HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2016-05-10 Agenda Packet AGENDA
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 10, 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 calli ng 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, April 12, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING
2. 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
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION:
ADJOURNMENT:
I. Next Meeting: May 24, 2016
II. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, May 6, 2016, I posted a notice of the May 10, 2016 Planning
Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, April 12, 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: Larry Paul
Viktoriya Wise
Jack Robertson
Barrett Schaefer
Gerald Belletto
Absent: Berenice Davidson
Mark Lubamersky
Also Present: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
URGENT COMMUNICATION
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes, March 15, 2015
Barrett Schaefer moved and Jack Robertson seconded to approve Minutes as presented. The vote is as
follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Berenice Davidson, Mark Lubamersky
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. San Rafael Fire Station 52- 210 3rd Street – Request for Environmental and Design
Review Permit to replace the existing Fire Station 52 with the development of a new fire
station (10,865 square feet), training tower (3,322 square feet) and training classroom
facility (1,200 square feet). The proposal includes a request for an Exception to exceed
the 36-foot building height limit for the new fire training tower (up to 50 feet in height).
The project includes associated site and landscaping improvements for the 27,000
square-foot City-owned site. APN: 014-101-11;Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) District; City of
San Rafael, owner/applicant. Project Planner: Paul Jensen.
Viktoriya Wise moved and Barrett Schaefer seconded to adopt resolution with modifications as outlined
by staff. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Viktoriya Wise, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Berenice Davidson, Mark Lubamersky
Staff Report
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT:
___________________________________
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2016
_____________________________________
Gerald Belletto, Vice-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: May 10, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
Project Planner:
Steve Stafford (415) 458-5048
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 815 B St. (formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) – Consideration of:
1) Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH # 201306053); and
2) Planning entitlements, including an Environmental and Design Review Permit, a Use
Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment, for a project proposing to demolish two single family
residential structures and a commercial structure and construct a new 4-story mixed use
building with 41 residential units above 1,939 square feet of ground-floor commercial
space and 48 garage parking spaces; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 &-32; Second/Third
Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) & Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) District Zones), Thomas
Monahan of Monahan Parker. Inc., Applicant; Thomas Monahan and Jonathan Parker
of Monahan Parker. Inc. and Harold Parker Properties LP, Owners; Case Number(s):
ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes to demolish an existing 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building and two residential
structures, both of which are cultural resources, and construct a new, four-story, 41-unit, mixed-use
building with 48 garage parking spaces and associated site and landscape improvements. The subject
property is comprised of four adjacent Downtown parcels with a combined lot area of 23,614 sq. ft. The
project requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit (Planning Commission-level), a Use Permit
(residential use in a commercial district), and Lot Consolidation approvals.
The project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. A Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) (SCH # 201306053) was previously prepared and made available for public review on
September 18, 2015, for a 45-day public review and comment period concluding on November 10, 2015
at the Planning Commission meeting. The City received eight (8) written comments during this review
period. Ten (10) individuals, including the Planning Commissioners, provided verbal comments at the
Commission hearing. Many of these comments were restricted to the scope and adequacy of the DEIR,
though some comments focused on the merits of the project. Many of the comments provided were
duplicative. Some individuals provided both written and oral comments.
In addition to reviewing the merits of the project, the Planning Commission will be asked to certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to comments (FEIR), adopt a Statement of Overriding
Consideration and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Draft resolutions to
certify the FEIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration and approve a MMRP are attached as
Exhibits 1-3.
The FEIR concludes that the project will result in a “Potentially Significant Impact” on Aesthetics and
Cultural Resources (Historic). Recommended mitigation measures are proposed to reduce Aesthetics
impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, the Cultural Resources (Historic) impact is unmitigable
and requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration, if the Commission elects to
approve the project. Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations would mean that the
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 2
Commission finds that, on balance, the public benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable
environmental impacts.
The project sponsor is proposing public benefits (Exhibit 11) to offset the loss of the two historic
resources. These public benefits are presented as, generally, the project itself, development of infill
downtown housing, as encouraged by the General Plan, including the provision of 20% housing
affordability. Furthermore, the project sponsor contends that complying with the mitigation measures
($63,000 estimated total costs) and payment of the development impact fees ($400,000 estimated total
costs) as required by the project, are also public benefits to the community . Also, the public benefit
proposed by the project sponsor includes donating $25,000 to the San Rafael Fire Department, Marin
History Museum, or any group the City determines to be appropriate.
The project design was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on four occasions (once as a
conceptual design and three times as a formal application) and received a recommendation for approval
with minor modifications. The applicant has incorporated the recommended modifications into the project
plans with exception that landscape and permanent amenities details for the “Outdoor Community
Spaces” shall return for final review prior to building permit issuance. This recommendation has been
memorialized as a condition of approval (see Condition #16 of ED12-060; Exhibit 3).
As discussed in this report, staff concludes that the project, as proposed and as conditioned, is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and all applicable zoning development standards, and
complies with all applicable review criteria and guidelines. The project would, generally, further long-term
goals of the City to bring in-fill housing to the Downtown and create ‘live after 5’ activity in the Downtown,
providing economic opportunities to Downtown businesses. The project would help re-activate B Street,
an important pedestrian connection between the Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail
Core. The project would help the City meet its RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) target of
providing 1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023. Lastly, the project would provide a total of
six (6) of ‘affordable’ or below market rate (BMR) housing units; four (4) of these housing units would be
deed-restricted for rent to very low-income households and two (2) units deed-restricted for rent to low-
income households. Draft resolutions have been prepared (see attached Exhibits 1-3) outlining findings
that support a recommendation for project approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Open the Public Hearing and accept public testimony on the project;
2. Close the Public Hearing and review and discuss the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR),
including the significant impacts and whether a Statement of Overriding Considerations should
be granted, and the planning, merits and issues; and
3. Adopt the following Draft Resolutions
a. Certification of the FEIR
b. CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approval of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
c. Conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Lot
Line Adjustment for the project
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 809 B St.; 1212 and 1214 2nd
St. (aka 815 B St)
Parcel Number(s): 011-256-12, -14, -15 & -
32
Property Size: 23,614 sf (Combined) Neighborhood: Downtown
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 3
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: 2nd/3rd Street Mixed
Use (2/3MU)
2nd/3rd Street Mixed Use West
(2/3 MUW) & Cross Street
Mixed Use (CSMU)
Interim Church,
Commercial Parking
Lot, 1 Residence and 1
Vacant Structure
North: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU Residential above
Commercial
South: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU Residential above
Commercial
East: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW Residential above
Commercial
West: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW Lone Palm Ct. Apts.
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property consists of four adjacent parcels, totaling approximately 0.53 acres in size, located
in Downtown San Rafael. The parcels are currently developed with a single-story, approximately 5,000
square foot commercial building, a commercial parking lot with 45 parking spaces and two, two -story
Victorian-era residences, located at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street that date to 1887 or earlier. The residential
structure at 1212 2nd Street is a known local cultural resource, listed on the San Rafael
Historical/Architectural Survey (dated 1976; updated 1986) and is currently uninhabitable due to fire
damage sustained in 2006. The residential structure at 1214 Fourth Street was later determined eligible
for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources by survey evaluation (1214 2nd Street). The
subject property has little vegetation and is relatively flat.
The site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The St. Vincent De Paul Society
dining room is located immediately east of the site, on the opposite side of B Street. The 60-unit, Lone
Palm Court apartments are located immediately west of the site, on C Street. A 12’-wide public right-of-
way (ROW) easement, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access from C Street to the site and
neighboring parcels, borders the northwestern property boundary. An existing Canary Island Palm tree,
in very poor health, is located within the 12’-wide ROW easement. The eastern property boundary of the
site fronts B Street, which provides a pedestrian link between the Downtown and the Gerstle Park
residential neighborhood. The southern property boundary of the site fronts 2nd Street, which is a one-
way (eastbound) “major” arterial roadway.
BACKGROUND
Development History:
In 1951, a 210 square-foot storefront addition was constructed to the residential structure at 1214 2nd
Street for use first as administrative offices and later as commercial retail services. Its current use is
residential.
In 1967, a third two-story Victorian-era residence (1210 2nd Street), along with a two-story commercial
building (811-813 B Street), were demolished during the construction of the existing surface parking lot
on the site.
Since 2004, a religious institution or church has occupied the commercial building as an ‘interim’ use’ (Use
Permit UP04-031; Planning Commission approved).
Project Review:
Since 2005, numerous redevelopment proposals for the site have been submitted to the City for review.
The current project was submitted on August 31, 2012. A more detailed summary of project review is
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 4
provided in subsequent discussions in this report and in the attached “Summary History of Project
Review” as Exhibit 4.
The formal project design has been reviewed by the DRB on three (3) separate occasions. On August 5,
2014, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed site and building design for the project, subject
to final review of details on the site landscaping and permanent amenities for the “Outdoor Community
Spaces”, located on the 2nd and 4th floors. Through this process, the project has been redesigned to
address the DRB’s comments and recommendations related to mass, building articulation and relation to
surrounding structures. A comparative color rendering, showing the evolution of the project design along
the 2nd Street elevation, is attached as Exhibit 8.
In addition, the environmental impacts of the project have been reviewed by the Planning Commission
(Commission) on two (2) separate occasions. On July 23, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was issued and
a scoping session was held on the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the project. On November 10, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing at
the end of the 45 public review period to accept comments on the DEIR.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan:
The project proposes to construct a new, 4-story, 41-unit, mixed-use building, with three floors of
apartments above 1,939 square feet of ground-floor commercial space along the B Street frontage and
48 garage parking spaces (including 10 tandem parking spaces). Existing driveways along the 2nd Street
frontage would be eliminated and both vehicular garage access and the primary pedestrian access to the
upper-level residential units would be from the B Street frontage; a secondary pedestrian exit, for both
the understory garage and upper-level units, is proposed along the 2nd Street frontage. Vehicle access
to/from the B Street frontage is proposed via a 24-wide driveway, recessed 20’ from the property line.
The project proposes to demolish all structures on the four adjacent parcels, including two Victorian-era
residences, both of which are historic resources (based on the 2013 Historic Resource Report prepared
by Diana Painter of Painter Preservation and Planning, dated June 2013).
Architecture:
The project proposes a ‘retro-contemporary’ architectural appearance, dominated by brick facades,
poured concrete base and extensive metal trimming. The corner ‘tower’, bay windows, upper-level
residential decks and a ground-level canopy projections help to ‘relate’ the project architecture to that
surrounding the site. The new mixed-use building proposes to ‘stepback’ the 4th floor 10’ from the
remaining façade along the B St. frontage, while the 2nd and 3rd floors are proposed to ‘stepback’ 10’ and
the 4th floor is proposed to ‘stepback’ 35’ from the garage level along the 2nd St. frontage. The
configuration of the proposed residential units consists of two types: 1) 24 1-bedroom/1-bath units, 847-
892 sq. ft. in size, and 2) 11 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units, 973-1,263 sq. ft. in size. While the project
proposes to provide common outdoor patio areas on both the 2nd and 4th floors, most residential units
propose to provide private outdoor balcony areas with the exception of the 10 units facing the B Street
frontage, which are ‘Juliet’ or faux balconies.
State Density Law and Affordable Units:
As proposed, the project would meet the City’s affordable housing requirement, which requires that 20%
(or 6 units) of the 30 units allowed by local zoning be set aside as ‘affordable’ and, thus, is eligible for a
maximum 35% State Density bonus. The project would provide a total of 6 affordable housing units , with
four of the units affordable to very-low income households and two of the units affordable to low income
households. By providing this affordability, the project is entitled to a 35% density bonus, or 11 additional
residential units, for a total of 41 units on site. The project proposes these affordable units to be smaller
in size than the remainder of the units (517-803 sq. ft.), in either a studio or 1-bedroom configuration and
located adjacent to the elevator; however, the City and Marin Housing Authority require these BMR
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 5
(below market rate) units to be of equal size as the remainder of the units, in the same proportional 1-
bedroom/1-bath or 2-bedroom/2-bathroom configuration as the remainder of the units, and distributed
throughout the project. (See Condition #28 of ED12-060; Exhibit 3).
Parking:
The project is located within the Downtown Parking District which exempts up to 1.0 FAR (Floor Area
Ratio) of non-residential development from providing on-site parking. While not required to provide on-
site parking for the 1,939 sq. ft. of ground-level commercial space, the project proposes to meet the
required Downtown parking rate for the 41 upper-level residential units. The project proposes to meet the
parking requirement by providing 10 tandem parking spaces, as a concession or incentive under the
State Density Bonus law. These tandem parking spaces shall be reserved for, and used exclusively by,
tenants of the 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units. See Condition #101 of ED12-060; Exhibit 3) Additionally, the
project proposes to locate the required 10’ x 35’ x 14’ off-street loading area from the garage to the curb
along the B Street frontage, due to the 10.5’ garage ceiling height. This proposed loading area relocation
requires the review and recommendation of a ‘parking modification’ to the City’s parking standards by
both the City’s Engineer and the Board. Both the City Engineer and the Board have recommended
approval of this parking modification.
Landscaping:
The project proposes landscaping surrounding the outdoor common patio area, on the 2nd floor, and
along both the 2nd and B Street frontages. The landscape design along the 2nd Street frontage includes
both a raised planter and an at-grade planting strip; the landscape design along the B Street frontage
includes both an at-grade planting strip and circular planters at the lobby entry to the upper-level
residences. Both the 2nd floor landscaping and the raised planter along the 2nd Street frontage are
engineered as filtration basins to treat storm water run-off. The raised planter also proposes a ‘green
screen’ at the garage level along the 2nd Street frontage. The proposed streetscape planting provides six
new Crimson Spire Oak trees along the 2nd Street sidewalk. Along the B Street sidewalk, two new
Flowering Pear Trees are proposed to augment two existing Flowering Pear trees. The project proposes
to replace the existing Canary Island Palm tree, located within a 12’-wide right-of-way (ROW) easement
immediately north side of the site, and in very poor health, with a new mature Canary Island Palm tree in
the same location
Grading and Drainage:
The project proposes approximately 1,500 cubic yards (cy) of excavation or ‘cut’, which is proposed to be
exported off-site. As discussed under the “Landscaping” section above, all storm water runoff for the
project would be collected and routed to two (2) raised infiltration planters for treatment prior to release
into the City’s storm water drainage system.
Signs:
The project includes conceptual sign details for the 1,939 sq. ft. ground-floor commercial space. The
project proposes one, externally-illuminated (down lit, attached to the underside of the metal canopy
projection), sign with 12”-high metal lettering to match the bronze trim color and a maximum area of 26
sq. ft., located on a metal transom panel above the entrance to the commercial space along the B St.
frontage. No signage is proposed by the project along the 2nd St. frontage.
Planning Entitlements:
The project includes requests for the following Planning entitlements:
1. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060) for the proposed building and site design;
2. Use Permit (UP12-029) to allow the proposed residential use on the site, which is located within
two commercial zoning districts; and
3. Lot Line Adjustment (LLA12-003) for the consolidation of the existing four adjacent parcels that
comprise the project site.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 6
In addition, the applicant has submitted a letter of intent to map the project as individual residential
condominium units. Tentative Map subdivision approval by the Commission is required though no
application for a Tentative Map has been submitted at this time. Tentative Map approval would need to
be approved prior to building permit issuance for the project. Any application submittal for a Tentative
Map would also require amendment of both the Use Permit (UP12-029) and the Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED12-060) for the project.
ANALYSIS
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project is required to be reviewed for with the San Rafael General Plan 2020. It is important to note
that General Plan consistency is determined by reviewing and weighing the goals and polices of all
elements of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Both the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and case law
interpreting general plan requirements recognize that the General Plan is a collection of competing goals
and policies, which must be read together, as a whole and not in isolation. In reviewing a project for
consistency with the General Plan, the City is required to ‘balance’ the competing goals and policies.
Case law has determined that a project “need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy”
and that “no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the General Plan, and that state law
does not impose such a requirement.” (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association vs. City of Oakland –
1993).
The project has been reviewed for consistency with the San Rafael General Plan 2020. A complete
analysis of the pertinent policies and programs is presented in the attached table (Exhibit 5). Overall,
while the project has the potential to conflict with several General Plan policies (discussed below), it
would be consistent with most of the applicable San Rafael General Plan 2020 policies. A summary of
the key issue relative to project consistency is provided as follows:
Potential General Plan Policy Conflict – Cultural Resources-Historic
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared and presented for certification for this project
concludes that the proposed demolition of two existing Victorian-era structures within the project site,
which are known (1212 2nd St. is ‘listed’ on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey; Final Inventory
List of Structures and Areas; September 1986) and/or have been determined by historical resource
evaluation (Historic Resource Report – 1212 & 1214 2nd Street; Prepared by Painter Preservation &
Planning; dated June 2013), would result in a significant unavoidable impact for which there is no
mitigation available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, approval of the
project would necessitate that the City find the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable impact(s)
resulting from the loss of two historic resources. The FEIR concludes that the project would be in
potential conflict with the following General Plan policies, which are intended to protect and preserve
buildings and areas with special and recognized historic, architectural or aesthetic value, including but
not limited to those ‘listed’ on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey:
Community Design Policy CD-1; City Image. Reinforce the City’s positive and distractive 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.
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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 7
Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local residents and
create neighborhood-gathering places.
CD-4; Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive image by recognizing,
preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources.
Culture and Arts Policy 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.
CA-14; Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the adaption and reuse of historic buildings, in
order to preserve the historic resources that are a part of San Rafael’s heritage.
As conditioned, however, the project would be consistent with the following applicable General Plan
policies:
Land Use Policies LU-2 (Development Timing), LU-8 (Density of Residential Development), LU-9
(Intensity of Nonresidential Development), LU-12 (Building Heights). LU-18 (Lot Consolidation), and
LU-23 (Land Use Map and Categories);
Housing Policies H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), H-3 (Public Information and
Participation), H-14 (Adequate Sites), and H-19a (Inclusionary Housing),
Neighborhood Policies NH-15 (Downtown Vision), NH-16 (Economic Success), NH-17 (Competing
Concerns), NH-22 (Housing Downtown), NH-25 (Pedestrian Comfort and Safety), NH-28 (Special
Places), NH-29 (Downtown Design), NH-30 (Pedestrian Environments), NH-31 (Ground Floor
Designed for Pedestrians), NH-32 (Historic Character), NH-40 (Second/Third Mixed-Use District) and
NH-41 (Second/Third Mixed-Use District Design Considerations);
Community Design Policies CD-3 (Neighborhoods), CD-5 (Views), CD-8 (Gateways), CD-11
(Multifamily Design Guidelines), CD-14 (Recreational Areas), CD-15 (Participation in Project
Review), CD-18 (Landscaping), CD-19 (Lighting) and CD-20 (Commercial Signage);
Circulation Policies C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) and C-7 (Circulation Improvement
Funding);
Infrastructure Policy I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services)
Sustainability Policies SU-5 (Reduce Use of Nonrenewable Resources) and SU-6 (New and Existing
Trees);
Culture and Arts Policy CA-15 (Protection of Archaeological Resources);
Park and Recreation Policy PR-10 (Onsite Recreation Facilities);
Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard Maps in Development
Review), S-4 (Geotechnical Review), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings), S-17 (Flood Protection
of New Development), S-18 (Storm Drainage Improvements), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Requirements) and S-32 (Safety Review of Development Projects);and
Air and Water Quality Policies AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), AW -7 (Local, State and Federal
Standards) and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff).
In weighing all of the applicable policies, the project is substantially consistent with the General Plan
2020 on balance. The project would redevelop four (4) Downtown in-fill lots listed as both Housing
Opportunity Sites and Underutilized Mixed-Use Site in Appendix B of the General Plan. The project
would construct 41 new residential ‘rental’ units in the Downtown (project would result in a net increase
of 39 units), whose residents and guests would re-activate a portion of B Street, supporting the City’s
long-term goal of creating ‘live after 5’ activity in the Downtown, and provide economic opportunities to
Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants. These new units would help meet the City’s RHNA
(Regional Housing Needs Allocation) target of providing 1,007 additional housing units in the City by
2023. A total of six (6) of these housing units would be deed-restricted as ‘affordable’ housing; four (4) of
these housing units would be deed-restricted for rent to very low-income households and two (2) units
deed-restricted for rent to low-income households. These new below market rate or BMR units would
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 8
contribute to the City’s need to provide 240 new very low-income housing units and 120 new low-income
housing units by 2023. The project would be consistent with the adopted Downtown Vision plan in terms
of use and scale for the project site.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The project site is located within both the Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) and Second/Third Mixed Use
West (2/3 MUW) Districts and is subject, generally, to the development standards for the CSMU District
along the B Street frontage and the 2/3 MUW District along the 2nd Street frontage. Both the CSMU and
2/3 MUW Districts allow multifamily residential uses, subject to an administrative Use Permit approval.
Additionally, new multifamily residential structures with three or more units, or excavation of 1,000 or
more cubic yards of ‘cut’, is subject to an Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the
Commission.
As designed, the project would comply with all applicable property development standards for the CSMU
and 2/3 MUW Districts, including maximum density (with state density bonus), maximum building height,
setbacks, minimum landscaping and usable outdoor area. The project has been reviewed by staff for
consistency with all applicable standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, a complete analysis
of which is provided in Exhibit 6. Staff finds that the project, as designed, would also be consistent with
maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio), maximum State Density Bonus and minimum on-site parking
requirements.
Use Permit
Residential uses are encouraged in the Downtown and in mixed-use commercial development.
Performance standards for the residential use shall be applied through a Use Permit, which require:
Residential units shall have a separate and secure entrance/exit;
Residential units shall meet the City’s parking requirements;
Residential units shall meet the City’s noise standards;
Exterior lighting shall be sufficient to establish a sense of well-being to pedestrians; a minimum
illumination level of one foot-candle at ground level shall be provided at all exterior doorways and
vehicle parking areas;
Adequate refuse storage area shall be provide for all residential unit; and
The location of new residential units shall consider the location of existing surrounding uses in order
to minimize impacts for existing uses.
Compliance with these performance standards is confirmed by either project design, as reviewed and
recommended by the Board, and/or conditions of approval.
Environmental and Design Review Permit
The site is located at the corner of B Street, an active pedestrian link to the Downtown, and Second
Street, an active corridor for eastbound vehicle traffic to U.S. Highway 101. This large, high-profile
location provides the project with a unique opportunity to do “something special” during its
redevelopment. This is also a particularly difficult site for redevelopment, primarily due to the high
concentration of historic structures/cultural resources within the immediate vicinity and the Secretary of
the Interior Standards which protect these by requiring that new development complement or be
compatible with, and not detract from, the historic character of these surrounding sites. Additionally, the
review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits requir e that the proposed design
(architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development ‘relate’ to the predominant
design existing in the vicinity.
On August 5, 2014, after reviewing the reviewing the project on three (3) previous occasions, the DRB
recommended approval of the proposed site and building design for the project, subject to details on the
site landscaping and permanent amenities for the “Outdoor Community Spaces” (located on the 2nd and
4th floors) return to the DRB for final review prior to building permit issuance.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 9
However, the FEIR concludes that the DRB-recommended project design would have a “Potentially
Significant Impact” on Aesthetics. Specifically, the DRB-recommended project design would have a
potentially significant adverse impact to the historic urban design context or visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings, primarily, due to the lack of building articulation (e.g. balconies, eaves, bay
windows and canopies) projecting over the sidewalk along the B St. frontage in relation to adjacent
historic properties, which encroach over the sidewalk. The Public Works Department has provided
comments on the project, indicating their support for these recommended encroachments over the
sidewalk right-of-way (ROW) as long as they do not constitute habitable space. Thus, the Public Works
Department supports balconies, eaves and canopies projections over the sidewalk ROW but not bay
windows. Exhibit C of the FEIR includes a mitigation measure (AES-1) which requires the project
design to incorporate more and larger projections (balconies, eaves, bay windows and canopies) over
the sidewalk prior to issuance of a building permit and a revocable licensing agreement, or alternative
legal arrangement, to allow private encroachments over the sidewalk ROW. If the Commission supports
Mitigation Measure AES-1, the Aesthetics impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant’ level.
The DRB reviewed the project and determined that the project design is consistent with the applicable
San Rafael Design Guidelines.
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency:
Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation
The project proposes to construct a new, 4-story, 41-unit, mixed-use building over the existing property
boundary lines of four legal lots. As a condition of project approval (see Condition #1 of LLA12-003;
Exhibit 3), the four existing parcels are required to be consolidated into one new parcel. The Community
Development Director will subsequently review and approve a plat map showing the existing and
proposed lot lines for recordation at the County. A condition of approval is also included requiring the
new plat map be recorded with the abandonment of an existing 100 sq. ft. (10’ x 10’) PG&E easement,
located along the 2nd St. frontage, and the relocation of an existing at-grade transformer to a 64 sq. ft. (8’
x 8’) subterranean vault underneath the adjacent 2nd St. sidewalk.
Tentative Map
The project submittals include a letter from the applicant indicating their intent to submit a Tentative Map
application to construct condominium residential units rather than rental units. The current project
submittals do not include, and the Commission is not reviewing, a Tentative Map application at this time.
Any future or subsequent Tentative Map application to develop condominium units on the site would
require review and approval of a Tentative Map application by the Commission, as well as require
amendment of the Use Permit (UP12-029) and, possibly, the Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED12-060) for the project.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed this project on four (4) separate meetings; once as a
conceptual design (May 8, 2012) and three times as a formal design review (August 20, 2013, July 8,
2014 and August 5, 2015). A summary of the DRB review of the project is included in the Summary
History of Project Review, which is provided as Exhibit 4.
On August 5, 2014, the DRB reviewed the project (Commissioner Belletto as PC liaison). The DRB review
was frustrated by Public Works Departments’ inability to support habitable space (i.e., bay windows)
proposed by the 2012 revision to the project design which encroached over the sidewalk ROW, as
recommended by the EIR as a mitigation measure ( see AES-1). Thus, the DRB ultimately recommended
approval of the proposed site and building design, subject to the following conditions/modifications:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 10
Eliminate the support column at the corner of B and 2nd Streets, underneath the ‘wrap-around’
canopy projection at the pedestrian level;
Eliminate the 2’ bay window encroachment over the sidewalk/ROW along the 2nd St. frontage but
keeping the building articulation by having the entire wall plane setback 2’ from the property line;
Extend the frieze detailing above the bay window ‘tower’ element (corner of B and 2nd Streets) along
both building frontages. The frieze should be less wide but equally detailed;
Provide a cornice cap on the 4th floor penthouses; and
Final details on the site landscaping and permanent amenities for the “Outdoor Community Spaces”
shall return to the Board as a consent item prior to building permit issuance.
A video of this August 5, 2014 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
The plans presented to the Commission for review have been revised to incorporate the DRB
recommendations with the exception that landscape and permanent amenities details for the “Outdoor
Community Spaces” shall return for final review prior to building permit issuance. This recommendation
has been memorialized as a condition of approval (see Condition #16 of ED12-060; Exhibit 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP):
An Initial Study was prepared for the project in June 2013. On June 21, 2013, a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was mailed and published for a 30-day public review and comment period, consistent with the
CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study/NOP evaluated the full range of potential environmental impacts of
the project. The Initial Study concluded that:
The effects upon Aesthetics and Cultural Resources (Historical) would be significant and
unavoidable, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The effects on Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Transportation/Traffic
could be potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less–than-significant level through
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. These mitigation measures are included in
Table II-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, on pages 10 -13 of the DEIR.
The project was found to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact upon the remaining
environmental topics evaluated in the Initial Study, including Agriculture Resources, Biological
Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land
Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation and
Utilities/Service Systems.
On July 23, 2013, the Commission held a scoping meeting at the conclusion of the 30-day comment
period and approved a list of project alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR, in addition to a “No
project/No Development’ alternative, including:
Preserve and rehabilitate the two historic structures on-site while reducing the project to
accommodate the historic structures (‘Preservation Onsite’ Alternative);
Preserve and relocate one or both of the two historic structures off -site to a publicly-owned or
private site allowing the project to be developed as proposed (‘Preservation Offsite’ Alternative);
and
Revise project design to incorporate substantial elements and features of the two historic
structures, such as building facades, as part of the proposed project (‘Adaptive Re-use’
Alternative).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 11
Notice of Completion (NOC) and Publication of DEIR:
The DEIR was completed and a NOC was distributed on September 18, 2015, pursuant to Section
15372 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Completion and public hearing was also mailed to all
interested parties, including property owners, businesses and residents, within 300 feet of the site, as
well as appropriate neighborhood groups (the Downtown Business Improvement District, Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods). Additionally, notice was
posted on the site, along both the B Street and Second Street frontages, and published in the Marin
Independent Journal newspaper on Saturday, September 19, 2015.
