Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2018-10-09 Agenda Packet AGENDA SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, October 9, 2018, 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 1400 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA • Sign interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling 415/485-3085 (voice) or 415/ 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. • Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at 415/454-0964. • To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Agency Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the Community Development Department, Third Floor, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda-related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL TAKE UP NO NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11:00 P .M. AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. THIS SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT NO AGENDA ITEM OR OTHER BUSINESS WILL BE DISCUSSED OR ACTED UPON AFTER THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 11:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND THIS RULE TO DISCUSS AND/OR ACT UPON ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM(S) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.APPEAL RIGHTS: ANY PERSON MAY FILE AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS (NORMALLY 5:00 P.M. ON THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY) AND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS OF AN ACTION ON A SUBDIVISION. AN APPEAL LETTER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, ALONG WITH AN APPEAL FEE OF $350 (FOR NON -APPLICANTS) OR A $4,476 DEPOSIT (FOR APPLICANTS) MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SHALL SET FORTH THE BASIS FOR APPEAL. THERE IS A $50.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF AN APPEAL BY APPELLANT. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION Anyone with an urgent communication on a topic not on the agenda may address the Commission at this time. Please notify the Community Development Director in advance. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes, 9/25/18 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 21 G St.: Request for a new time extension to the previously approved time extension for Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED16-022), Tentative Map (TS16-002), Variance (V16- 004), and Subdivision Exception (EX16-004) to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential townhomes on a 0.24 acre through lot between G Street and Ida Street. 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. Also required is approval of a Subdivision Exception request to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site. The project is also seeking a Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to divide the parcel into 9 lots: eight (8) air space condominium units and one (1) common open space lot. The previously approved Tentative Map identified the project as an 8 -lot subdivision. The Tentative Map is proposed to be revised to identify the shared “common area” lot which was identified on the originally site plan but not on the 2016 approved Tentative Map. APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; Arvand Sabetian, owner/applicant; File No(s). EX18-021/TS18-001/V18-006/EX18-003. Project Planner: Caron Parker DIRECTOR’S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT I. Next Meeting: October 23, 2018 II. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, October 5, 2018, I posted a notice of the October 9, 2018 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, September 25, 2018 Regular Meeting San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings CALL TO ORDER Present: Jack Robertson Barrett Schaefer Aldo Mercado Berenice Davidson Jeff Schoppert Mark Lubamersky Sarah Loughran Absent: None Also Present: Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes, 8/28/18 Jack Robertson moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to approve Minutes as presented. The vote is as follows: AYES: Jack Robertson, Aldo Mercado, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran NOES: None ABSTAIN: Barrett Schaefer ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Amendments to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Title 11 (Public Works) and Title 14 (Zoning Ordinance) and Zoning Map amendments, including a) revisions to encroachments into the right of way excluded from permit requirements; b) consideration of text amendments to zoning ordinance for chapters and sections in an effort to correct minor text errors and internal inconsistencies; clarify text; and to modify land uses and land use definitions and standards. c) consideration of Map Amendments to include modification to the zoning district boundary line for three properties located at Rive Dive/Francisco Blvd (APN’s 013-041-52, -55, -67) and 2 properties located at Lincoln Ave/Prospect Drive (APN’s 011-092-15 and -26); Citywide; File No: ZO18-002/ ZC18-001. Project Planner: Alicia Giudice Staff Report Sarah Loughran moved and Barrett Schaefer seconded to recommend adoption of resolution to the City Council to approve project with modifications as presented by the Planning Commission and Staff. The vote is as follows: AYES: Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Aldo Mercado, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert , Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DIRECTOR’S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT ___________________________________ ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2018 _____________________________________ Berenice Davidson, Chair Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: October 9, 2018 Agenda Item: Case Numbers: ED18-021/TS18-001 V18-006/EX18-003 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 21 G Street.: Request for a new time extension to the previously approved time extension for Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED16-022), Tentative Map (TS16-002), Variance (V16-004), and Subdivision Exception (EX16-004) to allow the construction of eight (8) townhome units on a 0.24 acre through lot between G St. and Ida St. The existing home at 21 G St. would be demolished and replaced with a three-story building (2 townhomes). The existing garage on Ida St. would be demolished and replaced with six (6) townhomes in a three-story row house structure. The G St. project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required fr ont 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. Also required is approval of a Subdivision Exception request to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site. The project is also seeking a Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to divide the parcel into 9 lots: eight (8) air space condominium units and one (1) common open space lot. The previously approved Tentative Map identified the project as an 8-lot subdivision. The Tentative Map is proposed to be revised to identify the shared “common area” parcel, which was not identified on the 2016 approved Tentative Map. APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; Arvand Sabetian, owner/applicant; File No(s). EX18-021/TS18-001/V18- 