
�rl ��
.o�Cdbn0
15S-
O,Uz
�' � cUd
d
� r-• vUi F7
U
�+ va N 00
�" U
y ¢
O cd
"
�+
.�.
r. O U
O
O b�A i b
$-�
N p
C
ce ,0
m bb as
O
�+
00 th
+�+ ti t YO
as
°
cd
49
U 3 m N O
a co
Cd
N '� c
F•'" U vi
�+
o `C13
H
p,
ocd'Es
00
GA °r'
b O v°
•°
N bn U
o,
.� o
'O �y
U
U ° •�
° O
1°
•1yy
O
Ud C4 p
UH O cd �
gOg�
UH ?? 3JR 3
UH A 04
C U �4 y =C
'A A. N vi NC,3 N
LN
ON U
y
V?
i0, O Q N 0— M G bj
'C O
O
vi A vUi bOn
++
RS O ce U cCrn �+ N
U
a
3 i oio-rs30..Oo!§
Cd o.
.2Z
oo
cd
°'
w
° j'
�� 0
F, �
� �
4 Cd O .a
A 'N N
d o 3
cd
k r
o ^
O
AS
j V
Id i7 d
tU,
-o
c
J,
°
o
d
a3i ami
(S�
N � •� �
�
� � � . +.+ .F,J' 4=a cd -d U cd
� . X `�
D
d N U
,
�I
a,
U CC
N cd
YCd
O +�
o
cd
�"
0
Oo
Y
W
N �•"
•0
O 2' 4, cd
U >
.— Y
o U 72 4 RQ"„°
U
p
o
pr
O F' ",
a�
�Cc
O
U
M
O
UO �UU
cCfcn
Cd �cC
,-Yi
U
0
Cd
03 O
U O
�.
O O
C7 y
scus�d••• bA .�+
s-� 0,
N O
�" O 4"'
O 0�
4�
`n cl
cYdr
rte. U O
¢"
0 y
U
O O
U
^ C (A
d O
O.
A.
.r'
U
OU cd U w RS
O
s-
s0�-O m U
�•
�
a�z i��. ¢
O
id N
�'
o U
O
,-q
N
o 0 t
a�>i�
a>i o o�
p„ to v 'C
oa
t -i
n
O .-yt
a0
N O
0
U N"'
i °
> O
�-
cd
O > ami
�'
'!"
r4 O
-0
'oo °
o
c o
p,
2;1�
cd
v, C 7� Q
a
ami o
o
0 t4�
c
O 0
" 3
ami
o � o �
o a>,
v,
o
Y
2
+2N
y U
�.
o i °
a� �.
•�
3
o m
Pix
U ° O a o
' � O N -
Fi
} 0
R Z v
0 0
r- (Dedp
w
�
o�>
th
y ° �.w
W
o
on
°"3
y n
�� s°'���
W
�
Ol fl V O O
°cno
O a)
Zr
0� V
� N d R, cd O
14
>
Cd
ow
Q
42
0
cd
a s ca.0
U
a.�
cd
W o o
a
C's0
0 0 o
~
am
OO
' j
0°Cd
• • Q O
V U rY
r�t O O O
AN>
Q 0>
� C
g
a
2
f
U
O
00
N
a
00 0
oU
O
N
00
�a
0
00
;N
A � M
wHw
rd%
>
O y O O
34
O '
Y
O
4:1� jy �YY 4. ^
0 '�v O - ' b�Al !
Y
N
^
.�
'
� 8 N o N n
'b '0 '3
G
�°.
p'�'" ��
-oma
(Oi, y
cl�,o m � t YO
a�o�oo0
s0, ch
-oo
° 4
py
A
U
'� •' • N �"i U
Q
y
-o
N
vae0yi
U N
N
N E• A
ami �ami
Ao
rn
cd
3 O~
U Q
w . 0 2
O
-0N
a)
a>
�
'YG as
U
o N.i p."R
�O
l
cu
Cc >
J4
Ed
u
`~'
N o � yR°,
ami
t, Y
ami
O
wcd>
r
-0 '� w V y 5 Y 0
- 0
6
o a -S
�Q
o
cdIry N 0. N
�aa-o
Cd
cod U
p N O N N
O
o
A
IOD�-a°o
�o��.ou.�
a"
��,
���y�
a 4)
8 ON
°
;
O 0
A
O N sem.
O S
O s° y N
S ¢ y
U��C7 a
UH
UHA w �N ;. p.i
U Ey
o r-
�' .
~ a� ani k ` c
°'
o
ami
", 5 4)w° °
-�. '"
A. o~� o 14 �
�s
o�
on
�,
¢� cd '�
bA
0 0
O
o
6" pN
ma '
A � '� o
,
o, ° o `°'
Cj Q"
0> � a a
'� •..
ani
o �, •
y
y�y R)`�
h
o
o o yam., 0
a
Ab 2,
w
� '�o �°w�
0;z000
�o
o ob
o o
°.�.�
8�
o-° ��!
U0,0
`o v vii ^d
o �;
3 0� „•�
>
Z w p O A 0
�o
V a
o ani
Ore- 4;
q N m '0
W bA § O
w +.G+ .a bA +;,'."7
Cd 00$
PL
A
S W N
N
O G 'FO+ -C .f� O
N
d b
N
p 4
�j
U ieca
o
>
3
,°� ani • ,
.., a v�
d
y—C,45 W cw
a�'i a
p O �+, O °' o
O^ 1 a y O U
w
r�vdC%1
�OQ1'
acd
w
ct
Qw
N
v'W UoV CC•�
tV
0al"
bA
G 9N
° F� g
eq
Vs K
tz
G z
..I I
cd cd 4-4
ori
s7 oO. cd .� o a� O
o � a.�rcU1. � �b o� ua�; o
.a p N •� O y o° cd
W ° ¢, U N .j_Y YO
4.4
O
.F7
0 O b H
S� �U
�
CaO
W 5)—p0.
�Cj Qy Q, cd O
Mcn Rt
•Yf"„ •y
A o T3
' N > .b O O J 71 ccs i•. t".� ��C N 0
„++_,
U
a� •C m p 0 to y O
ID
Go
U
-d Q.' Acd p by �3 A •.. -o
° 5 ° a..o0.C.
3 0 'A^� td
0H ob'a •� o c -.0 c'O°°.o
1�. coo$ ov >, 0p•oU p.
O�
>N
ce
' T 0 U
OYW++ °=°UuogN
0
OvO ani
eu
3ox o � 2— 0 0 5-- ° v
a°4 cd.�•�
0 0 0 cd .5 �--i O '0 � 'a � N O W � � >i
00 00 K
yC"
>° p O
N •.
'101 Ny
Cl •1OM O°
�vi
•
N
.N�
.A�
'vpOi
O . 0
•vAi ycd
o p �i, 'd
N,Cd
�v �
�.� UU
0b
'b A rn vi
is
ami 0• ° 3^"d>No y Q °'� a� o4 o0 id °2 >,
Q O sa
p y
s. ..... v, y -,o ,°
U
o° Y V j ° c d 0
aAi
i o C40 Cd v 'o o p P, A" a 0
>
c',
U p w A
id
°
v, vpi vi p p cd � p U .� a. cd
C a`di oCd F" ou A o Ij 2 Y vico
�Aoo�oa a�Z
a�^C bti
o
o
o°
�' b �w p
Ua.0�
SZ C;3 0 CZt C) ;a °° A0 CSA U
N U yi
Gn
0 4' ti `W' '� 0 "0 .4Z A u '� A (D
ani 'Cl O
"G 3 N
0
CIO 1 11 N N �." m N In +' N ti
'C
R!
AjOl A'� T� 0
A a,
�o�ooo
Hy
Zr°' " cd •y G v
fi0
In
U
O M ti 0 rn +- y° ON
bA bq r? v U A A a>
oN.
O
�". p �Z 7:1a o 0 d)
o
c0p t —2.- 04 � c
cd 4
v
°
W
� O •p +� ... O cd
��a-�o o¢.�on'.d
vi
'0 M pId,� +� t••i •A ' ap�..y, c
Uo
y N��g••.. U cet a� .� N tom•" d
N
r.a
> •y '� .f•"y O p N °" a .�-' 0 '� +•+ V .may N 4)'m cd C
Qi 0 f3
/t
fn ..�. ics 7•. .�+ 4-1 ��
A U W o"
Y�1
U > a�
10
Z o .� A O -o
A
Z
U y Qn
0 >>'� 'oi � .d •� � .rA p P+
�
v
U
(Ji
CQ y.. +••. P. id N � U ..Vn A O cd 45"C
..yy.
cd
Q O >b
w
G,o
�e
O .4:
° rn C',y c�' R O O as 0° 0
�'o 0.�
F
Z id �d b id aki v
>
Z
Z AU Ab O ,u Cd
Z
77,
�I
w
�03a'
3
o a� o
3w
�•ao3
>
o 0
p
ani,,
O
to
C-) 'a
o, o g a' O .E,�• � � �
� �
•C o
o
o
I
.�.a
N O p '3:
1� ¢+cam' y0
`� °cn
`d
o � cl " i o
a0
0WCc
oA
o
c 0
0 4
.In
U3 w
.O .G cn O
O O
05
'y a)
O b bA a
O +; n
O a�
�
b
O 'O a p 'C
y
O' O O
O N *� C
¢
0
y
p ai d p 3 0 V
.2
6 A
�o
ooh.
o���'cdtr,
boo
CA
o'9b
bY�a.�
W
b
o
Y�y
�a�o������
�•o>��
42
o�
o kr)
CIO)
n y
p >,
'o
p�
13
'O cd 2 � j .Cd
d3 a O
o
0�o
oU�
Co
w . yC�y
D
a� cd
w °
o
W
U
^�
2,0
C'sw � p,
a a) U -�
W
' _
w
o o.
p 00
p ° Q .
n O
y"
a 0Cd.
.
