HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2016-07-26 Agenda Packet AGENDA
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, July 26, 2016, 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 though 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 that 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.
Members of the public may speak on Agenda items.
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, May 10, 2016
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 21 G St -Time extension request for a previously approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Variance
(V12-002), Exception (EX13-008) and Tentative Map (TS13-002) to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential
townhomes on a .24 acre through lot between G Street and Ida Street. No change to the project is proposed. The existing home
at 21 G Street would be demolished and replaced with 2 townhomes. The project is also seeking Tentative Map Approval to
divide the 8 units into air 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). ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004. Project Planner: Caron Parker
3. 1200 Grand Ave (Stevens Second Unit) – Request for Use Permit and Second Unit approval to allow an existing one-story
detached cottage structure (approx. 20’ by 20’ dimension) located in the required residential rear and side yard setbacks to be
used as a one bedroom second dwelling unit. Leonard Stevens, owner/applicant; R-5 Zone District; APN 014 054 23; File No.:
SDU 16-003 and UP16-027. Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini
4. San Rafael Public Safety Center- 1313 5th Avenue/1039 C Street – Request for Environmental and Design Review Permit and
Use Permit to develop a new, 44,000-square-foot Public Safety Center for fire, police and emergency services to replace the
existing Fire Station 51 (Downtown Fire Station). The project includes a subterranean garage, public plaza and associated site
and landscaping improvements. APNs: 011-205-04, 011-205-01 and 011-205-17; Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and Fifth/Mission
Residential/Office (5/MR/O) Districts; City of San Rafael, applicant and property owner; File Nos: ED15-080 and UP15-35.
Project Planner: Paul Jensen
5. 270 Linden Ln. – Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Conditional Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED14-052) allowing the construction of a two new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft.,
‘flag’ lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping; APN: 015-041-56; Single-Family
Residential (R7.5) District; Raymond S. Bergante TR, owner; Daniel Stitzel, applicant; File No.: AP16-001. Project Planner: Steve
Stafford
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
I. Next Meeting: August 9, 2016. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, July 22, 2016, I posted a notice of the July 26, 2016
Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, May 10, 2016
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: Berenice Davidson
Jack Robertson
Barrett Schaefer
Gerald Belletto
Absent: Larry Paul
Barrett Schaefer
Viktoriya Wise
Also Present: Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manger
Steve Stafford, Associate Planner
Lisa Newman, Contract Planner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
URGENT COMMUNICATION
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes, April 12, 2016
Gerald Belletto moved and Jack Robertson seconded to approve Minutes as presented. The vote is as
follows:
AYES: Berenice Davidson, Jack Robertson, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mark Lubamersky
ABSENT: Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Viktoriya Wise
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 1. 815 B St. (formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) – Requests for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Lot Consolidation for
the demolition of two residential and one commercial structure and construction of
a new 4-story mixed use building with 41 residential units above 1,939 sq. ft. of
ground-floor commercial space and 48 parking spaces; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -
15 &-32; Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) & Cross Street Mixed Use
(CSMU) District), Monahan Parker Inc., Applicant; Thomas Monahan & Jonathan
Parker of Monahan Parker. Inc. & Harold Parker Properties LP, Owners; Case
Number(s): ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003. Project Planner: Steve Stafford
Berenice Davidson moved and Jack Robertson seconded to adopt resolution certifying Final
Environmental Report. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Berenice Davidson, Jack Robertson, Gerald Belletto, Mark Lubamersky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Viktoriya Wise
Berenice Davidson moved and Gerald Belletto seconded to adopt resolution approving CEQA findings of
fact, approving a statement of overriding considerations and approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMRP). The vote is as follows:
AYES: Berenice Davidson, Jack Robertson, Gerald Belletto, Mark Lubamersky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Viktoriya Wise
Jack Robertson moved and Berenice Davidson seconded to adopt resolution approving planning permits
with modifications as outlined by staff. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Berenice Davidson, Jack Robertson, Gerald Belletto, Mark Lubamersky
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Viktoriya Wise
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT:
___________________________________
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2016
_____________________________________
Mark Lubamersky,Chair
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: July 26, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
ED16-022/TS16-002
V16-004/EX16-004
Project Planner:
Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 21 G St.: Request for a time extension to the previously approved Environmental and
Design Review Permit, Tentative Map, Variance, and Subdivision Exception (ED12-
058/TS13-002/V12-002/EX13-008) to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential
townhomes on a 0.24 acre through lot between G Street 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). ED16-
022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004.
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 on February 25, 2014. The project included a Design Review Permit for the design of the 8
three story townhomes, a Tentative Map for the subdivision of the units into air space, Variance for 5
different development standards and an Exception to the Subdivision Ordinance requiring an on-site
recreational facility.
The Planning Commission’s approval was appealed by an adjacent property owner. The appellant and
applicant worked together after the filing of the appeal. After nearly a year and no resolution, the appeal
was scheduled for a City Council hearing. However, just prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew their
appeal, but the hearing was still conducted since it had been noticed. On June 16, 2014, the Council
conducted a public hearing on the appeal and ultimately denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
approval of a new 8-unit townhome development. Therefore, the project was approved, with conditions.
The two-year deadline for the entitlements listed above was February 25, 2016. The project applicant
applied for a time extension prior to this deadline, on February 22, 2016. There are no changes
proposed to the previously approved project plans. However, based on referral comments from City
departments, the plans were revised to address new conditions of approval required by Department of
Public Works (MCSTOPPP regulations) and San Rafael Sanitation District. All other conditions of
approval from the 2014 Planning Commission approval would remain in effect and are included in the
Draft Resolution. As yet, staff received no comments to the public hearing notice mailed.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004 Page 2
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 the new 8 unit residential townhome
project.
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: 36’
Proposed: 31’10” (G St)/33’4” (Ida St)
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 (732
sf). Total = 2,051 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
4’/6’
N/A/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 W est 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
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. A new 10-unit development is currently under construction across the street at 1700 Fourth
Street (corner of 4th and G 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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004 Page 3
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 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.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
There are no changes to the proposed project. The project is the same as what was reviewed and
approved by the City in 2014, as identified below:
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 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 12 tandem garage spaces (2 for each unit on Ida Street).
Proposed building height would be below the 30’ height limit. 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.
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 4 feet on G St. and 5 feet on Ida St. There
would be 10 feet of separation between the rear of the townhome buildings. 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 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. (mansard) and Ida St. (flat roof). The exterior building materials are a mix of Hardie shingle and
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 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. 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 departments.
Updated conditions of approval from Department of Public Works and San Rafael Sanitary District are
included in the Draft Resolution. Staff has determined that the proposed project continues to be
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004 Page 4
generally consistent with the General Plan policies as discussed in the attached 2014 Planning
Commission staff report (Exhibit 3). Further, the project Findings and Conditions of Approval (as
delineated in the City Council Resolution 13746 (Exhibit 4) remain applicable to the proposed project,
subject to updated conditions of approval, as specified by San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) and
Department of Public Works (DPW ) in the Draft Resolution (Exhibit 1). Typically, time extensions
requests are considered routine, especially when there are minimal changes proposed to the previously
approved plans. The project as presented has not changed from the project reviewed and conditionally
approved in 2014.
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 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 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 July
12, 2016 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 street frontage and Ida Street frontage. A second
notice was mailed to notify the public that the hearing had been rescheduled to July 26, 2016. Staff
received one call from an adjacent neighbor requesting information about the hearing date. 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 in February 2014 and reaffirmed by the City Council (on appeal) in June 2014. The
8-units will bring necessary housing to the City, including one affordable unit. As such, staff continues to
support the proposed and conditionally approved in 2014, subject to the revised SRSD and DPW
conditions of approval. .
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.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED16-022/TS16-002/V16-004/EX16-004 Page 5
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Planning Commission staff report, February 25, 2014
4. City Council Resolution 13746, adopted June 16, 2014
11” x 17” plans provided to the Planning Commissioners only.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED16-022), TENTATIVE MAP (TS16-002), VARIANCES
(V16-004) FOR FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD, MINIMUM FRONT
LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AND SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
(EX16-004) TO THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT, WHICH WERE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTITLEMENTS (ED12-058/TS13-002/V12-002/EX13-008)
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 (CDR11-004) 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 but was
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
2
WHEREAS, based on the provision of 1 of the 8 units as aff ordable to low income households,
the project qualifies for a State density bonus of 20% above the maximum density allowed by the City, or
3 additional units and 1 concession to zoning standards, consistent with the requirements of California
Government Code Section 65915 and Section 14.16.030.H 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 12 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 Sect ion 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 the 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 Divisi on 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 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 eet
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; 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, Daisy Carlson, (adjacent
resident at 15 G Street), filed a timely appeal (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, citing that the proposed project will be detrimental and injurious to her
property at 15 G Street because of the proposed 3-story structure was too tall, was requesting too many
3
variances, eliminating too much on-street parking, and does not fit into the existing neighborhood
character and;
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2014, , notice of public hearing by the City Council of the appeal was
mailed to residents, property owners, and businesses within 300 feet of the site and the site was posted
with the public hearing notification ; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2014, the appellant agreed to formally withdraw the appeal, submitting
an e-mail message stating her intent to withdraw the appeal based on a tentative agreement with the
applicant to modify the approved project to reduce height and bulk and increase side yard setback,
including: 1) changing the gable roof to a mansard, thereby reducing the height of the building from 33
feet 3 inches as measured to the midpoint of the gable roof to a height of 29.8 feet as measured to the
roof deck of the mansard roof; and 2) providing a 5 foot side yard setback (instead of the proposed 4 foot
setback) along the south side of the G Street townhome; 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 and 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 appeal
points and the project design modifications reflected in the tentative agreemen t between the appellant and
the applicant, ultimately voting to deny the appeal and uphold 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
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 14-03, denying the appeal (AP14-001) of
Daisy Carlson and upholding the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission approval of Environmental
and Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Tentative Map (TS12-002), Variance (V12-002), and
Subdivision Exception (EX13-008) for the construction of 8 condominium units at the 21 G Street
project site and incorporating additional modifications as agreed upon between the appellant and the
applicant (as a condition of withdrawing the appeal); and
WHEREAS, the approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Tentative
Map (TS12-002), Variance (V12-002), and Subdivision Exception (EX13-008) were provided a two year
timeframe within which to obtain the required Building Permits and commence construction. The two
year approval was set to expire on February 25, 2016 and the applicant submitted a request for a time
extension on February 22, 2016, prior to the expiration date; and
WHEREAS, the proposed time extension was reviewed by the City of San Rafael’s Building
Department, Department of Public Works, Fire Prevention Bureau, San Rafael Sanitary District, Marin
Municipal Water District, and Pacific Gas and Electric and the project was recommended for approval
subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled for
July 12, 2016, but was subsequently cancelled due to the lack of a quorum by Commissioner’s and
continued to the next regular meeting, July 26, 2016; and
4
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 resident ial 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, on July 26, 2016, 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;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this
decision is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San
Rafael does hereby approves the time extension for Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED16-
022), Tentative Map (TS16-002), Variance (V16-004) Subdivision Exception (EX16-004) for the
development of 8 new townhomes on G Street, including 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 the townhomes on Ida Street, for enroachments into the
required rear yard setback and an encroachment into the driveway setback, and a waiver of the on-site
recreational room requirement based on the following Findings and subject to the Conditions of
Approval).
Environmental and Design Review Findings
(ED16-022)
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
5
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 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 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:
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 .
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 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;
6
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; 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 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.”
Variance Findings
(V16-004)
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 pr operty
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;
7
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 varian ces - 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 (11’ 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
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 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 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 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 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. Further, 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
8
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
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.
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
9
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 ft. 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 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 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 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.
10
Tentative Map Findings
(TS16-002)
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 previous 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;
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 exist ing 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 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 #25) to require the
project provide an analysis to show the project complies with MCSTOPPP requirements, and also
11
encourages the use of bio-retention areas on site. The project has been revised to comply with
MCSTOPPP; 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 ,
but has added a new condition (COA #29) requiring that the plans be revised so that the sewer lateral
from the G Street has their separate lateral towards Ida Street; 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 proper ty 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 #24)
requires the applicant to verify that the project has no impacts on easements.
Subdivision Exception Request Findings
(EX16-004)
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 mor e than 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.
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);
12
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 (ED16-022)
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, July 26, 2016, 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 ED16-022 shall be included as a plan sheet with the
building permit plan submittal.
3. 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 (ED16-022) shall be valid for two years from the
date of Planning Commission approval, or until July 26, 2018, 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.
13
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 Planning Department,
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare), 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 a t 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
14
k. Green Building documentation
l. 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 ½ inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with ½ 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 $3.36 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
15
threshold between 75 and 200 points. Additionally the energy budget must also be below Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square
footage).
Public Works Department – Land Development Division –
24. 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.
25. Drainage: New MCSTOPPP requirements have been implemented in compliance with the State
Water Resources Control Board. The applicant shall provide an analysis to show that the proposed
improvements meet the requirements or modify the plan to meet the requirements. Bioretention areas
are encouraged.
26. 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
27. Include and make part of the plans the sheet “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” (see
attached).
28. 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. Minor modifications to the onsite taper and
front yard fence may improve access, onsite parking and maneuverability.
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)
29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, please revise the plans so the lateral from the Duplex facing G
Street has their separate lateral towards Ida Street.
30. Existing facilities, including sewer lines, should be screened back to a lighter weight, and proposed
facilities drawn in black.
16
31. 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.
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 Specification 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. An additional cleanout is required near the south west corner of the 6 unit complex.
35. Additional cleanouts are required with every change of direction of the pipe and within 90 linear feet.
36. Trench section details conforming to the SRSD Standard Specification are required and shall be
included on the plans
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, sewer connection fees in the amount of $71,841.44 are
required and shall be paid to the San Rafael Sanitation District. These fees are effective from July 1,
2015 to June 30, 2016.
Marin Municipal Water District
40. 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
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
17
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)
41. 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 (TS16-002)
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department - Planning Division
1. The Tentative Map (TS16-002) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of Planning
Commission approval, or until July 26, 2018, 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.
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 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 8 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 adjus ted 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 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.
18
c. HOA financial responsibility for center lane striping modifications that may be required in
the future to coordinate with Caltrans street improvements propo sed 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 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 26th day of July, 2016.
Moved by Commissioner ________and seconded by Commissioner ________ as follows:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: July 26, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
SDU16-003 & UP16-027
Project Planner:
Kraig Tambornini[kt]415-485-3092
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 1200 Grand Ave (Stevens Second Unit) – Request for Use Permit and Second Unit
approval to allow an existing one-story detached cottage structure (approx. 20’ by 20’
dimension) located in the required residential rear and side yard setbacks to be used as
a one bedroom second dwelling unit. Leonard Stevens, owner/applicant; R-5 Zone
District; APN 014 054 23; File No.: SDU16-003 and UP16-027
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take action to adopt a resolution approving a second
unit within a required yard setback area.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 1200 Grand Ave Parcel Number(s): 014 054 23
Property Size: 9,380 sq. ft. Neighborhood: Montecito
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: LDR R5 Residence
North: MDR DR Duplex
South: MDR MR2.5 Duplex
East: LDR MR3 Residence
West: LDR R5 Residence
Site Description/Setting:
The property is a triangular shaped level lot located at the corner of Mission Ave and Grand Ave, in the
Montecito neighborhood area. The lot is developed with a two-story residence, detached carport and
detached accessory structure.
BACKGROUND
The property was developed in 1926 with a two story home, approximately 4,462 square feet in size, plus
a detached garage. The subject accessory garage was converted to living space in 2004 (B0409-083). In
2015 it was discovered that a kitchen had been installed in the converted garage, making it a second
dwelling unit. In May 2016, the applicant submitted applications to legalize conversion of the guest house
to a second unit.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP16-027 & SDU 16-003 Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to legalize conversion of a detached guest house into a second unit through permitting a kitchen
in addition to the existing bedroom, bathroom and living space improvements within the 543 square foot
structure. The guest house, proposed to be a second unit, is located within the side setbacks and
designated rear yard (triangular shaped lot), which requires Planning commission approval of a use
permit.
ANALYSIS
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The Standards for review of Second Dwelling Unit established under San Rafael Municipal Code Section
14.16.285 are discussed as follows:
1. Density. A maximum of one second dwelling unit shall be permitted per residential lot containing a
single-family dwelling. Second dwelling units are not required to meet density requirements for the
general plan or zoning ordinance.
Analysis: The unit complies with the density standards as the property would remain developed with a
two story main house and detached unit that would be occupied by the property owner.
2. Rental or Lease. A second dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the principal residence.
Analysis: The unit complies as it would be deed restricted and remain on the same lot as the principal
dwelling.
3. Owner Occupancy and Deed Restriction. The property owner shall occupy either the main single-
family dwelling or the second dwelling unit as their principal residence throughout the life of the
second dwelling unit. Prior to obtaining a building permit for a second dwelling unit, the property
owner shall file with the county recorder a declaration or agreement of restrictions, which has been
approved by the city attorney as to its form and content, containing a reference to the deed under
which the property was acquired by the owner and stating that:
a. The second dwelling unit shall not be sold separately;
b. The second dwelling unit shall be restricted to the maximum size allowed per the development
standards in Section 14.16.285(C)(6);
c. The second dwelling unit shall be considered legal only so long as either the primary residence,
or the second dwelling unit, is occupied by the owner of record of the property; and
d. The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of
compliance may subject the property owner to enforcement action by the city.
Analysis: The unit complies based on the fact that the owner proposes to occupy the unit and a draft
Deed Restriction (Exhibit 3) has been prepared which would be recorded prior to issuance of building
permits required to legalize the conversion.
4. Building and Housing Code Compliance. All new or expanded second dwelling units must comply with
the Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Building Code in addition to the requirements of this title.
Legalization of existing unauthorized second dwelling units shall require compliance with the Uniform
Housing Code to ensure unit habitability, provided that the property owner must show proof that the unit
was in existence prior to June 6, 1983. An inspection must be made by the building and safety division
of the community development department or by an inspection firm approved by said building and
safety division to determine compliance with applicable codes.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP16-027 & SDU 16-003 Page 3
Analysis: The project shall comply based on the fact that the building division has reviewed the referral
and would require a building permit to assure the kitchen improvements comply with codes, which could
include modification to the interior plan for the unit.
5. Attached/Detached Units. Second dwelling units may be within or attached to the principal residence
or within a separate building on the same lot as the principal residence.
Analysis: The detached unit is in compliance with the permitted types of units.
6. Size Limits. The square footage of a second dwelling unit shall be no greater than forty percent
(40%) of the gross square footage of the principal residence, excluding the garage area; except that
any second dwelling unit may be at least five hundred (500) square feet even if that exceeds forty
percent (40%) of the principal residence. A second dwelling unit larger than eight hundred (800)
square feet in size shall require the issuance of a use permit approved by the planning commission.
In no case shall the second dwelling unit exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet in size.
Analysis: The unit size complies as it would not exceed the maximum size allowance and is less than
13% the size of the 4,462 square foot main house.
7. Property Development Standards. Second dwelling units must comply with existing zoning
requirements including property development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, building height
and private yard areas except that:
a. Minimum Lot Size. No second dwelling shall be located on a lot less than five thousand (5,000)
square feet in size.
b. Height. Second dwelling units added to the structure containing the principal residence shall be
subject to the height requirements otherwise applicable to the principal residential structure.
Second units constructed as a separate building and located in side or rear setback areas
otherwise applicable to the principal residential structure shall not exceed fifteen feet (15′) in height
within the setback areas, unless authorized by approval of a use permit by the planning
commission.
c. Setbacks. Second dwelling units added or attached to the structure containing the principal
residence shall be subject to the setback requirements otherwise applicable to the principal
residential structure. Second dwelling units constructed as a separate building shall be subject to
the setback requirements otherwise applicable to accessory buildings except that such units
located within side or rear setback areas shall require approval of a use permit by the planning
commission.
d. Nonconforming Structures. Where a second dwelling unit is proposed in a nonconforming
structure, the proposed second unit shall not increase the spatial nonconformity of the site or the
improvements.
Analysis: The lot size exceeds the minimum 5,000 sf requirement, would not increase the height of the
existing one-story structure and is not in a nonconforming structure. The detached structure is located
within the required 5 foot minimum side yard setbacks of a triangular shaped lot in the R5 district. Staff
notes the Zoning Ordinance does not specify a method for determining a rear yard for a triangular
shaped lot.
Because the unit is within the required yard setbacks, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been
required and requested pursuant to subsection c above. Conditional Use Permit findings required per
San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.22 that must be satisfied for grant of a second unit in the required
setbacks are as follows:
A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance,
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city;
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP16-027 & SDU 16-003 Page 4
C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.
General Plan 2020 and the San Rafael Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance permit and encourage second
units, in accordance with local housing policies and state law. The use would satisfy the second dwelling
unit standards as described herein. Further, the structure already has been converted to living space by
prior permits and the scope of work only involves legalizing a kitchen area within the existing structure.
Compliance with building codes would assure health and safety standards would be met. Therefore, the
use would be in accord with the General Plan, zoning and other municipal code provisions.
8. Parking. Off-street parking shall be required for each second dwelling unit, in addition to the parking
required for the existing single-family dwelling. One (1) off-street parking space shall be required for
studio and one-bedroom second dwelling units. Two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be required
for second dwelling units with two (2) or more bedrooms. Required parking options are as follows:
a. One (1) parking space for a second dwelling unit may be sited in the front yard setback provided
that: 1) the parking space is located within a paved area adjacent and parallel to the driveway,
between the driveway and the nearest side lot line; and 2) the curb cut is not increased.
b. One (1) required space for the second dwelling unit may be uncovered and tandem (located
behind another uncovered or covered parking space) on a driveway having a length of at least
eighteen feet (18') behind the sidewalk or property line, provided the property has frontage on a
street having a paved width of at least thirty-eight feet (38').
c. Off-street parking for the second dwelling unit that requires a new driveway curb cut, either for
establishing an additional driveway or for increasing the width of the existing curb cut, may be
proposed subject to an affirmative recommendation by the public works department and the
approval of an environmental and design review permit by the zoning administrator. The purpose of
this permit review is to ensure that the alternative parking design is appropriate given the site
conditions, is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood, and would
not result in a safety hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
Analysis: The second unit complies with the requirement subsection a., for one (1) new parking space
to be provided for a 1-bedroom unit, in addition to the existing two covered spaces provided for the main
residence. Grand Avenue is a fully improved street with parking on both sides, and the driveway on the
property exceeds 18 feet in length. Therefore, pursuant to subsection b., the parking space for the unit
can be provided as tandem parking within the driveway.