006/EX18-003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is for a time extension to a previously approved project. The project underwent an extensive review process, including review by the Design Review Board and approval by the Planning Commission (PC) on February 25, 2014. The PC approval was appealed to the City Council. The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the PC approval on June 16, 2014 (per City Council Resolution 13746). A time extension was approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2016. The time extension approved an 8-lot subdivision to create eight (8) three-story townhomes, a Tentative Map for the subdivision of the 8 units into air space, Variances for 5 different development standards (3 on G Street: minimum landscaping requirement, stairway encroachment and side yard setback, and 2 on Ida Street: driveway setback and rear yard setback) and an Exception to the Subdivision Ordinance requiring an on- site recreational facility. The two-year deadline for the 2016 entitlements listed above was July 26, 2018. A new owner purchased the property in 2017 and applied for another time extension prior to this deadline. As part of the plan review process, Public Works staff discovered an inconsistency between the project site plan and the Tentative Map. The site plan showed a common area parcel adjacent to Lot #6 on the south side of Ida St. However, the Tentative Map did not identify the common area parcel and the project was approved in 2016 as an 8-lot subdivision, when it should have been reviewed as a 9-lot subdivision. The revised Tentative Map identifies the common parcel as a separate lot (Lot 9). There are no other changes proposed to the previously approved project plans. The requested time extension for the Tentative Map is subject to the Subdivision Map Act, which establishes time limits for Tentative Map extensions. Pursuant to SRMC Section 15.01.130(b) REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 2 extensions may be granted “provided that the life of the map approval does not exceed total of five (5) years from the initial map approval date.” The original Tentative Map approval date was June 16, 2014, the date at which the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission project approval. As such, the 5-year time extension deadline for the Tentative Map and other planning entitlements would be in 8 months, or on June 16, 2019, and this would be the final time extension allowed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit 1) approving a time extension to the previously approved Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variances, Tentative Subdivision Map and Subdivision Exception request for a 9-lot subdivision proposing eight (8) new residential townhomes and one (1) common area parcel (Lot 9). PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Multi- Family (HR1) Single Family Residence, 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: 6,000 sf Proposed: 10,836 sf (existing) Allow/Req: 60% (6,501 sf) Proposed: 52% (5,653 sf) Height Density or Floor Area Allowed: 30’ Proposed: 30’ Allowed: 1,000 sf/dwelling unit (10 units) Proposed: 8 units (including 1 BMR) Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks Required: 100 sf usable open space/du (800 sf) Proposed: Roof patio (G St. 491 sf, Ida St. 540 sf), Decks and Private Yards at G St (288 sf) and common recreation area (1,047 sf). Total = 2,360 sf Required: 50% of front yard landscaped Proposed: 37% on G St./52% on Ida St. Required Existing – G St/Ida St Proposed–G St/Ida St Front: Side(s): Rear: 15’ 5’ 5’ 8’ 4’/24’ N/A 15’ both 3’,5’/6’ and 16’ 5’/varies 3’6’-5’ Grading Tree Removal Total: Gravel import = 105 cu.yds Dirt export =315 cu.yds. Total(No./Species): 3 (Privet, Pear, Walnut) Requirement: N/A Proposed: 30 trees 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 2- 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 St. and Second St. host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for high density REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 3 residential, some structures are still used as single family. In the subject p roperty block between 3rd St. and 4th St. there are 5 single family homes on G St and one single family home on Ida St. On the project site, there is an existing single-family house along the G St. frontage (21 G St.) and a detached garage structure on Ida St. 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 St. and Second St. 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 a 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. BACKGROUND There are no changes to the proposed project in terms of number of dwelling units (8), exterior design or landscaping. The project is the same as what was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in 2016 as a time extension request. However, the Tentative Map has been revised and corrected to include a 9th lot for the common area parcel, adjacent to Lot #6. This lot was not shown on the previous Tentative Map, and the project was described and approved as an 8-lot subdivision, when in fact, the project is a 9-lot subdivision. The project details are identified below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 8-unit residential townhome development. Two of the townhome units would front on G St and six of the townhome units would front on Ida St. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces would be provided (2 side-by-side garage spaces for each unit on G St. and 12 tandem garage spaces (2 for each unit on Ida St.). Proposed building height would be below the 30’ height limit. A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, with 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 units. Site Plan: The proposed buildings on G St. and Ida St. would be setback 15 feet from the front property lines. Building setback from the side property line would be 3 feet (north side of G Street)/5 feet (south side of G Street); and 6 feet (north side of Ida Street)/16 feet (south side of Ida Street). A roof patio is proposed for each Ida Street townhome unit, as well as an outdoor common area fronting on Ida Street (Lot 9). Trash containers would be stored under the stairwell in 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. The project includes a common area to be shared by all residents as a recreational space. Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a row house style, with two distinct designs for G St. (mansard) and Ida St. (flat roof). The exterior building materials are a mix of Hardie shingle/stucco and include accent elements. 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. Landscaping: A total of 4 trees are proposed to be removed. However, the project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G St. frontage, and retain the existing Oak tree along the Ida St. 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 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 4 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. A new bio- retention area is proposed for the rear area of the G St. townhomes. 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. Also, the common area (732 sf) will include an additional approximately 309 square feet of landscaped area fronting on Ida Street. In addition, the proposed rooftop planters would add an additional landscaping. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the time extension application and re-routed plans to all appropriate City departments. Updated conditions of approval are included in the Draft Resolution, as needed. Staff has determined that the proposed project continues to be generally consistent with the General Plan policies as discussed in detail in the attached 2014 Planning Commission staff report for the first time extension (Exhibit 3). Further, the project Findings and Conditions of Approval have been revised for the time extension request in the Draft Resolution (Exhibit 1). The previously approved Tentative Map proposed an 8-lot subdivision on the project site. However, the Tentative Map did not identify the proposed common area parcel. The Tentative Map submitted with the current time extension has been corrected to include this common area parcel and as such, the proposed project description has been updated to a 9-lot subdivision. Public Works has worked with the applicant to review the proposed Tentative Map and deemed it to be complete for processing. Further Public Works Department review is required at the time the Final Map is submitted for approval. There is no change in the number of housing units proposed eight (8). Typically, time extension requests are considered routine, especially when there are minimal changes proposed to the previously approved plans. The project as presented has not changed substantially from the project reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a time extension in 2016. The proposed project includes a total of five (5) Variances – three (3) on the G St. townhomes and two (2) on the Ida St. townhomes: • G St. townhomes: Variance request to reduce the minimum 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%), a front entry stair encroachment (11’ 8”) into the required 15-foot front setback, and a 2-foot building encroachment into the required 5-foot side yard setback on the north side of the property. • Ida St. 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. 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 a workable parking design, provide building articulation and achieve a reasonable density and livable floor area within the units. Staff is able to continue 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 1) for detailed Findings to support variance approvals. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE Notice of this hearing before the Planning Commission has been conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public hearing for the October 9, 2018 hearing date 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 Downtown BID), and all interested parties at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. In addition, a public hearing notice poster was posted on the G St. frontage and Ida St. frontage. Staff received one call from REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 5 an adjacent neighbor requesting information about how much parking was would be provided on the project site. Staff responded with the information and received no further calls. Any written communication received after the distribution of this staff report, will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. CONCLUSION The project as proposed has no substantive changes from the project reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2016. The 8-units will bring necessary housing to the City, including one affordable unit. As such, staff continues to support the proposed time extension, subject to the revised Tentative Map for the proposed 9-lot subdivision. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the time extension to the applications as presented (staff recommendation); 2. Approve the time extension to 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. Draft Resolution 2. Project Vicinity Map 3. Planning Commission staff report, February 25, 2014 11” x 17” plans provided to the Planning Commissioners only. 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED18-021), TENTATIVE MAP (TS18-001: A 9-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH 8 AIR SPACE CONDOS AND ONE COMMON OPEN SPACE PARCEL), VARIANCES (V18-006) FOR FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD, MINIMUM FRONT LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AND SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION (EX18-003) TO THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTITLEMENTS (ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004) FOR A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING PARCEL INTO 8-LOTS TO CREATE 8 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUMS AT 21 G STREET. (A THROUGH LOT BETWEEN G ST. AND IDA ST.; APN: 011-232-10) WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058); Variances for front yard, side yard, rear yard, minimum front landscaping and driveway (V12 -002); Tentative Map (TS13-002); and an Exception (EX13-008) to the recreational facility requirement , accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, on a vote of 4-2-1 (Commissioner Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent) the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 14-03, conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception applications; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2014, within the 10-day statutory period, a timely appeal was received (AP14-001) of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058); Variances for front yard, side yard, rear yard, minimum front landscaping and driveway (V12-002); Tentative Map (TS13-002); and an Exception (EX13-008) to the recreational facility requirement, pursuant to Chapter 28 (Appeals) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2014, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP14-001) and the modifications to the approved project design as reflected in the tentative agreement between the appellant and the applicant, and accepted a nd considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council discussed the appea l points and the project design modifications reflected in the tentative agreement between the appellant and the applicant, and ultimately voted to adopt Resolution 13746, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to grant approval of Environmental Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Variance (V12-002), Subdivision Exception (EX13-008), and Tentative Map (TS13-002) and approve and incorporate into the resolution the modifications in the agreement between and appellant and applicant; and 2 WHEREAS, the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Tentative Map (TS13-002), Variance (V12-002), and Subdivision Exception (EX13-008) were provided a two-year time frame within which to obtain the required Building Permits and commence construction. The two- year approval was set to expire on June 16, 2016 and the applicant submitted a request for a time extension on February 22, 2016, prior to the expiration date; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, on a vote of 4-2-1 (Commissioner Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent) the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-14, conditionally approving a 2-year time extension to for the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception applications; establishing a new expiration date of July 26, 2018; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request for a second time extension on March 29, 2018, prior to the July 26, 2018 expiration date; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2018, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed time extension requests for the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Tentative Map, Variance and Subdivision Exception, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, the proposed time extension request continues to be 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 6 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 3 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 either provide required services to the new development, or are requiring additional entitlements (MMWD); and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of p roceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael does hereby approve the time extension applications for Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED18-021), Tentative Map (TS18-001), Variance (V18-006) Subdivision Exception (EX18-003) for: 1) a 9-lot subdivision to construct eight (8) new townhomes and one (1) common open space parcel for shared outdoor recreation space; 2) a reduction in the minimum front landscaping requirement, stairway encroachment into the required front setback, and encroachment into the side yard setback for the townhomes on G Street, and for enroachments into the required rear yard setback and an encroachment into the driveway setback for the townhomes on Ida Street; and 3) a waiver of the on-site recreational room requirement (per Chapter 15), based on the following Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. 3 Environmental and Design Review Findings (ED18-021) 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 policies LU-2 (Development Timing), 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), I-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 New Buildings), S-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 From Urban Runoff); 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 HR1 zoning district, the project would provide 16 off -street parking spaces, with tandem spaces allowed as State density bonus concession for providing one (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 St. 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 in the vicinity 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 (HR1) Zoning District in which the site is located given that: 4 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 ori ginal design of the entire project was a flat roof row house design. This design was changed on the G St . frontage to take into account the smaller scale of existing 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 St.; 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 St. and three on Ida St.); 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 Environment al 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 Stre et 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 #11 has been added to ensure appropriate monitoring for any potential archaeological resources encountered during construction; and e. The project has been revised to include bio-retention areas on site to comply with Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) requirements. 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 t hat 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 5 development standards. Findings to support project approval are detailed below under “Variance Findings.” Variance Findings (V18-006) 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size , shape, 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 continue to 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 will continue to 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 continue to 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 five (5) variances – three (3) on the G Street townhomes and two (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 (11’ 8”) into the required 15-foot front setback, and a 2foot building encroachment into the required 5-foot side yard setback on the north side of the property. • 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 encroachments requested, mainly 1-2 feet. The City actually recognizes that many properties in San Rafael pre-existed the zoning code and as such are considered “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 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 façade. 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 request a 2- foot encroachment into the required side yards 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. 6 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 2 units below the maximum 10-unit density allowed per Code. There is an inherent hardship in the strict application of the development standards for setbacks, minimum landscaping and driveway setback because many other properties in the vicinity also have similar issues of encroachment 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 HR1 zoning district. The requested variance would allow a reduction in the required landscaping from 420 square feet to 312 square feet (108 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 DRB recommendations and 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 be heavily landscaped 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 HR1 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 per DRB recommendations with entry stairs in order to bring the façade 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 façade more compatible with the existing properties on G Str eet. 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 HR1 zone. The proposed project was designed with a 4-foot side 7 yard setback for the G Street frontage, in order to accommodate code compliant 20’ wide 2-car garage width. However, as a result of the appeal, the side yard setback on the south side of the project site (adjacent to 15 G Street) was increased from 4 feet to 5 feet , and the side yard setback on the north side of the property (adjacent to a vacant parking lot) was decreased to 3 feet. Findings: 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. 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. The encroachment is necessary to provide side-by-side parking specifically expressed as a choice preferred over the tandem parking originally proposed on G Street. The variance is needed in order to accommodate the garage size and meet interior dimensions required to open the car doors. As such, staff is inclined to support the variance. 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-foot rear yard setback. Findings: Again, due to the irregular L-shaped lot, site design is more challenging. The cantilevered section of the rear façade 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 encroachment would have no impact on adjacent properties considering that the rear yard abuts the rear 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 open space 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. e. 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 (20) feet. The project is proposing a 19-foot setback for Ida Street. The proposed 8 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 to meet the required standard 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 (TS18-001) 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. The purpose of the map is to create a 9-lot subdivision: 8 air space condomiums with no real impact on the orientation of the lots on the project site itself , and one common area parcel for shared usable open space; 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 two (2) units on G Street and six (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, and appropriate Variance findings have been made as noted above; 3. 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 eight (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 pr oject; 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) 9 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 late st Building and Fire codes to ensure the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors; c) the City’s Public Works Department (DPW) reviewed project and determined that it would be subject to new Marin County Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) regulations as required by the California State Water Resources Control Board. As such, DPW added a condition (COA #29)- to require the project provide an analysis to show the project complies with MCSTOPPP requirements, and also encourages the use of bio-retention areas on site; d) the San Rafael Sanitation District reviewed the drainage and proposed sewer connections for the project site and deemed the project design to be in keeping with City standards; and e) 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. DPW condition (COA #28) requires the applicant to verify that the project has no impacts on easements. Subdivision Exception Request Findings (EX18-003) 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 an on-site recreational facility 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 than eight (8) units 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. 10 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); 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 6 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 3 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 (ED18-021) 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, October 9, 2018, 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. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED18-021) approving the Project shall run concurrently with the approved Tentative Map (TS18-001), Variance (V18-006) and Exception to Subdivision Ordinance (EX18-003). If any entitlement expires, this Environmental and Design Review Permit approving the Project, as depicted on Project plans, shall also expire and become invalid. 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED18-021) shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the Project site, subject to these condition s, provided that a building/grading permit is issued, and construction commenced, by June 16, 2019. Failure to 11 obtain a building permit or grading permit and construction or grading activities commenced will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit. No further time extensions for this project may be granted given that the maximum 5-year timeline for tentative maps will be reached by July 1, 2019 (see Tentative Map Conditions of Approval on Page 16). 4. 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. 5. A copy of the Conditions of Approval for ED18-021 shall be included as a plan sheet with the building permit plan submittal. 6. Once a building permit for the proposed site improvements is issued within the deadline and construction is commenced, 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 Planning Department, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare), to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 9. 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. 10. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 11. 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. 12. The applicant/property owner agree to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City of San Rafael, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose 12 of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the certification of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 13. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described abo ve is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant/property owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant/property owner is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where the property owner/applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 14. As a condition of this approval, the applicant/property owner agree to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City. Community Development Department – Building Division 15. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Residential Code (CRC), 2016 California Building Code (CBC), 2016 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2016 California Electrical Code (CEC), 2016 California Mechanical Code CCMC), 2 016 California Fire Code (CFC), 2016 California Energy Code, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 16. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4 ) complete sets of construction drawings to include: a. Architectural plans b. Structural plans c. Electrical plans d. Plumbing plans e. Mechanical plans f. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building) g. Structural Calculations h. Truss Calculations i. Soils reports j. Green Building documentation k. Title-24 energy documentation 13 17. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8 “Ma ximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of Opening Protection.” To calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected. 18. Townhouses more than three stories above grade in height must comply with the CBC. CBC Table 705.8 allows: • 15% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 3’ to less than 5’ from the property line or buildings on the same property. • 25% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 5’ to less than 10’ from the property line or buildings on the same property. • 45% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 10’ to less than 15’ from the property line or buildings on the same property. 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. 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. You must apply for a new address for this building from the Building Division. 22. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the average unit square footage. New multi-family dwellings must comply with the “Green Building Rating System” by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 65 and 75 points. Additionally, the energy budget must also be below Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15%. Fire Department - Fire Prevention Bureau 23. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 24. Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems: a. Fire Sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) b. Fire Underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) c. Fire Alarm plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) 25. A fire apparatus access plan shall be pr epared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location the following: a. Street address signage. b. Recessed Knox Boxes c. Fire Alarm annunciator panel. 