The DEIR was mailed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 201306053) and responsible State agencies at
the start of the 45-day public review period. The DEIR was also made available for review online at the
City of San Rafael website (http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-proj-815b/), at the San
Rafael Public Library, and at San Rafael City Hall Planning Division offices. A limited number of printed
copies have also been available for loan, and electronic CD copies of the document have been available
for purchase.
The City accepted written comments on the DEIR until the Commission hearing on November 10, 2015,
which extended the 45-day public comment period an additional 8 days. The City received eight (8)
written comments during this review period. Ten (10) individuals, including the Planning Commissioners,
also provided verbal comments at the Commission hearing. Many of these comments were restricted to
the scope and adequacy of the DEIR, though some comments focused on the merits of the project. Many
of the comments provided were duplicative. Some individuals provided both written and oral comments.
DEIR Summary and Conclusions:
CEQA requires that all impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible. The City is required to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines before
approving any project having unavoidable significant effects. In this case, the DEIR concludes that the
project would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to: 1) Aesthetics; and 2) Cultural
Resources (Historical). The DEIR identified mitigation measures that could reduce the project’s impacts
to Aesthetics to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR concludes, however, that the project’s impacts to
Cultural Resources (Historical) would remain significant and unavoidable, thus requiring adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, if the project is to be approved:
Aesthetics
Aesthetics and visual quality impacts are analyzed in Chapter IV. A (pages 33 - 43) of the DEIR. As
outlined in the DEIR, Painter Preservation & Planning, Architectural Historians, prepared a
comprehensive Historic Resource Report (dated June 2013) as part of the environmental review of the
project and determined the neighborhood surrounding the 2nd and B Street intersection retains its unique
historic identity or character (i.e., train depot and surrounding railroad housing and commercial services)
and appears eligible for listing as a Historic District under the California Register of Historic Resources
under Criteria 1 (associated with events making significant contribution to local or regional history) and 3
(distinctive architectural or design characteristics).
Painter Preservation & Planning first analyzed aesthetics and visual quality impacts of the project design
prior the Design Review Board’s review (The Board reviewed the project design on August 20, 2013, and
after project modifications, again on July 8, 2014 and recommended approval of the project design with
minor changes and conditions on August 5, 2014) and determined:
“The proposed new structure has a negative effect on the present historic character of
the neighborhood in the vicinity of the intersection of 2nd and B Streets. It has a
particularly negative effect on 2nd Street, due to the loss of residential scale and
amenities along this street, including front porches, architectural features such as bay
windows, small scale architectural detailing, and the opportunity for interaction between
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 12
people and the built environment in this location. The proposed design features at the
corner of 2nd and B Street, and the retail frontages along B Street do not relate to the
traditional historic character of this street and late 19th century commercial streets in
general, which are typically more conducive to pedestrian activity. In addition, the
historic character of the neighborhood, the late 19th century setting for the project, is
significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative effect of prior
demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered around the railroad
station and early commercial development in this area.” (page 38)
Partially in response to the Public Works Department’s determination not to allow bay windows or any
other construction creating FAR (Floor Area Ratio) over the public sidewalk ROW, design modifications
were incorporated into the project by the DRB; which reduced the scale of the building by stepping back
the fourth floor and eliminated most deck and eave projections into the required setback and over the
ROW.
Painter Preservation & Planning re-analyzed potential aesthetic and visual quality impacts of the final
project design (after the Board recommended approval of the project design with minor changes and
conditions) and determined the final project design:
“…presents a more positive scale relationship to 2nd and B Street at this important
intersection. Corresponding changes in building articulation and form, however, present
a negative appearance and therefore less positive relationship to the historic
neighborhood than the design scheme presented in January 2013. The loss of such
features as vertical bays, ‘real’ balconies, deep eave overhangs and sidewalk canopies
has affected the design of the building, as have significant setbacks at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
floor levels. The materials, workmanship and architectural detailing of the building do not
mitigate for this change in architectural design. The pedestrian environment, also an
important positive feature of the built environment in this neighborhood, is not
adequately addressed in this design scheme.” (page 42)
Recommended Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics
The DEIR concludes that the final project design does not enhance the aesthetic setting of the historic
built environment of the 2nd and B Street neighborhood and remains a potentially significant Aesthetic
impact, in addition to causing the loss of historic resources. However, these impacts can be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure (pages 42-43):
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Incorporate building elements that relate the new building to its
historic context through the use of projecting bays, usable building balconies, deep eave
overhangs, a substantial element at the building corner at 2nd and B Streets, and canopies at the
ground floor that extend over the sidewalk. Submit for review and approval by Design review
Board prior to issuance of a Building Permit and revocable licensing agreement, or an alternative
method to allow private encroachments to project over the sidewalk or right-of-way (ROW).
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources impacts, both historical and archaeological, are analyzed in Chapter IV.B (pages 43 -
60) of the DEIR.
Historical Impacts
The two Victorian-era residences on the project site, at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street, are historically
significant for their association with patterns of local history under Criterion 1 of the California Register
Eligibility Criteria, and for their architecture, meeting Criterion 3 of the California Register Eligibility
Criteria. Demolition of the buildings will constitute a significant adverse impact as demolition of a historic
resource cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 13
Recommended Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures are recommended as reasonable and feasible, and appropriate for the
resources, given their significance and integrity. These mitigation measures would reduce significant
adverse impact of demolition of the Victorian buildings but not to a level of insignificance. Therefore,
without an action to adopt the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Commission would need to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approval of the project as proposed:
Mitigation Measure CULT-1A: The building at the subject property shall be documented.
Documentation shall consist of a narrative, which may consist of the Historic Resource Report,
and archivally-stable black and white photographs documenting the building exterior and interiors
as they exist today, and the building’s general setting. It is not necessary to photograph the
property to HABS standards, as the integrity of the property does not warrant this level of
documentation. This documentation will be produced and submitted to the California Room of the
Marin County Free Library, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University
(NWIC). Photographic negatives shall be retained by the City of San Rafael. Costs associated
with CULT-1A are anticipated to be no greater than $5,000.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1B: Update the historic survey of the San Rafael with a focus on the
San Rafael original townsite area (an approximately 16-block area) and evaluate the area in the
immediate vicinity of 2nd and B Street (boundaries to be determined by the survey) for a potential
historic district. Costs associated with CULT-1B are anticipated to be approximately $20,000.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1C: Develop an interpretive panel, to be installed at one of the corners
at 2nd and B Street, which depicts historic photographs of the area, including historic buildings
and the train track, a map of the resources, and provides information about the historic buildings
and streetscape in the area. Costs associated with CULT-1C are anticipated to be approximately
$20,000.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1D: Provide a duplicate of the photographs and information that is
used for Mitigation Measure CULT-1C, the on-street interpretation of the 2nd and B Street area,
and mount them in a prominent location, such as the lobby of the proposed building. Costs
associated with CULT-1D are anticipated to be no greater than $5,000.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1E: Working with the Marin Historic Museum or an equivalent
historical society or organization, develop programming that commemorates the history of the 2nd
and B Street area, including the railroad station, to be presented as a lecture, exhibit, online
video, or similar public presentation. Costs associated with CULT-1E are anticipated to be no
greater than $5,000, assuming some volunteer time on the part of the partnering organization.
Archaeological Impacts
On October 1, 2001, the San Rafael City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1772 and Resolution No.
10933, which established procedures to identify, protect and preserve archaeological resources, and
codified these in Chapter 2.19 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The Archaeological Resource
Protection Ordinance included the preparation of an Archaeological Sensitivity Map by a qualified
archaeologist. This map identified geographic areas of archaeological sensitivity and assigned an
archaeological sensitivity rating of ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ based on a site’s proximity to: 1) known and/or
recorded sites containing archaeological resources; and 2) sites and/or geographic areas where studies
or individual archaeological site assessments have been completed. This map was subsequently used
by staff to create a citywide database (‘PastFinder’) in which to generate parcel-specific archaeological
sensitivity reports for development proposals that involve excavation or grading.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 14
Recommended Mitigation Measures for Archeological Resources
According to both the City’s adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and PastFinder, the level of
archaeological sensitivity on the subject site is ‘low’ and no archaeological evaluation is required. While
no further archaeological review is necessary, the City’s Archaeological Resource Protection Ordinance
does prescribe standard conditions to mitigate and monitor archaeological finds during grading and
construction activities associated with the project. By incorporating these required conditions,
archaeological impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Project Alternatives
Section V of the DEIR (pages 61-78) contains an analysis of the Project Alternatives. CEQA requires that
an EIR describe and analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
environmental impacts of the project.
The sponsor submitted a list of project objectives, which were re-formatted in the EIR for conciseness as
follows:
To redevelop an under-utilized area of Downtown consistent with General Plan policies;
To develop a mixed-use project that is appropriately designed for the immediate neighborhood
considering the scale and architectural style of surrounding development;
To meet the City’s affordable housing requirements;
To increase the economic vitality of the Downtown area; and
To seek approval of a reasonably proposed density bonus with concessions and incentives as
permitted under State law.
The following discussion summarizes the key aspects of the four alternatives focusing on whether the
alternatives lessen the severity of the project's environmental impacts and would meet key project
objectives:
No Project/No Development Alternative
The No Project alternative assumes the project site would generally remain in its existing
condition and would not be subject to redevelopment. The No Project alternative would not
achieve any of the project objectives. This alternative would not redevelop an under-utilized area
of Downtown or increase the economic vitality of the Downtown area. This alternative would not
help the City achieve in meeting its affordable housing goals. Additionally, this alternative would
allow the existing residential building at 1212 2nd Street, which has been determined to be
uninhabitable due to safety and building code violations, to continue to exist in its dilapidated
condition and potentially become a greater public nuisance. Under this alternative, however, there
would be no demolition of the existing structures, which are eligible f or the California Register, so
unlike the proposed project, there would be no impacts to Cultural Resources or Aesthetics.
The project sponsor, Monahan Parker, prepared a financial feasibility analysis of the four
identified project alternatives under consideration in this EIR). With regard to the No Project
alternative, the study concludes that without development of the proposed project, redevelopment
of the project site would be postponed indefinitely, new residential and commercial development
would not be created, new tax revenues would not be realized nor new commercial activity
introduced into the Downtown through the proposed 41 residential units and ground floor
commercial space.
Preservation Onsite Alternative
The Preservation Onsite alternative assumes the Victorian-era residential structures would be
maintained and rehabilitated to meet the applicable health and safety codes. The remainder of
the site would be redeveloped to provide a reduced scale, mixed-use residential/commercial
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 15
development focused on the corner of 2nd and B Streets. The Preservation Onsite alternative
would largely achieve all five of the project objectives: renovating the Victorian-era residences
and constructing a reduced scale, mixed-use project that would revitalize an under-utilized area
of Downtown, enhance the relationship of the project to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
scale, meet the City’s housing needs requirements, although at a reduced level due to a
reduction in the size of the proposed project (Monahan Parker’s financial feasibility study
assumes a loss of 14 units or 34% density for this alternative), and provide for a greater diversity
of housing types in the Downtown. Twenty percent (20%) of the remaining reduced project units
would be affordable housing units and the overall project would be eligible for a reasonably
proposed Density Bonus under State law, thereby achieving some of the City’s affordable
housing goals. The reduced project plus the revitalized two Victorian-era homes would increase
the vitality of the Downtown area, although to a lesser degree than the proposed project. The
retention and rehabilitation of the existing two Victorian-era residences and reduced project would
enhance the relationship of the project to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural
style, provide an adequate setting for the historic structures, and would eliminate the loss of
historic resources.
Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant impacts to cultural
resources, as preservation in place is the preferred method of treating historic resources. The
setting of the structures would be affected, particularly for 1212 2nd Street, as the proposed 4-
story project would immediately abut the 2-story house and overshadow it, as indicated in the
scenario prepared by the applicant. However, this could be mitigated with improved design
modifications to the proposed project that could step the proposed building mass further from the
Victorian-era residences. Additionally, the Preservation Onsite alternative would result in reducing
any potential significant environmental impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The applicant’s financial feasibility analysis of the Preservation Onsite alternative concludes that it
is not feasible from an economic perspective. One key assumption is that the two Victorian -era
residences would be fully repaired to market standards and sold at market rate rather than rented
as they have been in recent years (the fire damage to the 1212 2nd Street property in 2007 was
not repaired and it has deteriorated to an uninhabitable state and therefore has not been a rental
property since the fire). Monahan Parker’s financial feasibility study found that the cost to
renovate the Victorians ($1.2 million) would be more than their market value estimate to sell them
for $1.13 million. The study further concludes that in addition to this minor loss in revenue for
renovation and sale of the Victorian-era residences, the 34% reduction in the proposed project
density would create a loss of $4.27 million for the project sponsors and that it would not be
financially feasible.
Preservation Offsite Alternative
The Preservation Offsite alternative assumes the existing Victorian-era residences would be
relocated to another suitable, privately-owned location off-site within the Downtown. This
alternative could require significant work to prepare the new site prior to relocating the struct ures,
including but not limited to: purchasing the property, grading and drainage improvements, utilities
connections, construction of new foundations for the structures, and moving the structures to the
new site. Once the existing structures were relocated to the new site, this alternative would
require significant repairs to the exterior and interior of the structures to comply with Historic as
well as California Building Code requirements, consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards, plus the installation of access and landscaping improvements.
After the existing Victorian-era structures were relocated, the project site would be developed in
accordance with the proposed plans. This alternative would allow for the existing historically
significant structures to be maintained off-site in a location and manner that protects their historic
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 16
significance and reduces the project’s significant unavoidable impact upon historic resources to a
less than significant level.
City staff analyzed a number of potential, privately-owned, sites within and proximate to the
project site and Downtown area that could be suitable for relocation of one or both Victorian-era
residences. An initial list of eight undeveloped or underdeveloped sites were carefully evaluated
and reduced to four sites that satisfy several criteria including: appropriate zoning, appropriate
site area, reasonable proximity to the original site, and beneficial residential and historical
context:
Alternative Site A – 1201 2nd St/745-747 B St.( APN: 012-075-06)
Alternative Site B – 712 D St. (APN: 012-073-28)
Alternative Site C – 1628 Fifth Ave.(APN: 011-193-06)
Alternative Site D – Between 1135 and 1145 Mission Ave. (APN: 011-213-03)
All four alternative sites are considered feasible in terms of the City’s policies and Code
requirements (pages 68-78). One of these alternate sites, Alternative Site A (1201 2nd St./745-747
B St.; APN: 012-075-06), is considered the most practical and is also the only site that represents
an appropriate historic setting for the structures. While not preserving the same orientation as the
existing buildings, Alternative Site A is within proximity of 2nd and B Street; is visible from this
corner; and is adjacent to two historic structures that are also associated with 19th century San
Rafael at this location. Moving the structures to this site would allow them to retain sufficient
integrity of location and setting to maintain their historic status
The Preservation Offsite alternative would relocate and rehabilitate the Victorian-era structures
while allowing development of the project proposal and thereby achieve the applicant’s
objectives. This alternative would result in a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources and,
in the case of Alternative Site A, would retain and enhance the historic character of the B and 2nd
Street neighborhood.
The applicant’s financial feasibility analysis of the four sites evaluated within the Preservation
Offsite alternative concludes that none are feasible from an economic perspective.The study
assumes a uniform purchase price of $750,000 for each of the four sites. Soft costs and
construction costs were estimated for each site as follows:
Site A: $1,905,629
Site B: $1,904,629
Site C: $2,122,101 (substantial cost for PG&E power line and higher house moving cost)
Site D: $2,260,491 (additional engineering, grading, new foundation, retaining walls, and
waterproofing increased costs for this site)
The analysis concludes that the cost to relocate the buildings results in a financial loss, as the
estimated building cost to complete the proposed project plus Preservation Offsite alternative of
$22,430,000 is higher than the projected project building value of $21,820,010, as calculated in
the Residential Rent Roll.
One key assumption of the financial feasibility study for the Preservation Offsite alternative
analysis is that the project sponsor would purchase the property for relocation, adding a
substantial $750,000 financial burden to the cost analysis. It is possible that land purchase may
not be required though, at this time, none of the current owners of the alternative sites have
indicated an interest in accepting the Victoria-era structures.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 17
Adaptive Reuse Alternative
The Adaptive Reuse alternative assumes the that substantial elements of the existing Victorian-
era buildings, such as the building facades, would be incorporated into the new building and
become part of the new uses, consistent with the project proposal. This alternative would allow
for greater flexibility than the Preservation Onsite alternative, but would not fully preserve the
buildings to the same degree as the Preservation Onsite alternative. The Adaptive Reuse
alternative may address Aesthetic issues by better integrating the proposed project with the
neighborhood through addressing scale and architectural design, but does not mitigate for the
loss of historic resources. The Adaptive Reuse alternative does not preserve the historic
resources in that it does not preserve the buildings. Aesthetic impacts cannot be addressed at
this time due to the lack of a specific proposal that illustrates the Adaptive Reuse of the existing
historic resources.
The Adaptive Reuse alternative would largely meet project objectives to revitalize this area of
Downtown; meet the City’s affordable housing objectives; increase economic vitality in this area;
and achieve a reasonable density bonus. However, as stated earlier, it cannot reduce the loss of
historic resources to a less-than-significant level and the potential of the Adaptive Reuse
alternative to mitigate potentially significant Aesthetic impacts cannot be analyzed at this time
based on the current project design which does not attempt to incorporate any of the substantial
elements from the existing Victorian-era buildings into the project design.
The applicant’s financial feasibility analysis of the Adaptive Reuse alternative did not draw a
financial impact conclusion about this alternative but rather stated that incorporating architectural
elements from the existing Victorian-era structures into the mixed-use project design that was
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board, with minor modifications
and conditions, would not benefit the aesthetics of the building nor pay homage to the Victorian-
era structures themselves. Therefore, whether the Adaptive Reuse alternative may be financially
feasible is unknown; however, as stated earlier, it would not be a desirable solution to the
significant Cultural Resources and Aesthetic impacts.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, determining
which of the alternatives analyzed by the DEIR would result in the fewest or least significant
environmental impacts The DEIR concludes that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the
Preservation Onsite alternative, which is the preferred method of treating historic resources,
preserves the two Victorian structures in place and rehabilitates them according to the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, restoring them to a safe and habitable condition through
a renovation that meets the Historic Building Code.
The Preservation Onsite alternative provides a mixed-use project that better addresses the
architectural scale of the neighborhood and, although reduced in scope and therefore the ability
to maximize project objectives, would still reasonably achieve the project objectives. Consistent
with the recommended Mitigation Measures to reduce potentially significant Aesthetic impacts to
a less-than-significant level, re-design of the project to achieve architectural compatibility with the
2nd and B Street neighborhood is feasible, and was, in fact, the original project design when the
Design Review Board initiated their review of the project. This alternative would result in a design
that achieves key project objectives, although at a smaller scale. The Preservation Onsite
alternative would also preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and enhance the
integrity of a potential historic district in this area.
The Planning Commission should, in their review of the Final EIR/Response to comments (FEIR),
consider which, if any, alternative would be preferable to the project as proposed or which combination of
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 18
alternatives and the project would best achieve the goal of reducing the identified significant adverse
impacts to historic resources.
Final EIR (FEIR):
The Final EIR (FEIR) provides an opportunity to respond to written comments on the DEIR for the project
received during the 45-day comment period (September 18 – November 10 2015) and oral comments
provided during the November 10, 2015 Planning Commission public hearing. The FEIR also provides an
opportunity to make clarifications, corrections or revisions to the DEIR, as needed, based on the
comments received.
The City received 8 written comments on the DEIR and 10 individuals, including the Planning
Commissioners, provided oral comments during the comment period and the Planning Commission
hearing. In some cases, the comments provided either in writing or orally focused on the merits of the
project rather than the environmental impacts discussed in the DEIR. In those cases, the comment is
included in the FEIR with a note stating “no response required” next to the individual’s name. Concerns
raised in relation to the project merits are addressed under the “Neighborhood Meeting/Correspondence”
section below..
In addition, the FEIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table that
incorporates the Mitigation Measures recommended in the DEIR and provides implementation methods
to fulfill these requirements, and a copy of the Planning Commission staff report on the DEIR. Based on
the comments provided during the public review period on the DEIR, the FEIR provides responses to
these comments only. No clarifications, corrections or revisions to the DEIR, were warranted, based on
the comments received.
Public Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations:
Given that the EIR concludes that the project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts to Cultural
Resources (Historical), in order to approve the project, the Commission would have to adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2), if they elect to approve the project.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives
(including environmental, legal, technical, social, and economic factors). Adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations would mean that the Commission finds that on balance, the benefits of the
project outweigh the significant unavoidable environmental impact(s).
The project sponsor has submitted a letter identifying/proposing the public benefits of the project to the
community (Exhibit 9). In their letter, the project sponsor has presented that the project by itself,
development of infill downtown housing, as encouraged by the General Plan, including the provision of
20% housing affordability within the project, would generally provide enough public benefit to outweigh
the impacts of the demolition of the cultural resources. Furthermore, the project sponsor contends that
complying with the mitigation measures ($63,000 estimated total costs) and payment of the development
impact fees ($400,000 estimated total costs), as required by the project, are also public benefits to the
community. Also, the public benefit proposed by the project sponsor includes donating $25,000 to the
San Rafael Fire Department, Marin Historical Museum, or any group the City determines to be
appropriate in an effort to offset the impacts from the loss of the two historic structures.
The City has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on three (3) recent redevelopment
projects, with their public benefits listed:
125 Shoreline Pkwy. (new, 137,511 sq. ft. Target retail store)
o Estimated $646,000 annual sales tax to City;
o Estimated 200 permanent retail jobs plus short-term construction jobs;
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 19
o Construction of new bus shelter at Shoreline Pkwy/Kerner Blvd., 28 secured and covered
bicycle parking, 30% subsidy in bus passes, and 30% employee discount on bike purchase
and accessories;
o Designate parking and signage for Shoreline Park users, pathway connecting parking spaces
to Shoreline Park, outdoor dining/sitting area along Shoreline Park;
o Charitable contribution to San Rafael-based non-profit organizations and charitable
projects/events equal to 5% of total sales, $250,000 to the San Rafael Public Library over a
10-year period’ and
o LEED Gold certification,
1203 & 1211 Lincoln Ave. (new, 36-unit residential condominium building)
o 36 new housing units to help City meet it’s RHNA targets, of which six (6) are BMR units (4
units affordable at low-income household level and 2 units affordable at moderate-income
household levels);
o In-fill, high-density, transit-oriented, Downtown residential development;
o Elimination of substandard housing, elimination of multiple driveways along Mission Ave.;
o Economically infeasible to rehabilitate;
o Short-term construction jobs; and
o Encourage financial investment by other Downtown property owners
1200 Irwin St. (formerly 524 Mission Ave.; new, 15 residential townhouse condominiums)
o 15 new housing units to help City meet its RHNA targets, of which two (2) are BMR units
affordable at low-income household level;
o In-fill, high-density, transit-oriented, residential development near Downtown;
o Elimination of substandard housing, elimination of multiple driveways along Mission Ave.;
o Economically infeasible to rehabilitate;
o Short-term construction jobs; and
o Encourage financial investment by other property owners near Downtown.
Staff finds the last two projects listed above to be most similar to the current project. Both projects are
multi-unit redevelopment projects in or near the Downtown. Both projects required the demolition of
historic structures. Both projects proposed similar public benefits to the community that are similar to the
current project. Both projects were approved with adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
similar to that which is requested by this current project.
Staff recommends adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, given that;
The project would, generally, further long-term goals of the City to bring in-fill housing to the
Downtown and create ‘Alive-after-five’ activity in the Downtown, providing economic opportunities to
Downtown businesses;
The project would help re-activate B Street, an important pedestrian connection between the Gerstle
Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core;
The project would help the City meet its RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) target of
providing 1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023;
The project would provide a total of six (6) of ‘affordable’ or below market rate (BMR) housing units;
four (4) of these housing units would be deed-restricted for rent to very low-income households and
two (2) units deed-restricted for rent to low-income households; and
The project would donate $25,000 to the San Rafael Fire Department, the Marin History Museum, or
any group the City determines to be appropriate to help offset the loss of the two cultural resources.
The public benefits would help off-set the proposed impact to historic resources. These public benefits
would be in addition to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the DEIR.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 20
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
A Neighborhood Meeting was held early in the formal review of the project, a summary of which included
in the Summary History of Project Review, which is provided as Exhibit 4. Notice of all public hearings on
the project, including the Neighborhood Meeting, have been 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 project site, the appropriate
neighborhood groups (Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Downtown BID, Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Association and San Rafael Heritage), and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days
prior to the date of all meetings and hearings. Public notice was also posted on the project site, along
both the B and 2nd Street frontages, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings and hearings
(Exhibit 10)
All public correspondence on the project was received during review of the DEIR. The FEIR lists those
public comments received on both the DEIR and on the project merits. Responses to comments on the
DEIR were provided in the FEIR, a copy of which has been distributed to the Commission in advance.
Public comments on the merits of the project are attached (Exhibit 1 1) and are all in opposition to the
project for, essentially, the following similar concerns:
The existing two Victoria-era historic structures should be preserved, either on-site or off-site, and
rehabilitated for occupancy either as residential or non-residential uses; and
The project design is not in context with the design character of the historic structures which
predominates the neighborhood surrounding the project site, particularly along the B Street frontage.
Public comments also expressed concern for the traffic impacts of the project, particularly along 2nd St.,
and the parking impacts of the project on the adjacent Gerstle Park residential neighborhood.
Staff’s responses to these comments of opposition are notes below:
Comment on On-Site Preservation and Rehabilitation. The DEIR concluded that on-site preservation and
rehabilitation of the two historic structures was the environmentally-superior alternative to the project,
which proposes to demolish the two cultural resources. The project sponsor has consistently argued and
provided supporting documentation that on-site preservation and rehabilitation of the two historic
structures is economically infeasible. Instead, the project sponsor requests a Statement of Overriding
Consideration, advocating that the benefits of the project to the community outweigh the resulting loss of
two historic resources. These specific public benefits are identified in Exhibit 11; however, the project,
generally, would provide 41 new Downtown rental residential units and eliminate existing blight.
Comment on Off-Site Preservation and Rehabilitation. The DEIR includes an Off-Site Relocation
Alternative analysis which identified four (4) privately-owned potential sites within the vicinity of the
project site to relocate one or both of the historic structures (The City was unable to identify any publicly-
owned sites. within the vicinity of the project site to relocate the two historic structures). Both the project
sponsor and Planning staff attempted to contact the property owner of record for each of the four
alternative sites, to inform them that their property was identified as an alternative site and to ask if they
were interested in accepting relocation of one or both of the historic structures; however no further
contact or interest has been expressed since. At this time, Off-Site Preservation and Rehabilitation
remains a theoretical option only.
Comment on Design Character on B St. Frontage. The San Rafael Downtown Community Plan or Vision
(dated April 1993) envisions new apartments and condominiums above specialty retail and restaurants
on the “A”, “B” and “C” cross-streets that add to the pedestrian environment. B Street, between 2nd and
3rd Streets, is an area of strong historic character and the primary walkable connection between the
Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core. Building heights of two to five floors are
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 21
envisioned east of B Street and one to three floors west of B Street. The DRB has recommended
approval of the project design, subject to the minor modifications, finding it consistent with the applicable
review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and Downtown-specific and historic
building design guidelines; given the constraints imposed by Public Works Department’s restrictions
and/or prohibitions to encroachments over the public sidewalk. The EIR proposes a mitigation measure
(AES-1), requiring bay window, eave and balcony encroachments over the sidewalk/ROW along the B
St. frontage, to create a better design context with that of the surrounding historic structures and,
thereby, reducing the project’s impacts to Aesthetics to a less-than-significant impact.
Comment on Traffic Impacts. The DEIR concludes that traffic impacts of the project (15 a.m. and 16 p.m.
peak trips) can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures (TRANS-1)
identified in the Initial Study and the payment of the City’s Traffic Mitigation Fees.This conclusion was
supported by the findings of a Focused Traffic Study prepared by W -Trans, Inc. Further, the project
design would eliminate three existing driveway curb cuts along the 2nd St. frontage which will remove
potential conflicts with automobiles entering and exiting 2nd St. and will result in a more efficient vehicular
operation.
