Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission 2014-02-25 #3
CITY OF Community Development Department— Planning Division P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Meeting Date: February 25, 2014 Agenda Item: 3 Case Numbers: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13- 002/EX13-008. Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 21 G St.: Requests for Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variance to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential townhomes on a 0.24 acre through lot between G and Ida Streets. The existing home at 21 G St would be demolished and replaced with 2 townhomes. Six townhomes would be constructed on Ida St. The G St. project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required front and side yard setbacks, and the 50% minimum front landscaping requirement. The Ida St. project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required rear yard, and the required 20 foot driveway setback. The project is also seeking Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to divide the 8 units into air space condominiums, and approval of a Subdivision Exception request to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site; APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; David Rasonsky, owner; Stan Camiccia. applicant: File No(s). ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project currently proposes to demolish an old single family home and garage on a 10,836 sq. ft. lot and in its place, construct an 8 unit townhome on a through lot between G St and Ida St. This project design was reviewed by the DRB on three separate occasions, first as a Conceptual Review and twice as a formal Design Review application. During the entire design review process, the project was modified to create the current design form through the reduction of density, redesign of the tandem parking on G Street, change to building architecture and materials, adding ground level common open space, enhancing the rooftop garden feature and preserving the existing Oak tree on Ida Street. The project design in its current form has been reviewed and ultimately recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on August 20, 2013. The main issue with the project is whether it is of an appropriate density and size to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and whether the five requested Variances (side, rear and front setbacks, landscaping, and driveway depth) are justified and appropriate. Overall, the density is below the maximum allowed by the High Density Residential General Plan and Zoning designations for this site. In addition, the City's has a Housing Policy (H -18b) that states that residential -only projects should be approved at the mid- to high -range of the zoning density. The project is seeking approval of 5 variances, three for the G Street development (reduction in minimum landscaping requirement, stair encroachment in the front setback, and encroachment into the side yard setback) and two for the Ida Street development (encroachment into the rear yard and reduction in required driveway setback). The need for many of the variances is driven by design issues and site constraints. The L-shaped lot presented a design challenge for building setback in terms of creating an adequate building articulation and parking configuration compatible with the adjacent homes in the vicinity. Overall, the deviations from the code requirements are in the 1-2 foot range, which are fairly small. Overall, the Design Review Board recommends approval of the project design, recognizing that the site was challenging in terms of site design and indicating that it was difficult to balance all the competing REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058N12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 2 concerns related to site design criteria, building design and compatibility with a transitional neighborhood character. Staff recommends that this project is a well-designed, infill development project that respects both the high density residential zoning envisioned for this area of West End, while respecting the existing under -developed properties that currently exist. This type of infill housing in and around downtown is what the General Plan envisioned for development in this area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving with conditions the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variances, Tentative Subdivision Map and Subdivision Exception request for the new 8 unit residential project. PROPERTY FACTS Site Description/Setting: The project site is a 10,836 sq. ft. Through -lot located on the east side of G St., between G St. and Ida St. in the West End Village Neighborhood (see Exhibit 1- Project Vicinity Map). The site is generally flat. The West End Village neighborhood is an area comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. Fourth Street and Second Street host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Desi nation Existing Land -Use Project Site: High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Multi- Single Family Residence, Family (HR1) garage North: West End Village WEV WEV Commercial South: Second/Third Mixed Use HR1 and 2/3MUW Residential and Commercial East: HDR HR1, WEV Residential and Commercial West: WEV WEV Commercial Site Development Summary Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: Proposed: 6,000 sf 10,836 sf(existing) Allow/Req: Proposed: 60% (6,501 sf) 52% 5,653 sf Height Density or Floor Area Allowed: Proposed: 36' 31'10" G St /33'4" Ida St Allowed: Proposed: 1,000 sf/dwelling unit (10 units) 8 units(including 1 BMR Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks Required: Proposed: Required: Proposed: 100 sf usable open space/du (800 sf) Roof patio (G St. 491 sf, Ida St. 540 sf), Decks and Private Yards at G St (288 sf) and common recreation area (732 sf). Total = 2,051 sf 50% of front yard landscaped 37% on G St./52% on Ida St. Required Existing — G St/Ida St Proposed—G St/Ida St Front: 15' Side(s): 5' Rear: 5' 8' 4724' N/A 15' both 4'/6' N/A/5' Grading Tree Removal Total: Gravel import = 105 cu.yds Dirt export =315 cu.yds. Total(No.ispecies): 3 (Privet, Pear, Walnut) Requirement: N/A Proposed: 30 trees Parking: required = 16 spaces Proposed = 16 spaces (14 tandem spaces) Site Description/Setting: The project site is a 10,836 sq. ft. Through -lot located on the east side of G St., between G St. and Ida St. in the West End Village Neighborhood (see Exhibit 1- Project Vicinity Map). The site is generally flat. The West End Village neighborhood is an area comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. Fourth Street and Second Street host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 3 high density residential, some structures are still used as single family. In the subject property block between 3rd Street and 4th Street, there are 5 single family homes on G St and one single family home on Ida Street. On the project site, there is an existing single family house along the G Street frontage (21 G Street) and a detached garage structure on Ida Street. Both are proposed to be demolished as part of the project. On the G St. frontage, the project site is adjacent to a surface parking lot to the north, and residential homes to the south and across the street. Businesses in the vicinity include Malabar Indian Store at the corner of 4th and G St. and Arrivederci Restaurant on the corner of G and Second Street. On the Ida St. frontage, the proposed site would be on the east side of Ida St. and would abut 4th St. retail businesses to the north, one residential use to the south and commercial building on the west side of Ida St.. The setting on the G St. frontage is more oriented toward residential uses (a total of five homes on both sides of the street), whereas Ida St. is dominated by commercial uses on the corners and along the west side of the street. The only residential property on Ida St. is one single family house at 20 Ida St., adjacent to the project site to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 8 -unit residential townhome development (see Exhibit 3- Applicant's Design Process Narrative, and Exhibit 11, Reduced Project Site Plan). Two of the townhome units would front on G St and six of the townhome units would front on Ida Street. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces would be provided (2 side-by-side garage spaces for each unit on G Street and 14 tandem garage spaces for each unit on Ida Street).. Proposed building height would be approximately 31 feet on G St. and approximately 33 feet on Ida St. (from existing grade to roof mid -point or top of parapet). A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, with a built-in water feature, planters, and seating. One affordable Below Market Rate (BMR) unit would be provided in compliance with the affordable housing requirement (at the low-income affordability range). The applicant has indicated that the layout and materials used for the BMR unit will be identical to the market rate. The 8 townhome units are designed as follows: G Street townhomes (2 attached buildings): • Ground Floor: Central entry stairs leading to a covered porch and a 2 -car garage with storage area • First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen, office/den and access to a rear deck • Second Floor: Three bedrooms (two bedrooms, bathroom, and a master bedroom/bath), laundry. • Roof patio (491 square feet, with additional 34 square feet of potted plants) • Gable roof design with front stair and entry alcove Ida Street townhomes (6 attached buildings): • Ground Floor: An entry door leading to upstairs and also to the garage with two tandem spaces (approximately 10'8" wide by 40' deep) • First Floor: Living room, dining room, kitchen, half bath, and balconies for 2 units • Second Floor: Two master bedrooms each with a bath, laundry • Roof patio: 540 square feet (with additional 50 square feet of potted plants) • Flat roof, row house design Site Plan: The proposed buildings on G Street and Ida Street would be setback 15 feet from the front property lines. Building setback from the side property line would be 4 feet on G Street and 5 feet on Ida Street. There would be 10 feet of separation between the rear of the townhome buildings. Tandem parking is proposed only for the Ida Street townhomes. A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, as well as outdoor common and yard areas. Trash containers would be stored under the stairwell in REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 4 the garage. Landscaping would be planted in the front yard area as well as at the rear between the two buildings (see additional landscape information below). The property would be surrounded with a decorative metal fence. Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a row house style, with two distinct designs for G St (gable roof) and Ida Street (flat roof). The exterior building materials are a mix of Hardie shingle and stucco, and include accent elements. (See Plan Sheets DR10, DR11, DR12 and color renderings). The top portion of the building would include a cornice element. The garage doors would be designed to look like carriage doors but would operate as roll -up doors. A Color and Material Board has been included for presentation at the hearing (referenced in elevation plan sheets), and a color rendering is included as part of the plan set. Landscaping: A total of 4 trees are proposed to be removed (see Plan Sheet L-1). However, the project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G St frontage, and the existing Oak tree along the Ida Street frontage. An additional 31 trees (including Japanese Maples, Dogwoods, Crape Myrtles, and Oaks) would be planted on the site. Boston Ivy would be planted along the sides of the building to provide screening for adjacent residences. There are also a variety of shrubs, grasses and vines proposed to be added to the site, as well as the use of decorative pavers and brick for the driveways and walkways. Total landscaping proposed on site would be 2,883 square feet, with 312 square feet of landscaping proposed in the required 20' front yard setback on G St and 872 square feet of landscaping proposed in the 20' required front yard setback on Ida Street. In addition, the proposed rooftop planters would add an additional landscaping. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan Land Use designation is High Density Residential (15-32 units per acre). The proposed project is generally consistent with the General Plan policies discussed in the attached General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 4). Primarily, the density is within the density range allowed for this site Land Use Policy (LU -23) and is at least at the mid-range of the density range as required by Housing Policy (H -18b). The project is in -fill housing, which is encourage in the downtown area of the City, and also provides one new affordable housing unit. Also, the project would add one low-income affordable unit to the housing stock per Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-19). Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The Zoning designation for the project site is HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential). The fact that the project is a through -lot presents a challenge in project design. Staff has evaluated the project based on two very distinct street frontages and neighborhood character. The Ida St. frontage is dominated by two-story commercial structures, with one single family home and detached garage on the east side of Ida St. The G St frontage is dominated by single family homes (one story and multi -story), with larger commercial structures anchoring the corners of the block. The proposed design for the G St frontage reflects some of the architectural elements of the single-family homes along G St by utilizing a gable roof form and entry stair design. The design will help to reduce the impact of having a 3 -story structure adjacent to the two-story adjacent property at 15 G St. The Ida St. frontage is designed as a row house style, which is taller than the adjacent existing single-family house to the south of the project site at 20 Ida St. However, the proposed new townhomes meet the required 5 foot setback on the south side, and the townhome is adjacent to a detached garage and not the main residence at 20 Ida St. The proposed Ida St. frontage would add interest to a streetscape currently dominated by the blank wall of the commercial building across the street. The Board reviewed these issues and determined that the project could proceed with a recommendation for approval. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058N12-0021TS13-002IEX13-008 Page 5 Chapter 14.04 - Base District Regulations The proposed 8 -unit townhome development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section 14.04.040 - the HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) Zoning District. The base density for the site would be 10 residential units; with 10% affordability required pursuant to the City Affordable Housing requirements of Chapter 14.16. This level of affordability would qualify the project for a 20% State density bonus, or three (3) additional market rate units over the base allowance for 10 units, and granting of one zoning concession. The State density bonus law allows the project to propose tandem parking, pursuant to Section 14.16.030.H.1. This allowance would constitute the one zoning concession for the project. The project is in substantial compliance with the HR1 zoning regulations, including height, lot coverage, off-street parking, and usable open space (private and common) as summarized in Property Facts chart on Page 2 of this staff report. However, the proposed project is not in compliance with several development standards as described below and would require consideration of the following Variance requests by the applicant: 1. Landscaping (G St.): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, there is a 50% landscaping requirement (420 square feet) for the required front setback area on G Street. The proposed landscaping along the G St. frontage is only 312 square feet, 108 square feet less than required. Analysis: Much of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the paved driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. As such, the area available for landscaping is reduced and a variance is required. The project was originally proposed with tandem parking, which would have required less paved area for parking. However, the project was re -designed based on public concern about the feasibility of tandem parking. In addition, the Board recommended re- designing the building with a stair entry to better match the prevailing character on G Street. The staircase also eliminates areas that could have been used for landscaping. The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is narrow, at 56 -feet width, whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant HR1 lot width. Further, the project would provide permeable pavers in order to soften the impact of paving and respond to the intent of the landscape requirement. In walking the neighborhood, staff notes that the other homes on the block utilize hardscape in the front yard area, some of which is used for parking. While the landscaping is less than what is required by code, the project is proposing to keep the existing 2 street trees on G Street and plant one additional tree. On balance, this will help mitigate for the loss of landscaping in the required front yard area. 2. Front Yard Setback (G St.): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required front setback for the project site is 15 feet. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8" into the front setback. Analysis: The previous project design did not include stairs, but was designed as a row house with ground level access to the units. Based on the Board recommendation, the G St. townhomes were re -designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in line with existing single-family architectural styling on G St., which includes fronts stairs and front porch features. Staff has determined that the stair encroachment is relatively minor, considering that pursuant to Section 14.15.030, stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed encroachment is only 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment, and would add a much needed design element to the streetscape. 3. Side Yard Setback (G St.): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5 foot side yard setback is required in the HR1 zone. The proposed project is designed with a 4 foot side yard setback for the G St. frontage. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 6 Analysis: The original project was submitted with the code required 5 foot side yard setback for the G Street townhomes. Based on concerns from the public about the tandem parking, the project was re -designed to in order to accommodate side-by-side parking (two 20 foot wide 2 -car garages). The applicant is requesting a 1 foot encroachment into the side yard along the north and south property lines in order to accommodate the garage size and meet interior dimensions required to open the car doors. This encroachment has an impact on the adjacent property to the south at 15 G Street. This home is a two story home and is about 2 feet away from the property line adjacent to the project site, and also encroaches into the required 5 foot side yard setback on their property but is considered legal, non -conforming. While the applicant is requesting only a 1 foot encroachment, the proposed 3 -story townhome would create a wall that would add a substantial amount of bulk along the south property line. There are two windows proposed for the first floor living space (living room windows) and an open deck area at the rear portion of the floor plan. There is a large upper story window and several lower story windows on north side of the 15 G Street property that would be impacted. However, this side of the property is currently heavily vegetated and would continue to be vegetated with the addition of 3 trees, Boston Ivy and smaller shrubs. Further, the active recreational area for 15 G Street is on the other side of the house (south side). As such, staff has determined that the 1 foot encroachment would not have a significant negative impact on the adjacent property. 4. Rear Yard Setback Ida St.: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 14.04.040, the required rear yard setback for the project site is 5 feet. The Ida St. townhomes are designed with a cantilevered window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. As such, a variance would be required for the portion of the Ida St. buildings encroaching into the required rear yard. Analysis: During DRB review, the Board recommended that the applicant look into providing more building articulation. Typically the type of cantilevered design proposed would be considered an "allowable encroachment" into the setback, pursuant to Section 14.16.130. However, the proposed feature extends from floor to ceiling and for all stories. Only two the six Ida St. townhomes (northeastern portion) are impacted by the rear yard setback requirement, as there is no rear property line between the G St. townhomes and the portion of the Ida St. townhomes directly behind them (due to the L-shaped lot). Further, the Ida St. units encroaching into the rear yard abut a parking lot fronting on G St. serving commercial development in the WEV district and not the rear of a single family home. If the variance is not approved, the projecting portions of these two units would need to be removed. As a result, the units would be reduced in size and the articulation of building walls on this rear elevation would be eliminated. Given the minimal nature of the impact on adjacent properties and the benefit it would add to the building design, staff can support this variance request. 5. Driveway Setback (Ida St.): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development for driveways requires that "where there is a driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty feet (20'). The project is proposing a 19 foot setback for Ida St. Analysis: Based on the fact that the project qualifies for a State density bonus, the project is entitled to one zoning concession. The applicant chose tandem parking as the concession but the L-shaped lot configuration does not have sufficient depth required to meet the 20 foot driveway setback standard. The variance is deemed justified based on the fact that the project cannot achieve its allowable and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law. Reducing the garage by one foot would most likely compromise the use of the garage for two cars. The goal of this setback standard is to ensure that cars do not block the sidewalk. Based on the site design, staff determined that the garage has ample space to ensure the cars will be able to pull onto the lot and not interfere with the sidewalk area. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 7 The applicant has provided staff with justification for the variance findings (see Exhibit 5: Applicant's Variance Justification). Staff has determined that on balance, the requested variances are deemed to be minor in nature and are being requested to help create a site design with workable parking design, provide building articulation and achieve a reasonable density and livable floor areas within the units. Staff is able to support findings for the variances on the basis that: 1) the project site is oddly shaped which limits design options; 2) many of the other properties in the area also encroach into the required setbacks; 3) on balance, the encroachments requested were only 1-2 feet; and 4) granting the variances will not be deleterious to surrounding properties. See Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) for detailed Findings to support variance approvals. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The project was evaluated by staff and the Design Review Board for conformance with the review criteria identified in Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. This chapter states that the new structures should be harmoniously integrated in relation to both the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. Specific architectural design considerations reviewed included, but were not limited to the following: ➢ Creation of interest in the building elevation- particularly the G St. elevation ➢ Encouragement of natural materials and earth tone/wood tone color ➢ The project size/scale should be analyzed as to the appropriateness to the existing neighborhood scale ➢ Variation in building placement and height ➢ Equal attention to design of all facades ➢ Shadowing on recreational spaces on adjacent properties ➢ Landscape design ➢ Historic resources San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines are discretionary and intended to assist projects in achieving high quality design. Staff has presented the following Design Guidelines to the Board for their use in their review and recommendation of the project design: ➢ Building Design: Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining consistent streetscape. ➢ Scale: Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. ➢ Building Height: Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. ➢ Roof Shapes: Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. ➢ Building Entrances: Usable front porches, verandas or an overhead trellis can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define street the fagade. ➢ Parking: Driveway curb cuts and widths should be minimized. At the conclusion of the three meetings on this project, the Board found that the project was generally consistent with many of the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed development on G St. has been designed with entry stairs and a gable roof to be more compatible with the architecture of the existing single family homes on G St.; 2) the project design on Ida St. is compatible with the taller commercial buildings along Ida St.; 3) the proposed materials and colors are compatible with the variety of existing home colors in the vicinity; 4) the architecture for the development is a mixture of several materials to add interest to all building elevations; 5) the front and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 8 rear fagade of the Ida St. townhomes would be articulated to provide depth; and 6) though 4 trees would be removed, landscaping would be added to the site, including 4 street trees on Ida St. and 1 new street tree on G St. (and additional trees throughout the project perimeter), as well as preserving two existing trees (an Elm and Sycamore tree) on G Street. A detailed discussion of Findings for the design review approval is on Page 2 of the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2). With respect to historic resources, the project design has chosen exterior building materials that are harmonious with the building materials used in other older structures in the neighborhood. There are a variety of historic styles in the vicinity so there is no one style that would match every building. The goal of Section 14.25.050F is to promote projects that are "sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity" and to do this by integrating a design style that flows with the existing architectural varieties, and avoid creating a design that is out of character with the designs already in the neighborhood. The use of shingles and cornice and corbels helps bring the townhome relate to the existing variety of historic styles. It is worth noting that the original design presented during conceptual design review also proposed using lapped siding, which would have tied in with the materials used at 6 G St., which is one of the historic properties in the area. However, the Board commented that there were too many materials being used in the design and recommended that the applicant simplify the number of exterior materials. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency: Tentative Map Findings for approval pursuant to SRMC Section 15.02.080 are detailed in the attached Draft Resolution, Page 6. The proposed project is in conformance with the San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance (Title 15) in that it is consistent with findings and procedural requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance as detailed in the attached Subdivision Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 6). However, the requirement for the provision of recreational space (Section 15.12.030) does warrant more in depth discussion. Section 15.12.030 states the following: "Recreational facilities, residential condominiums: All residential condominium projects shall be designed to include the following recreational facilities: a) community center or recreational buildings within the development, b) bicycle and pedestrian paths; and c) common areas for outdoor, active and passive recreation in central locations throughout the development." There is a provision for smaller projects to reduce or waive these requirements based on development size, location and physical property conditions. The applicant has requested a waiver of these requirements (Exhibit 7) based on the small size of the lot and the inability to provide a room dedicated exclusively as a recreation room. Staff supports the requested waiver on the basis that the project exceeds the development standard for private and common usable open space on the project site, thereby mitigating the need to a dedicated recreation room. The zoning ordinance requires 100 square feet of private/common open space per unit in the HR1 zoning district. For the project site, that would be a total of 800 square feet. The project is proposing a total of 2,051 square feet of private/common open space, including rooftop garden space for each unit. In addition, this requirement has commonly been waived for downtown projects of this small size. Findings for staff support of the waiver, pursuant to SRMC Section 15.01.120 are detailed on Page 7 of the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2). The applicant has also submitted a "Statement of Intent" pursuant to SRMC 15.02.040, which is included at Exhibit 8. State Density Bonus and Concessions: In 2005, the State revised California Government Code Section 65915 (State Density Bonus law). This law required that local jurisdictions adopt an ordinance that provided density bonuses plus certain incentives to developers that agreed to construct affordable housing units dedicated to very low, low, or moderate -income households. In late 2005, the City enacted an ordinance consistent with the State law, which provides density bonuses and concessions to development projects that meet certain levels of affordability. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 9 The base requirement for affordability for this condominium project is 10% of the project designated to affordable units, with 50% of the units dedicated to low-income households and 50% of the units dedicated to moderate income households. By providing 1 affordable unit, the project would provide an overall affordability of 12.5% and therefore qualifies for a 20% State density bonus and 1 zoning concession. With the State density bonus, the project would be entitled to construct 3 additional units (3 units above the base density of 10 units allowed for this site) for a total of 13 units. The applicant is not proposing to use the State density bonus to increase the number of units on site and has kept the project under the City's maximum allowable zoning and not utilized the bonus units. However, the State density bonus does allow the applicant to choose one (1) zoning concession. In implementing the State Density Bonus regulations, the City created two levels of concessions: a) those requiring the submittal of a financial pro forma to document the financial need for the concession to make the project financially viable; and b) those not requiring a pro forma. Based on the City's density bonus regulations (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.030.H.3.a (i), the use of the state parking rates is a type of concession that must be granted by the City without any requirement that the applicant demonstrate to the City that the requested concession or incentive results in "identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the project" (i.e. the requirement for the submittal of a financial pro forma). The applicant proposes to provide 16 off-street parking spaces for the project, conforming to the parking requirements in Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, they are choosing to use the option to provide 14 of the spaces as tandem spaces, an allowable concession through the state density bonus. The two parking spaces on G St. will not be tandem spaces because of strong opposition to tandem parking by residents during the conceptual design review. The residents testified that they would much prefer a side-by-side parking arrangement on G Street to mitigate for the lack of on -street parking and ensure that the garage spaces were used. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a summary of the three DRB meetings that occurred on this project. No written minutes are taken at the City's public meetings. However, actual video recordings of the meetings are available through a video link on the City of San Rafael website, www.cityofsanrafael.orq/meetings. Click on the Design Review Board video link for each of the desired hearing dates. The project was initially reviewed as a Conceptual Design at the October 4, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At the time, the project was proposing to build 9 townhome units with 18 tandem parking spaces. By providing 1 affordable BMR unit, the project qualified for a State density bonus and was allowed 1 zoning concession. The applicant elected to choose tandem parking as the qualifying concession. The proposed project met the development standard for the side yard setback of 5 feet, but did required variances for rear setback, driveway setback and minimum landscaping requirement. During the conceptual design review hearing, several neighbors expressed concern about the feasibility of tandem parking, building height/bulk, the impact of 3 -stories on the light/air for adjacent single-family homes, and the loss of on -street parking spaces. The Board was generally supportive of the conceptual design, but did express concern regarding the following: • Bulk of the project seemed large along G St. • Provide stepbacks for upper levels if the design remains 3 stories • Reduce the number materials used for the building exterior • Feasibility of tandem parking design • Consider a reduction in the number of units to improve site design/landscaping options • Provide more ground level open space or augment the proposed roof patios • Consider reducing the number of curb cuts on Ida St. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 10 In response to the DRB recommendations at the conceptual design review meeting, the project was re- designed and submitted to the City as a formal application for planning entitlements and included the following major changes to the project: • The number of units proposed were reduced from 9 units to 8 units • Private ground level patio and first floor decks added to the G St. townhomes • The addition of 757 square feet of ground level common recreational space • Parking for the two G St. townhomes was changed from tandem to side by side (independently accessible). Tandem parking is still proposed for the six units on Ida St. • The roof patio amenities were identified to include seating, planters, and a water feature. The proposed BBQ grills were eliminated, as a BBQ grill is proposed for the common recreation area • The number of exterior building materials proposed on the facade was reduced The DRB conducted a review of the formal application on April 3, 2013, reviewing the formal project plans and the changes that were made as a result of the Conceptual review. Commissioner Wise served as the PC liaison for this meeting. In general, the Board was supportive of the revised building design and choice of building materials. The Board did provide consensus recommendations and comments on several aspects of the project as listed below: • The Board supported the density in the neighborhood, with 2 units on G St. and 6 units on Ida St. • The Board recommended preserving the existing mature Oak tree on Ida St. • The Board recommended shifting the Ida St. townhomes to the north side of the site in order to save the existing Oak tree as well as to reduce bulk from the 3 -story townhome on adjacent property. It was noted that the utilities in the right-of-way would have to be relocated as well to accomplish this. • The Board further recommended flipping the location for the proposed ground level common recreation area from the north side of the site to the south side of the property on Ida St. • Provide survey for project site. • Show more context between the G St. and Ida St. properties on Plan Sheet DR -12. • Explore whether the driveway on Ida St. north of the site can be eliminated, and opportunities to consolidate driveways. • The Board liked the building articulation at the rear of Ida St. townhomes (cantilevered portion), but were concerned about whether the building would be able to have operable windows. Confirm Building Code requirements for separation between buildings so as to preserve the option for operable windows. The goal is to preserve operable windows. • Look into reducing garage width in order to meet with the required 5 foot side yard setback on G St. • In terms of the requested Variances, the Board offered the following consensus comments: 1. Minimum Landscaping (G St.): The Board supported variance to 50% front yard landscaping on G St. (reduced to 37% landscaping). 2. Front Yard Setback (G St.): The Board supported variance to 15 -foot front setback to allow for an 11' 8" stairway encroachment into the front setback on G St. (6 foot stair encroachment allowed by Code). 3. Side Yard Setback (G St.): The Board supported the variance for a 1 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot side -yard setback on G St., with the caveat that the Building Department verifies that there would be no impact on operable windows on the adjacent property. 4. Rear Yard setback (Ida St.): The Board supported variance for the 2 -foot encroachment into the 5 -foot required rear yard setback on Ida St., as long as the applicant can verify that the proposed operable windows within 5 feet of a property line can comply with the Building Code. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 11 5. Driveway Setback (Ida St.): The Board supported 20 foot driveway setback variance in order to avoid reducing the depth of tandem parking on Ida St. The Board voted unanimously to continue the project to a future date. On August 20, 2013, the Board reviewed the revised project. The design of the townhome buildings and proposed exterior materials remained the same. However, the applicant did implement the Board's recommendations to relocate the proposed ground level common recreational area from the north side of the property on Ida St. to the south side of the property and relocating the utility boxes. These revisions were implemented at the recommendation of the Board in order to: 1) preserve the existing Oak tree on Ida St.; 2) provide more distance between the 3 -story townhome and the adjacent single family home, thereby reducing the impact of the proposed building; and 3) provide a better opportunity for southern sun exposure to the common recreational area. With respect to the variances requested, as stated above, the Board was supportive of all 5 of the Variances requested. Per Board direction, Staff referred the revised project plans to the Building Department for review of the issue of operable windows within 5 feet of a property line. The response from the Building Division was that operable windows are allowed because "fully fire-sprinklered duplex - dwellings and townhomes with walls three feet or further from the property line can have unlimited wall openings ("windows and/or doors"). As such, the proposed 2 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot rear yard setback on the Ida St. townhomes and the 1 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot side yard setback on the G St. townhomes would not impact future window placement or operability along the adjacent properties. Further, based on Building Department review, the proposed 8 foot separation at the rear of the townhome buildings complies with the Building Code." There was considerable concern expressed throughout the design review process by the adjacent property owner at 15 G St. about the potential impact of the proposed 3 -story townhome on light and air to her property. The Board also discussed this issue, but there was no consensus to re -design the project. The applicant's response to the concern about the bulk of the building on G Street has been to state that the side-by-side design of the parking on G St. was done specifically to provide independently accessible off-street parking for two vehicles, as requested by residents during conceptual design review. The applicant believes that reducing the interior garage dimension would discourage the use of the garage. As such, no changes to the garage design were presented. In conclusion, the Board voted 4-1 (Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project as re -designed. Commissioner Wise served was the Planning Commission liaison for this meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff has determined that this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development) given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020); d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development; and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 12 However, pursuant to CEQA Section 15300.2 (f), "a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource." The property at 21 G St. is not listed on the City's 1986 Historical/Architectural Survey, however, City records show that the residence was built in 1910, and like other homes over 50 years old, it is required to be evaluated for potential historic value. At the direction of City staff, the applicant submitted a historic resource report prepared by Archeological Resources Technology (dated December 7, 2012). The report discussed the history of the area and made the following statement: "In terms of massing and physical shape, the residence at 21 G St. retains sufficient integrity in that it represents the period in which it gained significance, namely, 1910 - circa 1920..." (p. 8). The report also identified that many of the structures in the surrounding area have "some degree of diminished architectural integrity" and that "incremental alterations to many residential properties may have compromised the potential for a historic district." (p. 10). The report goes on to state that there were several modifications to the 21 G Street structure, but that the "front fapade... retains good integrity, retaining most, if not all, of its historic fabric and design" (p. 8). The report concluded that the subject property at this point in time does not appear to be a significant resource under CEQA, California Register of Historic Resources, Criterion 1 and 3. The report went on to state that the project area is considered to be moderately sensitive for prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits, and recommended monitoring during construction to determine the presence/absence of cultural resources. As such, a Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #9 has been added (see Draft Resolution, page 9) to ensure that no potential resources are overlooked during project construction. It is staff's opinion based on the recommendations in the historic resource report that the proposed new development at 21 G St. would not compromise historic value of properties in the vicinity because the design of the townhomes are in keeping with many of the materials used in the historic properties (shingles, cornice elements), pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050F, which states that the project design "should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity, and should enhance important gateways, view corridors and waterways as identified in the General Plan." The project site has been identified as being in an area with a "Medium Sensitivity" to potential archaeological resources. Per City Council Resolution 10933, projects so identified must also be referred to Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University and also to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria for as part of the planning review process. Staff has completed referrals to both agencies. Comments have not been received from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. As such, a Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #10 has been added (see Draft Resolution, page 9) to ensure that prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project site has been reviewed and evaluated for potential impacts on Native American cultural resources. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of this hearing before the Planning Commission (along with the prior DRB meetings) have been conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public meetings before the DRB as well as this public hearing before the Commission was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (West End Neighborhood Association), and all interested parties at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 13 Copies all written correspondence received throughout the public hearing process (including the conceptual design review) are attached as Exhibit 9. Much of the public input about this project was generated during the DRB review process. There were letters of support and opposition. Residents and businesses in support indicated they felt the added housing would: 1) be a positive addition to the neighborhood; 2) liked the design of the project; and 3) thought that the new units would help revitalize the West End businesses. The residents who expressed concern focused on: 1) the overall density of the project being incompatible with the single family character of the G Street neighborhood; 2) questioned the feasibility of tandem parking; 3) building mass and bulk, particularly on G St.; 4) the lack of stepbacks for the side elevations; and 5) possibly lack of capacity for sewer and drainage. Staff received a comment letter from the West End Neighborhood Association (WENA) in July 2012, with questions about the project, but WENA did not comment on whether they supported or opposed the project. In total, there were 6 letters of opposition and 7 letters of support. As a result of the noticing for this public hearing before the Commission, staff has received one letter of support from a resident who had initially opposed the project due to concerns for lack of parking (see Exhibit 10). However, I spoke with him and explained that the project would have 2 covered spaces for each unit and would be code compliant for parking. He then submitted a letter of support of the project, citing that he was in support of the proposed density, and the addition of a BMR unit. Planning staff also spoke with the adjacent property owner at 15 G Street at the planning counter about her concerns with the lack of setback. It is my understanding that she will be submitting a letter as well. Any written communication received after the distribution of this staff report, will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board reviewed the project and determined that it was well designed and expressed its support of the proposed project as re -designed and has put forth a unanimous recommendation to approve the project. Staff has spent many days walking the project site, and reviewing the project plans. Staff also had numerous meetings with the project applicant on the feasibility of re -designing the project and discussions about the variances requested. The most striking thing about this project is that it is located on a very quiet street just around the corner from a busy West End Village commercial center along Fourth Street and a major highway arterial (Third Street). While the 5 homes on Fourth Street enjoy the feeling of a single family zoning district, all lots on this block are zoned for High Density Residential development and the General Plan 2020 policies encourage in -fill housing development in this type of transitional mixed use commercial/residential area. The project as proposed, with 8 new units so close to downtown is in keeping with this General Plan Policy and objective. The project is overwhelmingly consistent with the General Plan and property development requirements for the HR1 zoning district. As discussed in the staff report, many of the variances requested were actually driven by design considerations and in response to residents concern about tandem parking on G Street. Both the Board and staff tried to balance between strong design elements versus zoning development standards. Required setbacks are an important development standard but due to the oddities of the L-shaped lot, and the base zoning allowing for up to 10 units, it was a challenging site to create a design that worked for everyone. In the end, staff felt that the project applicant worked with the Board and the public to re- design the project with a sensitivity to as many concerns as possible by 1) reducing the number of units; 2) relocating the proposed common open space area; 3) relocating utility boxes; 4) saving an Oak tree; and 5) re -designing the building design and tandem parking on G Street. Staff supports the proposed project as designed and feels that the variances requested are relatively minor in nature and necessary to enable the project to move forward. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED12-058/V12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 14 OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the applications as presented (staff recommendation); 2. Approve the applications with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution. EXHIBITS 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Applicant's Design Process Narrative 4. General Plan 2020 Consistency Table 5. Applicant's Justification for Variance requests 6. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency table 7. Applicant's Subdivision Waiver Request 8. Applicant's Statement of Intent 9. Public Correspondence received (includes comments made during DRB's three meetings) 10. Public Correspondence received since PC notice 11. Reduced Project Plans 11"x 17" plans provided to the Planning Commissioners only. Project Vicinity Map - 21 G Street SCALE 1 :545 20 0 20 40 60 FEET 13 Exhibit 1 Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:10 PM RESOLUTION NO. 14 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 12-058), VARIANCES FOR FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD, MINIMUM FRONT LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY SETBACKS (V12-002), TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS 13-002), INCLUDING AN EXCEPTION (EX13-008) TO RECREATIONAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT, FOR A PROPSOAL TO CONSTRUCT 8 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUMS AT 21 G STREET (A THROUGH LOT BETWEEN G ST. AND IDA ST.; APN: 011-232-10) WHEREAS, on August 4, 2011, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review (CDRI1-004) for a 9 unit townhome development on a 10,836 square foot lot; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly noticed meeting and reviewed the conceptual design proposed and recommended design changes, including, but not limited to reducing the number of units, increasing common open space areas and re -designing the G St. building facade; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2012, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted a formal applications, including Design Review Permit (ED12-058)and Variance requests (V12-002) for five property development standards (encroachments in the required front setback, side setback and rear setback, minimum landscape requirements and minimum driveway setback); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, a duly -noticed meeting was scheduled before the DRB butwas continued due to lack of a quorum; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, the DRB held a duly -noticed meeting and made recommendations for project change, including but not limited to changing the location of the common open space area and preserving the existing oak tree on Ida St.; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013, the DRB held a duly -noticed public meeting and reviewed further revisions made by the applicant in response to the April 3, 2013 meeting At the conclusion of the meeting, the DRB voted 4-1 (moved by Garg and Seconded by Lentini, with Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project design and in their motion, expressed support for the proposed five variances requested; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, an application was received by the Community Development Department requesting Tentative Map approval (TS13-002) to allow the division of the 8 units into air condominiums, and a Subdivision Exception request (EX13-008) to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site; and WHEREAS, based on the 8 units proposed the project is required to provide and proposes to provide 10% of the units as "for sale" and affordable at the "low-income" level; and WHEREAS, based on the provision of 1 of the 8 units as affordable to low income households, the project qualifies for a State density bonus of 20% above the maximum density allowed by the City, or EXF � B � T 2 3 additional units and 1 concession to zoning standards, consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 14.16.030.1-1 of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project proponent has requested one concession to the City's parking standards to allow the use of tandem parking on site, as allowed by Section 16.030.H.3.a(i) of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, which would provide 16 tandem parking spaces for the project site; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts In -Fill Development Projects given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development; and WHERAS, based on a historic resource evaluation by Archaeological Resources Technology, the project was determined not to be a historic resource and that demolition of the structure at 21 G Str. would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, and therefore met the requirement to qualify as categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA section 15300.2 (f); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed by the City of San Rafael's Department of Public Works, Fire Department — Fire Prevention Bureau and Community Development Department - Building Division and the San Rafael Sanitation District and was recommended for approval subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance request, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception request, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael does hereby approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Variances (V12- 002) for the townhomes on G St. for a reduction in the minimum front landscaping requirement, stairway encroachment into the required front setback, and encroachment into the side yard setback, and for the townhomes on Ida St .for enroachment into the required rear yard setback and an encroachment into the driveway setback, Tentative Subdivision Map (TS13-002) for 8 air space condominiums, and Subdivision Exception request (EX13-008) to waive the requirement for a recreation room on the site based on the following Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval below. 2 Environmental and Design Review Findings (ED12-058) 1) The proposed construction of 8 townhomes (2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street) is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter given that: a. The proposed project (as conditioned) is consistent with General Plan Policies summarized as follows and discussed in detail as noted in the General Plan Consistency table included in the February 25, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Exhibit 4 (Table Analyzing Project Consistency with General Plan 2020), including the following policiesLU-2 (Development Tinting), LU -8 (Intensity of Residential Development), LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -14 (Land Use Compatibility), LU -23 (Land use Maps and Categories), H -I (Housing Distribution), H-3 (Designs That Fit Into the Neighborhood Context), H-19 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements), H-21 (Density Bonuses), H -18b (Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Site), H-22 (Infill Near Transit), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -17 (Competing Concerns), NH -22 (Downtown Housing), NH -43 (West End Design Considerations), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping), I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services), I-4 (Utility Undergrounding), I-6 (Street Maintenance), 1-8 (Street Trees), CA -13 (Historic Buildings and Areas), SU -6 (New and Existing Trees), SU -5a (Green Building Regulations), SU -8a (Affordable Housing), S-6 (Seismic Safety of Nell, Buildings), 5-25 (Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Requirements), N-1 (Noise Impacts on New Development), N-2 (Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use), AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution Froin Urban Runofj). b. The proposed project (as conditioned) conforms to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14.04 (Base District Regulations), Chapter 18 (Parking), Chapter 25 (Environmental Design Review Permits), and the San Rafael Design Guidelines in that the project is an allowable use in the HRl zoning district, the project would provide 16 off-street parking spaces, with tandem spaces allowed as State density bonus concession for providing 1 affordable housing unit, and the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and recommended for approval. The project site is an L-shaped lot located between G St. and Ida St. near downtown Fourth Street. It is a transitional site between the bulk and massing of Fourth Street and the relatively smaller single family homes in the center portion of G Street. The project has gone through considerable revisions since the initial conceptual design review application, reducing the number of units from 9 to 8 units, re -designing the buildings on G St. with gable roof forms and providing more ground level usable open space. The re -designed project has taken into account the variety of design elements in the neighborhood; and c. The project has been reviewed by Planning staff for conformance with the applicable design criteria established in Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff determined that the proposed units, as conditioned, would be compatible in color and materials with the existing buildings on site and add much needed in -fill housing to the downtown area, including one affordable unit, thereby improving the overall quality of the streets in the surrounding neighborhood. 2) The project design, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the High Density Residential (HRI) Zoning District in which the site is located given that: 3 a. The proposed 8 units is an allowable use and at an allowable density in the HR1 zoning district; b. In terms of Chapter 25 review criteria, the project has been designed to incorporate two distinct streetscapes. The G St. frontage is less bulk and mass and more akin to a single family residential district, though there are larger buildings at the end of the street. The original design of the entire project was a flat roof row house design. This design was changed on the G St. side to take into account the smaller scale of buildings on G St. A gable roof element was introduced and a central staircase was added. The Ida St. townhomes retained the flat roof design since the predominant feel of the block is tall commercial buildings with only one single family home on the block. The building mass is set back from the adjacent property to the south through the placement of a usable open space area on the south end of the property, as well as the preservation of the existing Oak Tree on Ida Street; c. The proposed exterior building color and materials will blend in with the variety of architectural styles and materials in the area, including older historic resources in the area; d. The site has 2 existing street trees along the G St. frontage and one existing Oak tree on the Ida St. frontage, all of which will remain. Additional landscaping along the interior and perimeter of the project site will be added, including a total of 4 new street trees (one on G Street and three on Ida Street); and e. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board, which recommended multiple changes to the project design and site orientation, and ultimately voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the revised project. 3) The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts given that: a. The proposed project was reviewed by applicable City departments and no adverse environmental impacts were identified; b. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal building codes and health and safety standards; c. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development). A historic resource evaluation was completed on December 7, 2013 by Archaeological Resources Technology. The report concluded that the residence at 21 G Street did not qualify as a historic resource. As such, the residence at 21 G Street can be demolished with no significant impact on historic structures. d. Based on the Findings and Recommendations on Page 11 of the Archaeological Resources Technology Report, Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #9 has been added to ensure appropriate monitoring for any potential archaeological resources encountered during construction. 4) That the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the project is a residential project located in a zoning district zoned for residential uses. The use of the property is a similar use as is seen on other residential lots on G Street and Ida Street. The project is designed with code compliant parking (2 spaces per unit) and the proposed tandem spaces along Ida Street will still provide off- street parking for two vehicles. The proposed project has requested 5 variances to the property development standards. Findings to support project approval are detailed below under "Variance Findings." 4 Variance Findings (V12-002) 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated; 3. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; 4. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. The project applicant is seeking approval for a total of 5 variance, 3 on the G Street townhomes and 2 on the Ida Street townhomes: • G Street townhomes: Variance request to reduce the minimum 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%), a front entry stair encroachment (I P 8") into the required 15 foot front setback, and a 1 foot building encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback. • Ida Street townhomes: Variance request for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5 foot rear yard, and a 1 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot driveway setback. In general, the variance requests are relatively minor in nature in terms of the actual amount of encroachment requested, mainly 1-2 feet. The City actually recognizes that many properties in San Rafael pre-existed the zoning code and as such are legal non -conforming. Small deviations to the prescribed property development standards are allowed through either an Exception process or the Variance process. Typically, for new development, the protocol is to design the project without the need for variances or exceptions. However, odd -shaped lots present special difficulties. In this particular instance, the original project presented for conceptual design review was designed with code compliant 5 foot setbacks for the side property line. In addition, no variance for a stair encroachment into the front setback was needed as there was no staircase proposed as part of the front fagade. Based on public input and concern about tandem parking along G Street, the DRB recommended that parking be re -designed as side-by-side and the applicant indicated in order to accommodate the interior garage dimension, they would have to widen the garage and therefore would request a 1 foot encroachment into the required side yard on the G St frontage. Similarly, the addition of a front staircase to reduce the bulk along G St required an encroachment into the front setback beyond the 6 feet allowed for a stair encroachment. The overriding consideration for granting all 5 variances is based on the size, shape and orientation of the subject lot, which is an L-shaped through lot. In addition, per DRB recommendation, the applicant reduced project size from 9 units to 8 units, which is still 2 units below the maximum density allowed on the site. There is an inherent hardship in the strict application of the development standards for setbacks, minimum landscaping and driveway setback. Further, many other properties in the vicinity also have similar issues of encroach into the required side yard setback and possibly other setbacks. As such, granting the variance would not bestow any a special privilege to the project applicant that is not also enjoyed by other property owners in the area. However, each variance requested has unique impacts and are therefore discussed separately below: a. Minimum Landscaping(G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, there is a 50% landscaping requirement in the HRl zoning district. The requested variance would allow a reduction in the required landscaping from 420 square feet to 312 square feet (to 102 square feet less than required). Findings: The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is narrow, at 56 -feet width, whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant HR1 lot width. Much of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the paved driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. The project was originally proposed with tandem parking, which would have required less paved area for parking. However, the project was re -designed based on public concern about the feasibility of tandem parking. As such, the area available for landscaping was reduced. The project is proposing to provide permeable pavers in order to soften the visual impact of driveway paving and respond to the intent of the landscape requirement. In walking the neighborhood, staff notes that the other homes on the block utilize hardscape in the front yard area, some of which is used for parking. Granting the variance would not be injurious to surrounding properties in that the site will he heavily landscape along the perimeters and several street trees will be added to the site. While the front landscaping is less than what is required by code, the project is proposing to keep the existing 2 street trees on G Street and plant one additional tree. On balance, this will help mitigate for the loss of landscaping in the required front yard area. b. Front Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required front setback in HRl zone is 15 feet. Stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8" into the front setback (i.e., 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment). The previous project design did not include stairs, but the G St. townhomes were re -designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in line with existing single-family architectural styling on G St. As such, a front setback variance is required for the new staircase encroachment. Findings: Staff has determined that the stair encroachment is relatively minor, considering that pursuant to Section 14.15.030, stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed encroachment is only 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment, and would add a much needed design element to the streetscape. Many other properties on G Street also have exterior staircases, and the design lends itself to creating a fagade more compatible with the existing properties on G Street. The staircase would not be injurious to adjacent properties as it will meet all code