�
•O "A,
w y O ti
.0 cN
cd
.
W
a
c
10
o
0O, 'O
F
C U
� U
p" N 'b "
v
p
k
O
R
-y" 0 0 sem,
O
O c p o Q u
lc SCIS
a
ao�
a°�
a
2
k
q
k
2
a
)
0 \ f
/
7
.2
$\]
\\
CIS
ƒ � 2 S
$ 7 2
®k0
0N
0 (2
d
\
"T
w
U bA cdNo
.� U O s�N
v, 6
+-p 40. cum.
0 cd
��0w pxo —,clo
O " 4-0 -8 U a� O M O o p +-'cn
W M i M p o¢ a N y "d . U C v
.
0
G O
o
y V U OU bo 0 b N a\ I
o `n n
H o f " O O 00 'o,O O o N
o v P. a> cd w 3 m
o
N C U v,ow .01
O O
Cd
Ell
O p o 4-i O N
0
bA bpq
.O O v,
0 Q0
® ® ryil O",
CI] F^ � O U •v ° U O � � O � � � � cd Y cd � cOtl sU.,
�r U O 4+
U
>~ o e
0 Cd
Cd
"Tm o N 3 ® !y O N E U' a o a k t3 O O
Off" :° � >~ °�'•a � W � v®o � a� ��� 3 P��'"' � ®� N
d "fid O bA O ;b N U0 cdlu ¢.,
3i1 cd o a ; :� cn 3 �° cd 0 I 3 o 0 o p
a�sig o �; o o .' h b^ o H U -
7'y M G bAU ami cd S. �' cd U N y m
Cd 4-P
V W von ani i 4.1 6bCd
O C N N cd 3 O
H®
UO C.) CID IML
� w> u O szUcdr. o w ® U U 0 U
cd0 v.
A t
Q cV
W
00
a12
42
00
oU
i
00 N
00 'b
00
Ob
�.� N
Q q 4
N
wHw
'�
Y
Y � � N •.U.
i.cd
� U O
CD
M N
¢"
�o
b
U
Elkn c �. Y
0 O =.
�. -d0 'Y
V
O X.
is ..;
O m (A
o
N
N
x.
Y
� b.`�.
N 'dam -.
•° �I
•�
tocd
Ld a� O
> bA— O
U
d
i m N R O
R
M.0tb
00
U E" ti cz d N
U d
i. Q U p... tN U W
ccOY
® 'd ® cd
a
Yoo
'n.E
bbAO O p Ua�
>
M
�-o.
>
"�
o
o
ca
o c ®oo_
`cd
0"
Y
pami
"El o- d
eq ";t4
p
r.
cd
12
00
a ' o
"
c. a
1=1° Alz " `� '
t
c>
°
o
V 4% 'ii : w
ZO
'Y
A ed
> o
O
bJJ
b
rs�•S
Cd
N
C N O C.• ' p. �"' �' . �'
4. � M.
ir'.
N d
O U �.'
o U® 3®
oC,4
O
:b
ri
vi
00
a12
42
00
oU
i
00 N
00 'b
00
Ob
�.� N
Q q 4
N
wHw
I*
w
M en
Cd
cd N o; `' d ��-' o cd o .� o
�'�'• o w -off o CZ �o o o a�
v0 's ��' ami o on0x� u, y "40 0-8
Ni •y •°y U U a,�- y U Q .5 -- � b •a ° •� C >
y
' N a 4) R a� •o
•°^ v' o� .� to tR p . ^� cd w � 0 o .d a� � �+- •o pow
cxi ��y R 0 o t- ° > 'v - 0i ,0 Ochi
yon0 0 �+ .s." cd N M — " U rn N O id
F.Cd Cd 0
" bA n cU 0 bA Q. r.
4l .� �. -d >
a°�' °. o opcd cdo °'°,_A �crj moi
.°—', ami ` ani q
...P 0 w o o •o �� ami �p C '�-1- o 0
N N C� yam. C o � yam. Q. °t1. 9 '0 0 O cC v? of U +�+
°.- � o � =•J �-d �, � o� c� o °'Va o c°��o-C �°M°cq o �
skn
o
0. D o H U w 0O c O U p y� N .�.J r +N. S� sO�al O
C�dN p cC U cd �, ,--i V N
o 2 44 0o7s to 0 -S 00 �"C ; 0 0 0 0 ° o Q o 0 o
3 od U '1-4 � 4-,-� `� Cyd u v 00
� N cD y p-- tb O W �"" K= 0 r.
0 0 0 a> ami 4 cd °�' c� p. +�# F` 00 � ai 0
O �� S" s•� m v� �' 'O N O vl
aN S p 0 4. 0 H 0 � a� p A y U A ° U0 to
En 03
_�
•cn o airs o o
0 .� cd N Q � cC N 'S"" �7 4�
+
O y0
'Vo�Co'i"-O'0N c0a) c 00
U '°' o v o o 0 0. �. omati
o -o b o i �' ob � a� o 43
� 0 ° didU° aoi
y o
>>'y
W s�" p � OO ti2 3 }a p 4-(
H,z� A. "E 6Hly"pV� a�� p OUO d � o N" 4
v
o
.H
00 t,
U
ti
N
00
oV
60
0� M
N
w E••� w
11
�I
WN
o 0H
�
p
a0i y O
c ° i -cod`� >-°.0v,
Ln U
U
+ c 0] 0
b N �Fi N N
w
u JR
c °pyo o 20 0? 3
Op
t c°g
V N O O U
m
•�
�"
"� M S"" b '� N � � U w •--i w '� U � � bA �
°
y
xn O
4-4
O N O
O
°�'•U
A;c a oOb�
°
�00
��
°3�wo .woo ��c.��•^,ocr
cd O cl U G . Q+
(01
R. �`'
°�' � � ami w v •r; x � � �
p. o
(-5ni a 0 2 4,i v 3 o o
otic
aa°u3� w °�'�°Cd
oav,a�Cd�c��,
`Ido p, c� ani
ami
��
floes � oa�o wcdoar o� °no
y '�
0
� c�
4.4
U`�UNN�Q 0 a., �N 0 cd t,•� � t�.(��"i '�^C�A
g
ti
� '•.� I--1
�
.� r iii
CZ
404
�o��.o�
o
a3.-.
�!f5 f!�Y
o y r -i G
H
°� N
�
'� p•o.�.O�•bu
N
'"'
� R3
d ° • a> � ami °v'
:bObO-d
p
M'dIR
~ k O ° R ° M
o 0H
�
d'
W
0 0
0 0
N U
Q •O Q.
H
U YO U
O
O cN O
0 o y
'0
aoi
� M �
N
O O O
N 'C 0
cd
N
0
v? 0
ch
± Q
N ..
O
" SON U
st
O
s1 G O
O
N o b.
Cdti c� cn N ~ "y" w >
® O N
Q Cd
m d. E c, ®Cd m .s.J o U O 0 U
p C5 y y to O w U
C O b. 0 c0 p N N ® N
� .--�
® W o
O W N
U ���"•_+{ •sU S.a •'U-1 iU-, •U �.�•/ o Cd
fQ O �j 0 -
. �E+ � O C,3 -0 0
g N Y O U C�
0 00 on bA x o a 0 Q d cl
a�
>0 o 9 (D v Ts � '0 W° P. = o 4) � o
�4 o ¢ `' �� offCd -o'er
® bA c"
cC d cdzs
'C
G N N 0. �" `n
�`nn . n ,-t.' O O ate+', b10 M d
0 U CC U U ®'+fid cl N
tj
(A W Fa w iy ,si
it ''G O c0 0 �,'d U ''' 'cd •� N cd 0 O +�-+ •� N s-.
i."+ •®
U cC 'O 0. O ® O O O O 2 cd O � 4 U N
W O O p ^� o>, N i bA U bbn n �" C pN 9i c" 'C$
OW)Ems " O 2uO t08P, G 0 r. v, -0 w ;T+ wkn
�G C7 � N �" •--� � w •--� � �
rP
�IAYE
W
bc
Y
hH
C'v�
•U
o
nCd
v
M
'oCd c
Y
cto Cd
�w
N^a C
Op
�. A •�
�
o
M
M• 41
N
on
Cd
JQ to
S
vU c�•� o
�
� o �
d
Y
U
N
Su
cq
o
.O
to Y
O
ty,
UC Ri
Cd
�O
Cd > o
1
bA O
d
p
N O
Y
Y
C
X4.1
0 Ood
tc
P 40a
n
r3 ++
G
cd r�•
®
3
3®
N
UOO
d
o.
�' "D Lz
o®
®
cd
®
o •
O O N
bn
Y
bA
ava
aoi
s
X0't4
0
�
3;-
O
�o
U
N OCc
U�
N
113
Y� N ¢"
O
-0 > 0
�
O "C
cd �
i bA Z
O y
O o
O b
cd .-+ p ti U
rn O - ' cd
cc
to 'o
O �;
O cd
pGp
• �
^�" vi
o.o >
Hw
sIn
,�
.p U > y d
cd0
fyi S F
O s ^fl bA •r y~N
o
=o
m N N
m
C 'C
o
d o
pa b�n� , 0 0
>•
0 to
U
b
bA O
®
Cd bA
N
U
sU. cn
N &], U
O 0 cn
O }•' Y
Ot
�"
O
CI1 of
bA o
cd
O cYd p .o y®
3®
~Y
' T1
��
O .,
N cd
'd M
04
O Y�
d
U'v�
qv
�I9�4
W
y
4' o
Icil
� .
�>
on +- +; an ;0.Cd
aoi i
3
i
cd Cd 0
e,
o O
°
cd
�3
N O U w
a3
.O V] N
O 'C 'C C's
�
Ld
O,
,•t." ani
o O
'� p � U
� � N
•� O ��
�
o O
•c
Q
N Q
"L�
T 5O•i
W
O�
0 '�' N O
,� O '� by
�-. •y d"
s0O •�^" "*� O
-� Q" 0 •— a1 O
A-a��ioU
300o�U'�b
to t
�.���.�
cbp �
^o��
o�U0CIS
�����N3��°'���a�-fib14,
..