.
Comment on Parking Impacts on the Gerstle Park Neighborhood. The project site is located with the
Downtown parking District, in which the parking demand for up to 1.0 FAR (floor area ratio) of non-
residential develop is provided by nearby public parking garages and surface lots. The project is required
to provide on-site parking for the residential development, at the following rates: 1 space for 1-bedroom
units and smaller (less than 900 sq. ft.) 2-bedroom units, and 2 spaces for larger (greater than 900 sq. ft.)
2-bedroom units. Staff has not required, nor has the project sponsor provided a parking study to
determine, if any, the potential parking impacts to the adjacent Gerstle Park Neighborhood; given that,
the project is consistent with the required parking standards.
The required parking for the project will likely be modified slight ly, based on the required BMR (below
market rate) agreement. The project is required to provide six (6) affordable housing units with a
minimum four (4) units of these units at the very low income- household level and two (2) units at the low
income household level. These BMR units are required to be similar in configuration as the other units in
the project, which are mixture of approximately 1-bedroom units (approximately 70%) and 2-bedroom
units (approximately 30%). The project proposes four (4) ‘studio’ BMR units and two (2) 1-bedroom BMR
units, each 517-803 sq. ft.in size, and six (6) parking spaces. Marin Housing Authority will likely require
the project revise the BMR unit configuration to provide four (4) 1-bedroom BMR units and two (2) 2-
bedroom BMR units, which will increase the on-site parking requirement for the BMR units from 6 to 7
parking spaces. The project provides 48 on-site parking spaces where 47 parking spaces are currently
required. This likely increase in the parking requirement due to the revised BMR unit configuration will
result in an increase in the parking requirement for the project to 48 on-site parking spaces, which are
provided.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds the benefits of the project to the community outweigh the significant unavoidable
environmental impact, the loss of two historic structures. Staff finds these cultural resources are currently
isolated and would be further isolated by the environmentally superior alternative (Preservation Onsite;
smaller project), as determined by the DEIR. The project merits are compelling:
In-fill housing to Downtown, creating ‘Alive-after-five’ activity in Downtown and providing economic
opportunities to Downtown businesses;
Re-activate B Street and the project site;
41 new housing units to help City meet its RHNA targets, of which six (6) are BMR units (4 units
affordable at very low-income household level and 2 units affordable at low-income household levels;
and
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 22
Charitable contribution of $25,000 to the San Rafael Fire Department, Marin History Museum, or an
any group the City determines to be appropriate to help offset the loss of the cultural resources.
Based on adopted Statement of Overriding Consideration on two recent multi-family residential projects
that resulted in the loss of historic structures, staff finds the proposed public benefit to be adequate for
the certification of the EIR for the project,, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the approval of the planning
entitlements required by the project (Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Lot
Consolidation).
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission ha the following options
1. Adopt the Resolutions to Certify the EIR, adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations and approving the MMRP for Project Approval, and approve project
applications (staff recommendation); or
2. Adopt Resolution to Certify the EIR, but direct staff to return with revised Resolutions to Deny the
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Deny the project applications; or
3. Direct staff to return with revised Resolutions, to Deny Certification of the FEIR and Deny Project
Applications; or
4. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission’s comments or
concerns
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution Certifying EIR (DEIR and FEIR)
2. Draft Resolution Adopting Statement of Overriding Consideration and Approving Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
3. Draft Resolution Conditionally Approving a Use Permit, Environmental and Design Review Permit
and a Lot Line Adjustment
4. Summary History of Project Review
5. General Plan Consistency Table
6. Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
7. Vicinity/Location Map
8. Design Evolution Rendering
9. Applicant’s Public Benefits Letter, dated March 15, 2016
10. Public Notice
11. Public Comments
Full-size and reduced copies of the project plans have been distributed to the Planning Commission
only*.
A copy of the FEIR has been previously distributed to the Planning Commission only*.
*Copies of the Final EIR (along with the DEIR) and project plans are available at
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-proj-815b/
EXHIBIT 1 -1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACAT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH #201306053) PREPARED FOR
THE PROJECT REQUESTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
(ED12-060), A USE PERMIT (UP12-029) AND A LOT CONSOLIDATION (LLA12-003) TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL AND ONE COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, FOUR-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING
WITH 41 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE 1,939 SQ. FT. OF GROUND-FLOOR
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 48 GARAGE PARKING SPACES AT 815 B ST. (FORMERLY
809 B ST., AND 1212 AND 1214 2ND ST.; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 & -32)
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2012, project applications for a Use Permit (UP12-029),
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060), Lot Consolidation (LLA12-003) and
environmental review (IS12-001) were submitted to the Community Development Department
by the project sponsor, Monahan Parker, Inc., proposing to demolish two residential and one
commercial structures and construct a new a four-story, mixed-use building with 41 residential
rental units above 2,095 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 49 garage parking spaces
on four (4) adjacent Downtown parcels, at 815 B St.; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the Planning Commission (Commission) held an
appropriately noticed (Notice of Preparation) Public Meeting for Scoping the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to assess the impacts of the project. The Planning Commission directed
staff to prepare an EIR for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), which was to address the following issues:
Aesthetics Cultural Resources and Project Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review period
beginning September 18, 2015, and ending November 9, 2015 (SCH # 201306053). On
November 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider
and accept comments on the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in
significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Aesthetics and Cultural Resources (Historic).
All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR could be mitigated to less-than-significant
levels with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and oral comments received from the public on the DEIR
and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132, the City responded to all the environmental
comments that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a FEIR was
completed; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2016, Notice of Availability for the FIER/Response to
Comments was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 300
feet of the property and written responses to public agency comments were provided to
agencies who commented on the DEIR; and
EXHIBIT 1 -2
WHEREAS, the City intends that the FEIR, and all applicable mitigation measures
therein, shall be used as the environmental documentation required by CEQA for subsequent
discretionary actions required for this project; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the FEIR/Response to comments and considered the FIER along with the project;
and
WHEREAS on May 10, 2016, by adoption of a separate Resolution, the Planning
Commission adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; 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 hereby certifies
the Final EIR, based upon the following findings required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15090:
FINDINGS
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which consists of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report dated September 2015, and the Response to Comments Document dated
April 2016 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, including Public Resources Code
Section 21083.3, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment
Procedures Manual.
2. The FEIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental
Assessment Procedures Manual by following the appropriate format, content, technical
analysis of the potential impact areas and project alternatives identified in the initially-
authorized scope of work. Further, all prescribed public review periods and duly noticed
hearings were held for the project Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notice of Completion (NOC)
for public review of the DEIR and Notice of Availability following publication of the FEIR.
3. The FEIR has been prepared using the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and the
FEIR:
a) appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts;
b) analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any
significant effect of the project; and
c) recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise
significant adverse environmental impacts of the project. The findings and
recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by
professionals experienced in the specific areas of study.
4. The Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the FEIR and
has considered the comments received during the public review period on the DEIR.
EXHIBIT 1 -3
5. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Rafael
Community Development Department and the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission has reviewed and considered all information contained in the FEIR prior to
making its recommendation on the project, and concludes that the FEIR:
a) appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on the impacts of the project;
b) analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most
of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any
significant effect of the project;
c) Identifies or recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen, eliminate or avoid
the otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and
d) Includes findings and recommendations supported by technical studies prepared by
professionals experienced in the specific areas of study, and which are contained within
the document and/or made available within the project file maintained by the City of San
Rafael Community Development Department, the custodian of all project documents.
6. The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document
certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR provided responses
to comments received on the DEIR and provided clarification to those comments. No new
information has been added to the DEIR and does not deprive the public of meaningful
opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have declined
to implement. In particular, no new information was presented in the FEIR and does not
disclose or result in:
a) a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
b) a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in
the DEIR;
c) any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from
others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of
the project, but which the project’s proponents refuse to adopt. This includes
consideration of the no project alternative “No Project/No Build” variant that has been
added in the FEIR assessing the status quo; and
d) a finding that the DEIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
7. The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and
support the conclusion that the project will result in several potentially significant impacts
that necessitate mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project’s merits, it
will be necessary to make complete and detailed findings pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect
identified in the EIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following findings:
a) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency;
b) that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and
EXHIBIT 1 -4
c) As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of
overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh
the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
8. The City is taking an action to certif y the FEIR for the project, recognizing it as an
informational document for assessment of the project. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that
an environmental document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts
and that it is used as an informational document to guide decision-makers in considering
project merits. Certification of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use
entitlement or right of development for the project site. The FEIR document must be
reviewed to determine whether it adequately assesses the impacts of the project, and
whether the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as
amplified by its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with
respect to the project to determine whether a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to the EIR, or
Addendum to the EIR need be prepared or if further environmental review under CEQA is
not required. Certification of the FEIR prior to consideration of and taking action on project
entitlements does not prejudice or bias review or actions on the proposed development
project.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of May 2016.
Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ______________________ BY:______________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair
EXHIBIT 2 -1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING CEQA
FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE PROJECT
REQUESTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED12-060), A USE
PERMIT (UP12-029) AND A LOT CONSOLIDATION (LLA12-003) TO ALLOW THE
DEMOLITION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL AND ONE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, FOUR-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 41 RENTAL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE 1,939 SQ. FT. OF GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE
AND 48 GARAGE PARKING SPACES AT 815 B ST. (FORMERLY 809 B ST., AND 1212 AND
1214 2ND ST.; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 & -32)
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2012, project applications for a Use Permit (UP12-029),
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060), Lot Consolidation (LLA12-003) and
environmental review (IS12-001) were submitted to the Community Development Department
by the project sponsor, Monahan Parker, Inc., proposing to demolish two residential and one
commercial structures and construct a new a four-story, mixed-use building with 41 residential
rental units above 21,939 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 498 garage parking
spaces on four (4) adjacent Downtown parcels, at 815 B St.(formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and
1214 2nd St.); and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2013, the Planning Commission (Commission) held an
appropriately noticed (Notice of Preparation or NOP) Public Meeting for Scoping the
Environmental Impact Report to assess the impacts of the project. The Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), which
was to address the following issues: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources (Historic), and Project
Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review period
beginning September 18, 2015, and ending November 9, 2015 (SCH # 201306053). As part of
this review, on November 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing to consider and accept comments on the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project
would result in significant, unavoidable impacts associated with Aesthetics and Cultural
Resources (Historic). All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR can be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the
DEIR; and
WHEREAS, based on written and oral comments received from the public on the DEIR
and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132, the City responded to all the environmental
comments that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a FEIR was
completed. On April 22, 2016, a Notice of Availability for the FEIR/Response to Comments was
mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property
and written responses to public agency comments were provided to agencies who commented
on the DEIR; and;
EXHIBIT 2 -2
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared, which outlines the procedures
and requirements for implementing all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, and is
provided in attached Exhibit A of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR concludes that all impacts identified in the FEIR have been or can
be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, with the exception one impact to Cultural
Resources in that that the project would result in the demolition of two structures which are
eligible for the California Register of Historic Places and are considered cultural resources for
purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the decision-making agency to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve a project. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” The decision-making agency must state
in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information
in the record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial
evidence in the record; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public
hearing on the proposed planning applications for the 815 B St project, accepting all public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. As part of
this hearing process the Planning Commission considered draft CEQA Findings of Fact, a draft
Statement of Overriding Considerations, as well as a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), which is presented in attached Exhibit A of this resolution;
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the Planning Commission through the adoption of a
separate resolution, certified the FEIR for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of
San Rafael does hereby: a) approve the following CEQA Findings of Fact; b) adopt the following
Statement of Overriding Considerations; and c) approve the MMRP presented in Exhibit A,
finding that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
A. Final EIR and Addendum
By separate resolution (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-XX), the Planning
Commission has reviewed t adopted an Final EIR (FEIR). As part of this action and as outlined
in this separate resolution, the Planning Commission: a) reaffirmed the findings made in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-XX, which supported the certification of the FEIR; and
b) found that the FEIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City
of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, this separate resolution
finds and concludes that the FEIR adequately assess the environmental effects of the proposed
815 B St. project.
EXHIBIT 2 -3
B. Incorporated Documents/ Record of Proceedings
1. The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record
supporting these findings:
All project plans and application materials including supportive technical reports;
The Draft EIR and Appendices (September 2015) and Final EIR (April 25, 2016),
the Initial Study (June 2013) and all documents relied upon or incorporated by
reference;
The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) prepared for the
project;
The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 and Final EIR;
Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 14);
Subdivision Ordinance of the City of San Rafael (SRMC Title 15);
San Rafael Downtown Community Plan; Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael and
Our Implementation Strategy;
City Council Ordinance No. 1772, City Council Resolution No. 10980 and the City
of San Rafael Archaeological Sensitivity map
All records of decision, resolutions, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits,
letters, synopses of meetings, summaries, and other documents approved,
reviewed, relied upon, or prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials,
consultants, or staff relating to the project;
Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above;
and
Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City has based its decision are located in
and may be obtained from Department of Community Development, Planning Division. The
Community Development, Planning Division is the custodian of records for all matters before the
Planning Commission.
II. Findings of Fact in Support of Project Action
The FEIR, prepared in compliance with CEQA, evaluate the potentially significant and significant
adverse environmental impacts that could result from approval of the project. Because the FEIR
conclude that implementation of the project would result in adverse impacts, the City is required
by CEQA to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section
15091) These findings list and describe the following, as analyzed in the EIR: a) impacts
determined to be insignificant or less-than-significant in the initial study/notice of preparation
checklist; b) impacts found to be less than significant after individual analysis in the EIR; c)
significant impacts that can be avoided or reduced with mitigation; d) significant impacts that
cannot be avoided; e) project alternatives that were developed and studied as provided in the
CEQA Guidelines.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the
City as summarized below. Further explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the Draft EIR and FEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the FEIR determinations regarding
mitigation measures and the projects’ impacts and mitigation measures designed to address
EXHIBIT 2 -4
those impacts. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these
findings the determinations and conclusions of the Draft EIR and FEIR relating to environmental
impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions
are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND NOT INDIVIDUALLY
ANALYZED
During the preparation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping period, the City
determined that a number of potential environmental effects of the project would be insignificant,
less-than-significant or would be adequately addressed through the City review process,
including Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use/Planning,
Population/Housing, Agriculture Resources, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Utilities/Service
Systems, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality and Recreation. For these topics, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, no need for further environmental
assessment was required for the preparation of the FEIR.
Finding:
Draft EIR citing the Initial Study (IS) for the project, contains brief statements identifying possible
impacts that were determined to be insignificant or less-than-significant, along with the reasons
for that determination. .
B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT AFTER INDIVIDUAL
ANALYSIS.
The NOP and scoping period identified a number of potential environmental impacts to be
analyzed in the Draft EIR. Through that analysis, none of these impacts were determined to be
less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are necessary or required.
Finding:
Draft EIR citing the Initial Study for the project, contains brief statements identifying possible
impacts that were determined to be insignificant or less-than-significant, along with the reasons
for that determination
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED WITH MITIGATION
The City, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091 and 15092, identifies the significant impacts that can be eliminated or reduced
to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR. These mitigation measures are hereby adopted and incorporated into the description
of the project and their implementation will be monitored through the MMRP.
1) Aesthetics
a. Visual Quality/Historic Context
Significant Impact.
As analyzed in Chapter IV. A (pages 33 - 43) of the DEIR, the project design
would create a significant impact Aesthetics and the visual quality or historic
context of the surrounding neighborhood. As outlined in the DEIR, Painter
Preservation & Planning, Architectural Historians, prepared a comprehensive
EXHIBIT 2 -5
Historic Resource Report (dated June 2013) as part of the environmental review
of the project and determined the neighborhood surrounding the 2nd and B Street
intersection retains its unique historic identity or character (i.e., train depot and
surrounding railroad housing and commercial services) and appears eligible for
listing as a Historic District under the California Register of Historic Resources
under Criteria 1 (associated with events making significant contribution to local or
regional history) and 3 (distinctive architectural or design characteristics).
Painter Preservation & Planning first analyzed aesthetics and visual quality
impacts of the project design prior the Design Review Board’s review (DRB)
reviewed the project design on August 20, 2013, and after project modifications,
again on July 8, 2014 and recommended approval of the project design with
minor changes and conditions on August 5, 2014) and determined:
“The proposed new structure has a negative effect on the present historic
character of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the intersection of 2nd and B
Streets. It has a particularly negative effect on 2nd Street, due to the loss of
residential scale and amenities along this street, including front porches,
architectural features such as bay windows, small scale architectural detailing,
and the opportunity for interaction between people and the built environment in
this location. The proposed design features at the corner of 2nd and B Street,
and the retail frontages along B Street do not relate to the traditional historic
character of this street and late 19th century commercial streets in general,
which are typically more conducive to pedestrian activity. In addition, the
historic character of the neighborhood, the late 19th century setting for the
project, is significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative
effect of prior demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered
around the railroad station and early commercial development in this area.”
(page 38)
Partially in response to the City Engineer’s refusal to allow bay windows or any
other construction creating FAR (Floor Area Ratio) over the public
sidewalk/right-of-way (ROW), design modifications were incorporated into the
project throughout the review of the project by the DRB which also reduced the
scale of the building by stepping back the fourth floor and eliminated most deck
and eave projections into the required setback and over the ROW.
Painter Preservation & Planning re-analyzed potential aesthetic and visual
quality impacts of the final project design (after the DRB recommended
approval of the project design with minor changes and conditions) and
determined the final project design:
“…presents a more positive scale relationship to 2nd and B Street at this
important intersection. Corresponding changes in building articulation and form,
however, present a negative appearance and therefore less positive
relationship to the historic neighborhood than the design scheme presented in
January 2013. The loss of such features as vertical bays, ‘real’ balconies, deep
eave overhangs and sidewalk canopies has affected the design of the building,
as have significant setbacks at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor levels. The materials,
workmanship and architectural detailing of the building do not mitigate for this
change in architectural design. The pedestrian environment, also an important
EXHIBIT 2 -6
positive feature of the built environment in this neighborhood, is not adequately
addressed in this design scheme.” (page 42)
The DEIR concludes that the final project design does not enhance the aesthetic
setting of the historic built environment of the 2nd and B Street neighborhood and
remains a potentially significant Aesthetic impact, in addition to causing the loss
of historic resources. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level with the addition of more and greater projections (upper-story
bay windows, usable balconies, deep eaves and ground-floor canopies) over the
sidewalk ROW from the building façade (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measure AES-1).
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a
condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and
that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
.
(2) Air Quality
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, grading and construction activities on the site related to the project would
create a temporary potentially-significant Air Quality impact, which can be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the preparation, approval and
implementation of a Dust Control Plan (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measure AIR-1)
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a
condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and
that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
(3) Cultural Resources
a. Historic
Significant Impact.
As analyzed in Chapter IV. B (pages 43 - 60) of the DEIR, the project design
would create a significant Aesthetics impact due to the proposed demolition of
the two existing two-story residential buildings at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street,
which are listed in the local register of historical resources (1212 2nd Street) and
has been determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources by survey evaluation (1214 2nd Street). The Victorian-era residences
at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street are historically significant for their association with
EXHIBIT 2 -7
patterns of local history under Criterion 1 of the California Register Eligibility
Criteria, and for their architecture, meeting Criterion 3 of the California Register
Eligibility Criteria. Demolition of the buildings will constitute a significant adverse
impact as demolition of a historic resource cannot be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation measures are recommended as reasonable and feasible, and
appropriate for the resources, given their significance and integrity. These
mitigation measures would reduce the significant adverse impact of demolition of
the Victorian buildings but not to a level of insignificance. Therefore, without an
action to adopt the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Planning
Commission would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior
to approval of the project as proposed (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measures CULT-1A-
E).
b. Archaeological
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, grading activities on the site related to the project would result in
potential Aesthetic impacts to unknown, potentially-significant, archaeological
resources. The project site is identified as having a “low” archaeological
sensitivity rating, pursuant to the City’s adoptive City of San Rafael
Archaeological Sensitivity map. City Council Ordinance No. 1772 and Resolution
No. 10980 prescribes required conditions for discretionary permits on sites with
“low” archaeological sensitivity rating. These conditions are incorporated as
mitigation measures for discretionary permits with an environmental document.
These potential Aesthetic impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level by providing protocols when archaeological artifacts or human remains are
accidentally discovered during grading/excavation activities (Exhibit A; Mitigation
Measures CULT-2 and CULT-3).
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a
condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and
that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
(4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, demolition activities on the site related to the project would create a
temporary, potentially-significant, Hazards and Hazardous Materials impact by
exposing the public to the release of hazardous materials, such as asbestos
and/or lead, which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the
preparation, approval and implementation of a Materials Remediation Plan
(Exhibit A; Mitigation Measure HAZ-1)
EXHIBIT 2 -8
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a
condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and
that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible.
(5) Noise
a. Operational
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, existing operational noise on the site related to the project would create
a significant Noise impact by exposing the public to the interior and exterior noise
exposures greater than allowable limits established by the General Plan (Noise
Policies N-1 and N-2, pages 270-272), the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13
of the San Rafael Municipal Code) and the California Building Code (Title 24),
which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with incorporating OITC24
(Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class) windows along and near the 2nd Street
frontage, standard double-pane windows along all other frontages, and
alternative ventilation, as necessary (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measure NOISE-1).
b. Construction
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, construction noise related to grading and construction activities on the
site related to the project, would create a temporary, potentially-significant, Noise
impact by exposing adjacent residences to construction noise which exceeds the
limits allowed by the Noise Ordinance, which can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level informing the neighbors before grading and construction
activities, incorporating their input into the scheduling of these activities,
equipping all equipment with sound suppression features, and limiting idling time
on all equipment, all to minimize exposure time (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measures
NOISE-2 and NOISE-3).
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a condition
of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and that this
mitigation is appropriate and feasible
EXHIBIT 2 -9
(6) Transportation/Traffic
Significant Impact.
As summarized in Chapter II (pages 7 - 13) of the DEIR, citing the IS for the
project, the additional 31 net new a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips generated by the
project would create a potentially-significant Transportation/Traffic impact,
greatest at the 2nd and B Street intersection during peak periods when site-
generated traffic may extend past the driveway for a reasonably short duration,
which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the payment of
required traffic mitigation fees for use in making unknown circ ulation
improvements in the Downtown (Exhibit A; Mitigation Measures (TRANS-1).
Finding
As authorized by Public Resources. Code Section 21081(a)(1) and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes
or alterations have been required herein, incorporated into the project, or
required as a condition of project approval, which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental impact listed above. The City further finds that the change or
alteration in the project or the requirement to impose the mitigation as a
condition of project approval is within the jurisdiction of the City to require, and
that this mitigation is appropriate and feasible
D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Sections
15091 and 15092, the FEIR is required to identify the significant impacts that cannot be
reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures. These FEIR concluded
that impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, thereby requiring a statement of
overriding considerations.
(1) Cultural Resources
a. Potential Conflict with Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan
2020
Significant Impact.
The Draft EIR identified several policies of the General Plan 2020 with which the
project potentially conflicts., which are intended to protect and preserve buildings
and areas with special and recognized historic, architectural or aesthetic value,
including but not limited to those ‘listed’ on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural
Survey:
Community Design Policy CD-1; City Image. Reinforce the City’s positive
and distractive 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.
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;
EXHIBIT 2 -10
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-4; Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive
image by recognizing, preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources.
Culture and Arts Policy 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.
CA-14; Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the adaption and reuse of
historic buildings, in order to preserve the historic resources that are a part of
San Rafael’s heritage.
The project proposes to demolish the two existing Victoria-era residential
structures on the site at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street, one of which is listed in the
local register of historical resources (1212 2nd Street) and the other has been
determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
by survey evaluation (1214 2nd Street). The Victorian-era residences at 1212 and
1214 2nd Street are historically significant for their association with patterns of
local history under Criterion 1 of the California Register Eligibility Criteria, and for
their architecture, meeting Criterion 3 of the California Register Eligibility Criteria.
CEQA does not allow mitigation for the loss of historic resources, and this impact
to Cultural Resources would remain significant and unavoidable.
According to Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2, subdivisions (a) and (e),
the lead agency (City) is tasked with determining the significance of impacts and
statements in an FEIR are not determinative of significance.
Finding
As discussed in Chapter IV. B (pages 43 - 60) of the DEIR, no feasible mitigation
is available to reduce this significant and unavoidable impact to Cultural
Resources to a less-than-significant level. Specifically, the two historic structures
cannot be replaced or replicated once demolished. Therefore, it is not feasible to
mitigate this impact.
While the project has the potential to conflict with General Plan 2020 Community
Design Policies CD-1, CD-2 and CD-4, and Culture and Arts Policies CA-13 and
CA-14, which are intended to protect or preserve the City’s inventory of listed
and unlisted historic resources, General Plan consistency is determined by
weighing the goals and policies of all elements, including, but not limited to, the
Land Use Element, Housing Element, Neighborhoods Element, Community
Design Element, Circulation Element, Infrastructure Element, Sustainability
Element, Park and Recreation Element, Safety Element and Air and Water
Element. The General Plan is recognized as a collection of competing goals and
policies, which must be read together, as a whole, and not in isolation. Although
the project is not in perfect conformity with each and every goal, policy and
program, in balancing each, and in consideration of the project benefits
EXHIBIT 2 -11
summarized below, the City has found and determined that the project is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020::
As conditioned and analyzed in the General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 5 to
staff’s report), the project would be consistent with the following General Plan
policies:
Land Use Policies LU-2 (Development Timing), LU-8 (Density of Residential
Development), LU-9 (Intensity of Nonresidential Development), LU-12
(Building Heights). LU-18 (Lot Consolidation), and LU-23 (Land Use Map and
Categories);
Housing Policies H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), H-3
(Public Information and Participation), H-14 (Adequate Sites), and H-19a
(Inclusionary Housing),
Neighborhood Policies NH-15 (Downtown Vision), NH-16 (Economic
Success), NH-17 (Competing Concerns), NH-22 (Housing Downtown), NH-
25 (Pedestrian Comfort and Safety), NH-28 (Special Places), NH-29
(Downtown Design), NH-30 (Pedestrian Environments), NH-31 (Ground
Floor Designed for Pedestrians), NH-32 (Historic Character), NH-40
(Second/Third Mixed-Use District) and NH-41 (Second/Third Mixed-Use
District Design Considerations);
Community Design Policies CD-3 (Neighborhoods), CD-5 (Views), CD-8
(Gateways), CD-11 (Multifamily Design Guidelines), CD-14 (Recreational
Areas), CD-15 (Participation in Project Review), CD-18 (Landscaping), CD-
19 (Lighting) and CD-20 (Commercial Signage);
Circulation Policies C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) and C-7
(Circulation Improvement Funding);
Infrastructure Policy I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services)
Sustainability Policies SU-5 (Reduce Use of Nonrenewable Resources) and
SU-6 (New and Existing Trees);
Culture and Arts Policy CA-15 (Protection of Archaeological Resources);
Park and Recreation Policy PR-10 (Onsite Recreation Facilities);
Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard
Maps in Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical Review), S-6 (Seismic
Safety of New Buildings), S-17 (Flood Protection of New Development), S-18
(Storm Drainage Improvements), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Requirements) and S-32 (Safety Review of Development
Projects);and
Air and Water Quality Policies AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), AW -7
(Local, State and Federal Standards) and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from
Urban Runoff)
Mitigation measures are recommended for the impacts to Cultural Resources
(see Section II .C. (3) (a) and (b) discussion above) as reasonable and feasible,
and appropriate, given the significance and integrity of the two historic
structures, as determined by the comprehensive Historic Resource Report on the
project (Painter Preservation and Planning; June 2013). These mitigation
measures would reduce the significant adverse impact of demolition of the
Victorian-era buildings but not to a level of insignificance. Therefore, without an
action to adopt the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Planning
EXHIBIT 2 -12
Commission would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior
to approval of the project.
E. REVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 mandates that every EIR evaluate a no-project alternative,
plus a feasible and reasonable range of alternatives to the project or its location.
The Alternatives were formulated considering the Objectives of the City of San Rafael and the
Project Sponsor Objectives outlined in Section V of the DEIR (pages 61-78). Alternatives
provide a basis of comparison to the project in terms of beneficial, significant, and unavoidable
impacts. This comparative analysis is used to consider reasonable, feasible options for
minimizing environmental consequences of a project.