9. Architectural Compatibility. Construction of second dwelling units that entail exterior expansion or
modification of the principal residential structure or accessory building, or construction of a new
building, shall be subject to the following design criteria:
a. The second dwelling unit construction shall incorporate the same or similar exterior materials,
including window style, as the structure containing the principal residence;
b. The second dwelling unit construction shall incorporate the same or similar exterior colors and
architectural detailing as the structure containing the principal residence;
c. The second dwelling unit construction shall incorporate the same or similar roof pitch as the
structure containing the principal residence;
d. Separate entrances to the principal residence and the second dwelling unit are required and may
not be located on the same exterior building elevation which is most parallel to the front property
line;
e. The construction or alteration of second dwelling units in the following locations shall be subject
to the issuance of an environmental and design review permit consistent with the requirements of
Sections 14.25.030 and 14.25.040(B) of this title, and the review criteria contained in Section
14.25.050(F)(6) of this title:
1. Upper story additions to the structure containing the principal residence which exceed five
hundred (500) square feet,
2. Second dwelling units which are located above the ground floor in a separate or accessory
structure, or
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP16-027 & SDU 16-003 Page 5
3. Second dwelling units which are located within a separate or accessory structure within the side
or rear setbacks (required for the principal structure);
f. The construction or alteration of second dwelling units on residential lots with slopes over twenty-
five percent (25%) which entail exterior modifications to existing structures or construction of a new
building shall be subject to the issuance of an environmental and design review permit consistent
with the requirements of Chapters 14.12 and 14.25 of this title.
Analysis: The unit complies given that it requires no exterior changes to be made to the existing
detached guest house structure.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts modifications to residential
structures.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, the MARA Neighborhood Association, and all other
interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Posting of the
Notice on-site was not required. Comments were received from a neighbor and MARA. Copies of all
written public correspondence on the proposed project received to date are attached to this report as
Exhibit 4. There have been no objections raised with granting the Use Permit for a second unit located in
the rear and side property setbacks.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the applications as presented (Staff Recommended)
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
4. Deny the project (Not Recommended)
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution for Approval UP16-027 & SDU16-003
3. Draft Deed Restriction
4. Public Correspondence
5. Plans
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit 2 – PC Resolution
July 26, 2016 PC Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A USE
PERMIT AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT (UP16-027 & SDU 16-003) LOCATED AT 1200
GRAND AVENUE
APN: 014 054 23
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2016, Leonard Stevens submitted Use Permit and Second
Dwelling Unit Review application(s) to legalize conversion of a 543 square foot guest house
(former garage) into a second unit at 1200 Grand Avenue, in the R5 Residential Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, The property was developed in 1926 with a two story home, approximately
4,462 square feet in size, and the subject detached garage accessory structure that was converted
to living space in 2004 by building permit B0409-083; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts minor alterations to existing residential
structures; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on the proposed project UP16-027 & SDU16-003, accepting all oral and written
public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings relating to the Use Permit for Second Dwelling Unit in the required setbacks:
Findings (UP16-027)
A. The second unit as proposed and located in the rear and side yard setbacks is in accord with
the General Plan 2020. Objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and purposes of the R5 Zoning
District as follows:
a. The residential use of the property with a second unit is consistent with the
underlying Low Density Residential General Plan 2020 Land Use Designation.
b. Second units are permitted by right on residentially developed lots, subject to
compliance with the performance standards of Chapter 14.16.285, and the project has
been reviewed for compliance with the applicable standards as discussed in the July
26, 2016 staff report to the Planning Commission and Finding C below.
B. The second unit as proposed and located in the required setbacks together with the
conditions of approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area, or to the general welfare of
the City based on the following:
a. The Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and determined that
the Class 3 categorical exemption for the project is appropriate and consistent with
- 2 -
the provisions of CEQA in that the project involves conversion of an existing
detached residential structure on a residentially developed parcel into a second unit
through grant of a permit to have a kitchen, on a residentially zoned parcel, and
b. The existing structure has been permitted and improved for residential use under a
building permit B0409-083 and the modifications to add the kitchen shall be reviewed
and inspected to ensure the unit is compliant with residential building codes.
C. The detached second unit complies with the R5 and Second Unit standards of Section
14.16.285 as noted in staff’s July 26, 2016 report to the Planning Commission which
includes the following determinations:
a. There would be no more than one primary and one second unit on the property, which
would be occupied by a property owner, with a deed restriction recorded against the
parcel that would ensure ongoing compliance is achieved.
b. The unit cannot be subdivided into more units or sold apart from the main dwelling
on the lot, as further reflected in a deed restriction that is required to be recorded on
the property.
c. The unit will obtain a building permit for the kitchen improvements to ensure it
complies with health and safety regulations.
d. The 543 square foot unit would fall well within the size limits established for units,
which requires they shall not exceed 40% of the primary unit size, which in this case
consists of a 4,462 square foot residence.
e. The location of the unit in the setbacks would not conflict with the zoning regulations
as determined by grant of a conditional use permit.
f. The unit would provide parking in the driveway which is permitted for residential lots
with street parking on fully improved public streets and the unit is already designed to
be compatible with the main house as it was built as a garage for the original structure
in 1926 and would not require any exterior changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
approves the Use Permit for Second Dwelling Unit in required setbacks subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of Approval (UP16-027)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. This Use Permit approves conversion of an existing 543 square foot guest house into a one
bedroom second unit (SDU16-003), located in the side and rear setbacks, subject to the
applicant securing a building permit and pursuing construction to complete all necessary
improvements within a timely manner, not to exceed one year from date of approval, or July
26, 2017. If a permit is not issued or a time extension granted prior to the expiration date the
approval shall be null and void.
2. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project, as presented for
approval shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Any future
additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.
- 3 -
3. A Second Unit deed restriction shall be prepared prior to issuance of a building permit and
recorded within six months from date of approval.
4. Parking for the unit is permitted in the existing driveway to the two covered parking spaces
on the property.
5. Construction activities shall comply with City’s Noise Ordinance.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 26th day of July, 2016.
Moved by Commissioner _____________ and seconded by Commissioner ________________.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A Jensen, Secretary , Chair
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: July 26, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
ED15-080 & UP15-035
Project
Planner:
Paul Jensen, 415-485-5064
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: San Rafael Public Safety Center- 1313 5th Avenue/1039 C Street – Request for Environmental
Design Review Permit and Use Permit to develop a new, 43,500-square-foot Public Safety Center
fire, police and emergency services to replace the existing Fire Station 51 (Downtown Fire Station
The project includes a subterranean garage, public plaza and associated site and landscaping
improvements. APNs: 011-205-04, 011-205-01 and 011-205-17; Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and
Fifth/Mission Residential/Office (5/MR/O) Districts; City of San Rafael, applicant and property own
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes the construction of a new, 43,500 square-foot Public Safety Center on 0.85-acres
of City owned property located at 1313 5th Avenue and 1039 C Street. The subject property is currently
developed with the existing Fire Station 51 (1039 C Street), the two-story “Blue House” (1313 5th
Avenue), the City Parking Services Division office modular building and surface parking (public metered
parking lot and City fleet vehicle lot). The new two-story structure would house a new Fire Station 51;
the Fire Department Administrative Division and an Emergency Operations Center; all Police Department
units including administrative, records, patrol operations and dispatching; joint use facilities for the Police
and Fire Departments. The existing Medic Unit 51 (paramedic) would be relocated to the new Fire
Station 52 at 210 3rd Street. The public, metered parking spaces that would be displaced by this project
would be relocated to the City Hall parking lot located immediately north of 5th Avenue (assigned to
parking spaces that are not currently in public use). This project is part of Phase 1 of the San Rafael
Essential Facilities Strategic Plan. This strategic plan was approved by the City Council in 2015, which
also includes the rebuilding Fire Station 52 at 210 3rd Street and the Civic Center Fire Station 57.
Per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is subject
to environmental review. An Initial Study has been prepared and is supported by a number or technical
studies and reports. The Initial Study finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended.
Topic areas of study include, among others, historic/archaeological resources, geology/soils, air quality,
traffic/circulation and biological resources (tree removal). A 30-day public review period for the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been observed.
As proposed and conditioned, the project is consistent with the pertinent policies and programs of the
San Rafael General Plan 2020 and provisions of the Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and Fifth/Mission
Residential/Office (5/MR/O) Districts. The Design Review Board completed an initial Conceptual Review
(Pre-application) in March 2016. Board comments on initial design concepts resulted in changes to the
building design/style and exterior materials. A formal review of the project was completed by the Board
in April 2016. The Board supported the site plan and project layout with some design recommendations.
Regarding the building architecture and exterior materials, the Board directed some additional design
study and revisions, and requested that these revisions return to the Board for review and action. A
condition of approval is recommended, which requires that the design revisions return to the Board
following action by the Planning Commission.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
a. Adopt a resolution adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1); and
b. Adopt a resolution approving Environmental & Design Review Permit ED15-080 and Use Permit
UP15-035 (Attachment 2).
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 1313 5th Avenue/1039 C Street Parcel Number(s): 011-205-01, 04 & 17
Property Size: 0.85 acres Neighborhood: Downtown
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Public/Quasi-Public +
Fifth/Mission
Residential/Office
P/QP & 5/MR/O Fire Station 51; two-story
building (Blue House); one-
story modular structure
(Parking Services); surface
parking lots
North: Public/Quasi-Public P/QP City Hall
South: Fourth Street Retail Core 4SRC Retail/personal
service/office/residential
East: Public/Quasi-Public P/QP Grocery Store (Whole Foods)
West: Fifth/Mission Residential/Office 5/MR/O Office building
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is a level, 0.85-acre site (37,043 square feet) that contains three parcels. The
easternmost parcel is situated at the corner of 5th Avenue and D Street and is developed with Downtown
Fire Station 51. Fire Station 51 was built in 1917 and is approximately 10,000 square feet in size.
Immediately west of this parcel is a surface parking lot (13 parking spaces for City fleet vehicles), which
was purchased by the City in 2014. The westernmost parcel is developed with a two-story, 2,000
square-foot office building (“Blue House” built in 1907 at another site east of the subject property), a
public surface parking lot (33 parking spaces or which 31 are public metered spaces) and a one-story,
1,700 square-foot modular structure (office of City Parking Services). All parcels are owned by the City
of San Rafael.
With the exception of existing tree cover (one Coast live oak and a palm on the surface parking lot west
of the fire station; a mature Japanese maple at fire station entrance; row of mature trees along the
frontage of Via Sessi), the property is mostly paved or covered with buildings. A row of street trees line
the 5th Avenue and D Street frontages.
Surrounding uses include the San Rafael City Hall to the north, a City-owned public parking lot/structure
to the east, commercial/mixed-use to the south and an office building to the west.
BACKGROUND
In 2013, the San Rafael voters approved Measure E, which established a sales tax to fund long-term
improvements to the City’s essential facilities. In 2015, the City Council adopted the San Rafael
Essential Facilities Strategic Plan, which presents the City’s road map for the replacement or
improvements to aging emergency service facilities. The City Council authorized funding for Phase 1 of
this plan which includes the rebuilding of Fire Station 52 and the fire training center, as well as Fire
Station 57 (Marin Civic Center) and a new Public Safety Center (Fire Station 52- Downtown and Police
Department facilities) on 5th Avenue.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A detailed description of the project is provided in a written text, which is presented in Attachment 5 of
this staff report. A brief summary is provided below.
Proposed Use:
The project proposes the construction of a new 43,500-square foot, two-story Public Safety Center. The
center would include/house:
1. A new fire station that would house four, on-duty fire fighters serving a 24-hour shift and a
Battalion Chief. Paramedic Unit 51, which is located at the current Fire Station 51 is proposed to
be relocated to new Fire Station 52 located at 210 3rd Street (3rd and Union Streets).
2. The Fire Department Administrative Division and an Emergency Operations Center.
3. All Police Department units including administrative, records, patrol operations and dispatching.
4. Joint use facilities (for Police and Fire) include, among others, conference rooms, break rooms,
sleeping rooms and fitness center.
The basement level of the center is proposed for the parking of marked, patrol and specialty vehicles, as
well as the Police Department holding facility and storage. A total of 23 parking spaces are proposed at
the basement level in addition to six parking spaces for Police motorcycles and six Police bicycle lockers.
See discussion below under “Parking.”
The existing public parking lot would be eliminated and the administrative offices for the Parking Services
and Economic Development Divisions would be relocated to the lower level of City Hall (currently
occupied by the Police Department).
The layout/organization of the various essential facility uses in the center is presented on Plan Sheets A-
2, A-2.1 and A-2.2.
Site Plan:
The Public Safety Center is designed to front and provide various forms of access from 5th Avenue, C
Street, D Street and Via Sessi. A plaza is proposed at the corner of 5th Avenue and D Street, which
would provide pedestrian access to the building. The new Fire Station 51 is designed to be relocated to
the D Street frontage, providing fire vehicle/apparatus access mid-block, just north of Via Sessi. Vehicle
access to the garage would be provided on both C Street (exit only) and D Street (entrance only). To
provide improved emergency response time, both C and D Streets between 4th Street and 5th Avenue are
proposed to be changed from one-way travel to two-way travel. The site plan is presented on Plan Sheet
A-1.2.
The Public Safety Center building is designed with a zero setback along 5th Avenue (building-to-property
line), following the footprint and urban pattern along the south side of 5th Avenue. A 10-foot setback is
also proposed along the C Street frontage and a one-foot setback is proposed along Via Sessi. However,
the upper floors of the building are designed to step-back at various locations to provide relief and use of
roof-top areas. Adjustments were made to the building footprint to increase the landscape setback along
Via Sessi.
The current buildings and site improvements would be demolished. However, the City has released a
Request for Proposal (RFP), which offers the sale of the Blue House for $1.00 for relocation to another
San Rafael site and reuse.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 4
Architecture:
The project design for the Public Safety Center has evolved as a result of input from various committees
and working groups that are shepherding this project. Further, design changes to the building
architecture and materials have been refined through the Design Review Board review process
(discussed below under Analysis section). The project continues to propose traditional building elevation
elements but has been refined to reflect and a more modern design. For example, the asphalt-shingled,
mansard roof cap has been replaced with a more vertical cornice surfaced in a standing-seam metal
material. The 1 ½-story contemporary glass entrance at the plaza, as well as the building entry along the
5th Avenue frontage and along Via Sessi have been refined to lighten their appearance, which would
provide a more prominent contrast with the other, more traditional building design features. The initially-
proposed masonry/stucco building base has been replaced with an architectural concrete base and
aluminum and metal materials have been added to building features. The design continues to
incorporate (re-use) of the iron balcony that is on the second floor of existing Fire Station 51.
Building and brick colors have been adjusted to tie closer to City Hall.
See Plan Sheets A-3 and A-3.1. Plan Sheets A-4 and A-4.1 present cross-sections through the building.
Parking:
The project is designed to provide off-street parking at the basement level. A total of 23 parking spaces
are proposed in the basement, which are for marked, patrol and specialty vehicles, as well as Police
patrol and fleet vehicles. Twenty-four (24) of the 31 public metered parking lot spaces would be
relocated to the City Hall parking lot located north of 5th Avenue (assigned to parking spaces that are
currently not in public use). The remaining seven public spaces that are provided to monthly parkers
would be relocated to the 5th Avenue/C Street lot/deck. A parking plan has been prepared by Kimley
Horn, transportation consultants to address this relocation. The parking plan is provided as an
attachment to this report (Attachment 6). The parking plan not only addresses the relocation of the
existing public, metered parking but includes logistics for managing City Hall parking for fleet/essential
use vehicles, employee parking and existing public parking at City Hall.
The proposed, one-foot building setback and landscape proposed along Via Sessi would result in
adjustments to the parallel, public metered parking that is along the north side of this alley. At present,
there are nine parking spaces, which are proposed to be reduced to five spaces.
Landscaping & Exterior Lighting:
The landscape plan proposes a pedestrian plaza sited at the corner of 5th Avenue and D Streets. The
siting of the plaza is intended to provide a connection between the Public Safety Center and City Hall,
which will reinforce an organized civic center setting. Landscaping is proposed for the plaza area, which
include the planting of a specimen Valley Oak at the center of the plaza. The entry plaza has been
refined to add brick pavers and brick-capped walls to tie closer to City Hall. Further, raised planters are
proposed for the 10-foot setback along the C Street frontage. Lastly, landscaping is proposed along the
Via Sessi frontage. Street trees are proposed along the 5th Avenue, C and D Street frontages. See Plan
Sheets A-1.3 and A-1.4. A preliminary lighting plan which includes a photometric analysis is presented
on Plan Sheets A-1.8 and A-1.
Grading/Drainage:
A preliminary grading plan and a storm water management plan have been prepared and are presented
on Plan Sheets A-1.5, A-1.6 and A-1.7. The project proposes approximately 5,300 cubic yards of earth
movement with all material being exported/hauled off-site.
Signage:
At this time, no detailed signage program has been developed for the project. However, the design plans
present conceptual signage to demonstrate how signage has been incorporated into the building
architecture. Conceptual signage is limited to a building identification sign above the plaza canopy,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 5
which consists of simple, individual letters (“San Rafael Public Safety Center”). A second wall sign is
proposed above the fire station apparatus bays along the D Street frontage (“Fire Station 51”). See Plan
Sheet A-3.1.
Planning Applications:
The Planning applications include an Environmental and Design Review Permit and a Use Permit to
allow a public facility use in the 5/MR/O District. As the property is defined by three, separate parcels, a
lot consolidation action will be required, but it not currently proposed.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
A detailed analysis of the project consistency with the General Plan 2020 has been prepared in table
format and is provided as an attachment to this staff report (Attachment 3). A summary of key policies
and programs is provided below. Staff has identified a number of key General Plan 2020 policies and
programs that should be considered. First, as proposed, the project is consistent with the pertinent
policies of the Land Use Element including; Policy LU-23 (Land Use and Map Categories – Public/Quasi-
Public; Fifth/Mission Residential/Office); Policy LU-9 (Intensity of Nonresidential Land Use Development
– 1.0 to 1.5 floor area ratio cap- 1.17 proposed); Policy LU-12 (Building Heights- maximum height of 36-
42 feet); and Policy LU-14 (Land Use Compatibility). The proposed land use, floor area ratio and
building height are consistent with and within the limits set by these policies. Further, this use is
appropriate for the site and would facilitate an expanded City Hall civic center campus. Other key policies
that are pertinent to this project are as follows:
CD-2. Neighborhood Identity. Recognize and promote the unique character and integrity of the city's
residential neighborhoods and Downtown. Strengthen the "hometown" image of San Rafael by:
Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of the Downtown;
Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the City's residential
neighborhoods;
Improving the appearance and function of commercial areas; and
Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local residents and
create neighborhood-gathering places.
CD-3. Neighborhoods. Recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give
neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. Develop
programs to encourage and respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods.
NH-29. Downtown Design. New and remodeled buildings must contribute to Downtown’s hometown
feel. Design elements that enhance Downtown’s identity and complement the existing attractive
environment are encouraged, and may be required for locations with high visibility or for compatibility
with historic resources. Design considerations include:
Varied and distinctive building designs,
Sensitive treatment of historic resources
Generous landscaping to accent buildings,
Appropriate materials and construction, and
Site design and streetscape continuity
CD-4. Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive image by recognizing,
preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources.
CA-13. Historic Buildings and Areas. Preserve buildings and areas with special and recognized
historic, architectural or aesthetic value including but not limited to those on the San Rafael
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 6
Historical/Architectural Survey. New development and redevelopment should respect architecturally
and historically significant buildings and areas.
C-4. Safe Roadway Design. Design of roadways should be safe and convenient for motor vehicles,
transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Place highest priority on safety. In order to maximize safety and
multimodal mobility, the City Council may determine that an intersection is exempt from the
applicable intersection level of service standard where it is determined that a circulation improvement
is needed for public safety considerations, including bicycle and pedestrian safety, and/or transit use
improvements.
C-30. Downtown Parking. Optimize the use of parking spaces Downtown.
As proposed and as conditioned, staff finds that overall, the project is consistent with these and all
pertinent policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. The project has been designed to
complement the design and be in-scale with the neighboring properties and improvements. The
proposed public plaza reinforces a civic center environment by establishing a connection with City Hall.
Regarding Community Design Element Policy CD-4 (Historic Resources) and Cultural and Arts Element
Policy CA-13 (Historic Buildings and Areas), the development of the Public Safety Center would result in
the demolition of existing Fire Station 51 and the “Blue House” office building. The Blue House is listed
on the City’s Historical and Architectural Survey (1977), which acknowledges that the building was
relocated to this property from another site east of St. Raphael’s Church. The survey provides the Blue
House (built in 1907) with a “good” rating. Although built in 1917, the existing Fire Station 51 is not listed
on the City’s survey. A historic assessment of both buildings was prepared by Tom Origer & Associates,
architectural historians. This assessment finds that neither building meet the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) criteria to be defined as a historic resource. An expanded discussion of this topic is
provided in the Environmental Determination section of this staff report.
As described above, the project proposes to: a) relocate the fire station and apparatus access from C
Street to D Street; and b) introduce new vehicle driveways on D Street (garage entrance) and C Street
(garage exit). As part of this plan, both C and D Streets are proposed to be changed from one-way
vehicle travel to two-way vehicle travel from 4th Street to 5th Avenue. These project elements would be
consistent with Circulation Element Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Design) as they are intended to ensure a
safe roadway design within this City block for motor vehicle travel, pedestrian safety and safe emergency
response.
Regarding Circulation Element Policy C-30 (Downtown Parking), the Public Safety Center will displace
the public parking lot located at the corner of 5th Avenue and D Streets, as well as the offices of the City’s
Parking Services and Economic Development Divisions. The project site is located in the Downtown
Parking Assessment District, which provides special parking allowances and provisions for public
parking. A summary of the proposed parking and the relationship to the Downtown Parking Assessment
District is provided under Zoning Ordinance Consistency (below).
Regarding Infrastructure Element I-8 (Street Trees), the landscape plan proposes to remove and replace
the existing street trees along 5th Avenue and D Street. The condition of the existing trees has been
assessed by the City Arborist (Dave Davenport) who found that the tree health is fair to poor. The City
Arborist recommends that the existing trees be removed and replaced with more a more appropriate
species. New street tree planting is proposed along the C Street frontage.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14-09 – Base District Regulations (P/QP and 5/MR/O Districts)
The project is subject to the development standards for the Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) and fifth/Mission
Residential /Office (5/MR/O) Districts, pursuant to Chapter 9 (Section 14.09.040) of the municipal code
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 7
(Zoning Ordinance). The proposed use and the project design meet the use and site development
standards of these Districts.