.-. a�
w0
�a�on�
3".J O
1~�ao�+ �
o .n 5:>
'd N
24- p
O
fV O
� sU, a
(n $4on
en
7a u
o
k "
0 cdmCd
1
�"¢
ti 0 N rn .�
N, by 0 U�
+� V " U
Ed
'++
cd
4.
SU. O
a
Pol U> ..
o
U O Cd 'O a� s� ° 0 0 v) +, U� ir.
O c�c{
bb
go, CO
, U
-0 o-A"o
� ai
.o
•z o 0
o
N4
0 0 0L
Uo
40. .0
9>�
0 +, N N , V �0
9
zO
p°'0 �G
•o U Q
cd
i .0•
°a
ui >>AOUO
u 0000a�pa�oobpp„�o•
�. �1+=p0co a�
o a�-0•�bU
0
U
O N O'O >>
•� O +
O
p +�+ �O
-S
U °.9 p�a
U � 70aE
�°s�.,
U�. lad s.,Uu.�.�-dg�
bA � bA
N • �
'� N a! '�� N
1 .9 -
-a 42
12\,O O
++ O� y ^v���N U
:" U
Cd
N 4O U t].
,n
C N
+pG
P4C O J i� ++
O O040 0
O m 4.4 r.J
+U+
0
04 � � ani � � � � N
�, a
o
2
0 9
0 W, �
� U
cA
^cs o cl
0 O
O
�, Ad
O 0 2 U
b
p
IOU
U
y,n � En
O
+-
Cd p .!10
U N N O
�
C� ++ O
0 W " �
W 0. O
U U p
0 E N
yC >0. a p�m�
0.- O
U m N b
� +-�
FO1 O
0— . � "0 0 <
rA' "C Ic (� � 4 Q p p"
"D 0 O " boo
W O � �
.O c vii
e�3 � � � t3 "� � U 'C + 0
•O O
rA 04
�'0 -0 O
1
ma
U 0 bA
yQ=
0
u0Np
i
_A 1� O I b p
t@y012
o.-
/�I 54
O •
• o
� �p Y 'O > irA 1 i
'
O
N �
�" i� 1 .Li Y
10,
^d P; anCdi
Cd 0
r�•l N � �
ry � � U ..w
rl ;
�I
W
b
6
y c C bA
•PFi r
y bA
C
OA v 0 OJ)
s�,
4'7 Olip
cn�.ot7�A�
Y
A. o :� 0
�a��b�'dm•
A
-o
0r.,
-�
'� o
°°. o c�i cd o
r.-0
OD
•
'� tw
U O -fl rn bA ,� '_'
O U 'C a�
bA t8 y by N
Q p �' d ° ami
b v� w v�
a� °
>, a�
y p .
°
7p,
cd
cd
°�' Z o' ° Q"
y
°�. p U ^� O
ani
-�w P' (1) s~
3 ^C w
CA p ".11
O Cd 'C ,O O cd
> -d O
O �• ¢, y
w U cd41U.
Y' 0 Q 0
3 o 0
N CA cd c Un
Q.
�°
pO a� O
O° Q
'TJ ¢ 73
Cc
U
cn y U A.
N
O U O c
p '� +'
^ N
�kr)
U O
(800 w�O o
�cd
O 0 00 S�
.>
°Vp
0v
o> cd O
O O 0-A
O;.., cd
•,cd
>
O O
U 0;..
R O +�
0 •� °
�+
�+ y
U r.Cd U >�'y7 $NSyy �+r "
.0
yam' U% m
,n�
•� ¢', �S'"y
° N b N bA CO F"r Cd Mq N
"�
, to 0F•y
N '�+ V U U • 3
Na
r"a
N N
v�� O oU .� mi 4�
ti O O
.O ??
° y rn b ti N
Y O
M ,i:, C� •� o
�.
Cd
o
cd
cn 4
CA
�cn�
> m Cd
�U3U�
o
a�� o
-0w
� � � aj �•� on
C�14 o :— -1::1 o
3 �
En
al
�,
Q"o 0 �� �F> o
°
O Y > � 0
t. as D ® N t�., 60
gz
y°>��`
Cd 4-4
rz
Ln O o. 'A 0 oto
ami
th o •d
>>i p. o
.o Cd v
v> > as � N � � ccs � +.
On E
� .d •��'
,
N � ' m OA *' ^ 4? as
6b
6 A O
U yU� U' E O�
a 'in N � N
~ �" •Cd
�I
� '� .Y
OU.� 7~
� 3�
C's
�I
W
cl
Y
V5
V5 L'd
O
O cd
U
N
U
C5
N
'o vi
0
N
Q,
° °°'
4
°
r. N
Q oy
bio
-0
CZ
4, .2
0 ° z
YC)
U ¢ Vl 'p
� Cd
H
•
CA
j'�
m 2
"
ami
C',on
U ^o U
^; bA
N
•• U V] �
� � �
�_
cd w � bA
N
y
W) U Y
"o
4a r�
U `+•� Q"
cbdU
cd
W
ce
z
cd Y `N 00
V y
d
o
>
�'
id
O
0 z
d -0
0'
.� v
0-
wo.
21
����
tobo°Cd .o
�b
z
'Z�
0
U
O
° wo
-040,
i U
aki
;O -0
a0i
o :
,'C
bb to
ro
o o
cc 0 0
a
v b
Q
a, s,
a,aa
o
Z
a�b ° -o �. �
c
oa=w
a� 4'od
0
o
Fr
r •" " N �
NT
�I
W
Y � 0 y
U
9b
� � cdU
N a3
Cd
U y yx�
coN cC y Cd
3�� U U0
aUi
� •�o ;�
� � �
0. N O O O O U +-+ y OCL, 0
Q + ¢ a) ^C 0 O ct) Q
�
p � Y . i� � +•bA � p a> � . cd
'�
O 3.7�5�' w N
p� O 3 ; o o a°
�.
a7a3° 3 to
0
a' o
=° cd
00 o " e 3 o a '>
cd a o
oUU O i. o �° �N v,
¢'0 4 '> i ono
o c °�' Q o 'o a, H A x b o
Cd ¢ c
P.
�3CTa>� 71 Cd
C>o to � a, -d am
•
�' 0 "�. ��' N $cc{' C%1 N cd
t°. N ONO . N
t]... ^ O U a 'p p bo'C O
bow =�,-,'vj Q.� ti•,��",s.".�
Ncd t� • O ,,; •� y U O 0
a °
a> v [�
p C 00 •= A> O ami a> � > D C
a) a) +,
b N U O U O G O N O
U Hb :r w° a> O 3 A
Y -°
aUi .O '&. O Cd
o
40. cn
X®0
Q y Oo �°
a>
Y �'a 8'� N o >
cl
o A Q 30 ° po� •U o 0
o ® ° W o4". — Eb
axi
o
0 cd a> 0 3 y
•
>Y O �kr)�O Cd m ° cd �. U
113
cd
UO
3 �
o := tf,
Q
° - a s. Oa O
Oo •s,A. Cd�° C). a> a,
C>N> a
cd 4�
=
+
nCd '
-1 m
�0
W
® O U Z O. Z° Z ° Z b a> U ss OA P, ':'z 'C id
E
c
U
�+
W
bb c.., N °� U
. �" • N U N y� �+ �"+ y vii
:d O aWi d v W "O' a O +�
Cd
cOj U O U ul N . • � '.a, .-r to O N bIJ to N �, N
4r Z U Id
cl
IP ed 0
cd by
v 40 1¢Vth
U¢ M C F." y
cd C�3 cd .n. v cd U r
N 9 s� bA cd x,
N cdW N N a N J, C* O 'b
a� °� �' w
to
� N O� V 4-� � � � v� o � `+O� ^�'' y cd �, cd '-C y � ® v' a' � � � � •� vi i' ®c�
C�3 cid bA t S Co, W r. pp 4�a w .p U i p> y y d)
Q U 4a cd kr)
�+ ., cd `n bA N 'd ® .—� "C a-� O cd : �j V.
42 cl
Q., 0 � yid„ ® � v! (,>g a0. � o .� � � � d � � `� v
�nd� v�UZ U �Pw PU o, —Cd
3 W
00 d U W
rl ~ O N
00
a
00 0
O u
00 N
6 O
00
Q O �
N
R
wHw
�
U
o
U
y
U
�
N
U
N
U
7�
O
O U
v
c
�
U �
Q" U
bA bA
+" w
0 N
O
vim„ •~ �
� �
N
bb c.., N °� U
. �" • N U N y� �+ �"+ y vii
:d O aWi d v W "O' a O +�
Cd
cOj U O U ul N . • � '.a, .-r to O N bIJ to N �, N
4r Z U Id
cl
IP ed 0
cd by
v 40 1¢Vth
U¢ M C F." y
cd C�3 cd .n. v cd U r
N 9 s� bA cd x,
N cdW N N a N J, C* O 'b
a� °� �' w
to
� N O� V 4-� � � � v� o � `+O� ^�'' y cd �, cd '-C y � ® v' a' � � � � •� vi i' ®c�
C�3 cid bA t S Co, W r. pp 4�a w .p U i p> y y d)
Q U 4a cd kr)
�+ ., cd `n bA N 'd ® .—� "C a-� O cd : �j V.