These findings describe and reject, for reasons documented in the EIR and summarized below,
each of the project alternatives, and the City finds that approval and implementation of the initial
project design as described and assessed in the EIR is appropriate. The evidence supporting
these findings is presented in Section V of the Draft EIR.
(1) Alternative 1: No Project/No Build (Status Quo)
This alternative would result in no physical or operational changes to the project site.
Existing conditions at the project site would remain unchanged with the implementation
of this alternative. Additionally, Housing policies embodied in the General Plan ,
encouraging Downtown housing, particularly along B Street, would not be implemented.
Finding
Specific economic, social and other considerations make Alternative 1, identified in the
EIR and described above, an infeasible alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. This alternative would not help the City meet its RHNA (Regional Housing Needs
Allocation) target of providing 1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023.
2. The City would not receive a total of six (6) of ‘affordable’ or below market rate
(BMR) housing units (four (4) units at very low-income household levels and two
(2) units at low-income household levels) which would help meet its RHNA target
of providing 240 additional very low-income units and 148 additional low-income
units in the City by 2023.
3. An under-utilized Downtown site and area would not be ‘re-activated’ or re-
energized along B Street, an important pedestrian connection between the
Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core. with town or
increase the economic vitality of the Downtown area..
4. The General Plan’s focus on the “alive-after-five” program for the Downtown
would not be furthered and the project’s commercial customers and residential
tenants would not help keep Fourth Street active and busy after 5 p.m. .
5. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project sponsor's objectives in
that no development would occur on the project site.
(2) Alternative 2: Preservation Onsite
This alternative assumes the Victorian-era residential structures would be maintained
and rehabilitated to meet the applicable health and safety codes The remainder of the
EXHIBIT 2 -13
site would be redeveloped to provide a reduced scale, mixed-use residential/commercial
development focused on the corner of 2nd and B Streets.
Finding
Specific economic considerations make this alternative a less desirable alternative for
the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. This alternative largely achieves all five of the project objectives.
2. The DEIR determined this alternative as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative.
3. This alternative preserve and rehabilitate the Victorian-era residential structures,
both cultural or historic resources
4. The historic context of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly along B Street,
would not be reduced with the removal of two historic structures, which
contribute to the concentration of historic structures in the immediate area.
5. This alternative would help the City meet its RHNA target of providing 1,007
additional housing units in the City by 2023.
6. The City would receive between two (2) and six (6) ‘affordable’ or BMR housing
units (The project sponsor’s financial feasibility study assumes a loss of 14 units
or 34% density for this alternative, based on the same units sizes but with a
smaller building; however, the smaller building would likely maintain the same
density though with smaller units). These unknown number of ‘affordable’
housing units would, again, help the City meet its RHNA target of providing 240
additional very low-income units and 148 additional low-income units in the City
by 2023.
7. This alternative would ‘re-activate’ or re-energize an under-utilized Downtown
site and area along B Street, an important pedestrian connection between the
Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core. .
8. The General Plan’s focus on the “alive-after-five” program for the Downtown
would be furthered and the project’s commercial customers and residential
tenants would help keep Fourth Street active and busy after 5 p.m.
9. This alternative would affect the setting of the structures, particularly for the
historic structure at 1212 2nd Street, as the proposed 4-story project would
immediately abut the 2-story house and overshadow it. However, design
modifications to the proposed project that mitigate the impact by reducing or
‘stepping back’ the building mass further from the Victorian-era residences. This
alternative would result in reducing any potential significant environmental
impacts to less-than-significant levels. .
(3) Alternative 3: Preservation Offsite
This alternative assumes the existing Victorian-era residences would be relocated to
another suitable, privately-owned location off-site within the Downtown. This alternative
could require significant work to prepare the new site prior to relocating the structures,
including but not limited to: purchasing the property, grading and drainage
improvements, utilities connections, construction of new foundations for the structures,
and moving the structures to the new site. Once the existing structures were relocated
to the new site, this alternative would require significant repairs to the exterior and
interior of the structures to comply with Historic as well as California Building Code
requirements, consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, plus the installation
of access and landscaping improvements.
EXHIBIT 2 -14
Finding
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative a less
desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. None of the property owners of the four (4) alternative sites identified in the DEIR
has shown interest in accepting the two Victorian-era residential structures.
2. This alternative preserves and rehabilitates the Victorian-era residential
structures as cultural or historic resources.
3. The historic context of the surrounding neighborhood may or may not be
reduced with the relocation and rehabilitation of two historic structures, which
contribute to the concentration of historic structures in the immediate area,
depending on which of the four identified alternative sites accept the historic
structures.
4. This alternative would help the City meet its RHNA target of providing 1,007
additional housing units in the City by 2023.
5. The City would receive a total of six (6) of ‘affordable’ or below market rate
(BMR) housing units (four (4) units at very low-income household levels and two
(2) units at low-income household levels) which would help meet its RHNA target
of providing 240 additional very low-income units and 148 additional low-income
units in the City by 2023.
6. This alternative would ‘re-activate’ or re-energize an under-utilized Downtown
site and area along B Street, an important pedestrian connection between the
Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core.
7. The General Plan’s focus on the “alive-after-five” program for the Downtown
would be furthered and the project’s commercial customers and residential
tenants would help keep Fourth Street active and busy after 5 p.m.
8. This alternative would allow for the existing historically significant structures to be
maintained off-site in a location and manner that protects their historic
significance and reduces the project’s significant unavoidable impact upon
historic resources to a less than significant level.
(4) Alternative 4: Adaptive Reuse
This alternative assumes that substantial elements of the existing Victorian-era
buildings, such as the building facades, would be incorporated into the new building.
Finding
Specific economic, social and environmental considerations make this alternative a less
desirable alternative for the project sponsor and the City of San Rafael.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. This alternative would largely meet project objectives to revitalize this area of
Downtown; meet the City’s affordable housing objectives.
2. This alternative cannot reduce the loss of historic resources to a less-than-
significant level.
3. The potential of this alternative to mitigate potentially significant Aesthetic
impacts cannot be analyzed at this time based on the current project design
which does not attempt to incorporate any of the substantial elements from the
existing Victorian-era buildings into the project design.
EXHIBIT 2 -15
4. This alternative would likely help the City meet its RHNA target of providing
1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023; however, it is unknown at this
time based on the current project design which does not attempt to incorporate
any of the substantial elements from the existing Victorian-era buildings into the
project design.
5. The City would likely receive an unknown number of ‘affordable’ or below market
rate (BMR) housing units which would help meet its RHNA target of providing
240 additional very low-income units and 148 additional low-income units in the
City by 2023; however, it is unknown at this time based on the current project
design which does not attempt to incorporate any of the substantial elements
from the existing Victorian-era buildings into the project design.
6. .This alternative would ‘re-activate’ or re-energize an under-utilized Downtown
site and area along B Street, an important pedestrian connection between the
Gerstle Park neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core.
7. The General Plan’s focus on the “alive-after-five” program for the Downtown
would be furthered and the project’s commercial customers and residential
tenants would help keep Fourth Street active and busy after 5 p.m.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), an environmentally superior alternative
must be identified among the alternatives that were studies. The DEIR concludes (Section V.F;
page 78;) that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Preservation Onsite alternative,
which is the preferred method of treating historic resources, as it preserves the two Victorian
structures in place, rehabilitates them according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and restores them to a safe and habitable condition through a renovation that
meets the Historic Building Code. The Preservation Onsite alternative provides a mixed-use
project that better addresses the architectural scale of the neighborhood and, although reduced
in scope and therefore the ability to maximize project objectives, would still reasonably achieve
the project objectives. Consistent with the recommended Mitigation Measures to reduce
potentially significant Aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level, re-design of the project
to achieve architectural compatibility with the 2nd and B Street neighborhood is feasible, and
was, in fact, the original project design when the Design Review Board initiated their review of
the project in 2012. This alternative would result in a design that achieves key project
objectives, although at a smaller scale. The Preservation Onsite alternative would also
preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and enhance the integrity of a potential
historic district in this area
The Planning Commission should, in their review of the Final EIR/Response to Comments
(FEIR), consider which, if any, alternative would be preferable to the project as proposed or
which combination of alternatives and the project would best achieve the goal of reducing the
identified significant adverse impacts to cultural resources (historic).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission a) adopts the following Statement
of Overriding Considerations; and b) approves of the MMRP presented in attached Exhibit A,
finding that the MMRP has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines:
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of San Rafael adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations based on
information in the FEIR and other information in the project record. The City recognizes that
implementation of the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
impacts that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.
Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City chooses to approve the project
EXHIBIT 2 -16
because, in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the project will produce will
render the significant effects acceptable.
The following statement identifies why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the project as
approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to
justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is
supported by substantial evidence, the City would stand by its determination that each individual
reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in
the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and into the
documents found in the Record of Proceedings.
As discussed above, the EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to Cultural
Resources that would result from the demolition of the two historic residential structures on the
project site.
The City finds that these impacts on Cultural Resources would be acceptable because
mitigation measures have been required to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, and on
balancing the benefits to be realized by approval of the project against the remaining
environmental risks, the following economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the
impacts and support approval of the project:
1. Downtown Housing
The project sponsor proposes to construct 41 new residential ‘rental housing’ units in
Downtown. The General Plan specifically identified the project site as both a “Underutilized
Mixed Use Site Available for Development“(Table B3.11; Appendix B of the General Plan)
and a “Housing Opportunity Site” (Figure B3.3; Appendix B of the General Plan), signifying
the City’s intent to encourage and allow redevelopment of the project site with the proposed
density and applicable incentives for creation of affordable housing. Furthermore, the
residential focus of the project serves to help the City in meeting their projected Regional
Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA target of providing 1,007 additional housing units in the
City by the year 2023 (Page B-5, Appendix B of General Plan). Twenty percent (20%) of the
base density allowed for the project site (30 units base density), or a total of six (6) rental
housing units, would be deed-restricted as ‘affordable’ housing, as required by the City’s
affordable housing requirement (Section 14.16.030 of the Zoning Ordinance); four (4) of
these ‘affordable’ units would be for rent to very low-income households and two (2)
‘affordable’ units would be for rent to low-income households. The 6 ‘affordable’ units would
also contribute to the City’s RHNA needs projections of providing an additional 240 very
low-income housing units and 148 low-income housing units by the year 2023 (Table B3.1;
Appendix B of the General Plan). The City’s approval of the project, would implement the
Housing policies embodied in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Additionally, the
residential component of the proposed project would be consistent with the ‘vision’
presented in the San Rafael Downtown Community Plan; Our Vision of Downtown San
Rafael and Our Implementation Strategy, which recognizes residential development (in both
mixed-use and multifamily development) on the cross streets west of B Street as a major
opportunity.
2. Re-activate Pedestrian Environment
The project would ‘re-activate’ the site and a portion of B Street, both of which suffer from a
degraded appearance or a degree of urban decay which seems to have the effect of
dissuading owners from investing in their properties. The Downtown ‘Vision’ Plan identifies
B Street as the primary pedestrian n connection between the Gerstle Park neighborhood
EXHIBIT 2 -17
and the Fourth Street Retail Core. The project would replace four (4) sparely developed
(two residential structures, one uninhabitable since suffering fire damage in 2007, one
commercial structure and a 45-stall surface parking lot) and occupied Downtown lots with a
four-story mixed-use building with 2-5’-wide landscape planter areas along both the 2nd and
B Street frontages.
3. Support ‘Alive-After-Five’
The project would support the General Plan’s focus on the “alive-after-five” program for the
Downtown (Neighborhood Policy NH-34(c) of the General Plan). The “alive-after-five”
program seeks to maintain a mix of businesses and residences in the Downtown to create
activity at different days and times of the week, to help keep Fourth Street active and b usy
after 5 p.m. The project would further this long -term goal of invigorating the Downtown with
activity, primarily on weekdays after 5 p.m. and weekends, as new residents frequent the
Downtown and provide economic opportunities to businesses, particularly restaurants
4. Charitable Contributions
The project would provide a one-time charitable contribution of $25,000 to the San Rafael
Fire Department, the Marin History Museum, or any group the City determines to be
appropriate to help offset the loss of the two cultural resources.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of May 2016.
Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ______________________ BY:______________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
1
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
I. AESTHETIC
RESOURCES
AES-1: Incorporate building
elements that relate the new
building to its historic context
through the use of projecting
bays, usable building balconies,
deep eave overhangs, a
substantial element at the
building corner at 2nd and B
Street, and canopies at the
ground floor that extend over
the sidewalk. Submit for review
and approval by Design Review
Board prior to issuance of a
Building Permit and revocable
licensing agreement, or an
alternative method to allow
private encroachments to
project over the sidewalk or
right-of-way (ROW).
Require as a
condition of
approval
Planning
Division and
Public Works
Department
Revised plans to
be evaluated by
staff and DRB
for compliance
prior to building
permit issuance
Deny issuance of
building permit
II. AIR QUALITY
AIR-1: Mitigate potential air
quality impacts associated with
construction and grading
activities by preparing and
submitting a Dust Control Plan
to the City of San Rafael
Community Development
Department for review and
approval, prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
Require as a
condition of
approval
Planning and
Building
Division
Review and
Approve Plan;
Ongoing
monitoring
during
construction
Deny issuance of
grading permit;
Stop Work Order
issued
IV. CULTURAL
RESOURCES
CULT-1A: Document the
buildings at the subject
property. Documentation shall
include a narrative, which may
consist of the Historic Resource
Report, and archivally-stable
black and white photographs
documenting the building
exterior and interiors as they
exist today, and the building’s
general setting. It is not
Require as a
condition of
approval
City hires
architectural
historian
consultant to
Planning
Division
Applicant
submits funds
to City prior to
issuance of
building permit
Documentation
Report
submitted to
the City
Deny issuance of
building permit
2
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
necessary to photograph the
property to HABS standards, as
the integrity of the property
does not warrant this level of
documentation. This
documentation will be
produced and submitted to the
California Room of the Marin
County Free Library, and the
Marin History Museum.
Photographic negatives should
be retained by the City of San
Rafael. Costs associated with
CULT-1A are expected to be
no greater than $5,000.
prepare
documentation
and
presentation to
libraries
CULT-1B: Update the historic
survey of the San Rafael with a
focus on the San Rafael
Original Townsite area by
performing a reconnaissance
level survey of an
approximately 16-block area.
Cost to be approximately
$16,000. Creat a historic
context and evaluate the area in
the immediate vicinity of 2nd
and B Street (boundaries to be
determined by the survey; a
minimum of a four-block area)
for a potential historic district.
Costs to be approximately
$28,000.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
submits funds to
City and City
hires
architectural
historian
consultant to
perform survey
and evaluation
Planning
Division
Payment
required prior to
Building Permit
approval
Survey prepared
within the
calendar year
after project
approval for City
review and
acceptance
Deny issuance of
building permit
CULT-1C: Develop an
interpretive panel, to be
installed at one of the corners at
2nd and B Street, preferably the
southeast corner, that depicts
historic photos of the area,
including historic buildings and
the train track, a map of the
resources, and provides
information about the historic
buildings and streetscape in the
area. Costs associated with
CULT-1C are expected to be
approximately $20,000.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
submits funds to
City. City hires
architectural
historian
consultant to
advise and/or
manage project
Planning
Division
Payment
required prior to
Building Permit
approval
Panel prepared
within the
calendar year
after project
approval for City
review and
acceptance
Deny issuance of
building permit
3
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
CULT-1D: Provide a duplicate
of the photographs and
information to be used in the
on-street interpretation of the
2nd and B Street area to be
mounted in a prominent
location, such as the lobby, of
the proposed building. Costs
associated with CULT-1D are
expected to be no greater than
$5,000.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
submits funds to
City. City hires
architectural
historian
consultant to
manage project
Planning
Division
Payment
required prior to
Building Permit
approval
Materials
prepared within
the calendar
year after project
approval
Deny issuance of
building permit
CULT-1E: Work with the
Marin History Museum or an
equivalent historical society or
organization, to develop
programming that
commemorates the history of
the 2nd and B Street area,
including the railroad station, to
be presented as a lecture,
exhibit, online video, or similar
public presentation. Costs
associated with CULT-1E are
anticipated to be no greater than
$5,000, assuming some
volunteer time on the part of
the partnering organization.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
submits funds to
City. City hires
historian or
museum
professional
consultant to
manage project
Planning
Division
Payment
required prior to
Building Permit
approval
Materials
prepared within
the calendar
year after project
approval
Deny issuance of
building permit
CULT-2: If archeological or
cultural resources are
accidentally discovered during
excavation/grading activities,
all work will stop within 100
feet of the resource and a
qualified archaeologist will be
notified immediately. The
qualified archaeologist will
contact Federated Indians of
Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and
the Planning Division and
coordinate the appropriate
evaluation of the find and
implement any additional
treatment or protection, if
required. No work shall occur
in the vicinity until approved by
the qualified archaeologist,
FIGR and Planning staff.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Building and
Planning
Divisions
Ongoing during
project grading
and construction
activities
Stop Work Order
Issued
4
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
Prehistoric resources that may
be identified include, but shall
not be limited to, concentrations
of stone tools and
manufacturing debris made of
obsidian, basalt and other stone
materials, milling equipment
such as bedrock mortars,
portable mortars and pestles and
locally darkened soils (midden)
that may contains dietary
remains such as shell and bone,
as well as human remains.
Historic archaeological
resources that may be identified
include, but are not limited to,
small cemeteries or burial plots,
structural foundations, cabin
pads, cans with soldered seams
or tops, or bottles or fragments
of clear and colored glass.
CULT-3: If human remains are
encountered (or suspended)
during any project-related
activity, all work will halt
within 100 feet of the project
and the County Coroner will be
contacted to evaluate the
situation. If the County Coroner
determines that the human
remains are of Native American
origin, the County Coroner
shall notify FIGR within 24-
hours of such identification
who will work with Planning
staff to determine the proper
treatment of the remains. No
work shall occur in the vicinity
without approval from Planning
staff.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Planning and
Building
Divisions
Ongoing during
project grading
and construction
activities
Stop Work Order
issued
IV. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Reduce the potential
exposure of the public to
hazardous materials such as
asbestos or lead during
proposed demolition activities,
by preparing a hazardous
material remediation plan .
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Planning and
Building
Divisions
City approval
required prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit
Ongoing
Deny issuance of
Demolition
permit
Stop work order
5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
Submit the plan to the City of
San Rafael Community
Development Department for
review and approval prior to
issuance of a demolition permit.
monitoring
during
demolition
activities
issued
V. NOISE
NOISE-1: Mitigate operational
noise by incorporating OITC24
windows along and near the
Second Street façade and
standard double-paned windows
at all other facades into the
construction drawings. Further,
all habitable rooms with
exterior noise exposures greater
than Ldn 60 will require
alternative ventilation per Title
24.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Planning and
Building
Divisions
Provide as part
of building
permit plans
Deny issuance of
building permit
NOISE-2: Implement the City
of San Rafael Noise Ordinance
construction noise requirements
to minimize noise impacts
during construction.
Construction noise related to
demolition and grading work
done within 15 feet of the west
property line could exceed the
Ordinance requirements.
Neighbors shall be informed
before any construction
activities and any input they
have on construction scheduling
shall be incorporated to the
extent feasible, and the work
should be conducted as quickly
as possible to minimize
exposure time.
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
to post and mail
notices to
adjacent
neighbors and
on the blocks
facing the
project site
Planning and
Building
Divisions
Ongoing
monitoring
during
demolition and
grading
Issue Stop Work
Order
NOISE-3: Minimize the
potential noise impact on
adjacent residences when the
existing structures on the
project site are demolished and
when site preparation work is
done, through implementation
of the following measures:
1. The contractors shall
provide heavy machinery
and pneumatic tools
Require as a
Condition of
Approval
Project sponsor
to coordinate
with contractors
and post notice
on project site
Planning and
Building
Divisions
Ongoing
monitoring
during
construction
activities
Issue Stop Work
Order
6
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Second and B Streets Housing Development Final EIR
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Action &
Schedule
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
equipped with mufflers and
other sound suppression
technologies.
2. The contractors shall shut
down equipment expected
to idle more than 5
minutes.
3. The name and telephone
number of the Construction
Project Manager
responsible person to
contact shall be posted at
the site throughout
construction activities.
VI.TRANSPORTATION/
TRAFFIC
TRANS-1: The applicant shall
pay a traffic mitigation fee in
the amount of $131,626 for 31
net new a.m. and p.m. peak
hour trips. Payment shall be
required prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Require as a
condition of
approval
Project sponsor
pays mitigation
fee
Planning
Division
Payment made
prior to issuance
of building
permit
Deny issuance of
building permit
Source: Newman Planning Associates, 2016
San Rafael Carriage Houses Final EIR
EXHIBIT 3 -1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED12-060), A USE PERMIT
(UP12-029) AND A LOT CONSOLIDATION (LLA12-003) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF TWO
RESIDENTIAL AND ONE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, FOUR-
STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 41 RENTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE 1,939 SQ. FT. OF
GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 48 GARAGE PARKING SPACES AT 815 B ST.
(FORMERLY 809 B ST., AND 1212 AND 1214 2ND ST.; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 & -32)
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2012, the applicant, Monahan Parker, submitted an application for
Conceptual Design Review (CDR12-001). The project proposed to demolish two residential and one
commercial structures and construct a new a four-story, mixed-use building with 42 residential rental
units above 2,063 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 49 garage parking spaces on four (4)
adjacent Downtown parcels, at 815 B St. (formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a
duly-noticed public meeting and reviewed the conceptual plans submitted for the project. The DRB
generally expressed support for the proposed contemporary design, but believed it lacked adequate
context (scale, architecture, colors and materials) with that of the immediate neighborhood, particularly
along the B St. frontage. The Board provided the following specific recommendations on their concept
review of the project
1) Reduce the height of the building’s corner element at the 2nd and B Street intersection;
2) Eliminate cantilever bay window and balcony projections over the sidewalk/public right-of-
way (ROW) in compliance with the Public Works Department comments on the project;
3) Stepback the 4th floor along both the B and 2nd Street frontages;
4) Provide greater building articulation and detailing, particularly on the windows along both the
2nd and B Street frontages;
5) Provide specific details, including alternatives, on the proposed disposition of the existing
two historic structures on the project site; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2012, formal project applications for a Use Permit (UP12-029),
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060), Lot Consolidation (LLA12-003) and
environmental review (IS12-001) were submitted to the Community Development Department by the
project sponsor, Monahan Parker, Inc., proposing to demolish two residential and one commercial
structures and construct a new a four-story, mixed-use building with 41 residential rental units above
2,095 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 49 garage parking spaces on four (4) adjacent
Downtown parcels, at 815 B St.; and
WHEREAS, in June 2013, a Historic Resource Report, was prepared by Painter Preservation &
Planning for the City on the project which determined two residential structures on the site were cultural
resources (historic) for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013, the DRB conducted a duly-noticed public meeting and
reviewed the design of the formal applications. The Board reviewed the project and voted unanimously
to continue the matter to date uncertain, subject to the following consensus recommendations:
1) Reduce the massing of building by one full floor at the corner of the 2nd and B Street
intersection;
EXHIBIT 3 -2
2) Eliminate all or most of the upper-story bay window, deck and eave projections into the
required setback along the 2nd St. frontage and over the sidewalk/ROW along the B St.
frontages;
3) Provide more building articulation along the 2nd Street frontage;
4) Stepback the 4th floor to reduce the perceived mass of the project;
5) Provide more of the character-defining design elements from surrounding buildings in the
neighborhood to better connect with the project design;
6) Provide more meaningful usable outdoor areas, both common and private, in location, size
and/or amenities;
7) Not providing an on-site loading/unloading area is acceptable;
8) The canopy projection helps provide a successful pedestrian scale;
9) The proposed access driveway along B Street is appropriate though the pedestrian scale
along B Street needs improving through the reduction of the driveway width as much as
possible and providing a paving pattern at the driveway entrance; and
10) On-site, street-level landscaping shall be provided along the B Street frontage to improve
the pedestrian scale; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the DRB conducted a duly-noticed public meeting and reviewed
the revised plans in response to their August 2013 comments. The Board voted unaimoursly to
continue their review of the revised project design, subject to the following consensus
recommendations:
1) The corner element, at the 2nd and B St. intersection, needs better detailing to provide an
architectural ‘statement’;
2) The 2nd St elevation is too ‘horizontal’ and needs more detailing and articulation such as
extending the cornice along all parapets;
3) The B St elevation needs more detailing and articulation to create pedestrian character,
including building projections over the public sidewalk/ROW;
4) The “Outdoor Community Space” on the podium-level or 2nd floor is not very usable for the
residents and needs to include an adjacent indoor area and provide permanent amenities,
such as a kitchen, both inside and on the patio; and
5) The Board prefers saving the two historic structures; their loss would not be desirable, and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2014, the Board held a duly noticed public meeting and reviewed
revised plans in response to their July 2014 comments. The Board ultimately found that the revised
plans had adequately addressed their prior comments and voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the project design, subject to the following modifications/conditions:
1) Eliminate the support column underneath the ‘wrap-around’ canopy projection at the corner
of the 2nd and B St. intersection:
2) Eliminate the bay window encroachments over the sidewalk/ROW along the 2nd St. frontage
but preserve the building articulation by having the entire wall plane setback 2’ from the
property line;
3) Extend the frieze detailing, above the bay windows on the corner element, at the 2nd and B
St. intersection, along both building frontages and modify the frieze to be less wide but
equally detailed;
4) Provide a cornice cap along the entire 4th floor; and
5) Details on the site landscaping and the permanent amenities for the “Outdoor Community
Space” areas shall return to the Board for final review prior to building permit issuance; and
EXHIBIT 3 -3
WHEREAS, upon review of the subject applications, an Initial Study was prepared, consistent
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and found that there could
be potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources and Aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2013, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for a 30-day
review period to accept comments on the Initial Study and establish the scope of the Draft EIR.
Following NOP scoping meeting, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared to address
the potentially significant impacts related to Cultural Resources and Aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was completed and a Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed and the
DEIR was made available and circulated for a 45-day public comment period, beginning on September
18, 2015 and closing on November 10, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to accept comments on the DEIR and directed staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was prepared and released for public review on April 25, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the responses to
comments contained in the FEIR and adopted a separate Resolution certifying the FEIR in that it
complies with the requirement of CEQA;
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2015, the Planning Commission also adopted by separate Resolution,
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report ing Plan
(MMRP); and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on
the project, including a Use Permit Amendment (UP12-029), Environmental and Design Review Permit
(ED12-060), and Lot Consolidation (LLA12-003), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the
written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff and closed said hearing on
that date; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael does hereby make the
following findings related to the applications for the Use Permit (UP12-029) and Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED12-060) and Lot Line Adjusment (LLA12-003):
Use Permit (UP12-029)
Findings
A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance , and
the purposes of the Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3MUW) and Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU)
Districts in which the site is located in that:
1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table attached to the staff report (Exhibit
5) to the Planning Commission, the project will be consistent with all pertinent General Plan
policies with the exception of the following policies, which are intended to protect and preserve
buildings and areas with special and recognized historic, architectural or aesthetic value,
including but not limited to those ‘listed’ on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey:
EXHIBIT 3 -4
Community Design Policy CD-1; City Image. Reinforce the City’s positive and distractive
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.
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;
o Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of the Downtown;
o Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the City’s
residential neighborhoods;
o Improving the appearance and function of commercial areas; and
o Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local
residents and create neighborhood-gathering places.
CD-4; Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive image by
recognizing, preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources.
Culture and Arts Policy 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.
CA-14; Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the adaption and reuse of historic
buildings, in order to preserve the historic resources that are a part of San Rafael’s heritage.