requirements. c. Side Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5 foot side yard setback is required in the HRl zone. The proposed project is designed with a 4 foot side yard setback for the G Street frontage, in order to accommodate code compliant 20' wide 2 -car garage width. Findings: The side yard setback variance is justifiable based on the narrow lot width at this portion of the irregularly L-shaped site, and the fact that several other properties in the area also encroach into the setbacks, although these properties are legal non -conforming. Given that the encroachment is only 1 foot, and given the fact that the encroachment is necessary to provide side-by-side parking specifically expressed as a choice preferred over the tandem parking originally proposed on G St., staff is inclined to support the variance. This requested variance has generated concern from the neighboring residents, particularly the adjacent resident of the single family, two-story home at 15 G St., who expressed concern about the impact of a 3 -story structure on light and air to their property. This home is a two story home and is about 2 feet away from the property line adjacent to the project site, and also encroaches into the required 5 foot side yard setback on their property but is considered legal, non -conforming. The impact of the wall will be somewhat reduced because the side yard area will be heavily vegetated and the outdoor recreational space for 15 G Street is on the other side of the lot. Though the adjacent neighbor will face a tall wall, the south elevation for G St. does have window openings and is proposed to be covered with Ivy to help soften the wall. The applicant has indicated that there is insufficient interior garage space to further reduce the size of the garage. It is also important to note that the original project was submitted with the code required 5 foot side yard setback for the G Street townhomes, but due to concerns from the public about the tandem parking, the project was re -designed to in order to accommodate side-by-side parking (two 20 foot wide 2 -car garages). The applicant is requesting a I foot encroachment into the side yard along the north and south property lines in order to accommodate the garage size and meet interior dimensions required to open the car doors. d. Rear Yard Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 14.04.040, the required rear yard setback is 5 feet. The Ida St. townhomes are designed with a cantilevered window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 ft. rear yard setback. Findings: Again, due to the irregular L-shaped lot, site design is more challenging. The cantilevered section of the rear fagade would almost qualify as an "allowable encroachment" as an "architectural feature" except that it is a feature that is repeated for 3 stories. As such it is considered an encroachment into the required yard. Without the variance request, the upper stories would have no articulation which would run counter to the Chapter 25 design review criteria for building design articulation. Further, the impact of the encroachment has no impact on adjacent properties considering that the rear yard abuts the building on the G St. side of the same project site. This property is not like other regular single family lots in that there is no rear property line between the G St. townhomes and the portion of the Ida Street townhomes directly behind them. In addition, the 1 foot rear yard encroachment would not negatively impact usable outdoor space on the lot, as all units have access to both common and private usable open space in the form of terraces, roof gardens, and porches. Given the minimal nature of the impact on adjacent properties and the benefit it would add to the building design, staff can support this variance request. Driveway Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development standards for the driveway setback have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance requires that "where there is a driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty feet (20'). The project is proposing a 19 foot setback for Ida Street. The proposed project would group driveways along Ida St., eliminating the need for six distinct curb cuts. However, due to the tandem parking design, a variance to the 20' required driveway setback is requested. Findings: The L-shaped lot does not have sufficient depth required to meet all of the zoning setback and dimension standards with tandem parking. The variance is deemed justified based on the fact that the project cannot comply with all zoning setback standards, achieve its allowable and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law. Reducing the garage by one foot would most likely compromise the use of the garage for two cars. The goal of the 20 foot driveway setback standard is to ensure that cars do not block the sidewalk. Based on the site design, staff determined that the garage has ample space to ensure the cars will be able to pull onto the lot and not interfere with the sidewalk area. Considering the variance request did not generate much public opposition, it seems that there is value in preserving the option to have more building articulation in keeping with Chapter 25 design guidelines. Tentative Map Findings (TS13-002) 1. The proposed map is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any applicable, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan as noted in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above and the General Plan Consistency table (Exhibit 4) included in the Feburary 25, 2014 staff report to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the map is to create 8 air space condomiums with no real impact on the orientation of the lots on the project site itself; 2. The design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any pertinent, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan in that the subdivision would create 2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street and these units are in keeping with the allowable density and lot configuration for the HR1 residential zoning district with respect to height limit, parking and total lot coverage. Several variances are required in order to construct all 8 units, but staff is in support of the variances, as discussed in the Variance findings above; The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the type and density of the development in that the City has balanced the regional and local housing needs against the public service needs of its residents, as well as available fiscal and environmental resources, and concludes that adequate public services are available to the site based on existing service providers that have reviewed the project and indicated that subject to conditions of approval, the system has the capacity to provide service; 4. The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed in that: a) the proposed subdivision would create 8 air condominium units on site, which is below the maximum density allowable per code (10 units); b) the project would also provide two -car garages for all units, which complies with the required parking in the zoning ordinance; c) ample, code compliant private and common usable open space is provided for the project; and d) the proposed subdivision would create air condominiums, with no impact on the actual orientation of the physical lots on the ground level in terms of property lines; 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that: a) the site is currently graded and developed with no known environmental resources on the site, b) the site is an in -fill site that has been designated in the zoning ordinance and general plan as high density residential development; c) the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA findings listed below. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that: a) it is a residential project in keeping with the existing residential zoning for the vicinity; b) the proposed project would be built in accordance with the latest Building and Fire codes to ensure the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors; c) the City's Public Works Department and Sanitation District have reviewed the drainage and proposed sewer connections for the project site and deemed the project design to be in keeping with City standards, subject to conditions of approval; and d) as conditioned, the proposed subdivision would not result in impacts to water quality or impacts to environmental resources in that an erosion control plan is required as a condition of project approval, which must be implemented before any grading or construction commences on the site. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that no easements were identified as part of the Title Report submitted for the project. The project site is privately owned with no known public access through the lot. Subdivision Exception Request Findings (EX13-008) 1. That there are special circumstances and/or conditions of the property proposed for subdivision that warrant the approval of the exception to the requirement for a recreation building in that the project site is very small and is not able to accommodate an additional building for recreational use. In addition, the goal of this provision was to target larger residential complexes with many more residents and a higher need for a separate recreational room; 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subdivider or property owner. The property is designed as for -sale condominiums, akin really to a single family home. Requiring a recreation room for such a development style would not be appropriate, given the design of each townhome, with ample access to a garage, common open space, a private roof garden and private patios. Given the size of the project site and the site constraints to provide code complaint parking and setbacks, it would be a hardship to create a recreation room that would most likely be relatively unused. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated. The property will continue to function as a residential development without a recreation room. Adjacent neighbors would not be impacted by the lack of a recreation building on the project site. Residents of the proposed project will have access to a garage area, storage and common open space for their recreational activities. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), since it qualifies as an infill affordable housing project pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21159.21 and 21159.24 and Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts In Fill Development Projects. This project qualifies for this exemption based on the following: a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designated for the site (High Density Residential); 9 b) The subject site is within City limits and is an infill site that totals less than five acres (0.5 acres) in size and is surrounded by a mixture of uses on three sides, including single-family residential, medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses; c) The entire site and its surroundings have been formerly graded and completely developed. There are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour). It is not anticipated that the proposed project would create significant sources of noise or air pollution, and the new residential use would generate noise levels that are similar to the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, and e) All utlility agencies have indicated that per conditions required, they can provide required services to the new development. Environmental and Design Review (ED12-058) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The proposed 8 unit townhome development shall be installed and designed in substantial conformance with the proposed site plan and elevations and landscape plan as presented for approval on plans prepared by Camiccia Construction, date stamped Approved, February 25, 2014, and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body. 2. A copy of the Conditions of Approval for ED12-058 shall be included as a plan sheet with the building permit plan submittal. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board and also shown on elevation plan sheets. The approved color for the exterior stucco is Benjamin Moore #1496 "Raintree Green", Hardie Shingle is Benjamin Moore #1494 "Vale Mist", accent bands paint color is Benjamin Moore "Bone White", standing Seam metal roof color is "Aged Bronze", and windows and door colors is Benjamin Moore "Appalachian Brown". Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division. 4. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 12-058) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Commission approval, or until February 25, 2016, and shall become null and void if building permits are not issued, or an extension is not granted before that time. Once a building permit for the proposed site improvements is issued within the two-year period, then the Environmental and Design Review Permit shall become valid and run with the land and will not have an expiration date. On-going compliance with all conditions of approval shall be required to keep the Environmental and Design Review Permit valid. 10 5. All new and existing landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 6. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning Division to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 7. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 8. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.133 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 9. Archaeological Resources Technology Report (Page 12) has recommended monitoring at the site to determine the presence/absence of cultural resources. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a letter from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria that the proposed project has been reviewed for potential impacts to Native American cultural resources. Community Development Department — Building Division 11. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code (CRC), 2013 California Building Code (CBC), 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. Building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2014 shall comply with the 2013 California Construction Codes. 12. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by 4 complete sets of construction drawings to include: a. Architectural plans b. Structural plans c. Electrical plans d. Plumbing plans e. Mechanical plans f. Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building) h. Structural Calculations i. Truss Calculations j. Soils reports k. Green Building documentation 11 1. Title -24 energy documentation 13. Based on the CRC and CBC definitions, this project consists of a duplex dwelling and a 6 unit townhouse. Both the duplex and the townhouse are 3 stories in height (the roof deck is not considered a story similar to the CRC definition of a "Habitable Attic." 14. Fully fire-sprinklered duplex dwellings and townhouses with walls 3 feet or further from the property line can have unlimited wall openings (windows and/or doors) per CRC Table R302.1(2) 15. The building height must comply with CBC Section 504 and Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building height. 16. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with''/2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with''/2 inch stroke for commercial applications. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 17. You must apply for new addresses for the buildings from the Building Division. The address for structures is determined by the Chief Building Official. The address for the new units will be legalized upon completion of its construction. Each page of the plan's title block and all permit application documents must show the proposed building's address identification information. 18. The plan does not show the location of mechanical equipment. When located in the garage bollards must be placed to protect water heaters and furnaces from vehicular damage (when located in the path of a vehicle). 19. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. 20. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 21. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. 22. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work. 23. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the total square footage of new single family and duplex dwelling projects. New dwellings must comply with the "Green Building Rating System" by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 75 and 200 points. Additionally the energy budget must also be below Title 24 12 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square footage). Public Works Department — Land Development Division 24. A grading permit is required from the City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works. 25. Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention — Its part of the plan." Copies are available on the City of San Rafael website www.cityofsanrafael.org. 26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Traffic Mitigation fee of $29,772 (3 AM + 4PM trips) is required. San Rafael Sanitation District 27. Existing facilities, including sewer lines, should be screened back to a lighter weight, and proposed facilities drawn in black. 28. The existing sewer lateral which is being abandoned should be in a lighter line type and feature hash marks. The new hashed line type for the abandoned pipe should also be shown in the legend. 29. Pipe material, and minimum cover for the laterals should be indicated. Acceptable pipe materials for side sewer laterals can be found on page 85 of the 2007 SRSD Standard Specification and Drawings 30. The minimum size for any of the laterals shall be 4". All laterals shall have a minimum slope of 1%. Please indicate this on the plans. 31. An additional cleanout is required near the south west corner of the 6 unit complex. 32. Trench section details conforming to the SRSD Standard Specification are required and shall be included on the plans 33. The applicant shall perform a Closed circuit Television (CCTV) inspection of the 6" VCP on Ida Street beginning at the sanitary sewer cleanout extending past the property line. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the San Rafael Sanitation District for their review. If the pipe is determined to be in fair to poor condition, you may be required to replace the existing line at your cost. When you televise the sewer mainline, SRSD crews shall be present when you enter the manhole. Please contact SRSD at (415) 458-5369 to coordinate the televising of the sewer main. 34. The utility plans shall be stamped and signed by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California before the plans can be approved or the building permit issued. 35. Prior to issuance of a building permit, sewer connection fees in the amount of $66,753.84 are required and shall be paid to the San Rafael Sanitation District. Marin Municipal Water District 36. The project site is currently being served. The put -pose and intent of existing Service is to No. 00900 is to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of eight (8) new townhomes will not impair the Districts ability to continue service to this property. Water service is required for the new townhomes will be available upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below. Please note, meter locations are subject to MMWD review and approval. 13 a. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application b. Submit a copy of the building permits c. Pay appropriate fees and charges d. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested e. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following are required: verification of indoor fixtures compliance, landscape plan, irrigation plan, grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415-945-1497. You can also find information at www.marinwater.org £ Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. Tentative Map (TS13-002) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The Tentative Map (TS 13-002) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of Planning Commission approval, or until February 25, 2016, and shall become null and void unless a Final Map has been recorded or a time extension is granted. 2. The project shall be subject to the affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 14.16.030 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and is therefore required to provide 1 of the 8 units as affordable. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the 1 affordable unit shall be approved by the City Council and recorded on the property. Consistent with the affordable housing requirements and the request for a state density bonus, the unit shall be affordable to low-income households. The location of the BMR units shall be identified on the project plans and the final location shall be subject to review and approval of the City as part of the City's consideration of the BMR agreement. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a Final Map, whichever occurs first, the developer shall pay to the City in lieu parkland dedication fees for 8 new units in accordance with the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 1558. Parkland dedication in lieu fees are, at this time, based on 1989 dollars. Adjustments of this figure may be necessary at the time of fee payment if the fair market value for parkland and associated improvements is adjusted in accordance with Section 15.3 8.045 of the Ordinance. 4. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared and submitted with an application for a Final Parcel Map. The CC&R's shall include the following requirements and provisions: a. The formation of a homeowners association (HOA). b. HOA responsibilities for ongoing maintenance of the shared or common facilities, including but not limited to the common driveway, common landscaping and irrigation, fencing, subdivision infrastructure improvements (storm water and sanitary sewer facilities) and exterior building and lighting improvements. 14 c. HOA financial responsibility for center lane striping modifications that may be required in the future to coordinate with Caltrans street improvements proposed along Lincoln Avenue near the project site. d. Restrictions and regulations imposed on each lot owner. The CC&R's shall include provisions, which restrict the use of the parking spaces to vehicle parking. e. Requirements and provisions for professional management services or the services of a Certified Public Accountant to oversee the HOA responsibilities and budget. 5. Prior to recordation of the final map, the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development, the City Attorney's Office, and the Redevelopment Agency. 