42 cl
Q., 0 � yid„ ® � v! (,>g a0. � o .� � � � d � � `� v
�nd� v�UZ U �Pw PU o, —Cd
3 W
00 d U W
rl ~ O N
00
a
00 0
O u
00 N
6 O
00
Q O �
N
R
wHw
IV
W
� x
o 'A=0
o �
b � 4�
° � a� ani
0
U ° ° 0 0
�w
>"C y
�d >
� O cad
rn Q" p U
s. v,
O V] `n
N Vi K "C cz
cd a) o N
O p
U H U +'+15 U iC OU CC N
a) �
vUi vUi cOtl o O
a> U
Cd
Cd c
cd w a a 'd a a) b Cd y o
42
10. o0 '0 121 o� v
CL
05
cd
U Cd
U �+ v 0 °
x°a a" �°+ "ay �' ami w U o "o ate, cpd p,
aiC3 py
$ a� °icd o o 4.1a) un C12
rA cd
bA y 0 G 0 cC 'O U 0 (ZU
Via ' •+' '+' 0 '� b ,s' O (0� U. 4°
Y
Cd
o'd0 C,3
�•�� � � � � � � � U�'> � a„ � � � � ,'®� �^.�
O odds ° m z u='n v W En as b z k, V. n 04 Q, V] 0 0 A o
qRT
�I
W
°
3
?� o
a�o
°
U p•�
� U
b�A+
w
6 O
.N
O �
�
03
Cd
00
41
�
U O ®
f"-' C8 r
a) p"
bin
71 N
�' •� 4N
CO O
00
Y
U
'�
•N a•+
O
da
C,3)
>
o
®
O4 y
-O
bi
'O
cN
Cd 7j
00
P4
0
o
> •5
®
°U)�.
-d og
°�
O
Q' Cd
4
U
v A O
� 4.
1G O v
p
O>
A p. .0
h
°oA
°ai
��UQ4.)
O
°'.
Ed
v
e> `
Q c�
on�,
>
bn �
Ra>O
cUC
p
v
as
04
0
4?4cd
P4by
v
�"
cl
°
�,
N •� ' U
'�
x
N U
11
kr)^O
�N � �w
�' U ��a
- '
W
,�
rn
0
Pr
O
A
m
�
Nwp
9t=m
o
¢O
c o
OUo
ti
en
v
�o
r
o0
rn
o cnnn
U 0
O
Q ' 7O
Qa "O
Itt
�,
ctl
a -lot
0
to
)
CA
Op
Ln
0 In Cd •� -o
N
o Cd
N
40,
a� p.
H
o -o asa�
a,
b
00 .0
6D
0 co
3 b a, ai > ;u
a0-a0
>,�oo
>OGo)
Ln
opocd
^ O O y 04 g• nl S"5'
cd
on W c
a� al
H a�
Cded OD
O
o'o•
o 0�>.OL
W
A40.
CA 0
wU
o
O a>
4-4
�
�
O ®
�,
n a� 0
w M
o
Cd
°
w
a� Y o
03too0
U
�
cd
�cl
"a
a"4.
° u
; 'a
-�
0.. •a p.
O
N
N.
O
4�
cd
C �
o
En
'd
kb
3 �
; o
°
0, 0
a
0���,�
C uN
En
+
cd k
N
Q8,
0
O y O
aaQ
d a,a0.
t -
P;
U� cd
O b
O a>
Oo
y
eq c
3
a��i
�o
.!t .-
bA
1 c
O
cC
a�
06
O
0 O
od d •� �C40�.
a >
�.
00
�waiw
U
Q,
I"
..I
o
O
'2�
�,
oo Z
cc
s x
o
o0
ca 00
e4
O 'C C
ObO
W M v O O O .�
N
•v
Z
y W W O O 00 O
R
. i
0 3
y
,1�zAAN
o.2 o
°
�_�
roti° ova^csA
a.' O O
O�b0
qx
°�'
C7 o cd
o
�2
z
��
A
GU �,�
ate �°,',
�W�
M
U o(5.o tx
O oba) y44
n5 bA • 2
�,vU
Q y M O
yMti
x
^.� ��
x o N M
O`er •�
:y z 00 N
3 0 a a°i o
OZ
°o
kn
Z3 �Z
00
o U
kn
p N
b0A 1 N "'t
N
.:
U '�3�U
.,
"C7
rabA
a U.
w Z
V? N V
y C7
i U
tl is
"Yd o ani L -d
'�
N a) v• vi
o o u
N p
O N
O N O N
O o N
�aq�UUx2��zq
c.� �o•u
1UU�C7x
-a3d�.�-or�3r�..
Ud
o
o� o
�°
O 7�L
N 3
O cd
U
O ou .5 ani ° o
O Q. cOC
Y00
�O i
4M.
G.
cd
'� • th
.r
"� ,fes• � N � • i.•i N � U
N
L
W to 0 cl
I
p
p u c a ° ° o.O
pF
00
-C4 J1
U
�Hd N °GG
o
O
O W �O
O U c� > U �-- a"i . O b abi
0 N
ti
CS O'C V O
V .. Ott U O Oyu > O y
ti
�•ti U ti N v^., O N ^� Nbn ps,.�'cd
.�.
Go od
14) to
0 Cc cd cn
r4 y o N 'o �3°•to.•� a (,D °) °fix ° � o 0 O U�
Ln
OpC •.0°• 'ot4l-02 Y °� - o
es -O ID O cd
o
In bo
a O.� ami i • G •�
13" p O cd O O 'C b •'d O O O
N N r�/1 O O pvjNM a d U00 O
V d O~ to ..2 a i N V V] l+"� " O, N +�'
Aq t,t00
-dojo
� o� �� c�-°� °•�� � � � � � ° �� � �� °ono �� � �-° 0,3,E °'
off. �co
Cd
UVU ri UwVwa; C4QN.2 y0 a� 3 �
�I.s7
w
Q cj UM Cd
U a� v� a 3 * �0 c�� to oCd
Ste" n O O N
t� b Cd
H" �" bn �'bn O N° S"., U t O
0 o ow bn 3 0 ' �1 C7 P. o 2
z
Cd rn C,3o .In
cd
bA ° 'v ai y o G
o " CG O U
Cl don abi o ani �; 4 =d a°Ji co o o
to P4 a� n '" a�c 0 O o
o 'd o o to U
0 3 c� o ^ o r �. >o� o ai (Dcj a N.
c� +- p C.bin t" =�
p "04C4 0 O p O0 o ¢ ami ° � .�+
O N 0 � . O s. O • t -IV G,4 U cc to U 3 O O 0 OV �
MO I 0 0 0 s. bb O o
p. O Q. '�; N N •� Q. , N ,� A 'Cf 'C3 cC N 4S 'c"" O
u� ooOo 'MD� c o.
.. 0 79b -a5.5 1 1 t •Q ami 45 �
P aU zz"0 a ° ESO
pq U
"f°
�I�e
W
O
o
n
N ate+ N
s" U b
y q
,°,
o° ° ¢ al
;4 o
G'4
Oo
o ,fl
"cd �
y °'
a�
o 5
b
0 o
¢'
�
O
d a�
p ca Z
c ami abi ° b
oy" ani o o
EA
En
rn
'rn
'O
°
.. •� .� �.U
o
t
^ `fin
w
y y 7V. iP V]
c"0
N U
o•a o
�
N rn
3 3�
cd I.xO
C4°��.U�..,- =
°w
°
° :
0 Cd
�pCA
b
0" RR Ow
In
O x a�ibb
a�
i cd� O
o a� a�
0
�'
0 O� (7 �P4
g
bA �
N W N
�
py0 rA
� � � N
V1 � �O C•i
'to
V r +
�,+ •C
•--I N �
wo
cd ril
c. '>
�'ap.
^a p. ani
02 on'M�,
o�
p.�o
�0 '513
���
~'a�Ay'N�
75
En
03'
o
>
�O a,
n U
a� a� P4 C43 O
'" rn
v,
d o
'0 bA cd
oA o
p U a� y
US
s. U +�+ 'C 0—
QxU
o
U py
O
r�
3
cdEb °
r.
N
p.-d���
8,�
Pd
'0
.am
`P.°
+L4� °A
Cd
Cd
k'?;
e
�
;-4
;01
.- 4.4 F.
4i
C5
C013
8, to
0
Cd
b
bF~�
�-c
1 .01 > O o
>
N
21104
U0
7 �e)
a0> Q 00p0
'01-,4o�o
,
0 9A a> y
� 0
' O �
yo '
Cd
to
O ..`n. 0,0 cd
'C
O N r..
•.� N�yV
Nfn
NO NO
�U+.
�"
•�•V" '
N N
G
N 3
cNyVcd+"
�VFO�''l
,
®I
'b"A
N N
0
Ld
N
p w
in
Nw dbcdP,a.a
A9Ua�b
N 48 U U> uN;
0
Wvo+ • 0 d
P7 U
A W fW
14
R, .••
O
IV
co
C�cn"+ U p U rr3�� O cOC C Q U N O �f�•
5 to
F" o
V) o a, . 9 on 3 Cl
tD
o CA
ti U O° "0 3 0 C P, O b b v C b U o U o on
3 w o cid N �, bA �y > y y Nas
(V
U-o-� o-� o..� „� �; �� SAA o
Cd ml0
.o
`w"' O N (5 O 'T rUn p 'd ,� ���" Oto.- -+" y
3 N as
U o c¢ u° o °' o. ;� U •o o
N U a� o
o a� anN U p. u b�C e v oA v '+ c ¢' p 0 GAY �' v
ti.rL
Cd
edy p. ro 0�o+ +� 3 0 Cc
�
aUi aUi A o ' ,� o .o d
40
bo 0 0� H H o U A H o U H Pte. cn ani o ff 'O"
cV M
ItT
m
a3 ^O O bb cd
cdoz
°J
O 'to 'Cp 3 Z Q O
bo
o �^O EU Cd
, c
C s. N V.— (D ° 3 ami Y o °on
° .U�, 'C Q, o U O U cd •� ,� � N *'vUi N
r. o
—CdO bA a c /y0� � o U �° U
W i•1bo 0
N y 'bA 0 �^ p. U
p cid •c�a u? p O :z
a x O U 3 CU
4-+ N O O cd j,,, O c +-' `� ,.O N qN bA �7s Cc. Pr Q
U ��
cd
ed
2MQ
3� a�a
Yaeon. iIdED °cu
4t U
Ct �°a,�o
o� o oma• c
ID>
s, s
��
U �
°
In° w Gn a�
a� 0 o O U N
3 C',Cd
q a.