As conditioned however, the project would be consistent with the following General Plan
policies:
Land Use Policies LU-2 (Development Timing), LU-8 (Density of Residential Development),
LU-9 (Intensity of Nonresidential Development), LU-12 (Building Heights). LU-18 (Lot
Consolidation), and LU-23 (Land Use Map and Categories);
Housing Policies H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), H-3 (Public
Information and Participation), H-14 (Adequate Sites), and H-19a (Inclusionary Housing);
Neighborhood Policies NH-15 (Downtown Vision), NH-16 (Economic Success), NH-17
(Competing Concerns), NH-22 (Housing Downtown), NH-25 (Pedestrian Comfort and
Safety), NH-28 (Special Places), NH-29 (Downtown Design), NH-30 (Pedestrian
Environments), NH-31 (Ground Floor Designed for Pedestrians), NH-32 (Historic
Character), NH-40 (Second/Third Mixed-Use District) and NH-41 (Second/Third Mixed-Use
District Design Considerations);
Community Design Policies CD-3 (Neighborhoods), CD-5 (Views), CD-8 (Gateways), CD-11
(Multifamily Design Guidelines), CD-14 (Recreational Areas), CD-15 (Participation in Project
Review), CD-18 (Landscaping), CD-19 (Lighting) and CD-20 (Commercial Signage);
Circulation Policies C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) and C-7 (Circulation
Improvement Funding);
Infrastructure Policy I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services);
Sustainability Policies SU-5 (Reduce Use of Nonrenewable Resources) and SU-6 (New and
Existing Trees);
Culture and Arts Policy CA-15 (Protection of Archaeological Resources)
Park and Recreation Policy PR-10 (Onsite Recreation Facilities);
Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard Maps in
Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical Review), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings),
S-17 (Flood Protection of New Development), S-18 (Storm Drainage Improvements), S-25
EXHIBIT 3 -5
(Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Requirements) and S-32 (Safety Review
of Development Projects); and
Air and Water Quality Policies AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), AW -7 (Local, State and
Federal Standards) and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff).
In weighing all of the applicable policies, the project is, generally, consistent with the General
Plan. The project would redevelop four (4) Downtown in-fill lots listed as both Housing
Opportunity Sites and Underutilized Mixed-Use Site in Appendix B of the General Plan. The
project would construct 41 new residential ‘rental’ units in the Downtown (project would result in
a net increase of 39 units), whose residents and guests would re-activate a portion of B Street,
supporting the City’s long-term goal of creating ‘live after 5’ activity in the Downtown, and
provide economic opportunities to Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants. These new
units would help meet the City’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) target of providing
1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023. A total of six (6) of these housing units would
be deed-restricted as ‘affordable’ housing; four (4) of these housing units would be deed-
restricted for rent to very low-income households and two (2) units deed-restricted for rent to
low-income households. These new below market rate or BMR units would contribute to the
City’s need to provide 240 new very low-income housing units and 120 new low-income housing
units by 2023. The project would be consistent with the adopted Downtown Vision plan in terms
of use and scale.
2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff report to the
Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and general
welfare, given that;
i. The project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General
Plan 2020, as identified in Finding A1 above;
ii. A FEIR has been prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which finds that all potentially significant project impacts
related to health and safety can be adequately mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
the implemented mitigation measures outlined in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for which compliance is required by conditions of this approval.
iii. The project has been reviewed by Community Development Department, other appropriate
City Departments and non-City agencies and conditions have been created to minimize
potential impacts to the public health, safety and welfare;
3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff report to the
Planning Commission, the proposed ‘project would be consistent with the purposes of both the
2/3MUW and CSMU Districts, given that:
i. The project will help promote Downtown as a viable urban center with a mixture of civic,
social, entertainment, cultural and residential uses;
ii. The project will provide housing opportunities by proposing housing in mixed-use districts;
iii. The project will help re-active the pedestrian character along B Street with a combination of
residential and neighborhood-serving non-residential uses; and
EXHIBIT 3 -6
iv. The project will help create a more inviting appearance along 2nd Street with a building
setback up to 30’ and a 2-5’ landscaped setback.
B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, given that: 1) the project has been reviewed
by appropriate City departments, non-City agencies, the appropriate surrounding neighborhood
group (Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assoc., Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, San Rafael
Heritage and the Downtown Business Improvement District or BID) and the DRB; 2) conditions of
approval have been included to mitigate any potential negative impacts anticipated to be generated
by the proposed use and construction to the proposed use; 3) the project would not change the
type of use (mixed-use or resdiential and non-residential) or signifcantly intensity the use currently
existing on the project site; and
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as
documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff report (Exhibit 6) to
the Planning Commission.
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060)
Findings
A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and
the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance; in that:
1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table attached to the staff report (Exhibit
5) to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will implement and promote the goals and
policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding A1 (Use Permit UP12-
029) above;
2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff report (Exhibit
6) to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and
general welfare, as identified in Finding A2 (Use Permit UP12-029) above;
3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff report to the
Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of
Environmental and Design Review Permits, given that; the project will maintain and improve the
quality of, and relationship between, development and the surrounding area to contribute to the
attractiveness of the City, given that; the DRB has reviewed and recommended approval of the
project, subject to the condition that details on landscaping and the permanent amenities
proposed for the “Outdoor Community Spaces”, located on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final
review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Staff has formalized the DRB’s request to
review final details as a condition (Condition #16; ED12-060) of approval
B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria
and guidelines for both the CSMU and 2/3MUW Districts in which the project site is located, given
that;
1. The project design will be consistent with the maximum allowable density for the site or 30
units, based on a hybrid rate proportional to percentage of the project site located in the
2/3MUW District and the CSMU District. (The eastern 1/3rd of the project site is located
EXHIBIT 3 -7
approximately in the CSMU District, with a maximum density of 1 unit/600 of lot area. The
remaining western 2/3rd of the project site is located approximately in the 2/3MUW District, with
a maximum density of 1 unit/1,000 of lot area);
2. The project will be consistent with the minimum five-foot (5’) building setback along 2nd Street,
for the portion of the project located in the 2/3MUW District;
3. The project will be consistent with the maximum 42’ height allowed for the project site;
4. The project will be consistent with the minimum 10% landscaping requirement for the portion of
the project located in the 2/3MUW District;
5. The project will be consistent with the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of non-
residential development (1.0 FAR or 23,614 sq. ft. allowed; 1,939 sq. ft. proposed);
6. The provisions of Marin Municipal W ater District’s most recent water conservation and new
‘graywater’ requirements apply to the project, where MMWD approval is required prior to the
issuance of any building or grading permit. This requirement has been made a condition
(Condition #67; ED12-060) of approval;
7. The proposed project will be consistent with review criteria for Environmental and Design
Review Permits (Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance), given that; the DRB reviewed the
formal application submittal twice and, on November 10, 2015, after determining the project
adequately met the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, unanimously
recommended approval of the project design, subject to the condition (Condition #16; ED12-
060) that details on landscaping and the permanent amenities proposed for the “Outdoor
Community Spaces”, located on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and approval prior
to building permit issuance.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given that; the FEIR for the project
concluded the following:
1. The project is conditioned (Condition #4 of ED12-060) to require replacement of an existing
mature Canary Island Date Palm, currently in poor health, located within the 12’-wide sanitary
sewer/right-of-way, located immediately north of the property. This replacement Canary Island
Date Palm shall be a minimum 3-4’-diameter container size at planting.
2. The project design includes storm water retention areas or ‘bioswales’ which will have the effect
of creating a ‘no net change’ in storm water drainage on the project site, as determined by the
drainage report submitted on the project and the review and recommendation by the City
Engineer;
3. The project site neither contains, nor is immediately contiguous to, recognizable wetlands,
creeks or similarly sensitive environmental features, and it has not been identified in the San
Rafael General Plan 2020 (Exhibit 38 – Threatened and Endangered Species) as a general
location were threatened and endangered species have been previously observed or maintain a
suitable habitat for their likely presence to be found..
D. The project design, 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,
EXHIBIT 3 -8
or to the general welfare of the City, given that; an EIR has been prepared for the project identifying
potential environmental impacts resulting from the project. All potential adverse environmental
impacts have been determined to be either no impact, less-than-significant, or less-than-significant
with implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the proposed demolition of two
cultural resources (historic). There is no mitigation for the demolition of two cultural resources and
the project sponsor requests the Commission adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to
allow the significant unavoidable impact, based on the public benefits of the project (Exhibit 2).
Lot Line Adjustment (LLA12-003
Findings
A. The proposed lot consolidation is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and any
pertinent specific plan or neighborhood plan; given that: the use of the project site would continue
to be mixed-use (both residential and non-residential uses) in compliance with the Second/Third
Street Mixed-Use (2/3MU) General Plan Land Use designation, and would not result in the creation
of any new lots but, rather, would reduce four (4) existing legal Downtown parcels into one (1).
B. The proposed lot consolidation is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance (Title 14) and any
other pertinent municipal code provisions, given that; the consolidated parcel would continue to be
in conformance with the development standards for either the Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) and
Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3MUW) Districts (Approximately east 1/3rd portion of project site,
along the B Street frontage, is located within the CSMU District, while the remaining west 2/3rd
portion of the project site is located within the 2/3MUW District), including: 1) Minimum lot area, 2)
Minimum lot width, 3) Minimum yard setback; 4) Maximum building height, 5) Minimum
landscaping, and 6) Maximum floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would not
result in any change to the existing zoning classifications or approve a change in use or additional
construction which would conflict with these zoning classifications and development standards.
C. The proposed lot consolidation is in conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), given that;
the project application submittal has been reviewed by the Community Development Department,
Building Division, and determined to be in conformance with the applicable California Building Code
(CBC) or UBC regulations.
.
Additionally, the proposed lot consolidation is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in
Land Use Limitations), given that; 1) The average cross-slope on the project site is approximately 4%,
less than the maximum 20% .cross-slope allowed when using the Class 5 exemption; and 2) The lot
consolidation would not result in any change of land use or an increase in density. The use of the
project site would continue to be mixed-use (both residential and non-residential uses) in compliance
with the 2/3MU General Plan Land Use designation and the CSMU and 2/3MUW District, and would
not result in the creation of any new lots but, rather, would reduce four (4) existing legal Downtown
parcels into one (1).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
does hereby approve the Use Permit (UP12-029), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-
060), and Lot Consolidation (LLA12-003), based on the findings of fact above and, subject to the
following conditions of approval:
Use Permit (UP12-029)
Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT 3 -9
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. This Use Permit approves development of 41 residential ‘rental’ units or apartments above 1,939
sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 48 garage parking spaces, which shall comply at all
times with the adopted performance standards for residential uses in commercial districts (currently
Section 14.17.100 of the San Rafael Municipal Code or SRMC).
2. This Use Permit does not allow the subsequent conversion of the approved residential ‘rental’ units
or apartments without a separate Tentative Map application submittal to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, in compliance with Subdivision Ordinance (currently
Sections 15.02.02 - .04 of the SRMC), and review and approval by the Planning Commission. It is
strongly recommended that Tentative Map approval be obtained prior Building Permit issuance for
the project. A Tentative Map application shall also require submittal to amend this Use Permit and
the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060) for the project.
3. This Use Permit includes a “Parking Modification” to not require an off -street loading/unloading
space within the understory garage, which was reviewed and supported by the City Engineer.
4. This Use Permit shall supersede the previous Use Permit (UP04-031) approval on the site.
5. This Use Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of
ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a grading permit or building
permit is issued by the City and work commenced 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 May 10, 2018. Failure to obtain a grading permit or building permit or submit a
time extension request by the specified date will result in the expiration of this Use Permit.
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060)
Conditions of Approval
General and On-Going
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented
to the Planning Commission at their May 10, 2016 hearing, labeled Second and B Street: New San
Rafael Housing, and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall
be the same as required for issuance of all building and grading permits, subject to these
conditions. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of
the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not
minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original
decision making body, the Planning Commission, and may require review and recommendation by
the City’s Design Review Board.
2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department,
Planning Division. Any future modification to the color palette shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to
the Design Review Board for review and recommendation prior to approval by the Planning
Division.
EXHIBIT 3 -10
3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves the demolition of two residential and one
commercial structures and the construction of new, four-story mixed-use building with 41 residential
‘rental’ units or apartments above 1,939 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 48 garage
parking spaces, 10 of which are tandem parking spaces.
4. The landscape plans shall include replacement of the existing Canary Island Date Palm, located
within the 12’-wide sanitary sewer/right-of-way, located immediately north of the property. This
replacement Canary Island Date Palm shall be a minimum 3-4’-diameter container size at planting.
5. All ‘off-haul’ of excavation and delivery/pick-up of construction equipment shall occur during off-
peak weekday hours, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only.
6. All grading and construction activities shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Low-noise construction, occurring entirely within the interior of the building, may be permissible
beyond these approved days/hours of operation with prior approval by the Planning Division and
only after the building is completely enclosed (walls, roof, doors and windows). If requested and
approved, Saturday work shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Any work on Sundays and federally-
recognized holidays is strictly prohibited.
7. Final landscape and irrigation plans for the project shall comply with the provisions of Marin
Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) most recent water conservation ordinance (currently Ordinance
421). Construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall be pre-approved by
MMWD and stamped as approved by MMWD or include a letter from MMWD approving the final
landscape and irrigation plans. Modifications to the final landscape and irrigation plans, as required
by MMWD, shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department,
Planning Division.
8. All new landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic drip system and maintained in a healthy
and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall
be replaced in a timely fashion.
9. All public streets and sidewalks and on-site streets which are privately owned that are impacted by
the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all
times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a
daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping.
10. All submitted building permit plan sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of
approval.
11. If archaeological or cultural resources are accidentally discovered during excavation/grading
activities, all work will stop within 100 feet of the resource and the qualified archaeologist will be
notified immediately. The qualified archaeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning Division and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of the find
and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No work shall occur in the vicinity
until approved by the qualified archaeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. Prehistoric resources that
may be identified include, but shall not be limited to, concentrations of stone tools and
manufacturing debris made of obsidian, basalt and other stone materials, milling equipment such
as bedrock mortars, portable mortars and pestles and locally darkened soils (midden) that may
contain dietary remains such as shell and bone, as well as human remains. Historic resources that
may be identified include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, structural
EXHIBIT 3 -11
foundations, cabin pads, cans with soldered seams or tops, or bottles or fragments or clear and
colored glass (MM CULT-2)
12. If human remains are encountered (or suspended) during any project-related activity, all work will
halt within 100 feet of the project and the County Coroner will be contacted to evaluate the
situation. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin,
the County Coroner shall notify FIGR within 24-hours of such identification who will work with
Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. No work shall occur in the vicinity
without approval from Planning staff. (MM CULT-3)
13. The project shall implement the City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance construction noise
requirements to minimize noise impacts during construction. Construction noise related to
demolition and grading work done within 15 feet of the west property line could exceed the
Ordinance requirements. Neighbors shall be informed before any construction activities and any
input they have on construction scheduling shall be incorporated to the extent feasible, and the
work should be conducted as quickly as possible to minimize exposure time. (MM NOISE-2)
14. This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid
regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that
a building/grading permit is issued and construction commenced or a time extension request is
submitted to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2)
years of approval, or May 10, 2018. Failure to obtain a building permit or grading permit and
construction or grading activities commenced, or failure to obtain a time extension within the two-
year period will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit
15. This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run concurrently with the Use Permit (UP1 2-
029) approval. If the Environmental and Design Review Permit expires, Use Permit approval shall
also expire and become invalid.
Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits
Community Development Department, Planning Division
16. Details of both the project landscaping and permanent amenities within the common “Outdoor
Community Space” areas, on both the 2nd floor podium and the 4th floor roof level, shall require final
review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to building permit issuance.
17. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division
for review and approval. The CMP shall include a projected schedule of work, projected daily
construction truck trips, proposed construction truck route, location of material staging areas,
location of construction trailers, location of construction worker parking, dust control program, a
statement that the project shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13 of the San
Rafael Municipal Code) as modified by Condition #5 (ED12-060) above which limits the days and
hours of all grading and construction activities, a statement that no construction truck traffic shall
encroach into any of the surrounding residential neighborhood streets at any time, and a statement
that the existing roadway conditions on B and 2nd and 3rd Streets shall be memorialized on digital
recording format prior to the start of construction and that the project sponsor shall be required to
repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic. In the event that the
CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the project, the more
restrictive language or conditions shall prevail.
EXHIBIT 3 -12
18. A Lighting Plan/Photometric study shall be submitted for review and approval with the Building
Permit plans and provide the following illumination levels: a) A minimum of one (1) foot candle at
ground level overlap at all exterior doorways and throughout the vehicle parking area; b) A
minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap on all outdoor pedestrian walkways
and common areas; and c) A maximum one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap at all property
lines.
19. The project shall be revised to incorporate building elements that relate the new building to its
historic context through the use of projecting bays, usable building balconies, deep eave
overhangs, a substantial element at the building corner at 2nd and B Street, and canopies at the
ground floor that extend over the sidewalk. Submit for review and approval by Design Review
Board prior to issuance of a Building Permit and revocable licensing agreement, or an alternative
method to allow private encroachments to project over the sidewalk or right-of-way (ROW). (MM
AES-1)
20. The project shall mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with construction and grading
activities by preparing and submitting a Dust Control Plan to the City of San Rafael Community
Development Department for review and approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit. (MM AIR-
1)
21. The project sponsor, or its successor, shall document the two historic buildings at the subject
property. Documentation shall include a narrative, which may consist of the Historic Resource
Report, and archivally-stable black and white photographs documenting the building exterior and
interiors as they exist today, and the building’s general setting. It is not necessary to photograph
the property to HABS standards, as the integrity of the property does not warrant this level of
documentation. This documentation will be produced and submitted to the California Room of the
Marin County Free Library, and the Marin History Museum. Photographic negatives should be
retained by the City of San Rafael. Costs associated with CULT-1A are expected to be no greater
than $5,000. (MM CULT-1A)
22. The project sponsor, or its successor, shall update the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey;
Final Inventory List of Structures and Areas (September 1986) with a focus on the San Rafael
Original Townsite area by performing a reconnaissance level survey of an approximately 16-block
area. Cost to be approximately $16,000. Create a historic context and evaluate the area in the
immediate vicinity of 2nd and B Street (boundaries to be determined by the survey; a minimum of a
four-block area) for a potential historic district. Costs to be approximately $28,000. (MM CULT-1B)
23. The project sponsor, or its successor, shall develop an interpretive panel, to be installed at one of
the corners at 2nd and B Street, preferably the southeast corner, that depicts historic photos of the
area, including historic buildings and the train track, a map of the resources, and provides
information about the historic buildings and streetscape in the area. Costs associated with CULT-
1C are expected to be approximately $20,000. (MM CULT-1C)
24. The project sponsor, or its successor, shall provide a duplicate of the photographs and information
to be used in the on-street interpretation of the 2nd and B Street area to be mounted in a prominent
location, such as the lobby, of the proposed building. Costs associated with CULT-1D are expected
to be no greater than $5,000. (MM CULT-1D)
25. The project sponsor, or its successor, shall work with the Marin History Museum or an equivalent
historical society or organization, to develop programming that commemorates the history of the 2nd
EXHIBIT 3 -13
and B Street area, including the railroad station, to be presented as a lecture, exhibit, online video,
or similar public presentation. Costs associated with CULT-1E are anticipated to be no greater than
$5,000, assuming some volunteer time on the part of the partnering organization. (MM CULT-1E)
26. The project shall reduce the potential exposure by the public to hazardous materials such as
asbestos or lead during proposed demolition activities, by preparing a hazardous material
remediation plan . Submit the plan to the City of San Rafael Community Development Department
for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit. (MM HAZ-1)
27. The project shall mitigate operational noise by incorporating sound-rated OITC24 windows along
and near the 2nd Street façade and standard double-paned windows at all other facades into the
construction drawings. Further, all habitable rooms with exterior noise exposures greater than 60
Ldn will require alternative ventilation per Title 24. A post-construction Acoustical Analysis, by a
qualified Acoustic Engineer, shall confirm that the project complies with maximum interior noise
exposure limits of 45 Ldn and shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. (MM
NOISE-1)
28. The project shall comply with the City’s affordable housing requirement with State Density Bonus
(currently Section 14.16.030 of the SRMC) by providing a minimum of six (6) affordable housing
units, four (4) units at the very low-income household level and two (2) units at the low-income
household level. The project sponsor is required to enter into a BMR (below market rate)
agreement with Marin Housing Authority, deed-restricting the income level for occupancy of the
affordable units, and obtain City Council approval of the BMR agreement. The configuration of the
BMR units shall reflect the generally configuration of the project by providing four (4) 1 -bedroom
BMR units and two (2) 2-bedroom BMR units. These BMR units shall be spread out evenly
throughout the project.
Public Works Department
29. A grading permit is required for the project from the Public Works Department (111 Morphew St.).
30. The project sponsor shall obtain an encroachment permit with a revocable licensing agreement for
the non-habitable portions of the building that overhang and encroach into the sidewalk/public right-
of-way (ROW).
31. As shown on the project plans, habitable space shall not extend into the ROW.
32. The project will require the relocation of an existing utility box to the 2nd Street ROW. The project
sponsor shall explore alternatives to not impacting the vehicle traffic along 2nd St in any way
33. Provide precise details related to how the adjacent properties will be stabilized during the
construction of the project walls and garage.
34. The project shall pay a traffic mitigation fee of $131,626 for 31 additional peak hour (16 a.m. and
15 p.m.) traffic trips (31 x $4,246). (MM TRANS-1)
35. Provide updated civil plans with details, such as drainage, easements and utilities, for review.
36. The updated drainage plan shall show all roof drains and drainage systems and how they connect
with the City storm drainage system. Provide details on the dimensions of the bioretention areas.
EXHIBIT 3 -14
37. Provide a drainage easement across the property to account for the adjacent property’s drainage
system, which appears to cross the project site, or provide improvements to the existing drainage
with a stormwater maintenance agreement with the adjacent property owner.
38. The project proposes over 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface and is a regulated project under
MCSTOPPP requirements. Provide a stormwater control plan, which includes a written narrative in
addition to the erosion control plan shown in the plans. More specific information is available from
MCSTOPPP, on the Marin County website. See tools and guidance, and post construction
requirements at http://marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and-
redevelopment-projects
39. Provide updated landscape plans, with street tree details, for review. The two existing flowering
pear trees, along the B Street frontage, shall remain. The existing street tree, at the corner
intersection, along the 2nd Street frontage, shall be removed due to conflict with existing ROW
improvements.
40. Provide topography based on NAVD 1988 Datum. The site is currently located in Zone X, but within
close proximity to Zone AH with a base flood elevation of 12’. Therefore, the Public Works
Department strongly recommend that floodproofing be provided to above the nearby base flood
elevation.
41. Accessible curb ramps shall be required at the four corners of the intersection of 2nd and B Street.
42. The project is proposed as an apartment building. However, if subdivision is pursued to create
condominium units, additional frontage and infrastructure improvements may be required, including
but not limited to, installation of a storm drainage system to connect to existing facilities and full-
width street repaving of non-moratorium streets.
43. Include the attached sheet “Pollution Prevention – Its Part of the Plan” with each construction
drawing set submitted for building permit.
Community Development Department, Building Division
44. Prior to use or occupancy of the new building or structure or any portion thereof, a “Certificate of
Occupancy” must be issued by the Chief Building Official pursuant to California Building Code
Section 111.1. Failure to secure a “Certificate of Occupancy” is a violat ion and will result in a $500
citation per day as long as the violation continues.
45. School fees will be required for the project. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools,
and those fees are paid directly to them and proof of payment shall be submitted to the Building
Division prior to issuance of the building permit.
46. 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.
47. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4)
complete sets of construction drawings to include:
EXHIBIT 3 -15
a) Architectural plans
b) Structural plans
c) Electrical plans
d) Plumbing plans
e) Mechanical plans
f) Fire sprinkle/standpipe system plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
g) Fire Alarm system plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
h) Fire Underground plan ((Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
i) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building)
j) Structural Calculations
k) Truss Calculations
l) Soils reports
m) CalGreen documentation
n) Title-24 energy documentation
o) Disabled access features for both residential and commercial
48. In mixed occupancies each portion of the building shall be individually classified, construction type
and square footage of each building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification
calculations for the allowable area of each occupancy. Building areas are limited by CBC Table
503. On the plan justify the proposed building area.
49. Site/civil plans prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly must show
topography and identify grade plane and height of the building. The building height must comply
with CBC Section 504 and Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building height.
50. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in any
story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8 “Maximum Area
of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of Opening Protection.”
In order to calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must provide the building
setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage of proposed wall openings
and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected
15% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 3’ to
less than 5’ from the property line or buildings on the same property.
25% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 5’ to
less than 10’ from the property line or buildings on the same property.
45% exterior wall openings (in any story) in sprinklered buildings where the openings are 10’ to
less than 15’ from the property line or buildings on the same property.
51. Buildings located 4 or more stories above grade plane, one stairwell must extend to the roof, unless
the roof slope exceeds an angle of 4 vertical to 12 horizontal CBC 1009.13.
52. Each building shall have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible
from the street or road fronting the property. The existing monument sign, located at the driveway
entrance, shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign. For new buildings,
the address shall be internally-illuminated or externally-illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours
of darkness. Number shall be a minimum 6 inches in height with ½ inch stroke for commercial
applications. The address shall be contrasting in color to their background. The applicant will need to
apply for a new address for the new building from the Chief Building Official. The title block on each
sheet of the project plans shall show the new address for the building.
EXHIBIT 3 -16
53. The address for this proposed building, as determined by the Chief Building Official, is 815 B Street
for the primary building. Each page of the plan’s title block and all permit application documents must
correctly show this address identification information. The tentative address for the commercial space
is 811 B Street.
54. Any demolition of existing structures shall require a permit. Demolition permit submittal shall include
three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notice. All required
permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be obtained and documentation
provided prior to building permit issuance and any work commencing.
55. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently
computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area, Commercial space is computed at $0.33 per
square foot of new building 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.
56. A grading permit is required for any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement.
Provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In
particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future
building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information
should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments
prior to any such activities taking place
57. Property lines shown through proposed buildings must be eliminated by consolidation or buildings
must be relocated, redesigned to fall within property line boundaries.
58. In the parking garage, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of
.75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area CMC Table 4-4.
59. In the parking garage, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of
noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or trap
discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWIPP.
60. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ 2” where required
for accessible parking.
61. Each commercial space shall be provided with sanitary facilities per CPC Sec 412 and Table 4-1
(including provisions for persons with disabilities). Separate facilities may be required for each sex
depending on use.
62. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) 60” wide by 30” deep with an entrance opening of at
least 60” or a car size of 42” wide by 48” deep with an entrance opening of 36” or a car size of 60”
wide by 36” deep with an entrance opening of at least 36”.
63. All buildings with 4 or more floors and one or more elevators shall provide not less than one
medical emergency service elevator. The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate
the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher. The elevator car size shall
accommodate a stretcher 24” x 84” in dimensions.
64. If any portion of the new fencing exceeds 6’ in height, a building permit is required.
EXHIBIT 3 -17
65. The project shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with
requirements of Title-24, California Code of Regulation.
66. Multistory apartment or condominium projects shall provide at least 10% of the dwelling units, but
no less than one dwelling unit, which comply with the following:
The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site
impracticality tests in CBC Section 1150A.
At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level, se rved by an
accessible route.
All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route.
Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include
but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms or hallways.
Multiple dwelling units shall be distributed uniformly throughout the building
67. Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate
of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking
facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2 percent.
68. When parking is provided for multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of
residents, at least 5 percent of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade-
level entrances of multifamily dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation
areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on
the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance.
69. At least one disabled parking space shall be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet
wide off- load area. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces shall be van
accessible.
70. The project appears to create an exiting issue for the upper-floor rear bedroom of the residential
unit on the adjacent property at 821-823 B Street The podium construction will effectively eliminate
emergency access to the public street.
71. The project also would create an exiting issue for the ground-floor restaurant at 821-823 B Street if
the occupancy load exceeds 50. The podium construction will effectively eliminate emergency
access to the public street.
72. The residential units facing either B or 2nd Streets shall meet required sound attenuation levels,
which may require special windows and doors, baffled vents, additional insulating materials, etc.
San Rafael Sanitation District
73. The District has estimated the payment of sewer connection fees of $378,849.99 for this proposed
project. These fees are due before the issuance of the Building Permit. These estimated sewer fee
connections are effective from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. These multi-dwelling fees are the
same for either condominium dwelling units or apartment dwelling units. Credit for the existing
fixtures has not been estimated. In order for the applicant to request credit for the existing fixtures
on the buildings that will be demolished; applicant must submit a full inventory of the existing
facilities accompanied by pictures to request any adjustment of these estimated fees. The
calculated breakdown of the sewer connection fees were based on the following:
EXHIBIT 3 -18
- Sewer connection fees for the 41 residential units: 41x $8,980.18=$368,187.38
- Connection fees for the two new commercial units on the first floor:
-Estimated Total Sewer connection Fees=$378,288.80.