Chapter 14.18 – Parking Standards
Off-street parking required for all uses is set forth in SRMC Chapter 14.18.
1. Chapter 14.18 does not specify a specific parking standard for public facility uses, but does
require that the parking requirement be determined through the preparation of a parking study
that assesses parking demand. Early in the project development process, the City Public Works
Director determined that a parking study was not necessary for the project for the following
reasons: a) the City’s existing parking demand for the essential facilities (Police and Fire) is
known and would not change with the new Public Safety Center; and b) the project is located in
the Downtown Parking Assessment District, which provides parking for a substantial amount of
the proposed building area (discussed below under #2).
2. The property is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The zoning provisions
and regulations for the Downtown Parking District are covered under SRMC Section 14.18.060,
which states: a) parking for up to 1.0 floor area ratio (FAR) of the total square footage of the
building is provided by the Parking Assessment District; and b) parking for building square
footage above 1.0 FAR shall be provided consistent with the parking requirements set forth in
SRMC Chapter 14.18 (parking code chapter of the Zoning Ordinance). The project would result
in an FAR of 1.17, so the off-street parking that is required for the project is for the 0.17 FAR over
the 1.0 threshold. The 0.17 FAR equates to 6,461 square feet of the total 43,500 square feet of
building area. Therefore, the parking that is provided for the 6,461-square feet of building area is
approximately 1 space per 280 square feet of building area. This parking ratio is higher than the
Downtown parking requirement for office use (1 space/300 square feet of building area) and
slightly lower than the Downtown parking requirement for retail use (1 space/250 square feet of
building area).
3. SRMC Section 14.18.060C states that in the Downtown Parking Assessment District, a parking
study is required for “a development that is subject to a design review permit pursuant to the
CEQA requirements. . .” This code section was written in 1992 when parking was a required
topic area of study under the CEQA Guidelines. The review and study of parking and parking
impacts were removed from the CEQA Guidelines as a mandatory topic of environmental review
in 2009.
While the proposed project would meet the City’s parking demand (as determined by the Public Works
Director) and the allowances of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, the project would displace
31, public (metered) parking spaces, which provide supportive parking to the district. General Plan 2020
Neighborhood Element Policy NH-27 (Parking) states:
NH-27. Parking. Continue to make parking convenient and easy to find by encouraging solutions that
address Downtown’s urban parking situation. Needed improvements include:
Providing a range of long and short term parking.
Facilitating the joint use of parking areas where appropriate.
Reducing the visual impacts of parking areas through design and landscaping.
Improving pedestrian safety in parking lots and garages.
Alleviating parking congestion where appropriate by converting underdeveloped open lots into
public and private parking lots.
Improving signage and visibility of public parking facilities.
To address the displacement of the public parking, a parking plan has been developed by Kimley-Horn,
transportation consultants. Kimley-Horn is currently preparing the Downtown Parking & Wayfinding
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 8
Study which is assessing Downtown parking demand and studying, among others, recommended
changes to the Downtown parking requirements. The parking plan is provided in Attachment 6 of the
staff report. In brief, the parking plan recommends that 24 of the 31 public metered parking spaces be
relocated to the City Hall parking lot located north of 5th Avenue (assigned to parking spaces currently
not in public use) and the seven public spaces that are rented by the month be relocated to the 5th
Avenue/C Street parking lot/deck. It should be noted that the City Hall site is also within the boundaries
of the Downtown Parking Assessment District, so the shift in public and City Hall parking would not
impact the parking requirements for City Hall. The floor area ratio of the City Hall building-to-site area is
less than 1.0, so parking is provided by the district. As described above, to accommodate the relocation
of these public parking spaces, the parking plan includes other recommended changes in City parking lot
and on-street parking assignments.
It should be noted that the relocation of the public parking spaces and the other recommendations
presented in the parking plan are not in the prevue or authority of the Planning Commission. The
assignment and placement of public parking is administered by either the City Council or the City Parking
Services Division. Nonetheless, this parking plan was commissioned to demonstrate where the public
parking spaces in the existing lot would be replaced. The Planning Commission’s role is to review and
find that the project meets the provisions of SRMC Chapter 14.19. As the project meets the code
provisions, the required findings can be made.
Chapter 14.25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
The project is subject to the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to
SRMC Section 14.25.050 (Review criteria: Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as follows:
Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development
and between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should be related
accordant to existing development in the vicinity. There must be a consistent organization of
materials and a balanced relationship of major elements. Site Features and Constraints such as
significant trees and wetlands .access, parking, circulation and drainage should be considered.
Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity, and should enhance important community gateways, view corridors and waterways as
identified in the general plan. Energy-efficient design should be considered.
Materials and Colors. Materials and colors should be consistent with the context of the surrounding
area. To minimize contrast of the structure with its background as viewed from the surrounding
neighborhood, color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the
surrounding landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. In hillside
areas, as identified in Section 14.12.020 of this title, natural materials and colors in the earth tone
and woodnote range are generally preferred. Other colors and materials may be used which are
appropriate to the architectural style, harmonious with the site and/or compatible with the character of
the surrounding environment.
Exterior Lighting. Light sources should provide safety for the building occupants, but not create a
glare or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas.
Landscape Design. The natural landscape should be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing grading, and tree and rock removal. The landscaping shall be designed as
an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive to natural site features (e.g., trees and wetlands), as
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 9
well as water-efficient landscaping (MMWD water conservation ordinance compliance) should be
considered.
As proposed and as modified by conditions of approval the design of the project generally complies with
these criteria. As summarized below, the Design Review Board: a) favorably reviewed the site plan with
some recommended design and landscape changes; and b) recommended that design changes be
studied to the exterior building design/architecture and return to the Board for review.
Chapter 14.22 – Use Permit
As discussed above, a Use Permit as most of the subject property is located within the 5/MR/O District.
Public facility uses require a Use Permit in this zoning district. SRMC Section 14.22.080 requires that
findings be made to support the approval of a Use Permit. As outlined in the attached resolution
(Attachment 2), the required findings can be made to support the approval of the Public Safety Center.
Specifically, the project would: a) meet the applicable and pertinent General Plan 2020 policies and
programs; b) comply with the provisions of the P/QP and 5/MR/O Districts and other applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including the parking requirements of SRMC Chapter 14.19; and c)
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The project would promote the continuation and improvement of an
essential City facility, which is critical to the protection of public safety and health to the community at
large. As proposed and as modified through the planning review process, the arrangement of the
individual uses on the project site is appropriate.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On March 22, 2016, the Design Review Board conducted a Conceptual Review of the project. The
Board completed a formal review of the project on April 19, 2016. Commissioner Robertson served as
the Planning Commission liaison at both meetings. The City of San Rafael no longer prepares written
meeting minutes, but actual video proceedings from the DRB meeting can be reviewed online at:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/.and then clicking on the DRB under archived meetings, and
then selecting the March 22, 2016 and April 19, 2016 meeting dates, and clicking the video link.
As part of its deliberation during formal review on April 19, the Board considered the design criteria set
forth in SRMC Chapter 14.25 (discussed above), as well as project consistency with the interim San
Rafael Design Guidelines (adopted in 2004). Following deliberation, the Board voted (5-0) to
recommend approval of the site plan and landscaping with some design changes but continued review of
the architecture and exterior building design directing additional design study based on the following
recommendations:
1. The building exterior should appear as a contemporary structure and not a retrofit of an older
building;
2. The front and side glass building entries should designed to provide a better match with the
building;
3. The building base should be masonry or concrete rather than stucco; and
4. The landscape plan should be revised to incorporate more appropriate local species.
Many of the comments and recommendations of the Board have been incorporated in the latest plan set
(July 1, 2016). The final, exterior design changes will require that the project return to the Design Review
Board for review and approval following Planning Commission action. This recommendation is included
in the conditions of approval presented in the attached resolution (Attachment 2).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Public Safety Center is defined as a “project” under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and, therefore is subject to environmental review.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study was prepared to determine the potential
environmental impacts of the project. Placeworks, an environmental and planning consultant firm was
hired by the City to prepare the required environmental document for this project. Placeworks prepared
the Initial Study utilizing a number of technical studies and reports that were commissioned for this
project and prepared supplemental studies/reports as needed. The Initial Study has concluded that the
project will result in significant environmental impacts related to: air quality; biological resources; cultural
resources; geology and soils; and noise. However, measures have been identified and recommended
which can reduce all significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, the
Initial Study recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. A summary of the key topic
areas studied and presented in the Initial Study is provided as follows:
1. Air Quality. As the proposed project is consistent with and within the projected growth limits of
the San Rafael General Plan 2020, it is also consistent with the recently-adopted Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the establishment and operation of the Public Safety Center would
result in less-than-significant, long-term operation-related impacts. However, the project would
result in potentially significant, short-term construction-related impacts associated with fugitive
dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) as well as emissions of organic gases. Given the close
proximity of the project site to businesses and residences, dust control is critical. In order to
reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level, mitigation is
recommended Mitigation Measure AQ-1 recommends that the construction contractor comply
with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for fugitive dust control. BMPs include, among others, daily watering of the site during
grading and construction, as well as daily sweeping of the public streets.
The construction-related activities of this project would also elevate concentrations of toxic air
contaminants (TACs) in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. The Initial Study references the
BAAQMD screening tables to evaluate health risks. As the project site is within 328 feet of
sensitive receptor uses (e.g., residential), a health risk analysis is required. The health risk
modeling found that construction-related activity would exceed the cancer risk threshold for
residences immediately south of the project site, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is recommended, which requires that construction equipment be fitted
with specific particulate filters that meet the USEPA emission standards. To ensure that this
requirement is implemented, the City’s service agreement with the contractor would have to
include this requirement is the scope of work and equipment specifications.
2. Biological Resources. The project site is located in Downtown San Rafael, which is an urban
setting. The project site does not contain habitat for special-status plant or animal species, nor
does it contain significant biological resource features such as a creek, wetland or woodland.
However, the project site and immediate environs contain 17-18 trees of varying species and
maturity. Trees include one Coast live oak, a mature palm and a row mature eucalyptus (along
Via Sessi).
The project proposes to remove all of the trees on site, and replace the existing street trees. The
City of San Rafael does not have an adopted tree preservation ordinance but tree preservation
and removal is assessed as part of the Environmental and Design Review Permit process
(criteria specified in SRMC Chapter 14.25, Environmental and Design Review Permits). It is the
City’s policy and practice to preserve and protect native trees (e.g., oaks and redwoods) and
require replacement plantings when such trees cannot be saved. Mitigation Measure BIO-1
recommends that the Coast live oak tree that would be lost to project construction be replaced
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 11
with the planting of a Valley oak in the public plaza area. This measure would reduce biological
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
The removal of the row of trees along Via Sessi (mostly eucalyptus species) would not result in a
significant impact to biological resources, but would change in visual character along this public
alley. This tree loss is concerning to residents and business owners that use and access Via
Sessi. As a result, the project architect has made revisions to the site plan and building footprint
to create new areas for planting and vegetation. The revised plan (see Plan Sheet A-1.3)
proposes a one-foot building setback for trellis and vine planting as well as several eight-foot-
wide planting areas within the Via Sessi right-of-way.
The Initial Study assumes that most of the street trees would remain, except where removed
because of new driveway curb cuts. As discussed above (General Plan 2020 Consistency), the
street trees have been assessed by the City arborist (Dave Davenport), who found the trees to be
in fair to poor condition. The City Arborist recommends that the existing street trees be removed
and replaced.
3. Cultural Resources- Archaeological. According to the City of San Rafael Archaeological
Resource Sensitivity Map (2001), the project site is in an area of “medium sensitivity.” For this
reason, an archaeological assessment was prepared (Tom Origer & Associates). While the
assessment found that there are no records of recorded archaeological resources on the subject
property, there is potential for encountering such resources during construction. Downtown San
Rafael is rich in archaeological resources given its history as an Early California mission city.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-2A through CUL-4 is recommended to address pre-
historic or archaeological resources if encountered during grading and construction. These
measures present specific precautions and protocols consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and
city of San Rafael Archaeological Resource Procedures.
As this project is subject to environmental review, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1
and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) requires that the City initiate and offer consultation to the local Native
American tribe(s). Consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Federated
Indians) was conducted. Following initial contact and discussion, on September 15, 2015, the
Federated Indians formally responded requesting specific mitigation. As a result, the Initial Study
recommends Mitigation Measure CULT-2A, which requires cultural monitoring during
construction. This measure requires that prior to project construction, an agreement be executed
between the City (and a qualified archaeologist) and a cultural monitor designated by the
Federated Indians. The agreement would cover monitoring all project construction activities. If
resources are encountered during construction, the appropriate protocols will be implemented.
4. Cultural Resources- Historic. The CEQA Guidelines require an assessment of potential historic
resources. To start, the City relies on the City of San Rafael Historic and Architectural Inventory
(1977/1986) of properties as an initial screening. As discussed above, the project would result in
the demolition of both the existing Fire Station 51 and the “Blue House.” The “Blue House” is
listed in the City inventory and was provided a “good” rating. Fire Station 51 is not listed in this
inventory.
Given the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining a historic resource and the age of these
structures, a historic assessment of the buildings was commissioned with Tom Origer &
Associates), architectural historians. The historic assessment was based on the significance
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The assessment found that based on a
review of the history of these buildings, neither is an important historic resource and neither meet
the criteria to be considered important historic resources. In order to be listed on the California
Register of Historic Places, a building must meet one of four criteria. Fire Station 51 is associated
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 12
with the growth and development of San Rafael, and therefore meets Criterion 1. However,
additions were made to the building which the architectural historian determined detracts from its
integrity to be eligible for the California Register. Regarding Criterion 2, neither building is
associated with the lives of persons important in the past. Criterion 3 requires that the building
represent a particular design style. While both building present examples of a specific
architectural style, they lack the character defining features of the style. The architectural
historian determined that neither building has yielded or may likely to yield information that is
important to history or pre-history, which is required by Criterion 4.
While the historic assessment found that neither building meet the criteria to be considered to be
an important historic resource, mitigation is still recommended to off-set the loss of these
structures. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 recommends the following:
a. Both buildings be documented (Level III documentation) to the Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS), which means that drawings, photographs and written data of the buildings be
collected and provided to the Marin County Library and the Marin History Museum;
b. An interpretive display of the history of Fire Station 51 should be incorporated into the project
(e.g., display in the lobby of the new Public Safety Center). Further, that the proposed Public
Safety Center design incorporate elements of existing Fire Station 51 including reuse of the
second story balcony railing and the swinging doors that provide access to the fire apparatus
bays; and
c. The City attempt to preserve the “Blue House” by first offering it for sale, relocation and reuse.
As discussed about, the City has approved and published a Request for Proposal offering the
sale of this building for relocation.
5. Noise. The project operations will not result in a substantial increase in noise. Although the fire
station and apparatus access is being relocated from the C Street to the D Street property
frontage, vehicle noise associated with emergency response will be generally the same as under
existing conditions. The proposed location of the fire apparatus bays would be closer to
residences (south of the project site). However, the project would eliminate the current Medic 51
(paramedic) service from this location as it is being relocated to Fire Station 52 (210 3rd Street),
so the frequency of emergency responses would be reduced.
The project would result in construction vibration, which would be an annoyance to surrounding
uses, and thus this activity has been determined to be a potentially significant, short-term impact.
The project does not require pile-driven piers, but demolition, grading and foundation construction
activities have the potential to generate noticeable vibration. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, which
presents vibration-abating measures, is recommended to reduce vibration impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
SRMC Chapter 8.13 (Noise) sets forth specific regulations and limits for noise associated with
specific land uses, activities and construction. Exemptions to the noise ordinance provisions and
requirements are provided in Section 8.13.070. These exemptions include: a) emergency vehicle
responses and all necessary equipment utilized for the purpose to responding to and emergency;
b) the operation of any municipal or public utility vehicles; and c) work on capital improvements
on public property. Nonetheless, given the project’s close proximity to residences and
businesses, the project will respect the construction hour limits set forth in Chapter 8.13.
Construction hours are addressed in recommended Mitigation Measure NOISE-2.
6. Transportation/Traffic. As discussed above, the project design proposes to provide vehicle and
fire apparatus access the site from D Street, with vehicle exiting on to C Street. As part of the
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 13
circulation plan, both C and D Streets would be changed from one-way to two-way travel between
4th Street and 5th Avenue. Under the direction of the Public Works Department, a traffic study
was completed by W-Trans, transportation consultants. The traffic study finds that the project
would not result in changes to the level of service (LOS) at the local intersections with the
exception of the intersection of 4th/C Street (LOS change from B to C in the PM peak) and the
addition of new northbound travel at the intersection of 5th Avenue/D Street (LOS C in the AM
peak and LOS D in the PM peak). This change has been determined to be less-than-significant.
Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the project is below the size threshold for requiring a quantified
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) assessment. As the project is consistent with the San Rafael General
Plan 2020, it is covered under the City-adopted Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy.
A hardcopy of the completed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the Planning
Commission. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and supportive technical studies
(appendices) has been posted on the City of San Rafael website, Essential Facilities webpage, which
can be accessed for review via the following link: http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/pubworks-proj-smart/.
A Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was published on
June 3, 2016. As the project requires permits/approvals from at least one State agency, a minimum 30-
day public review period on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is required per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15073. The public review period closed on July 5, 2016 and the City received several
comment letters on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Copies of these written comments,
as well as other correspondence are attached (see Attachment 8). Placeworks and City staff reviewed
and prepared responses to the comments that are specific to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which are provided in Attachment 8 of this report.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and made available for public review
in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures
Manual. Therefore, adoption of this document is recommended in order to proceed with review and
action on the project, which is presented in the attached resolution (Attachment 1).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that the lead agency prepare and approve a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is required to list all recommended mitigation
measures and identify how and when these measures will be satisfied or met as the project is
implemented. An MMRP has been prepared and is presented in Attachment 1, Exhibit A for approval
concurrent with action to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/CORRESPONDENCE
In addition to the CEQA Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, property owners,
residents and businesses within 500 feet of the Public Safety Center project site were provided notice of
this public hearing (see Attachment 7). A total of 735 property owners and occupants (commercial
tenants/businesses and residences) were sent the public hearing notice. In addition, a notice board was
posted on the subject property informing the public about the scope of the project and the date/time of
the Planning Commission meeting.
Independent of the standard public meeting noticing procedures, the City conducted an open house at
the existing fire station and invited the community to review the proposed plans. Further, the city has
hosted a number of meetings with specific stakeholders to present the project and obtain feedback.
Meetings were held with, among others, the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business
Improvement District, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods/North San Rafael Coalition and San
Rafael Heritage.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-080 & UP15-035 Page 14
As noted above, to date, the City has received correspondence (letters and emails) from residents,
business owners and other community stakeholders. Most of the comments focus on two issues: a) a
request that the City retain rather than replace existing Fire Station 51 because of it age and importance
in the community; and b) opposition to the removal and relocation of the existing public parking. All
correspondence is provided in Attachment 8 of this staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the application as presented (staff recommendation); or
2. Approve the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
or
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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving an MMRP (Exhibit A)
2. Resolution approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit
3. General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
4. Vicinity/Location Map
5. Revised written description of Public Safety Center project, Mary McGrath Architects; July 1, 2016_
6. Parking Plan, Kimley Horn, transportation consultants; July 1, 2016
7. Public Hearing Notice
8. Response to comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
correspondence received to date
9. Save the Parking Lot- 5th Ave & D Street Petition
10. Plans (distributed to the Planning Commission only)
ATTACHMENT 1 1-1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTION A MITIGATED NEGATVIED DECLARATION AND APROVING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER
AT 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET
(APNS: 011-205-01, -04, AND -17)
WHEREAS, in 2013, the San Rafael voters approved Measure E, which established a
sales tax to fund long-term improvements to the City’s essential facilities; and
WHEREAS, following the voter-approved Measure E, in 2015, the City Council adopted
the San Rafael Essential Facilities Strategic Plan, which presents the City’s road map for the
replacement of and improvements to the aging emergency service facilities. Concurrent with this
action, the City Council authorized funding for Phase 1 of this plan, which includes the rebuilding
of Fire Station 52 and fire training center (subject project), as well as the rebuilding of Civic
Center Fire Station 57 and the development of a new Public Safety Center in Downtown San
Rafael; and
WHEREAS, the City hired Mary McGrath Architects and Kitchell to design and oversee
development, respectively, of the Phase 1 essential facilities. Plans for the new, 44,000-square-
foot Public Safety Center were developed to include and house the San Rafael police and Fire
Department Administration Divisions, Emergency Operations Division, Fire Station 51 Engine
Company, and station company quarters. Plan designs were developed with review and input
from key Police and Fire Department staff, the City Council Essential Facilities Subcommittee
and a working group that includes community stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the new Public Safety Center is proposed to be developed on 0.83-acres of
City-owned property fronting 5th Avenue, C Street and D Street. This property is currently
developed with existing Fire Station 51, a two-story residence (Blue House), a one-story modular
building (Parking Services) and two surface parking lots. The larger of the two parking lots is a
public parking lot (metered) containing 31 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, in January 2016, Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080)
and Use Permit (UP15-035) planning applications were filed for the redevelopment of the 0.83-
acre site with the Public Safety Center; and
WHEREAS, during the Planning application review process, the City conducted
substantial outreach to the community to present the plans and obtain feedback. The outreach,
which included a public open house, working group meetings and presentations to community
groups resulted in refinements and improvements to the project plans. As part of this process,
concerns were raised regarding issues such as impacts to, among others, potential historic
resources, traffic, and parking; and
WHEREAS, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, it was determined that the development of the Public Safety Center is defined as a
“project,” making it subject to environmental review. Placeworks, a planning and environmental
consulting firm was commissioned by the City to prepare the necessary environmental document
for this project; and
ATTACHMENT 1 1-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study was prepared
to determine the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study is supported by
numerous technical studies and reports, including, among others a geotechnical investigation,
historic assessment, archaeological assessment, traffic study and a quantified air quality
assessment. Although not a topic included or addressed in the CEQA Guidelines, an independent
review of parking was completed by Kimley Horn Associates, transportation consultants to
address the displacement of the public parking lot and the relocation of City Police and Fire
Department vehicle parking. As a result, a parking plan was developed; and
WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, consistent with Public Resources Code
Sections 21080.3 and 20180.3.2 (AB52), an offer of tribal consultation was made to the local
Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria). On January 19, 2016, the
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria responded to the offer of consultation requesting specific
mitigation measures that would require cultural monitoring during grading and construction. The
Initial Study has incorporated this request (Mitigation Measure CULT-2A); and
WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of the Initial Study, the proposed project
would result in a number of significant environmental impacts for which mitigation measures are
recommended to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore,
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, the Initial Study supports and recommends the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) be prepared to identify how the mitigation measures
recommended in the Initial Study will be implemented if the project is approved. The MMRP
must identify how the mitigation measures are met/implemented, the entity responsible for
carrying out the mitigation and the timing for completion of the mitigation. The MMRP must be
prepared and approved prior to or concurrent with action on the project applications. An MMRP
has been prepared addressing these requirements and is presented herein in attached Exhibit A to
this resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, on June 3, 2016, the City
published a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for a 30-day public review period,
closing on July 5, 2016. The Notice of Intent and copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration were filed with the State Clearinghouse and distributed to the pertinent agencies,
utilities and special interest groups. Further, a notice of document availability and the Planning
Commission hearing date was mailed to property owners and residents/occupants within 500 feet
of the project site. Comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration were
reviewed and responses have been prepared by Placeworks, which are presented in a
memorandum to the Planning Commission (dated July 15, 2016), which is on file with the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to review and consider the Public Safety Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The
Planning Commission considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of
the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
ATTACHMENT 1 1-3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission adopts the
City of San Rafael Public Safety Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June
3, 2016 prepared for the Public Safety Center based on the following findings:
1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael
Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, in preparing the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City followed the steps and procedures
required by Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) by offering
and completing tribal consultation with the local Native American Tribe (Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria). As a result of this consultation, mitigation measures
required to address potential archaeological resources have been incorporated into the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a public review period of a minimum
of 30 days was observed for public comment (commencing on June 3, 2016 and closing
on July 5, 2016). Comments received during the public review period have been
reviewed and responses to these comments have been provided and are presented in a
memorandum to the Planning Commission from Placeworks, dated July 15, 2016, which
is on file with the Community Development Department.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been presented to the Planning Commission who
has reviewed and considered the information in the Initial Study, which includes
technical studies and assessments supporting the findings and conclusions for adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further, the Planning Commission finds that the studies
and assessments prepared for the Initial Study are adequate and complete to support the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. The Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the
Initial Study and has considered the comments received during the public review period
and public hearing. Based on this review, the Planning Commission has determined that
the project will: a) result in potentially significant impacts related to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise for which mitigation
measures are required; and b) result in either no environmental impacts or impacts that
are deemed to be less-than-significant in other topic areas listed in the Initial Study
Checklist.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached herein as Exhibit A:
1. The MMPR has been prepared consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15097 in that it: a) incorporates all mitigation measures recommended in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b) includes the appropriate steps and requirements
to ensure that these mitigation measures are implemented and that impacts are reduced to
levels of less-than-significant.