N IScl
• cdN 4 N O
En
bn.
❑� b 'G
N A � � yy b �. ,b�A � b�A N a) ,,cd
J ,b�4
CA W'd O a¢ p b C
U U U
.ter
k4 a N
N y
O �
cc 0
CT U
00 U
oo" b
0O
A c�
N
ti Y •�
W H W
IV
W
o N
oun
o�'cd 4
�w
O •• C F 4 O a)o N a)
�.� b '�• 3 3 0° o en �. o i El
O U
v16
CIS
+yp " 0 U 0 Ol
o¢ Q SCd
Cd F o
od
Dov) �w
LO m
cc r
O b cyC iC N �vO N '�
0 Q y� GCd OO
o p p° 3 '" o :or. a v (1) o aoi p aN)
�oOb.- `° °'°�'oo °�.
o ate) o r" o a '"
OD 0
a) OL. i- N .. G6 a) O a+ .
O bA O O¢ ,p E
CV4 7t;
U 0 O U b p bA cd
y v s. a) �" �, "CJ r. s• 3 s+ p p �" R3 O S" �•�
p. t5i Fy U
� � U
a)
a)
a)
0
0
o
a)
a�
0
0
0
0
a) moi,
a)
i
W
O cd C Cd
o p �; •� '� o •� O aq
° cd .� id ani y Ld v" C a) p
id + ami t.J O C a
i � O ° ' � � � � y Y ami .0 O •� G bA cbi)
N r3
cdbA S] us� G , bA W �+
c`d cd cd ° O � O
� .. O �°., 'i� � b�A sO�., U 3 b� � � •� Q � � a3 N
o ° cd 3 N
3 d~ w
M-0- -0
ooh AN42.2��
cj
0cd
0 IS
y • 0 cl rn O
c� s..
�U cd �•.
Cd
3 ami�'a��i ami
o cd o
p '0 .G? 0cli
O r Nwb a�tiw 9b�
. o o 9bb`dItz
n i a o N o
ti
a0i o Gni c+� > v � cv
+' • O N 0 O
W �.
U A
0 T
00
O u
00 U
00 •b
00
00 N
w N
wHw
"Good Design" Criteria for Downtown San Rafael
"Summary of Applicable Criteria"
General
• Each project should have an internally consistent design vocabulary
• Forms and materials should express he building's design intent and context
• Design strategies such as "base middle and top" are encouraged but not the sole design
alternative
• Height and bulk can be mitigated by step backs, articulation, use of different materials
• Projections over public right of ways shall be limited to bay windows, balconies and
marquees *
• Provide architectural interest such as strategic placement of forms and applied features and
special treatment at corners especially at intersecting streets
• Concentrate premium materials at points of maximum enjoyment:
o At street level
o At building entrances
o On highly visible architectural forms and elements • Maintain pedestrian scale,
especially at the
o lower floors
• Buildings should relate to established streetscape elements such as cornice lines,
fenestration or other shared elements
• New building design may include high quality contemporary architecture
• Use landscape to humanize and frame the built environment
• Use durable, reusable, flexible, permeable and repairable pavement materials
• All mechanical equipment shall be screened and shall not project above its enclosure
• Exceptional design is encouraged and may be allowed to deviate from the design
guidelines. However:
o Projects must be exemplary
o They must make a significant contribution to their surroundings
o They must contribute public benefit beyond great design
• Projects should conform with General Downtown Design Guidelines and District Design
Guidelines
• Different districts of Downtown have different design priorities
Gateway District:
• Provide active street fronts along Tamalpais
• Articulate elevations to avoid a "building as wall" parallel to the freeway
• Create a sense of arrival with welcoming gateway elements such as:
o Distinctive building form massing and detailing
o Public plazas
Gateway — Transit District:
• Enhance the Tamalpais greenway from 2nd to Mission as a complete street
• Anchor the district with a high-quality transit center
2nd 3rd Corridor & Lindaro:
EXHIBIT 5
• Reduce building mass along the boulevards with 3rd or 4th floor setbacks and at ground
level corner entrances
• Use distinctive forms and detailing at corners particularly those facing oncoming traffic
• "Locate retail at intersections and along pedestrian N - S streets
• Enhance the boulevard, by providing continuous curbside planting strips and/or ample
tree pockets with grates
• Consider increasing the 5' setback requirement along 2nd and 3rd Street
• Varied setback depths are encouraged particularly on NS streets for pedestrian amenities
and landscaping Place back flow preventers, transformers, and other utilities out of site or
in undersidewalk vaults
Steve Stafford
From: Raffi Boloyan on behalf of Community Development
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 7:23 AM
To: Steve Stafford
Subject: Fw: proposed 6 story mixed use building on Lincoln and 3rd street
comment letter for 703 3rd St
From: Ms Angela Gott <angelagott@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 12:54 AM
To: planning
Subject: Re: proposed 6 story mixed use building on Lincoln and 3rd street
Please make this available to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
These proposed apartments are really NOT affordable to most seniors at all. Most Seniors fall into the
"extremely low income category" once they are no longer working, once they, are Living mostly on their Social
Security and savings. Medicare Premiums for Part B, Part D, and Medi -Gap continue to eat away at their Social
Security income also. Part B is now $135.50/month. Part D averages $40 a month and Medigap policies are
another $160 a month.on average. Extremely low income is under $30,000 a;year income for a single.
The average social security check for 2019 is only $1,422/month, which is $17,064 annually. This is average for
men, not boomer generation women. Their average is closer to $800 a month due to low pay and sporadic
jobs, not working at least 35 years and claiming at age 62 rather than waiting to age 70.
So for younger, working adults these apartments might be "affordable" for them but this is not going to help
seniors which can't find employment and need walkability. San Rafael really needs to create housing in walk-
able areas for San Rafael's senior population. These folks need to be able to use mass transit to get around to
their doctor appointments, the banks, the grocery, etc.
What is needed is senior housing tied to 30% of their income. This is the only way seniors now living on SSDI
and SSI and low social security benefits are going to survive. More subsidized housing is really needed for
housing the boomer generation of retirees.
When these articles are written about "affordable housing" they do not address the growing need for senior
"affordable" housing that needs to be priced for people with under $18,000 /year in Social Security income.
Most of these boomers have not done IRAs or 401Ks and if they did, the various recessions drained these dry
already and they took the money out when they were 59 1/2 or even earlier. These boomers are not going
to have pensions either. They've worked for low wages most of their lives and the cost of living, particularly
housing is causing them to become homeless because no one will rent to them for shared housing situations.
Many of these seniors are women. They might "be a couple" pooling their resources to barely get by and then
EXHIBIT 6
" the male dies leaving the woman with the smaller check and no way to keep paying the rent in their
apartment.
Marin County and San Rafael should be trying to identify these cohabitating senior couples who are sharing
expenses and resources and who are in committed relationships but for whatever reason are not married and
should counsel them as to the benefits of getting married. This way the surviving spouse who is usually the
female, would "step up" to the widow survivor's benefit check which would be the larger check and this would
then be a defacto safety net. This will save Marin County money to have more federal dollars in resources
coming into the county's economy too. It would be a win win to have Marin's seniors getting access to more
federal dollars. The couple needs to be married one year in most cases to then qualify and/or be eligible to
file for the survivor's benefit check.
Marin County and San Rafael should also try to identify currently divorced women who were married at least
10 years and make sure they are aware that they can file for spousal support at age 66 (full retirement_ age)
and apply for survivor's benefit check when their former spouse dies too. Most of the time these social
security benefit amounts will be much higher than their own social security benefit. Many boomer generation
women have no idea that these avenues exist for them. They just do not know and of course none of this
affects what the former spouse receives from Social Security based on his work history either. He gets his full
amount and if he has a current spouse she can apply for spousal support and the widow survivor's benefit too
and never lose a cent to these former spouses who truly need access to this kind of benefit from Social
Security.
The article talked about "studio apartments" and I would suggest building more "studios" in order to create
more senior housing. Take aJl the proposed one bedroom apartments and make;fhem into studios instead.
This is the unit size most`needed by seniors. Since Marin County has the highest percentage of seniors of all
the counties in CA, there needs to be a focus on housing boomer generation (barn 1946 to 1964) seniors.
Every proposed building which contains housing should include housing that is affordable to Marin's seniors
who so desperately need it. Many women who were in long term and committed relationships have a rude
awakening to find themselves alone and worse, impoverished and no way to find housing that they can afford
on what little they have now coming in. Marin County and San Rafael need to be creative in increasing housing
stock for the multitudes of boomer generation women who are winding up this way. The YWCA does an
amazing job trying to help women age 50+ get back into the job market but realistically once a woman is 65 or
66, she is not likely to find employment opportunities. If she finds anything, it will be part-time without
benefits paying about $12.000 an hour. Many of these women would work if they could find opportunities
instead of discrimination based on age. They need to supplement their meager social security with
employment but the 3rd leg is subsidized housing too.
I just do not think most of you in jobs which pay a living wage and then some, really get what this boomer
generation is going through. The women were raised as girls and teens to marry and be supported by their
husbands. Their role models, their mothers, Aunts, Grandmothers, and older sisters did not work outside the
home in most cases. This was a one paycheck family dynamic in the 1950s, 1960s and into the early 1970s. But
by the time they were 20, everything had changed and one of the biggest changes set up to hurt them was the
Social Security Administration rule of what constituted a bona fide marriage and Congress came up with the
10 year marriage rule in the early 1970s when boomer generation women were entering into marriages in
their early 20s but then getting divorced about 5 to 7 years later, something their mothers, Aunts, Older
sisters, Grandmothers had not done in most instances. Their divorce lawyers knew "family law" and "divorce
law" but not elder law or Social Security Administrative law. No one had a clue.