74. Reference Sheet C3 -
Utility Plan:
a) Applicant is proposing to tap into an existing 4-ft sanitary sewer manhole on 2nd Street with an
8-inch sewer lateral. The District will require that applicant upsize this manhole to a 5-foot
diameter sewer manhole and costs for this upgrade will have to be paid by owner of the project.
b) Applicant is also proposing to reuse the existing sewer lateral on B Street from the original 809
B Street building that is going to be demolished. The District is requiring that this existing
sewer lateral be upsized to a 6” PVC sewer line lateral and that a new 4-foot Manhole is
installed at the connection to the existing sewer main on B Street.
c) The existing sewer line at B Street is a 6” VCP pipe and the District will require that the portion
downstream to the new sewer lateral tap to the sewer connection at the Manhole at 2nd Street
be upsized to at least an 8” PVC sewer line. Applicant must also submit to the District the
calculations of the total sewer flow that will be generated by the 41 units and the two retail units,
so we can further analyze the capacity of the existing sewer lines.
d) Applicant must show the sewer lateral details in the plan and profile, and include pipe
information (pipe type, pipe size, inverts and slope).
San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau
75. 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.
76. A fire alarm system will be required for this building. Separate application by the fire alarm
contractor is required.
77. A combined fire sprinkler/standpipe system will be required throughout the building. Separate
application by a C-16 contractor is required.
78. A recessed Knox box model 3200 series keyed entry system is required at the main entrance door.
Description No. of
Fixture
s
Drainage
Fixture Unit
Total
Fixtures
Units
Lower Level Retail
Water Closet 2 4.0 8.0
Lavatories 2 1.0 2.0
Floor Drains 3 2.0 6.0
Floor Sink ( at
Storage )
1 2.0 2.0
Total 18
SRSD Connection Fees=$207.10x18=$3,727.8
CMSA Connection Fees=$354.09x18=$6,373.62
Total Connection Fees (Retail Area)=$10,101.42
EXHIBIT 3 -19
79. A Knox key gate control will be required for this project, show the location of the key gate control on
the revised plans. Install a Knox key gate control unit on the gate for the parking garage.
80. As the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel
to one entire side of the building. The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a
minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building.
81. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26’.
82. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access
roadway, or between the roadway and the building.
83. Aerial fire apparatus access roads must be designated; with curbs painted red and contrasting
white lettering stating “No Parking Fire Lane” a signs shall be posted in accordance CFC 503.3.
84. A new street fire hydrant will be required. Provide an additional fire hydrant near the main entrance
of the parking garage on B St. The fire hydrant shall be a wet barrel Clow model 960
85. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the
location the following:
a) Designated fire apparatus access roads.
b) Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.
c) Onsite fire hydrants.
d) Fire Department Connection (FDC).
e) Double detector check valve.
f) Street address sign.
g) Recessed Knox Box
h) Fire Alarm annunciator panel.
i) Note the designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant shall be installed and
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior construction of the building.
86. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide
adequate water supply service for the required fire protection system.
During Construction
Marin Municipal Water District
87. District records indicate that the property’s current annual water entitlement is insufficient to meet
the water demand for the project and the purchase of additional water entitlement will be required.
Additional water entitlement will be available upon request and fulfillment of the following
requirements:
a) Pay the appropriate fees and charges.
b) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 – Water
Conservation. Indoor plumbing fixtures shall meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape,
irrigation, grading and fixture plans shall be submitted to the District for review and approval.
Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation should be directed to the
District’s Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You may also find information on
the District’s water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org.
EXHIBIT 3 -20
c) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the Districts review backflow
protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding
backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at
(415) 945-1558.
d) Use of recycled water is required, where available, for all approved uses, including irrigation
and the flushing of toilets and urinals. Questions regarding the use of recycled water should be
directed to Dewey Sorensen at (415) 945-1558.
e) Installation of gray water recycling systems is required when practicable.
Pacific Gas & Electric
88. 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.
89. The cost of relocating any existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead facilities to
underground shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or property owner.
90. 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.
Community Development Department, Planning Division
91. The project shall implement the City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance construction noise
requirements to minimize noise impacts during construction. Construction noise related to
demolition and grading work done within 15 feet of the west property line could exceed the
Ordinance requirements. Neighbors shall be informed before any construction activities and any
input they have on construction scheduling shall be incorporated to the extent feasible, and the
work should be conducted as quickly as possible to minimize exposure time. (MM NOISE-2)
92. The project shall minimize the potential noise impact on adjacent residences when the existing
structures on the project site are demolished and when site preparation work is done, through
implementation of the following measures: a) The contractors shall provide heavy machinery and
pneumatic tools equipped with mufflers and other sound suppression technologies; b) The
contractors shall shut down equipment expected to idle more than 5 minutes; and c) The name and
telephone number of the Construction Project Manager responsible person to contact shall be
posted at the site throughout construction activities. (MM NOISE-3)
Prior to Occupancy
Community Development Department, Planning Division
93. Final inspection of the project by the Community Development Department, Planning Division, is
required. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon
completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
94. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. In the alternative, the applicant
or property owner shall post a bond with the City in the amount of the estimated
landscaping/irrigation installed cost. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for
landscaping shall be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division
EXHIBIT 3 -21
prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3 months past
occupancy.
95. The landscape architect for the project shall submit a letter to the Planning Division, confirming the
landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved project plans and the irrigation is
fully functioning.
96. All ground- and rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view.
97. All trash enclosures shall be screened by a combination of fencing with privacy slats and
landscaping.
Public Works Department
98. The project shall install signs at the driveway exit to alert drivers to look for pedestrians on the
sidewalk.
99. The project shall install a ‘One-Way’ sign on the east side of B Street, directly across from the new
driveway.
After Occupancy
Community Development Department, Planning Division
100. Following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a
90-day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for
the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to
adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the
direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master
photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned
off during daylight.
101. The 10 tandem parking spaces approved with the project shall be reserved for, and used
exclusively by, tenants of the 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units. The project shall install signage and
include language in rental agreements with tenants restricting the use of these tandem parking
spaces for tenants of the 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units.
Lot Line Consolidation (LLA12-003)
Conditions of Approval
Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the plat map showing the existing and proposed lot
lines, the location of any existing structures, easements, prominent trees and access to all public
streets, and a copy of Grant Deed, prepared for the lot line consolidation, for review by the City
Engineer and approval.
EXHIBIT 3 -22
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of May 2016.
Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner :
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ______________________ BY:______________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Exhibit 4-1
Summary History of Project Review
815 B Street (Currently 809 B Street and 1212 and 1214 2 nd Street)
ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
Conceptual Design Review
On May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board (Board) conducted Conceptual Design Review (CDR12-
001) on a project proposing to demolish two residential and one commercial structures and construct a
new a four-story, mixed-use building with 42 residential rental units above 2,063 sq. ft. of ground-floor
commercial space and 49 garage parking spaces on four (4) adjacent Downtown parcels, at 815 B St.
(formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St. At that time, the Board expressed support for the
proposed contemporary design though believed it lacked adequate context (scale, architecture, colors
and materials) with that of the immediate neighborhood, particularly along the B St. frontage. The Board
provided the following specific recommendations on their concept review of the project:
Reduce the height of the building’s corner element at the B and 2nd Street intersection.
Eliminate cantilever bay window and balcony projections over the sidewalk/public right-of-way
(ROW) in compliance with the Public Works Department comments on the project.
Stepback the 4th floor along both the B and 2nd Street frontages.
Provide greater building articulation and detailing, particularly on the windows along both the B
and 2nd Street frontages.
Provide specific details, including alternatives, on the proposed disposition of the existing two
historic structures on the project site.
A video of the Board’s May 8, 2012 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
Neighborhood Meeting
On March 12, 2013, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.8038, a Neighborhood Meeting was
conducted by the applicant on-site, at the church facility located in the existing commercial building.
Planning staff assisted by noticing the Neighborhood Meeting consistent with noticing requirements
contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Meeting was attended by
approximately 20 residents and interested parties. Comments provided during the Neighborhood
Meeting included:
The two Victorian-era structures should be preserved and rehabilitated “at all costs” as part of
the project either on-site or off-site, with relocation only if an appropriate alternative site is found.
Meeting the City’s parking standards is not enough; the parking demand for the project needs to
be thoroughly evaluated and mitigated, if necessary, for impacts on the adjacent Gerstle Park
neighborhood.
The proposed design of the project is out of context with the predominant design character
(architecture, scale, materials and colors) in the vicinity, particularly along B Street.
The two Victorian-era structures should be preserved, relocated and rehabilitated but not at the
expense of the proposed project or the proposed redevelopment of the site.
The proposed project should provide better neighborhood context by reducing the building to
two-stories and the site redevelopment should provide significant landscaping.
The commercial space presence proposed by the project should be increased along the 2nd
Street frontage.
The corner treatment of the building design should push up rather than step down.
Exhibit 4-2
The site provides great bicycle access to the Downtown, shopping and mass transit; it should be
an important part of the project.
The upper-story bay window and balcony projections over the sidewalk should be supported, as
it helps to break up the building mass and is a fairly common practice in other cities.
The extensive use of brick along the building exterior is excessive and overpowering; additional
exterior materials should be incorporated in the building design to help break up the massing of
the building.
The interim church use indicated an interest in staying at the site, within the proposed new
ground-floor commercial space; and the Board continued their initial review of the project
design, subject to the following consensus recommendations
Local contractors and labor should be used in building the project.
Design Review
On August 20, 2013, the Board continued their initial review of the project design, subject to the
following consensus recommendations:
Reduce the massing of building at the corner by one full floor;
Eliminate all or most of the upper-story bay window, deck and eave projections into the required
setback and over the sidewalk;
Provide more building articulation along the 2nd Street frontage; stepback the top floor to reduce
the perceived mass of the project;
Provide more of, or identify better, the character-defining elements of the neighborhood to
connect with the project design;
Provide more successful or meaningful usable outdoor areas, both common and private, in
location, size and/or amenities;
Not providing an on-site loading/unloading area is acceptable;
The canopy projection provides a successful pedestrian scale;
The proposed access driveway along B Street is appropriate though the pedestrian scale along
B Street needs improving through the reduction of the driveway width as much as possible and
providing a paving pattern at the driveway entrance;
On-site landscaping shall be provided along the B Street frontage to improve the pedestrian
scale; and
The Board has no preference on the Project Alternatives currently being reviewed by the EIR but,
instead, leave it up to the EIR to analyze.
A video of this August 20, 2013 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
On July 8, 2014, the Board again continued their review of the project design, subject to the following
consensus recommendations:
The ‘stepback’ of the 4th floor level has improved the scale of the proposed building.
The corner ‘tower’ element needs better detailing to provide a better statement, such as
extending the cornice detailing.
The Second St elevation is too ‘horizontal’ and needs more detailing and articulation.
The B St elevation needs more detailing and articulation to create pedestrian character. Building
projections over the public sidewalk/right-of-way is ‘OK’.
The “Outdoor Community Space” is not very usable for the residents and needs to include an
adjacent indoor common kitchen and permanent amenities, both inside and on the patio; and
Give consideration to saving the Victorians. Loss of the structures would not be desirable
Exhibit 4-3
A video of this July 8, 2014 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
On August 5, 2014, the Board recommended approval of the proposed site and building design for the
project, subject to the following conditions/modifications:
Eliminate the support column at the corner of B and 2nd Streets, underneath the ‘wrap-around’
canopy projection at the pedestrian level;
Eliminate the 2’ bay window encroachment over the sidewalk/ROW along the 2nd St. frontage
but keeping the building articulation by having the entire wall plane setback 2’ from the property
line;
Extend the frieze detailing above the bay window ‘tower’ element (corner of B and 2nd Streets)
along both building frontages. The frieze should be less wide but equally detailed;
Provide a cornice cap on the 4th floor penthouses; and
Final details on the site landscaping and permanent amenities for the “Outdoor Community
Spaces” shall return to the Board as a consent item prior to building permit issuance.
A video of this August 5, 2014 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
Environmental Review
Initial Study
An Initial Study (IS12-001) was prepared for the project by Newman Planning Associates (NPA) which
determined that the project will have “No Impact”, a “Less Than Significant Impact” or a “Less Than
Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” on the following environmental factors and do not warrant
further study: Agriculture Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral
Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and
Utilities/Service Systems.
The Initial Study determined that the project will have a “Potentially Significant Impact” on the following
environmental impact categories:
Aesthetics – Impact to scenic resources or visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings due to the proposed design of the new 4-story building in relation to adjacent historic
properties; and
Cultural Resources – Impact to historic resources due to the proposed demolition of two (2) historic
structures (1212 and 1214 2nd Street) on the project site.
Due to these “Potentially Significant Impacts”, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was required for the project, which focuses on these potentially significant impacts as follows:
Aesthetics
The Initial Study is supported by an Historic Resource Report prepared by Diana Painter of Painter
Preservation and Planning, dated June 2013, which determined that the proposed demolition of the
historic resources at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street will have an effect on the known or ‘listed’ historic
properties on B Street between 745 and 848 B Street and 1201 and 1115 2nd Street. The historic
character of this important corner will be lost, and the urban design character will be affected by
changes in the scale, design, materials, workmanship, detailing, and architectural character of the
proposed new structure. The character of the street will also be affected by the proposed garage
entrance on B Street, which will affect the pedestrian environment.
Exhibit 4-4
The Initial Study additionally determined the proposed new structure has a negative effect on the
present historic residential and commercial character of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the
intersection of 2nd and B Streets. It has a particularly negative effect on 2nd Street, due to the loss of
residential scale and amenities along this street, including front porches, architectural features such as
bay windows, and small scale architectural detailing, and the opportunity for interaction between people
and the built environment in this location. The proposed design features at the corner of 2nd and B
Street, and the retail frontages along B Street do not relate to the traditional historic character of this
street and late nineteenth century commercial streets in general, which are typically more conducive to
pedestrian activity. In addition, the historic character of the neighborhood, the late nineteenth century
setting for the project, is significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative effect of
prior demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered around the railroad station and
early commercial development in this area.
The EIR included analysis of potential design mitigation measures as well as project alternatives to
address this significant adverse impact.
Cultural Resources
The Initial Study, through the Historic Resource Report, found that the residential structures at 1212
and 1214 2nd Street meet two of the four Eligibility Criteria of the State of California. These criteria are
used by the State and local agencies to determine whether, under CEQA, impacts to a historic property
as a result of a project proposal have the potential to create a substantial adverse change to the
resource. In order to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources and be
determined significant, a historical resource must meet one or more of the four criteria. Therefore, the
properties are deemed historic resources and proposed demolition is considered a “substantial adverse
change”. A substantial adverse change is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration
activities, which would impair historical significance. In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria, a
property must also retain its integrity. Integrity is defined as a function of a property’s location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Historic Resources Report found that the
structures both retain integrity. The proposed demolition of the historic structures at 1212 and 1214 2nd
Street would be a potentially significant adverse impact, requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Notice of Preparation/Scoping Session
On June 24, 2013, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to the Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and all interested parties (Planning Commissioners, responsible agencies, utility
providers, neighborhood groups and property owners and occupants within a 300’ radius) announcing
the initiation of the EIR process, providing a 30-day review period and soliciting comments on the scope
of issues to be addressed and alternatives that should be considered in the EIR. The 30-day review
and comment period for the NOP ended on July 23, 2013, culminating with the Planning Commission
(Commission) holding a scoping session. The purpose of the public hearing was also to solicit those
comments on the issues and alternatives to be studied in the EIR. At the scoping session, the
Commission supported the determinations in the Initial Study and, after reviewing the project and
accepting all public comments, identified ‘legitimate’ potential alternatives to the project which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects of the project. As directed by the Commission, these ‘project alternatives’ include:
The No Project/No Development alternative, which assumes the existing commercial
building would remain. The commercial and appurtenant residential uses of the project site
would continue, and no new development or improvements would occur on the project site.
Exhibit 4-5
The Preservation Onsite alternative, which assumes the two existing Victorian buildings
would remain on site and be rehabilitated to provide adequate residential space.
The Preservation Offsite alternative, which assumes that one or both of the existing
Victorian residences would be relocated to a comparably sized and zoned site within
Downtown San Rafael and the project site would be redeveloped according to the proposed
plans; and
The Adaptive Re-use alternative, which assumes that substantial elements of the existing
Victorian buildings, such as the building facades, would be incorporated into the new
building and adapted for new uses, consistent with the project proposal
A video of this scoping session may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The 45-day review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) ended on
November 10, 2015, culminating with the Commission holding a public hearing to take oral comments
on the DEIR. During the hearing, 10 individuals, including the Planning Commissioners, provided
comments. In addition, staff received eight (8) written comments on the DEIR. Some of the comments
provided, either in writing or orally, focused on the merits of the project rather than the environmental
impacts discussed in the DEIR. Responses to comments on the environmental impacts of the project
were provided in the Final EIR (FEIR). Responses to comments on the merits of the project were noted
in the FEIR and provided in staff’s report to the Commission.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-1
LAND USE ELEMENT
LU-2. Development Timing. For health, safety and
general welfare reasons, new development should only
occur when adequate infrastructure is available consistent
with the following findings:
a. Project-related traffic will not cause the level of
service established in the Circulation Element to be
exceeded;
b. Any circulation improvements needed to maintain the
level of service standard established in the Circulation
Element have been programmed and funding has been
committed;
c. Environmental review of needed circulation
improvement projects has been completed;
d. The time frame for completion of the needed
circulation improvements will not cause the level of
service in the Circulation Element to be exceeded, or
the findings set forth in Policy C-5 have been made;
and
e. Sewer, water, and other infrastructure improvements
will be available to serve new development by the
time the development is constructed
Consistent
The project proposes to redevelop four adjacent Downtown in-fill parcels, currently served by City
infrastructure and services. The project proposes to demolish two residential and one commercial existing
structures and construct a new four-story, mixed-use building with 41 residential ‘rental’ units over 1,939
sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 48 garage parking spaces. The City’s Engineer has reviewed
the project and evaluated its impacts in the City’s traffic model. As a result, the City Engineer has found
that this project: 1) would generate 15 additional a.m. and 16 additional p.m. peak hour vehicular trips
(daily) beyond those that have historically existed on the site; and 2) would not adversely affect the LOS
for the nearby intersections, based on the 29 total new a.m./p.m. peak hour vehicle trips that would be
generated by the project, and conditioned on the payment of traffic mitigation fees to fund the project’s fair
share of local circulation improvement projects by the City. Lastly, the quasi-governmental agencies that
would provide water and sewer service to the site have reviewed the proposed project and determined that
there is adequate capacity to service the new project.
LU-8. Density of Residential Development.
Residential densities are shown in Exhibit 11, Land Use
Categories, pages 38-40. Maximum densities are not
guaranteed but minimum densities are generally required.
Density of residential development on any site shall
respond to the following factors: site resources and
constraints, potentially hazardous conditions, traffic and
access, adequacy of infrastructure, City design policies and
development patterns and prevailing densities of adjacent
developed areas.
Consistent
The site is assigned a General Plan land use designation of Second/Third Street Mixed-Use (2/3MU). The
2/3MU land use designation allows residential densities of between 32 and 62 units per gross acre. Based
on this allowable density, the 23,614 sq. ft. project site would be allowed 17 to 33 residential units. The
Zoning designation for the site is Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) District (B Street frontage) and
Second/Third Streets Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) District, which allows a hybrid base residential density
of 30 units for the project site. By complying with the City’s affordable housing required (20% or 6 below
market rate units) the project is requesting a State Density Bonus of 35% , the maximum allowed, or 11
additional residential rental units. T he project would therefore be consistent with the allowable density
range of residential development.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-2
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
According to Exhibit 6 (Floor Area Ratios in Downtown and Environs) of the General Plan, the maximum
allowable floor area ratio (FAR) or intensity of development on the project site is 1.5 FAR or 35,421 sq. ft.
(23,614 sq. ft. of combined project site x 1.5) of non-residential development. The project proposes 1,939
sq. ft. of gross, ground-floor nonresidential development. The project proposes FAR of nonresidential
development on the project site well below the maximum intensity of development allowed by the General
Plan.
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 Exhibit 9(Building Heights Limits in Downtown San Rafael) of the General Plan, the
maximum height limit for this property is 42 feet. The General Plan defines height of a building for non-
hillside as the vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a
flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof. The reference datum is determined as follows: if the
difference in grade between the lowest and highest grade point is greater than 10’, the reference datum is
located 10’ vertically from the lowest grade point. The project site is nearly flat with an average cross-
slope of 4% that trends northwest to southeast. The project design proposes to construct the new, four-story
mixed-use building with a flat roof and a maximum height of 42’ above finished grade. The proposed
project is therefore consistent with the height limits for this site.
LU-18. Lot Consolidation, Commercial and higher
density residential parcels less than 6,000 square feet in
size should be encouraged to be combined to provide
adequate parking and circulation, minimize driveway cuts
on busy streets, and maximize development and design
potential.
Consistent with Condition
The project site is comprised of four adjacent Downtown parcels with existing and approved (Building
Permits) structures and improvements. The project pro poses to redevelop the project site and construct a
new, four-story mixed-use building with 41 residential units above 1,939 sq. ft. of ground -floor
commercial and 48 garage parking spaces. The new building is proposed to cover nearly the entire project
site, across property lines. The project has been conditioned to require the four existing parcel be
consolidated into one parcel prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-3
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
According to Exhibit 11 (Land Use Categories) of the General Plan, the 2/3MU land use category defines
allowable land uses as “On the cross streets, neighborhood serving and specialty retail uses are
encouraged in order to have an active pedestrian environment. Residential use is also encouraged,
especially west of “B” Street.” The specific use of the ground-floor commercial space is currently
unknown though the City’s Zoning Ordinance will help the project sponsor determine a variety of
appropriate uses. The project proposes to construct 41 residential ‘rental’ units which is encourage in the
2/3MU land use designation in the General Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT
H-2. Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context.
Design new housing, remodels and additions to be
compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood.
Incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from
adjacent properties to respect adjacent development
character and privacy. Respect existing landforms and
minimize effects on adjacent properties.
Consistent with Condition
The project is located in a Downtown neighborhood which is characterized by a large number of historic
structures listed on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey; Final List of Structures and Areas,
updated September 1986. These historic structures in the neighborhood of the project are, generally,
characterized by architectural elements, such as bay windows, eaves, balconies and canopies, encroaching
into or over the sidewalk/public right-of-way (ROW). The project design originally proposed facades with
bay windows, eaves, balconies and canopies encroaching over the sidewalk ROW, most of which were
removed from subsequent revisions to the project design after failing to receive support from the Public
Works Department. The Public Works Department initially would not support any encroachments over the
sidewalk ROW, then later revised their positon to not supporting new encroachments over the sidewalk
ROW if they create habitable space (bay windows) and supporting those which do not create habitable
space (eaves, balconies and canopies) over the sidewalk ROW, subject to the issuance of a licensing
agreement from the Public Works Department. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project
design during three meetings; once as a concept review and twice as a formal project review, On
November 10, 2016, the DRB recommended approval of the project design without most of the previous
encroachments over the sidewalk ROW, based in part, on the encroachment pol icy from the Public Works
Department. An Environmental Impact Report has determined that the DRB-recommended project design
would have a significant impact on Aesthetics without mitigation. The project approvals include a
mitigation measure (AES-1) which requires the project design to relate better with the surrounding historic
context though the use of projections, such as bay windows, eaves, balconies and canopies , encroaching
over the sidewalk ROW, subject to the issuance of a licensing agreement by the Public Works Department.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-4
H-3. Public Information and Participation.
Provide information on housing programs and related
issues. Require and support public participation in the
formulation and review of the City’s housing policy,
including encouraging neighborhood involvement in
development review. Work with community groups to
advocate programs that will increase affordable housing
supply and opportunities. Ensure appropriate and adequate
involvement so that the design of new housing will
strengthen the character and integrity of the neighborhood.
Consistent
The project has been reviewed by the public during a neighborhood meeting with the project sponsor on
March 12, 2013. The public also participated in reviewing the project during three DRB meetings; one
conceptual design review meeting and two formal design review meetings The project design has,
generally, not changed over the course of the public review; the project has consistently proposed to
demolish one commercial and two residential structures and construct a new, four-story mixed-use
building with residential ‘rental’ units over ground-floor commercial and garage parking.
H-14. Adequate Sites. Maintain an adequate supply of
land designated for all types of residential development to
meet the housing needs of all economic segments in San
Rafael. Within this total, the City shall also maintain a
sufficient supply of land for multifamily housing to meet
the quantified housing need of very low, low, and
moderate income housing units. Encourage development
of residential uses in commercial areas where the vitality
of the area will not be adversely affected and the site or
area will be enhanced by linking workers to jobs, and by
providing shared use of the site or area.
H-14a. Residential and Mixed Use Sites Inventory.
Encourage residential development in areas appropriate
and feasible for new housing. These areas are identified
in Appendix B, Housing Element Background,
Summary of Potential Housing Sites (available for view
on the City’s website). Explore effective ways to share
housing site information and developer and financing
information to encourage development of underutilized
institutional land. The City has employed different
strategies to find the most effective way to deliver
information about development. It is an ongoing and
evolving process that has included practices such as
preparing fact sheets for sites with multiple inquiries.
H-14b. Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Sites.
Do not approve residential-only development below
Consistent
See LU-8 discussion above. The project site is listed as both an Underutilized Mixed Use Site Available for
Development (Table B3:11) and a Housing Opportunity Site (Figure B3:3) in Appendix B of the General
Plan, signifying the City’s intent to encourage and allow redevelopment of the project site with the
proposed density and applicable incentives for creation of affordable housing. Furthermore, the residential
focus of the project serves to accommodate the projected need for 1,007 additional housing units in the
City by the year 2023 (Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA; Page B -5, Appendix B of General
Plan) by adding 41 additional rental housing units to the City’s rental housing stock. A total of six (6) of
these housing units would be deed-restricted as ‘affordable’ housing; four (4) of these housing units would
be deed-restricted for rent to very low-income households and two (2) units deed-restricted for rent to low-
income households. These would contribute to the City’s need for 240 very low-income housing units and
120 low-income housing units by the year 2023. .
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-5
minimum designated General Plan densities unless
physical or environmental constraints preclude its
achievement. Residential-only projects should be
approved at the mid- to high-range of the zoning density.
If development on a site is to occur over time the
applicant must show that the proposed development does
not prevent subsequent development of the site to its
minimum density and provide guarantees that the
remaining phases will, in fact, be developed.
H-14c. Continue to Implement Zoning Provisions to
Encourage Mixed Use. San Rafael has been effective in
integrating both vertical mixed use and higher density
residential development within its Downtown. As a
means of further encouraging mixed use in commercial
areas outside the Downtown, General Plan 2020 now
allows site development capacities to encompass the
aggregate of the maximum residential density PLUS the
maximum FAR for the site, thereby increasing
development potential on mixed use sites. The City will
continue to review development standards to facilitate
mixed use, including:
a. Encourage adaptive reuse of vacant buildings and
underutilized sites with residential and mixed use
development on retail, office, and appropriate
industrial sites
b. Explore zoning regulation incentives to encourage
lot consolidation where needed to facilitate housing.
c. Review zoning requirements for retail in a mixed
use building or site, and amend the zoning
ordinance as necessary to allow for residential -only
buildings in appropriate mixed-use zoning districts.
H-14d. Air Rights Development. Take an active role in
evaluating the feasibility of air rights development and
consider possible zoning incentives for such
development. Encourage developers of affordable
housing to utilize air rights, such as above public
parking lots or commercial uses Downtown.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-6
H-19a. Inclusionary Housing. The City requires
residential projects to provide a percentage of affordable
units on site and/or pay in-lieu of fees for the development
of affordable units in another location. The City’s program
requires the units remain affordable for the longest feasible
time, or at least 55 years. The City's primary intent is the
construction of units on-site. The units should be of a
similar mix and type to that of the development as a whole,
and dispersed throughout the development. If this is not
practical or not permitted by law, the City will consider
other alternatives of equal value, such as in-lieu fees,
construction of units off-site, donation of a portion of the
property for future non-profit housing development, etc.
Allow for flexibility in providing affordable units as long
as the intent of this policy is met. Specific requirements
are:
Project Size % Affordable Units Req'd
2 – 10 Housing Units* 10%
11 – 20 Housing Units 15%
21+ Housing Units 20%
* Exemptions for smaller projects units may be provided for in the
Rental Units. Provide, consistent with State law, a
minimum of 50% of the BMR units affor dable to very
low-income households at below 50% of median income,
with the remainder affordable to low income households at
50-80% of median income.
Sale/Ownership Units. Provide a minimum of 50% of the
BMR units affordable to low income households at 50 -
80% of median income, with the remainder affordable to
moderate income households at 80-120% of median
income.