2. The MMRP meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and
21080.3.2 (AB 52) in that it acknowledges completion of required consultation with the
local Native American Tribe and incorporates measures (Mitigation Measure C-1) to
ATTACHMENT 1 1-4
ensure that the potential for encountering cultural resources are addressed during
construction.
The foregoing resolution was at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 26th day of July 2016.
Moved by Commissioner __________ and seconded by Commissioner __________.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: _______________________________ ______________________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Gerald Belletto, Vice Chairman
ATTACHMENT:
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
W:/. . ./PSC.PC Reso_NegDec 7 26 16
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 1 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)III. AIR QUALITY AQ-1: The Project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic Require as condition of approval Construction contractor to complete documentation prior to initiation of demolition activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit Halt demolition/ construction activities Halt demolition/ construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 2 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways. AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall use construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) and engines that meet the USEPA Certified Tier 3 emissions standards for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of San Rafael Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The construction contractor shall ensure that all non-essential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of San Rafael Planning Division and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Level 3 DPF and USEPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. Require as condition of approval Construction contractor to complete documentation prior to initiation of demolition activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit Halt demolition/ construction activities Halt demolition/ construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 3 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Prior to project approval, the City shall ensure that the Project includes the planting of a Valley Oak in the plaza area within the Project site. Require as condition of approval Planning Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Halt demolition/construction activities V. CULTURAL RESOURCES CULT-1: Prior to demolition of Fire Station 51 and the Blue House at 1313 Fifth Avenue, the following shall occur: Both buildings shall be documented to the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation level III, as follows: Documentation Level III 1. Drawings: sketch plan. 2. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views. 3. Written data: architectural data form. Documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian and shall include large-format photography and historical documentation. To assure that the public has access to the record of this historic resource these documents shall be provided to the Anne T. Kent Room at the Marin County Library, and to the Marin History Museum or another suitable historical society. An interpretive display featuring Fire Station 51’s history shall be incorporated into the Project. This display shall be located in an area accessible to the public and shall provide information regarding the importance of Fire Station 51. In addition, the Require as condition of approval Construction contractor to complete documentation prior to initiation of demolition activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit Halt demolition/ construction activities Halt demolition/ construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 4 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)project shall incorporate features of the existing Fire Station including reuse of the second story balcony railing and swinging doors that provide access of the fire apparatus bays. In order to preserve the existing building, the Blue House at 1313 5th Avenue shall be offered for sale (via a Request for Proposal process) to purchase and relocate to another site in San Rafael, if feasible. CULT-2A: The Project shall comply with the following measures during construction of the Project: Limited subsurface explorations shall be completed through a series of auger hole borings. If archaeological remains are found, work at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds (Section 15064.5 [f]). o Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones. o Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). Require as a condition of approval Construction contractor to include construction specifications and materials in contract, and complete measures during duration of construction activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Monitor during scheduled construction site inspections Halt construction activities Halt construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 5 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) If archaeological remains are found and judged potentially significant, a treatment plan shall be developed and executed. All cultural resources recovered as part of Project construction shall be subject to scientific analysis and a report prepared according to current professional standards. During all ground-disturbing construction activities, a representative from a local Native American tribe shall be invited to monitor and ensure proper handling of any archeological remains that are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities. CULT-2B: If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of Require as a condition of approval Construction contractor to include construction specifications and materials in contract, and complete measures during duration of construction activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Monitor during scheduled construction site inspections Halt construction activities Halt construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 6 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while mitigation for cultural resources is being carried out. CULT-3: In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Require as a condition of approval Construction contractor to include construction specifications and materials in contract, and complete measures during duration of construction activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Monitor during scheduled construction site inspections Halt construction activities Halt construction activities CULT-4: In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 and Health and Human Safety Code 7050.5, if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the Require as a condition of approval Planning Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Halt construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 7 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. Construction contractor to include construction specifications and materials in contract, and complete measures during duration of construction activities Building Division Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Monitor during scheduled construction site inspections Halt construction activities VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1: Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation into the Project to address seismic design, site preparation and grading, and foundation design. Require as a condition of approval Construction contractor to include recommendations in project designs. Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Halt construction activities Halt construction activities GEO-2: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Require as a condition of approval Construction contractor to include recommendations Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval. Review construction specifications and materials, and retain for administrative record. Halt construction activities Halt construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 8 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)in project designs. XII. NOISE NOISE-1: For demolition, construction, grading, foundation, and erection activities, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented in close coordination with City staff so that alternative construction techniques are undertaken. The use of vibratory rollers shall be prohibited within 160 feet of an adjacent structure, within 160 feet away static rollers shall be used instead. Additionally, bulldozers with an operating weight larger than 25,000 pounds shall not be used closer than 30 feet to an adjacent structure. Prior to the start of construction activities, City Building Department staff shall meet with the construction contractor to discuss alternative methods to reduce vibration impacts for all construction activities that would occur within 100 feet of existing, off-site buildings. During the pre-construction meeting, the construction contractor shall identify construction methods not involving vibration-intensive equipment or activities. Prior to the start of construction activities, the constructor contractor shall document all reduced-vibration alternative methods identified in the pre-construction meeting on the construction drawings submitted during plan check for building permits. Further the constructor contractor shall implement these reduced-vibration alternative methods during excavation, grading, and construction for work Require as condition of approval Construction contractor to complete documentation prior to initiation of demolition activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit Halt demolition/ construction activities Halt demolition/ construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 9 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)conducted within 100 feet of off-site buildings. All the above conditions shall be included on the permit applicant drawings with verification by the Building Department Plan Check staff. Additionally, all the above conditions shall be verified in the field by the Building Department field inspection staff at the project site. NOISE-2: As required by the City of San Rafael’s Municipal Code Section 8.13, construction activities shall not occur outside of the allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, provided that the noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project does not exceed 90 dBA. Construction shall not be conducted on Sundays. Additionally, the Construction Contractor shall implement the following measures: At least 30 days prior to commencement of demolition or any other construction activities, notification shall be given to all residents or businesses within 250 feet of the project site regarding the planned construction activities. The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the duration and hours when construction would occur. The notification shall also include the telephone number of the City of San Rafael’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint. Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the job site, Require as condition of approval Construction contractor to complete documentation prior to initiation of demolition activities Planning Division Building Division Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit Halt demolition/ construction activities Halt demolition/ construction activities
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 10 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date)clearly visible to the public, that contains a contact name and telephone number of the City of San Rafael’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise complaint. If the authorized representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the reporting party and the City of San Rafael’s Community Development Director. All heavy construction equipment used on the proposed project shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust muffles, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. Where feasible, use electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines. Post signs at the job site prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. The use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters. Minimize grade surface irregularities on construction sites.
EXHIBIT A- MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 11 Public Safety Center MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Safety Center Mitigation Measure Implementation ProcedureMonitoring ResponsibilityMonitoring / ReportingAction & ScheduleNon-Compliance Sanction/ActivityMonitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) Erect a temporary noise barrier/curtain between the construction zone and all residences within 100 feet of the project site boundary. The temporary sound barrier shall break the line of sight between the construction site and the windows of the affected homes , must be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 35 or greater. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-thick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of at least 0.7. All the above conditions shall be included on the permit applicant drawings with verification by the Building Department Plan Check staff. Additionally, all the above conditions shall be verified in the field by the Building Department field inspection staff at the project site.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED15-080) AND
USE PERMIT (UP15-035) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER AT 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET
(APNS: 011-205-01, -04, AND -17)
WHEREAS, in 2013, the San Rafael voters approved Measure E, which established a
sales tax to fund long-term improvements to the City’s essential facilities; and
WHEREAS, following the voter-approved Measure E, in 2015, the City Council adopted
the San Rafael Essential Facilities Strategic Plan, which presents the City’s road map for the
replacement of and improvements to the aging emergency service facilities. Concurrent with this
action, the City Council authorized funding for Phase 1 of this plan, which includes the rebuilding
of Fire Station 52 and fire training center (subject project), as well as the rebuilding of Civic
Center Fire Station 57 and the development of a new Public Safety Center in Downtown San
Rafael; and
WHEREAS, the City hired Mary McGrath Architects and Kitchell to design and oversee
development, respectively, of the Phase 1 essential facilities. Plans for the new, 43,500-square-
foot Public Safety Center were developed to include and house the San Rafael Police and Fire
Department Administration Divisions, Emergency Operations Division, Fire Station 51 Engine
Company, and station company quarters. Plan designs were developed with review and input
from key Police and Fire Department staff, the City Council Essential Facilities Subcommittee
and a working group that includes community stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the new Public Safety Center is proposed to be developed on 0.85-acres of
City-owned property fronting 5th Avenue, C Street and D Street. This property is currently
developed with existing Fire Station 51, a two-story residence (Blue House), a one-story modular
building (Parking Services) and two surface parking lots. The larger of the two parking lots is a
public parking lot (metered) containing 31 parking spaces (plus two non-metered spaces); and
WHEREAS, during the initial study phases of developing the project design, a
Conceptual Review application was filed to obtain feedback from the Design Review Board. On
March 22, 2016, the Conceptual Review was completed by the Design Review Board. The Board
provided positive feedback on the conceptual site plan, which included the relocation of the fire
station access and apparatus bays to D Street and the development of a public plaza. The Board
also found the initial elevation and building design concepts to lack character and directed that
the design and exterior materials tie more closely to City Hall; and
WHEREAS, in January 2016, Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080)
and Use Permit (UP15-035) planning applications were filed for the redevelopment of the 0.85-
acre site with the 43,500 square-foot Public Safety Center; and
WHEREAS, during the Planning application review process, the City conducted
substantial outreach to the community to present the plans and obtain feedback. The outreach,
which included a public open house, working group meetings and presentations to community
groups, resulted in refinements and improvements to the project plans. As part of this process,
concerns were raised regarding issues such as impacts to, among others, potential historic
resources, traffic, and parking; and
ATTACHMENT 2 2-2
WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of SRMC Chapter 14.25 (Environmental and
Design Review Permits), on April 19, 2016, the Design Review Board conducted a public
meeting to review the formal application and project plans. Following deliberation, the Design
Review Board, reached a consensus finding: a) the design revisions were responsive to the Board
comments made during Conceptual Review; b) the building exterior should appear as a
contemporary structure and not a retrofit of an older building; c) the front and side glass building
entries should designed to provide a better match with the building; d) the building base should be
masonry rather than stucco; and e) the landscape should be revised to incorporate more
appropriate local species. It was recommended that exterior building revisions be made and
returned to the Board for review and a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to review and consider the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) and
Use Permit (UP15-035), and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written
report of the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the Public Safety Center project is subject to environmental review. An
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) have been prepared. The Planning Commission has reviewed and
adopted/approved these documents by separate resolution. The mitigation measures
recommended by the MMRP have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for ED15-
080 and UP15-035 presented below; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approved
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) and Use Permit (UP15-035) based on the
following findings:
Findings for Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080)
1. As proposed and as conditioned, the Public Safety Center, which includes the offices and
facilities for the San Rafael Police and Fire Department Administration Divisions,
Emergency Operations Division, Fire Station 51 Engine Company, and station company
quarters new Fire Station 51, is in accord with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 in that:
a. The Land Use Map of the Land Use Element designates the project site in two land use
categories, Public/Quasi-Public and Fifth/Mission/ Residential/Office. These General
Plan land use designations permit government or quasi-public buildings or facilities and
general office use. The Public Safety Center use would be consistent with these land use
designations.
b. As proposed, the intensity of the project (floor area ratio of 1.17) is below and is
consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-9 (Intensity of Non-residential
Development), which sets a floor area ratio limit (FAR) of 1.0-1.5 for the subject
property. Further, the project is designed to be well below the maximum building height
limit of 36-42 feet as set forth for the property by Land Use Element Exhibit 9 (Building
Height Limits for Downtown).
ATTACHMENT 2 2-3
c. As proposed, the project would comply with Policy Neighborhood Element NH-27
(Parking) and Circulation Element Policy C-30 (Downtown Parking). Although the
project would displace 31 existing, public (metered) parking, a parking plan has been
developed that would relocate 24 of these parking spaces to the City Hall parking lot
located north of 5th Avenue and a new location for the remaining seven spaces rented on a
monthly basis. This plan would optimize the use of parking spaces Downtown. Further,
the project site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. This district
(SRMC Section 14.18.060): 1) provides parking for up to 1.0 floor-area-ratio (FAR) of
the total square footage of the building; and 2) requires that off-street parking be provided
for the building square footage above the 1.0 FAR. As noted above, the project proposes
and FAR of 1.17 and proposed plan provides off-street parking for the 0.17 FAR
increment that is above the 1.0 FAR threshold.
d. As proposed and as recommended for further revision by the Design Review Board, the
building design is consistent with Neighborhood Element Policies NH-28 (Special
Places) and NH-29 (Downtown Design), as well as Community Design Element Policies
CD-1 (City Image) and CD-2 (Neighborhood Identity. Specifically, the facility has been
designed to be compatible with the scale of improvements in the neighborhood and the
diversely of building designs that are found in this area.
e. As proposed, the project would not be in conflict with Community Design Element
Policy CD-4 (Historic Resources) and Culture and Arts Element Policy CA-13 (Historic
Buildings and Areas). As part of the environmental review process for this project, an
historic assessment of the existing Fire Station 51 and the “Blue House” was completed
by a qualified architectural historian. The architectural historian found that neither
building meet the criteria to qualify as a historic resource. Nonetheless, as conditioned,
the City has committed to offer the sale of the Blue House for relocation and re-use as a
first step before proceeding with demolitions. Further, certain building features of
existing Fire Station 51, such as the second story balcony railing, have been incorporated
into the design of the Public Safety Center building.
f. As proposed, the project would change the travel lane patterns of C and D Streets
between 4th Street and 5th Avenue, respectively, from one-way travel to two-way travel.
Consistent with Circulation element Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Design) and C-5 (Travel
Level of Service Standards) his change in travel lane pattern has been recommended to
accommodate improved emergency response from the Public Safety Center. Further, the
change in the travel lane pattern has been assessed through a traffic study and the Level
of Service standard set for the Downtown intersections would be maintained with this
change.
g. The process that has been undertaken for the proposed Public Safety Center project is
consistent with and would implement Community Design Element Policy CD-15
(Participation in Project Review), Infrastructure Element Policy I-5 (Public Involvement)
and Governance Element Policies G-8 (City and Community Communication) and G-9
(Advisory Committees). As part of the public process for this project, the City conducted
substantial outreach to the community to present the plans and obtain feedback. The
outreach, which included a public open house, working group meetings and presentations
to community groups, resulted in refinements and improvements to the project plans. As
part of this process, concerns were raised regarding issues such as impacts to, among
others, potential historic resources, traffic, and parking.
h. As proposed, the project would implement Safety Element Policies S-26 (Fire and Police
Services) and S-29 (Public Safety Facilities) in that it would provide an essential service
ATTACHMENT 2 2-4
facility that would be centralized, thus being more cost effective for operations and
efficient.
i. The project is consistent with Sustainability Element Programs SU-5a (Green Building
Regulations) and SU-5c (Water Efficient Programs) in that it has been designed to meet
the LEED Gold standard and Cal Green Tier 1 green building standards and the MMWD
Water Conservation Ordinance 430.
2. As proposed and as conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and the
provisions of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance (SRMC Chapter 14). Specifically, the
proposed public facility use is consistent with the P/QP and 5/MR/O Districts. Further, the
project design and layout meet the minimum requirements set forth in P/QP and 5/MR/O
Districts including: a) compliance with the floor area ratio (FAR) limits; b) lot coverage and
setback standards; c) minimum landscape coverage (10% of lot area); and d) off-street
parking. Further, the project complies with the height limits of the P/QP (36 feet) and
5/MR/O (42 feet) Districts.
3. As proposed and as conditioned, the project design is consistent with all applicable site,
architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines set forth in SRMC Chapter 14.25
(Environmental and Design Review Permits) for the site in that:
a. As proposed, the site plan is acceptable for the site and intended use is generally
harmonious with the variety of urban uses and improvements surrounding the project site.
The project site plan has been designed to integrate with the City Hall site, which
facilitates a civic center campus setting.
b. As proposed and as conditioned, the project presents a competent design which has been
prepared by a licensed architect skilled in designing public facility buildings. The
entrance to the building is well-designed and presents a central focus for the project.
Further, the project proposes a large, open plaza for public use. Conditions of approval
require that the final design of the building be revised to address the recommendations of
the Design Review Board and return to the Board for review and approval.
c. The project proposes site access and circulation that promotes safe access for emergency
vehicles and apparatus without impairing street circulation. Further, the project proposes
ample off-street parking for essential facilities and a relocation of the existing public
parking spaces to the neighboring City Hall parking lot.
d. The project presents an energy-efficient design and will be required to comply with the
City’s Green Building Ordinance.
e. The project is designed to adequately accommodate site drainage and incorporates
measures to filter site runoff.
f. The project is designed to provide a water efficient landscape. As required by SRMC
Section 14.16.370, the landscape plan is consistent with Marin Municipal Water District
Water Conservation Ordinance 430.
4. As proposed and as conditioned, the project design and improvements would not result in
adverse environmental impacts in that:
a. Technical supportive studies prepared by qualified technical experts were commission by
the City in environmental topic areas of, among others, historic resources, archaeological
resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic/circulation, to assess
the potential environmental impacts of the project.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-5
g. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
supportive technical studies were used in the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial
Study concluded that all potentially-significant environmental impacts of the project can
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
h. Mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study had been incorporated as
conditions of approval in this Environmental and Design Review Permit.
5. As proposed and as conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. As
noted above, the project site is fully developed with similar improvements and uses, which
have not been nor in their operations are detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the
community. In fact, the project would promote the continuation of an essential City facility,
which is critical to the protection of public safety and health to the community at large.
Findings for Use Permit (UP15-035)
1. The proposed Public Safety Center use, which consolidates Police and Fire Department
services and functions, the emergency operations center and Fire Station 51 is in accord with
the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the P/QP and
the 5/MR/O Districts in which the project site is located in that:
a. As outlined above under the findings for approval of Environmental and Design Review
Permit ED15-080, the Public Safety Center use and facility would be consistent with the
Public/Quasi-Public and Fifth/Mission Residential/Office land use designations that are
applicable to the project site.
b. As outlined above under the findings for approval of Environmental and Design Review
Permit ED15-080, the intensity of the project (floor area ratio of 1.17) is below and is
consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-9 (Intensity of Non-residential
Development), which sets a floor area ratio limit (FAR) of 1.0-1.5 for the subject
property. Further, the project is designed to be well below the maximum building height
limit of 36-42 feet as set forth for the property by Land Use Element Exhibit 9 (Building
Height Limits for Downtown).
c. The proposed use would be consistent with and is permitted by P/QP and 5/MR/O
Districts. The proposed use would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would
expand the City Hall Civic Center campus.
2. As proposed and as conditioned, the Public Safety Center use will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. As noted above, the project site is fully developed with similar improvements and
uses, which have not been nor in their operations are detrimental to the health, safety or
welfare of the community. In fact, the project would promote the continuation of an essential
City facility, which is critical to the protection of public safety and health to the community at
large.