2
These were young women in their 20s and 30s seeking divorces. Before the SSA rule changed, the duration of
the marriage generally did not matter. So thousands of boomer generation women had no idea how the SSA
administrative rule change would affect them years later in old age and make them not eligible unless their
marriage happened to have lasted 10 years and a day. Many of these women have found out decades later
that their marriage was 9.5 years or just a few months shy of 10 years. Their lawyers, the judges, no one knew
Social Security Administrative law and how this rule change would affect this generation of women which now
are in their mid 60s and destitute. So this situation is going to get worse as time goes on because so many of
these boomer generation women either never married or had numerous marriages, but most ended before
meeting the 10 year rule and because no one ever told them. All of their mothers tended to stay married for
at least 25 years if they divorced at all. Their grandmothers married for life.
So there was no real awareness of the 10 year rule until these women reached age 62 and even then tended
to get very bad advice --not to wait for their full retirement age which is now age 66 and 67. They begin
claiming at age 62 without even a clue how much Medicare is going to cost them at age 65 either. Boomer
women with a full retirement age of 67 (born in 1960 and later) will lose 30% off already very tiny checks for
life-- this is a lifetime penalty-- if they begin claiming social security at age 62. Marin County and San Rafael
really should offer Social Security Benefits classes for people age 55+ so they can learn exactly how this works
and what their options are and also the reality that their social security checks are likely going to be very small.
They need to do IRAs and form 8880 Saver's Credit to have additional money set aside for old age. None of
this generation is saving for retirement. The bottom line is that there are federal dollars to be had and Marin
County and San Rafael could shift -this population to receiving more federal dollars by educating Marin
residents making up this generation of boomers and making them aware of how to"maximize their social
security claiming strategies.
The "census" is coming up and Darin County and San Rafael ought to have some- kind of census to determine.
the demographics of this boomer generation and find out how many are unmarried senior couples, find out
how many are singles living alone, find out the average social security check for the men and the average
social security check for the women. You can't plan for this demographic's needs if you do not know the
specifics. Find out how many are still working and what their annual income is to supplement their social
security income. You need to determine where they fall-- how many, what percentage are in the extremely
low income category, the very low income category, the low income category and the moderate income
category. Then you need to build senior affordable housing to meet these percentages of need.
Make the developers meet the needs of Marin and San Rafael and build housing for people who live here now,
residents who grew up in Marin, worked in Marin and who will be buried in Marin. Build housing for Marin
residents first. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Angela Gott
age 68, still working two jobs and not yet claiming social security. At age 701 will likely get just $1,369/month
for life. That is the SSA estimate I just got. I've been working my entire life since age 18, never married and no
kids and always paid very low wages. When I began work at age 18 in 1969 minimum wage was $1.55/hour.
That is also the problem, how low the wages were during the bulk of the boomer generation's lives. This is also
why our checks are so low --how little we were paid. My gross in 2018 is $22,153. Try living on that amount
but that is more than I will be having to live on at age 70. So build some senior housing !!!
9
SU5iAlrAnUIESul,Rafuel-Org
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
William Carney, President
Bob Spofford, Vice President
Jerry Belletto, Secretary
Greg Brockbank
Jim Geraghty
Linda Jackson
Kay Karchevski
Mki La Porta
Jesse Madsen
Samantha Mericle
Sue Spofford
415.457.7656
166 Greenwood Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
February 26, 2019
San Rafael Planning Commission
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: 303 Third Street (Seagate) Conceptual Review
Dear Planning Commissioners,,
Sustainable San Rafael believes that this development could make
a significant contribution to affordable, transit -supported
housing in the city, as well as to the visual character of the transit
district as a `gateway' to our downtown.
To that end we offer the following suggestions:
1. Designate 12-15 apartments as 'affordable' to 'moderate
income' households, in addition to the 9 currently allocated to
`low' and 'very low' income households. We believe that the small
size and interior orientation of many of the units make it likely
that they will rent at this level in any case (`moderate' being
defined as up to 120% of area median income, that is $96,850 for
one person as of 2017). We request tla`�:the City and/or the City's
---economic consultant confirm that assumption, based un -the -
development's
-the_development's pro forma. If correct, then the economic viability
of the development would not be affected,•while the city -would be
-assured of retaining some mid-range affordability into the future.
(12 units would represent 20% of the 59 discretionary units
being requested in excess of the City/State density ceilings. 15
moderate income units, together with the 9 `low' and `very low'
units, would bring the entire development to the City's goal of
20% affordability—while extending that goal to address the
increasing challenge of providing middle-income housing.)
2. Simplify the visual character of the building's 3rd Street
frontage by extending the stucco surfaces of the corner elements
to the top floor and by extending the stucco treatment of the
middle portion of the building to a foot or so below the terrace
guardrail height. We also suggest that some of the visual and
pedestrian amenity lost by eliminating the setback along 3rd
Street be regained by specifying large-scale vertical street trees
and adding a simple curbside planting strip of low shrubs
between the street tree locations, as proposed at BioMarin.
3. Unbundle the cost the cost ofparking from the rents, allowing some
households to reduce costs by relying totally on non -car mobility,
while others could rent more than one parking space.
4. Increase the building's sustainability features, including all -
electric appliances and HVAC; sufficient electric vehicle changing
stations (and conduits to support them at every parking space in
the future); use of 100% renewable electricity; and provision of
sufficient recycling and green carts, including easy access.
With these changes, we believe that the proposed building would
be of great benefit to the environment, economy and equity of our
community. Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Jerry Belletto, Secretary
July 8, 2018
e • •
Citizens Advisory Committee
San Rafael, CA 94901
Mayor Gary Phillips and City. Council
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mayor Phillips and Council Members,
On June 7, the CAC received a presentation of revised conceptual plans from Seagate
Properties, and we wish to express our support for the project they propose at 703
Third Street. The development would bring much needed housing to San Rafael,
while stimulating the economic development of the surrounding area.
The development would act as an additional anchor for Downtown, the emerging
Station Area, and the Third Street corridor. Its 120 apartments, located adjacent to
transit and a major employment center, would help house the workforce required
by local businesses, while bringing life to downtown streets and customers to
nearby restaurants, entertainment venues, and other retail. Its proximity to trains,
buses, and -bike paths provides convenient alternatives to driving.
We would, however, suggest more units -in the building and including a -greater,
proportion of moderate. income and affordable units. We urge the developer and
the City to explore public-private partnerships and other financing mechanisms to
increase affordability.
Please see the enclosed minutes of the June 7 meeting for further points made by the
CAC and members of the public in attendance.
Respectfully,
William Carney, CAC Chair
Attachment: CAC minutes, June 7, 2018
Citizens Advisory Committee for Economic Development and Affordable Housing (CAC)
Clty of San Rafael
Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall
June 7, 2018
Meeting Summary Notes
CAC Members Present: Kati Miller, Bill Carney, Gladys Gilliland, Roger Smith, Andrew Naja-Riese, Dirck
Brinckerhoff, Bill O'Connell, Andrea de la Fuente, Mari Jones
City Staff Present: Danielle O'Leary
Members of the Public Present: Raul Isaac, Lori Schifrin, Jim Geraghty
Guest Presenters: Wick Polite, Seagate Properties
1. Call to order: Mr. Carney, Chair, called the CAC meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
2. Approval of April 4, 2018 Meeting Notes: Approved as submitted.
3. Seagate Properties Presentation: Returning to the CAC for a follow-up presentation, Mr. Polite
shared an overview of the current status of the proposed multi -family housing development at 703 Third
Street. The previous design was not well accepted by various stakeholder groups, and Seagate
Properties developed a revised proposal with a new architect. Mr. Polite said the proposed development
site allowed a building 54 feet high, with a state density bonus allowing an additional 12 feet to reach 66
feet. The building takes up 136,000 square feet, which is a reduction of approximately 37,000 square feet
from the previous'design. The building would house 120 units. The building has 100% site coverage, with
more articulation and upper -story setbacks than the previous design, and is raised above the FEMA flood
level. The ground floor would consist of parking, retail, common facilities, and commercial areas. The
parking uses a puzzle lift model with mechanical stacking machines, similar to novel parking garages in
the East Bay. Other transportation elements would include electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle
concierge, Uber/Lyft drop-off locations, and a car/ride space. One advantage of the parking model used
may be the flexibility to remove parking and add additional units at a future date.
The residences would vary in size with the smallest unit of 450 - 500 square feet. Rent would cost
between $2,800 to $3,700 per month. Some of the apartment floorplans would cater to roommates or two
single adults to share a unit.
Comments from CAC members
One member of the CAC questioned why there was a reduction in the proposed units from 138 units to
120. Mr. Polite responded that the previous building projected five feet over the public right of way, which
had now been cut back on 3 sides, resulting in an overall smaller footprint. Multiple CAC members shared
concerns regarding the number of affordable units: only 20 percent of 61 units would be affordable, that
is, 10 percent of the total units. Additional units over the 61 allowed by the state density bonus would
require City approval of a financial analysis showing that the project would not be feasible without the
additioal 59 market -rate units. One CAC member shared that tax credit financing would be an extremely
powerful tool to increase the percentage of affordable units to 20 percent. Another CAC member inquired
about retail space: Mr. Polite shared that the space would likely be a lunch spot or coffee shop.
Comments from the Public.
A local property owner asked about the intended profile of residents (e.g., BioMarin employees). Mr.
Polite shared that residents would likely match the salary and education levels of a BioMarin employee.
He expects commuters on the ferry/SMART, generally in the 25-35 years age range. A member of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) recommended that the on-site bicycle concierge
include electric bike sales, a charge station for electric bikes, as well as a partnership with Trips for Kids.
A third local resident shared support for additional housing in proximity of downtown transit, but wanted
more affordable units on this site.