6. Approved CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 25h day of February, 2014. Moved by Commissioner AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Paul A. Jensen, Secretary and seconded by 15 SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION John (Jack) Robertson, Chair Page 1 of 3 r..arnn Parkar From: Daisy Carlson [dayzdays@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:06 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: FW: Contest Variances of 21 G Street Hi Caron, I hope this note finds you well. I have been looking over the plans of 21 G street and I am very unhappy with several of the proposed variances. I own 15 G next to the proposed building. Key points: The building is simply too big for the property and needs to be brought to scale. This would resolve all of the following concerns. I would like at the minimum the legal set backs as the property is simply too close to mine & too tall and too big for our street. My house has several large windows on that side, building so close will severely compromise my homes light and livability. A foot matters both vertically and laterally when it comes to light. These windows provide my home with a significant source of light. The height variance and set back variance compromise the livability and value of my historic home as well as the neighborhoods. I think the proposed building is simply too big for the lot, it will remove two or more parking spots from the street and simply is not in character with the rest of the street. The comparisons they used are retrofit public works buildings and not relative to our traditional residential streets. This developer feels compelled to compromise the value and character of the neighborhood for profit and it truly disrupts the entire neighborhood. It really changes character of the neighborhood putting in a subdivision, removing historic trees and going so high and wide. Also roof terraces are not consistent with the neighborhood and pose fire hazards and additional height to the variance. Their property currently is spilling in to mine and so the property line is not clear and has already caused major drainage problems to my home which they have not addressed when I asked them to earlier this year. I absolutely appose the building of such a large structure next to mine. It lacks legitimacy in its claims and does not provide adequate parking as it is a known fact that people do not use tandem situations as they are an inconvenience and the tandem variance compromises height, lateral set back while still removing two parking spaces from an already inundated street. Can the owner, who currently lives on a four acre San Anselmo Villa, verify they will indeed live on G street EXHIBIT 9 3/15/2013 Page 2 of 3 I question the legitimacy of the intent for building a subdivision on this property. I know it helps the city but it disregards the other property owners in the neighborhood. It feels like this may be a case of developers muscling in for profit, using the cities need for funding to destroy a currently pleasant neighborhood with buildings that are not in keeping with a historic street with some of the oldest homes in San Rafael. This compromises the value of my home and in investment in restoring a historic property on many levels and other nneighbors have shared similar concerns. The building is too big and needs to be brought to scale! To re -clarify. Height not consistent with the street in question. Too close to my home not sufficient, safe or adequate set back. Severely compromises the light of both Liz and I reducing our property values dramatically. Removes existing parking spaces for garage entrances making it harder to park especially with out resident permits. ( This will strengthen our argument for making our street resident only with a 2/3 majority. ) Roof terrace increases height, noise and fire hazards. Pass through is consistent with spaces that draw homeless and drug activities and other crimes. Water and drainage and soils tests inadequate, may increase flooding on our street - their garages are below grade. Not sure how this effects. Removing historic trees that are consistent with the rest of the street not beneficial to neighborhood. I also wonder if removing the trees may also damage sewer and water lines and who would be - responsible. My proposal is that they build a reasonable size two unit home on G and 3 units on Ida d-lat meets height and set back requirements and open space rules the property should not compromise the neighborhood to the extent that the current proposal does. I believe they can maintain respect for neighboring property values and livability while still providing the city with permit income and building a lovely property. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. I will see you on Tuesday. and am happy to go over this prior by phone. Sincere Regards, EXHIBIT 9 3/15/2013 Pagel of 3 Caron Parker From: Liz Kalloch [liz.kalloch@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:01 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Proposed 21 G Street Project Dear Caron Our names are Rob and Liz Fordyce and we are home owners at 20 Ida Street in San Rafael in the West End Village. We are writing in reference to the project called 21 G Street. While we very much like the prospect of having residential neighbors on our street (we are the only home there now) we have some grave concerns about the scope and size of 'the project that is being proposed. After attending the conceptual Design Review meeting on October 4, 2011, we feel that the concerns raised by both the neighbors and the Design Review Board have not been addressed by the design that has now been submitted for official review. Some of the key points were: . Buildings are too massive and the scope and size is too big for the space available. . Articulation needed in the form of step backs on the side walls to keep the mass and size to a minimum for the neighboring properties at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street. . Wider setbacks (12') at the side property line to accommodate a true walkway, and give some breathing space to the neighbors at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street. . Tandem parking concerns and the use (or non-use of the front tandem spot) adding pressure to an already over -parked and congested situation, when the proposed construction will delete approximately 5-6 street parking spots now available on Ida and G Streets. . More green space on the grounds At the DRB meeting in October 2011, there was much conversation about the charm of G Street, and several references made by members of the DRB about Ida Street being able to carry a more dense structure, but we would like the DRB and the Planning Department to consider that since these are proposed residences (and not commercials spaces) that the same flavor of design be carried through to Ida Street. The larger buildings referenced by the architect as cues for the project design are all out on the 4th Street Corridor, and do not reflect the more residential feel of the historic and residential nature of our neighborhood. We understand that our home is the only one on Ida Street, and that we are surrounded by more commercials style buildings, but we feel that that is all the more reason that the structures that are being proposed be scaled down to reflect a residential feel. In the re -designs that were submitted, we can see that the G Street units were re -designed, considerably. We would like the architect and owner to consider re -working the design of the Ida Street units to better match what they've done with the G Street units. They have the opportunity here to create a cohesive and strong statement that would tie both streets together architecturally and add to the overall value and beauty of the neighborhood. We feel that the overall design of the Ida Street units is too in keeping with the back of the Yardbirds building - a behemoth that does not need to be used as a cue for design. The overall look of the front elevation of these units is too akin in looks to a lot of the low income housing 3/15/2013 EXHIBIT 9-2 Page 2 of 3 that has gone up all over the county. This is a big concern for us in terms of property, values. The setback between our property and the proposed complex is only 5'. At the meeting in October 2011, many of the DRB members mentioned that they felt these set backs were too little and should be pushed back to the zone requirement of 12' in order to accommodate movement through what will be walkways, as well as plantings on the sides of the buildings and greenery planted at the proposed fence line. As they are laid out now, these set backs/walkways will be areas that potentially collect trash and could be scary to walk on at night. Since this setback borders our property we are very concerned about how they would be maintained and lit, and right now we have heard nothing about. how the owner plans to maintain and keep the exterior walkways on the property, secure. We feel that the detail on the sides of the building - the part of the building we will be living quite close to - needs to have step backs added, to break up the height and bring down the weighty feel of a 33'4" sheer wall that will be towering above our house, all our living space windows and our back yard. In the preliminary, design meeting most all of the DRB members made strong suggestions about this, saying the wall was too massive and that step backs were needed on the upper floors. And then there's the parking. As was discussed at the conceptual meeting this neighborhood already has considerable parking problems. Every member of the DRB referenced the existing parking problem in the neighborhood, and one member said at the meeting: "The parking {in that neighborhood} is a disaster situation". It was also discussed that even though intentions are good with creating tandem parking spots, the front spot is never used. We had hoped that the owner and architect would take that discussion under advisement and come up with some viable parking solutions rather than putting more pressure on an already congested neighborhood. That hasn't been done, and in fact this project could potentially add greatly to the existing problem. Overall, we feel that the scope of this project is too big for the size of the lot - as exemplified in the need for a variance to the set back width between the properties at 21 G Street and 15 G Street - and also in the need to utilize tandem parking as part of the overall design scheme in order to gain the total number of parking spots needed to qualify for zoning standards. If the number of overall units was reduced to better fit on the available lot, the 3 stories could be reduced to 2 stories {and better fit within the existing neighborhood} and there would be more green space and plenty of space for parking. We feel that the project as it is being presented will both compromise the character and disrupt the visual feel of the neighborhood and could potentially lower the value of our property both monetarily and in terms of quality of life. We feel that the proposed. height of the buildings is out of scale on both Ida and G Streets, and that the architect and owner are attempting to put too many units on a small parcel of land.. Our hope is that the project be re -worked to better fit into the neighborhood in the following ways: . Height and mass of the buildings is brought down to be in better scale with the current homes on Ida and G Streets . A design that would be cohesive through the whole lot form G to Ida Street, tying the neighborhood together . Parking secured on the property that will not add to the parking burden already felt on these 2 streets . The number of units proposed be reduced so that the design can include both adequate parking, a better ratio of green space to building mass. Right now, there is too much being asked to fit into the space available 3/15/2013 Li"MIBIT 9 -Z Page 3 of 3 . More antic„ latinn added to the sides of the buildings that will be quite close to our property lines in the form of step backs. Thank you for your time and your consideration on these issues, and thank you for all your help answering our questions. We look forward to hearing your response Rob and Liz Fordyce 20 Ida Street San Rafael. CA 94901 EXHIBIT 9-2- 3/15/2013 Page 1 of 1 C:arnn PnrkP_r From: Susan [susanzmusic@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:52 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Regarding project 21 G Street, San Rafael To Whom it May Concern: Our names are Michael Jobe and Susan Zelinsky-Jobe. We live at and own 16 G Street. Susan has lived at this property since 1991, becoming the owner in 1999. We are very concerned and dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design proposals. In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those vocalized by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the new plans. In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a number of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns: ® It incorporates too many units, o Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for surrounding residents and poses a number of safety issues . Does not provide a truly workable parking solution and decreases the number of existing parking spaces on an already parking starved street. . Does not incorporate appropriate set backs . Does not address open space requirements . Has an alley walk through, which we feel will be a draw to the current "riff-raff 'that smokes pot/shoots up/drinks and leaves alcohol bottles in the parking lot of the Red Dragon Yoga studio, and in plain sight on G street, at night. We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, parking limitations and height of G street. Thanks, Michael Jobe and Susan Zelinsky-Jobe (415)407-7030 pvUlra `T 3/15/2013 To Whom it May Concern: Our names are Josseph and Elise Adams, we Live at 22 G street. We have jointly owned the property with my wife's parents Michael and Honore Weiner for the last ten years.. We are very concerned and dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design proposals. In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those vocalized by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the new plans. In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a number of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns: • It incorporates too many units, • Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area • Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for . surrounding residents and poses a number of safety issues • Does not provide a truly workable parking solution and decreases the number of existing parking spaces on an already parking starved street. • Does not incorporate appropriate set backs • Does not address open space requirements We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, parking limitations and height of G street. Thanks, Joseph and Elise Adams 22 G street, San Rafael EXHIBIT 9 d Y Page 1 of 1 Caron parker From: Daisy Carlson [dayzdays@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:42 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: 15 G street Hi Carone, Hope you had a nice summer. We met earlier in the summer, I purchased 15 G street. We also spoke about the neighbor developing a few condos. I am concerned that they will block all the light on that side of my house with such a close set back (there building will literally be about 5 feet from all windows on that side and higher than my home totally changing the light, feel and value of my home. Additionally and more seriously their property is currently spilling water into my foundation causing serious issues and flooding. Even with the repairs I can make on my side their property is higher and water goes directly into my mud sill. I have tried throughout the summer to politely ask them to remedy this and to date they have not. It is starting to be an issue as I can not rent until I am sure the apartments won't flood and rainy season is around the corner. I just wanted to let you know. If they would agree to fix the damage and condition that causes damage to my homes foundation, I may be more amenable to the other inconveniences. Best wishes, Daisy Carlson BeDeLightful.com RootForPeace.org EXHIQII' 9- 9/24/2012 Page 1 of 1 Caron Parker From: Daisy Carlson [dayzdays@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:47 AM To: Caron Parker; Steve Buffenbarger; liz.kalloch@gmail.com; susanzmusic@gmail.com; jobetime@hotmail.com; Joseph Adams Subject: 21 G street - opposing variance I -Ii Caton and Steve I am fol.Iowit�; up on the desicm review meeting last week for 21 G Street. I -vvant to clarify that my building, 1.5 G street, built in 1909 only has a 24 inch set back. I do not approve of the proposed 4 foot variance as it impinges on my property no -,v and in the future. I have 10 operable tvindo-ws on that side which may. require the proposed property to be 8 feet from my, property line. 'I'lie lar,,er set back would also give back at least: one parking space. It seems that 14. parking spaces on Icla anal CT street (I think only one of those is existing) -,NU be used by proposed property as there is not enough space to park between driveways. T'he loss of parldng causes a hardship to all business and residents in the arca as parking is already extremely, difficult in this neighborhood, I was also wondering -who the C letters ` foj" the property are trom as 1 thought 100 % of surrounding property owners were opposed. I will go around and get signatures for and against sozve have a better idea of the overall opinion from the neighbors .vho are already invested in properties in this neighlorh.ocxi. ltetainin.c; the: va}tie and livability of out properties May outweigh the desires of one developer, Some: research indicates that 4 reasonable sized homes on the lot inay have a greater overall value than 8 cramped dark units that impinge on the neighborhood and bring the values clown for evcr.��one else. I look forward to working together to find an arnicable and mutually respectful solution. I anti cu- ing foto of the six surrounding neir,hbors who attended the meeting in opposition. 'Three of the foto nelghbors iVltO are next to the property where there in opposition and I will talk to the owners of yoga studio as they live in NNIV and it m.ay he difficult.for them to attend. One oil the street did not speak as the parking issue had already been stated. Sincerely, Daisv Carlson 15 G street. San Rafael, {;a 94901 EXHlE9T ka ✓� 4/15/2013 Candace and Aki Yoshida 19 Latham St. San Rafael, CA 94901 415-4550483 cryosh3@gmail.com August 9, 2013 Dear Community Development Members, This is a letter to protest the proposed eight three story town homes on G and Ida Streets. My husband and I have lived at 19 Latham Street for thirty years and raised our family in this West End area of San Rafael. This is an old neighborhood and perhaps the only neighborhood like it in San Rafael. We are a small, friendly and old residential neighborhood close to Fourth Street. The two three story buildings in existence in the West End area block the light, add to the congestion and certainly take away from the character of this deep-rooted and long- standing neighborhood. Our residential neighborhood is already very dense and three story buildings take the light and sun from the houses along with jamming the streets with cars. Even if there is parking in these large buildings, the tenants usually have additional cars along with many guest cars. Blease consider the density of eight three story town homes and the congested streets and approve something of a smaller scale. Sincerely, Aki YosKida f F . 2013 , : AUG 1'Z PLANNING Candace Yoshida EXHIBIT 9 -'j Page 1 of 2' --ron Parker From: Daisy Carlson [dayzdays@hotmail.com] Seng: Friday, August 16, 2013 3:29 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: RE: 21 G Street Carone, I am sorry to hear that they have not addressed the'4 foot set back issue. The 4 foot variance compromises my property considerably and does not allow for legal fire code. It also compromises the future potential of my property should we rebuild, we would then require a 6 foot set back on our side so this variance may not be legal. Regards, Daisy DaisyCarlson.com RootForPeace.org Subject: RE: 21 G Street Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:48:39 -0700 From: Caron.Parker@cityofsanrafael.org To: daisy@BeDeLightful.com Hi Daisy - The only change is that the location for the ground level open space was flipped to the south side of the property (see attached site plan) in order to save the Oak tree. The project is still requesting all the same variances. A copy of my staff report is attached. Let me know if you have questions. Caron From: Daisy Carlson [mailto:dayzdays@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2.013 11:29 AM To: Caron Parker Subject. 