3. As proposed and conditioned, the Public Safety Center use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that:
a. SRMC Chapter 14.19 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth requirements for off-street
parking. The design, size and dimensions of the proposed off-street parking spaces and
travel aisles comply with the provisions of this chapter. Further, off-street parking meets
the requirements of this chapter, specifically, the provisions and regulations of the
Downtown Parking Assessment District. This district (SRMC Section 14.18.060): 1)
provides parking for up to 1.0 floor-area-ratio (FAR) of the total square footage of the
ATTACHMENT 2 2-6
building; and 2) requires that off-street parking be provided for the building square
footage above the 1.0 FAR. As noted above, the project proposes and FAR of 1.17 and
proposed plan provides off-street parking for the 0.17 FAR increment that is above the
1.0 FAR threshold.
b. SRMC Chapter 14.16 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth general site and use regulations
that are applicable to all or selected zoning districts. The Public Safety Center use is
consistent with the provisions and regulations of this chapter, specifically: 1) the
regulations for refuse enclosures (Section 14.16.025); 2) the floor area ratio provisions
(Section 14.16.150); 3) the requirements for geotechnical review (Section 14.16.170); 4)
light and glare standards (Section 14.16.227); 5) a requirement for lot consolidation
(Section 14.16.230) and 6) requirements for mechanical equipment screening (Section
14.16.243).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) and Use Permit (UP15-035) subject to the
following conditions:
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) Conditions of Approval
General Conditions
1. The construction of the Public Safety Center shall be in substantial conformance with the
preliminary plans prepared by Mary McGrath Architects (July 1, 2016 preparation date, date
stamped approved July 26, 2016) approved with Design Review Permit ED15-080. Plan
modifications deemed not to be minor by the Community Development Director may require
review by the Design Review Board and approval by the Planning Commission.
2. This project results in the displacement and relocation of 31 public (metered) parking spaces.
A parking plan (Kimley Horn, transportation consultants; July 1, 2016) has been developed to
relocate these parking spaces. This parking plan shall be approved by the City Council.
3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-080) shall be valid for two (2) years
from the date of Planning Commission approval or July 26, 2018, and shall become null and
void unless a building permit is issued or a time extension has been granted.
Prior to the Issuance of a Building and/or Grading Permit
Community Development Department – Planning Division
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates the list of
these ED15-080 conditions of approval.
5. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to Community Development
Department for review and approval. Planning Division staff review of the final landscape
plan shall be in consultation with the landscape architect of the Design Review Board. The
final landscape plan shall be revised to address the following recommendations of the Design
Review Board (April 19, 2016):
a. The final plan shall incorporate the planting of a Valley oak tree in the center of the
public plaza area. Planting size shall be a minimum 36” box (Mitigation Measure BIO-1).
b. The final plan shall incorporate more appropriate local plant species.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-7
c. The six-foot wide landscape areas along the Via Sessi alley shall be planted with trees
installed at a minimum 24” box size. Vines shall be planted along the building edge to
facilitate a green wall.
d. The project proposes the removal of the existing street trees along the 5th Avenue and D
Street frontages. Installation of street trees is required along the 5th Avenue, C & D Street
property frontages. The planted tree size and species shall be selected by the City
Arborist (Parks Maintenance Superintendent).
The final landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) Water Conservation Ordinance 430. Written verification (letter/memo/email) shall
be submitted to the City confirming that the final plan has been approved by MMWD.
6. The final building elevations and site plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and
shall incorporate the following recommendations of the Board (April 19, 2016):
a. Plan revisions should be made to introduce more contemporary building elements.
b. The front and side glass-surfaced building entries should be designed to provide a better
match with the overall building design.
c. The material at the building base should be changed from stucco to masonry or concrete.
Note: the plans approved with this permit approval have been revised to respond to the
Design Review Board recommendations. Additional design changes to the exterior of the
building may result from this subsequent review of revised plans by the Design Review
Board.
7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include detailed exterior lighting plan and
photometric analysis. The detailed exterior lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of a building permit. See condition below regarding post-
installation testing.
8. Final exterior building materials and colors shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board
and approved by the Planning Division.
9. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and
appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be
screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated
on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. Mechanical/HVAC equipment
placed on the rooftop shall be limited to placement on the east wing of the fire station
building, which is designed and approved with a parapet.
10. Plans submitted with the building permit application shall include details for installation or
retrofitting one electric vehicle charging station.
11. Plans submitted with the building permit application shall include a note that that for
construction equipment powered with over 50 horsepower, the contractor(s) will utilize
equipment that fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) and engines that meet the
USEPA Certified Tier 3 emissions standards. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2)
12. Prior to demolition of Fire Station 51 and the Blue House at 1313 Fifth Avenue, the following
shall occur:
a. Both buildings shall be documented to the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
Documentation level III, as follows:
Drawings: sketch plan.
Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-8
Written data: architectural data form.
Documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian and shall include
large-format photography and historical documentation. To assure that the public has
access to the record of this historic resource these documents shall be provided to the
Anne T. Kent Room at the Marin County Library, and to the Marin History Museum or
another suitable historical society.
b. An interpretive display featuring Fire Station 51’s history shall be incorporated into the
Project. This display shall be located in an area accessible to the public and shall provide
information regarding the importance of Fire Station 51. In addition, the project shall
incorporate features of the existing Fire Station including reuse of the second story
balcony railing and swinging doors that provide access of the fire apparatus bays.
c. In order to preserve the existing building, the Blue House at 1313 5th Avenue shall be
offered r sale (via a Request for Proposal process) to purchase and relocate to another site
in San Rafael, if feasible.
(Mitigation Measure CULT-1)
13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (local Native
American Tribe) shall be contacted to offer cultural monitoring during grading and
construction. If cultural monitoring is requested, an agreement shall be executed between the
City and the Federated Indians to address monitoring time and costs. (Mitigation Measure
CULT-2A).
14. The plans submitted for the issuance of a grading and/or building permit shall include the
following noise attenuation measures and specifications:
a. The use of vibratory rollers shall be prohibited within 160 feet of an adjacent structure,
within 160 feet away static rollers shall be used instead. Additionally, bulldozers with an
operating weight larger than 25,000 pounds shall not be used closer than 30 feet to an
adjacent structure.
b. Prior to the start of construction activities, City Building Department staff shall meet with
the construction contractor to discuss alternative methods to reduce vibration impacts for
all construction activities that would occur within 100 feet of existing, off-site buildings.
During the pre-construction meeting, the construction contractor shall identify
construction methods not involving vibration-intensive equipment or activities.
c. Prior to the start of construction activities, the constructor contractor shall document all
reduced-vibration alternative methods identified in the pre-construction meeting on the
construction drawings submitted during plan check for building permits. Further the
constructor contractor shall implement these reduced-vibration alternative methods
during excavation, grading, and construction for work conducted within 100 feet of off-
site buildings.
(Mitigation Measure NOISE-1)
15. The following noise attenuation requirement shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a
grading and/or building permit:
a. At least 30 days prior to commencement of demolition or any other construction
activities, notification shall be given to all residents or businesses within 250 feet of the
project site regarding the planned construction activities. The notification shall include a
brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the duration and hours
when construction would occur. The notification shall also include the telephone number
of the City of San Rafael’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise
complaint.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-9
b. Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to
the job site, clearly visible to the public, that contains a contact name and telephone
number of the City of San Rafael’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a
noise complaint. If the authorized representative receives a complaint, he/she shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the reporting party
and the City of San Rafael’s Community Development Director.
c. All heavy construction equipment used on the proposed project shall be maintained in
good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted
with intake and exhaust muffles, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective
than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
d. Where feasible, use electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal
combustion powered equipment.
e. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from
neighboring property lines.
f. Post signs at the job site prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
g. The use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be
for safety warning purposes only. Use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust
the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters.
h. Minimize grade surface irregularities on construction sites.
i. Erect a temporary noise barrier/curtain between the construction zone and all residences
within 100 feet of the project site boundary. The temporary sound barrier shall break the
line of sight between the construction site and the windows of the affected homes must be
free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 35 or
greater. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-thick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging
blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either
configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound
absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of at least 0.7.
(Mitigation Measure NOISE-2)
Community Development Department – Building Division
16. A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be submitted with the building permit application.
The final plans prepared for issuance of a building permit shall comply with and address the
recommended presented in Geotechnical Investigation, City of San Rafael Public Safety
Center, 1309 5th Avenue, prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group; January 25, 2016.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-1)
17. Final construction plans submitted for issuance of a building permit shall be designed to meet
the R-2/S-1/B Occupancy designations, which shall include but not be limited to the
following improvements:
a. The buildings shall be equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
b. A one-hour fire separation shall be provided between building floors.
c. Hard-wired smoke and C/O alarms shall be installed.
18. Final construction plans submitted for issuance of a building permit shall be designed to
incorporate green building measures to comply with the City’s green building ordinance (Cal-
Green).
Fire Department
ATTACHMENT 2 2-10
19. A fire sprinkler plan shall be prepared in compliance with the applicable NFPA standards
covering the fire station, training tower and classroom facilities. The fire sprinkler plan shall
be submitted for Fire Department approval. The fire sprinkler plan shall include exposed
double check valve assemblies. Review and approval of the sprinkler system by the Fire
Department shall include the fire alarm, which is required to be connected to an approved
UL-listed central receiving station.
20. MMWD approval of the fire sprinkler plan design and location of installation shall be secured
prior to Fire Department approval of the plan.
21. In the Fire Department living areas, approved smoke and carbon monoxide detection
equipment shall be provided in all sleeping rooms, hallways leading to the sleeping rooms
and the top of the stair shafts.
22. The fire alarm and smoke/heat detection system shall be provided and shall be equipped with
audible pull station equipment as per applicable NFPA standards.
23. The final plans shall include a detail of the roadway “KEEP CLEAR” striping plan fronting
the driveway entrances.
24. The Fire Department shall review and approve the building security, video monitoring and
exterior lighting plan details.
25. Hydrants (if warranted) shall be provided and specified on the final plans. If hydrants area
warranted, Clow Model 950 (@ 1,000 gallons per minute) is required.
26. Within the administrative service areas, panic hardware and emergency exit illumination shall
be installed, and shall be specified on the final plans.
27. Within the administrative service areas, illuminated exit signage shall be installed for all
corridor, stairway and exit doors, and shall be specified on the final plans.
28. Within the garage/basement area, illuminated exit and emergency exit signage shall be
installed, and shall be specified on the final plans.
29. Appropriate permits/approvals for fuel storage and dispenser system (if proposed) shall be
obtained.
30. A construction site safety and security plan shall be prepared and submitted for Fire
Department approval.
Public Works Department
31. As required by SRMC Section 14.16.230, a lot consolidation application shall be filed to
consolidate the three lots/parcels on the project site. The lot consolidation shall be recorded
with the County of Marin prior to issuance of the building permit.
32. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include details on the width of the sidewalks along
the three public street frontages. Sidewalk improvements are required to accommodate a six-
foot width along all street frontages.
33. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide the following details:
ATTACHMENT 2 2-11
a. In the parking garage, dimensions for all aisle widths, parking spaces, gates/door widths
and turning radii. Turning movements for the largest vehicles accessing the garage
(garbage trucks, fuel delivery, and larger Police vehicles).
b. The vehicle access ramp from D Street to the basement/garage level provides two-way
traffic and shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width (19 feet proposed on preliminary
plans).
c. Accessibility compliance for the pedestrian ramp in the public plaza (bordering the
circular, center planting area) and all sidewalk areas accessing the building.
d. All utilities shall be included on the plans indicating all tie-in locations for facilities
located within the street(s).
34. A detailed grading plan shall be prepared and submitted with the application for a building
permit. A separate grading permit shall be secured from the Public Works Department prior
to issuance of a building permit.
35. A detailed site drainage plan shall be included in the final plans submitted for a building
permit. The site drainage plan shall include the following information:
a. Details on roof downspout outlets, bio-retention basin inlets and their respective tributary
areas.
b. Pre-development and post-development drainage runoff calculations.
c. Details on the apparatus washing basin area.
d. Details on gray water disposal to comply with the MMWD gray water ordinance (see
conditions below from MMWD).
36. The project proposes over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage. A storm water
control/erosion control plan shall be prepared in compliance with the MCSTOPPP
requirements. The plan shall be submitted with the application for a grading and/or building
permit, whichever occurs first, and include written documentation and standard specifications
that are provided by the County of Marin. The standard specifications can be accessed at the
County of Marin website:
Http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and-
redevelopment-project
37. Plans submitted to for a building and/or grading permit shall include a specification sheet
addressing pollution prevention. A standard specification sheet entitled, “Pollution
Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” is available for this purpose and can be accessed at
www.cityofsanrafael.org.
38. The project includes work within the City of San Rafael public right-of-way. The plans
submitted with the building permit shall show the location and type of utilities within the
right-of-way and the ‘tie-in” locations for utility service to the site. Prior to any work within
the City right-of-way, an encroachment permit shall be secured from the Public Works
Department.
Marin Municipal Water District
39. Water service is currently provided to the subject property and improvements. However, the
proposed project may increase water demand and usage. Purchase or transfer of additional
water entitlement may be required as determined by MMWD.
40. Should a backflow preventer/backflow protection be required, improvements shall be
installed subject to the review and approval of MMWD.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-12
41. Final plans submitted for a building permit shall comply with MMWD Code Title 13- Water
Conservation (MMWD Ordinance 430), which is applicable to indoor and outdoor
(landscape/irrigation) improvements.
42. Current MMWD policy is to require that gray water; however, this project is not required to
install a gray water recycling system.
43. As noted under condition #2 above, the project must comply with the MMWD water
conservation ordinance. Final landscape and irrigation plans must be submitted to and
reviewed by MMWD for water conservation compliance prior to issuance of a building
permit.
San Rafael Sanitation District
44. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable regulations of the San Rafael Sanitary
District.
45. Final plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted to SRSD for review and
approval. The final plans shall show the existing sewer connections to the SRSD sewer main.
Use of the existing sewer lateral for the proposed connection for service, the system may
need to be pressure tested and televised in order to determine system condition and capacity.
Should the existing sewer lateral not be used for the proposed connection, it shall be
abandoned to the District’s Standard Specifications (lateral capped off at both ends).
46. The total waste water flows generated by the project and the location shall be calculated to
verify the existing sewer main capacity.
47. The project will be subject to applicable fees for sewer connection. Sewer connection fees
will be required and determined prior to sewer connection work in accordance with SRSD
Ordinance 56 (effective July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016). Fees will be calculated based on
fixture count, with credit given to the existing fixture count. Fees Based on the information
presented in the following table total connection fees are estimated at $124,599.71 (San
Rafael Sanitation District = $45,991.00 and CMSA = $78,607.98):
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
48. Electric and gas service to this development will be provided in accordance with the
applicable extension rules, copies of which are available by telephoning our Service Planning
office at our San Rafael Service Enter at 415-257-3431. PG&E staff encourages that they be
contacted as early as possible so that there is adequate time for PG&E to engineer and
schedule any necessary work of the development.
49. The cost of any relocation of existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead
facilities to underground necessitated by this project will be the responsibility of the
requester.
50. Prior to the start of excavation or construction, it is required that the contactor call
Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have the location of any existing
underground facilities marked in the field.
During Construction
ATTACHMENT 2 2-13
Community Development Department
51. During all ground-disturbing construction activities, a representative from a local Native
American tribe shall be invited to monitor and ensure proper handling of any archeological
remains that are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities. (Mitigation
Measure CULT-2A)
52. The project contractor comply with the following measures during construction:
a. Limited subsurface explorations shall be completed through a series of auger hole
borings.
b. If archaeological remains are found, work at the place of discovery shall be halted
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds (Section 15064.5 [f]).
o Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped
stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars
and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened
midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed
items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones.
o Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal
objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building
foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps).
c. If archaeological remains are found and judged potentially significant, a treatment plan
shall be developed and executed.
d. All cultural resources recovered as part of Project construction shall be subject to
scientific analysis and a report prepared according to current professional standards.
(Mitigation Measure CUL-2A)
53. If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-
disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from
the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures
or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as
necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis,
professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional
standards. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is
necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs,
and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data
recovery) would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is being carried out. (Mitigation Measure CULT-2B).
54. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction,
excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor
shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall
document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the
appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is
allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the Project proponent determines that
avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
the effect of the Project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan
ATTACHMENT 2 2-14
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. (Mitigation
Measure CULT-3)
55. In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 and Health and Human Safety Code
7050.5, if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be
halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines
the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons
believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely
descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate
dignity. (Mitigation Measure CULT-4)
56. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location
visible from the public street.
57. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited as specified by Municipal Code
Section 8.13.050.A which are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday
from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City-observed
holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction
workers, start-up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises
caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site (Mitigation
Measure NOISE-2).
58. The noise attenuation measures required by conditions cited above shall be implemented
during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2).
59. The construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Best Management
Practices for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control
dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15
miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
b. Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
construction sites.
c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top
of the load and the top of the trailer).
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as
needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to
control dust.
e. Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the
vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil
material.
f. Hydro-seed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
ATTACHMENT 2 2-15
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.).
h. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public
roadways.
(Mitigation Measure AQ-1)
60. During construction, the construction contractor shall use construction equipment fitted with
Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) and engines that meet the USEPA Certified Tier 3
emissions standards for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more. The construction contractor
shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the
City of San Rafael Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment
list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. Equipment
shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations. The construction contractor shall ensure that all non-essential idling of
construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air
Resources Board Rule 2449. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2)
61. The project sponsor shall prepare and submit a construction management plan to implement
the following dust control measures during project construction:
a. Water all active construction areas as necessary.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
e. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
f. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
g. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
h. Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of
construction areas.
Fire Department
62. Red curbing and “No Parking” signs shall be installed along the fire station frontage.
63. As determined by the Fire Department, EMTRAC signal equipment shall be installed for the
4th/D Street and 5th Avenue/D Street intersections.
64. The contract with UL-listed receiving station for sprinkler flow and fire alarm systems shall
be ratified.
65. All on-site employee safety and site security measures shall be in-place.
Prior to Occupancy
Community Development Department – Planning Division
ATTACHMENT 2 2-16
66. All landscaping and irrigation, as well as exterior lighting shall be installed and ready for
inspection prior to a request for final inspection and building occupancy by the Planning
Division.
67. All landscaping and irrigation must be approved by MMWD prior to City approval.
Verification of MMWD approval shall be submitted to the City.
Community Development Department – Building Division
68. The project contractor is responsible for requesting and scheduling the final inspection for
occupancy with all inspecting City departments and utility services prior to a final inspection
by the Building Division.
69. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project sponsor shall submit as-built plans to the
Building Division and the Department of Public Works.
Fire Department
70. The fire sprinkler system shall be tested to ensure the operation of the audible bell and
connection with the off-site receiving station.
71. All fire alarm, smoke, C/O and heat detecting equipment shall be tested and connection to the
alarm company shall be confirmed.
72. All roadway striping shall be installed and the operability of the EMTRAC system shall be
confirmed.
73. Fire extinguishers shall be located and installed, as directed by the Fire Department.
74. The final inspection shall include approval of the emergency generator, fuel storage (if
installed) and dispensing system.
75. The final inspection shall confirm that the building security system is installed and
functioning.
76. Building address numbering shall be installed in a visible location to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department.
Post Construction
Community Development Department – Planning Division
77. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and
debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion.
Use Permit UP15-035 Conditions of Approval
1. This Use Permit UP15-035 approves the City of San Rafael Public Safety Center for the 0.85-
acre subject property, which includes the following uses and activities:
a. Fire station (Station Company 51) with supportive facilities including apparatus and
equipment storage and firefighter sleeping quarters
b. Fire and Police Department administrative offices
c. Emergency Operations Center
ATTACHMENT 2 2-17
d. Police Department records, dispatching, and patrol operations
e. Joint use support facilities including but not limited to conference rooms, break rooms,
sleeping rooms and fitness center.
f. Public Plaza.
2. This Use Permit (UP15-035) shall be valid for two (2) years from the date of Planning
Commission approval or July 26, 2018, and shall become null and void unless a building
permit is issued or a time extension has been granted
The foregoing resolution was at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 26th day of July 2016.