Action. The CAC voted to draft and send a letter of support for the project to the City Council. The CAC
sees the project as an additional anchor for downtown San Rafael, noting the economic impact of an
additional 120 units to downtown, and a boost to the city's nightlife. Given the site's proximity to the
downtown San Rafael Transit Center/SMART, the property represents an important opportunity for
housing near transit. However, the broader issue is to understand what the future of this neighborhood
would look like, and how Seagate's project fits into the neighborhood as the local area develops. The
CAC also strongly recommends that the developers increase the proportion of units that are affordable
beyond the current ten percent of total units, while exploring finance mechanisms, such as tax credit
financing or other ways to maximize the number of affordable units.
Updates
a. oMarinMhistlestop: Environmental Impact Review work is beginning on the property. The
CA has not heard back from the developers with their parking analysis, as requested during a
previo'N meeting.
b. Transit bp,,rnter and Station Areas. The following week, CAC members and the public are invited
to attend a Xblic meeting to see proposed concepts on the proposed transit center. Steve
Kinsey, consult -It on the project, will also share updates at the July CAC meeting.
c. General Plan progress: Met a month ago with no major updates to share.
d. Other Projects:
i. Jeff Rhoads, working with Resilient by Design, is raising public consciousness of sea
level rise, particular -P the Canal and downtown San Rafael. CAC members and the
public are encouraged ,learn more by visiting the web site of Resilient by Design.
ii. 4th and A project: the projds�went to the BPAC advisory committee, where an hour of
public testimony indicated stroN views that the public did not support the removal of the
current benches, but some sugge'9ted using a mosaic treatment for the benches.
iii. 1004 4th Street: the City is in conver tions with the developer.
5. Public Comments on Non Agenda Items: None
6. Suggestions for Future Agenda Items:
• Update on the Transit center.
• Understanding disaster response in the Canal neighborhood
• CAC Annual dinner suggested in August or September?
7. Meeting Adjourned at 9:03 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Andrew Naja-Riese
Steve Stafford
From: Michele Ginn on behalf of Community Development
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 7:45 AM
To: Steve Stafford
Subject: FW: SIX STORY HOUSING DOWNTOWN?!
Comments for 703 third
Michele Ginn
OI1TY O)4 SAN RAFA>EL
Planning Technician
Did you know that you can now check your zoning on line. Please go to https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/zoning-
information/ and you can find the zoning for your property at your leisure
From:,.Richard and/or Susan [mailto:richmet@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:57 AM
To: planning
Cc: Gary Phillips
Subject: SIX STORY HOUSING DOWNTOWN?!
TO: Eric Spielman and Board,
I don't know -what you are all smoking with your first pass approval offhifhideous monstrosity 6 story complex at Third
and Lincoln.
Those buildings belong on the OUTSKIRTS of downtown San Rafael, noVIN downtown San Rafael. Case in point, the
complex at the north end of Lincoln near the Park and Ride. That particular apartment building blends in nicely with the
area.
The new apartment building on Mission and Irwin also does not blend well on that lovely tree -lined street with many
single family homes.
You should be approving properties in the downtown area that will draw interest and attraction. No one is going to
come to downtown San Rafael to view that hideous, overbearing, ugly building. And are you not paying attention to the
outcry over the size of the Wincup in Corte Madera?
You are sacrificing our town's character and charm for oversized housing developments. You should be protecting our
downtown area and neighborhoods. THAT IS YOUR JOB!
Susan Page
San Rafael, CA
415-456-4151
June 24, 2017
To: San Rafael City Council
San Rafael Design Review Board
RE: Building design for Third and Lincoln, San Rafael
I was dismayed to see in the IJ (June 22, 2017) that yet another cookie -cutter architectural design is being
proposed for downtown San Rafael, and worse, that the Design Review Board seems to be looking at it
favorably.
The proposed design is yet more boring, pedestrian, and cheap -looking architecture, reinforcing the view that
downtown San Rafael is nothing special. It makes no reference to any elements of our historic architecture,
as some other projects have done. So now in addition to the mustard -colored canyons created by the
Corporate Center, with its propped -up eaves and useless trellises floating over the windows on the upper
floors, we look forward to the same quasi -industrial Ikea -like aesthetic repeated for residences as well.
A quick look through the portfolio of the architect, Kava Missih, shows that this design is a rehash of other
designs from this office — flat, graceless, and like every other new building you see around BART stations and
the like. In 20 years' time this Mondrian -like school of design — aluminum -framed squares and rectangles —
will be regarded as we now regard 1960's concrete brutalism: what were we thinking?
Mid -rise apartment buildings, including 6 -story buildings, are the perfect size for downtown San Rafael. The
City of Toronto conducted an extensive study of best design practices for this size of building — the multiple -
award -winning Toronto Avenues and Mid -Rise Buildings Study. It covers numerous factors involved in
designing good mid -rise buildings, including considerations of sunlight, relationship to nearby shorter
buildings, street -level interest, step -backs as the building rises, and height in relation to street width.
This site summarizes the study and provides a video on mid -rise buildings:
http://wwwl.toronto.ca/wps/porta I/contentonIV?vgnextoid=7238036318061410VgnVCM 1000007ld60f89R
CRD
The Mid -Rise Buildings Study itself is here:
http://wwwl.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/CitV%20PIann ing/U rban%20Design/M id-rise/mid rise-
FinalReport2.pdf
One particularly useful section is "Mid -Rise Site Typologies".
Please read these before considering moving one inch forward on the incredibly boring and cheap -looking
design that's been presented for Third and Lincoln.
Please develop written design guidelines for downtown San Rafael, addressing the factors discussed in the
Toronto study. This would enable us to achieve our multiple goals of meeting our housing needs, enlivening
downtown with residents, and ennobling our city with great architecture.
We can do better. We deserve better.
Sincerely,
- Valerie Taylor v-taVlor@pacbell.net 415-827-0800
See next page
Ptta- ges G-stoiry b)},XrPdhii s
In response to the image of the proposal for 730 Third St. in San Rafael, I have gathered below images and
links of mid -rise designs, all more interesting and attractive than the current proposal. Some of these are still
somewhat flat, but all provide more visual interest and connection with the.street than the current proposal.
A web search for images of "mid rise apartment" or "six story buildings" will show an abundance of
interesting and attractive buildings of the size appropriate to 703 Third. These are just a few — I hope you will
conduct your own search and see what is possible.
Toronto: This six -floor building is shown in the Mid -Rise Typologies section of the Toronto Mid -Rise Buildings
Study. Visually interesting, stepped -back, varied textures and materials.
Ilingbrook
!Mayne Olson Architects
Toronto, Ontario
This project consists of a residential
condominium on a corner site with
a large neighbouring open space,
Blantyre Parr, to the rear. This is
an extremely deep site, and the
stepping along the rear fagade
provides an appropriate transition to
the open space at the rear.
http://wwwl.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/City%20PIanning/Urban%20Design/Mid-riselmidrise-
AppendixE.pdf
Houston: Interesting materials, variation in materials, arched openings, visual interest on ground floor
http://swamplot.com/demolished-yoa kum-blvd-a pa rtments-make-way-for-6-story-stuccover/2013-04-01/
Seattle: Wider sidewalks, tall street trees, variations in materials and in building faces. Still a bit flat/cookie-
cutter, but better than the current proposed design.
http://www.mybaIla rd.com/2010/11/16/design-review-meeting-for-old-library-site/
Nashville: glass, balconies, lots of surface texture and variation, wider sidewalks, street trees, ground -level
interest. All that glass may not be appropriate for our hotter climate, but perhaps on the north side?
http://www.skyscraPercity.com/showthread.php?t=138754&page=168
Nashville: Yes, it's massive, but visually cut it in half almost anywhere and it's still more interesting than the
current proposal. The rounding at the corner adds some grace and makes pedestrians more confident as they
come around the corner since they can see if anyone is coming toward them. Variation in building face and
materials, ground -level interest. l
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=138754&page=99
F
Hoboken, NJ: Six floors, ground -floor interest, wide sidewalks, variation in forms, materials, and textures,
angled cut at the corner. Depth of windows and sills is key to making a building look either elegant or cheap.
This site (linked below) also provides a good read on granularity in urban design. He's actually offering this
image as an example of less -desired low -granularity design — but it's superior to what's been proposed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/iourna1/2015/10/21/granularitV
Steve Stafford
From: bounce@ mail.romuluscrm.com on behalf of Michele Ginn
<bounce@mail.romuluscrm.com>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Steve Stafford
Cc: Planning Department
Subject: Re: Inquiry #51324 received
Use Reply -All when responding to this message.
Hi Steve, see the message below. I will send her an email through Romulus to let her know that we have received the
comments and that I am forwarding them to the project planner. Her contact information is below if you want to reach
out to her as well.
Case Details
Title: proposed housing on Lincoln
Case Number: 51324
Description:
I wanted to let you know how I feel about the proposed housing on Lincoln. As someone who works downtown, the
traffic in the AM and especially the PM is awful on all the main streets. Adding more people to this mix is not a good
idea. Residents trying to pull in and out onto already jammed streets just makes the problem only worse. The building is
way too big for the area proposed and looks completely out of place. This is a future money maker for the city, which I
understand, but we need to fix the problems we have with traffic before we go and make them worse. Having lived in an
apartment complex recently, there are always moving trucks coming and going, there is no place for this as well, which
will just block traffic in order for residents to move in or out. Parking is always a premium downtown, so maybe a
parking garage where people can pull in and out safely rather than parking on the street which blocks traffic as people
pull in and out of spots, with restaurants and business below. This would be more traffic friendly and would not need to
be so large as well as bringing in revenue from parking and the businesses below. Adding a section for delivery trucks
would allow them to deliver safely and not block traffic.