Calculation of In-lieu Fee. Continue to provide a
calculation for in-lieu fees for affordable housing. For
fractions of affordable units, if 0.5 or more of a unit, the
developer shall construct the next higher whole number of
affordable units, and if less than 0.5 of a unit, the
Consistent
See LU-8 and H-14 discussions above. The project would comply with the City’s affordable housing
requirement by providing a total of six (6) below market rate or BMR units, which represents 20% of the
maximum hybrid base units allowed on the project site by the CSMU and 2/3MUW Districts.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-7
developer shall provide an in-lieu fee.
NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT
NH-15. Downtown Vision. Continue to implement Our
Vision of Downtown San Rafael.
Consistent
The adopted San Rafael Downtown Community Plan or “Downtown Vision” document seeks to strengthen
the unique character of “B” Street as “…an area of strong historic character and the primary connection
between the Gerstle Park Neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core ” with building heights of
“…one to three stories”. While the project proposes to construct new a four-story structure, the fourth
floor is setback from the other upper floors of the building along and appears more in scale with adjacent
three-story Lone Palm Apartments along the 2nd Street frontage and the two-story mixed-use building
(821-823 B Street) along the B Street frontage.
NH-16. Economic Success. Substantially expand
Downtown’s economic success and increase opportunities
for retail, office and residential development.
Consistent
See LU-2 discussions above. The project proposes to redevelop and re-activate four adjacent Downtown
parcels. The future residents, and business owners and patrons, are anticipated to frequent existing and
future Downtown businesses, including restaurants, and provide economic opportunities .
NH-17. Competing Concerns. In reviewing and making
decisions on projects, there are competing economic,
housing, environmental and design concerns that must be
balanced. No one factor should dominate; however,
economic and housing development are high priorities to
the health of Downtown.
Consistent with Conditions
See LU-8, H-14 and NH-16 discussions above. The project proposes to demolish all existing structures on
the site, including two cultural resources (historic), which is a significant unavoidable environmental
impact. However, the project also proposes to construct 41 new residential ‘rental’ units whose residents
are anticipated to provide economic opportunities to existing and future Downtown businesses. By
complying with the City’s affordable housing requirement, the project would provide a total of six (6)
below market rate or BMR units; a minimum of four (4) units at the very low-income household level and
two (2) units at the low-income household level.
.
NH-22. Housing Downtown. Create a popular and
attractive residential environment that contributes to the
activity and sense of community Downtown. This
includes:
a. Preserving and upgrading existing units,
b. Providing incentives to encourage new private sector
construction of housing, particularly affordable housing,
live/work units, and single room occupancy (SRO) units,
Consistent
See LU-8, H-14 and NH-16 discussions above. The project proposes to construct 41 new Downtown units
that would help contribute to the City’s long-standing efforts to create a sense of active presence
Downtown after dark (‘Alive-after-five’). The project proposes the maximum allowable density for the site,
which reflects the Downtown urban character.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-8
c. Designing units that take advantage of Downtown's
views, proximity to shopping and services, and transit,
and
d. Implementing zoning standards that reflect Downtown’s
urban character.
NH-25. Pedestrian Comfort and Safety.
Make Downtown's street systems more comfortable and
safe for pedestrians by:
Balancing between the needs of pedestrians and the
desire for efficient traffic flow,
Slowing traffic where necessary,
Providing two-way traffic where feasible,
Making pedestrian crossings direct and safe,
Establishing pedestrian environments unique to each
District,
Improving and/or expanding sidewalks, street trees,
landscaping and other sidewalk amenities,
Increasing visibility to storefronts and businesses,
Seeking innovative solutions and ideas.
Consistent
The project design includes elements to improve the pedestrian environment, including new street trees and
landscaped planter area within the building setback from the sidewalk (2-5’-wide along 2nd Street and 2’-
wide along B Street), ground-floor storefront windows and canopy projections over the sidewalk along the
entire B Street frontage and a portion of the 2nd Street frontage
.
NH-28. Special Place. 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 with Condition
The EIR determined two significant adverse impacts would result from the project. The loss of two historic
structures on the project site would result in a significant unavoidable impact to Cultural Resources,
requiring the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration stating that the project benefits to the
community outweigh the loss of two historic structures. Also, the DRB-recommended building design
would result in a significant adverse impact to Aesthetics, which may be reduced to a less-than-significant
level with adoption of mitigation measures. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AES-1 requires the project to
be revised to incorporate building elements to help better relate the building design to historic conte xt of
the surrounding neighborhood, through the use of projecting bay windows, usable balconies and deep eave
overhangs on the upper-floors and canopies on the ground-floor extending over the sidewalk ROW along
both the 2nd and B Street frontages. Mitigation Measure AES-1 is presented in the Draft Resolution
Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (MMRP) as Exhibit 2 to staff’s report and as Condition #19 of ED12-060 in the Draft Resolution
approving the project merits (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-9
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 buildi ngs,
Appropriate materials and construction, and
Site design and streetscape continuity.
Consistent with Condition
See NH-28 discussion above.
NH-30. Pedestrian Environments. Enhance Downtown’s
streets by establishing pedestrian environments appropriate
to each District. These environments could include the
following:
Well-designed window displays and views into retail
stores,
Outdoor businesses and street vendors,
Signs that are easy for pedestrians to see and read,
Sun-filled outdoor courtyards, plazas and seating
areas,
Attractive street furniture and lighting,
Information kiosks and public art.
Consistent
See NH-25 discussion above. The project includes conceptual sign details for the 1,939 sq. ft. ground -floor
commercial space. The project proposes one, externally-illuminated (down lit, attached to the underside of
the metal canopy projection), sign with 12”-high metal lettering to match the bronze trim color and a
maximum area of 26 sq. ft., located on a metal transom panel above the entrance to the commercial space
along the B St. frontage. This proposed signage contributes to the pedestrian environment due to its
placement directly above the entry to the commercial space, below the canopy and external illumination.
No signage is proposed by the project along the 2nd St. frontage since B Street is the pedestrian connection
between the Gerstle Park residential neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core.
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 wall 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 with Condition
The DRB reviewed the project design at three separate meetings; once as a conceptual design and three
times as a formal design submittal. At each meeting, the DRB reviewed the project design for consistency
with both development standards and design criteria and guidelines. On November 10, 2015, the DRB
recommended approval of the project design, subject to the details on the landscaping and permanent
amenities, in the “Outdoor Community Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-10
NH-32. Historic Character. Recognize and use the
unique character of Downtown’s many attractive, well-
liked, historic buildings. Encourage new development on
sites in the Downtown area to be compatible with nearby
historic buildings, the historic Downtown street pattern,
and the area’s historic, pedestrian oriented character.
Consistent with Condition
See NH-28 discussion above.
NH-40. Second/Third Mixed-Use District.
a. Auto-oriented uses. Allow a vital, varied and
compatible mix of offices, retail uses, and residential
uses, where appropriate. Uses usually accessed by car
should be concentrated along the west end of Second
Street to take advantage of the high traffic volumes.
b. Enhance pedestrian character. Enhance the pedestrian
character of the A and B cross streets by encouraging a
variety of uses, including neighborhood serving and
specialty retail uses, and residential uses.
c. PG&E office building site. This site offers a major
redevelopment opportunity as an infill site that could
accommodate a mix of land uses, including residential if
feasible, that would take advantage of the site’s high
visibility from Second and Third Streets, extend the
uses on the San Rafael Corporate Center, or provide
patrons for the Fourth Street Retail Core.
d. Transportation Corridor. Make Second and Third
Streets a very attractive, safe and efficient transportation
corridor that allows smooth travel through Downtown,
provides easy access to the Fourth Street Core via the
cross streets and is safe to walk along and cross.
Substantially improve Second and Third Streets
through:
Screening pedestrians from the perception of traffic
noise and encouraging pedestrian use of other streets,
Improving pedestrian connections to Fourth Street,
Providing safe crosswalks at all intersections,
Reducing the number of driveways that interrupt
sidewalks, and
Consistent
The project itself is enhancing the pedestrian character along B Street by redeveloping and re-activating the
Downtown site. One commercial building, currently with a religious facilities use, and two residential
structures (one uninhabitable since 2007 due to fire damage) providing three existing residential units, ar e
proposed for removal and a new mixed-use building is proposed for construction with 1,939 sq. ft. of
commercial space and 41 residential ‘rental’ units which will bring greater pedestrian activity to B Street.
The project design would also result in a safer, more-efficient transportation corridor, along 2nd Street, by
removing three (3) existing curb cuts along the 2 nd Street frontage which serve the existing two residential
structures and the 25-stall surface parking lot on the project site
.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-11
Managing traffic flow for efficiency, not speed.
e. Improved parking. Develop attractive, screened and
easy-to-find public and private parking areas serving
both the Fourth Street Retail Core and the Second/Third
Street Corridor.
NH-41. Second/Third Mixed Use District Design
Considerations.
a. An inviting appearance. Create an inviting appearance
to people traveling Second and Third Streets. Encourage
attractive, creative and varied architecture on Second
and Third Streets, with design detail on all sides of
buildings visible to the street or pedestrians.
b. Unique character of cross streets. A, B, C and D
Streets are important links from Fourth Street to
neighborhoods south of Downtown. Strengthen the
unique character of these cross streets by giving special
treatment to:
A Street as an important visual and pedestrian
connection between Mission San Rafael Arcangel and
Albert Park and Andersen Drive,
B Street as an area of strong historic character, and
B, C and D Streets as major pedestrian connections
between the Gerstle Park Neighborhood and the
Fourth Street Retail Core.
c. Height. Individual building heights will vary and
typically range from two to four stories east of B Street,
and from one to three stories generally west of B Street .
Consistent with Condition
See NH-28 and MH-31 discussions above.
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.
Not Consistent
See NH-25, NH-28 and NH-31discussions above. The project design would require the demo lition of two
existing historic structures, requiring the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. The project
design includes landscaped planter areas, 2-5’-wide along both the 2nd and B Street frontages.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-12
CD-1d. Landscape Improvement. Recognize that
landscaping is a critical design component. Encourage
maximum use of available landscape area to create
visual interest and foster sense of the natural
environment in new and existing developments.
Encourage the use of a variety of site appropriate plant
materials.
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.
Not Consistent
See NH-28 and NH-40 discussions above. The project design would require the demolition of two existing
historic structures, requiring the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. The project would
re-activate the site and bring a greater level of pedestrian activity along B Street.
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
See NH-31discussion above.
CD-4. Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive
and distinctive image by recognizing, preserving and
enhancing the City's historic resources.
Not Consistent
See NH-28 discussion above. The project design would require the demolition of two existing historic
structures, requiring the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration.
CD-5. Views. Respect and enhance to the greatest extent
possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands,
St. Raphael’s church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt.
Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines
from public streets, parks and publicly accessible
Consistent
See NH-31 discussion above. Photosimulations were submitted with the project application, from locations
requested by staff, to show the impacts from the scale of the project design on views of Mt. Tamalpais and
surrounding hills from public streets. The DRB has reviewed potential view impacts resulting from the
project design, in addition to all applicable development standards and design criteria and guidelines, and
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-13
pathways.
recommended approval of the project on November 10, 2015, subject to details on landscaping and the
permanent amenities in the “Outdoor Community Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th floors return for final review
and approval prior to building permit issuance.
CD-8.Gateways. Provide and maintain distinctive
gateways to identify City entryways.
Consistent
The project design includes a landscaped planter areas, 2-5’-wide along the entire 2nd Street frontage,
which is identified in the General Plan as both a “Transportation Corridor” and a “Gateway” (Exhibit 17,
San Rafael Community Design map; and Exhibit 18, Central San Rafael Community Design map).
CD-11. Multifamily Design Guidelines. Recognize,
preserve and enhance the design elements that ensure
multifamily housing is visually and functionally
compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood.
Develop design guidelines to ensure that new development
fits within and improves the character defining elements of
neighborhoods.
Consistent
See NH-31 discussion above.
CD-14. Recreational Areas. In multifamily development,
require private outdoor areas and on-site common spaces
for low and medium densities. In high density and mixed -
use development, private and/or common outdoor spaces
are encouraged. Common spaces may include recreation
facilities, gathering spaces, and site amenities such as
picnicking and play areas.
Consistent
At staff’s encouragement, the project design voluntarily includes both private decks for 31 of the 41
residential units and common or shared “Outdoor Community Space” located on the 2 nd and 4th floors of
the new mixed-use building. On average, the project design provides 168 sq. ft. of recreation area per
residential unit.
.
CD-15. Participation in Project Review. Provide for
public involvement in the review of new development,
renovations, and public projects with the following
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;
Distribution of the procedures of the development
process that include the following: submittal
information, timelines for public review, and public
notice requirements;
Consistent
See H-3 discussion above. The proposed project has provided for effective citizen participation in decision-
making, given that; the City has provided opportunities for public involvement in the review of the project
through the referral of the Pre-application to the appropriate neighborhood groups (i.e., Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Assoc., Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, San Rafael Heritage and the Downtown
Business Improvement District or BID), notice of the Conceptual Design Review, and the r eferral, notice
and hearings of formal project review in compliance with Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance (Public
Notice). Notice of three (3) separate DRB meetings and this hearing were mailed to all property owners
and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site, and the appropriate neighborhood groups, 15 calendar
days prior to the meetings or hearing, and notice was posted on the project site at two (2) locations along
both the 2nd and B Street frontages. Comments were provided during the review of the EIR on the project,
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-14
Standardized thresholds that state when design review of
projects is required (e.g. residential conversions, second-
story additions); and
Effective public participation in the review process.
which are either a response is provided in the FEIR/Response to comments or in the staff report to the
Commission.
CD-18. Landscaping. Recognize the unique contribution
provided by landscaping, and make it a significant
component of all site design.
Consistent with Condition
The project design includes new street trees and a landscaped planter areas within the building setback
from the sidewalk (2-5’-wide along 2nd Street and 2’-wide along B Street). The DRB reviewed the project
design, including landscaping, at three separate meetings; once as e conceptual design and twice as a
formal design submittal. At each meeting, the DRB reviewed the project design for consistency with both
development standards and design criteria and guidelines. On November 10, 2015, the DRB recommended
approval of the project design, subject to the details on the landscaping and permanent amenities, in the
“Outdoor Community Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and approval prior to
building permit issuance.
.
CD-19. Lighting. Allow adequate site lighting for safety
purposes while controlling excessive light spillover and
glare.
Consistent with Condition
The project design includes a condition requiring the submittal of a lighting plan (location and type) with
photometric study (lighting levels) for review and approval prior to building permit issuance, which
demonstrates compliance with the City’s illumination standards:
A minimum of one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided at all exterior doorways.
A minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided throughout the
vehicle parking area.
Less than one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided at property lines.
Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90-day
lighting level review by the City to ensure that all li ghting sources provide safety for the building
occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent
residents.
CD-20. Commercial Signage. Provide sign regulations
and guidelines that allow adequate visual identification
necessary for successful commercial uses, while also
taking into consideration the visual impact along any given
roadway.
Consistent
See NH-25 discussion above. Conceptual sign details were included in the submittal plans, which were
reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB on November 10, 2015.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-15
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
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. peak hours as shown
below, except as provided for under (B) Arterial LOS.
Consistent with Condition
See LU-2 discussion above.
C-7. Circulation Improvement Funding.
Take a strong advocacy role in securing funding for
planned circulation improvements. Continue to seek
comprehensive funding that includes Federal, State,
County, and Redevelopment funding, Local Traffic
Mitigation Fees, and Assessment Districts. The local
development projects’ share of responsibility to fund
improvements is based on:
C-7a. Traffic Mitigation Fees. Continue to implement
and periodically update the City’s Traffic Mitigation
Program.
C-7b. Circulation Improvements. Seek funding for and
construct circulation improvements needed for safety, to
improve circulation, or to maintain traffic level of
service.
Consistent with Conditions
See LU-2 discussion above. The proposed project has been conditioned to require payment of a traffic
mitigation fee to be determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director but not to exceed $131,626.
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
I-2. Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services.
Assure that development can be adequately served by the
City’s infrastructure and that new facilities are well
planned and well designed.
Consistent
All service providers, including PG&E, Marin Sanitary Service, Marin Municipal Water District, San
Rafael Sanitation District, Central Marin Sanitation Agency, and the City Engineer, have review the
project and indicated that adequate infrastructure capacity exists for the project.
SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-16
SU-5. Reduce Use of Nonrenewable Resources. Reduce
dependency on non-renewable resources.
Consistent with Conditions
Though not explicitly proposed by the project, the plans identify the building roof as “possible location for
future solar panels”. The project will comply with the most recently adopted CBC (California Building
Code) CalGreen and Title-24 Energy regulations. Conditions subject the project to the Marin Municipal
Water District’s most recently adopted water conservation and gray water regulations.
SU-6. New and Existing Trees. Plant new and retain
existing trees to maximize energy conservation and
carbon sequestration benefits.
Consistent with Condition
See CD-18 discussion above.
CULTURE AND ARTS ELEMENT
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.
CA-13a. Inventory Update. Update the City’s
Historical/Architecture Survey, which is an inventory of
buildings of architectural value, historic buildings and/or
districts and historic elements such as signs, monuments
and gates. Maximize the use of volunteers in updating
the survey with professional assistance as needed.
CA-13e Preservation Reference Materials. Maintain
at Falkirk a special collection of preservation materials
and resources. Enhance public awareness of the
collection, and
include a photographic record of local preservation
efforts.
Not Consistent
See NH-28 discussion above.
CA-14. Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the
adaptation and reuse of historic buildings, in order to
preserve the historic resources that are a part of San
Not Consistent
The EIR analyzed four project alternatives:
No project
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-17
Rafael’s heritage.
Preservation on-site
Preservation off-site
Adaptive reuse
Ultimately, the ‘Preservation on-site’ alternative was identified in the EIR as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative, likely to result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts.
CA-15. Protection of Archaeological Resources.
Recognize the importance of protecting significant
archaeological resources by:
Identifying, when possible, archaeological resources and
potential impacts on such resources.
Providing information and direction to property owners
in order to make them aware of these resources.
Implementing measures to preserve and protect
archaeological resources.
CA-15a. Archeological Resources Ordinance.
Continue to implement the existing Archeological
Resources Ordinance.
Consistent with Condition
The project site is identified as having a “low” archaeological sensitivity rating, pursuant to the City’s
adoptive City of San Rafael Archaeological Sensitivity map. City Council Ordinance No. 1772 and
Resolution No. 10980 prescribes required conditions for discretionary permits on site with “low”
archaeological sensitivity rating. These conditions have been included in the project approvals.
PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT
PR-10. Onsite Recreation Facilities. Require onsite
recreation facilities in new multifamily residential projects
and encourage construction of onsite recreation facilities in
existing multifamily residential projects, where
appropriate.
Consistent
See CD-14 discussion above.
SAFETY ELEMENT
S-1. Location of Future Development. Permit
development only in those areas where potential danger to
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
community can be adequately mitigated.
Consistent
Geoseismic dangers have been evaluated through the City’s Geotechnica l Review process and found that
the project would not pose potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-18
S-3. Use of Hazard Maps in Development Review.
Review Slope Stability, Seismic Hazard, and Flood Hazard
Maps at the time a development is proposed. Undertake
appropriate studies to assure identification and
implementation of mitigation measures for identified
hazards.
Consistent
According to Exhibit 27 (Geology and Stability) and 29 (Flood Hazard Areas) of the General Plan, the site
is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and located in an area of Franciscan Complex Melange (fsr).
These conditions equate to a geoseismic hazard zone rating of 3. Given this rating, the Geotechnical
Review Matrix requires Geotechnical Investigation Report and the results are discussed in S-4 below.
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
A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared and submitted with the project application. After review
by the City Engineer, it was found to meet the requirements set forth in the Geotechnical Review Matrix
and consistent with the City’s safety policies and standard engineering practices. The EIR determined that
Geology and Soils impacts resulting from the project would be less-than-significant or no impact.
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 with Condition
The 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-17. Flood Protection of New Development. Design
new development within the bay mud areas to minimum
floor elevation that provides protection from potential
impacts of flooding during the “100-year” flood. The final
floor elevation (elevation of the first floor at completion of
construction) shall account for the ultimate settlement of
the site due to consolidation of the bay mud from existing
and new loads, taking into account soils conditions and the
type of structure proposed. Design for settlement over a
50-year period is typically considered sufficient.
Consistent
The site is currently located in Zone X, but within close proximity to Zone AH – the 100-year flood zone..
The Public Works Department strongly recommend that floodproofing be provided to above the nearby
base flood elevation of 12’.
S-18 Storm Drainage Improvements. Require new
development to improve local storm drainage facilities to
accommodate site runoff anticipated from a “100-year”
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-19
storm.
S-25. Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Requirements. Continue to work through the
Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
to implement appropriate Watershed Management plans as
dictated in the RWQCB general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit for Marin County
and the local stormwater plan.
Consistent
A Drainage Analysis was prepared and submitted with the project application. This Drainage Analysis has
been reviewed by the City Engineer which implements the Stormwater Pollution Prevention standards and
regulations. As designed, the proposed project includes adequate measures to reduce stormwater run -off
consistent with the standards established by the RWQCB. The proposed project includes storm water
retention areas or ‘bioswales’ which will have the effect of reducing peak flow runoff to pre-development
levels. On November 10, 2015, the DRB recommended approval of the project design, subject to the
details on the landscaping and permanent amenities, in the “Outdoor Community Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th
floors, return for final review and approval prior to building permit issuance .
S-32. Safety Review of Development Projects. Require
crime prevention and fire prevention techniques in new
development, including adequate access for emergency
vehicles.
Consistent with Conditions
The San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau, and the San Rafael Police Department have both
reviewed the project plans and either required revisions to improve fire prevention and safe design, which
have been incorporated in the project plans being reviewed by the Commission, or conditions have been
included to require revisions to improve fire prevention and safe design.
NOISE ELEMENT
N-5. Traffic Noise from New Development. Minimize
noise impacts of increased off-site traffic caused by new
development. Where the exterior Ldn is 65 dB or greater at
a residential building or outdoor use area and a plan,
program, or project increases traffic noise levels by more
than Ldn 3 dB, reasonable noise mitigation measures shall
be included in the plan, program or project.
Consistent with Conditions
An Acoustical Assessment was prepared and submitted with the project application. The EIR for the
project determined the existing surrounding traffic and construction noise impacts would result in a less -
than-significant impact with mitigation measures. These mitigation measures have been included as
NOISE-1, NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 in Exhibit 2.
AIR AND WATER QUALITY ELEMENT
AW-1. State and Federal Standards. Continue to comply
and strive to exceed state and federal standards for air
quality for the benefit of the Bay Area.
Consistent with Condition
The project would not generate any permanent air quality impacts and would be consistent with the Bay
Area Air Quality District requirements; project impacts to air quality would be limited as temporary during
the construction and grading periods only. The EIR for the project determined Air Quality impacts during
temporary construction and grading activities required by the project would result in a less-than-significant
Exhibit 5
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
New 41-Unit Mixed-Use Bldg.at 2nd and B Streets File #: ED12-060; UP12-029, LLA12-003
815 B St (Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: General Plan 2020 Consistency Table
Exhibit: 5-20
impact with mitigation measured. These mitigation measures have been included as AIR-1 in Exhibit 2.
The project, and its traffic impacts, was reviewed by the City Engineer and determined to create negligible
(31 additional a.m./p.m. peak hour trips) traffic impacts. The EIR determined Transportation/Traffic
impacts resulting from the project would result in a less -than-significant impact with mitigation measured.
These mitigation measures have been included as TRANS -1 in Exhibit 2. Furthermore, the project is
within the intensity of development and maximum density of development assumed under the San Rafael
General Plan 2020 and, therefore, cumulative impacts have been analyzed and found to be acceptable
AW-7. Local, State and Federal Standards. Continue to
comply with local, state and federal standards for water
quality.
Consistent
The project would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention standards which
are derived from the Regional Water Quality Board. The drainage plan is designed to be consistent with
the stormwater pollution standards by treating roof rainwater runoff on-site in landscape bioswale filtration
areas, located through the project, before it enters into the City’s storm drain system.
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 AW-7 discussion above. Furthermore, a standard condition of approval has been included requiring the
project 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.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-1
CHAPTER 5 – COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE DISTRICTS
CROSS STREET MIXED USE (CSMU) AND SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE WEST (2/3MUW)
14.05.010 - Specific Purposes. In addition to the general purposes listed in
Section 14.01.030, the specific purposes of the residential zoning districts
include the following:
A. To promote specialized commercial environments which provide
appropriately located areas for retail, service and office development, and
provide the city with a wide range of neighborhood, local and regional
serving uses;
B. To promote appropriately located businesses which provide local
employment opportunities and/or generate tax revenue for the city;
-----------
F. To promote San Rafael's downtown area as a viable commercial and
financial center, and as an urban center with a mixture of civic, social,
entertainment, cultural and residential uses;
-----------
K. To provide housing opportunities by encouraging a variety of housing in
mixed-use districts. The additional purposes of each commer cial district
follow:
-----------
Q. Cross Street Mixed Use District (CSMU).
-----------
2. Allowed Uses. The cross street mixed use district is intended to be an
active pedestrian area along "A" and "B" Streets with a wide range of uses
encouraged, including retail, restaurants, office and financial services,
entertainment, cultural and other neighborhood -serving uses. Residential
uses are also permitted throughout.
3. Design Intent. Development must be compatible with the existing
pattern and character of the many attractive and historic buildings along "A"
and "B" Streets. Each cross street should have a pleasant walking
Consistent
The project proposes to redevelop four adjacent Downtown in-fill parcels, currently served
by City infrastructure and services. The project proposes to demolish two residential and
one commercial existing structures and construct a new four-story, mixed-use building with
41 residential ‘rental’ units over 1,939 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space and 48
garage parking spaces. The project site has dual zones; the eastern 1/3rd portion of the
project site (along the B Street frontage) is located generally within the Cross Street Mixed
Use (CSMU) District, while the remaining western 2/3rd portion of the project site is
located within the Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3MUW) District.
The new residents, business(es) and their patrons and guests are anticipated to contribute to
the City’s long-standing economic policy (Alive-after-five) seeking to approve land uses
and businesses that will ‘activate’ or create activity in the Downtown after 5 p.m. with
economic opportunities. The new residents and business(es) are anticipated to contribute to
the City’s economic base.
The project is anticipated to ‘re-activate’ both the site and the B Street neighborhood,
which is the primary pedestrian connection between the Gerstel Park neighborhood and
the Fourth Street Retail Core.
The project proposes an overall building height of 42’. Though the project proposes a 4 -
story mixed-use building, it will have the visual appearance or perceived mass of a 3-story
building as the current design stepbacks the fourth floor 10-50’ back from the property
lines along 2nd and B Street frontages.
The project design screens the understory garage with a ‘green screen’ (landscape vines
trained to grow along a vertical screen) along the 2nd St. frontage.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-2
environment as well as an individual and unique identity. Continuity of retail
stores and display windows is encouraged throughout. Building heights will
range from one to four (4) stories with opportunities for additional height of
five (5) stories on "A" Street where a specific amenity or community benefit
is provided.
-----------
S. Second/Third Mixed Use District West (2/3 MUW).
-----------
2. Allowed Uses. The Second/Third mixed use district west is to become
more attractive, efficient and better utilized with a mix of compatible uses
serving local, community and regional needs. Uses which benefit from the
high visibility along Second and Third Streets and which do not require
heavy pedestrian traffic, such as office and office-support retail and service
uses, retail usually accessed by car (i.e., daily needs retail such as grocery
and drug stores, etc.), and limited auto-serving and large item retail are
allowed. Housing is encouraged throughout the district.
3. Design Intent. Development will help create a more inviting appearance
to the district. Parking areas should be attractive, screened and easy-to-find.
Because of the high volume of traffic, the street front design should give
special attention to pedestrian safety and comfort through setbacks and
landscaping. Each cross street should have a pleasant walking environment
as well as an individual and unique identity. Building heights are three (3)
stories, and intensities transition from a higher FAR close to Fourth Street to
a lower FAR south of Second Street near the neighborhood .
14.05. 022 - Land Use Regulations (CSMU. 2/3MUW)
A wide variety of commercial uses is permitted-by-right or with Use Permit
approval in both the CSMU and 2/3MUW Districts. Multifamily residential
is allowed with Use Permit approval.
Consistent
The project submittal included a Use Permit application to allow the residential component
of the project. Potential uses in the 1,939 sq. ft. ground -floor commercial space shall be
reviewed for consistency with allowable uses in CSMU and 2/3MUW District at the time
of tenancy or business license review by Planning..