Moved by Commissioner __________ and seconded by Commissioner __________.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: _______________________________ ______________________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Gerald Belletto, Vice Chairman
W:/. . ./psc.PC-Reso_UP_ED 7 26 16
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-1 LAND USE ELEMENT LU-9. Intensity of Nonresidential Development. Commercial and industrial areas have been assigned floor area ratios (FAR’s) to identify appropriate intensities (see Exhibits 4, 5 and 6). Maximum allowable FAR’s are not guaranteed, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Intensity of commercial and industrial development on any site shall respond to the following factors: site resources and constraints, traffic and access, potentially hazardous conditions, adequacy of infrastructure, and City design policies. Consistent. The subject site is designated as: a) Public/Quasi-Public, which allows a maximum FAR of 1.0; and b) Fifth/Mission Residential-Office, which allows a maximum FAR of 1.5. The project proposes an FAR of 1.17. LU-12. Building Heights. Citywide height limits in San Rafael are described in Exhibits 7 and 8. For Downtown height limits see Exhibit 9: Consistent. According to General Plan Exhibit 7 (Building Heights Limits for Central San Rafael), the maximum height limit for this property is 36-42 feet. The project is designed to comply with this height limit. LU-14. Land Use Compatibility. Design new development in mixed residential and commercial areas to minimize potential nuisance effects and to enhance their surroundings. Consistent. The project proposes a traditional design with contemporary design elements; it is compatible with the scale and design of improvements in the surrounding neighborhood. LU-23. Land Use Map and Categories. Land use categories are generalized groupings of land uses and titles that define a predominant land use type (See Exhibit 11). All proposed projects must meet density and FAR standards (See Exhibits 4, 5 and 6) for that type of use, and other applicable development standards. Some listed uses are conditional uses in the zoning ordinance and may be allowed only in limited areas or under limited circumstances. Maintain a Land Use Map that illustrates the distribution and location of land uses as envisioned by General Plan policies. (See Exhibit 11). Consistent. This site designated with the “Public/Quasi-Public” and “Fifth/Mission Residential /Office” land use categories. This category defines allowable land uses to include essential public safety facilities.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-2 NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT NH-27. Parking. Continue to make parking convenient and easy to find by encouraging solutions that address Downtown’s urban parking situation. Needed improvements include: Providing a range of long and short term parking. Facilitating the joint use of parking areas where appropriate. Reducing the visual impacts of parking areas through design and landscaping. Improving pedestrian safety in parking lots and garages. Alleviating parking congestion where appropriate by converting underdeveloped open lots into public and private parking lots. Improving signage and visibility of public parking facilities. Consistent. The project would displace existing, public (metered) parking. A parking plan proposes to relocate these displaced parking spaces in the City Hall parking lot located north of 5th Avenue. The parking plan also proposes to make shifts in the location of parking for police and fire fleet vehicles, employee parking spaces, as well as long- and short-term parking. NH-28. Special Places. Preserve Downtown’s reputation as a special place by developing a design strategy that capitalizes on Downtown’s existing strengths: Unique urban characteristics and density; Diversity in architectural design, and Historic heritage and buildings. Consistent. The project proposes a traditional design with contemporary design elements; it is compatible with the scale and design of improvements in the surrounding neighborhood. NH-29, Downtown Design. New and remodeled buildings must contribute to Downtown’s hometown feel. Design elements that enhance Downtown’s identity and complement the existing attractive environment are encouraged and may be required for locations with high visibility or for compatibility with historic structures. Design considerations include: Varied and distinctive building designs, Sensitive treatment of historic resources, Generous landscaping to accent buildings, Appropriate materials and construction; and Consistent. As noted above, the project proposes a traditional design with contemporary design elements; it is compatible with the scale and design of improvements in the surrounding neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-3 Site design and streetscape community. NH-31. Ground Floor Designed for Pedestrians. Ensure that all buildings regardless of height are comfortable for people at the street level. This includes: Relating walls and window heights to the height of people, Use of architectural elements to create visual interest, Adding landscaping and insets and alcoves for pedestrian interest, and Stepping upper stories back as building height increases. Consistent. Special attention has been given to the 5th Avenue and C Street frontages to incorporate building features and openings (windows and openings) to be pedestrian in scale and placement. NH-45. Fifth/Mission Residential/Office District. c. Fifth/Mission design. Encourage an interesting diversity of building styles in the Fifth/Mission District ranging from historic Victorians to well-articulated new office buildings. d. Fifth/Missions pedestrian character. Enhance the pedestrian character by preserving mature landscaping, planting more street trees and by enhancing views down the cross streets. e. Height. Heights of individual buildings will vary but be in similar scale to existing buildings west of E Street, and on the east end of Mission Avenue. Two- to three-story offices are anticipated east by B Street. Consistent. The project is designed to be traditional in appearance with contemporary design elements. The combination of these elements is consistent with the diversity of building styles along 5th Avenue. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT CD-1. City Image. Reinforce the City’s positive and distinctive image by recognizing the natural features of the City, protecting historic resources, and by strengthening the positive qualities of the City's focal points, gateways, corridors and neighborhoods. Consistent. The project has been designed to present a unique image that is appropriate for its purpose. With design modifications, the design has been well received by the Design Review Board and the community.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-4 CD-2. Neighborhood Identity. Recognize and promote the unique character and integrity of the city's residential neighborhoods and Downtown. Strengthen the "hometown" image of San Rafael by: Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of the Downtown; Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the City's residential neighborhoods; Improving the appearance and function of commercial areas; and Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local residents and create neighborhood-gathering places. Consistent. As noted above, while the project design is contemporary and unique, it does not conflict with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CD-3. Neighborhoods. Recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. Develop programs to encourage and respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods. Consistent As noted above, while the project design is fairly traditional in design with some contemporary features. The proposed design does not conflict with nor does it detract from the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CD-4. Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive image by recognizing, preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources. Consistent. A historic assessment of the existing Fire Station 51 and the Blue House was completed by a qualified architectural historian. This assessment is included in the Initial Environmental Study. The architectural historian has concluded that neither building meet the criteria to qualify as a historic resource. CD-10 (Non-Residential Design Guidelines). Recognize, preserve and enhance the design elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas. Develop design guidelines to ensure that new nonresidential and mixed-use development fits within and improves the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole. Consistent with conditions As part of the General Plan 2020, the City adopted residential design guidelines for non-residential projects. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the City’s non-residential guidelines and recommended approval of the project with some design changes. CD-15. Participation in Project Review. Provide for public involvement in the review of new development, renovations, and public projects with the following: a) design guidelines and other information relevant to the project as described in the Community Design Element that would be used by residents, designers, project developers, City staff, and City decision makers; b) Consistent. This project has been subject to extensive community outreach including a public open house held to present the design plans. A working group that includes community members, as well as representatives from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission participated in the formulation of the project design. As required by City code, notices of public hearings were mailed to all property owners, neighborhood groups and interested parties within 500 of the project site informing them of the proposed project and all public meetings prior to both public meetings (prior to this Planning Commission meeting)
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-5 distribution of the procedures of the development process that include the following: submittal information, timelines for public review, and public notice requirements; c) standardized thresholds that state when design review of projects is required (e.g. residential conversions, second-story additions); and d) effective public participation in the review process. conducted for this project. In addition, the site was posted with notice of all public meetings on this proposed project. CD-18. Landscaping. Recognize the unique contribution provided by landscaping, and make it a significant component of all site design. Consistent with conditions. A landscape plan is proposed as part of the project improvements. This landscape plan was reviewed by the Design Review Board and found to be acceptable, with some design modifications. The recommendations of the Board have been included in the design plans presented for Planning Commission action. CD-19. Lighting. Allow adequate site lighting for safety purposes while controlling excessive light spillover and glare. Consistent with conditions. An exterior lighting plan is proposed as part of the project improvements. This plan was reviewed by the Design Review Board and found to be acceptable, with some modifications. A final lighting plan is recommended as a condition of approval, which includes a requirement for a post-installation review to review and adjust lighting intensity, if warranted. CIRCULATION ELEMENT C-4. Safe Roadway Design. Design of roadways should be safe and convenient for motor vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Place highest priority on safety. In order to maximize safety and multimodal mobility, the City Council may determine that an intersection is exempt from the applicable intersection level of service standard where it is determined that a circulation improvement is needed for public safety considerations, including bicycle and pedestrian safety, and/or transit use improvements. Consistent. Vehicle access to the project site is provided via C and D Streets. Both C and D Streets would be changed from all one-way travel between 4th Street and 5th Avenue to two-way travel. The access points were studied by the City Engineer to determine and address the best means to minimize street congestion and maximize safety. C-5. Traffic Level of Service Standards. A. Intersection LOS. In order to ensure an effective roadway network, maintain adequate traffic levels of service (LOS) consistent with standards for signalized intersections in the A.M. and P.M. Consistent The traffic analysis for this new project, which has been incorporated into the Initial Environmental Study. The traffic study identifies that the project would not impact level of service at the local intersections, particularly the 5th Avenue and D Street intersection. As the project site is presently developed with public facilities and uses, and uses would be relocated from the neighboring City Hall, there is no increase in AM
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-6 peak hours as shown below, except as provided for under (B) Arterial LOS. and PM peak hour trips. C-30. Downtown Parking. Optimize the use of parking spaces Downtown. Consistent. Development of the Public Safety Center would displace existing, public (metered) parking. While this public parking would not be replaced on-site, a parking plan has been developed which relocates this public parking to the City Hall parking lot located north of 5th Avenue. The off-street parking that is proposed for the project complies with the provisions of the City’s parking ordinance (SRMC Chapter 14. 19). INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT I-5. Public Involvement. To the extent appropriate, continue to encourage public participation in the conceptual design and funding of major City building projects, such as public buildings and landscaping. I-5a. Design Review. Involve the community in the planning and design of major public facilities. As public improvements, City projects are subject to the appropriate level of design review. Consistent. See Policy CD-15 above. This project was subject to extensive community outreach, which included a hosted open house to present the design plans. I-8. Street Trees. Create street tree planting and maintenance programs and encourage the use of large canopy trees where appropriate in order to control temperature, improve air quality, control wind, define neighborhoods, and improve street appearance. I-8b. Street Trees for New Development. Require street trees at frequent spacing in all new developments and property upgrades, and consider mitigation for tree removal by planting street trees in locations other than the project site. Consistent with conditions. Street trees are planted along the 5th Avenue and D Street frontages. The street trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with new trees. The City Arborist has assessed the existing trees for health and maturity finding that the trees are in fair to poor condition. Replacement of the trees recommended as a condition of approval. GOVERNANCE ELEMENT G-8. City and Community Communication. Emphasize effective communication between City Hall and the community-at-large. Involve stakeholders in City projects as early as possible. Consistent. See Policy C-15 above. The project was subject to extensive community outreach, which included a hosted open house to present the design plans.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-7 G-9. Advisory Committees. Use appointed boards, task forces, commissions, and other advisory and ad hoc committees to assist City staff and the City Council in decision-making processes. Consistent. A working group that includes community members, as well as representatives from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission participated in the formulation of the project design. CULTURE AND ARTS CA-8. Facility Development. Develop and maintain public and encourage private cultural facilities to meet the growing and changing needs of the community. Consistent. The Public Safety Center includes a lobby that will provide space to display historic fire department equipment and materials. CA-13. Historic Buildings and Areas. Preserve buildings and areas with special and recognized historic, architectural or aesthetic value including but not limited to those on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey. New development and redevelopment should respect architecturally and historically significant buildings and areas. Consistent. A historic assessment of the existing Fire Station 51 and the Blue House was completed by a qualified architectural historian. This assessment is included in the Initial Environmental Study. The architectural historian has concluded that neither building meet the criteria to qualify as a historic resource. PARKS AND RECREATION PR-15. Downtown Recreation. Encourage the creation of recreation facilities and gathering places open to the public, such as plazas, green spaces, and unexpected places such as alley improvements behind Artworks Downtown. Consistent. The design of the Public Safety Center includes a new public plaza, which provides a civic center connection between City Hall and this new center. SAFETY ELEMENT S-2. Location of Public Improvements. Avoid locating public improvements and utilities in areas with identified flood, geologic and/or soil hazards to avoid any extraordinary maintenance and operating expenses. When the location of public improvements and utilities in such areas cannot be avoided, effective mitigation measures will be implemented. Consistent. As part of the San Rafael Essential Facilities Strategic Plan process, it was determined that subject site provides an optimum location for a fire company and paramedic unit. The site is centrally-located to accommodate emergency services response time. While near the FEMA flood hazard zone, the site is not located within this zone or other geologic hazards zones.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-8 S-4. Geotechnical Review. Continue to require geotechnical investigations for development proposals as set forth in the City's Geotechnical Review Matrix (Appendix F). Such studies should determine the actual extent of geotechnical hazards, optimum design for structures, the advisability of special structural requirements, and the feasibility and desirability of a proposed facility in a specified location. Consistent with conditions A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group, which is on-file with the City. S-6. Seismic Safety of New Buildings. Design and construct all new buildings to resist stresses produced by earthquakes. The minimum level of seismic design shall be in accordance with the most recently adopted building code as required by State law. Consistent The proposed project would entail all new construction and would be built in accordance with the most current building and seismic codes as required by the City’s Municipal Code. S-26. Fire and Police Services. Maintain adequate cost-effective fire protection, paramedic and police services. Minimize increases in service needs from new development through continued fire prevention and community policing programs. Consistent with conditions The City of San Rafael Police and Fire Departments have both reviewed the proposed project and certain conditions of approval to ensure that the new development would comply with their regulations and standards. The Fire Department has found that the project would comply with all Fire Codes and their recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated. The Crime Prevention officer of the Police Department has also reviewed the proposed project and found that the use and structure would be consistent with their crime prevention standards. S-28. Paramedic Services. Continue to seek adequate and cost-effective ways to provide accessible and reasonable emergency medical services. Consistent. See Policy S-2 above. The San Rafael Essential Facilities Strategic Plan assessed sites for paramedic services and it was determined that Medic 51, which now operates from Downtown Fire Station 51 should be relocated to Montecito Fire Station 52 (210 3rd Street) to provide for better and more efficient service to the community. S-39. Public Safety Facilities. Ensure that public safety facilities are designed and constructed adequately to efficiently operate paramedic, fire and police services, including times of disaster. Consistent. The City has approved the San Rafael Essential Facilities Strategic Plan, which responds to this policy. The Public Safety Center is part of Phase 1 of the strategic plan and it is critically needed to provide police and fire facilities that are seismically safe and up to date. NOISE ELEMENT N-4. Noise from New Nonresidential Development. Design nonresidential development to minimize noise impacts on neighboring uses. Consistent. A noise study was prepared with the Initial Environmental Study. The noise study recommends specific measures for addressing noise and vibration impacts during construction.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-9 SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT SU-5a. Green Building Regulations. Require new construction and remodel projects to comply with adopted green building regulations. Consistent with conditions. The project design team is studying ways to comply with the City’s Green Building regulations (Cal-Green). A condition of approval is recommended to ensure code compliance. SU-5c. Water Efficiency Programs. Develop and implement water efficiency and conservation programs to achieve a 30% reduction in water use by 2020, including water efficient landscape regulations, PACE financing, water audits, upgrades upon resale, and education and outreach. Consistent with conditions. The project is subject to and will be required to comply with MMWD Water Conservation Ordinance 429, which includes water-efficient landscaping and gray water measures. SU-6. New and Existing Trees. Plant new and retain existing trees to maximize energy conservation and carbon sequestration benefits. Consistent with conditions. See the Initial Environmental Study. The project site contains 18-19 existing trees including one Coast live oak tree. Tree removal is proposed including several large eucalyptus trees along Via Sessi and the Coast live oak tree, which is located between the existing fire station and the Blue House. Street tree and parking lot tree planting are included in the landscape plan and are required as a condition of approval. AIR AND WATER QUALITY ELEMENT AW-7. Local, State and Federal Standards. Continue to comply with local, state and federal standards for water quality. Consistent with conditions. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention standards (MCSTOPPP). The proposed plan is designed to be consistent with the stormwater pollution standards by treating stormwater runoff on-site in landscape areas or through an on-site filtration area before it enters into the storm drain system.
ATTACHMENT 3 1313 5TH AVENUE/1039 C STREET - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 File #: ED15-080 & UP15-035 PAGE: 3-10 AW-8. Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff. Address non-point source pollution and protect receiving waters from pollutants discharged to the storm drain system by requiring Best Management Practices quality. Support alternatives to impervious surfaces in new development, redevelopment or public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drain system, creeks and the Bay. Require that site designs work with the natural topography and drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the amount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems. Where feasible, use vegetation to absorb and filter fertilizers, pesticides and other pollutants. Consistent See Policy AW-7 above. Furthermore, as a standard building permit condition of approval, the proposed project would be required to implement a storm water pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices to minimize impacts on water quality and non-point source pollution discharge into the storm water system.
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: July 26, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
AP16-001, ED14-052
Project Planner:
Steve Stafford/ (415) 458-5048
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 270 Linden Ln.– Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s May 11, 2016 Conditional
Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) allowing the
construction of a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant,
9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading,
drainage and landscaping; APN: 015-041-56; Single-Family Residential (R7.5) District
Zone; Daniel Stitzel, Applicant; Raymond S. Bergante TR, Owner; ‘Grand Ct.
Neighborhood Homeowners’, Appellants; Case Number(s): ED14-052, AP16-001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to construct a new, two-story, single-family residence on a vacant ‘flag’ lot with
associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. The vacant lot was
created in 2003 by legal subdivision (S02-017) of the adjacent parcel, 262 Linden Ln. This subdivision,
essentially, created one (1) new, 9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind a another new 7,507 sq.
ft. lot (272 Linden Ln.) and required subsequent Environmental and Design Review Permits for each
single-family residence through the Zoning Administrator (ZA) with the review and recommendation of
the Design Review Board (DRB). This subdivision also required increased setbacks on the new ‘flag’ lot
(270 Linden Ln.); a 15’ rear yard setback was required, where the R7.5 District typically requires a
minimum of 10’, and a 20’ side yard (western property line) was required, where the R7.5 District
typically requires a minimum of 6’.
The DRB reviewed the project twice (February 2, 2016 and April 5, 2016), as a design review permit
application (ED14-052), along with separate design review permit application (ED14-051), which
proposed to construct a new, two-story, single-family residence on the other vacant lot created by the
2003 subdivision approval. The architectural design, scale, size and configuration of each new residence
was proposed to be identical; only the orientation of the structures and the exterior colors and materials
were proposed to be distinct. On April 5, 2016, the DRB voted unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers
absent; Robertson PC Liaison) to recommend approval of both projects with minor changes to the
Landscape Plans for each lot and the condition that the exterior building colors be presented for final
field review and modification (DRB staff reports for both meetings are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6,
respectively). On May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved both projects
separately, based on the DRB’s recommendation and included the DRB’s specific recommendations as
conditions of approval (Exhibit 5).
On May 17, 2016, the ‘Grand Ct. Neighborhood Homeowners’, representing six (6) households along
Grand Court, which is a private shared driveway along the rear of 270 Linden Ln., filed an appeal of the
ZA’s conditional approval (ED14-052) of the new single-family residence on the ‘flag’ lot at 270 Linden
Ln. (Exhibit 3), citing, principally, privacy issues purportedly created by the two-story scale and
requesting single-story scale for the new single-family residence. (The appeal letter lists other ‘requests’,
which were concessions agreed to by the applicant during the ZA meeting and incorporated into
conditions of approval (Conditions 4, 11 and 54) of ED14-052 (see Exhibit 5).The ZA’s conditional
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 2
approval (ED14-051) of the other new single-family residence on the adjacent vacant lot (272 Linden Ln.)
was not appealed.
The project complies with the development standards for the R7.5 District and the subdivision map. The
DRB unanimously recommended approval of the project and determined that the project adequately
complied with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. Additional concessions
were agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing to further reduce potential privacy impacts along
Grand Ct. in response to requests by the appellants. Therefore, staff recommends that the appeal has no
merit.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft Resolution denying the appeal
(AP16-001) and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s May 11, 2016 conditional approval of an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) to allow the construction of a new, two-story,
3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot and associated site
improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, located at 270 Linden Ln. (Exhibit 1).
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 270 Linden Ln.
(Temporary Address)
Parcel Number(s): 015-041-56
Property Size: 9,340 sq. ft. Neighborhood: Dominican/Black
Canyon
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: LDR R7.5 Vacant Lot
North: LDR R5 Single-Family
Residential
South: LDR R7.5 Single-Family
Residential
East: LDR R7.5 Single-Family
Residential
West: LDR R10 Single-Family
Residential
Site Description/Setting:
The subject site is one of two adjacent vacant infill parcels, located 150’ (approx.) north of the
intersection of Linden Lane and Grand Avenue, in the Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhood. The
subject site is a 9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot (temporary address of 270 Linden Ln.), with a 8.9% (approx.)
cross-slope, which is northeast-to-southwest trending. While the site is accessed exclusively to/from
Linden Ln. by a narrow (13.6’-wide) strip of land, Grand Court, a private shared driveway, is located
along the entire rear property line. The other adjacent vacant infill lot (temporary address of 272 Linden
Ln.) is located in front of the subject site and dominates the Linden Ln. frontage.
A triangular-shape, 336 square-foot (approx.) access easement is located parallel to Linden Ln. and
across the driveway of the subject site, providing secondary ingress and egress to the adjacent property
at 262 Linden Ln.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 3
The subject site is thickly wooded with predominately Acacia trees. The surrounding neighborhood is a
mixture of single- and multi-story single-family residences (R5, R7.5 and R10 Districts), 2,000 – 4,000 sq.
ft. (approx.) in size.
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2003, the Commission conditionally approved a Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262
Linden Ln into a three-lot subdivision, which effectively created two new vacant lots; a ‘flag’ lot (270
Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272 Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision
approval required the new ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15’ rear yard setback along Grand
Court, where a minimum 10’ is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20’ side yard (western property line)
setback, where a minimum 6’ is required in the R7.5 District.
On February 2, 2016, the DRB reviewed the two separate project (ED14-051 and ED14-052)
applications, proposing a new, two-story, single-family residence on each of the new lots. The DRB
continued their review to a date uncertain, providing the following recommendations:
A comprehensive re-study of the proposed landscape design for both project sites (270 and 272
Linden Ln.) is needed that includes, but is not limited to: 1) more native and more appropriate
plant species selection, particularly for screening purposes; 2) more random, less linear, planting
patterns; 3) relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing and exiting the
garages; 4) eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.); 5) relocate or reduce
the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; 6) plant species
proposed for bioswale areas; and 7) irrigation details; and
Due to the proposed grade change on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building
pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the window
glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be
relocated from north to the west elevation
The site and building design was subsequently revised in response to the DRB’s recommendations to
reduce privacy concerns along Grand Ct., including:
Reducing all north-facing upper-story rear yard windows to 2’ x 3’ high-sill windows;
Reducing outdoor patio area substantially along the north building elevation to allow for greater
landscape screening; and
Specific modifications to the proposed Landscape Plan, include plant species and locations, to
improve the general appropriateness of the new plantings and vegetative screening between the
new residence and Grand Ct.
On April 5, 2016, the DRB continued their review and unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent;
Robertson PC Liaison) recommended approval of both projects, with the following recommendations:
The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas on
both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not. Revise the Landscape Plans for
each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional
websites on bioswale plantings;
Substitute Podocarpus “Icee Blue” in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape
Plan for 272 Linden Ln;
Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed “G”
planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence though not included in the Plant
List;
Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are proposed
to be preserved on 272 Linden Ln. (mulch only is recommended); and
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 4
Prior to installing the integral-color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample
stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review by staff and
modification, if needed.
(Both DRB meetings are available for review on the City’s website at
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/)
On May 11, 2016, the ZA held a hearing on both projects. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to
additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy
impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct., including:
Constructing 8’-tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.;
Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building façade, facing Grand Ct.,
to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along
the top portion of the assembly; and
Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays
and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays.
During its review of the project, the ZA determined, based, in part, on the DRB recommendations:
The proposed two-story scale of the project is consistent with that of the immediate
neighborhood, which is a mixture of single- and multi-story scale;
The subdivision approval, which created the ‘flag; lot, increased setback requirements on the site
to help mitigate privacy impacts resulting from the project on adjacent neighbors. The site is
required to provide a 15’ rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10’ is typically
required in the R7.5 District, and a 20’ side yard setback, along the west property line shared with
276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6’ is typically required in the R7.5 District. These increased
setback requirements, effectively, reduce the allowable development envelope on the site and
make it extremely difficult to revise the building footprint to preserve the two existing, 48:”-
diameter Oak trees on the site.
As a matter of past practices, the installation of story poles during project review has been
required for new hillside residential projects only. The project site is non-hillside, with an average
cross-slope of less than 10%. Additionally, the current condition of the vacant lot is a heavily
vegetated thicket, which makes the installation of story poles difficult and significantly diminishes
their effectiveness.
The ZA conditionally approved both projects separately, finding each project are consistent with the
applicable General Plan policies, Single-Family Residential (R7.5) District and Subdivision Map
development standards, residential design guidelines, and review criteria for Environmental and Design
Review Permits (A copy of the ZA hearing minutes, findings and conditions of approval attached as
Exhibit 5).
On May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal (Exhibit 3) of the ZA’s
conditionally approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, allowing a new two-
story, single-family residence on the vacant ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) which is immediately adjacent to
Grand Ct. The appeal does not challenge the ZA conditional approval for the new, two-story, single-
family residence on the vacant lot in front of the ‘flag’ lot (272 Linden Ln.).