21 G Street Hi Carone, Hope this letter finds you well, wondering if you have information and updates on the design changes for 21 G street so we may review them before the meeting. I will be there so if there is 8/19/2013 EXHIBIT 9 - 8 Iag'GG V1G a change please let me know as I have guest in town I do not want to unnecessarily inconvenience. Below is my response to the last design review of 21 G Street. Thanks so much, Daisy Hi Carone and Steve I am following up on the design review meeting last week for 21 G Street. I want to clarify that my building, 15 G street, built in 1909 only has a 24 inch set back. I do not approve of the proposed 4 foot variance as it impinges on my property now and in the future. I have 10 operable windows on that side which may require the proposed property to be 8 feet from my property line. The larger set back would also give back at least one parking space. It seems that 14 parking spaces on Ida and G street (I think only one or two of those is existing ) will be used by proposed property as there is not enough space to park between driveways. The loss of parking causes a hardship to all business and residents in the area as parking is already extremely difficult in this neighborhood. I was also wondering who the 6 letters `for" the property are from as I thought 100 % of surrounding property owners were opposed. I will go around and get signatures for and against so we have a better idea of the overall opinion from the neighbors who are already invested in properties in this neighborhood. Retaining the value and livability of our properties may outweigh the desires of one developer. Some research indicates that 4 reasonable sized homes on the lot may have a greater overall value than 8 cramped dark units that impinge on the neighborhood and bring the values down for everyone else. I look forward to working together to find an amicable and mutually respectful solution. I am Ic- ing four of the six surrounding neighbors who attended the meeting in opposition. Three of the four neighbors who are next to the property who are also concerned about parking and I will talk to the owners of yoga studio as they live in MV and it may be difficult for them to attend. One on the street did not speak at the meeting as the parking issue had already been stated. D aisvCarlson. corn RootForPeace.M EXHIBIT 9- 8 8/19/2013 H U RUD-Ehu-Mh ®® ®aul6m. 2216 HegerWay Elk Grove, CA 95158 May 20, 2011 caof saw Rafael, PlawwMwg Dtv�stow :.400 FL-�h AVM[te saw Tu fael,, 3,4 J490 - RB: 21 c, street To Whovu. It Mai cowcerw: M+� K&Other, virgi waa svK!th, awd our fiRWI, owws the propertU at 7u c, street. -.Reeewtl l�, DaJ�d Rasowsle� has sews vwep�aws forthe cowdoMOI& vus he hopes to budUd ow hts propend at 21 c, street. I was &KApressed With the desigw o f the bu�Ld�wgs awd'how weLL they b�ewded with the oLd hfstoYl.G charvu. o f .saw R.a fael.. i th%wle the st�Le �ewds itself to the beaut�fi.eatiow o f the wef&ghborhood awd WILL further ewhawce the twtprovevwewts the cttU has vu.ade. It is nk� hope the paws WU be approved b� the cbtu. sibmerel,�, I_..ee svu%th EXHIBIT 9_9 Page 1 of 1 VGr ^lDqrfVr From: Diprete, Catheryne [Catheryne.Diprete@morganstanley.com] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:12 PM To: Caron Parker Cc: taxman@rasonsky.com Subject: Condos on G Street Dear Caron, I just wanted to express my support for the condos David Rasonsky and his wife, Tina, are hoping to build on G Street. The developments would do a lot for the improvement of the neighborhood, and I hope you will provide your support. Best Regards, Catheryne DiPrete, CFP® Associate Vice President Morgan Stanley Wealth Management 1101 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94904 Ph (415) 482-1505, Fax (415) 451-1401 catheryne.diprete@ms.com Please visit my website CA Insurance License #OD89946 Important Notice to Recipients: Please do not use e-mail to request, authorize or effect the purchase or sale of any security or commodity. Unfortunately, we cannot execute such instructions provided in e-mail. Thank you. The sender of this e-mail is an employee of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("Morgan Stanley"). If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Erroneot.is transmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers/mssbemail,html. If you cannot access this link, please notify us by reply message and we will send the conter7ts to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing. EXHIBIT 9 10 3/18/2013 Page 1 of 1 rnrnn Parker From: Alyssa Catanio [acatanio@axis-amc.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:38 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: San Rafael West End Developments Attachments: BRN001BA9A48814_002557.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to urge you to support building development at the West End of San Rafael as I would love to see new housing developments built in the area. As I work in downtown San Rafael, I recently spent months searching for housing close to my place of employment but was unable to find anything that was both available and affordable in the area. These new developments would provide new housing options for me and fellow coworkers who have also had a difficult time finding housing nearby. Although there are a limited number of apartment complexes currently in the area, I found that the majority were rentals. I think it would be nice to have some properties that we can invest in and purchase. A coworker of mine is currently looking for a condo to buy in the area, and is having a very difficult time. This development would be perfect for her family, and many others in similar positions. In addition to providing much needed housing, the proposed project would promote a quicker, more environmentally -friendly commute for the many people employed in downtown San Rafael. Thank you, for taking my thoughts into consideration. Sincerely, lyssa Catanio Vendor Management Associate http://www.axis-amc.com 888 -806 -AXIS (2947) main line ext. 117 866-248-8388 fax .._54 3 "[ -S 11 j Axis Appraisal Manogement is the national solution for local appraisals. Confidentiality Notice; This message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipients). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. Foryour protection, do not include any non-public information in your email, If you have received this message in error, please delete it from your system, destroy any hard copies and immediately advise the sender either by email at info@axis-amc.com. opinions and ideas expressed in this message do not necessarily representthat of Axis Appraisal Management Solutions. Axis maintains the right to monitor all emails sent or received through the company's email system. EXHIBIT 9-11 3/15/2013 Downtown San Rafael Condo Project Caron Parker From: Knolan Hatch [k@marindesigngroup.com] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:01 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Downtown San Rafael Condo Project Dear Caron Parker, Page 1 of 1 My name is Knolan and I am the Vice President for Marin Design Group, LLC. I just wanted to say how excited we were when we heard about the San Rafael condo project on G Street. I firmly believe that a project like this will be good for Downtown San Rafael and will increase foot traffic to local businesses. In addition, I feel that if there were more condos / townhomes in Downtown San Rafael this would allow more individuals to live and work in the downtown area. I would like to see more projects like this. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, knolan keith marindesigngroup 1005 a street, ste 308 san rafael calif 94901 o: 415/457/1461 f: 415/457/1479 e: k@marindesigngroup.com w: http://www.marindesigngroup.com EXHIBIT 9-IZ- 3/15/2013 Caron Parker From: John and Gwen Greene Dandggreene@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:50 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Rasonsky condo project Ms Parker, I have had an opportunity to view the drawings of this project. I think it is very attractive and would be an improvement for the site which contains an old house and a vacant lot. It would be a change but I think it would be an improvement for the neighborhood. I also think that the plan for the Rasonkys to occupy one of the units is very positive because that would assure that the property will be kept in good condition. I wish you and the Rasonkys success with this project. Sincerely, John Greene (A resident of San Rafael for the past 30 years) EXHIBIT 9 13 Caron Parker From: Jennifer Lebsack Ulebsack@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:37 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: The project at 21 G Street To whom it may concern: I am small business owner in downtown San Rafael for over 17 years. The proposed new housing at 21 G Street has my overwhelming approval. The West End San Rafael Village has been developing nicely over the last years. The addition of;quality living spaces for more people, couples, families to live, shop, dine and form community is a vital part to the success of San Rafael. I am hopeful that this project and others like it will be supported by the city and be approved. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jennifer Lebsack Avalon 1016 B St. San Rafael CA Sent from my iPad 0 EXHIBIT 9— Ing %UFy O&Cores CydoTvo_�sg JamesAnAew Lydon, T'r'ustee 10 lvywony.Court Novato, CA 94947 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Ss' Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Proposed project at 2.1 G Street . Thank you for taking the time to review the contents of this letter in support -of the proposed project at 21 G Street in San Rafael. My family has lived, worked, owned businesses and residential property within San Rafael since the early 1950's. Although I am the trustee for my mother's trust, she is still alive and we own the family home that was purchased over 50 -years ago in the Gerstle Park neighborhood. It is my Understanding that the applicant for this project also shares many similar long term connections with the community. I view the project on G Street as a significant improvement that will add to the revitalization of the West End of town. I have reviewed the site and noted that the only residential structure on the property is rundown. Even with restoration it will not provide the level of in -fill housing that is possible with the proposed project. The opportunity to increase the available residential units within walking distance of the west end of 4`h Streetwill further assist in efforts to increase spending at the local businesses, while not significantly increasing traffic to the area: As a professional in the fire service I also see this project as one that will assist in risk reduction for the community. The modern construction materials and methods that will be -used in the new building will limit the potential for catastrophe resulting from a seismic or fire event. This not only provides benefit.to those that will occupy the'structure, but those adjoining properties will benefit from the reduced potential for risk associated with the existing old structure.' inaddition, the modern structure with increased housing potential and reduced risk of catastrophic loss of the dwelling units will help the City by limiting the potential number of displaced residents in the occurrence of a major seismic event. Even with renovation of the existing property you may not be able to create the same levels of risk reduction and certainly would not be able to achieve the level of residential space that you will be gaining by the proposed project. I certainly hope you will consider moving this project forward. I .feel it provides an opportunity for the City to complete an in -fill residential project that is not over burdening to the neighborhood: It will assist in the revitalization of the West End, while also providing some risk reduction opportunities for the community. Sincerely. ,,' ,;;;/Jim Y Lydon Trustee Vederal Tax ID 20-7034582 EXH I BIT 9 -15 Caron Parker From: Raj Kohli <rkoh1i461@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:44 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: 21 G Street Project Hello Caron, Thank you for calling me and sharing more details about this eight -unit (proposed) project. As the owner will be (in compliance with code) providing 16 on-site, covered parking spaces and complying with density and related code requirements (including one low-income housing unit), it seems to me that the community will benefit from these changes. Accordingly, as a homeowner who lives a few blocks from this address, I support and approve of this project. Regards, Raj Kohli Owner, 44 Miraflores Ave. EXHIBIT 10 I � b��RR � 64•-5. bv H x^68 R• $b4g�-R•• --_ • � �L ,„ s I O x� —�L a2�1€— I �H�ec�rb� s �6 s � .off• m m � 1M661A m � a arm 4 Ise€s9 _ M .Q I �g� m ....• l�taa� � oda � _ :•:a:• 8P� © M �.�c�K 1 ga gam S4S as yy 2a <pu i ?1q p On 48A £4£ $ N� iEH'S i0S 5'Iro159ID ggg "�'9 aom xD cpi Crtv rW. pE 4a RJ b3 9 y o '•'' -.• 1 ttfaE eY � .. �'� _g_`�.,dIZ •>::a:: ..: 1 cccror ac /^\ Ecumrc u� ^ m � 75-0'FA SEIBACKII I^ 19-0' PARfO.4G SE19ACK 1 - II __ _- 7 >$mv �4.L��E ��F�� •70a ..:. 1 ¢ 52 It InII �`��� �_r�7 F4 1 � 1 S➢�� MA I���� I� I ��-4 I 1 m 2b•-9" I �- 1 R � tq v1 1 � F Ioumru �1 1 ll � f s s'LL el u j =g zs 25'-0' 1 y$ m �o-y " •''i I R a n lI �E�PAPo('d:O SE °�-rz ru¢io�s9ol �m �tg A aAs �� \�// � rzlax io eE7 xM UAo =meg �$ yP$ am +�sx u4x vw ac Re fie£ pm gun °is si R .rcs R _ _� `��. a3 uA ttor m+;x you = 6A JYaR� o FMit Y#T IS'-0'2rBbi A 44 Pp Y fR xm o ? >8m -,�„ is �0: m£� i o0 0 _"oy 6 i P ~� g N,ga»r-g'g s � $ mg $27 a•. F q� _ - Y Y c✓ a if ,`7' pc y A � � O S 0 0 o g 3 Yx{"m `i ❑os -Li "v1000 N� .. N D a Y� a e e s mea T m =Nzc a as $oex cg P .. PAWd G UMSCME A409TECTLPA TFNTATIIE WP .. e Z agate Ug•Sq N�� Tao m g o o 3 0 z g 0 pp� Fl v _ X / ®Z �1 sn«I nut y. SITE PLAN & PROPOSED WEST END s _'" `ti\' TOWNHOUSES ,/. = CONSULTANT $Tp)•j RUPIPER yaY� yY CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER /{ll V./ P z G r TITLE SHEET DAVID 1'G'ST A5GN5KY Sy22;=I3 21 'G'STItEEf ��.zc---I$'x} 926 TOODSME COURT DESIGN TE:A2S - G EXHIBIT �l p G� mu SAN AAFAEL, CA '��r qy� A.P.N. 1611.232-10 \: rAHovA, ca 96142 P.O. Hos 2666 Sen'Anselmo, CA 94979 (596) 525-4580 OTi7CE (415) 478-0599 FAX (415) 479-9699 I IDA A5 TREET W RM HAI SCCALr� - - - - - - - - - - - - IPA O All Is 5 T R E so• W, 17ars 579 r q'Ml NO u O IDA STREET 55' R/W (Map Scales 55') wa•asoo� - n�a� G" 5TREE T 17 50' R/W (Map Scales 50') q � X06 rn7>N�� o f LN< f ,mX^ �iiZ' A N N i �Nti1NNy� N �rPI�rn Z Y1 y -t Z y <0 V o WNBz�77N��, 111P '{o N� D$ Alyy}1^ (° as p$yP wy3yil i( m �'G��Pij�IDj YfPl NA QOOV C K tlmroD N pm �7 N3rn�NFiz ODD N A uw A m yDnzN��s^ C� (n Sti Z N m 3 y ii�yli zAZK'z x m A � v1 ~v�iavN •o� Ic N m�NN��N a b� � Vy $�Y ' d g ~ N U G" 5TREE T 50' R/W (Map Scales 50') s G" 5TREE T 50' R/W (Map Scales 50') rn7>N�� o f LN< f ,mX^ �iiZ' A N N i �Nti1NNy� N �rPI�rn Z Y1 y -t Z y <0 V o WNBz�77N��, 111P '{o N� D$ Alyy}1^ (° as p$yP wy3yil i( m �'G��Pij�IDj YfPl NA QOOV C K tlmroD N pm �7 N3rn�NFiz ODD N A uw A m yDnzN��s^ C� (n Sti Z N m 3 y ii�yli zAZK'z x m A � v1 ~v�iavN N m�NN��N � Vy ' d g ~ N 4)H STREET E5 u0 I?�E_ a st tcs �`�" ° N CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION y � CONSULTANT ENGINEER ri._f. 3 4)H STREET E5 u0 PROPOSED WEST END TOWNHOUSES st tcs �`�" ° N CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION y � CONSULTANT ENGINEER ri._f. 3 DAVID&TINA MSONSKY 21 G. ST NE -u -N ,19D� �* 926 DSMECOU CA O SAN 12 QTAHOMA RAFAELCA*\ 5.ss f5 (530) 525-4550 P.O.BoS 2858 $9II AD9Elmo• Cd. 94979 'OFB08 � n. r.N. gOt2-xJ2-tO 4th �t Fy (U5) 479-0599 FAX (415) 479-0509_ . qq 6n � _—_—_---_—�_— �• fel 2eA oO of•Il Z v x Z y x0mrmio0 01 j-Y(7E I y �i 6 23'-0' a tl PROPOSED WEST END TOWNHOUSES st tcs �`�" ° STAN RUPIPER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION W CONTEXT PLAN Wa?'�° CONSULTANT ENGINEER DESIGN TEAL[ 3 DAVID&TINA MSONSKY 21 G. ST NE -u -N ,19D� �* 926 DSMECOU CA O SAN 12 QTAHOMA RAFAELCA*\ 5.ss f5 (530) 525-4550 P.O.BoS 2858 $9II AD9Elmo• Cd. 94979 'OFB08 n. r.N. gOt2-xJ2-tO 4th �t (U5) 479-0599 FAX (415) 479-0509_ . "STING SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS IgoA -- - - - _J �I A PROPOSED WEST END sl°"'P'c<°rr'.°j�� 4c ''� STAN RUPIPER TOWNHOUSES %:.4, CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DAVID s TINA 6asDNsla 1(.? ; CONSULTANT ENGINEER DESIGN TEAM 926 i00DSIDE COURT 21 'G' STFlEEI tt .17a f . TAHOYA, CA 98142 SAN ftAFAE4 LA P.O. Box 2668 San Amelmo, CA 94979 A.P.N.9011-232-10 `�?•rn\7 (530) 525-4MO 0MCB (415) 479-0599 FAX (416) 479-0699 /4 r-----------------� 1 "STING SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS IgoA -- - - - _J �I A PROPOSED WEST END sl°"'P'c<°rr'.°j�� 4c ''� STAN RUPIPER TOWNHOUSES %:.4, CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DAVID s TINA 6asDNsla 1(.? ; CONSULTANT ENGINEER DESIGN TEAM 926 i00DSIDE COURT 21 'G' STFlEEI tt .17a f . TAHOYA, CA 98142 SAN ftAFAE4 LA P.O. Box 2668 San Amelmo, CA 94979 A.P.N.9011-232-10 `�?•rn\7 (530) 525-4MO 0MCB (415) 479-0599 FAX (416) 479-0699 /4 gw i�aoU g Ago 11m4 __ y _- y - f7-7--y- moem m fl 'o cR ----2g>�"€ Rim L. 54 ' `~m"y�-6 am z6 .a~meg z� e 90 �� H ��og'q ;�£ �ook oz54 >o �N aA v.8 = N"m'�"r�,> >>Am 33 off ga'4 og mNnyo5.; p i o g f v gym= _ m8- 6�z g oA KAP!A6N� N zg cm3 z \ T 2 PI >A= m^� �p zmg g&mom o� `��� P a �4o .nom p6 o s6rA� `t�c.°'.Ba=c o o -p g o y "� G �A oTy o g 2p o yoz 5=c _zq >4o >; c ~ � A 8` z= my F 8r�z �o o Ag v F Kcz =$Fcv do am �St !ri>.6 c.z�. E ���'3 �$� `om7'AS mo z a AR N r-�3 -Gt i z m4m m > A �; _ g � 5�. o` h o y H E2 ze> `�„9� ~� zsG m foo` 2ggzS _ o o 62 g a8= -.=m-r8 y� mmz`o g> om K 'a of g6 t8 m A>m- ; S2 > F' o i ^A5.3; mo F IA N'NQz m�.Nm z0 6 xa o mpg 4�N6 g � � 9�.�6 >s��onF ERE O' c `^ �_<m.� S=s,z 2o�^oo- __F r"I c �y mmo�mK� gys y aA 6 z ��� c8z 8s o __ 6 m g9 ado A >� n�51 9� ` �No �_ �� g, > �" Ho,o„�oFiu z o a�. S36 €9 map mosmo�g�o�. ~3�0® - >m H o Fvjm""o �� a s a6 mF>a cif e 9 4� Rg= m~x �,'- -� -gm iogg g 0?1� z� ag� g=938 c o yR �� > i BoymS g8m m=g2 ase gmK;;T S�� A �0 ;' mg s. E7• NF m_ m A > a N - g ;o �y" am4 Z, 48 �� = srm" 4o o0A �E; -,� z m 6 9my �6> 9 o mvyo dl2 €y mm A $ > o S m>a , ym ,q >R m o F'i=gym � o 6~0� oS2= �� m5i^ ma gmgmy zm.�s m Fon 9m„ EE K > w ; � $ gs�� ;v ~i o sv�?z n o~m s 9Q � PNF ` F� .AAg o o sg -. m.^A38� ��O��� �3 p� _ mo o = g a- -89 �A 7yK ~ m6 m fogac�oamo mom = _z ap-,gq g ARty'- ��t-I'-a�mty'- 20F _ oy, $� m=s 05.�.�� ty, �'oo> o~=aci c: r�m6�3oToai� 4m4 �mN�m �ga.m �8 `�': rzgz Ngo g�=� mei ;£moo Pg�zmag> or�7 6R� � bO �� czi N�06F Rp:'.'�.-`".- p2 —9 o&N > _—_— _—_—_—\\_fig�$mm ~-FFoS =gF K�9 mm g9> �f7I'co RF� a �4� 9�- v 9 \ `� ucs..FBD ti I a x S -n �gA\- 7-6' UAX Flro0 ` \ •., >d.\� , PROM � '-~ -� 2 ; 2; ~ f4 .9Y,8D IBE H y XSLDT fa,[ 4T NE __ y _- y - f7-7--y- fl �S cR L. 54 €gf. 9.a z� p \ 3 \ NXoo \ `,'k'Fta fm, ACE.•''.;:. \ ~g Al f4 .9Y,8D IBE H y XSLDT fa,[ 4T NE __ y _- y - f7-7--y- fl �S cR L. 54 €gf. 9.a z� p \ 3 \ NXoo \ f4 .9Y,8D IBE H y XSLDT fa,[ 4T NE __ y _- y - f7-7--y- fl �S cR L. 54 €gf. 9.a z� gN�6 v \ 3 \ NXoo \ rs.�rEt, rt uE P Q mF -F552o imAoamp d 1g4 O s c o� • 6oxo� =fix a '" Ft m '`^g6zg!iao- 2 U - a �staim �oo �9 sao mF��seF �m mo E a4azNa . m@ s u -X;- m 3 ohA oog� _ EN62 t;—,t nI,I-gmo m` ��� ��~�g dos g m ^'ry� Xz PzSvm \\\. 2nmso a� ~ohm H� v o e Aeet li8c Stmgs D.-.`tY\ w4-11 ^1+�^ PROPOSED WEST END i;i�"eFe.. _ \` STAN RUPIPER _ u• DRAINAGE & TOWNHOUSES /`;, "� - NSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION 0.1� 3 zzU DAVIDBTINARASONSKY + 926 AOODME COURT DESIGN TEAM .ya.ta 1 i 4 GRADING PLAN 21 'G•STREET �� sAN =- APAEE, cA TABOIIA• CA 96142 P.O. Boz 2668 San ADaetmD, CA 94979 6 D AP.N. BD11-232-10 �h �p^°f (530) 625-4560 OPNB (;Ib) 479-6689 FAX (41b) 499-0698 DF OF WOIT-CF-WAY 01- fY VCP IV PVC SflWR NA91 m l D A . S T R E E T v.- _ c'trr scvFn ua2t mgo �a K� a �iT iv �m � a mom mph xQ g� x ---- _d -6-_ --- ----- —G ----_ - E� - --- —'' axe -X04, - -- - -- -- - _ —� 9--�----- E- Twi F TW A RI.YlR flAVF? sato arc a T " R_4iEi< St aR - N�.u•'T,, c2ewu CC �_ "`�"� � // fie./� � ✓��>�/�// / g `�-� P-+1 a.S.mS. m`�z'�"�z pill'�> ' i ov Ra mss= i mHR.Inf ofd J 1 i9 All s1 z Z II t ,r_—_—_ ------- gPUP I I t tl ap m m - azgamgoo PA9s;AA s�-wow aria N`dz�o oz��N £' No gT opMA 4-0 g 0 s t S'a ar9`a- �a �17,n iyf m«9�6 t t R� o FS ,/ t 2>zo"o ?z'�" gozso> Ry zoA �o^9ry'� a �� 09 S m I tela � t t RTRY /. /4'a"' �js I i it ;2ER25 96 m 9l saws 1Nxw ��' se..suv ma�,9g8 � ;51 P� mm _ STREET ----------------------- — --------------- — ------_______--SiiE-___--_______-___-_-------------- LK OF MT -T -WAY -__________-IN t FJA' t�Y 3 W a a UTILITY SITE PLAN z y PROPOSED WEST END rowNHousEs DAVID a M. NA9aN9NY 21'G'9TBFET sfanprl''&'' Z Ts j6? b� ,`t d n STAN RUPIPER SULTANT ENGINEER 928 •OO!T-. LOUR[ 7AHO91A CA 96142 .ate„ r CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION a- t DESIGN TEAM sta t sD P[YIEVvsueutiia. c SAN RAFAEL, CA A.P.N. W011-232.10 Ga 15 (` )525-' O P.O. Hox 2668 Sen ADselmo, CA 94979 aata S o -? cto�'` f OMCA (415) 479-9599 FA% (915) 478-0899 m PROPOSED WEST END. u� PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS TOWNHOUSES STAN ROMPER S CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION 3 e DAVID BTINA RA80N8KY - ` 928 1900DSIDS COURT DESIGN TEAM p 2 UNITS ON 'G' ST. zt •c• sTrseer - - j,� SAN pAFAEL, CA t 178Z/ TdHOYq, G 88142 P.O. Hoz 2688 Sen Anselmo, CA 94979 K� A.P.N.8012-232-t0 ` cF--(s (538) 526-458pBPfiC6 (118) 479-0589 FAX �N ----------- _-----lk PROPERTY I G m m —1 (416) 478-0688 z v, I � N Il�lt O I{ I' 1 N I I p• UluI I J I -- IE I� lz ' S I m een. m PROPOSED WEST END. u� PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS TOWNHOUSES STAN ROMPER S CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION 3 e DAVID BTINA RA80N8KY - ` 928 1900DSIDS COURT DESIGN TEAM p 2 UNITS ON 'G' ST. zt •c• sTrseer - - j,� SAN pAFAEL, CA t 178Z/ TdHOYq, G 88142 P.O. Hoz 2688 Sen Anselmo, CA 94979 K� A.P.N.8012-232-t0 ` cF--(s (538) 526-458pBPfiC6 (118) 479-0589 FAX �N ----------- _-----lk PROPERTY I G m m —1 (416) 478-0688 z v, � Z N O N CAIE m PROPOSED WEST END. u� PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS TOWNHOUSES STAN ROMPER S CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION 3 e DAVID BTINA RA80N8KY - ` 928 1900DSIDS COURT DESIGN TEAM p 2 UNITS ON 'G' ST. zt •c• sTrseer - - j,� SAN pAFAEL, CA t 178Z/ TdHOYq, G 88142 P.O. Hoz 2688 Sen Anselmo, CA 94979 K� A.P.N.8012-232-t0 ` cF--(s (538) 526-458pBPfiC6 (118) 479-0589 FAX �N ----------- _-----lk PROPERTY I G m m —1 (416) 478-0688 Ky9�-F of A� I CI 5pl z3T � t TD` 'PROPOSED WEST END - O 4 4� 3 �m TOWNHOUSES DAVID 8 TINA HASONSKY, Sy CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION NM � 2915 2 UNITS ON "G^ ST. 21 •D•STREET ars=„ ;028 Ho00Sm6 COIIRI / p Vtl SAN ""S L 0A(j ��} TAHQLA, CA 96142 oz P.O. H 2668 S— Anselmo, CA 94979 A.P.N.4012-23Y-10 '��py8 (630) 525-4560 , OFM (416) 479-059' 8 FAY (416J 478-0899 17{Ir-71` O of A� I CI 5pl z3T � t TD` 'PROPOSED WEST END - STAN RUPIPER 4 4� 3 �m TOWNHOUSES DAVID 8 TINA HASONSKY, Sy CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION NM � 2915 v ^ � t TD` 'PROPOSED WEST END - STAN RUPIPER "••*b^ 3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS p TOWNHOUSES DAVID 8 TINA HASONSKY, Sy CONSULTANT ENGINEER CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN TEAM 2 UNITS ON "G^ ST. 21 •D•STREET ars=„ ;028 Ho00Sm6 COIIRI / p Vtl SAN ""S L 0A(j ��} TAHQLA, CA 96142 oz P.O. H 2668 S— Anselmo, CA 94979 A.P.N.4012-23Y-10 '��py8 (630) 525-4560 , OFM (416) 479-059' 8 FAY (416J 478-0899 PM-RTY LM 1 i -----L------------------------ - PROPJt1Y � - �+;Y com 30 I!\ *1/ o A«t num w" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN FOR'IDA' STREET - PROPOSED WEST END ;e TOWNHOUSES +'� °" �� DAVIOSTINA RASONSKY „e elm z1 •c sTKEEr No. ven 1 SAN x AES, CA U `* AP.N. 0012232-10 9' > STAN RUPIPER coNsvtau� ENGINE 9261100DSmB COURT P(630) 5 98192 .. (530).625-458D CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTIONp-- --- DESIGN TEAM P.O. Box 2808Sea Anselmo• CA 94979 On= (415) 47MW FAX (415) 479-eB99 CO., MIMI1112. 1 Elm II I I I I 11 I �•• ® - its••-���ii:�i-•_ .},:p p.,�:.:•;p:.;.:•: - _ Cpl•:.;pi:p�.;. - _ _ _ _ � _ - ' �:� , :;:: a :::•'��:'••: 1 pu ) § § / m IOW. � § L2 --_-- —_— SHJESEfBAIXuY ' ' .. I 4T -T CLEAR 1 Ig 'SLOPE Y,•/FOOT I I 1 o SLOPE ),'/FOOT 19'-0' PAMK SETBACKX1 1 ao'-6' [TEAR _ PtA:I1ER NRI LOALERVYARD *REM ,'O2GRD C01flt ACCEPTABLE FOR • �' . • . PWTWJ4 TRAVEL 46-0' CLEAR SLOPE A'/FBoi I . 1 go I I ' PIAYIER. I I 1 I 1 . A . P(AKiFR • I I a SLOPE A',TOOT- I I K I o0 40'-0' CLEAR PLufIFR NIH — mv- O OUN'0 COl R ACCEPTABLE Fa@ ;f ; • ; • ; • ; STRAR TRAWL 40'-0' CLEAR I D D 1 SLS A'/T00T i � I I F Io F 0 0I Ll ' 7iA)IIER. I I I H 1 9. SLOPE ),'/FOOT i a I w'-6' CLEAR i I i I I. L-------------- ---- 4iESTBACK E --------------- I .� 9w<L rmc.. s PROPOSED WEST END TOWNHOUSES >;ii1"se STAN ROMPER - CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION = • 'o a PROPOSED PARKING Im CONSULTANT ENGINEER DESIGN TEAM 6161 uta oEsisx senEwsVexmu '� LAYOUT FOR'IDA' ST. DAWD.A TINA PASGNSKY -21 'G'STPEET '.SAN trees= z cs6 S 12 / 928 ROODSIDE COURT - PAF *� TAHOLA, CA 96142' rao.,a a erzsVeeunA< . 