14.05.032 - Property Development Regulations
CSMU
Consistent
As designed, the project is consistent with all of the applicable property development
standards including density, setbacks, height and landscaping. The project proposes to
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-3
Maximum density: 600 sq. ft. of lot area/unit
Maximum height: 42’
Minimum usable outdoor area: voluntary in mixed-use projects
2/3MUW
Maximum density: 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area/unit
Minimum yards: 5’ along 2nd St. Frontage
Maximum height: 42’
Minimum usable outdoor area: voluntary in mixed-use projects
Minimum landscaping: 50% or 2,361 sq. ft.
voluntarily provide an average of 167 sq. ft. of useable outdoor area per unit as both
individual private balconies on the upper-stories and “Outdoor Community Space” on the
2nd and 4th floors. The project has a hybrid density, based on the dual zoning of the project
site; the eastern 1/3rd portion of the project site (along the B Street frontage) is located
generally within the Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) District, while the remaining western
2/3rd portion of the project site is located within the Second/Third Mixed Use West
(2/3MUW) District.
CHAPTER 16 – SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
14.16.030 - Affordable Housing Requirement. Any new residential and
mixed-use development projects with 21 or more housing units shall
provide a minimum 20% ‘affordability’. Rental development projects shall
provide a minimum 50% of the required affordable units at the very low-
income household level and the remainder at the low-income household
levels. By meeting specific affordability requirements, a project is eligible
for a State Density bonus of up to 35% and three (3) concessions.
Consistent
Under both the City’s General Plan (Land Use Policy LU -23; Land Use Map and
Categories) and Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.05.032; Property development Standards
for Downtown Commercial Districts), the maximum allowable density on the site is 30
residential units. Both the City’s General Plan (Housing Policy H-19; Inclusionary Housing
Requirement) and Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.16.030; Affordable Housing Requirement)
further require that housing projects, which propose more than 20 new units, provide 20%
of the total units at ‘below market rates’ (BMR units) for a minimum of 55 years. Based on
the 20% “affordability” requirement, the project would be required to provide 6 BMR units
(20% x 30 units = 6 units). For rental units, a minimum of 50% of the required BMR units
shall be made affordable to very low-income households at 50-80% of the median County
income, with the remainder affordable to low-income households at 80-120% of the median
County income level.
The proposed project requests a 35% State Density Bonus (30 maximum allowable
residential units x 35% = 10.5 units which rounds up to 11 additional State Density Bonus
units). In order to obtain the full 35% State Density Bonus, the project shall provide 11% of
the 30 maximum allowable residential units at the very-low income household level or 3.3
units, which is rounded up to four (4) residential units. The remaining two (2) affordable
residential units shall be developed at the low income household level.
.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-4
14.16.150 - Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
A.
1. The intensity and density of development in nonresidential and
mixed-use districts is identified by floor area ratio (FAR) and by the
number of units allowed per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot
area for the location and zoning district in which a site is located.
The FAR is the total building square footage (gross floor area)
divided by the lot area excluding public streets. Total building
square footage excludes parking areas or garages (covered and
uncovered), residential components of a mixed use project, hotels,
and non-leasable covered atriums. Floor area for permanent child
care facilities in nonresidential structures may be excluded in the
FAR, subject to the provisions of Chapter 14.22, Use Permits.
2. See subsection G, floor area ratio limit maps for FAR limits in non-
residential zoning districts. The maximum allowable FAR is not
guaranteed, and shall be determined by the following factors: site
constraints, infrastructure capacity, hazardous conditions and design
policies
B. Mixed-Use Development.
1. Commercial or Office with Residential. FAR limits apply only to
the non-residential component of a development. The number of
residential units allowed on a lot is based on the minimum lot area
required per dwelling unit standard for the zoning district.
Consistent
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for non -residential development on the subject site is
1.50 FAR or 35,421 sq. ft. of commercial or office development , based on a combined lot
area of 23,614 sq. ft. for the four lots. The project proposes 1,939 sq. ft. of ground-floor
commercial space.
14.16.170 - Geotechnical Review
Development applications require geotechnical reports consistent with the
geotechnical matrix in the general plan appendices to assess such hazards as
potential seismic hazards, liquefaction, landsliding, mudsliding, erosion,
sedimentation and settlement and hazardous soils conditions to determine
the optimum location for structures, to advise of special structural
requirements and to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of a proposed
facility in a specific location
Consistent with conditions
The project was reviewed consistent with the City’s Geotechnical review matrix contained
as an appendix to the General Plan 2020. A Geotechnical Investigation Report was
prepared for this project. In conclusion, the investigation found that the project would be
consistent with the geotechnical policies of the General Plan and that the project would be
feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The report included recommendations
that would have to be incorporated during preparation of the construction plans and
construction of the project. The City Engineer reviewed the project submittals, including
the Geotechnical Investigation Report, and recommended approval subject to conditions,
which have been incorporated into conditions of approval.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-5
14.16.227 – Light and Glare
Colors, materials and lighting shall be designed to avoid creating undue off -
site light and glare impacts. New or amended building or site colors,
materials and lighting shall comply with the following standards, subject to
review and recommendation by the police department, public works
department, and community development department:
A. Glossy finishes and reflective glass such as glazed or mirrored
surfaces are discouraged, and prohibited where it would create an adverse
impact on pedestrian or automotive traffic or on adjacent structures;
particularly within the downtown environs and in commercial, industrial
and hillside areas.
B. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriately designed and/or shielded to
conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent
properties.
C. The foot-candle intensity of lighting should be the minimum amount
necessary to provide a sense of security at building entryways, walkways
and parking lots. In general terms, acceptable lighting levels would
provide one (1) foot-candle ground level overlap at doorways, one-half
(½) foot-candle overlap at walkways and parking lots, and fall below one
(1) foot-candle at the property line.
D. Lighting shall be reviewed for compatibility with on-site and off-
sight light sources. This shall include review of lighting intensity, overlap
and type of illumination (e.g., high -pressure sodium, LED, etc.). This may
include a review by the city to assure that lighting installed on private
property would not cause conflicts with public street lighting.
E. Installation of new lighting fixtures or changes in lighting intensity
on mixed use and non-residential properties shall be subject to
environmental and design review permit review as required by Chapter
14.25 (Design Review).
F. Maximum wattage of lamps shall be specified on the plans submitted
for electrical permits.
G. All new lighting shall be subject to a 90-day post installation
Consistent with conditions
Even though the project proposes fully-enclosed garage parking, light and glare may
impact vehicular travel along primarily the 2nd Street frontage. The project design includes
a ground-floor ‘green screen’ along most of the 2nd Street frontage and lighting impacts
may exist until the landscape vines are mature enough to full cover the screening
infrastructure. A condition of approval has been included requiring the submittal of a
Lighting Plan/Photometric study for review and approval with the Building Permit plans,
which complies with the following illumination levels: a) A minimum of one (1) foot
candle at ground level overlap at all exterior doorways and throughout the vehicle parking
area; b) A minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap on all outdoor
pedestrian walkways and common areas; and c) A maximum one (1) foot candle at ground
level overlap at all property lines.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-6
inspection to allow for adjustment and assure compliance with this
section
14.16.230 Lot Consolidation When Development Occurs
Where a development project is constructed on more than one adjoining lot,
the owner or owners of such lots must merge such lots into a single lot
when the building is proposed to cross the property line of the adjoining
lots. The lots shall be merged prior to issuance of a building permit.
Consistent with conditions
The project has been conditioned to require, prior to building permit issuance, the submittal
of five (5) copies of the plat map, showing the existing and proposed lot lines, the location
of any existing structures, easements, prominent trees and access to all public streets, and a
copy of Grant Deed, prepared for the lot line consolidation, for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
14.16.260 - Noise Standards
A. Residential Development. The following standards apply to residential
development:
-----------
3. In high density and downtown residential districts residential
interior standards shall be met, and common usable outdoor areas
shall be designed to minimize noise impacts. Where possible, a 60
dBA (Ldn) standard shall be applied to usable outdoor areas
4. Interior noise standards for new single -family residential and
residential health care development shall be 40 dBA (Ldn) for
bedrooms and 45 dBA (Ldn) for other rooms. New hotels and
motels shall meet a 45 dBA (Ldn) standard. For new multifamily
development, hotels and motels, interior noise standards shall be
described by State Administrative Code standards, Title 25, Part 2.
-----------
6. Post-construction monitoring and approval by an acoustical
engineer shall be required in residential development near high
noise sources to insure that city standards have been met.
Consistent with conditions
A noise study was prepared for the project and determined the project would result in
significant operational and construction noise impacts, which would be reduced to less-
than-significant levels with specific mitigation measures. These mitigation measures have
been incorporated in the project draft resolutions as conditions of approva l.
14.16.279 – Relocation Assistance For Displaced Residential Rental
Unit Tenants.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to mitigate the impact of a
development project or property improvement such as a renovation or
rehabilitation, which results in the displacement of low-income household
tenants of record from their residences, by requiring applicants or property
Consistent
Staff contacted Marin Housing Authority and determined none of their clients are tenants
within the project site. Therefore, no relocation assistance is required for any existing
tenants displaced by the demolition of the residences within the project site.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-7
owners to provide certain, limited relocation assistance to such tenants.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to any
development project or property improvement that is subject to a planning
permit or approval required by this title and a building or a demolition
permit that will result in the displacement of low-income, residential unit
tenants of record. A tenant of record is a tenant that appears on a valid lease
or rental agreement for the residential unit being vacated. This section is not
applicable to:
1. Any development project that is subject to a legal requirement
for the provision of relocation assistance under any provision of
federal or state law;
2. Tenant displacement from a dwelling unit that the city has
determined to be illegal and which is ordered abated by action of
the city; and
3. A tenant of record that is displaced for unit renovation and is
temporarily relocated by the property owner to another
residential unit that is located either on the subject property or
off-site, with the intent and goal of returning to the renovated
apartment unit, or to another unit on-site, which has a
comparable bedroom count.
The provisions of this section may be imposed as a condition of any
planning permit or required prior to the issuance of a building permit or
demolition permit.
14.16.70- Water – Efficient Landscape
All new development projects providing 500 sq. ft. or greater of
landscaping shall be reviewed and obtain approval by the Marin Municipal
Water District (MMWD) prior to building permit issuance. MMWD shall
review all project landscaping, irrigation and grading plans for compliance
with the most recently adopted MMWD water-conservation ordinance.
Consistent with conditions.
While landscape details are not presented in the project plans, it appears to staff that the
proposed landscape areas along both the 2nd and B Street frontages, together with the
“Landscape Filtration” area on the 2nd floor, would exceed the 500 sq. ft. threshold from
MMWD and require MMWD review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
On November 10, 2015, the Design Review Board (DRB) recommended approval of the
project design, subject to the details on the landscaping and permanent amenities, in the
“Outdoor Community Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-8
The project has been conditioned to require both MMWD and DRB review and approve the
landscape details prior to building permit issuance.
CHAPTER 17 – PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
14.17.100 – Residential Uses in Commercial Districts
Applicability. Performance standards for residential uses in commercial
districts shall be applied through an administrative use permit in the 4SRC,
HO, 2/3 MUE and MUW, CSMU, WEV, GC, FBWC, C/O, and M districts
or through a use permit in the NC district.
Standards:
1. Location. In the 4SRC and WEV districts, residential units may be
located above the ground floor, and on rear portions of the ground.
Location of residential units in the 2/3 MUE and MUW, GC, FBWC,
HO, C/O, CSMU, M and NC districts shall be determined through
project review.
2. .Access. Residential units shall have a separate and secured entrance
and exit.
3. Parking. Residential parking shall comply with Chapter 14.18,
Parking Standards, of this title.
4. .Noise. Residential units shall meet the residential noise standards in
Section 14.16.260, Noise standards, of this title.
5. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be sufficient to establish a sense
of well-being to the pedestrian and one that is sufficient to facilitate
recognition of persons at a reasonable distance. Type and placement
of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the police department. The
minimum of one foot-candle at ground level shall be provided in all
exterior doorways and vehicle parking areas.
6. Refuse Storage and Location. An adequate refuse storage area shall
be provided for the residential use.
7. Location of new residential units shall consider existing surrounding
uses in order to minimize impacts from existing uses.
Consistent with conditions.
The project would comply with the standards to allow residential uses in commercial
districts, subject to conditions requiring the submittal of a lighting plan/photometric study,
showing compliance with illumination levels prescribed by Section 14.16.227 of the
Zoning Ordinance (ZO), and compliance will required mitigation measures to reduce noise
impacts to less-than-significant levels..
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-9
CHAPTER 18 – PARKING STANDARDS
14.18.040 - Parking Requirements
Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with the following chart:
New, two-bedroom units, 900 sq. ft. or greater, located within the
Downtown and the Downtown Parking District are required to provide
1.5 spaces;
New, two-bedroom units, less than 900 sq. ft., located within the
Downtown and the Downtown Parking District are required to provide
1 space;
New, one-bedroom units, located within the Downtown and the
Downtown Parking District are required to provide 1 space; and
No guest parking is required within the Downtown.
Consistent
As designed, the project is consistent with the number of required off-street parking spaces.
14.18.050 – Off-Street Loading and Unloading
New retail and service development projects shall provide 1 off-street
loading and unloading space with minimum dimensions of ten feet (10′) in
width by thirty-five feet .(35′) in length, with a fourteen-foot (14′) height
clearance.
Not Consistent
During review, the project requested a Parking Modification to eliminate the required off-
street loading and unloading space, which was reviewed and approved by both the City
Engineer and the DRB. This Parking Modification has been memorialized as a condition of
approval.
14.18.060 – Downtown Parking Assessment District
Parking for up to 1.0 FAR (floor area rati o) of nonresidential uses in the
Downtown Parking Assessment District shall be provided by existing public
parking garages, structures and surface lots in the Downtown.
Consistent
The parking demand for up to 23,614 sq. ft. of nonresidential development is provided by
existing public garage structures and surface lots. The project proposes only 1,939 sq. ft. of
nonresidential space. Therefore, the project proposes no on-site parking for the
nonresidential portion of the new mixed-use building.
14.18.090 - Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking shall be required in commercial and office parking lots with
30 or more parking spaces
Not Applicable
Bicycle parking is not required for residential development; however, the project design is
providing secured, freestanding, bike racks within the understory parking garage.
14.18.120 – Tandem Parking Prohibited
Tandem parking is prohibited, unless approved under this section:
A. Under Section 14.18.150, Alternate parking locations for uses with
insufficient parking;
Consistent
The project design includes 48 garage parking spaces, 10 of which are tandem parking
spaces. Since the project is complying with their 20% affordability requirement, it is
eligible for a maximum 35% State Density bonus and three (3) concessions. The project is
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-10
B. With an environmental and design review permit under the Hillside
Residential Design Guidelines Manual;
C. For a second dwelling unit, as provided for in Section
14.16.285(C)(8) of this title; or
D. As a concession granted for residential projects which include
sufficient affordable housing units, as provided for in Section
14.16.030(H)(3)(a)(i) of this title.
further requesting to allow the use of tandem parking as a concession, their only
concession requested. Under Section 14.16.030 (H)(3)(a)(i) of the ZO, tandem parking is a
concession not requiring financial pro forma; the project simply needs to request the
parking concession to be allowed to use it.
14.18.130 - Parking Facility Dimensions and Design
A. Minimum Standards.
90O, two-way Downtown parking spaces require minimum dimensions
to be 8.5’ wide by 18’ deep with a minimum backup aisle between the
parking spaces of 26’.
-----------
B. Parking Stall Access.
Use of a required parking space shall not require more than two (2)
vehicle maneuvers. At the end of a parking facility with four (4) or
more parking spaces, an aisle or driveway providing access to the end
parking space shall extend at least two feet (2′) beyond the required
width of the parking space in order to provide adequate on-site area for
turnaround purposes
Consistent
The parking lot layout has been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be consistent
with all applicable City standards.
14.18.140 - Access to Public Right-of-Way
Driveway Widths. The minimum curb cut for driveways at the face of the
curb, for residential uses serving 25 or more spaces, shall have a minimum
inside depressed width of 24’.
Consistent
The project proposes to access the garage exclusively using a two -way, 24’-wide driveway
along the B Street frontage.
CHAPTER 19 – SIGNS
14.19.047– Environmental and Design Review Permits
When new buildings are proposed for development or exterior design
modifications are proposed to existing buildings subject to an environmental
and design review permit (as set forth in Chapter 14.25), signage shall be
Consistent
The project includes sign details for the 1,939 sq. ft. ground-floor commercial space. The
project proposes one, externally-illuminated (down lit, attached to the underside of the
metal canopy projection), sign with 12”-high metal lettering to match the bronze trim color
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-11
incorporated into the design improvements of the project. Under thes e
circumstances and unless approved as part of a sign program, signage shall
be considered and processed with the required environmental and design
review permit, as set forth in Chapter 14.25. When signage is reviewed and
approved with an environmental and design review permit, no separate sign
permit shall be required provided that:
A. The signage complies with the provisions of this chapter; and
B. The size, placement, design, number and illumination parameters of
the permitted signage are adequately documented in the approved plans or
conditions of approval for the environmental and design review permit.
and a maximum area of 26 sq. ft., located on a metal transom panel above the entrance to
the commercial space along the B St. frontage, below the canopy and external illumination.
The ground-floor commercial space has 50.5’ of linear frontage and, under the City’s Sign
Ordinance, would be entitled up to 25 sq. ft. of signage for an office tenant and up to 50.5
sq. ft. for a commercial tenant. No signage is proposed by the project along the 2nd St.
frontage since B Street is the pedestrian connection between the Gerstle Park residential
neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core.
CHAPTER 22 – USE PERMIT
14.22.080 - Findings
The following findings must be made to approve a Use Permit:
A. 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. Proposed use 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; and
C. Proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Consistent
A. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the purposes of the Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3MUW) and
Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) Districts in which the site is located in that:
Consistent
1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table attached to the staff
report (Exhibit 5) to the Planning Commission, the project will be consistent with
all pertinent General Plan policies with the exception of the following policies,
which are intended to protect and preserve buildings and areas with special and
recognized historic, architectural or aesthetic value, including but not limited to
those ‘listed’ on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey:
Community Design Policy CD-1; City Image. Reinforce the City’s positive
and distractive 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.
CD-2; Neighborhood Identity. Recognize and promote the unique character
and integrity of the City’s residential neighborhoods and Down town.
Strengthen the “hometown” image of San Rafael by;
o Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of the
Downtown;
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-12
o Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the
City’s residential neighborhoods;
o Improving the appearance and function of commercial areas; and
o Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that
serve local residents and create neighborhood-gathering places.
CD-4; Historic Resources. Protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive
image by recognizing, preserving and enhancing the City’s historic
resources.
Culture and Arts Policy 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.
CA-14; Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the adaption and reuse of
historic buildings, in order to preserve the historic resources that are a part
of San Rafael’s heritage.
As conditioned however, the project would be consistent with the following
General Plan policies:
Land Use Policies LU-2 (Development Timing), LU-8 (Density of Residential
Development), LU-9 (Intensity of Nonresidential Development), LU-12
(Building Heights). LU-18 (Lot Consolidation), and LU-23 (Land Use Map
and Categories);
Housing Policies H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), H-3
(Public Information and Participation), H-14 (Adequate Sites), and H-19a
(Inclusionary Housing);
Neighborhood Policies NH-15 (Downtown Vision), NH-16 (Economic
Success), NH-17 (Competing Concerns), NH-22 (Housing Downtown), NH-
25 (Pedestrian Comfort and Safety), NH-28 (Special Places), NH-29
(Downtown Design), NH-30 (Pedestrian Environments), NH-31 (Ground
Floor Designed for Pedestrians), NH-32 (Historic Character), NH-40
(Second/Third Mixed-Use District) and NH-41 (Second/Third Mixed-Use
District Design Considerations);
Community Design Policies CD-3 (Neighborhoods), CD-5 (Views), CD-8
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-13
(Gateways), CD-11 (Multifamily Design Guidelines), CD-14 (Recreational
Areas), CD-15 (Participation in Project Review), CD-18 (Landscaping), CD-
19 (Lighting) and CD-20 (Commercial Signage);
Circulation Policies C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards) and C-7
(Circulation Improvement Funding);
Infrastructure Policy I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services);
Sustainability Policies SU-5 (Reduce Use of Nonrenewable Resources) and
SU-6 (New and Existing Trees);
Culture and Arts Policy CA-15 (Protection of Archaeological Resources)
Park and Recreation Policy PR-10 (Onsite Recreation Facilities);
Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard
Maps in Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical Review), S-6 (Seismic
Safety of New Buildings), S-17 (Flood Protection of New Development), S-18
(Storm Drainage Improvements), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Requirements) and S-32 (Safety Review of Development
Projects); and
Air and Water Quality Policies AW-1 (State and Federal Standards), AW-7
(Local, State and Federal Standards) and AW-8 (Reduce Pollution from
Urban Runoff).
In weighing all of the applicable policies, the project is, generally, consistent with
the General Plan. The project would redevelop four (4) Downtown in -fill lots
listed as both Housing Opportunity Sites and Underutilized Mixed-Use Site in
Appendix B of the General Plan. The project would construct 41 new residential
‘rental’ units in the Downtown (project would result in a net increase of 39 units),
whose residents and guests would re-activate a portion of B Street, supporting the
City’s long-term goal of creating ‘live after 5’ activity in the Downtown, and
provide economic opportunities to Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants.
These new units would help meet the City’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs
Allocation) target of providing 1,007 additional housing units in the City by 2023.
A total of six (6) of these ho using units would be deed-restricted as ‘affordable’
housing; four (4) of these housing units would be deed -restricted for rent to very
low-income households and two (2) units deed-restricted for rent to low-income
households. These new below market rate or BMR units would contribute to the
City’s need to provide 240 new very low-income housing units and 120 new low-
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-14
income housing units by 2023. The project would be consistent with the adopted
Downtown Vision plan in terms of use and scale.
2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff
report to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public
health safety, peace, co mfort and general welfare, given that;
i. The project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San
Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding A1 above;
ii. A FEIR has been prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which finds that all
potentially significant project impacts related to health and safety can be
adequately mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the implemented
mitigation measures outlined in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for which compliance is required by conditions
of this approval.
iii. The project has been reviewed by Community Development Department,
other appropriate City Departments and non-City agencies and conditions
have been created to minimize potential impacts to the public health, safety
and welfare;
3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff
report to the Planning Commission, the proposed ‘project would be consist ent
with the purposes of both the 2/3MUW and CSMU Districts, given that:
i. The project will help promote Downtown as a viable urban center with a
mixture of civic, social, entertainment, cultural and residential uses;
ii. The project will provide housing opportunities by proposing housing in
mixed-use districts;
iii. The project will help re-active the pedestrian character along B Street with a
combination of residential and neighborhood-serving non-residential uses;
and
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-15
iv. The project will help create a more inviting appearance along 2nd Street with a
building setback up to 30’ and a 2-5’ landscaped setback.
B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, given that: 1) the
project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, the
appropriate surrounding neighborhood group (Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assoc.,
Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, San Rafael Heritage and the Downtown
Business Improvement District or BID) and the DRB; 2) conditions of approval have
been included to mitigate any potential negative impacts anticipated to be generated by
the proposed use and construction to the proposed use; 3) the project would not change
the type of use (mixed-use or resdiential and non-residential) or signifcantly intensity
the use currently existing on the project site; and
C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, as documented in the Zo ning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the
staff report (Exhibit 6) to the Planning Commission.
CHAPTER 25 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT
14.25.050 - Review Criteria
Projects must meet the following design review criteria:
Consistency with General Plan design polices.
Consistency with Specific Plans
Design criteria must meet the objectives of Chapter 25 (Design
Review), which include ensuring that the design blends with the natural
setting, maintains and improves the quality of and re lationship between
the development and the surrounding area, preserve the balance and
harmony within a neighborhood, promotes excellence in design, and
preserves and enhances views.
Site design is harmonious amongst structures within the development
and existing development in the vicinity, natural site features should be
protected and preserved, safe access and adequate parking should be
Consistent
As designed, the project is generally consistent with all applicable design-related policies
of the General Plan as well as the review criteria of this chapter. At their November 10,
2015 meeting, the DRB reviewed the project design and recommended approval, subject to
the details on the landscaping and permanent amenities, in the “Outdoor Community
Spaces” on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and approval prior to building
permit issuance.
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-16
provided, drainage should be designed to be ensure proper surface
drainage
14.25.090 - Findings
The following findings must be made to approve a Design Review Permit
Project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and the purposes of this chapter;
Project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the
site is located
Project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts
Project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Consistent
A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance; in that:
1. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table attached to the staff
report (Exhibit 5) to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will
implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan
2020, as identified in Finding A1 (Use Permit UP12-029) above;
2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff
report (Exhibit 6) to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be
consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and
protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, as ide ntified
in Finding A2 (Use Permit UP12-029) above;
3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table attached to the staff
report to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with
the purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits, given that; the project
will maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development
and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the City, given that;
the DRB has reviewed and recommended approval of the project, subject to the
condition that details on landscaping and the permanent amenities proposed for
the “Outdoor Community Spaces”, located on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for
final review and approval prior to building permit issuance . Staff has formalized
the DRB’s request to review final details as a condition (Condition #16; ED12 -
060) of approval
B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping
design criteria and guidelines for both the CSMU and 2/3MUW Districts in which the
project site is located, given that;
1. The project design will be consistent with the maximum allowable density for the
site or 30 units, based on a hybrid rate proportional to percentage of the project
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-17
site located in the 2/3MUW District and the CSMU District. (The eastern 1/3rd of
the project site is located approximately in the CSMU District, with a maximum
density of 1 unit/600 of lot area. The remaining western 2/3 rd of the project site is
located approximately in the 2/3MUW District, with a maximum density of 1
unit/1,000 of lot area);
2. The project will be consistent with the minimum five-foot (5’) building setback
along 2nd Street, for the portion of the project located in the 2/3MUW District;
3. The project will be consistent with the maximum 42’ height allowed for the
project site;
4. The project will be consistent with the minimum 10% landscaping requirement for
the portion of the project located in the 2/3MUW District;
5. The project will be consistent with the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of non-residential development (1.0 FAR or 23,614 sq. ft. allowed; 1,939
sq. ft. proposed);
6. The provisions of Marin Municipal Water District’s most recent water
conservation and new ‘graywater’ requirements apply to the project, where
MMWD approval is required prior to the issuance of any building or grading
permit. This requirement has been made a condition (Condition #67; ED12-060)
of approval;
7. The proposed project will be consistent with review criteria for Environmental
and Design Review Permits (Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance), given that;
the DRB reviewed the formal application submittal twice and, on November 10,
2015, after determining the project adequately met the review criteria for
Environmental and Design Review Permits, unanimously recommended approval
of the project design, subject to the condition (Condition #16; ED12-060) that
details on landscaping and the permanent amenities proposed for the “Outdoor
Community Spaces”, located on the 2nd and 4th floors, return for final review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given that; the FEIR for
Exhibit 6
TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14)
New 2nd and B St. Mixed-Use Building File #: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003
815 B St..(Formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) Title: Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table
Exhibit: 6-18
the project concluded the following:
1. The project is conditioned (Condition #4 of ED12-060) to require replacement of
an existing mature Canary Island Date Palm, currently in poor health, located
within the 12’-wide sanitary sewer/right-of-way, located immediately north of the
property. This replacement Canary Island Date Palm shall be a minimum 3 -4’-
diameter container size at planting.
2. The project design includes storm water retention areas or ‘bioswales’ which will
have the effect of creating a ‘no net change’ in storm water drainage on the
project site, as determined by the drainage report submitted on the project and the
review and recommendation by the City Engineer;
3. The project site neither contains, nor is immediately contiguous to, recognizable
wetlands, creeks or similarly sensitive environmental features, and it has not been
identified in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (Exhibit 38 – Threatened and
Endangered Species) as a general location were threatened and endangered
species have been previously observed or maintain a suitable habitat for their
likely presence to be found..
D. The project design, 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, given that; an
EIR has been prepared for the project identifying potential environmental impacts
resulting from the project. All potential adverse environmental impacts have been
determined to be either no impact, less-than-significant, or less-than-significant with
implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the proposed demolition
of two cultural resources (historic). There is no mitigation for the demolition of two
cultural resources and the project sponsor requests the Commission adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations to allow the significant unavoidable impact, based on the
public benefits of the project (Exhibit 2).