14 26. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the buildings. A recessed moun ted Knox Box # 3275 Series is required for this project; the Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane. Note the Knox Box must be installed from 72” to 78” above finish grade; show the location on the plans. 27. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for the water supply serving the fire protection system. Public Works Department – Land Development Division 28. Easements: Show the easements on the site plan. A 3-foot utility easement is shown on the northern portion of the site. It is unclear if this easement serves other utilities; please confirm that location of the drainage in this easement does not have a conflict. 29. Drainage: This project proposes over 5000 square feet of impervious surface and is a regulated project under the MCSTOPPP requirements. Provide a stormwater control plan, which includes a written document, in addition to the erosion control plan shown on the plan set. More specific information is available from MCSTOPPP, hosted on the Marin County Website. See tools and guidance, and post construction requirements at:http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and-redevelopment- projects • Based on the proposed plan the required stormwater treatment will be achieved using bioretention and pervious pavement. The plans indicate bioretention is provided, however it appears that some of this may be labeled as bioswales. The treatment rates for these facilities are different. Prior to issuance of a building permit the required treatment area shall be provided. It appears that the bioswale areas may be modified to bioretention areas which is acceptable. • A stormwater facilities maintenance agreement shall be required. • Stormwater runoff shall not be increased. We recommend surface runoff to be directed towards the bioretention areas or in vegetated swales, as opposed to area drains connected directly to the gutter. • The bioswale located along the front of the common area shall be modified to include pedestrian access through the gate. 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, include an erosion and sediment control plan. 31. The following comments are for informational purposes: Access: • The driveways for the units on G Street are constricted before one full car length back from the garage. This may limit vehicle maneuverability exiting the garage. Additionally, it may limit the ability to park a second vehicle on the driveway. We recommend minor modifications to the onsite taper and front yard fence which may improve access, onsite parking and maneuverability. 15 • The replacement of the curb on G Street shall extend to include the proposed under sidewalk drains. These outlets shall include a junction box located immediately inside the property line, according to the uniform construction standards. • An Encroachment Permit shall be required for work any work within the Right -of-Way from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew Street. Staging, stockpiling, or debris bin placement shall not occur within the Right-of-Way. General: • A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance; which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. • Applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee in the amount of $25,476 for 6 peak hour trips (3 AM and 3 PM trips) if the townhouses are ownership units. Or pay a traffic mitigation fee in the amount of $42,460 for 10 peak hour trips (5 AM and 5 PM trips) if they are rental units. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) 32. Pipe material and minimum cover for the laterals should be indicated on the plans. Acceptable pipe materials for side sewer laterals can be found on the SRSD Standard Specifications and Drawings on the SRSD website. 33.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. 34. Additional cleanouts are required with every change of direction of the pipe and within 90 linear feet. 35. Trench section details conforming to the SRSD Standard Specifications are required and shall be included on the plans. 36. 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. 37. Sewer connection fees are required and shall be paid to the San Rafael Sanitation District before issuance of the building permit. Marin Municipal Water District 38. The project site is currently being served. The purpose 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. However, the property’s current annual water entitlement is insufficient for this new use; therefore, the purchase of additional water entitlement will be required. Water service 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. 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 16 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 f. 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. g. Comply with Ordinance No. 429, requiring the installation of gray water recycling systems when practicable for all projects required to install new water service and existing structures undergoing “substantial remodel” that necessitates an enlarged water service. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 39. Prior to the start of excavation or construction it is required that the contractor call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Tentative Map (TS18-001) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The Tentative Map (TS18-001) shall be valid until June 16, 2019, which is five (5) years after the date of the original June 16, 2014 City Council’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. No additional time extensions can be requested, but if need be, an application for a new Tentative Map and associated entitlements could be submitted to the Planning Division. 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 one (1) of the eight (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 one (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. 3. 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 eight (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. The proposed 9 lot subdivision would be required to pay a Parkland Dedication Fee of $15,743.81. 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 15.38.045 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 homeowner’s association (HOA). 17 b. HOA responsibilities for ongoing maintenance of the shared or common facilities, including but not limited to the common driveway, common entryways, common landscaping and irrigation, fencing, subdivision infrastructure improvements (storm water and sanitary sewer facilities) and exterior building and lighting improvements. c. 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. Provisions to include access for common areas as well as for maintenance of required improvements. d. 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 and the City Attorney’s Office. 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 9th day of October 2018 Moved by Commissioner _____________ and seconded by Commissioner ________________. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Paul A Jensen, Secretary Berenice Davidson, Chair