3072437.10 (530) 526-4580 OtYf(E (416) 47d-OSDO� .FATe (416) 4799-0899. RECE14/kl7 AUG 01 2013 CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION PLANNING DESIGN 0 E3UI I D ® GREEN DESIGN PROCESS 7/30/13 By detailing our design process, we hope to demonstrate that we have done our due diligence and research regarding the proposed design solution. After reviewing the feed back from the Conceptual Design Review meeting, we completely redesigned the two units on `G' Street. The original submittal included tandem parking for `G' St. and a flat parapet roof height of 34'-11". The residents on `G' Street expressed concern over the lack of parking on `G' Street, due to the businesses on Fourth Street. They requested parking for the `G' Street residences to be two side by side parking spaces for each unit on 'G' Street. Another request in the meeting was to incorporate a gabled roof that matched surrounding residences and to reduce the mass of the building. The redesign of these two units has accommodated a side by side two car garage, per unit. In response to the neighborhood request at the Conceptual Design Review Board meeting, we complied and are providing side by side garage parking on `G' Street. This requires a 1'-0" minor encroachment into each side yard setback, which we are requesting a variance for. This is the only reason we are requesting a variance for `G' Street. At the last Design Review meeting, after all the members of the board were expressing their support for the variances, a member on the board raised the question if it was possible to reduce interior garage dimensions rather than the reduced side yard setback of 1'-0". Side by side parking is a major concern for the residences of G Street, and the reduction of the interior garage dimension - already at a minimum dimension according to the San Rafael Municipal Code 14.18.180(B)- would discourage the use of side by side parking in the garage. For this reason, we feel that the side yard set back reduction would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than a garage not utilized for both of its intended parking spaces. The design of the building has a charming cottage exterior featuring a gabled roof design. The building size was reduced after the Conceptual Design Review, and vertical and horizontal articulation was provided to give more definition and reduce the height and mass. At Conceptual Design Review the parapet height was 34'-11" and current average roof height is 31'-4" with gable roofs at 32'-9". For each unit on `G' Street, a 144 sq. ft. of deck was provided on the main level for private outdoor use. The board supported having 8 units in the neighborhood and no changes to the building were requested at the last Design Review meeting. The board did suggest preserving the existing oak tree on Ida Street and shifting the town homes to the north side of the property to accomplish this. The board also indicated that P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699 EXHIBIT 3 CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN Q BUILD o GREEN this would reduce the visual impact on the adjacent properties. The movement of the building to the north necessitates the relocation of utility poles and boxes. These changes are being implemented at great financial cost, as discussed at the previous meeting. The estimates are substantially higher than what was discussed at the Design Review Board meeting. This coordination with the utility companies and the review as to the feasibility of the project was the reason for the delay of resubmittal. As requested during Conceptual Design Review, on Ida Street we have incorporated vertical and horizontal step backs to provide articulation of the building's surface. Front balconies were also added to give definition to the various units. At the last Design Review meeting, the board approved of the articulation at the rear of Ida Street but was concerned about being able to have operable windows. We are providing automatic fire sprinkler protection therefore we used table R302.1(2). Under this table, openings in the walls (windows) are unlimited at three feet or greater from the property line. We are 3'-0" from the rear property line to the cantilevered portion that is providing the articulation. The building code separation between buildings is 8'-0". We are 8'-0" from building to building at the narrowest section of the cantilevered portions. The code for fire sprinklers at 3'-0" for property or building applies. Therefore, we are in compliance and this matter has been reviewed by the Building Department. We have adopted the influence from the historic building at 11 `G Street, we chose a straight edge shingle finish to blend in with the neighborhood. This is consistent with all the residences on this side of the street. At the level of the garage, a textured stucco finish was chosen to allow a backdrop for Boston Ivy and Creeping Fig cover, providing an esthetically pleasing accent to the base of the building. In the follow up for the Conceptual Design Review meeting it was suggested to include a recreational area in addition to the private yard space we are providing. In order to comply with section 15.12.060 of the Municipal Code, we eliminated one of the units, leaving eight units instead of the original nine. The additional space from the deletion of this unit will be used for a common recreational area with amenities, such as a picnic table, barbeque and an inviting landscaped area. As a result of the feedback from the last Design Review Board meeting, this recreation area has now been relocated to the south side of the property on Ida Street due to the request to save the existing oak tree. There is now a large landscaped area to serve as a buffer to the adjacent residence. P.O. BOX 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699 EXHIBIT 3 m �3'gdtl, -0 S. t3- as a. t7., cu a cr w 0 U r r O•tvi O �t N _ rRCns pcoD = CD s ID nw D d p O cu a ID p �C v2 p' P co W Vo , C� Cn 0 rn f? * CDCD p ti CD CD - CD o 0 hO o' rs nQ Q CD rnGC W�.iT RC)� a oC n.C'p Oo�y�CD �vCD 10 '-1 riwCaD �o i6TJ. �(7, ap � a. 5nuo 0'01O p G�r 'pr(tD '�e•t. 0 �+. "j' (MD CD lZj 0 o � v , UP+ CD CD (rQ C)(D' P w d co w �_ C. CD 0 w �,' co o o CCD rn ctiCD & g° c' o o `� a s p o w W o a p va pc`o n cl ID CD A. G Gro .� d 0,0'0, CD 'q xGraao' P° CD O �` O < rn0 _ AQ cOo co no res ' O rL O 0 00 CD �h �' w CD W O O N O phi ar N CD o o o o dyn �Q kn� Ana Cf) 'j .�. O ti 0 CD �_�'� �C, U.)< rn ID Cl zs CD 0 'O's r -,-CD CD co fir no cu co CD O CD 0- P Co P. r co m Cr W o, m o Q p o a �,' 0 a� o p w� `� � a n �� C g o? o �' u � �'a " a C P t=i p w' qj o CD= 0 A C, c0 �' o 0 W ° eL u .-r .a CD .CDD 0 Off' c�D < o . • ID Q n• 0, Ri `� paj CD O UCD CDDv' o C. � CD :. R C) CD cn .0p 1 � 0 � CD (-) P CDUQ oCrQGs td O CCD C `n 4rDD P 00 cxo CD G a CD CD —. ID G+ r, w CD p 0• CD U�oo CD CD OW ' CD 14.W CD O 0 �• P co G� c� r? P ID ~n y P o o P �`°�w' n�' rn CD awWa10 � n�Q.5 CD 0 O 0 CD ° O M N kY o o o( H 0 0 �o C 0 � vo w rn o Ct7 N° w x CD "rd o co0o rn� C uc, CD y, ? o 'd p 0 CD oWo O 0 o u � o p. 0 a quo ' o '`Do., w d 0. w Q w N tj. w n P CD CD w GQ W v "C's H CD CL ID v� o D P C�C yc f -r CD CD N P• �s' CD UQ CD o o 2. ml a'CDo 0 `. � O ID C Q ID CD " m � a pCD P CD ° ..-27 n• (f4 P. SCD O P� CD CD O"= v cPo i = � cno GOCr O,o �R ! o OO no CD r5 w � ' 5; Gr CPG � O iD n O O ' p o a _ Qw p o coo E, CDD CD PD " g �D O CCD o o O E O� Ln o Id r - CD CD EXHIBIT 4 N C'5O.EP0n>SSWr w �r w o�-r 0 Ln oa��� a°dy5:�� CD fo � r�� `GQ yr w C 'd R 0 a �• � 0 CD w w oo 0� w CD CDQ w a crqo mo o. H ns �' CD CCD CD OQ CD G e7 CD ��7y I� CD, ¢. �j CD CD 'CD* °Cp CD P• In (� r-C� P w �. I� IG• a y N ° H � w K5. Q r `O 5 ID ' O N N .yy O 0rJS UQ p (DDowc� D`D0" � t3 t� w N N Vi w `y ��w CD CL o 0 b w X° R oa° fi CD r a CD '5;CD Q C cZD CD o cQu UQ va o 0 0° CDCD � ad o ' n r' Uo o CCD �- vn '+ cu M Q CD P CD is �nw n 0° O. 0 R. t o 0U. CD cD w O. p cn CD O CD CD o ate' �o� _a CDCDw o. CD O 0 aCD H CZ `d CD° o a CD p. o aQ CD. n "' COCA o CCD .~.3.. " �"' y w CD CCD v UWT 0 0 o d co 0 Z o CD , cD o N w L. U� n ., o m m Uc O O p (U — S O� r�n-r �Sr. CD CD v'. C) CD n, A CD 0 CD 5 0 0 CD � 5,0 6" M v, U4 O C3, � O v, � O 0 cn CD v�' Cep O w .�1 ti• CD N �. 0 W w p7 0 (' .8 .7 O CD 0 '� H r'h `� w CD ° 23' CD p�j �• 0 rw-r v7 p O Q" p�� � '� (ACD -t O CD k3 o �, � a CD O r* O � � CD Cs' CD 0 CD � vi' P. O O p CD �' CD CD� � � �ro N � CD ao GO. � CDw N o ¢""ts o `OJ ' �-,.• '' y w U� n '^�' En a N ° !c-'� (D .'3 V Q�7 CSD p' a oCSD r -y 'o UQ O Q. R Q. vii 0 00 � G .I? q .4 OCD w ,'3-• CD CL CD , o o ¢ w O 0 N 11 In o 0 o CD CD x O CD o °, CYA a o Q a?aq go CD � o is L p CCD o- tD n' '* U, W cD -' w w o g w p� 0 d Z o o!y� ' o I d vo' CD a c`DD O 'd W D 00 `.j +� N O R O CD `t CD CD N � N .t O CND O O N �.to7 O `C C��D CL w O O O R.0 "��� "C3 ,CDS O, N o0 CSD 11w Q CD O. CL t O a r- � CD o w CD 51 O b O — CD p N CCD < �•. G c,gw • wcf, w (J a •a �' 0 0 CD CD °-• N w CD `n �.i' W O N UC7 N CD Id 0 p h w d rn v' o O p �. CRD COn CSD w �' CD 5 'o- (or, CD rL O o CD CD w Q. p C/) po -, v a w k� O � CD % ° w N CD2. w rn� � a CD °0 ; 5 o o u CD 'CD' " ComC' CCD CL R• i --i o O qi CD CDf3.. N OQ o,0 CD M 'O CD CD Uo i U " CCD w y o p o. rZ 10 5 6• o 7� �+ p u N cr -0 a 'rs �• .T CD P. "'S x w A C) CD O N �-+ ••• 0 c<D iD K3 O �� .Qp< w O CD 'C o w O v aq' a. 0 0 �' 0 ,UQ ot °�� N• 1--1 vA`�i � '� N n 0 „�� C' N' N qCD G o ac°u w_ CD iD v�, o R C rpn C p coo p cRo o ox C/a n' o CD a °,, (D CD m D. 0 '� CD pt o coe CD o' 0 � f+ ..p `< '0fD '0 0 N CD ° 0. y p 0 � 0 � GO 00 '0 i U) o `�+ CD b CD c' ', * co w w eo w �C o o CD CD It CD o oO. A. 0 a. ^ ° CD 0 O 0 0 " p �_ CD O 'C of ap• v CD 0ks a P L w CL �o°� �'a Zoo�� CDP � FA 0 r� n ''� N 6' CD �: � UQ N '#' h O N aQ• CD O CD (D C 'C N CFD �• � y Q. N (r °C3 �P? UQ T w CD y c0 0 (n C C CD f. < N CD = '•h 0 w !n � r 0 CD W a UQ N 0 ,' r ��. CD W' � rr CD A� � ° � °! "CC W CD O '«T' (cyl D � CD 0 p; rr n ° r.t. r -r H � � N Er kC3 �. ,�y. � ID � O l�D C R' 'Y �n � O p- Q•' aQ 'r7cn CD CD CD � L7 w O� CD CD w v' o �,• �. a' 0 CDo w R o rn rn o .0 a o w o � �H� C��q�tdw CD En f o 0 A->✓HCD 'C-) H oy o p. ' ° w h 'o y ' CD y cn `r,• � w �,, CD CD o. RF aq' � CD, rCD (D a' ° Cwt"Cf�t' '��' owo CD CD ,-+ t CD N �i •Oji "t 0 ¢. O C, � P 0 •Ci '•3 r* a4 CD ti n 0 0 p�' ,� aR4 cD ��-r' ? O O n —CD cD . ° O p t 0. CD Cz o n o (IQ CD o o v �. ° G7 r� O r. (y 0 O 00 � CD O. CD �h UQ p (D � N O O Cn N C. 0 � C o C> Q,. 0 Oa �. O �. CCD p, .�'-r (D '� �• �• < �* w nrnla,0 O� p0o•a CD awe oo�a 'o 0 CL ° o o Q °O 0 d v o 0 O O o CD °t d �y p RCD pj -S Ra 00D C) Cs O C/] N 'wy o OCD ° o CD CD 0 R, 5. cdD ��. • �G M c�D R p � cn �' .0 CD P 0 iLn �. 2 CCD �' «�Q w CD «tea CD w o o t w W ttdd o 0 CD¢ C.D 0 w o CD w(D Oo W N p .�~.. rn 4. CD a4 ° o N CnD go r- CD O p O N Cp R v4 CD Q o o p� o C �. N ... [y - 6. �2, O ,_t. N �C ,rt, �• CD CCDD C N a' n 'y IDo CCD L"• FSR+ C N (D CD CD� o° 0 �C �: *, � o �0 R. 0 o W' ° Cy° r.�• 0 (3. '_'� R o `' wr� .ti. o v a: o �.�' — CD �° v� v0. cD �H. P , cD"o. cD w Qq CD CD CD w (7 w w FO. Mj O .=r CD „ti,- O CD 0 4 H w w �--� CY ''D • Q„ v¢: v� v4 ?' 0 0 �* o 5� 0, O Q. p V1 CD O < � � CD p� R CD a , w -t w � O o r-. W w nw P.Ca� CD "<a4 1 CD �•Cn pv Q 0 0 N CD UQ N o n CD � CD p: ff - O CD O 0 w c�D 00 0 p- w O 0 0 0 0 OC' O W CD* UQ 0 0 (0D• � ° O 0 CD UQ UCQ o� �. X. � 6 CD 0 9 < CL v (7 CD � W .� CD ".� p O p., '�s• ''3�'••ID rn' COD C �' 'C3 .a a4CD "�.� O I CD p, �'•o p• ao 0 v� In UQ4 rr [�' V' C2. 'o W N br''p.,r'yCD C� N ' ¢, (D p W CD O w N ' O Wr 0 ..0 CD (D N UQ En o 0.. H o CD CD CD CD w O— CL k a 0 'p C n Ra 0 N ¢ R. �t N ¢- < CD N O "00 � � °� CD � C7 N o P3 pi p CD h: CD ~O wo •° (:;r v CD CD CD 'a w co G (D �_ ..t 'p 0 P. CD UQ CD C o 5' Kr• w CDO a4 '� w C' O aQ w (7 ''�' CD o" C'0 bd°.� p vw, a54 CD p� o..0 o.`° R `� 1CD i p o Q C, C� v,' CDD 0 CL 00 CD x o �' 5 o — 54 54 o o 0 CD CD En CD. P. a � CD CD a �' C/] CD �, �. o o '.. cDCDt O ,� C 010 E' 5-aq� o 0 O CD CD ?� CD CD A I< is CD ° 'ted rjd v `ted � : tTJ g (D N CD N r� C oCD 0 w CD o CD a `� O Co w o CD -t cD cD CCD m or' L vQ CD 0 o w (D 0o w C oo c' O o, tl7 & 0 o UQ ¢ o CD CD Pt ¢. czc CD CD n �. t" t=1 ^* cD F' o qa f S a o �. A o �s o' o w "' va < 'y' eD CD Z w o o CD 00 2,0 n o a �] o or. CD ro op 2 o < 'CDD U(; 0 p� o o C o„ CD nCD C3 O G CD CD p. C rr. N a CD vpi CDo ID O to N Ln 0 0 ICD �< ? cy° p o w -P's n� o CDIDo '�' '� 1 WR cCD c o v 4 vao (¢ o p CD C ovno as tra �. -t o OTc>Oa✓u on cD O 0 0 rR 0 0 El CD ° O w n' �. w` x L & CD o CD '� o o' H o ° CDS ti o o ry X CD v4 O1--�t `CC� 5' s R o `O�' '0 IID v0 CD 0� cru w' w 9I co o va G v4 .N+ O V R UQ 6' Y o o p �� '' O •cy o rr .n-.. N p O 'L3 r. co O w �. o is o to N R. O co Ln � Cs C co c* '* `t � w o o O �n sl CC c�D C�,D p t� v0 CD y p c -�d 0 C O a 0 ID oCD o0" O ' CD m _noC o °C r a• Q- o ooH po CD a p CD CD co D a' 5. CD y P1 CD CnD 'ID CD oD O0 s3 ID (aD O 7' p ptf 14. pt p oo O cc Un p a D UQ CD v �r CD ZS CA a Ln a Va o ° CDs' o o CD o co to w via �'' CD 5• N N W W CD' CCi CD N N ..., `C O `d 'D O E; fv a CD (D A� wn n .""rte, (D C3 5'r• p P n O a O n 0 Q7t O a CD F or CDD w t3' i3 C -t a p N rn CCD CD o O iD o CD _t o CD ° vv,, CD y k o- O C O o 0 O «O '* o CD .a te-. 0 W (p `cp � �''* (D .o W p R. xCDd CDD vQ CD 0 0 Ufa CCD CD CD n .fl O W a n x O o O(A CD n a N o ¢' N ,. '+ , . CL CDD o 0 W' .`tom- O �. (°D to ;n o o O o�* I -D (IQ aViCO va oa Cr O o o Ho aoo . Q 0GOo 8 a R CD t'oY pmo v' .t td oa. CD o a0va �+, a cyD ¢ o ct o cD o o � � a CD CD p'� 0 x CDkt� �n r, CD �o r• o a 0 o. CD o� 0 0, UQ O �' < ID ars o o! �'a S. G7 P o o < o CCD c�D n ¢ a as 0 O w o �. Cl) Va Gs cD O P= Va UQ c p� ���' c� c�D 0 0 w � p `C E; mc �r-Ir"1 - o CD -*n a ¢ N v4 o ?' cI'o N o caD o w o ors o co g Q 0 o R a 0,- p a. � \O r�P R U5' H a o .-+ a C. CD R CD va 0 Ch E I*r' o. w o CQD `D o W CD A UQ O 1 ¢' z O A O "��' CD' CVD n : p n O N 't O N � CD M a. c -D ho+� Cs' n' CD n O N `" rA N w 1 W ,C W't -1 N a Q. O CD k3 a O UIQ v 5' N ; UQ N UIQ d o p �. rt k Com/ UQ O 0� O d CD ID .-' . W CD IQ ,�_, ASD 0 Z o O �, O C• C qa t� o C a G o caD >v c CD � do p° 0 j O a t o (A W CD CD �r �• O CD C�DC) ' ! CD H CD. oo�cD Via¢, , � CDO S Q C� �p7 0 rn ��.. a Q ;CD • UCDD UQ o� o "t� 0. C. �. UQ� eD -1o 2 . UQ CD W 'S `'.. 'may, CD , CD C)' CD R C R• fl7 .� �' -t o O (rqCDCD CD O cD fl.. O CD CD O CD CD to � R O CD UQ H n C-) CD rl w Ot 0 w c�3D o w 0 H CJ o o CD }� p_, �. ti4 apt o UQ' CD CD .O A .�'' R `d Ui's• R: U'_' '�. R. r'3' CD ti O N Q 6 o o U Ln�• Cda < wa C o w PIS 0 e o I'D. UQ vQ coo o o a a `� o S ¢ eD o¢ w c¢u c0� Co n' R' � o � CD o s CD 0 .1 cD o 0 CD :� �r � CD O~n `°10 CD O 01 C CD�CD CD CD ' E NS• 0" n Q CD C) D p ' UQOCD v,�'• • RR - Oo Np p CD p O O PCC `�Cx. CD CDnpCO raC1. CD CD CD N 000 ' CCD 5-0 K ~t 'i� O CD C) CD CD 1--i P) CD i--� '•'1 CD 'lj � N O �• < CD -1 C1--D-� O CD W O O W< C a - v o CD C, `° a 6 0 x 10 0 p rSt� CD CD pn R s✓ CL M. x o CD 0 �C. 'A � CD ar CD �' < a o o te r° �' `°' a"O ��y C� a• CD � v�0 oo It CD vR"� xa`c°D �a• 0 OF 4. CDoC�o«v11 * `t. o a Q, o a pR//w CD p to o pO o ' O ¢p0 EA q UCD �• CD ACD p CD C rj to p, CD Q �.t o, C1 /b Ca "� R. O ry UQ C NW UQ O p— g 5 IOt O O a4 • y pOj p C3 n M p CD W O (JQ OW' CD In CD CD CD CD •7� 0 R �C CD f? . �oi 0 iG U0 Q CA CD 0 O C.h "C7 ,..�. C� O ni CD C. O O� �• o 17, pn' n'rIDt13 CD'ICD o UQ SN ID '� Ln C O$. 4-- O CC3D CD `o 'TI c5CD W'OO CCa CD �' 54 ID p t �M 0. P� --,.e ''�' CY to CD Cp 0 UQ CD o p- uo - CDCD �o��� � X a9 w '- a y N M 0 0 O o UQ CD $a, y o CD A �.o '*'t � �, Cv�4 CD o o, a o 0. o n CD m O «o 0' �J " P o 0 v, x0 ''00 P O0q C a cD G� CD p P! r p N O N CD0 w CD < C P C N CD >, N .� 1. a . -0. N CD ¢' a' 0 O], � 0 CD D a .o`� 0 P;" CD 0UIQ ? D vZ, 0 a. Ln x �, u4 , CD CD a n d . eo W C OCD CD 0 O 'A O a s ° < UQ acr CD ~C CD S d C v, wp cn � v� p � w cr � Cr' d O 0 .13, aq do '* a � � o Q :+ n R' 'nr �N CSD ` W N Or p�. UQ' �j _• CD O ppb O U4 d CO lD N FJCD O JCF• '��' `�• C O t- CD K a R <• � ¢ Q' W (¢D C) 'fix �••i CD �Op -t CD CD rOC3 CD A� CD CD N n O O "O't O �Q CD 10, �. P) °O W CD -. �••! 0 �' Cr W O CD p R d C) O C `�- CD UQ• CSD CSD 0 CD FL Q W Cr (fQ VQ R. ¢ N C �."t." p r� G- a y O CD ,y. '� '—: w x% R. CD '.� a C C R' to t3' Q- '� `� tCDi, k3 'TJ O UQ CD Q• OQ 0 C��CD P CQ. O O"' CD o L3 r CD UQ 0 O CD ' ��' • +-t N V "01' R' �c�<•D t�i� W W w t17 �' .O' X�33 �t a� '� Upq� "D' ,00.' I 0 CD N O a4' n O POj O �, CCDD A P a: w CCD i' CD N a. O CD P h7 o -•t ° ,mak' °k3 t O v C3 UyQ °nt�y OO�O �(ODEn 'OA o CD � CD ":l . 'd "N °O �� O(D CD O W y Opo ljN CQ O NCD 10 D CD pR "°'h � O N a. `O n CD rb UQ P� r+ �•-' p y (D ° �• C<D cn O� A `� v' (Q7-'� .<�+: Ute, Q• `� a'' �. M P ' CCD X O. p o o Ln gyp" ° O " C3 C� 10 U� c°D a r' O 0 Q C W y p �ppO�� CD rPi, v' R' y !C!••DS� �� a• �. w 0 Q o a .0 p•'O.•%' Pt CSD "fit Q. R CD (7 N a to '� En rn 0 CL ID 0 0 CD CD U Q O o �r CD `C CD�• "Y Q. CD CD CCD N ID O CD r* O O Q: P O O. N O N ¢ O N UQ � rt "•t N a Ot O Q Oo- O O CLQ -. CD �0 0• CDcn '� Q•' p� Q~. O. �C!Y 6' ° N O S5 C N 0 W a• C• (,7 to CD 0 CD CD N CD ":$ : Q O o r. � Q. X" �a ocT� �(D5;1 cr a CD , CD ,� ttQ• O CD o J - CD O o (D 0 � ,�oo a Ocr CD � W CR CD o a CD q o ' CD �2• �l ' (DCD CD ' t FSawaQOQ It CD 0 � a. � 0 w O CD 0'� 0 t. "D to 5 CD o CL tra D D CD��.�J CD0 s co5 c�D C o O r+' o 0 CD O Go O O to p O Q N N•'� CD Vii CD CCD N tn• m l� CD P1 �.:c2d 0 p 5- n • • • • �q t E • d rs�curnt7 0 �d QQ O c,~n CD �, U o n chi o w 1' o00 00 10 UQ � CCD w �' m o• d CSD c<D oate va o � o n(IQ, 'o,'o CD 0 o o rr ' 0 � o Ra4• ID r'� c 7 SCD to�U �C O O UQ CD CD O- C 0o o0 o o 'cs o a o o A' ° p w Cn a G� G O �' UQy' p Z o cRD U4 �� b U -Q CD o *0 CD ° (!�Q w Uq tom" n• n C^i �i n y FS• .�3 ."S. Own+ �0 R. .vii. W ^'�' L� .-r o C) USD �"' ° cDpD� �C (jq• N• CD E R �. CSD V . �••� C' �t ° P7 ° En 0r� o q• CA m 00" w UQ � Ci o N CD (Np ¢ rte-. C) � �•' i� � ° .0 �. ID b ° o ° CCD w 0.'0 A a O CD O ° cND °�'w LY: CD � En ln� COD oaO CD CR c' CD p � Oa o � a �o o �' Q a w cu <' UCDD N '° n CD ¢. N o CD CD �' CCDD 'o tJ5. a"OCD'0y�°y� �n CD CD CCD ��. (0 _ O O CD O UQ UQ v, ° r. W o. CDwP p" CD CCDD CCD w a �� o.CD r.; aCA x x IDao�rs Cp m p UQ *looCD �w ono�-0 CDt:r CA c`ni CD CD w CD 0 IDCD a N O p ` w c) EnK �, O O � r cD CD o CD 00 P• CDLn ? n Ln n O a O^ �C, UQ -� CD O C(00 `viii `(n 5 w R-CSD ff• CD t P O Zi rj CD v �r CD E; (D _ ccy,ru -' ¢ '* O C)'O Cl CD CD aQ �' 0 CD �' o • rn rn 0. a< 0 o 0 vi G O cD . CD `hD e o•' o.ZCD o'er � C7 CD CD CD 0 00 CD `< o ID CD � (g o . o o c3 cn O K 00 p, ¢• (D .CD.� CY '4 O CD Ia. O5 aN° C IID cD N CD � a, CD -i A y c* R R .r O r2 9° p CD UQ CD r o 'F0 pq' �' � zI.+. p�i p<oo�' °a�oCD CD Up• a CD O CD CD O. .�0 0 o O C� c o o m w a w o d w� t7 oCD CD ID`G rn Q -1 `D p. CCD `n CD ° o W°CDCD TO p CD Q 0.-0 CD +' a a M r !v o CDW CD CD C o c'aQ R.� CrJ � ° CD w o wZ CD rs ' C' C O o CD aCD CD C p� � CD "� w o cQD ID CD CD CD CD C7'a CD o via CDCD' n o., CD C:r y O CD r+ N t:i ' V CD y t!N �. Cr <. N `y 'fff p p, CL ° O .�' (D w p, CD C CCD r p tC �S n N O° CZ. p G n-' CD CY nr - w 'C I.fl CD n ° „p N .i. 10 � � � h •v 1-•. bj ni CD gyp! .{.y...a p„ V1 p �] �+ C F� � iD h O O w' p 0 �! 4. pil K �' CD C p CD �••t Cp S, pw, 0 ID �..i to w CD (f�nq .i' O" A R, SEP (D .�-r- •, W Mp+ CD w• 1txj+ S? ° N R -t O O O CD S. .°� N CD p`r" CY Cy.• aCD -4rt• +no :3 En ' o ID CD C C -D CD `° ID 00 �. iD cpi (ro CL �* Lh p FD a .� � a a w w � o 5CD CD O (JQ A n L3 C, G CD CD Z N "°� s a �. w ooc � o 10 y G� � CD E ox "`�*D � ��� oyCD n Gr p" o o �'CD 0�. 6' O r,•'K N C O C cD w 5 + 0 O CD CD (D £• CD W R o .`�. n CD O 0 N ID * ' n 0 Sp77 0O •_ CD D vV .� O CD 0 ° w P. O (n fl CD 0 oa CD CD OF CD� C)ow ¢ CD CD Q w = uta ¢' C CD o p' ° ID O �Q I -h ID ID N iG A• 1w „•t L1. .O �* CCD .r 0 CD w O i..t R' . a,t7° �° ao D CD° w�, `�0 ¢, ° `s C cfsD Co '0 o" 0 CD x co w o r CD w a� o n W o UO d °WID a 5 CD vc ° coo CD ° a '' va n' cxo S `" `� vcD CD 5).0 O ry �• v " ° o'c-�D -�c�D t" a tdwo 0 '19 o w -t o R N O� ID 7pd �°CD N 11 °C° ID o O ft Q P p zO in° CD �� NCD O CD N 5'w WCD CD vi0 w p; o P O CD .`An U� CD p 0' `� G CD C O0 O 114O. �•'0 CD 0, 0., w °°tom CD t7'Qqa oo oo n oo < 'C-D"�, ° w° O o CD ° n CD W o 00 CD cO CD 10 co Ua 0 gt � � °o CD n 0 � CD CD .t-s`"o � � CD CD p. r' w �• W y .� o ti '� �+ cx q' ri uta P R cCD XU°q �+ R < P UQ v] O CD [� CD ' O p o r .y CD C3 O d W' CD c o C UQ C R 00 vO� W 't v, O n to CD C3 '�' w PCS l7' r -r %r �'3" O fD CD CD .--� p O O .o < fD r°t v, `c7 Z W ''h n' .IOD' -p N' n C �• .-. y W _ .�. O ° CD co`a' �f9 oO � � as �0 ID CD s ¢ dCC CD UQ Ca AK w w < CD GQ CD 0 oQ D o (D CIO 0 5CD cD r b �' �'' 0 x CD � UQ � cD v� Ua -t " w W ° p Ua n• N '°.'3 N° R' .%R C 0 N CSD G7 W 0 C) n O CCD O O p�7 N CCD CD CD . O 0 N ,���. O CD o a n ct w 0 � CD 0' CD co 0CD a ¢ co CD R ks CD Q cu w U4 CD CD N Oi� N p rq N p �. O o O0 O W' ZS �• UQQ 0 m O UQ . 9 CD 0, CCDD 0 CD CL 0 p� Zn x CD N CD CD p. CD SCD O CD CCD rD N COD w CCD a (D H CD CDUa� 0 c o ((D CCD .0 CD CD ` CDCD CCD O �.�. �C$ CD0 �"o'o O ��� OQ CD' CD C1 A� < 0. 0 CDD p- .o (D 0 �o� � 0 ' CD o fo CDFL o CD CD CD (D k C R o N o S R y O 0 O Ua C°D W CD C va C<D CD CD r° CD 0 � 00 �cD o c�D 0 W ) p CD W CD O CD O o. o rn o o° �v p O CD 0 °0. �CD0 0OQ ?r 0 CD c<D -1 .3 rn 0 CD' C� CD CD t g', 0 O dag�v, a� N 0rn R, aw0 y ° °p P-0 s Co (7i °pFA C ucu CD CD 0 rn w m 0 O y a� p o 0 o o p' ki co o Z �, o p, v� Cr 0 AD e O a oCal U4 G m cu �4 ° Ci rn S. CD M (] �.Q C CD N � p O in a N rt O N N Ln En ° O et3 4-, o o �ov� a Q coo c o `to � � o ° � cru g rn CD ia. CD v4 qq p31 �' n CD Cr a G 0 cu '+ 0 v n' cr N N c oorn m 8 `a r p¢ o C od �� �co �m �m CD on '�m •a�� CcDo+ O o ❑8i co N s A' ac C v co a E vCD aos o ave Ln 00 o N� o C^A p I'D, gi p R �. 0< PA o o O `� o R• a O v, � R, co � o 0. 0 0 0 <u O p N m �_ O o O CLCD ¢' , p� � m W O O a P.. py, a) cu O W ¢" N 0 0 � w a � � ¢; o fa. CDA�• coo a .1 ID ,fl .:l —; ID 0 N CD R s o a o N N n H' 0 coo 0 N v a a �' w W Ln o 0 C5 `z' � (� � O in n 10 N � O N vi o a coo w 6 N p- • CL cru rn rn cu �� C w O N `n °' co o' o `° o o n �r. (7 ; � a�n�' ��6a� rj o °fi 5' vc CD fD Uc rs, w6a ID E <. cn cr o fn ID cn o (IQ a 2, c `� o �� �d� �•�•� � � ter° 5 �r En CD G- N �i p `rn a g a• a�* o vo p - C -D Cq' O -7Y � g-� � NO % Z � �' � � k ¢ � n p � � Z RL 0 '00 o a N O CD vQ �s' C� `-' N N N O A0 N N- 'O oc a� cu rl:E 0cC oN,� D0 Z D NdvQQ. y a o R 5, gy 'N (D ot" v, 0CD t 5 p i Wci a?� ^t pDW RA� ND O '� N CD N N ro O p p N P. �""� CD tT '7 O N V� P' p rn O. k CD N rte, `C. Lo (7 o a C �+•, ,rt.., 'a t17 N CD d CD a Q. w �' x¢ vv cD o o �. �. c N o N �� Q, ts1 3 a CG s�. o N -s ?�' �' CD*� N ID O N O Cr C N C� O� ID O �• N rn zn apt. N o fr o rN C-) CD O . t O v' pi CD ¢¢R rW>o 5 p it � •� 'CD N CD Q7 0¢ 0 �Z CL �' 0 to tD CD r7��, 'D R. a' A" O v 0 CL CD o 00 CD UQ '� y NO� N O o v CD Co ��or N CD t rl 'o El�' o' � CDv4 N 'o a av�Q p CD CD w ¢ CD a s v�Ln C) v n ¢ �' w yn u n v4 c`Oo' Z En CD CD N ° w 0- NCD CD N s C 0O. cMp a. O' (D' �• N Q ',� �• N UQ CD 0 CD CD CD ID CD CDcD W CD 0 �'t' 0 cr = ' S ID ¢ p� O CD p S (2. N CDcr N2o9t 0 CD ��� ;3 os � os o��o o N N p v G �,,, 6, CD 0 CD 0¢ CL v• CD CD �c (WD R OP'i V1 pOCD R �'' N CA w CD N EOD O p'< D C C¢D 0¢ vpi rs 00 0 CD 0 CD CD 0. �• p N O W ¢ p CD � y CD 'n N � C (p p,�..