The appeal letter cites the following points of appeal: 1) The patio doors proposed along the north
building elevation, facing Grand Ct., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and
future creation of outdoor patio area; 2) All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio ‘in kind’;
3) The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included along the
north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.; 4) The existing rear fencing should
be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8’-tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct.
frontage, and Grand Ct. should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 5
activities; 5) Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited to 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and
holidays; 6) The project should include a ninety (90)-day lighting review period to allow adjustments in
exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.; and 7) Unmitigated privacy issues
require a single-story scale for the new residence rather than a two-story scale.
The appeal letter also references and attaches a letter previously provided at the ZA hearing by some of
the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct. which generally states that the project, as redesigned,
would result in a loss of privacy and ‘intrinsic value’ of the neighborhood. Specifically, these prior
comments state, that: it was the DRB’s intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the
north building elevation to be re-oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by
the patio doors along the north building elevation should be re-oriented to the west elevation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes to construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant
‘flag’ lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping.
Site Plan:
The ‘flag’ lot configuration, approved by the subdivision map, creates a long, narrow driveway access
from Linden Ln. and concentrates development on the rectangular portion of the site which is
immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a private shared driveway. The subdivision map requires increased
rear (north property line) and side yard (west property line) setbacks. A 15’ rear yard setback is required
and proposed; a 24’ 4” side yard (west property line) is proposed where a minimum 20’ is required.
Architecture:
The proposed architectural design, scale, size and configuration of the new residence on the ‘flag’ lot
(270 Linden Ln.) would be identical to the new residence on the adjacent vacant lot. Only the orientation
of the structure and the exterior earthtone/woodtone colors and materials would be distinct:
The new residence on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be oriented (garage and main
entrances) east-west while the new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed to be
oriented south-north.
The stucco texture on the new residence on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be
‘smooth’ while that on new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed to be a more course
stucco texture.
The earthtone/woodtone color palette on the residence on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) is
proposed to include a lighter tan base while new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed
to include a dark red base.
A standing-seam metal roof material is proposed on the residence on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden
Ln.) while ‘brown-blended’ S-shaped concrete tile shingles are proposed on the residence on the
adjacent vacant lot.
The proposed architectural vernacular is ‘contemporary Spanish Colonial’, highlighted by multi-level low-
profile (‘3-n-12’ pitch) roof forms, stucco texture, wood-clad casement windows and double-doors, arched
window transom fenestration, tapered chimneys, circular metal grill adornments and wood trellis
projections over the garage door and select ground-floor windows. Ground-level outdoor patio areas are
proposed along the entire south and west building elevations and partially along the north elevation.
Landscaping:
The project proposes to remove all existing vegetation on the vacant ‘flag’ lot, including 25 existing trees,
three (3) of which are mature Oak trees, 12-48” in diameter. The project proposes to install new
landscaping, a consistent mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcovers, including 21 new trees
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 6
two (2) of which are new Oak trees. All new trees are proposed to be a mixture of both 15-gallon and
24”-box container size.
Grading/Drainage:
The project proposes a total of 996 CYDS of excavation on the vacant ‘flag’ lot and the adjacent vacant
lot; 336 CYDS of ‘cut’ and 662 CYDS of ‘fill’. Portions of the existing grade on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden
are proposed to be raised up to 3.7’. Proposed storm water drainage improvements include 1.5 – 2’-wide
planted bioswale areas around the perimeter of the ‘flag’ lot. All storm water runoff is proposed to drain to
existing cobble-lined inlet ditches and 30”-diameter underground culvert, both located within the Linden
Ln. ROW.
ANALYSIS
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s Decision on May 11, 2016:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s conditional approval of the new two-story residence on the
vacant ‘flag’ lot at 270 Linden Ln.( Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052,) was filed by
a group of six (6) neighboring residents along Grand Ct., which shares the rear property line with the site.
The appeal letter (Exhibit 3) mostly lists requested revisions or modifications to the project, many of
which were recommendations by the DRB or were agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing and
have been incorporated as conditions of approval. These appeal points are paraphrased below by staff
and each appeal point is followed by staff’s response (Please note, the applicant has also submitted a
response to the appeal letter, which is attached as Exhibit 4):
Appeal Point #1: The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand
Ct., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future creation of
outdoor patio area.
During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy
impacts along the north building elevation, between the new residence and Grand Ct., including;
modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building façade, facing Grand Ct., to
provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top
portion of the assembly. This agreement was incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see
Condition 5).
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the
north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the
DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the additional concessions
requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB
recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either
into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning
Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural
and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
Appeal Point #2: All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio ‘in kind’.
The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines require 3:1 replacement of all ‘significant’ Oak
trees (Any Oak tree species which is in good health and form and is more than 6 inches or 6” in
diameter as measured 4’ 6” above the root crown), which are proposed for removal on hillside sites.
Generally, it is recommended that the proposed removal of significant’ Oak trees on non-hillside sites
should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape
improvements is determined during project review.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 7
There exists two (2) mature Oak trees currently on the site, both 48” in diameter and located in the
middle of the proposed building envelope (see Sheet G3 of the project plans to review the existing
tree removal/preservation details). The subdivision map approval, which approved the creation of the
site, requires greater setbacks than the zoning (R7.5 District) requires; the site is required to provide
a 15’ rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10’ is required in the R7.5 District, and a
20’ side yard setback, along the west property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of
6’ is required in the R7.5 District. These increased setback requirements, effectively, reduce the
allowable development envelope on the site and make it challenging to revise the building footprint to
preserve the two existing, 48:”-diameter Oak trees on the site. During their review, the DRB made
specific recommendations on the proposed Landscape Plan and, ultimately, recommended approval
the revised Landscape Plan along with the project, including the proposed removal of all existing
trees on the site.
Appeal Point #3: The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should
be included along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.
The project proposed, and was approved with, earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials (“La
Habra X-81584 Suffolk” beige base stucco color with “Benjamin Moore Dragon’s Breath-1547” dark
brown trim color, and “Custom-Built Metals Musket” dark brown standing seam metal roof with ‘cool;
coating exterior). On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed revisions to the project and recommended
approval to the ZA, subject to specific modifications to the Landscape Plan. While finding the
proposed earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials acceptable, the DRB additionally
recommended that, prior to installing the integral-color stucco exterior finish to the residence, sample
stucco panels of the approved base color should be presented for final field review by staff and
modification, if needed. These approved earthtone/woodtone exterior colors and materials, and the
requirement that staff conduct final field review of a larger stucco sample of the base color prior to
installation on the residence, were incorporated as conditions of approval by the ZA (see Conditions
2 and 3). At the Commission hearing on the appeal, a colors and materials board will be presented
for review.
The new Landscape Plan for the project was reviewed by the DRB twice; as an original submittal on
February 2, 2016 and again with revisions on April 5, 2016. The DRB initial recommendations
included specific revisions to the proposed plant species and their location on the site and a request
to relocate the patio area along the north building elevation which would allow for greater planting
between the new residence and Grand Ct. Ultimately, the DRB recommended approval of the revised
project, including a revised Landscape Plan, to the ZA, which incorporated changes to plant species
and their location, as well as a substantial reduction in patio area along the north building elevation
that allowed additional landscape plantings.
Appeal Point #4: The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project should
include new, 8’-tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not
be used as access to the site during construction and grading activities.
After the ZA hearing, the applicant had the existing rear fencing on the site, which abuts Grand Ct.,
repaired so that it is no longer slumps onto the existing mailboxes lining Grand Ct. During the ZA
hearing, the applicant agreed to an additional concession in order to reduce privacy impacts along
the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct.. Specifically, the applicant agreed
to construct new, 8’-tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct. (see
Condition 4).
Grand Ct. is a private shared driveway, shared by nine (9) residences, which is located immediately
adjacent to the site. While the project has no right to access the site from Grand Ct.., a condition of
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 8
approval was included by the ZA specifically prohibiting all access to the site from Grand Ct. during
all construction or grading activities (see Condition 12).
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the
north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the
DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the additional concessions
requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB
recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either
into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning
Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural
and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
.
Appeal Point #5: Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities
should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no
work allowed on Sundays and holidays.
During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy
impacts in the immediate neighborhood, including; reducing the allowable construction and grading
hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Saturdays. This agreement was incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see Condition
11).
Appeal Point #6: The project should include a ninety (90)-day lighting review period to allow
adjustments in exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.
Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare; Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires, as
part of project review, all new exterior lighting be subject to a ninety (90)-day post-construction
review and inspection period to allow for adjustments in lighting intensity or fixture shielding to assure
the project will not cast unreasonable off-site glare. Though currently unknown, it is likely the project
includes some type of exterior lighting. As such, a standard condition of approval (see Condition 54)
was included by the ZA, requiring a ninety (90)-day lighting review period beginning at the time of
building permit final.
Appeal Point #7: Unmitigated privacy issues require a single-story scale for the new
residence rather than a two-story scale.
This appears to staff to be one of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this appeal.
This comment was provided during the DRB’s review of the project who, ultimately, determined the
proposed two-story scale to be both appropriate for the site and consistent with the existing mixture
of single-story and multi-story scale within the surrounding neighborhood. Both the increased
setbacks required by the Subdivision Map approval and the approved Landscape Plan which
emphasizes and creates a landscaped screening buffer around the entire residence, help to mitigate
privacy impacts resulting from the project. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review
Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper-story windows on active, recreational areas in the rear
or side yards of adjacent residences. The impact of rear yard-facing upper-story windows along
Grand Ct., the project proposes only high-sill (5’-sill height above the upper-story finish floor), rear
yard-facing upper-story windows along Grand Ct., which helps to mitigate privacy impacts.
Additionally, the rear-facing north building elevation is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a shared
private driveway and 25-wide access easement and not an active, recreational area in the rear or
side yards of any adjacent residence.
Appeal Point #8: It was the DRB’s intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along
the north building elevation to be re-oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 9
area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation should be re-oriented to the
west elevation.
This appears to staff to be the other of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this
appeal. This comment was also provided during the DRB’s review of the project. The DRB agreed
that the proposed grade change on the site and raised building pad elevation creates potential
privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage which should be better mitigated. At their original
review of the project on February 2, 2016, the DRB recommended that the window glazing be
reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to
the west elevation. As stated in staff’s response to Appeal Point #7 above, the review criteria for
Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper-story windows only
on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The applicant revised
the project to reduce the upper-story window glazing along the north building elevation by reducing
the previous 9’ x 6’ master bedroom window to a 2’ x 3’ high-sill window design matching the other
upper-story windows along the north elevation. The 9’ x 6’ master bedroom upper-story window was
relocated to the west building elevation. Additionally, the ‘north patio was reduced by approximately
2/3rd of its original area along the north building elevation and the landscape area, between the new
residence and Grand Ct., was expanded and the landscape plantings were increased.
On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed these project revisions, along with specific modifications to the
Landscape Plan, and determined that these site and building modifications adequately responded to
their previous recommendations and unanimously recommended approval of the project to the ZA.
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the
north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the
DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the additional concessions
requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB
recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either
into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning
Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural
and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed.
Construction of one (1) single-family residence on a legal parcel, such as proposed by the project, is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (a) (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of two (2) DRB meetings, the ZA hearing and this Planning Commission hearing on the appeal of
the ZA’s conditional approval of the project were all conducted in accordance with the noticing
requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance (Title 14 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code). For all four (4) meetings and hearings, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all
property owners and occupants with a 300-foot radius of the site, and the designated neighborhood
group (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Assn.) at least 15 days prior to each meeting and
hearing. In addition, notice of each meeting and hearing was posted at the site, along both the Linden
Ln. and Grand Ct. frontages, at least 15 days prior to each meeting and hearing, in accordance with
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance.
During the DRB’s review of the project, staff received comments from the applicable neighborhood
groups, the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association (D/BCNA) and a Grand Ct. neighbor
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page
10
(John Sarter; 3 Grand Ct.). The D/BCNA comments concerned, principally, the appropriateness of the
Landscaping Plan; while comments were provided on the appropriateness of specific species of new
proposed site landscaping, the D/BCNA requested appropriate vegetative screening between the new
residence and Grand Ct. to maintain privacy. Mr. Sarter’s comments also included privacy concerns
along Grand Ct. resulting, primarily, from the increased grade of the building pad and large amount of
glazing along the north building elevation. Mr. Salter requested story poles to better understand the scale
of the project, though he also requested relocation of the building pad in order to preserve two existing,
48:”-diameter Oak trees.
During the ZA hearing, comments were hand-delivered to the ZA stating that the DRB-required revisions
to the building and site design were not adequately incorporated into the DRB-recommended revised
plans (Copies of the all comments submitted prior to the ZA’s conditional approval of the project are
attached as Exhibit 6a).
After the ZA hearing, the applicant and the appellants, the Grand Ct. neighbors, continued to meet to try
and work out a resolution and eliminate the appeal. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Staff has
received one (1) additional comment from a Grand Ct. neighbor (Gloria Gutierrez; 5 Grand Ct.) stating
that the project would raise the finish grade on the site up to 4.5’ above the existing grade along Grand
Ct., which would continue to create an unreasonable privacy impact to residents using Grand Ct. (A copy
of the comments submitted after the ZA’s conditional approval of the project are attached as Exhibit 6b).
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval (with DRB recommendations) of
the project (staff recommendation);
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval (with DRB recommendations) of
the project with modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project and the DRB recommendations, reversing the decision of
the Zoning Administrator, and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or
4. Continue the matter to allow the applicant, appellant and/or staff to address any comments or
concerns of the Planning Commission.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution, Denying the Appeal and Upholding the ZA’s Conditional Approval
2. Vicinity/Location Map
3. Letter of Appeal, dated May 17, 2016
4. Applicant’s Response to Appeal Letter, dated July 20, 2016
5. ZA Hearing Minutes with Findings and Conditions of Approval, dated May 11, 2016
6. Public Correspondence
a. Received Prior to ZA Hearing
b. Received After ZA Hearing
Reduced (11” x 17”) project plans and separate plan sheet, showing the history of design revisions to the
north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing, have been provided to the PC only.
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL
(AP16-001) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S MAY 11, 2016 APPROVAL
OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED14-
052) CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,754
SQ. FT., SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT 9,340 SQ. FT. ‘FLAG’ LOT AND
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING MINOR GRADING, DRAINAGE AND
LANDSCAPING, LOCATED AT 270 LINDEN LN.
APN: 015-041-56
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a
Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262 Linden Ln into a three-lot subdivision, which
effectively created two new vacant lots; a ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272
Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision approval required the new ‘flag’ lot
(270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15’ rear yard setback along Grand Court, where a minimum 10’ is
required in the R7.5 District, and a 20’ side yard (western property line) setback, where a
minimum 6’ is required in the R7.5 District; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, Daniel Stitzel (applicant), on behalf of the Raymond S.
Bregante Trust (owner) submitted signed applications to the Community Development
Department, Planning Division, requesting separate Environmental and Design Review Permits
(ED14-051 and ED14-052) to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence
and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on each
separate vacant lot. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-051) proposed to
construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a 7,507 sq. ft. vacant lot at
272 Linden Ln. while Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) proposed to
construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a 9,340 sq. ft. vacant ‘flag’
lot at 270 Linden Ln. The architectural design, scale, size and configuration of each new
residence was proposed to be identical; only the orientation of the structures and the exterior
colors and materials were proposed to be distinct; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, Planning staff deemed each project application
‘complete’ and ready for hearing; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the San Rafael Design Review Board (DRB) held a
duly-noticed public hearing on each separate Environmental and Design Review Permit
application, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning
staff, and continued their review to a date uncertain, providing the following recommendations:
1) A comprehensive re-study of the proposed landscape design for both project sites (270 and
272 Linden Ln.) is needed that includes, but is not limited to: a) more native and more
appropriate plant species selection, particularly for screening purposes; b) more random, less
linear, planting patterns; c) relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing
and exiting the garages; d) eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.); e)
relocate or reduce the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; f)
plant species proposed for bioswale areas; and g) irrigation details; and
2) Due to the proposed grade change on the ‘flag’ lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the
building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 2
window glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area
shall be relocated from north to the west elevation; and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently revised the site and building design in response
to the DRB’s recommendations to reduce privacy concerns along Grand Ct., including: 1)
Reducing all north-facing upper-story rear yard windows to 2’ x 3’ high-sill windows; 2) Reducing
outdoor patio area substantially along the north building elevation to allow for greater landscape
screening; and 3) Specific modifications to the proposed Landscape Plan, include plant species
and locations, to improve the general appropriateness of the new plantings and vegetative
screening between the new residence and Grand Ct; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the DRB held a duly-noticed public hearing to continue
their review on each separate revised Environmental and Design Review Permit application,
accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff, and
unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent; Robertson PC Liaison) recommended
approval of both projects, with the following recommendations:
1) The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas
on both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not; revise the Landscape Plans
for each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting
professional websites on bioswale plantings;
2) Substitute Podocarpus “Icee Blue” in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape
Plan for 272 Linden Ln.;
3) Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed “G”
planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence though not included in the Plant
List;
4) Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are
proposed to be preserved on 272 Linden Ln. (mulch only is recommended); and
5) Prior to installing the integral-color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample
stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review and
modification, if necessary, by staff; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a duly-noticed public
hearing, accepting all oral and written public testimony, and conditionally approved both projects
separately (ED14-051 and ED14-052), finding each project consistent with the applicable
General Plan policies, Single-Family Residential (R7.5) District and Subdivision Map
development standards, residential design guidelines, and review criteria for Environmental and
Design Review Permits. Prior to the hearing, the ZA confirmed that all DRB recommendations
were either incorporated in revisions to the Landscape Plans for each project or were included
as conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions
requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy impacts along
the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct., including: 1) Constructing 8’-
tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; 2) Modifying the
design of the folding patio doors along the north building façade, facing Grand Ct., to provide
fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top
portion of the assembly; and 3) Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to
8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. These
additional concessions by the applicant were incorporated by the ZA as conditions of approval
(see Conditions 4, 5 and 11) and
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 3
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal of
the ZA’s conditionally approval of the new two-story, single-family residence on the vacant ‘flag’
lot at 270 Linden Ln. (ED14-052), which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct. The appeal letter
cites the following points of appeal:
1) The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand Ct., should be
replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area;
2) All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio ‘in kind’;
3) The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included
along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.;
4) The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8’-
tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not be used as
access to the site during construction and grading activities;
5) Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited to 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on
Sundays and holidays;
6) The project should include a ninety (90)-day lighting review period to allow adjustments in
exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.; and
7) Unmitigated privacy issues require a single-story scale for the new residence rather than a
two-story scale; and
WHEREAS, the appeal letter also references and attaches a letter previously provided
at the ZA hearing by some of the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct. which generally
states that the project, as redesigned, would result in a loss of privacy and ‘intrinsic value’ of the
neighborhood. Specifically, these prior comments state, that: it was the DRB’s intention to
require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re-oriented to
the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north
building elevation should be re-oriented to the west elevation; and
WHEREAS, the appeal does not challenge the ZA conditional approval for the new, two-
story, single-family residence on the vacant lot in front of the ‘flag’ lot at 272 Linden Ln.(ED14-
051) and, therefore, that approval stands; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning
Commission) held a duly noticed appeal hearing to consider the Appeal (AP16-001), accepted
and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies
the Appeal (16-001) and upholds the May 11, 2016 ZA’s conditional approval of Environmental
and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, which allows the construction of a new two-story,
3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor
grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot located at 270 Linden Ln.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be
supported for the following reasons:
Appeal Point #1: The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing
Grand Ct., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future
creation of outdoor patio area.
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 4
During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce
privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the new residence and Grand
Ct., including; modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building
façade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly
and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. This agreement was
incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see Condition 5).
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution
of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the
project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the
additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during
the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the
applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets
of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be
updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the
time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
Appeal Point #2: All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio ‘in kind’.
The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines require 3:1 replacement of all
‘significant’ Oak trees (Any Oak tree species which is in good health and form and is more
than 6 inches or 6” in diameter as measured 4’ 6” above the root crown), which are
proposed for removal on hillside sites. Generally, it is recommended that the proposed
removal of significant’ Oak trees on non-hillside sites should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio,
though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape improvements is determined
during project review.
There exists two (2) mature Oak trees currently on the site, both 48” in diameter and located
in the middle of the proposed building envelope (see Sheet G3 of the project plans to review
the existing tree removal/preservation details). The subdivision map approval, which
approved the creation of the site, requires greater setbacks than the zoning (R7.5 District)
requires; the site is required to provide a 15’ rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a
minimum 10’ is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20’ side yard setback, along the west
property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6’ is required in the R7.5
District. These increased setback requirements, effectively, reduce the allowable
development envelope on the site and make it challenging to revise the building footprint to
preserve the two existing, 48:”-diameter Oak trees on the site. During their review, the DRB
made specific recommendations on the proposed Landscape Plan and, ultimately,
recommended approval the revised Landscape Plan along with the project, including the
proposed removal of all existing trees on the site.
Appeal Point #3: The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and
plantings should be included along the north property boundary, between the new
residence and Grand Ct.
The project proposed, and was approved with, earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and
materials (“La Habra X-81584 Suffolk” beige base stucco color with “Benjamin Moore
Dragon’s Breath-1547” dark brown trim color, and “Custom-Built Metals Musket” dark brown
standing seam metal roof with ‘cool; coating exterior). On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed
revisions to the project and recommended approval to the ZA, subject to specific
modifications to the Landscape Plan. While finding the proposed earthtone/woodtine exterior
colors and materials acceptable, the DRB additionally recommended that, prior to installing
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 5
the integral-color stucco exterior finish to the residence, sample stucco panels of the
approved base color should be presented for final field review and approval by staff. These
approved earthtone/woodtone exterior colors and materials, and the requirement that staff
field review and approve a mock-up samples of the base stucco color prior to installation,
were incorporated as conditions of approval by the ZA (see Conditions 2 and 3). At the
Commission hearing on the appeal, a colors and materials board will be presented for
review.
The new Landscape Plan for the project was reviewed by the DRB twice; as an original
submittal on February 2, 2016 and again with revisions on April 5, 2016. The DRB initial
recommendations included specific revisions to the proposed plant species and their
location on the site and a request to relocate the patio area along the north building
elevation which would allow for greater planting between the new residence and Grand Ct.
Ultimately, the DRB recommended approval of the revised project, including a revised
Landscape Plan, to the ZA, which incorporated changes to plant species and their location,
as well as a substantial reduction in patio area along the north building elevation that
allowed additional landscape plantings.