Status: ®pen
Assigned Staff:
Michele Ginn
Created: 17 hours ago
Updated: 15 hours ago
Constituents:
Michelle Southard
jelley2@hotmail.com
Steve Stafford
To: Raoul Isaac
Subject: RE: 703 3rd St DRB
From: Raoul Isaac [mailto:raoulisaac@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:46 PM
To: Steve Stafford
Subject: Re: 703 3rd St DRB
Steve,
Please forward our comments to The Design Review Board
Re: File No. CDR17-005
To:
Members of The Design Review Board, City of San Rafael.
We own the property at 901 Tamalpais (Formerly Salute), which is directly across from the proposed development. Our
property's frontage on 3rd street is 148 feet, which faces approximately 75% of the North Elevation of the proposed
development at 703 3rd Street.
We find that the design of the project is impressive. The height and dimensions are appropriate.
Additionally, adding 138 residential units at this location is a welcome use for this site and the downtown area.
Locating the vehicular ingress and egress on Tamalpais is placed well, as it avoids adding to traffic on 3rd Street and
Lincoln.
We are familiar with the automated parking system and have seen a similar system in operation. We find it to be a good
solution for parking needs.
We support this development.
Sincerely,
Thank you,
Raoul Isaac
Managing Member
700-706 3rd LLC
1527 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
415.505.2320
Community Development Department
4-A l MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 20, 2017
TO: Design Revie o rd Members
FROM: Steve Staffo Senior Planner
SUBJECT: [CDR17-005] 703 Third St. Project; Additional Public Comments
703-723 Third St. and 898 Lincoln Ave.; APNS: 011-278-01 & -02
On Tuesday, June 20'", the Design Review Board (Board) is scheduled to provide conceptual
review of a project proposing to construct a new, 6 -story, 66 -tall, multifamily residential
apartment building with 138 units above 143 ground -floor garage parking spaces on two
adjacent Downtown parcels. The project includes height and density bonuses, mechanical
parking lifts and a front setback waiver. After the printing and distribution of its report to the
Board, staff received the attached additional public comments from Gerstle Park resident, Sean
Mooney. Mr. Mooney generally supports the concept project as being consistent with City's
'vision' of developing high-density housing (including affordable housing) Downtown. However.
Mr. Mooney also provides the following concerns:
Ground -Floor Commercial. The proposed lack of ground -floor commercial would
reduce the pedestrian friendliness of the corridor between 2nd and 3rd Streets,
contributing to the 'freewayification' of these major thoroughfares and, effectively,
isolating existing commercial tenants and businesses.
Fagade Treatment. The project will be highly viewable, particularly from U.S. Highway
101. The 77' -tall central staircase has little or no design character which would be
improved with an embellishment such as an integrated mural, the or art.
Steve Stafford
From: Sean Mooney <bookwerm@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Steve Stafford
Subject: Public Comment: 703-723 Third St. & 898 Lincoln Ave
Attn: Steve Stafford
I would like to comment in support of the proposed project but I do have some comments for the Design Review Board
specifically related to ground floor retail, articulation, and solutions for the freeway view of stairway.
I support the development of high-density residential downtown as I believe it will contribute to the vitality of the
downtown core and hopefully add to the stock of affordable housing in San Rafael. The design concept seems to fit a
potential future vision for the downtown though it would be nice to see some more articulation along the facade.
My biggest concern for this proposed development is the loss of retail space on the ground floor. There are currently a
number of businesses along Lincoln Avenue on this block and the lack of retail on the ground floor reduces the
pedestrian friendliness of the corridor between 2nd and 3rd St. Without retail space on this ground floor we are only
contributing to the "Freewayification" of these major thoroughfares and discouraging any reason for pedestrians and
shoppers to support businesses in the area. I understand that this issue may be more suitable for the Planning
Commission to consider but it needs to be raised early and often if this project is to be developed.
Additionally, from a design perspective the Board may want to consider solutions for how the building is perceived from
the freeway. Specifically, the view of the central staircase from the freeway could use some attention. The current
design shows a massive concrete column dividing the structure with little to no character. Since this building will be a
highly visible part of the entryway into the City, some design embellishment on the exterior of this staircase could add
character to the building and help create a stronger identity for the area. I would encourage the applicant to consider a
mural or tile design on this part of the structure to help create a stronger identity and build character for the
neighborhood. I believe this could be the first of many structures like this in the downtown core and it would be
wonderful to see the developer consider how to use this otherwise functional and bland part of the design to create a
vision for how we can integrate art into this part of the neighborhood since the structure will have so much visibility for
freeway drivers and future commuters/visitors using SMART.
All in all, with the arrival of SMART I support dense residential development like this project near transit. I believe that
the concern that some people have that the building is out of context or out of character with the neighborhood may be
made moot as more developments like this are proposed near the downtown core and near the SMART station.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sean Mooney
Gerstle Park Resident
I; jA V"- I Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 16, 2017
TO: Design Review Board Members
FROM: Steve Staffor nior Planner
SUBJECT: [CDR17-005] 703 Third St. Project; Additional Public Comments
703-723 Third St. and 898 Lincoln Ave.; APNS: 011-278-01 & -02
On Tuesday, June 20th, the Design Review Board (Board) is scheduled to provide conceptual
review of a project proposing to construct a new, 6 -story, 66' -tall, multifamily residential
apartment building with 138 units above 143 ground -floor garage parking spaces on two
adjacent Downtown parcels. The project includes height and density bonuses, mechanical
parking lifts and a front setback waiver. After the printing and distribution of its report to the
Board, staff received the attached additional public comments from San Mateo Ct. (Terra Linda)
residents, Patricia and William Warnock. These comments are neither in support or opposition
of the project but, rather, reflect their `concerns', as follows:
Parking. Adequacy of the proposed parking.
Architecture. Proposed fagade designs are not very appealing. Confusion on the
proposed material of the building 'slabs' projecting over the sidewalk.
Traffic. Traffic impacts of the project. Were the pedestrian impacts from SMART
analyzed in the submitted traffic study for the project.
RECEIVED 06116/2017 14:16 141548531.84 GI'rY0F5ANRAFAELBLDG
May 24 00 03:47a marin hills 4184928686 p.1
TO: City of San Rafael Design Review Boaird 6116117
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, California
RE: Proposed Development at 703 -723 Third St. San Rafael, CA
FROM. Patricia and William Warnock
22 San Mateo CT San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear Sirs:
We have looked at the plan for the above development and our concerns are:.
1) is there adequate parking for all the residents who will live in the building?
2) Is there adequate parking for guests of residents?
3) Is there adequate parking for commercial businesses around the area (.already
very limited).
4) Facade does not look very appealing. Perhaps it is the line drawings. Since an
index on this document is missing it is difficult to scroll through 44 pages of
material to find specific information. An index is needed and should be required
on all projects proposed for development in San Rafael.
6) Not so sure about the slabs on the exterior of the build. What are they made
of? On what page are they described in the proposal? Gs there a way that the
contractor can be held to replace them if they get shabby/worn looking? This is,
after all, the gateway to SR.
5) What effect on traffic will there be in this busy corner of downtown? Where
do passengers embark and disembark from the Smart Train? Do we not have a lot
of congestion right now in that corner of the downtown, area?
6. The photos and renderings were entered sideways making it difficult for people
to actually see them correctly. Can you resend them correctly orientated?
Sincerely,
Patricia and William Warnock Jr.
101 Francisco Boulevard, LLC.
City of San Rafael
RE: Project at 703-723 Third Street and 898 Lincoln Ave.
File # CDR17-005
Dear Design Review Board Members,
A quick explanation of our background and that of our property........ .
Marin Color Service has been a family owned business in San Rafael since 1948
when it was started by our Father, Ernest Beckstrom. It has been a landmark paint
store in downtown San Rafael, passed down from Father to Son over the last 70
years. It's continued success has been in part due to the ease of access and plentiful
parking for it's customers.
Below you,will find a partial list of our major concerns regarding the above
mentioned project proposed for the property immediately adjacent to our property.
• A towering 66 -foot building will be totally out of character with the
surrounding buildings. Similar in scope to the unpopular building at the
former Handi-Cup site in Corte Madera.
• The project will create a monumental traffic jam on Tamalpais Street, the
only entrance and exit to the building for a minimum of 138 new residents.
Tamalpais is already a congested two lane street caused by the current Golden
Gate Transit, Marin Airporter, Taxis, and now the Smart Train all loading and
unloading passengers who will become pedestrians trying to navigate this
dangerous area.
• There is no accommodation for a parking area for any guests who may visit
the residents, nor is there sufficient area for all the possible deliveries of
Amazon packages ordered by the new residents. Yes, this seems like a far-
fetched concern but it is something that must be considered as the wave of the
future.
• Water supply to the 13 8 new units plus the additional number of residents in
the multi bedroom units is a major concern. We just exited 5 years of drought
without any additional storage facilities being built. In previous years there
was a moratorium on the number of water hook ups being allowed to address
this issue. Possibly now is a good time to implement that again.
• The traffic congestion issues as mentioned previously would dramatically
affect the Fire and emergency response time and access to 138 additional
residents and those already in the surrounding areas thus creating a safety
issue.
Once again, a major concern is that this 66 foot tall behemoth is completely
out of character with the architecture in both size and scope of the
surrounding buildings. It is also a potential eyesore, similar to that at the
former Handi-Cup facility in Corte Madera, located at the entrance to
downtown San Rafael. The small town appearance and atmosphere that the
city wishes to maintain will succumb to the "Big Box" look.
My Sister, Wife and I all were born and raised in the San Rafael area and my
in-laws attended San Rafael High School in the 1940's. We have watched the
city evolve over the past 70 years of our lives......... San Rafael does not need
this over sold project at the entrance to downtown and we hope that the
Design Review Board will continue to maintain the "Down Home" feel of
San Rafael and not fall victim to any high pressure tactics that may be put
upon them.
Sincerely,
Rick Beckstrom, 101 Francisco Boulevard, LLC
Lynn McIntire, 101 Francisco Boulevard, LLC