�. k CDD Q. CD P CD t1 p7 `.1 Q' N CSD � UQ W 0 O g 10 (7, �. `C O Oi `CD O rt' CA W N �. O W O (• b O H. C N� ' 0 O.. (D O 0 N c0 N p �7 0- Q a o No f* o a. N C°0 ��� .. o�Q� goyCD 0 U 0 bo CD o CD (J CD In. �¢o CD 0 CD rL o CD �! I o cD CD fD N r W N* CD CD C r p a v:s b7 R• NCD p C. a N WP N o M a- ' CD CD Q CD CD O C C) ?r 0 w¢ r vQ CD CD G C �' 0 d CD� y CDa' '� "CS CD C C✓ M �:r W CD o CD w � CDEn perp.. CD 07w ¢ c�D CCD ¢5' CD CD T1CCID (TO +) 0 g 0.cr a ;F,0 N N CD N Gr e cn CD v4 r=r;CQ. 12? v4 DD ¢ " ¢ k n p I��kU-kR V �ZJ AUG 01 zm PLANNING DESIGN 13 U I LD f, GREEN 03/13/13 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR'G'STREET LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site constraints of the size and shape of the lot. In the front setback, 50% is required to be landscaped. The square footage of the front setback on'G' Street is 840 SF, therefore 50% of the front yard setback is 420 sf. We are providing 312 SF and are providing this landscaping all the way to the 20'-0" parking setback. Due to the parking requirements on this narrow side of the lot, we require a variance for 108 SF of landscaping. We have used every area available to us for landscaping along the 'G' Street front setback within the constraints of the parking requirements. Other properties in the vicinity are not meeting their 50% of the front yard setback landscaping requirement. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. The existing structures at 15 'G' Street, 11 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, and 16 'G' Street all do not meet their 50% landscaping requirement. The Variance is necessary to enjoy this basic property right available to these properties. C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21 'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning classification. D) The Variance for not meeting the 50% landscaping requirement, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMo, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 c FAX (415) 479-0699 �r;�sG�sBIT 5 AUG u 'i t u i i CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION PLANNING DESIGN o BUILD 0 GREEN 12/18/12 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR G STREET ENTRY STEPS ENCROACHING INTO FRONT YARD SETBACK A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the size and shape of the lot. To accommodate the parking requirements, the parking must be located underneath the residences. The elevation of the residence requires the stairs to project into the front setback. The stairway is projecting into the front setback 11'-8" and by code we are allowed to project 6'-0" into the front setback. Therefore, we need a variance for the remaining S'-8" encroaching into the front setback. Visually the impact of the stairway is minimal due to the fact that they are not enclosed. The stairs of other properties in the vicinity are encroaching into their font setbacks. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. The existing stairs of the structures at 1S 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 21 'G' Street, and 16 'G' Street are all encroaching into the front setback. The Variance is necessary to enjoy a basic property right available to other similarly zoned properties in the vicinity. C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21. `G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning classification. D) The entry stairs projecting into the front yard setback is a minor encroachment and will not affect the public or neighboring properties because the stairs do not exceed our property line. This minor encroachment will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMo, CA 94979 (415) 479 EXHIBIT 5-2 CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION AUG 01 ,,Uij DESIGN a BUILD ® GREEN PLANNING 8/30/12 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR `G'STREET 1 FOOT SIDE YARD . ENCHROACHMENT A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. The two units on 'G' Street are located on the narrow side of the 'L' shaped lot. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprived this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. There are several properties that are encroaching into their setbacks. For example: 18 'G' Street, 11 'G' Street, and 15 'G' Street. Also, the existing residence on 21 'G' Street that will be removed, is significantly encroaching in its side yard set back. The new building encroachment is minimal in comparison. A one foot encroachment into each side yard on 'G' Street is staying in step with the neighborhood under the HR -1 zoning classification. The request for a variance on 'G' Street (an encroachment of 12" into each 5' side yard setback) is in response to the neighborhood request at the Conceptual Design Review Board meeting. The request was for the garage covered parking for 'G' Street to be side by side instead of tandem. This is the only reason for a variance request for'G' Street. C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21 'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning. D) The Variance for V-0" minor encroachment into the side yard setbacks (providing a 4'-0" setback in lieu of the 5'-0" side yard setback) will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or the to the public health, safety, or general welfare. P.O. Box 2668 , SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479 EXHIBIT 5 -3 C CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION AUG U, I DESIGN! o BUILD o GREEN PLANNING 12/21/12 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR IDA STREET CANTILEVER ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK 4 z -v A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. During Conceptual Design Review the board recommended articulation of the front and back facades. Due to the RE C) D) garage depth requirement, the garage level must remain straight along the rear of the property and this only allows articulation on the floors above. This articulation is a 2'-0" cantilever that is only on the second and third stories. This is a minor 2'-0" encroachment into the rear yard setback. The variance is only required for the cantilever on Unit 1 and Unit 3, as the other cantilevered portions along the rear of the building are not adjacent to the rear property line. Other properties in the vicinity are encroaching into their set backs. Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. The existing structures at 15 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 21 'G' Street, and16 'G' Street are all encroaching into their setbacks. The Variance is necessary to enjoy this basic property right available to these properties. The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21 'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning classification. The Variance for a 2'-0" minor encroachment into the rear yard setback, on the second and third stories only, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 47! EXHIBIT 5-4 C CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN 9 BUILD o GREEN AUG U 1 LU 13 PLANNING 8/21/12 VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR IDA STREET PARKING SETBACK A) This is a unique circumstance applicable to the property due to the site constraints of an 'L' shaped lot. This combined with the garage depth requirement of 40' for tandem parking on Ida Street leaves the sum total left for the parking setback to be 19'-0". The parking space dimension for the downtown district is 8'-6"x18'-0". Therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. B) The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. A parking setback encroachment has been available to other properties in the same zoning district and vicinity such as 15 'G' Street, 6 'G' Street, 11 'G' Street, 20 'Ida' Street. The Variance is necessary to enjoy this basic property right available to these properties. C) The Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations in this zoning district. 21 'G' Street is located in the HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The proposed project is in compliance with the use provided in HR -1 zoning classification. D) The Variance for a V-0" minor encroachment into the parking setback will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety,. or general welfare. P.O. BOX 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 47 EXHIBIT 5-5 TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) The proposed subdivision is subject to the major subdivision and condominium provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance as follows: CHAPTER 15.02 — MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS 15.02.080 Findings required. (a) Findings for Approval. Approval or conditional approval of a tentative map shall be supported by the following findings: (1) The proposed map including the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the San Rafael general plan and any applicable, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan. (2) The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of development that is proposed. Conforms The proposed map is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan as noted on Page 4 of the staff to the Planning Commission. There is no adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan for the project area. Conforms The property is currently underutilized based on the HR1 zoning designation. The project site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of a 8 unit development, with 2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street in that: a) Adequate water, sewer and other utility services systems are available to serve the proposed site. Each of the agencies have reviewed the uses and improvements of the project and indicated that there is adequate capacity for this development. b) More than adequate landscaping and usable open space area is provided as indicated in the landscape plan conditionally approved as part of ED12- 058, and through the provision of a combination of outdoor deck, roof decks, private patios, roof decks and 732 square feet of common open space on site. c) The project is consistent with the base density requirements on the project site and in fact is below the maximum allowable density based on the Zoning Ordinance (10 units,1 unit for every 1,000 sq ft of land area). The project also would provide 1 affordable unit low-income BMR affordable units thereby qualifying for a State density bonus of 3 additional units, which they are not proposing to construct. d) The project proposes to construct 8 condominium units. Using the one concession allowed under the state density bonus for the percentage of dedicated units on the project site, the project is proposing to provide a total of 14 tandem parking Exhibit 6 TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) (3) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (4) The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems (5) The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at larae. for access through or use of, property within z spaces on Ida Street only. In response to community input and direction from the Design Review Board, the parking on G Street is proposed as side-by-side Conforms The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the subject property: a) is currently a graded and developed site and no known environmental resources are found on this site or immediately surrounding the site; b) is located in a developed corridor between 3` and 4th Streets and is surrounded by graded and developed properties; and c) neither contains, nor is contiguous to existing wetlands or creeks. There is a creek identified, but it is located on the adjacent property to the north. Conforms The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Section 15332 (In -Fill projects) because: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density (with the State Density Bonus); b) the site is 0.5 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on all sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development. Conforms There were no easement s identified on the TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the city may approve the map if it is determined that alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired or secured for Dublic use. CHAPTER 12 — CONDOMINIUMS 15.12.030 Subdivision map. All condominiums of two (2) or more units shall be subject to planning commission approval of a tentative map filed in accordance with this title. 15.12.040 Compliance with Title 14 (Zoning) All condominiums shall comply with the provisions of Title 14, Zoning, for the zoning district in which the condominium is located. In the event that development standards stated in Title 14 conflict with the development standards stated in this chapter, the more restrictive standard shall apply. 15.12.050 Property owners' association a) For all condominiums, a property owners' association shall be established by recordation of the following: (1) Articles of incorporation of the association; (2) Declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs); (3) Bylaws of the association. Conforms The applicant has submitted for a Tentative map approval for 8 air condominiums on the site. The development proposal has already received conditional design review approval and the Commission is now only reviewing the proposed tentative Map for a minor subdivision. Conforms with variance approval As discussed on page 1 of the attached staff report, the project would require a total of 5 variances. For the G Street townhomes, variances are requested for front entry stair encroachment (11' 8") into the required 15 foot front setback, a 1 foot building encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback, and the 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%). For the Ida Street townhomes, variances are requested to encroach 1 foot into the required 20 foot driveway setback and a variance for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5 foot rear yard setback. The Board has reviewed the variances and recommended project approval as designed. Separate findings have been drafted and included in the Resolution attached with the staff report. Conforms As proposed, this project would comply with Section 15.12.050 in that the project would establish a property owners' association for the management of the common area proposed within the development and the establishment of declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), and bylaws of the association. The CC&R's would include language for maintenance, access, utilities, shared costs and proposed use within the condominiums. CC&R's would have to be submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's office prior to recordation of the Final Map if this project is approved. TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) 15.12.060 Recreational facilities, residential condominiums All residential condominium developments shall be designed to include the following recreational facilities: (a) Community center or recreational center buildings shall be provided within the development. (b) Bicycle and pedestrian paths shall be provided through the open, common areas of the development. (c) Common areas for outdoor, active and passive recreation shall be provided in central locations throughout the development. For small residential condominium developments, these recreational facility requirements may be reduced or waived based on development size, location and physical property conditions. Should a waiver from these requirements be requested by the subdivider, an exception to the provisions of this title shall be filed and processed consistent with Section 15.01.120 of this title. 15.12.070 Noise attenuation, residential condominiums. All condominiums shall meet the sound transmission control requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Does Not Conform The project applicant is seeking a waiver for this requirement due to the small size of the development and the fact that each unit has access to private open space (patio and rooftop garden areas) as well as 732 square feet of common usable open space, equipped with BBQ area and picnic tables. Overall, the project is proposing a total of 2,883 square feet on new landscaping on the project site. Based on the layout of the project site and the ample provision of private and common usable open space areas, staff supports the waiver request, which is discussed on page 8 of the Planning Commission staff report. The approval of this waiver is consistent with the City's position for other smaller downtown projects. Conforms The compliance with section would be required with the building permit process. RECEIVED Nov 0 7 2010 PLANNING C CAM ICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN • BUILD • GREEN SUBDIVISION EXEPTION REQUEST 11/6/13 This is a request for a waver to the requirement to provide recreation facilities within this townhome development. The request for this waiver is based on the following: 1) This is a small infill project of only eight townhomes located in the Downtown District. Because this is a smaller property, we cannot support a recreational facility within the development. We have provided a common recreation area of 732 square feet. In addition, each townhome has been provided with private outdoor patios. 2) The exception is necessary for the property owner to sub -divide and develop the infill project in the Downtown District. 3) The granting of the exception for the recreation facility will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479- EXHIBIT 7 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN * BUILD • GREEN kELLk ., jr y.. S9 AUG 01 Z03 PLANNING STATEMENT OF INTENT 7/30/13 The proposed project is located between'G' Street and Ida Street. It is an eight unit residential townhouse development in the West End district. The area is a mixture of commercial and residential. This is an- infill project in the downtown district. This is a'For Sale' project, that is -providing affordable housing (1 unit) to a low-income household. The proposed townhouses are zoned for HR -1 High Density Residential zoning classification. The townhomes on 'G' St. and Ida St. are under the height limit requirement for this zoning and are comparable in height to several in the neighborhood. There are several of equal height and a few in the vicinity significantly taller. The units on Ida Street face the rear of the building recently used as Home Depot Expo. In section 14.16.030.B.2 the affordable housing requirement for 2-10 units is for 10% of the units to be affordable. This is intended to be a'For Sale' project that is providing one unit that is for sale to a low-income household. Therefore, we are providing 12.5% of our units as affordable housing. Because of this we are requesting a state'density bonus as well as an additional concession or incentive as per section 14.16.030.H.1. The project is eligible for a 23.75% density bonus. We would like to use the state parking rate in section 14.16.030.H.3.a.i as our concession for the state density bonus. The maximum state parking standard, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, is 2 onsite parking spaces for 2-3 bedroom dwelling units. In this section parking may be provided through tandem parking, which we would use on Ida Street. Because of the site constraints of an 'L' shaped lot, and the garage depth requirement of 40' for tandem on Ida Street, the only option for the front parking setback is 19'-0". The parking space dimension for the downtown district is 8'-6"x18'-0". Therefore, a 19'-0" parking setback would be the reasonable solution. We are applying for a variance for this minor encroachment (1'-0") into the parking setback. In response to the neighborhood request at the Conceptual Design Review Board meeting, we complied and are providing side by side garage parking on 'G' Street. This requires a 1'-0" minor encroachment into each side yard setback, which we are requesting a variance for. This is the only reason we are requesting a variance for'G' Street. One comment at the last Design Review Board meeting was favoring support of a variance to reduce interior garage dimensions rather than the reduced side yard setback of 1'-0". Side by side parking on G Street is a major concern for the residences of G Street, and the reduction of the interior garage dimension — already at a minimum dimension according to the building code — would discourage the use of side by side parking in the garage. For this reason, we feel that the side yard set back reduction would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than a garage not utilized for both of its intended parking spaces. Careful consideration was put into the design solution and it was modeled after the historical properties in the immediate vicinity. The historic building at 11 'G' Street (Arrivederci Restaurant) inspired the exterior surfaces and trim for the new design. While making the buildings cost effective, the design solution reflects the old San Rafael charm. The townhomes on Ida Street, due to the limited size of the property, have two 10 by 20 tandem parking spaces under each unit. The existing driveway approach on Ida Street is 54 feet in length. The proposed townhouses combined driveway approach on Ida Street is 67'3" in P.O. Box 2668 • SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 • FAX (415) 479-0699 DESIGN 0 13 U I L D e GREEN length. While we are enlarging the driveway approach, we believe this is reasonable due to the number of units provided. The driveways on Ida have been consolidated to minimize curb cuts. There is a loading zone on the opposite side of the street, however, it does not take up the entire side and there is currently sufficient parking on this street. As much landscaping as possible was implemented into the design. The combined required landscaping for the project is very close to the required fifty percent, (only a 108 square foot difference on G Street) due to the fact that we are landscaping the entire parking setback. Additional trees and vegetation to the sidewalk planters have, also, been added. The design elements and finishes selected for the townhouses are in keeping with the historic charm and feel of 'Old San Rafael'. We have tried to further soften the structures with trees and landscaping. We are providing a visual green privacy screening between the project and neighbors properties. A private outdoor patio has been provided for each unit on the individual rooftops, surrounded by a parapet wall. In addition, the two units on V Street have a 144 sq. foot deck provided off of the kitchen area. This infill project will bring needed housing to the City of San Rafael and will enhance the look and value of property in the west end district. P.O. Box 2668 ® SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0 LV18H'�TU9