Appeal Point #4: The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project
should include new, 8’-tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand
Ct. should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading
activities.
After the ZA hearing, the applicant had the existing rear fencing on the site, which abuts
Grand Ct., repaired so that it is no longer slumps onto the existing mailboxes lining Grand
Ct. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to an additional concession in order to
reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand
Ct.. Specifically, the applicant agreed to construct new, 8’-tall, solid wood fencing along the
entire north property line with Grand Ct. (see Condition 4).
Grand Ct. is a private shared driveway, shared by nine (9) residences, which is located
immediately adjacent to the site. While the project has no right to access the site from Grand
Ct.., a condition of approval was included by the ZA specifically prohibiting all access to the
site from Grand Ct. during all construction or grading activities (see Condition 12).
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution
of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the
project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the
additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during
the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the
applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets
of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be
updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the
time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
Appeal Point #5: Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading
activities should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays.
During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce
privacy impacts in the immediate neighborhood, including; reducing the allowable
construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 6
from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. This agreement has been incorporated as a
condition of approval (see Condition 11).
Appeal Point #6: The project should include a ninety (90)-day lighting review period to
allow adjustments in exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand
Ct.
Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare; Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance,
requires, as part of project review, all new exterior lighting be subject to a ninety (90)-day
post-construction review and inspection period to allow for adjustments in lighting intensity
or fixture shielding to assure the project will not cast unreasonable off-site glare. Though
currently unknown, it is likely the project includes some type of exterior lighting. As such, a
standard condition of approval (see Condition 54) has been included, requiring a ninety (90)-
day lighting review period beginning at the time of building permit final.
Appeal Point #7: Unmitigated privacy issues require a single-story scale for the new
residence rather than a two-story scale.
This appears to staff to be one of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this
appeal. This comment was provided during the DRB’s review of the project who, ultimately,
determined the proposed two-story scale to be both appropriate for the site and consistent
with the existing mixture of single-story and multi-story scale within the surrounding
neighborhood. Both the increased setbacks required by the Subdivision Map approval and
the approved Landscape Plan which emphasizes to create a landscaped screening buffer
around the entire residence, help to mitigate privacy impacts resulting from the project. The
review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of
upper-story windows on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent
residences. The impact of rear yard-facing upper-story windows along Grand Ct., the project
proposes only high-sill (5’-sill height above the upper-story finish floor), rear yard-facing
upper-story windows along Grand Ct., which helps to mitigate privacy impacts. Additionally,
the rear-facing north building elevation is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a shared
private driveway and 25-wide access easement and not an active, recreational areas in the
rear or side yards of adjacent residence.
Appeal Point #8: It was the DRB’s intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio
areas along the north building elevation to be re-oriented to the west elevation; and 2)
The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation
should be re-oriented to the west elevation.
This appears to staff to be the other of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms
this appeal. This comment was also provided during the DRB’s review of the project. The
DRB agreed that the proposed grade change on the site and raised building pad elevation
creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage which should be better
mitigated. At their original review of the project on February 2, 2016, the DRB recommended
that the window glazing be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio
area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation. As stated in staff’s response to
Appeal Point #7 above, the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits
seeks to reduce the impacts of upper-story windows only on active, recreational areas in the
rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The applicant revised the project to reduce the
upper-story window glazing along the north building elevation by reducing the previous 9’ x
6’ master bedroom window to a 2’ x 3’ high-sill window design matching the other upper-
story windows along the north elevation. The 9’ x 6’ master bedroom upper-story window
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 7
was relocated to the west building elevation. Additionally, the ‘north patio was reduced by
approximately 2/3rd of its original area along the north building elevation and the landscape
area, between the new residence and Grand Ct., was expanded and the landscape
plantings were increased.
On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed these project revisions, along with specific modifications
to the Landscape Plan, and determined that these site and building modifications
adequately responded to their previous recommendations and unanimously recommended
approval of the project to the ZA.
The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution
of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the
project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB-recommended revisions or the
additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during
the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the
applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets
of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be
updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the
time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning
Administrator’s conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052,
which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and
associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant,
9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot located at 270 Linden Ln., based on the following findings:
Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings
(ED14-052)
A. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is in accordance with the
City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the
purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review
Permits), in that;
1. The project will be consistent with Land Use Policies LU-2 (Development Timing),
LU-8 (Density of Residential Development), and LU-12 (Building Heights) of the
General Plan, in that; a) All appropriate City departments and quasi-governmental
agencies that would provide water, sewer and power services to the site have
reviewed the proposed project and determined that there is adequate capacity to
service the new project, subject to the payment of impact fees which have been
included as conditions of approval’ b)The Low Density Residential (LDR) General
Plan land use designation allows single-family residential development on the site;
and c) The proposed 21’ 8” building height for the single-family residence (building
height per 1997 UBC definition as adopted by the Zoning Ordinance) complies with
the maximum allowable 30’ building height for the R7.5 District in which the site is
located;
The project will be consistent with Housing Policy H-2 (Design That Fits into the
Neighborhood Context) of the General Plan, in that; the project proposes a new
multi-story single-family residence in a neighborhood with a mixture of both single-
and multi-story single-family residences;
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 8
The project will be consistent with Neighborhoods Policy NH-2 (New Development in
Residential Neighborhoods) of the General Plan, in that; the proposed design of the
project incorporates sensitive transitions in building height and setbacks from
adjacent properties to respect existing development character and privacy,
particularly along the west and north building elevations, where the recent
Subdivision approval (S02-017) which created the site and an adjacent parcel,
increased the minimum required yard setbacks;
The project will be consistent with Community Design Policies CD-2 (Neighborhood
Identity), CD-4 (Historic Resources), CD-5 (Views), CD-13 (Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines) CD-15 (Participation in Project Review), CD-18 (Landscaping)
and CD-19 (Lighting) of the General Plan, in that; a) The proposed design of the
project will be in character with the existing single- and multi-story scale of the
neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed
design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262
Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with
project (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); c) The design of the project will
actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the
Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the
sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and
replace with a more open, managed landscape character consistent with the
Landscape Plan for the site as recommended for approval by the DRB; d) The
proposed building design incorporates the character-defining elements of the
neighborhood, including ‘low-profile’ (3”-in-12” pitch) gable roof forms and a varied
mixture of exterior colors and materials; e) The proposed project has provided
opportunities for public review and participation through the referral (including the
appropriate neighborhood group or the D/BCNA) and the noticing and posting of two
DRB meetings, the ZA hearing conditionally approving the project and the Planning
Commission denying the appeal of the ZA conditional approval of the project (hard
copy mailed to all owners and occupants within a 300’ radius of the site and the
D/BCNA and no less than 15 calendar days prior to each meeting and hearing), and
the public hearings themselves; f) The DRB has reviewed the proposed Landscape
Plans for the site on two occasions and has recommended approval of the project,
including the Landscape Plan; and g) The project approval is conditioned (Condition
54) to required compliance with the City’ adopted lighting standards (Section
14.16.227 of the Zoning Ordinance) to mitigate potential off-site light and glare; and
2. The project will be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance), in that:
As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will implement, support and promote,
generally, all applicable goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 that
are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare;
As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will be particularly consistent with all
applicable Community Design Policies of the General Plan;
The project will ensure adequate light, air space, fire safety and privacy between
buildings, in that; a) The project will be consistent with the increased minimum yard
setbacks as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created
site and the adjacent parcel (272 Linden Ln.), along the west and north property
lines; and b) The design of the project has been reviewed by all appropriate City
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 9
departments, including the Community Development Department, Building Division
and the Fire Prevention Bureau, non-city agencies, the neighborhood group
(D/BCNA) and the DRB, who have each recommended approval of the project
subject to the condition listed below;
The project will coordinate the service demands of the new development with the
capacities of existing streets, utilities and public services, in that; the public utility
agencies that currently provide, and will continue to provide access, water, sewer
and other services to the site have reviewed the project and determined that there is
adequate capacity to service the site; and
As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project have provided for effective citizen
participation in the decision-making process.
3. The project will be consistent with the specific purposes of Chapter 25
(Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that:
The project will maintain the proper balance between development and the natural
environment, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design
Policies, the project will replace an overgrown thicket of primarily Acacia trees with a
more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the
site which was reviewed twice by the DRB and recommended for approval;
The project will ensure that the location, design and materials and colors of
development blends with and enhances the natural setting, in that; as discussed in
Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies; a) The proposed design of the
project will be in character with the existing single- and multi-story scale of the
neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed
design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262
Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with
projects (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); and c) The proposed building
design incorporates the character-defining elements of the neighborhood, including
‘low-profile’ (3”-in-12” pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors
and materials; and
The project will preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public
property, in that; a) The Landscape Plan for the site increased landscape plantings in
the increased minimum yard setbacks, as required by the recent Subdivision
approval (S02-017), which created the site and the adjacent site (272 Linden Ln.), to
help screen the new residence from public view along Grand Ct.; and b) The project
will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the
Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the
sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and
replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the
Landscape Plan for the site and recommended for approval by the DRB.
B. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is consistent with all
applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the R7.5
District in which the site is located, in that;
1. The design of the project will be consistent with the development standards of the
R7.5 District, including:
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 10
a) Maximum density (one single-family residential unit allowed and proposed on the
site);
b) Minimum required yards (15’ front setback required, 15’ proposed; 6’/20’ side
setback required, 24’ 4”/30’ proposed; 10’ rear setback required, 15’ rear setback
proposed);
c) Maximum building height (30’ allowed; approximately 21.8’ proposed, above
grade as measured per the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 method for non-
hillside parcels);
d) Maximum lot coverage (40% allowed; 30.2% or 2,268 sq. ft. proposed);
e) Maximum upper-story (75% of max. lot coverage allowed, 1,486 sq. ft. or 49.5%
proposed); and
2. The design of the project will be consistent with the review criteria for Environmental
and Design Review Permits, in that; a) The project will harmoniously relate in context
or scale to existing residences in the immediate vicinity of the sites, which are a
varied mixture of single- and multi-story construction; b) The project will actually
increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln.
frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites,
which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace
with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan
for the sites which was reviewed twice and recommended for approval by the DRB;
c) The proposed building design incorporates the character-defining elements of the
neighborhood, including ‘low-profile’ (3”-in-12” pitch) gable roof forms and a varied
mixture of exterior colors and materials; d) The shading impacts of the project have
been evaluated by staff which indicate the project will not produce shadowing of
existing solar collectors or primary, active recreation areas in the rear and/or side
yards of adjacent properties; e) The project will provide two covered (garage) parking
spaces, which meet minimum 20’ x 20’ interior dimensions and the minimum 26’
back-up; f) All new side- and rear-facing upper-story windows, are oriented so as to
not create a direct line-of-sight into existing windows on immediately adjacent
properties and will not look directly onto private patios or backyards on immediately
adjacent properties; and g) The project has been conditioned to require a 90-day
lighting review period, commencing at Building Permit Final, requiring all new
exterior light sources installed by the project to be shielded down or at appropriate
illumination levels to provide an adequate level of safety while controlling off-site
glare.
C. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, minimizes potential
adverse environmental impacts, in that: 1) The design of the project includes bioswale areas
along the perimeters of the site which helps mitigate both the quality and rate of stormwater
drainage from the site into the City’s and the neighborhood’s stormwater drainage system;
and 2) The design of the project include a Landscape Plan, which have been reviewed and
recommended for approval by the DRB to help mitigate the loss of existing vegetation on the
site and to help screen the new residence when viewed off-site; and
D. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity, in that: 1) The project have been previously reviewed by appropriate City
departments, non-City agencies, the appropriate neighborhood groups (Dominican/Black
Canyon Neighborhood Association), and conditions of approval have been included to
minimize potential adverse impacts; 2) The project has been previously reviewed by the
DRB at two separate, noticed meetings and, on April 5, 2016, the DRB recommended
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 11
approval of the proposed project to the City’s Zoning Administrator, finding the design of the
projects adequately meet their previous recommendations, subject to additional minor
changes primarily to the proposed landscape design, but, also, requiring mock-up or sample
panels of the approved exterior earthtone/woodtone base stucco for field review and
modification by staff, if necessary; and 3) The project will not propose a use or activity that
is prohibited, but will approve a single-family residential land use on a vacant parcels in the
Single-Family Residential (R7.5) District, which is permitted by right, pursuant to Section
14.04.020 of the Zoning Ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed.
Staff has determined that the construction of one (1) new single-family residence on the vacant
legal lot, in an urbanized, single-family residential zone, such as the development proposed by
the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to
Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines. The site is an infill site adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan residential land use designation and
all applicable general plan policies, as well as all applicable zoning designation and regulations,
residential design guidelines, review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and
Subdivision requirements, as identified in the Findings above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning
Administrator’s conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052,
which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and
associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant,
9,340 sq. ft., ‘flag’ lot located at 270 Linden Ln, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Environmental and Design Review Permit
Conditions of Approval (ED14-052)
General and On-Going
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as
presented on revised plans to the Zoning Administrator at the May 11, 2016 hearing and the
Planning Commission at the July 26, 2016 appeal hearing, labeled “270 Linden Lane;
Residential Single Family Detached Dwelling” and on file with the Community Development
Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all grading and
building permits, subject to these conditions. All general and civil drawing sheets shall be
updated, prior to building permit submittal, for consistency with the architectural and
landscape drawing sheets in each plan set. Minor modifications or revisions to the project
shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department,
Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development
Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning
Administrator, and may require review and recommendation by the City’s Design Review
Board.
2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette includes “La Habra X-
81584 Suffolk” beige base stucco color, “Benjamin Moore Dragon’s Breath-1547” dark
brown trim color, and “Custom-Built Metals Musket” dark brown standing seam metal roof
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 12
with ‘cool; coating. Any future modification to the approved color palette shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor
shall be referred to the Design Review Board.
3. Prior to applying integral color stucco finish to the exterior walls, a mock-up or sample color
panel shall be created and presented for final review at the site by the City. This sample
color panel shall be no smaller than 2’ x 3’ in size. The applicant shall provide the City with a
minimum of 48-hour notice to review the sample color panel and to require modifications to
the exterior stucco color, if necessary.
4. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall require a continuous, 8’-
tall, solid fence and no gates along the entire rear property line shared between the site and
Grand Ct.
5. The design of the folding patio doors along the north building façade, facing Grand Ct., shall
be modified to fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable
windows along the top portion of the assembly.
6. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) approval includes and approved
Landscape Plan. All new landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition,
free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a
timely fashion, in perpetuity.
7. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view at all times.
8. The site shall be kept free of litter and weeds at all times. Any litter and weeds that
accumulate on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner.
9. All pubic streets and sidewalks impacted by the grading and construction operation for the
project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep
the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions
require greater frequency of sweeping
10. The site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the general contractor for the
project in a location visible from the public street.
11. All construction and grading activities shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or
City-observed holidays. These activities include, but are not limited to, the delivery of
building materials, the arrival of construction workers, the use of power equipment or the
start-up of generator engines, and the playing of radios on the site.
12. Grand Court shall not be used to access the site, or for parking, by construction or grading
traffic.
13. All import or export of excavation shall occur during off-peak traffic trip hours – between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. – only.
14. In the event that artifacts or cultural soil deposits or features are unexpectedly encountered
during grading or underground excavation for the project, all work in the vicinity of the find
shall be halted until the discovery area can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and
the Planning Division shall be notified immediately. If warranted by the extent and cultural
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 13
composition of the discovered materials, subsequent excavation shall be monitored by a
qualified archaeologist to record, recover and /or protect significant cultural materials from
further damage.
15. Native American artifacts typically found in the area of site include chipped stone tools and
debitage, ground stone tools, and fire-affected rock. Midden deposits typically mark
habitation spots and are recognizable by the characteristics dark grey to almost black
colored soil, with traces of shellfish, animal bone, and charcoal intermixed. Human remains
may also be found in midden deposits. Historic artifacts potentially include all byproducts of
human land use greater than 50 years in age.
16. If human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere within the project site during grading or
excavation, all work shall be immediately stop in the vicinity of the discovery and the County
Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can
be performed. If the skeletal remains are found to be prehistoric/Native American, the
Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which will designate the
“most likely descendant” of the remains.
17. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the
purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the
adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall
include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness
fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third
parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this
application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of
the indemnities.
18. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City
shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will
cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant
is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the
City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2) approve all
significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3)
approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or
proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim,
action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in
such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by
the City.
19. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all
City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney
consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, 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.
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 14
20. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall run with the land and shall
remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these
conditions, provided that a building permit is issued or a time extension request is submitted
to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years
of this approval or until July 26, 2018. Failure to obtain a grading or building permit, and
encroachment permit, or a time extension by the specified date will result in the expiration of
this Environmental and Design Review Permit.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Public Works Department
21. Traffic mitigation fee of $16,984 is required for two (2) a.m. and two (2) p.m. trips (4 peak
trips x $4,246/trip).
22. A Grading Permit is required from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew
St., for each site.
23. A temporary encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Department for any
work within the Right-of-Way (ROW).
24. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance for
each project, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation with the first $10,000 of valuation
exempt.
25. The drop inlet structures that collects flow from the top of the east retaining wall on Sheet
C1, are called out as a 6” dia. inlet and a 6” inlet as shown on the plans. Provide a detail to
clarify the proposed structure.
26. The SD inlet and cobble drainage are still shown at the eastern side of the driveway on
Sheet A1 but not on Sheet C1. Clarify that this is no longer proposed.
27. The drainage shown on Sheet A1 does not match Sheet C3. The revisions to the
northwestern corner were made and the inlet at the southwest corner is outside of the
flowline for the western swale. Confirm the drainage inlet location.
28. The drain inlet protection at the southeast corner, near the driveway apron, appears to be
extraneous after the drainage modifications.
29. The grading callouts at on Sheets C1 and A1, do not match, specifically, the top-of-wall
(TOW) elevations. Confirm the proposed elevation throughout the site.
30. A significant portion of the existing 30” culvert along the Linden Ln. frontage is proposed to
be covered be the driveway apron. Investigate the condition of the existing culvert and
provide the results to the Public Works Department. If conditions warrant, replacement of
the culvert may be required.
San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD)
31. The applicant or property owner shall submit copies of the easement deed for the sewer
lateral from 270 Linden Ln. through 272 Linden Ln.
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 15
32. A new sewer connection fee of $8,980.18 is required for each site (Effective for the July 1,
2015 – June 30, 2016 fiscal year).
33. The applicant has stated that sewer laterals have already been installed for both sites.
SRSD has no record of sewer permits for either of these new laterals. The applicant shall
provide SRSD with signed copies of the permits for these new laterals or provide video of
the laterals to assess the potential deficiencies that may need to be corrected before
building permit issuance.
34. If not already installed, backwater prevention devices are required for each site, in
accordance with SRSD specifications for side sewers and laterals.
San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau
35. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire
Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at
the time of building permit submittal.
36. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications hall be
accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include (larger projects
require 4 sets or construction drawings):
a) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau).
37. A Knox Switch is required for the driveway access gate to the site.
38. These properties are located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) area. Provide a written
Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire Department. This
VMP must be completed and verified prior to final approval. Refer to City of San Rafael
Ordinance1856 that may be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/firevegetation, or you may
contact the Fire Department at (415) 485-3309 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt
for any questions or comments. Requirement of continued compliance with the
approved VMP must be placed within CC&R’s.
39. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to
provide adequate water supply service to each site for the required fire protection system.
Community Development Department, Building Division
40. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California
Residential Code, 2013 California Building Code, 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical
Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy
Code, 2013 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are
in effect at the time of building permit submittal.
41. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications shall be
accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects
require 4 sets of construction drawings)
a) Architectural plans
b) Structural plans
c) Electrical plans
d) Plumbing plans
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 16
e) Mechanical plans
f) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building)
h) Truss calculations
i) Structural calculations
j) Soils reports
k) CalGreen documentation
l) Title 24 energy documentation
m) Green Building documentation
42. 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 ½ inch stroke for residential occupancies and a
minimum 6 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for commercial applications. The address
must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20.
43. School fees will be required for both project approvals. School fees for residential
construction are currently computed at $2.97 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.
44. If any portion of the new fencing exceeds 7’ in height, a building permit is required
45. All fireplaces shall meet EPA Phase 2 emission standards or shall be gas burning only.
Community Development Department, Planning Division
46. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these
conditions of approval.
47. Prior to building permit issuance, any outstanding Planning Division application processing
fees shall be paid.
Immediately After Building Permit Issuance
Marin Municipal Water District (District)
48. The site is not currently being serviced and no water has been allocated to this parcel. The
parcel also does not currently meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District,
which state in part: “…the property must be fronted be a water main; the structure must be
within 125 feet of the water main.” Under these conditions, water service to this property will
require a pipeline extension from the end of the District’s existing facilities. The applicant
shall enter into a pipeline extension agreement with the District for the installation of the
necessary facilities and said agreement must be approved by the District’s Board of
Directors. The applicant may apply for a variance to these requirements. This variance must
be submitted to the District’s Board of Directors for their review and action. All costs
associated with a pipeline extension are borne by the applicant.
Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, or approval of the variance request,
both parcels will be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the
requirements listed below:
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 17
a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application;
b) Submit a copy of the building permit;
c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges;
d) Complete the structure’s foundation within 120 days of the date of the application;
e) Comply with MMWD’s rule and regulations in effect at the time service is requested;
f) 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 submittals to MMWD are required:
Verification of indoor fixtures compliance.
Landscaping plan.
Irrigation plan.
Grading plan.
g) Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation shall be
directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415.945.1497. You may also find
information on the MMWD’s water conservation requirements online at
www.marinwater.org; and
h) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the MMWD’s review
backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance.
Questions regarding backflow requirements shall be directed to the Backflow
Prevention Program Coordinator at 415.945.1558.
Pacific Gas & Electric
49. Electric and gas service to the project site will be provided in accordance with the applicable
extension rules, which are available on PG&E’s website at
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE-
5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is
adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work.
50. The cost of undergrounding service facilities shall be the sole responsibility of the property
owner.
51. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground
facilities marked in the field.
Prior to Occupancy
Community Development Department, Planning Division
52. Prior to occupancy, the applicant or property owner shall contact the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection
shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
53. All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy.
After Occupancy
54. Following building permit ‘final’ sign-off, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90-day
lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for
the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be
Exhibit 1
File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 18
annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require
adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall
include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of
illumination shall be turned off during daylight.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 26th day of July, 2016.
Moved by Commissioner ______ and seconded by Commissioner ______
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair