No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2021-06-08 Agenda PacketSan Rafael Design Review Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 8, 2021, 7:00 P.M. REVISED AGENDA Virtual Meeting Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2021-6-8 Telephone: (669) 900-9128 ID: 847-5414-6598# Members of the public may speak on Agenda items. CALL TO ORDER STAFF COMMUNICATION BOARD COMMUNICATION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2020, February 17, 2021 and May 4, 2021 Recommended Action – Approve as submitted DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Request for a Lot Line Adjustment for property line adjustment, Exception, and Environmental and Design Review Permits to allow: (1) Construction of a 2,842 square- foot, single-family residence on vacant hillside Lot 59; (2) Construction of a 2,885 square foot residence on vacant hillside Lot 60; and (3) Construction of a two lane access driveway approximately 480 feet in length within the undeveloped Ross Street Terrace right-of-way; APN: 012-141-59 and 012-141-60; Single-family Residential (R7.5) District; Coby Freidman, applicant. File No(s).: LLA19-008/ED19-090/ED19- 091/EX20-006. Project Planner: Dave Hogan Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design 3. 800 Mission Ave. (“Aegis Living San Rafael”) Request amendment of Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit approvals to allow a 11’ 2” height bonus for a previously approved senior assisted living and memory care facility on two vacant Downtown parcels with 29,885 sq. ft. of combined area. Amendment of the approvals would increase the height of the building from 36’ to 47’ 2” and increase the unit count from 77 suites to 106 suites. The remainder of the approved site and building design would remain unchanged; APNS: 011-184-08 & -09; Multifamily Residential – High Density (HR1) District Zone; Geoff Forner, Applicant; ASC San Rafael LLC, Owner; Downtown Neighborhood. Project Planners: Steve Stafford Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design 4. 16 De Luca Place Request for Conceptual Design Review to demolish an existing one-story industrial building and construct a new two-story, 7,774 square foot building. The building will contain primarily storage/factory spaces with ancillary office space not exceeding 25 percent of the overall building square footage.; APN: 013-081-04; Industrial (I), Zoning District; Mark and Kathleen Barger, Owner; Stewart Summers, SKS Architects, Applicant; File No.: CDR21-001 Project Planners: Krystle Rizzi Recommended Action – Review and provide feedback on the proposed design BOARD COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT: Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing Lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of June 8, 2021 MINUTES San Rafael Design Review Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 7:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting Listen online: https://tinyurl.com/DRB-2020-11-04 Telephone: (669) 900-9128 Meeting ID: 823-0970-4098# Present: Chair Kent Member Blayney Member Paul Member Rege Member Summers Absent: None Also Present: Steve Stafford, Senior Planner Alicia Giudice, Principal Planner Paul Jensen, Community Development Director CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. All board members were present. Alternate Member Donald Blayney served as full-voting member due to vacancy of Member Samina Saude. NEW BUSINESS 1. Project: Report on Possible Changes to Design Review Board Structure and Processes. Review and solicit feedback on possible changes to the DRB structure and process by adopting a temporary pilot program creating a Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) on certain projects. Project Planner: Alicia Giudice Recommended Action – Accept report and provide feedback to staff Three residents provided comments. • Shirley Fischer stated the DRAC appears to add work rather than streamline the processing time and a project’s site should not be used as a benchmark for determining what is reviewed by the full DRB or the DRAC. • Kate Powers expressed concern with streamline the DRB process. She believes it imperative to preserve public input in the design review process.She prefers to keep the current five (5)-member DRB as currently structured. • Victoria DeWitt also indicated her preference to keeping the current full DRB structure. She indicated hillside development should be reviewed by the full DRB and not the DRAC. Recommends further exploration of which projects may be reviewed by the DRAC. Recommends the City also review the processing structure for Zoning Administrator hearings which creates a Zoning Administrator who is not also in the dual role of being the project planner. Recommends including the DRAC in Zoning Administrator reviews for smaller projects. Discussion at this Study Session included common ideas such as: • Preserve some opportunity for public input/participation, even of written comments only • DRAC (DRB Subcommittee) should be preserved for use in concert with utilization of full DRB. Clear guidelines should be adopted for which projects should go to the DRAC, though staff should have the discretion to take a design item to the full DRB if potentially controversial • DRAC membership should be three DRB members (two licensed architects and one landscape architect), rotated annually like the chair and vice chair of the full DRB • DRB supports staff taking complex projects to the Planning Commission before DRB review for non-design land use policy applications • Staff should investigate reducing the length of staff reports for efficiencies • It would be helpful if staff would provide details to the DRB when this item returns to them on how many DRB items in 2018 and 2019 would have utilized DRAC ADJOURNMENT Jeff Kent adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. ______________________ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2020 _____________________________________ JEFF KENT, Chair Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of June 8, 2021 MINUTES San Rafael Design Review Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 7:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/Drb-2021-02 -17 Telephone: (669) 900-9128 Meeting ID: 897-5942-0487# Present: Chair Pro Tem Paul Chair Kent Member Rege Member Summers Absent: Member Blayney Also Present: Steve Stafford, Senior Planner Ali Giudice, Planning Manager Michele Ginn, Permit Services Coordinator Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Barry Miller, General Plan Project Planner CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. All Board members were present, except for Member Blayney. The Board is currently operating without a replacement for former Member Samina Saude, who is now a Planning Commissioner. STAFF COMMUNICATION Staff received the following public comments after the distribution of Staff Reports, which were forwarded to the Board as separate emails- Responsible Growth Marin provided the following comments on Agenda Item #2: • Language on what qualifies for DRAC review needs further refinement • Language on the membership of the DRAC needs further refinement Victoria DeWitt (West End neighborhood resident) provided the following comments on Agenda Items #1 and #2: • Requests amendment of 11/04/20 DRB meeting minutes to reflect her previously submitted comments on the proposed DRAC • Authority for the DRAC needs further refinement • Membership on DRAC needs further refinement Sustainable San Rafael provided the following comments on Agenda Item #3: • Provided specific miscellaneous recommendations for improving the DPP BOARD COMMUNICATION None PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES Chair Pro Tem Paul invited Senior Planner Steve Stafford who informed the community that members of the public would provide public comment either on the telephone or through Zoom. He explained the process for community participation on the telephone and Zoom. Chair Pro Tem Paul reviewed the procedures for the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2020 Recommended Action – Approve as submitted Staff withdraws November 4, 2020 meeting minutes to allow staff to improve the record. DISCUSSION ITEM 2. Report on Possible Changes to Design Review Board Structure and Processes Review and solicit feedback on proposed pilot program creating a Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) Project Planners: Paul Jensen and Ali Giudice Recommended Action – Accept report and provide feedback to staff Alicia Giudice, Planning Manager presented the Staff Report. Staff responded to questions from the Board members. Correspondence in real-time on telephone or Zoom: Jay Hubert, President of Dominican Neighborhood Association, Victoria DeWitt, Shirley Fischer, Terra Linda Homeowners Association, Kate Powers, Grace Geraghty, Claire Halenbeck Staff responded to public comment. Staff responded to further questions from the Board members. No vote taken, only feedback requested. Board provided the following comments: • The membership of the DRAC should be increased from two DRB members to three DRB members • The public should be included in the DRAC process • A flowchart clearly showing those projects, which would go to the DRAC and which would go to the full DRB would be helpful PUBLIC HEARING 3. Draft Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan The Design Review Board (DRB) will hold a public hearing on the Draft Downtown Precise Plan, including the Draft Form Based Code (FBC). The purpose of the hearing is to update the DRB on the proposed Plan and FBC and provide an opportunity for comments from DRB members and the public. Case Nos.: GPA16-001 & P16-013 Project Planner: Barry Miller Recommended Action – Accept report Ali Giudice, Planning Manager introduced Stefan Pellegrini, Opticos Design who presented the Staff Report. Staff responded to questions from the Board members. Correspondence in real-time on telephone or Zoom: Kate Powers, Binky, Brad Sears, Claire Halenbeck Staff responded to further questions from the Board members. No vote taken, only feedback requested. Board provided the following comments: The form-based code approach to site development makes sense in the Downtown. More attention should be given to areas susceptible to projected sea level rise. Concern expressed with proposed increased building heights at the ‘bookends’ to West End Village neighborhood of Downtown, at the westernmost borders (convergence of Fourth and Second Streets) and the easternmost borders (Fourth and E Streets). The Board believes the West End Village neighborhood is a transition area, which should have lower building heights. Concern expressed with proposed increased building heights adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 and the potential result of a wall of building and loss of views of Downtown and surrounding hills. Concern that taller buildings will result in reduced solar access along Downtown streets and request solar studies to ensure the pedestrian experience is not impacted. OTHER AGENDA ITEM 4. Annual Meeting of Design Review Board Preparation in advance of Annual Meeting of Design Review Board to include: a) Distribution of Design Review Board “Rules of Order” for review before annual meeting; and b) Election of Officers for 2021 Design Review Board meetings. Project Planner: Steve Stafford Recommended Action – Accept report Steve Stafford presented the Staff Report. Member Summers moved and Member Kent seconded to adopt the existing Rules of Order as presented in the Staff Report. AYES: Members: Kent, Rege, Summers & Chair Pro Tem Paul NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Blayney ABSTAIN: Members: None Motion carried 4-0 Adopted the existing Rules of Order as presented in the Staff Report Member Summers moved and Member Kent seconded to elect Vice Chair Paul to Chair and Member Rege to Vice Chair AYES: Members: Kent, Rege, Summers & Chair Pro Tem Paul NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Blayney ABSTAIN: Members: None Motion carried 4-0 Elected Vice Chair Paul to Chair and Member Rege to Vice Chair ADJOURNMENT: Chair Pro Tem Paul adjourned the meeting at 9:49 p.m. ___________________________ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2021 _____________________________________ Jeff Kent, Chair Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of June 8, 2021 MINUTES San Rafael Design Review Board Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 7:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/DRB-2021-05-04 Telephone: (669) 900-9128 Meeting ID: 897-5606-9694 # Present: Chair Paul Member Kent Member Rege Member Summers Absent: Member Blayney Also Present: Steve Stafford, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Contract Planner CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. All current Board members were present, except for Member Donald Blayney. Staff requested to continue the review of both discussion items on the Agenda tonight to a date certain of Tuesday, May 18, 2021. Member Kent moved and Member Summers seconded to continue this meeting to the next scheduled Design Review Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 18, 2021. AYES: Members: Kent, Rege, Summers & Chair Paul NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Blayney ABSTAIN: Members: None Motion carried 4-0 Meeting continued to Tuesday, May 18, 2021 DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Request for a Lot Line Adjustment for property line adjustment, Exception, and Environmental and Design Review Permits to allow: (1) Construction of a 2,842 square- foot, single-family residence on vacant hillside Lot 59; (2) Construction of a 2,885 square foot residence on vacant hillside Lot 60; and (3) Construction of a two lane access driveway approximately 480 feet in length within the undeveloped Ross Street Terrace right-of-way; APN: 012-141-59 and 012-141-60; Single-family Residential (R7.5) District; Coby Freidman, applicant. File No(s).: LLA19-008/ED19-090/ED19- 091/EX20-006. Project Planners: Dave Hogan and Ali Giudice Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design 2. 800 Mission Ave. (“Aegis Living San Rafael”) Request Request amendment of Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit approvals to allow a 11’ 2” height bonus for a previously approved senior assisted living and memory care facility on two vacant Downtown parcels with 29,885 sq. ft. of combined area. Amendment of the approvals would increase the height of the building from 36’ to 47’ 2” and increase the unit count from 77 suites to 106 suites. The remainder of the approved site and building design would remain unchanged; APNS: 011-184 -08 & -09; Multifamily Residential – High Density (HR1) District Zone; Geoff Forner, Applicant; ASC San Rafael LLC, Owner; File No(s).: UP21-006/ED 21-022; Downtown Neighborhood. Project Planners: Steve Stafford Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building design ADJOURNMENT: Chair Paul adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. ___________________________ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2021 _____________________________________ Larry Paul, Chair 1 Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Case Numbers: LLA19-008 / ED19-090 / ED19-091/ EX20-006 Project Planner: David Hogan – (408) 809-9513 Agenda Item: 2 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 33/41 Ross Street Terrace – Request for a Lot Line Adjustment for property line adjustment, Exception, and Environmental and Design Review Permits to allow: (1) Construction of a 2,842-square foot, single-family residence on vacant hillside Lot 59; (2) Construction of a 2,885-square foot residence on vacant hillside Lot 60; and (3) Construction of a two-lane access driveway approximately 480 feet in length within the undeveloped Ross Street Terrace right-of-way; APN: 012-141-59 and 012-141-60; Single-family Residential (R7.5) District; Coby Freidman, applicant. File No(s).: LLA19- 008 / ED19-090 / ED19-091 / EX20 -006. ***Continued from the May 4, 2021 Design Review Board Meeting*** PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Lot 59 (33 Ross Street Terrace) Low Density Residential R7.5 Vacant Lot 60 (41 Ross Street Terrace) Low Density Residential R7.5 Vacant North: Low Density Residential R7.5 Vacant South: Low Density Residential R7.5 Single-family Residence East: Low Density Residential DR/MR2 Single and Multi-family Residences West: Low Density Residential R7.5 Single-family Residence SUMMARY The proposed project is being referred to the Design Review Board Subcommittee (Board) for conceptual review of site and building design for the construction of two single-family residences on two separate vacant hillside lots and a new common driveway within the undeveloped Ross Street Terrace ROW, linking the project sites to Ross St. These lots were previously addressed as 33 and 41 Ross Street Terrace But because the proposal involves a lot line adjustment that would move the access panhandle for the upper lot (41 Ross Street Terrace) in front of the lower lot (33 Ross Street Terrace), the project plans and staff report will refer to the upper lot as Lot 59 and the lower lot as Lot 60. The existing and proposed upper lot are both flag lots and are legal lots of record. A Certificate of Compliance (COC) was issued by the Planning Commission on November 12, 1963. The key conditions of approval are as follows. 1. A road shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; it shall be 16 feet wide. 2. A water main shall be installed in front of the lots. 3. Connection to the sewer system is required. 2 The current project meets these requirements and is similar to the proposal presented to the Board on August 22, 2017 during a previous conceptual review. The primarily differences include a change to the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and changes in the architectural design of the proposed structures. The layout of the current Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is an improvement over the previous application which had a narrow strip of land along the eastern side of the property with the lower lot. On May 4, 2021, the Board unanimously (4-0 vote, Blayney absent) approved a requested continuance by staff to a ‘date certain’, to the next scheduled Board meeting on May 18, 2021, to allow staff time to better provide the Board with plans in a format more usable for the complexities of the project. The DRB meeting previously scheduled for May 18, 2021 was also cancelled to today’s date. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The project site consists of two single family lots located on the east slope of Moore Hill in the Gerstle Park Neighborhood. Because both lots have average slopes greater than 25% they are classified as hillside lots subject to the City’s hillside development standards. The project also proposes a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to re-locate the panhandle portion of Lot 59 from the northside of Lot 60 to the southside of Lot 60. The LLA proposes to relocate the future driveway on Lot 60 to a less steep portion of the site and simplify the provision of a Fire Department turn around at the end of the Ross Street Terrace. The previous project proposed similarly sized residential units, 2,808 sq. ft. vs. 2,842 sq. ft. for Lot 59, and 2,627 sq. ft. vs. 2,885 sq. ft. for Lot 60. Both versions of the proposed single-family residences were three bedroom, two and a half bath, twostory homes with two- car garages. Access to the two parcels would be from Ross Street via Ross Street Terrace. Previous iterations of the project suggested access from Clayton Street. However, site topography, combined with the hairpin turn from Clayton Street onto Ross Street Terrace make this access (from the north side) impractical. Like the previous project, the current proposal involves the use of a new Ross Street Terrace access drive to connect to the City’s road network. Construction of the access drive would involve the construction of retaining walls along both sides of the access drive. Current plans show retaining wall heights on the west side, above the roadway ranging from 12’ near the intersection with Ross Street to 3 – 5’ along most of Ross Street Terrace. Retaining walls along the east side of the access drive would range in height from between two and six feet along most of its alignment. Like the previous proposal, the current proposal shows the width of the middle portion of Ross Street Terrace to be only 16 feet wide. The Fire Department has requested that the access drive be a minimum width of 20 feet wide. This will require that some of the retaining walls will be somewhat higher along much of the alignment (except for that portion near Ross Street which is already 20 feet wide). The proposed project (with the 16-foot access drive) would require the removal of 2,030 cubic yards of earth. Approximately 690 cubic yards would be filled onsite. The remaining 1,340 cubic yards would be exported (removed from the site) to an appropriate location approved by the Department of Public Works. Staff is looking for the Board’s concurrence/comments on the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and resulting site plan. Does the LLA demonstrate the best layout to develop the properties? In addition to the layout of the LLA, staff has concerns about the requested Natural State Exception and Guest Parking and is looking for the Board’s concurrence on the following items: • Exception to Natural State requirement - Pursuant to Section 14.12.030 of the Zoning Code, projects on Hillside lots need to reserve a minimum area of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot area plus the percentage figure of average slope, not to exceed a maximum of eighty-five percent (85%), as natural state. Natural state includes all portions of lots that remain undeveloped and 3 undisturbed. Grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction roadways, driveways, parking areas and structures are prohibited. Planting and landscaping which enhances the natural environment are permitted when approved through an environmental and design review permit. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Natural State which allows for the following: o Lot 59 - The minimum natural state required for this lot is 3,610 square feet. The applicant’s data (Sheet TS) proposes a total natural state of 1,957 square feet, which is less than the minimum required and therefore an exception to the natural state requirement is requested. In comparison, proposed lot is 78% in size (only 60% of the minimum lot size if the panhandle is removed from the calculation); 1,957 square feet is about 54% of the required minimum natural state. o Lot 60 - The minimum natural state requirement for this lot is 3,283 square feet. The applicant’s project data (Sheet TS) proposes a total natural state of 1,741 square feet, which is less than the minimum required and therefore an exception to the natural state requirement is requested. In comparison, proposed lot is 67% in size; 1,741 square feet is about 53% of the required minimum natural state. • Exception to Guest Parking requirement – pursuant to Section 15.07.030(c) each lot created on substandard city and all private streets shall provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. These independently accessible guest parking spaces should be d eveloped on e ach lot and shall not be located on the driveway apron. The proposed Ross Street Terrace roadway is between 16 and 20 feet wide. o Lot 59 - One guest parking space is proposed in front of the residence in what realistically is the backup and turnaround area for vehicle pulling out of the garage. This will be discussed in more detail later. o Lot 60 – One guest parking space is proposed in front of the residence. • Exception to Driveway Slope requirement – pursuant to Section 15.07.030 the grade for new streets and driveways shall not exceed 18% unless an exception has been granted by the hearing body and the design has been recommended by the Design Review Board. The project includes a short segment when the grade is 24.86%. • Architecture: Whether the design of the new residences incorporate appropriate design elements and contributes to the mix of architectural styles of the neighborhood and whether this style adequately incorporates architectural details to minimize height differences. • Materials and Colors: Whether the colors and materials are appropriate for this site. Project Information using the proposed lots and residences are provided below. Lot 59 (Upper Lot) Minimum Required or Maximum Allowed Existing Lot (2) Proposed Lot Compliant Y/N Min. Lot Size 7,500 sq. ft. 5,851 sq. ft. 5,851 sq. ft. N (No Change) Average Lot Slope - 32.7% 36.7% - Max. Gross Building Area (2,500 square feet + 10% lot area) 3,085 sq. ft. 3,085 sq. ft. 2,842 sq. ft. Y Min. Natural State (25% + %Average Slope) 61.7% 3,610 sq. ft. (1) 100% 5,851 sq. ft. 54% 1,957 sq. ft. N Max. Lot Coverage 40% 0% 23.87% Y Max. Building Height 30 feet 0 feet 25.2 feet Y 4 Lot 59 (Upper Lot) Minimum Required or Maximum Allowed Existing Lot (2) Proposed Lot Compliant Y/N Stepbacks Cannot exceed 20 feet over more than 25% of the length of each building side 0% Side South – 0% Front – 0% Side North – 16% Y Y Y Parking 2 0 2 Y Guest Parking 2 0 1 N Min. Setbacks Front 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet Y Rear 10 feet 0 feet 10 feet Y Side-South 6 feet 0 feet 6.9 feet Y Side-North 6 feet 0 feet 17.4 feet Y Notes: (1) The Minimum Natural State requirement for a 7,500 square foot lot with a 61.7% average slope would be 4,628 square feet. (2) The existing lot is vacant/undeveloped. Notes: (1) The Minimum Natural State requirement for a 7,500 square foot lot with a 65.3% average slope would be 4,898 square feet. (2) The existing lot is vacant/undeveloped. Lot 60 (Lower Lot) Minimum Required or Maximum Allowed Existing Lot (2) Proposed Lot Compliant Y/N Min. Lot Size 7,500 sq. ft. 5,028 sq. ft. 5,028 sq. ft. N (No Change) Average Lot Slope - 45.1% 40.3% - Max Gross Building Area (2,500 square feet + 10% lot area) 3,003 sq. ft. 3,003 sq. ft. 2,885 sq. ft. Y Min. Natural State (25% + %Average Slope) 65.3% 3,283 sq. ft. (1) 100% 5,028 sq. ft. 53% 1,747 sq. ft. N Max. Lot Coverage 40% 0% 27.39% Y Max. Building Height 30 feet 0 feet 22 feet Y Stepbacks Cannot exceed 20 feet over more than 25% of the length of each building side 0% Side South – 0% Front – 0% Side North – 19%. Y Y Y Parking 2 0 2 Y Guest Parking 2 0 1 N Min. Setbacks Front 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet Y Rear 10 feet 0 feet 10 feet Y Side-South 6 feet 0 feet 6 feet Y Side-North 6 feet 0 feet 6 feet Y 5 Previous 2017 Project On August 22, 2017, the Design Review Board provided conceptual review comments on a previous project design. After reviewing the project, the Board acknowledged that providing access to the vacant lots wa s extraordinarily challenging and encouraged staff to meet with all stakeholders, including Fire Department, neighbors, and the applicant’s team to help find a solution. The Board (Board) provide conceptual design review comments on the design of the prior project: • Due to the necessity of overwhelmingly tall retaining walls, the Ross St. Terrace access option should be discouraged and access to the site should be from Clayton St. • If project continues to propose access along Ross Street Terrace, ownership issues surrounding the roadway right-of -way (ROW) need to be resolved. If owned by the City, abandonment should be considered and allow the project to meet private driveway standards rather than public roadway standards. • All guest parking should be on each parcel and not located off-site, within the new roadway ROW. • If meeting the required Natural State standard is difficult, a shared access driveway should be considered and/or an Exception. • The ‘flagpole’ portion of the flag lot should be included in the Natural State calculation. • The Lot Line Adjustment should not create the proposed rear ‘dog leg’ area on the lower lot. • Contemporary design of residences may be OK though it needs refinement such as lower ceiling heights and better stepbacks. • The removal of ‘significant’ trees should be replaced on a 3:1 ratio, if possible. Better landscape plans needed with additional details. • Cross-sections should be added to plans showing the sites, the proposed residences and new roadway. • Provide story poles for the proposed new structures and staking the location and height of the new roadway retaining walls. Lot Line Adjustment Like the current project, the previous project layout shifted the new driveway to Lot 59 to the southside of Lot 60. However, unlike the current project the applicant proposed a finger of land about ten feet wide along the northern property line. This layout increased the buildable area of Lot 59 at the expense of the buildable area for Lot 60 since about 700 square feet of the lot was unusable due to the narrow finger of land. In response to the previous proposal, the Board recommended that the Lot Line Adjustment not include a rear dogleg on the lower lot. The current proposal has eliminated the rear dogleg from the LLA application to create a straight property line. This change has also resulted in an increase in the depth of (lower) Lot 60 by about five feet. Site Design Like the current project, the previous layout proposed to construct a single-family residence on each lot. The driveway for Lot 59 following the southern properly line from Ross Street Terrace up toward the new residence. Both projects would utilize the Ross Street Terrace right-of -way to access Ross Street. This configuration improved access into and out of the garage by providing a straight approach from the driveway. The Board did not comment on the proposed side yard reduction. The general orientation of the site had not changed except that the Lot 59 residence now complies with the required 6-foot setback. 6 Ross Street Terrace According to the project plans both residences would utilize the Ross Street Terrace right-of -way to access the City street network at Ross Street. The Board’s previous recommendation was to try to reduce the need for tall retaining walls and consider site access from Clayton Street. As a result, staff had the applicant design a project access to the proposed residences from Clayton Street that meets the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. The existing privately-owned section of Clayton Street (which goes up the hill toward the connection with Ross Street Terrace) is only one lane wide and would require the construction of a modified travel lane in a changed location to accommodate a fire truck. These improvements would require substantial grading and retaining walls since many of the structures along Clayton Street are built on or near the property lanes. It would require the approval of the existing property owners to allow construction of the modified roadway over their properties. In addition, staff report Exhibit 4 provides a visual comparison of proposed retaining walls taller than four feet that are unique to each alternative. The exhibit also includes representative spot wall heights at different points. The exhibit does not show the retaining walls around the proposed residences since these are common to both access alternatives. Retaining walls shorter than four feet are not depicted. The four-foot retaining wall height criterion was selected because Code Section 14.16.140(A)(2)(a) states that retaining walls taller than four feet may be permitted with environmental and design review subject to Design Review Board recommendation. Both access alternatives involve a variety of retaining walls both above and below the proposed access drive. Based upon the submitted information, the Clayton Street access has more tall retaining walls and would directly affect the daily access to six existing residences. The construction of a Clayton Street access would require the construction of a six-foot tall retaining wall in front of the existing residence at 53 Clayton Street. Access from Ross Street Access from Clayton Street Length of Access Drive (to centerline of the driveway for the upper residence) 400 feet 440 feet Number of Existing Residences using the Roadway for Primary Access 0 6 Starting Elevation 242 feet 203 feet Maximum Elevation 284 feet 272 feet Elevation at Driveway to the Upper Unit 272 feet 272 feet Average Slope (all vertical slopes ÷ distance) 13.5% 15.7% Approximate Length of Retaining Walls 4’ or Taller (Excludes retaining walls around proposed residences) 350+/- feet 450+/- feet All vertical elevations are measured as Above Mean Sea Level. After evaluating both access points, it became clear that while both alternatives require the construction of retaining walls, access from Ross Street would have less direct impact to other properties in terms of off-site grading and access. The overall length of both access drives (including the necessary Fire Department turnaround) are similar. As demonstrated in the preceding table, access from Ross Street involves less elevation gain, fewer tall retaining walls, directly affects the primary access to fewer residences, and because the access drive is straighter, will provide easier access for emergency vehicles. A Ross Street access will also avoid a potential eminent domain acquisition by the City since a Clayton Street access would involve construction on private property. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the project retain its access from Ross Street. 7 On a related subject, the right-of-way for Ross Street Terrace was offered to the City but was never formerly accepted. Because the proposed access drive is functionally a long driveway to the proposed residences, it will be constructed by the applicant and maintained by the owners of the properties who might be using it for access. The properties to be included in any future maintenance agreement will be evaluated by the Planning Commission when the project is considered at a future date. Retaining Walls The project proposes a series of retaining walls on each side of the proposed access drive along the Ross Street Terrace right-of-way. Across the access drive from the lower residence there will be two sets of taller retaining walls with intermediate landscaping. The retaining wall design in this area is the same for both the Ross Street and Clayton Street access designs. As previously discussed, the use of Clayton Street to access the property would require more taller retaining walls. The Board expressed concern about the heights of the retaining walls along the access drive and requested additional information on their height and location, including cross sections. The plans show cross sections in multiple locations across the access drive. Access Driveway Grade SRMC Section 15.07.030 indicates that the grades for new streets and driveways shall not exceed 18% unless an exception has been granted by the hearing body and the design has been recommended by the Design Review Board. The access drive from Ross Street contains a 68-foot long section where the slope is 24.86%. The rest of the access drive has grades less than 18%. Staff believes it is possible to construct the access drive to better comply with the 18% requirement, however, that would involve more grading and taller retaining walls. The applicant is requesting an Exception to this requirement. Guest Parking The project proposes to locate the required guest parking for Lot 59 on the east side of Ross Street Terrace across the street from the Lot 60 residence. The guest parking for Lot 60 is proposed within the right-of -way for Ross Street Terrace in front of the Lot 60 residence. The current proposal has removed the guest parking from the Ross Street Terrace right-of -way to on -site locations near the front doors of each unit. SRMC Section 15.07.030(c) requires the provision of two guest parking spaces per unit. The applicant is proposing to provide only one parking space per unit. As a result, an exception is being requested. Natural State The previous project, like the proposed project cannot meet the natural state requirement. When the project was previously submitted to the Board, no specific information was provided on the lower lot, Lot 60. In response the Board indicated that if the required Natural State standard cannot be achieved, a shared access driveway should be considered, or an Exception requested. Given the onsite topography a shared driveway is not feasible, and, as a result, an exception is being requested. Building Architecture The project proposed a contemporary style rectilinear architecture. The exterior materials were a combination of stucco and painted Hardie board siding with metal frame windows. Patio railings consisted of horizontal black powder-coated railings. The overall designs were somewhat boxy in appearance. In response the Board noted that the contemporary design may be okay though they felt that the proposed design needed additional refinement such as lower ceiling heights and better stepbacks. 8 The general style of the buildings has not substantially changed though the structures do comply with the required stepbacks. Landscaping, Tree Removal and Replacement The Board also felt that the significant trees identified for removal should be replaced on a 3:1 ratio and that more detailed landscape plans were needed. The applicant has provided more detailed landscape plans which are located in the project plans contained in Exhibit 2. To provide additional information of onsite trees, an arborist report was provided. According to the initial arborist report, the combined site contains a total of 58 trees, though only 39 are significantly sized. There are also several trees located on adjacent sites that could be affected by project construction. As summarized below, the project proposes to remove 35 of the 39 significant trees. The City defines a tree as significant in the hillside overlay district when the diameter at breast height is 12 inches or larger (6 inches for larger for live oaks). The majority of these trees are located within the right-of -way for Ross Street Terrace. A summary of the significant trees on the project site is provided below. Tree Species Existing To Be Removed To Remain New Trees Proposed Acacia sp. 13 13 0 0 0 Live Oak ** 10 8 2 5 7 Eucalyptus sp. 3 3 0 0 0 California Bay ** 3 1 2 0 2 Others (7 species) 10 10 0 0 0 Western Redbud ** 0 0 0 4 4 Santa Cruz Ironwood 0 0 0 6 6 Little Gem Magnolia 0 0 0 5 5 Strawberry Tree 0 0 0 1 1 Total 39 35 4 20 24 ** - Northern California native species There are also nineteen other trees smaller than 12 inches in diameter (or smaller than 8 inches for the Live Oak) at breast height. These include 9 Acacia, 2 California Bay, 4 Live Oak, and 4 others. The proposed replacement trees are proposed to be 24” Box specimens. Most of these will be planted along the proposed access drive. The trees shown in italics are the trees that are the proposed replacement trees. Other issues Also, the Board requested additional information on the access drive, including cross-sections, to better show the sites and proposed residences, as well as the new roadway and that any future storypoles should also indicate the heights of the roadway retaining walls. The plans provide detailed information on the landscape material and include cross sections across the proposed access drive. Storypoles have been placed on site to show the locations and massing of the proposed residences. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS Lot Line Adjustment: The proposed site plan includes a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the two existing lots by moving the driveway flag portion of the upper lot (labeled as Lot 59) from the northside of Lot 60 to the south side and shifting the lower lot (labeled as Lot 60) twenty feet to the north. The relative areas of the two lots are the same and the overall size of the developable areas on each lot are similar. 9 Staff is requesting DRB Subcommittee input regarding: o The proposed lot lines and the reorientation of the two lots. o Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site. Site Plan: The project proposes to construct a new two story, three-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath single family residence on each lot. Each new house includes a two-car garage and a patio deck which is accessed directly from the kitchen/family room. The numerous retaining walls are discussed in more detail later in this staff report. Lot 59: The driveway access for the upper lot is part of the required fire department turnaround. The middle twenty-foot long segment between the retaining walls is 11½ feet wide. The upper segment driveway provides access into and out of the garage. While turning motions into the garage appear functional, the movements to back out of the garage appear to be problematic. Exiting the garage will either require a three or more points turn, the use of the proposed guest parking space to turn around, or the driver to back down the hundred-foot driveway to reach Ross Street Terrace. A portion of the upper lot turn around is proposed to be located on the lower lot through an easement. Lot 60: Access to the garage for the lower unit is directly from Ross Street Terrace via a 20-foot-long driveway. Access is simple and direct and is not problematic in any way. One guest parking space is being provided near the front door outside of the right of way for Ross Street Terrace. Access Drive: The original Certificate of Compliance for the project site required the construction of a 16-feet wide access drive to either Ross Street or Clayton Street. The proposal is to connect to Ross Street involves the construction of a 16 -foot-wide access drive back to the driveway to the upper lot; twenty feet wide at the transition to Ross Street. The northern end of the access drive will be 28 feet wide. At the end of the access drive, a barrier wall will be installed to prevent vehicles from driving off the edge. Except for a short section, the grade of the access drive complies with the City’s 18% requirement. Guest Parking: One guest parking space would be provided in front of each proposed residence. Other parking along the access drive would not be allowed since the drive is too narrow to allow parking. Additional guest parking would be available along Ross Street. Staff is requesting DRB Subcommittee input regarding: o The orientation of the two houses and the driveway to the upper lot. o The design and grade of the access drive. o Number and location of guest parking. Architecture: The design of both residences is a contemporary style incorporating a variety of wall planes and roof lines. Each building has three building massing elements, on the left side there a master bedroom with balcony over the two-car garage. On the left side is the kitchen/family/dining room area over two ground-floor bedrooms with an adjacent deck. In between there is a recessed entry and foyer that leads to the stairs which lead to the upper level. Each of these building massing elements one or more varied roof lines which also further diversify the massing. The structure provides articulation in the following ways: • Varying wall planes and heights. 10 • Varying materials with a combination of flat surfaces accented with vertical and horizontal wood trim. • Roof lines with a combination of butterfly and flat roofs. The primary exterior materials included Hardie Panels with reveals, with vertical T&G Wood siding and horizontal ship lap siding. The T&G Wood panels will also be used on the soffits. The Hardie Panels will be painted a gray-silver color (Benjamin Moore Revere Pewter). The windows system calls for black metal frames. The proposed window system does not include mullions. Composite shingles will be used on the roof. The retaining walls near the structures will be board -formed concrete. It is unclear if all the retaining walls will use this system of construction. The proposed materials are similar to the exterior materials in the surrounding area. Based upon a windshield survey, homes in the area include a variety of architectural styles utilizing both wood and stucco exteriors. Staff would like the Subcommittee’s input regarding: o The design of the residences, including the colors and materials. Gross Building Square Footage: Lot 59: The new single-family residential structure on the upper lot consists of approximately 2,842 square feet. The allowable square footage on this hillside lot is 3,085 square feet. The second floor consists of about 1,445 square feet. The allowable second story square footage is 75% of the lot coverage (e.g. 40%) of 5,851 square feet, or 1,755 square feet. The proposed residence complies with these code requirements. Lot 60: The new single -family residence on the lower lot is proposed to be developed with a gross building area of 2,492 which is less than maximum allowed of 3,158 square feet. The second floor consists of approximately 1,508 square feet, the allowable second floor square footage is 75% of the lot coverage (e.g. 40%) of 5 ,028 square feet or 1,508 square feet. The proposed residence complies with these code requirements. Natural Open Space: Lot 59: As shown in the Tables above, the proposed lot line adjustment and resulting development on the upper lot would result in a natural state area of 1,957 square feet (54% of the lot), where at least 61.7% or 3,610 square feet is required. The natural state requirement includes 945 square feet of drought tolerant native landscaping. Much of the landscaping is concentrated in the front of the proposed house near the guest parking space. The landscape plan includes the retention of a 47.9” Live Oak tree. The landscape plans show the removal of six significant trees on the upper lot. These includes a live oak, a silk oak, a glossy privet, an acacia, a California buckeye, and a cherry plum. Lot 60: As shown in the Tables above, the proposed lot line adjustment and resulting development on the upper lot would result in a natural state area of 1,747 square feet (53% of the lot), where at least 65.3% or 3,283 square feet is required. The natural state requirement includes 1,548 square feet of drought tolerant native landscaping. Two-thirds of the landscaping is located behind the residence and consists of 1,070 square feet of a Native Mow Free lawn in the rear yard. The landscape plans show the removal of twenty-five significant trees along the Ross Street Terrace from the northern property line to Ross Street. These includes two live oaks and two cherry plums. Access Drive: Construction of the access drive would require the removal of many trees in the Ross Street Terrace. The preliminary arborist report shows the removal of twenty-four significant trees in the Ross Street Terrace corridor. These include: eight Live Oak, six acacia, four eucalyptus, two olive, two California Bay, Cherry Plum, and a Monterey Cypress. However, staff would like to point out that 11 there is some confusion about exactly which trees may be affected by the project. When the arborist report was prepared, several trees that were identified for removal may not actually be removed. This is because of a lack of on -the-ground reference points in some areas. Once the project design is finalized an updated arborist report will be prepared. Staff seeks input from the DRB Subcommittee regarding: o The proposed Natural State and whether the proposed landscaped area enhances the natural environment and should therefore considered part of natural state. o The removal of the large number of significant-sized trees. Landscaping: Lot 59: The landscape plan shows a single 24” Box multi-trunked accent tree (Strawberry Tree) near the front door and will retain a significant sized live oak located in the south east corner of the site will be protected in place. All other existing trees will be removed. Low water use native species will be planted in defined planters near the front door and in the rear yard, as well as the strip of landscaping between the driveway retaining wall and property line. The proposed shrubs include the Pink Flowered Currant, Oregon Grape Holly, Fuschiaflower Gooseberry, along with Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry in the bioretention basin. The groundcover is proposed to be California Lilac. The landscape plan proposes to irrigate 945 square feet of shrub and ground cover with drip/bubbler systems. Lot 60: The landscape plan for the lower lot proposes to use different species that were proposed for the upper lot. The landscape plan shows three 24” Box Western Redbud trees in the rear of the new residence to create a degree of rear yard privacy screen between the two sites. None of the existing trees will be retained. Low water use native species will be planted in defined planters near the front door and in the rear yard, as well as the strip of landscaping along the south edge of the driveway. The proposed shrubs include the Winnifred Gilman Blue Sage , Pine Muhly, along with Cape Rush in the bioretention basin. The landscaping includes 1,070 square feet of a Native Mow Free lawn consisting of Idaho fescue, Molate fescue, and Western Mokelumne fescue in most of the rear yard area. The landscape plan proposes to irrigate 1,548 square feet with drip/bubbler systems. Access Drive: Most of the project landscaping is located within the right-of -way for Ross Terrace Street. The landscaping in this area also primarily includes low water use native species. The landscape plan shows 5 Live Oak, 6 Santa Cruz Island Ironwood, and 5 Little Gem Magnolia. The Little Gem Magnolia is a non-native tree and will be planted on the south side of Ross Street Terrace across from the lower residence to provide additional screening for the rear yard at 211 Marin Street. All of the trees will be 24” Box specimens. None of the existing trees will be retained in this area. The proposed shrubs include the Elfin King Strawberry Tree, Fuschiaflower Gooseberry, and the Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry, and White Flowered Lantana below the access drive. Silk Tassel Bush, Catalina Currant, and Mound San Bruno Coffeeberry are proposed to be planted above the access drive. The landscape plan proposes to irrigate 3,999 square feet with drip/bubbler systems. Staff would like the Subcommittee’s recommendation about the appropriateness of the landscaping proposed as follows: o Is the proposed landscape scheme, centered around predominantly low water use native species, consistent with the hillside conditions? 12 Retaining Walls: There are three sets of retaining walls on the project. The first set is along the driveway to the residence on Lot 59. The second set of retaining wall is along both sides of the access drive from Ross Street. The third set is the double retaining walls east of the new unit on Lot 60. Lot 59 Driveway: The retaining wall creating the driveway begins at the south east corner of Lot 59 and Ross Street Terrace. The retaining wall then follows the southern property line up to the corner of the upper residence. The height of the wall starts out at 5¾ feet before transitions up to a height of 10 feet in height near the upper residence. The height of the upper portion of this retaining wall is based upon the floor elevation of the garage that is about 7 below the surface of the ground at the front and 11 feet below ground surface at the rear. The parallel retaining wall on the other side of the drive is much lower. For most of its length it is between two feet and four feet in height, though the wall making the proposed guest parking space near the front door is 5 feet high. The lower side of this retaining wall faces the backyard for the lower residence. Ross Street Terrace Access Drive: The construction of the access drive will require the construction of retaining walls on both sides of the drive because of the existing cross slope. Virtually all of these retaining walls will back face the east with the exception of the wall on the east side of the access drive just off of Ross Street where the roadway ascends the existing slope created by the original construction of Ross Street. The tallest retaining wall is found near the intersection with Ross Street. In this area, on the west (uphill) side of the driveway, a retaining wall of up to 12 feet in height will be required as the access drive ascends the initial slope adjacent to Ross Street. Once on top, the heights of this retaining wall will vary from between two and four feet. The height of the downhill retaining wall, on the east side of the access drive, varie s between four and six feet along most of its length, though just before the driveway to Lot 59, the wall is only two feet tall. Ross Street Terrace Double Retaining Wall: At the north end of the proposed improvements to Ross Street Terrace in front of Lot 60 the proposes to accommodate the required Fire Department turn around using the driveway to Lot 59 and the Terrace in front of the Lot 60 residence. In this area because of the higher slope, the project would construct two retaining walls about six feet apart to reduce the apparent massing of the retaining structure. The height of the upper wall would vary from up to 12 feet near the connection to Ross Terrace. Most of the upper retaining walls on the northern half are less than 4 feet in height. The lower wall is between 5 and 6 feet tall over most of its length. Staff would like the Subcommittee’s input regarding: o On the grades of the access drive. o The use and location of the proposed retaining walls. General Plan 2020 Consistency: The property is located within the Low Density Residential (LDR) Land Use Designation. The following General Plan policies are relevant to the project site: Land Use Policy – LU12 (Building Heights): General Plan Land Use Policy LU12 establishes a maximum building height of 30 feet for this property. The applicant proposes structures with a maximum heights less than 30 feet. Hillsides – CD-6a (Hillside Design Guidelines): General Plan Policy CD-6a seeks to protect the visual identity of the hillsides by controlling development through the use of Hillside Design Guidelines. The following Hillside Design Guidelines are relevant to the project. • Significant existing natural features should be integrated into new hillside residential development proposals to retain the desirable qualities of San Rafael's hillside setting. 13 • Site development plans should demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to retain as many significant trees as possible while minimizing fire hazards in high fire hazard areas. • Grading should be kept to a minimum and should be performed in a way that respects significant natural features and visually blends with adjacent properties. • The visual prominence of hillside residential development should be minimized by taking advantage of existing site features. • Development should avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on downhill elevations. Use horizontal and vertical building components to effectively reduce the bulk of hillside residential development. • New Hillside Residential Architecture in San Rafael should continue the dominant pattern of one and two-story buildings with tree canopied spaces around them. • Color selection should show evidence of coordination with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. • Site lighting should be used efficiently to aid safety, security and compliment architectural character. Lighting should minimize intrusion into adjacent properties, roadways, the hillside silhouette and the night sky. In general, the project demonstrates compliance with hillside design standards though the balancing of conflicting site access, grading, tree preservation, and fire safety requirements has resulted in a number of design compromises. But when viewed as a whole, the proposed design results in a project that fits well into the local context. However, as mentioned above, the applicant is requesting exceptions to the natural state and guest parking requirements. Staff is seeking the Board’s concurrence on these two exceptions. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The proposed land use is consistent with the R7.5 Zoning District. As noted in the development summary table, the project proposes to comply with the R7.5 Zoning District development standards as well as the development standards of the Hillside Development Overlay including building heights and stepbacks. The project would not comply with the following standards: Natural State The applicant is requesting an exception to the natural state requirement of the Hillside Development Overlay District. Guest Parking The applicant is requesting an exception to the amount of required guest parking. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency: Driveway Grade The applicant is requesting an exception to the driveway grade standards. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development. The project is a single-family residential project. The project complies with the following criteria: • All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous walls should be avoided. • Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger building into an existing neighborhood should be used. • There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. 14 • The placement and size of windows in the building should be consistent with the overall building design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an existing pattern, greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony overhangs, porches, materials, colors, etc. of articulating the façade. • Window proportions should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other windows on the building. • Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and increased safety. • Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and vehicular safety. • Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the property. • Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project. The project incorporates varied wall plains and rooflines and uses building stepbacks to break up the volume of the building into smaller forms. There are a variety of building styles with varying setbacks in the adjacent areas along both sides of the Ross Street Terrace right-of -way . Except as noted above, the proposed building complies with the current hillside development standards. The entries to the buildings are well-defined. Light fixtures will be required to comply with the City’s lighting requirements. SUMMARY OF TOPICS Staff seeks the Board’s guidance regarding the following: • Lot Line Adjustment o The lot lines and the reorientation of the two lots. o Whether the site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site. • Site Design o The orientation of the two houses and the driveway to the upper lot. o The design and grade of the access drive. o Number and location of the guest parking. • Retaining Walls o The use and location of the retaining walls. • Building Design o The architectural design of the residences. o The proposed colors and materials. • Natural State o The amount of Natural State on each lot. o Including the proposed landscaping as part of the Natural State. • Landscape Design o The proposed landscape scheme involving predominantly low water use native species. o The removal of a large number of significant-sized trees. 15 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD At the opening of the May 4, 2021 Board meeting on the project, staff requested a continuance to a ‘date certain’, to the next scheduled Design Review Board meeting, to May 18, 2021, to better provide the Board with plans in a more usable format . The Board unanimously (4-0 vote, Blayney absent) approved the requested continuance without staff introduction, acceptance of public comments or Board discussion on the project. Because of meeting issues, the project was pushed back to June 8, 2021. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the May 4, 2021 hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Following the Board's continuation to a 'date certain', a Notice of Continued Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, with the new online meeting details prior to the Board meeting. Additionally, notice which was previously posted near the project site on Ross Street, in the location of the proposed driveway and on Clayton Street, at the end of the public right-of -way , were also updated. Public comments on the project are included in Exhibit 5, which now contains forty-three public comments. Most of these comments are opposed to the project. The most common reasons for their opposition to the project include, but are not limited to the following: that the property owner (the Applicant) has no legal right to improve Ross Street Terrace to access the home sites, emergency vehicles will not be able to access the site, the loss of parking on Ross Street, the additional traffic on Ross Street, the number and height of the retaining walls, that site access should be from Clayton Street, the loss of public use, impacts to wildlife habitat and open space , increased runoff, and construction impacts and noise. Because of the amount of public discussion, staff would like to address some of the concerns. • Community Comment: The property owner (the Applicant) has no legal right to improve Ross Street Terrace to access the site . The City Attorney has evaluated this assertion and has determined that the property owner has the right to use Ross Street Terrace for access and to construct an access drive within the right-of -way. • Community Comment: The proposed access drive is too steep for fire engines to access the new residences. The Department of Public Works and City Fire Department have evaluated the slope of the access drive and have indicated that, though steep near Ross Street, a fire engine can access the site and will be able to turnaround. Compliance will be verified prior to issuing permits to grade and construct an approved project. • Community Comment: Access from Clayton Street would be shorter and less intrusive. The total length of the access drive from Ross Street and from Clayton Street, including necessary Fire Department turnaround are similar; both are about 480 feet in length. As discussed in the staff report, accessing from Clayton Street is potentially more difficult and disruptive than from Ross Street and would require the acquisition of private property to accommodate. • Community Comment: Loss of parking on Ross Street. Construction of the access drive would eliminate two or three parking spaces along Ross Street. • Community comment: The loss of public use. Construction of the access drive would not prevent public access, though it would alter how the site is currently used. • Community Comment: Construction impacts and construction noise. Like all construction activities, there will be short-term disruption and noise impacts. However, construction activities will be subject to the City’s construction noise restrictions in the San Rafael Municipal Code (7am to 6pm, Monday thru Friday, 9am to 6pm on Saturdays, and prohibited on Sunday). 16 CONCLUSION As mentioned above, the applicant has submitted a Lot Line Adjustment and Environmental and Design Review application, the application for the Exception is pending, seeking input from the Board regarding architectural design approach, site plan and site design along with the mentioned exceptions. The Board’s recommendations will help with the formal decision by the Planning Commission. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Project Plans 3. Updated Clayton Street Access Drive Plans 4. Retaining Wall Height Exhibit 5. Compiled Public Comments           Lot 60  Lot 59  Area of Improvement required  to Public ROW  (Ross Street Terrace)  P Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Plan Set https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/u ploads/2020/09/Clayton-Ross-St-Terrace-5-2020.pdf 47 Clayton Street 56 Clayton StreetF.F.=+275.0 F.F.=+245.0 51 Clayton Street (Foods For Body & Soul) 56 Clayton Garage Note: While pictorially accurate (i.e. approximate and generally in these locations) the location of the retaining walls taller than four feet are not exact. Exhibit 5 PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS – ROSS STREET ACCESS 12’ 9.5’ 4’ 5’ 6’ Note: While pictorially accurate (i.e. approximate and generally in these locations) the location of the retaining walls taller than four feet are not exact. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS – CLAYTON STREET ACCESS 10’ 8’ 6’ 10’ 10’ 6’ 4’ 7’ 10’ 6’ 8’ 950 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 200 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903 WEB www.sorensenlaw.com L A W O F F I C E S O F NEIL SORENSEN TELEPHONE 415 499-8600 FACSIMILE 415 491-9515 EMAIL neil@sorensenlaw.com December 12, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Lisa A. Goldfien Assistant City Attorney City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: ED 19-090 and 19-091 A.P. 12-141-59 and 60 (Friedman) Dear Lisa: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conference on December 11th regarding this project. I am the attorney for the applicant, Coby Friedman. As we discussed, my client was surprised the City was raising an issue over access four years after he first applied to the City to develop these lots and after numerous City reviews and a staff report to the Planning Commission. Not once during this four year period has staff ever raised an issue with access or requested that my client submit documentation showing he has "rights to access and construct a new roadway on Ross Street Terrace." The two lots my client seeks to develop were created by a subdivision approved by the City in 1963. Although access at that time was from Clayton Street, the relevant portion of Clayton Street is not a City street. The legality of the lots was confirmed through a Certificate of Compliance process in 2004. Clearly, the City would not have approved the initial lot split in 1963 or ratified it through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance in 2004 if there was not legal access along Ross Street Terrace or the portion of Clayton Street that is not a City street. We believe there is absolutely no question that these two lots have the right to access and construct a roadway on Ross Street Terrace based upon the following: 1. The property is part of the unrecorded map of Shorts Addition (copy enclosed). Specifically, it was shown on the unrecorded map of Shorts Addition as the property of "J. S. McDonald." The unrecorded map of Shorts Addition shows Ross Street Terrace extending from Ross Street (a City street) up to the property and continuing to Clayton Street. There are December 12, 2019 Page 2 numerous California Appellate Court cases that stand for the proposition that when lots are sold by map or with reference to the streets on a map, the streets as designated on the map are "open to the purchaser and to any subsequent purchaser." See Day v. Robison (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 622, 623-24. The Day case references the famous California Supreme Court opinion in Danielson v. Sykes (157 Cal. 686, 689) which stands for the proposition that when lots are sold and refer to streets shown on maps (whether recorded or unrecorded) it creates private easement rights in the lot owners. See also Douglas v. Lewin (1933) 131 Cal.App. 159 which held that the sale of a lot with reference to an unrecorded map created rights in the purchaser of the lot to use that roadway for access (Mill Valley case). Thus, because the Friedman property was shown on the Map of Shorts Addition, it has easement rights over the adjacent street. 2. As the City knows, there is a deed recorded in 1886 that dedicated Ross Street Terrace starting at Ross Street (a City street) and extending all the way up to the portion of Clayton Street that is a City street. I am enclosing a copy of the deed, which is very difficult to read. We have had the deed transcribed and I am also enclosing a transcribed portion of the deed. The deed involves the sale of land in Shorts Addition by James S. McDonald (same as on Map of Shorts Addition) to Peter Williams and the creation of two public streets between Ross Street and the end of the City owned portion of Clayton Street. "The object being a continuous street of the uniform width of 40 feet from Ross street to a point 130 feet West from the West end of Clayton street. The 130 feet having been otherwise dedicated by party of the first part and M. M. Jordan. Said new street to be known as Buena Vista street; the said Buena Vista street being dedicated hereby for the use of the parties of the first and second part and the public and the same extending along the North Easterly and the Westerly sides of the land having conveyed." (Emphasis added.) The language in the 1886 deed creates both a public right-of-way and private rights in all lot owners in the area ("use of the parties"). Since James S. McDonald owned the Friedman property when he created Ross Street Terrace and reserved the street for his use, the Friedman property clearly has easement rights over Ross Street Terrace. 3. When Mr. Friedman purchased his property, he also purchased a Policy of Title Insurance from Fidelity National Title Company (copy enclosed). The Policy of Title Insurance (see page 2) specifically insures Mr. Friedman against "lack of right of access" to and from the land." As referenced in the title policy legal description (page 4) and in Mr. Friedman's deed, the description of his property clearly references that it borders "Ross Street Terrace (formerly Buena Vista) as described and dedicated to public use in the deed from James S. McDonald to Peter Williams recorded in Book 3 of Deeds at page 360, Marin County Records…." This alone creates access rights in Ross Street Terrace. I trust that the above provides you with sufficient information to conclude that Mr. Friedman has adequate access rights over Ross Street Terrace. If not, I would ask that you put December 12, 2019 Page 3 your objections in writing so that I may convey them to Mr. Friedman's title company and make a claim for lack of access to his property. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, NEIL SORENSEN NS/mjs Enclosures cc: Coby Friedman January 6, 2020 Caron Jo Parker Associate Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 Re: Clayton Lots- Legal Issues Dear Caron, This letter is written in response to December 12, 2019 correspondence to City Attorney Lisa Goldfein from Neil Sorensen, the attorney for Mr. Friedman, who is the developer of the Clayton Street lots. In addition to raising legal issues related to the proposed Clayton Street project, this letter contains some comments and observations of my own. The issues I address are issues that come to mind at this time. However, should any additional issues come to my attention in the future, I would like to reserve the opportunity to address them with the Planning Department and/or other City departments as appropriate. I would ask that you please forward this letter to Ms. Goldfein for her review and analysis, and also that you please take into consideration the issues raised in this letter when you prepare your Letter of Completeness that is due to be submitted by January 10th. 1. A right of access does not automatically confer a right to construct. Although these are demonstrably two separate rights, Mr. Sorensen presents in his December 12, 2019 letter a seamless segue from the right of access to the right to construct, offering authority for the former and none at all for the latter. No issue is taken with the developer's right to access his lots via ingress and egress along Ross Street Terrace. That principle of access to one's property is not in dispute here. However, the right of access does not confer upon the developer the right to perform construction along the entirety of Ross Street Terrace. No evidence has been presented to show that the developer owns the entirety of Ross Street Terrace, and he has no rights of construction or development on property he does not own. ` 2. There are multiple properties abutting Ross Street Terrace that are owned by others. It is well-established that the owners of properties existing along a roadway and abutting that roadway also own the property from the abutting property line to the center line of the given roadway. California Civil Code § 831: "An owner of land bound by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way; but the contrary may be shown." California Civil Code § 1112: "A transfer of land bounded by a highway passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant." The deeds by which the abutting property owners acquired title to their property show no intent to except from those transfers of title the above-described contiguous portions of Ross Street Terrace, and no evidence has been presented that any such exceptions occurred earlier in the relevant chains of title. Accordingly, when the current abutting property owners took title to their property, they also acquired a fee title to the portions of Ross Street Terrace that lie between the abutting San Rafael, California 94901 Valerie A. C. Lels Caron Jo Parker Associate Planner City of San Rafael January 6, 2020 Page 2 of 4 property line and the center line of Ross Street Terrace. Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798,802; Safwenberg v. Maquez (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 301,307-309. Therefore, the developer may not construct upon or in any way alter the portions of Ross Street Terrace belonging to the abutting property owners without permission from those property owners. For the developer to do so would constitute a basis for causes of action for trespass, nuisance, willful and malicious destruction of property, and any additional unlawful acts committed by the developer. 3. Beyond the above, each abutting property owner possesses an additional, private right of easement and use in Ross Street Terrace for purposes of access to his property. This right of easement arises as a matter of law particular to each abutting property owner based upon ownership of the abutting property, and it is separate and distinct from any rights of access the general public may have to pass along Ross Street Terrace. Brown v. Board of Supervisors (1899) 124 Cal. 274,280. It is as fully a property right as the property owner has in the property itself. This right may not be taken away, destroyed, or substantially impaired or interfered with, and any such infringement gives the property owner a basis for one or more causes of action. Rose v. State of California (1942) 19 Cal.2d 713, 726-729. "It is well settled that where there is evidence to support a finding that substantial and unreasonable interference with the landowner's easement of access or right of ingress and egress has been caused as the result of an obstruction in the street or highway on which his property abuts, an appellate court will not say as a matter of law that such finding is erroneous." Ibid.,728. Accordingly, the developer is prohibited from interfering with the abutting property owners' private easement of access rights either during the construction process, or by constructing or creating any permanent barriers and/or changes to Ross Street Terrace that would block, restrict, or impede these easement rights in any way. 4. The developer’s plans as presented to the City would create numerous dangerous conditions for adjacent property owners, including but not limited to the dangerous conditions described in Victor Kunin’s 12/2/19 email to you. Such dangerous conditions could result in serious damage to adjacent properties as well as serious injury to the property owners, their families, guests, and tenants. Further, such a dangerous condition on property belonging to the abutting property owners would open those property owners, their tenants, and anyone else who occupies or controls the property, to premises liability claims. California Civil Code §1714(a); see also Sprecher v Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358,368: “…the duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” Alarmingly, the maintenance agreement suggested by the developer for the Ross Street Terrace roadway, the proposed retaining walls, and other structures included in the plans presented to the City, allows the adjacent property owners no means of enforcement regarding such maintenance should the responsible parties under the maintenance agreement fail to maintain. Yet all the while the adjacent property owners remain potentially liable for injuries and accidents caused by such failure to maintain. This creates an untenable and entirely unfair burden and risk for the adjacent property owners. Would homeowners’ insurance cover such a situation? That would depend on the facts, the scope of coverage, the policy limits, etc. In any event, it is entirely foreseeable that such a situation would constitute a legal nightmare. Mr. Sorensen means by “the relevant portion of Clayton street”, on what information he Clayton Street is not a City Street." It is not clear what portion of Clayton Street a) Mr. Sorensen states on page one of his letter "...the relevant portion of 12, 2019 letter: 5. I would like to comment on some of Mr. Sorensen's assertions in his December relies in making this statement, and what relevance this statement has to the issues he presents. b) Mr. Sorensen further states on page one of his letter "Clearly, the City would not have approved the initial lot split in 1963 or ratified it through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance in 2004 if there was not legal access along Ross Street Terrace...". This statement is entirely speculative and conclusory. Mr. Sorensen has no information regarding what the San Rafael City officials were thinking or intending when they approved the subdivision in 1963 and/or when they issued the Certificate of Compliance in 2004. The only information we have as to the true intent of the City of San Rafael is the information contained within the four corners of the referenced documents, as follows: (1) The 1963 lot subdivision approval specifically requires the construction of a road along Clayton Street in front of the proposed lots as a condition of the approval; there is no mention of any access along Ross Street Terrace. (2) The 2004 Certificate of Compliance specifically requires the owner of the property to satisfy the conditions of the 1963 City of San Rafael Planning Commission (which conditions include the construction of a road along Clayton Street in front of the proposed lots) prior to the issuance of any building permits, and the 1963 subdivision conditions are attached to the Certificate of Compliance as Exhibit B, incorporating these conditions by reference. There is nothing in either of these documents that indicates any intention on the part of the City of San Rafael regarding access to the lots from Ross Street Terrace. On the contrary, the plain language in both documents clearly indicates the intention that access to the lots would be from Clayton Street, and in fact the Certificate of Compliance shows the street address of the three lots in question to be 33, 37, and 41 Clayton Street (not 33, 37, and 41 Ross Street Terrace). 6. Further to the above, in reviewing the 1963 subdivision approval document and the 2004 Certificate of Compliance, I note that the subdivision plans approved in 1963 show only one structure to be built on one of the lots: a duplex on Parcel 2 (Lot 59), with no construction at all on Parcels 1 and 3. Further, it appears that the issuance of the 2004 Certificate of Compliance was done in reliance on the 1963 subdivision approval and the plans submitted therewith. Yet the current construction plans are a far cry from, and greatly exceed the scope of, the minimal construction shown on the plans submitted in 1963, when the application for subdivision approval was submitted. lots. or reserve/dedicate Ross Street Terrace at that point because he did not own those side of Ross Street Terrace where it intersects with Ross Street. He could not convey (1) The Shorts Addition map shows that McDonald did not own the two lots oneither to the portion of Clayton Street that is a City street" cannot be correct, because: Street Terrace "starting at Ross Street (a City street) and extending all the way up page two of his letter that the 1886 deed from McDonald to Williams dedicated Ross from the deed and maps provided seems to indicate that Mr. Sorensen's assertion on b) Notwithstanding the above, the minimal information I have been able to glean referred to in the deed?) (For example, what/where are the all-important "courses three (3) to nine (9)" 1886 deed, or what was actually conveyed and what was reserved/dedicated at that time. from the deed and maps provided either the metes and bounds description shown in the the 1886 deed is conveying and reserving/dedicating. It is impossible to understand Ross Street Terrace to show Clayton Street or to illustrate what Mr. Sorensen asserts map is nothing but a gray blur. The Shorts Addition map does not extend far enough up a) Only one of the maps provided, the Shorts Addition map, is legible; the other same. Much clarification and additional information is needed here. maps he provided in conjunction with the deed, and Mr. Sorensen’s analysis of the 7. The following comments relate to the 1886 deed provided by Mr. Sorensen, the Page 3 of 4 January 6, 2020 City of San Rafael Associate Planner Caron Jo Parker 8. I see no evidence of a chain of title connecting whatever portion of land McDonald actually did convey and reserve/dedicate in 1886 with the land purchased by the developer in 2014. We know that the three lots the developer purchased in 2014 were owned by McPhee in 1963. But we have no information regarding what land transfers might have occurred in the 75+ years between the 1886 deed (which is at this time unclear) and the creation of the three lots that were owned by McPhee in 1963. Accordingly, any relationship or connection that Mr. Sorensen currently alleges between the land conveyed and reserved/dedicated by the 1886 deed and the lots the purchased by the developer in 2014 is without merit. Unless an appropriate and complete chain of title is provided, the 1886 deed cannot be offered as evidence of the developer’s property ownership and/or property rights. Further to the above, I respectfully request that the City of San Rafael revisit any previously-expressed opinions regarding the developer’s rights pertaining to the proposed Clayton Street project. Sincerely yours, Valerie Lels the granting of an easement." Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798,802. easement for the use of McDonald and Williams. "A dedication is legally equivalent to respectively, and which, on the contrary, tends to indicate the dedication of an first and second part", which refers specifically to McDonald and Williams incorrect and misleading. The 1886 deed actually reads "use of the parties of the his statement that the deed creates "private rights in all lot owners in the area" is (3) Further, Mr. Sorensen's reference to the term "use of the parties" to support created private rights in all lot owners in the area. could have reserved the entirety of Ross Street Terrace for his use or could have be overly-broad, and he does not address by what means or legal authority McDonald right-of-way and private rights in all lot owners in the area" seems at a minimum to the circumstances, Mr. Sorensen's statement that the 1886 deed "creates both a public Terrace" nor "reserved the street for his use", as Mr. Sorensen also contends. Under Sorensen contends. It is also evidence that McDonald neither "created Ross Street that the newly-dedicated roadway did not extend all the way to Ross Street, as Mr. end of the 40 foot Street known as Ross Street Terrace", which is further evidence (2) The 1886 deed states that the newly-dedicated roadway extends to "the north Page 4 of 4 January 6, 2020 City of San Rafael Associate Planner Caron Jo Parker 1 Cc: Victor Kunin Subject: Clayton Street lots Dear Ms. Guidice, I own the property at which borders the Clayton Street lots. I, along with many neighbors, have grave concerns regarding what we believe are significant health and safety issues as well as property rights regarding this development, and there has been much correspondence on these issues from many of us to Caron Parker, who was the Planner in charge of this project until last January, when she retired. Caron did an excellent job of keeping us all informed regarding the status of the project. The last information we had from Caron was that the developer’s plans were incomplete. Over the past few days, surveyors have been seen on the proposed roadway and on the lots themselves, where they have placed stakes that appear to relate to the placement of the houses. It is my understanding that you will now be in charge of this project. I would greatly appreciate it if you would bring us up to date on the status of the project, including: (1) whether the plans are still deemed incomplete; and (2)whether any permits have been issued. Thank you sincerely, Valerie Lels Sent from my iPhone To: Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:46 PM From: Valerie Lels < > < >Patrick Killian < >, Peter Marks<> 1 construct on Ross Street Terrace. This is quite a different issue, and one that must be addressed. My January 6th letter provides ample legal authority for the fact that the owners of the properties bordering Ross Street Terrace also own the property from the abutting property line to the center line of Ross Street Terrace. How is it that the City can issue a permit for a party to construct a retaining wall or anything else on private property that belongs to another party? I, along with the neighbors who will be impacted by the Clayton Street project, believe strongly that this issue, as well as all the other issues raised by my January 6th letter, must be brought to the attention of the City Attorney, and that they must be addressed by the City before this project goes forward. Further to the above, I would ask that you please read the attached letter, and that you please be certain to forward it to the City Attorney at your earliest convenience. Thank you sincerely, Valerie Lels developer’s right to use Ross Street Terrace to access his property. What is disputed, however, is his right to his property. Please note, as expressed in paragraph #1. of my January 6th letter, that no one disputes the example, your July 9, 2020 email confirms that the applicant has the right to use Ross Street Terrace to access I find myself wondering if this letter has ever been read, or if it ever reached the City Attorney. For attaching a copy of my January 6th letter to this email. to the City Attorney, in that it sets forth in detail several significant legal issues relating to this project. I am original of a letter to that I wrote to her dated January 6, 2020. The letter contains a request that it be forwarded Very shortly before Caron left in January, I met with her at the Planning Department and gave her the this project over the past years. with respect to the need for you to sift through the large amount of documentation that has been generated on we all will miss her as well. Please be assured that my neighbors and I will do what we can to ease the burden along with Caron’s retirement, have resulted in overwhelm for you all. Caron was an absolute professional, and situation as well as constraints caused by the COVID-19 situation. I can only imagine that those circumstances, appreciate your timely response, particularly in light of the City being short-staffed due to the its financial proposed development of the Clayton Street lots, and for sending along your incompleteness letter. I very much Thank you so much for responding so quickly to the recent inquiries regarding the current status of the Hi Alicia, Subject: Re: Clayton Street lots To: Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 8:26 PM From: > 950 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 200 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903 WEB www.sorensenlaw.com L A W O F F I C E S O F NEIL SORENSEN TELEPHONE 415 499-8600 FACSIMILE 415 491-9515 EMAIL neil@sorensenlaw.com August 26, 2020 VIA E-MAIL Lisa A. Goldfien Assistant City Attorney City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: ED 19-090 and 19-091 A.P. 12-141-59 and 60 (Friedman) Dear Lisa: As you know, I am the attorney for Coby Friedman, the applicant for the above referenced applications. I write concerning the emails sent by some of the property owners bordering Ross Street Terrace, which allege that Mr. Friedman has no right to construct a new roadway within the Ross Street Terrace right-of-way because the roadway would include grading and retaining walls that may impede access to adjacent lots. As I understand it, the issue is not whether Mr. Friedman has easement rights to use Ross Street Terrace. That issue was covered in my letter to you dated December 12, 2019 and we understand that the neighbors and the city are not questioning the right of access. As you may know, because of the steepness of the slope along the Ross Street Terrace right-of-way and in order to meet the roadway width requirements imposed by the city (including a sidewalk on one side), it is necessary to grade the right-of-way and install retaining walls in certain areas along the proposed roadway. For the following reasons, this work is allowed under the existing easement. I. The Grading and Retaining Wall Work are Necessary Incidents of the Access Easement Appurtenant to the Friedman Property. As discussed more fully in my December 12th letter, the Ross Street Terrace right-of- way was created in 1886 by deed. The deed offered for dedication a public right-of-way over Ross Street Terrace and created private easement rights in favor of the grantor and grantee (in the deed) to use said street. The Friedman property is part of the property owned by James S. McDonald (grantor) and therefore has easement rights over Ross Street Terrace. August 26, 2020 Page 2 California appellate courts have consistently held that the holder of an access easement or right-of-way has the right to make improvements to an easement and make such changes “in the surface of the land as are necessary to make it available for travel in a convenient manner”. Ballard v. Titus (1910) 157 Cal. 673, 681. See also, Herzog v. Grosso (1953) 41 Cal.2d 219, 223, where the Supreme Court recognized the right of an easement holder to construct and maintain a wooden guardrail along a road easement. More specifically, the Court of Appeal in Dolnikov. Ekizian (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 419, held that easement holders have certain secondary easement rights that allow them to undertake necessary improvements in the easement – including constructing retaining walls and grading the easement surface. “As the grading and retaining wall are necessary incidents of, and not inconsistent with, the easement for ingress and egress, they are secondary easements, and so plaintiff was entitled to make the cut and build the wall in furtherance of her rights and her full enjoyment of the easement.” Dolnikov at 430. As noted above, in order to meet the street standards imposed by the city and the fire department, Mr. Friedman must grade the street right-of-way and install retaining walls. However, all work will be done withing the existing 40 foot right of way and will not encroach onto adjacent parcels. II. There is no Evidence that all the Lots Bordering Ross Street Terrace Have Easement Rights to Use It. None of the lots use Ross Street Terrace for Access. The emails sent to the city claim that all the lots bordering Ross Street Terrace have easement rights to use it and that the proposed retaining walls will somehow impede their access. First, there is no evidence that other lot owners along Ross Street Terrace have easement rights to use Ross Street Terrace. The deed referenced above and Mr. Friedman’s policy of title insurance show that the Friedman property has an easement, but no other lot owners have submitted similar title documentation. Until they do, it is pure speculation to claim that they have an easement that will be blocked. Second, even assuming an easement exists, it is our understanding that all the developed lots that border Ross Street Terrace, between Ross Street and the Friedman property, currently have access to their property from other streets, including Ross Street, Woods Street and Marin Street. None of these lots rely on Ross Street Terrace for access. Accordingly, the improvement of Ross Street Terrace will not block their access. August 26, 2020 Page 3 Finally, if there is an issue concerning my client using a private easement in an inappropriate manner or overburdening it, that would seem to be a private issue between easement holders. The city should not insert itself into any such private dispute or take sides. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, NEIL SORENSEN NS/mjs Enclosures cc: Coby Friedman Steve Carter, Architect Associated Constituent Sara Romero C-1302926, added on October 28th, 2020 at 11:24 PM project to pass. A concerned resident, Sara Romero A: LOCATION Inbound form submission from Sara Romero to Contact the City Clerk's Office on October 28th, 2020 at 11:24 PM Thank you for your message. We value your input and strive to respond to any questions or concerns within 2 business days. Thank you, City of San Rafael Automated message sent to Sara Romero via City Clerk on October 28th, 2020 at 11:24 PM Thank you for your feedback. I will forward this on to the project planner. Michele Ginn | City of San Rafael PERMIT SERVICES COORDINATOR Planning Division 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 [Online Zoning Information] (https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/zoning-information/) City of San Rafael Conversation with Sara Romero Locations: None Phone Numbers: None Conversation: play ball safely and as parents we should not have to worry that cars will harm our kids. Please reconsider allowing this more roads to an already populated area especially for the safety of our kids. They should be able to ride their bikes and and our neighborhood is the right location. This area is already very concentrated with housing and it is unsafe to add cars having to park on the street. I understand the concern for more housing in San Rafael but I do not think Ross street children who play on the sidewalks and street. The road is already small and tight as it is due to the lack of parking and children, etc. Ross street and Gerstle Park in general is a family neighborhood with many young families and young mother with 2 young children, my neighbor also has 2 young children, the neighbors across the street has 2 young , right next to where the proposed road for the Friedman Residence Project Parcels is planning to be built. I am a Message: This message is for the Design Review Board of San Rafael. I am a resident who currently resides on Subject: Friedman Residence Project on Ross Street Phone Number: Email Address: xxxxxxx Last Name: Romero First Name: Sara Email Addresses: xxxxxx including but not limited to the adjacent property owners on Ross Street Terrace; the contrary, the 1880 deed (a) establishes easement rights on behalf of the public, held exclusively by Mr. Friedman. These documents constitute no such evidence. On Mr. Friedman’s policy of title insurance somehow constitute evidence of an easement Further to the above, Mr. Sorensen is in error contending that the 1880 deed along with traverse a public street. 1880 deed. It is unlikely that Mr. Friedman’s policy of title insurance covers his right to need it do so, in that Ross Street Terrace/Clayton Street is a public street by virtue of the includes no conveyance of an easement along Ross Street Terrace/Clayton Street, nor Friedman property has an easement…”. However, Mr. Friedman’s 2015 grant deed Mr. Sorensen also states “Mr. Friedman’s policy of title insurance show[s] that the 2. deed. easement rights on Ross Street Terrace and all along the roadway described in the 1880 the owners of properties bordering Ross Street Terrace, as members of the public, have Street Terrace, Buena Vista Street, and Clayton Street for use as a public street. Thus, deed contains a reservation/dedication of a 40’ strip of land the entire length of Ross rights of adjacent Ross Street Terrace property owners that Mr. Sorensen denies. This Sorensen provided along with his December 12, 2019, letter confirms the very easement Terrace have easement rights to use Ross street Terrace”. In fact, the 1880 deed Mr. Mr. Sorensen states “…there is no evidence that other lot owners along Ross Street 1. and misleading, as follows: property owners have easement rights on Ross Street Terrace. These allegations are erroneous will find my comments regarding Mr. Sorensen’s allegations disputing the fact that adjacent Thank you for forwarding Mr. Sorensen’s August 26, 2020 letter to my attention. Below you Dear Ms. Goldfien: Re: Response to August 26, 2020 Letter from Neil Sorensen San Rafael, CA 94901 1400 Fifth Avenue City of San Rafael Assistant City Attorney Lisa Goldfien November 6, 2020 Kentfield, CA 94914 Valerie A. C. Lels, Attorney at Law Lisa Goldfien Assistant City Attorney November 6, 2019 Page two and (b) invalidates Mr. Sorensen’s contention that the adjacent property owners must submit documentation of easement rights on Ross Street Terrace before such claim will constitute anything more than “pure speculation”. No documentation beyond the 1880 deed is needed to substantiate the easement rights of adjacent property owners in Ross Street Terrace. Further, no documentation has been presented to show that Mr. Friedman has easement rights in Ross Street Terrace that are any greater than the easement rights of the public and of other property owners along Ross Street Terrace. 3. In addition, there is ample legal authority supporting the fact that the property owners adjacent to Ross Street Terrace possess private easement rights in Ross Street Terrace over and above the already-described easement rights of the public This legal authority is set forth on page two, paragraph #3, of my January 6, 2020 letter, which has been sent to the City on several occasions. Another copy of my January 6, 2020 letter is attached to the email that accompanies this letter. 4. A written communication from the Planning Department confirms that the City Attorney’s office itself “believes all the abutting property owners have a private right to use Ross Street Terrace.” 5. The fact that the adjacent property owners can access their properties from other streets does not extinguish their easement rights in Ross Street Terrace. Accordingly, easement rights of the public in Ross Street Terrace, as well as the enhanced easement rights of property owners adjacent to Ross Street Terrace, are not in dispute, as Mr. Sorensen alleges, and no further evidence of these easement rights need be presented. Mr. Friedman’s easement rights in Ross Street Terrace are no greater than the easement rights of any other property owners along Ross Street Terrace. Construction on Ross Street Terrace will inevitably block the adjacent property owners’ access and will unlawfully deprive them of their easement rights. Very truly yours, Valerie A. C. Lels Attorney at Law cc: Robert Epstein, City Attorney via email Ross Street Terrace Project Tue 4/20/2021 9:28 AM george presson < > 1/2 Sincerely, George Presson work. neighborhood. Please convey my thoughts to the Design Review Board, and I thank you for your hard In conclusion, this project is a pure money grab that is out of scale and harmony with the living hell.  My residence is within feet of the roadway. The issue of quiet enjoyment.  Months of dirt, noise and construction chaos will make this “in fill” a7. this is a money maker benefiting the few to the detriment of the neighborhood. 6.  This is not a project coveted by cities these days, as close to transit and affordable housing.  Rather, accommodate new construction. the absorption rate.  This has happened all over the state where farmlands have been paved over to 5.  The loss of hillside vegetation would increase the speed of rainwater downhill and dramatically cut movement downhill.  More erosion is a certainty. The hill itself is fragile and our building recently underwent an expensive retrofit to prevent further 4. more. A complex construction project will take more parking spaces and severely constrict the street even 3. worse. 2. Parking spaces on the street will be lost as a result of this project, making the congested street to pull over and await oncoming traffic because of the tight squeeze. on street parking.  A result of several multi unit apartments along the street.  Often, cars are required 1.Ross Street is a narrow street with a great deal of congestion.  The reason is a significant amount of These are my reasons for saying no to the project; few. landscape, for the benefit of two residences?  This will hurt the neighborhood for the benefit of a very thought:  you have got to be kidding me!  A 480 foot drive carved through a pristine county area!  When Mr. Friedman initially tried his “end run” around your department a couple of years back, I the neighborhood.  This project does not harmonize with the natural environment and surrounding project to the two proposed residences.  I have lived in my apartment for 14 years and 20 plus years in I am a 71 year old retiree, living at directly below the proposed elephantine driveway Hello David, To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> 1/3 1 attachments (13 KB) Cc: planning <planning@cityofsanrafael.org>; Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org> To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 4/19/2021 4:02 PM Jessica Yarnall Loarie <> Re: hearing on Ross St Terrace/Clayton Street lots matter Jessica Yarnall Loarie Thanks, to reflect that there is an upcoming hearing for this project. Not everyone will see the sign. I'd request to be added to the current notice list. And I'd also request that the CIty update its website citing neighborhood parking concerns. Street apartment renovation. If memory serves, the Commission downsized the number of 2 BR units parking and traffic. It's also inconsistent with a recent Planning Commission decision on the 147 Ross mentioned this to us so I don't have any specifics. Adding a road to Ross St is a terrible idea for away as part of another deal years ago so adding a road here shouldn't be the first choice. Neighbors I also understand (2nd hand) that any easement or right-of-way from this property to Ross St went alternative given traffic and parking concerns. entirely new road to Ross St. Access from Clayton, not Ross, should most certainly be explored as an The physical distance between the proposed homes and Clayton St is much shorter than building an kids do sometimes hike up the hill there so we have some familiarity with the geography. I will write a more complete set of comments. The project is basically across the street from us and my Thanks for your reply. Outlook-1487714976.png; 1 requirements. proposed non-compliance with the City’s parking, Natural State and Floor Area Ratio lines, the proposed design of the road and the driveway, retaining walls, developer’s approved. We hereby object to, among other things, the proposed adjustment of the property Design Review Board to request a significant modification of the project before it can be trouble, access restrictions and environmental damage. We are asking the city planners and the for a project that will create dangerous conditions for neighbors, legal trouble, maintenance Coby Friedman, the property owner and developer, asks for special exceptions and permissions application for the consideration of the Board. same as presented previously. If it's possible, please attach the following comments to the any changes made in response to our concerns. As a result, our concerns are essentially the We provided feedback for the Application over the last several years. So far I’m not aware of development site. alongside our tenants. This property is located immediately downhill from the proposed 7-unit multi-family property at We live on the property with our 3 children, Thank you for engaging us in discussion about this project. My wife and I are the owners of the Dave, Re: proposed Ross Street Terrace construction San Rafael, CA 94901 From: Victor Kunin Transmitted by email. City of San Rafael Planning Department To: Dave Hogan, First, a statement of legal ownership. Ross Street Terrace belongs to the owners of the abutting properties,as confirmed by California Civil Code sections 831 and 1112. Those sections read: 831.An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown. 1112.A transfer of land,bounded by a highway,passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof,unless a different intent appears from the grant. A different intent does not appear in the grants,and the contrary has not otherwise been shown. Hence abutting property owners own Ross Street Terrace from the abutting property line up to the center of the Ross Street Terrace.As our property abuts Ross Street Terrace,my wife and I own a part of Ross Street Terrace that abuts our property.Any construction,including but not limited to retaining walls on the portion of Ross Street Terrace owned by my wife and me would be without our consent. Second, a brief discussion of some of our concerns. Retaining walls.The plans specify the construction of tall retaining walls on both sides of Ross Street Terrace to support the access road.A portion of these walls is planned to be located just inches away from our property. Here are some of our concerns with those walls. 1)Access.Our property will be cut off from Ross Street Terrace by retaining walls at least 5ft high.The retaining walls will deprive us of the access to the portion of Ross Street Terrace that we legally own,that we have used almost daily for the last 8 years,and that we continue to use.In addition,the walls will block off Ross Street Terrace where it adjoins Clayton Street,depriving us of the access to Clayton Street that we have used for years. This is unacceptable. 2)Fire escape route.Currently,we can use Ross Street Terrace as a secondary escape route in the event a fire or other disaster blocks the main access to our property.The 2 main access to our property is through a 400-foot long private driveway with a single exit to Marin Street.The developer’s proposed retaining walls,as well as proposed closing of Ross Street Terrace where it borders the developer ’s property will create barriers that will block my family and me,as well as my tenants,from using this vital secondary escape route,potentially trapping us all in the event of a fire or other disaster.Please recall the tragic events of the Camp Fire of 2018,where inadequate escape routes were a major factor in the loss of 85 lives.If the existing developer’s plans are approved,it is foreseeable that such a scenario could be repeated in San Rafael. 3)Maintenance.A malfunction of tall retaining walls on the edge of our back yard would unleash huge landslides.The slope towards our house ensures that our property will be directly in the line of the landslides.It is entirely foreseeable that such landslides just feet from my backyard would cause significant property damage and bodily harm.Because of the severe consequences of retaining wall failure,a proper inspection schedule and an agreement addressing maintenance of the walls are of paramount importance.No provision has been made for either one. Maintaining large retaining walls is an expensive undertaking.City planners have made it clear that the City will not take responsibility for the maintenance of these walls.It is important to note that maintenance of and liability for these retaining walls will affect the homeowners who live below the walls to a far greater extent than they will affect the owners of the proposed houses,which are located above the walls.Whereas the collapse of the retaining walls will not directly endanger those living in the proposed new houses,the collapse of the same walls has the potential to cause significant damage to our home and cause bodily harm to my family and my tenants.With no maintenance and liability agreement between ourselves and the future homeowners,this imbalance of the potential impact of the retaining walls’failure will make it easy for the new homeowners to defer,or completely ignore,needed maintenance and repairs,particularly if they are not in a financial position to pay for costly work on hundreds of feet of retaining walls.It is well established that deferred maintenance will hasten the failure of retaining walls. Thus,the burden for maintenance and repair of the walls will fall on the abutting property 3 owners who are most affected by the failing condition of the walls.This is certain to lead to disputes among neighbors and will undoubtedly create a legal nightmare. Mr.Friedman,the developer,has not proposed any solution for the above scenario,and when these issues were raised in his presence they have been completely ignored. Moreover,Mr.Friedman has already demonstrated utter disregard for the neighbors’ safety.On July 6-8th 2020 surveyors hired by Mr.Friedman cut vegetation on Ross Street Terrace and dumped it in heaps on the road,creating a fire hazard.Mr.Friedman stonewalled our repeated requests to clean up,even with fire department and police involvement.Only after the involvement of the city planners several months later did he partially remove the dry vegetation.Almost a year later much of the dumped dry vegetation still remains on the road,presenting fire danger to the neighbors.This incident does not add credibility to Mr Friedman’s claims that maintenance concerns will be promptly addressed. Figure 1.View of the Ross Street Terrace from my house at 211 Marin St.Road bend and a 24 ft cliff are shown. 4)Unclear plans.The Roadway Section page (A 3.3)shows a small gradual hill at the bottom of the proposed retaining walls at our property.It doesn’t show a 24’cliff between the road and our property (see Figure 1).We believe that the representation on the 4 developer’s plans doesn’t accurately reflect the existing conditions,and we are asking for clarification on how the proposed 5’walls will support the 24’cliff.The current plans are unclear,and vague markings on the site make it impossible to visualize how the road will be constructed in relation to the existing terrain.We kindly ask that the plans be deemed incomplete until any and all ambiguities are resolved. 5)Fall hazard.The retaining walls are proposed to get as high as 12’,and are 5’to 8’in the immediate proximity to our property.They present a significant fall hazard in a public right of way,particularly so for small children,potentially endangering my own 3 little children.It is entirely foreseeable that children,adults or the elderly could fall from the proposed retaining walls on the Ross Street Terrace,resulting in severe injury and even loss of life. Fall accidents are common.Here are links to some accidents resulting from falls from retaining walls: 12/12/2017, Employee Falls From Retaining Wall And Injures Head: https://bit.ly/37dbHuX 09/26/2019: A woman injured after falling over a retaining wall: https://bit.ly/2NQlb7I 6)Noise.The natural hill under Ross Street Terrace absorbs noise and contributes to a highly desirable quiet location.Retaining walls will reflect and redistribute noise that is currently muffled by the existing landscape.Nothing in the current plans suggests ways of mitigating the noise that will be exacerbated by the retaining walls. In light of the objections noted above we kindly request that the City not approve construction of retaining walls as they appear on the current plans. Road and driveway hazards. The developer proposes a Lot line adjustment.At present Lot #59 can be accessed via a dedicated area connecting it to the Ross Street Terrace on the northern side of Lot #60.The developer proposes to transfer the Lot #59 access from the northern side of Lot #60 to the southern Lot #60.The proposed newly constructed driveway will be on a 24.3%grade for a 5 distance of approximately 60 feet,pointing directly towards my house.This is in contrast to the existing driveway location which does not point towards any existing structure. A further dangerous condition is the fact that there is a bend on Ross Street Terrace separated from our back yard only by a 24ft cliff.The plans for the road are specified to accommodate a load of 75,000 pounds,i.e.a 53-foot semi-trailer truck.Should a truck of this size roll out of control on the Lot #59 driveway,or should a driver lose control on Ross Street Terrace,the out of control vehicle will have no opportunity to stop before crashing into my backyard and possibly into my house.Nothing in the proposed plans will stop large out of control vehicles.This directly threatens the safety of my wife, three small children,myself and our tenants. Accidents involving out of control vehicles happen for a number of reasons (e.g.,road or weather conditions,mechanical failure,driver’s carelessness/distraction/health or mental condition/inexperience/impairment due to alcohol or other substances,etc.).Such accidents are not uncommon as you can see in the references below.In just a single week we had three such accidents right here in Marin County,two of them on Sep 26th alone.It is entirely foreseeable that an accident such as this could take place as a result of the proposed Lot #59 driveway and/or the proposed path of Ross Street Terrace,resulting in property damage,severe injury and even loss of life to my family and others. Here are some links to relevant accidents: Car plunges 80 feet into Tiburon backyard, Aug 30 2017: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/marin-crash-hurts-teen-brothers-as-car-falls-80-feet-in to-backyard Car going through home in Novato, Sep 26 2017: http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20170829/NEWS/170829768 Car crashing into Mill Valley shopping center, Sep 26 2017: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/26/8-hurt-in-marin-county-wreck-after-truck-hurtles-off-hi ghway-101/ We therefore kindly request that,for the sake of safety,the City reject the developer ’s proposed lot line adjustment,construction of the lot #59 driveway and the road on Ross Street Terrace as they appear on the current plans. 6 Utilities.In the absence of a utilities plan and absence of utilities easement on Ross Street Terrace it’s not clear how the developer proposes to supply the future houses with water,gas and sewer services. We kindly ask the City to request the developer to clarify this issue. Parking.The plans do not provide for the required off-street parking on the subject lots.This is a major problem for Ross Street,which is already overwhelmed with limited parking,and will lose several existing parking spaces if these plans are approved.Moreover,Ross Street will lose several existing parking spaces if those plans are approved,and approving this plan will likely set a precedent for other applications lacking adequate parking.We kindly request that the City not approve the developer's plans until a solution to parking is found. Environment,Floor Area Ratio and Natural State requirements.The current plans are non compliant with the City’s Natural State and Floor Area Ratio requirements.This is out of character with the neighboring properties and ignores the basic reasons for those requirements. The Natural State Exception will contribute to water runoffs,which have the potential to flood neighboring properties,including my own.The proposed removal of large numbers of stately trees,as well as removal of over 2,000 cubic yards of soil will change the neighbourhood,create soil instability,and destroy an important,long-established wildlife corridor.Landfill of over 500 cubic yards will add to destabilization of the soil,making it prone to landslides.We kindly request that the City reject the developer ’s plans where they call for non compliance with the City’s regulations on Floor Area Ratio and Natural State. Construction safety.Excavation of over 2000 cubic yards of soil,bringing in over 500 cubic yards of fill,and construction of massive retaining walls and two houses as specified in the plans will require the use of heavy construction vehicles and equipment.My understanding is that the existing roadway cannot support such heavy equipment.A roadway that does not safely support the heavy-duty equipment required by this project will subject my family,my tenants, and me to the ever-present danger of a construction vehicle falling into my backyard. We understand that the existing dirt road will have to be substantially widened and strengthened before it will be capable of safely supporting the on-going transit of construction vehicles such as bulldozers and dump trucks carrying heavy loads.Such a road will depend upon retaining walls sufficient to support and stabilize it.This presents a "catch-22"situation,in that 1)heavy 7 construction equipment will be required to construct retaining walls sufficient to support and stabilize a roadway that will 2)support the heavy construction equipment required to construct the retaining walls.I respectfully request that the developer address this situation and advise what plans he has to resolve it. Another concern is that the construction of retaining walls requires extensive excavation and the use of heavy metal support beams tens of feet long.A small mistake by the construction crew can send these heavy metal beams flying onto my property and into my home,causing damage and bodily harm.We kindly request that the developer specify the ways they intend to guard against these dangers during construction. In summary,proposed plans create multiple significant health and safety hazards, environmental and legal problems.Such foreseeably dangerous conditions will deprive us of peace of mind and the quiet enjoyment of our property.Therefore,we respectfully request that,per §14.23.070(D)of the San Rafael Code of Ordinances,the City not approve the plans to the extent that they call for these conditions. Sincerely yours, Victor Kunin.April 26 2021. 8 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject:Opposition I am in opposition to the 2-house project at 33 and 41 Clayton Street, San Rafael . Thank you, Jamey Sent from my iPhone Dave Hogan Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:13 PM Jamey Chan < > 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject: NO THANK YOU - 2-house project at 33 and 41 Clayton Street, San Rafael Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:08 AMDave Hogan Jason Chan < > Jason Thanks, they want this project to exist than they need build access off Clayton St (since these are Clayton St houses) NOT Ross St. Adding a new road off Ross for this project will only make matters worse due to the overcrowding that already exists. If pollution, environment, and wildlife that inhabits this area. and the street is barely wide enough for two cars to pass anyways (its a joke). In addition, I have concerns about the light possible to drive down Ross uninterrupted without running into a car double parked, delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc street for close to ten years and Ross Street is already highly congested and a nightmare to drive down. Its virtually I’m writing in opposition to the proposed 2-house project and a new road being built off Ross St. I've lived on Woods Hi Dave, 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject:Opposition to 2-house project at 33 and 41 Clayton Dave Hogan Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:15 PM Donna Pierce < > San Rafael Donna J Pierce Best regards, Please do not approve this plan. space. unreasonably steep access for emergency vehicles and create additional noise, parking and loss of undeveloped open not add additional traffic on an already very busy street on Ross. In addition it would create an unnecessary and considered for a 2-house project at 33 and 44 Clayton. The current Clayton St could be extended for this purpose and I am writing to you as a homeowner off Ross St in San Rafael and am extremely opposed to the private road being Dear Mr. Hogan; 1 Dave Hogan From:MARK STRAUSS < Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2021 2:12 PM To:Dave Hogan Subject:Clayton and Ross Street project Dear Mr. Hogan, I want to voice my opposition to the project of widening the street I am adding additional units above Clayton St.. There is a very difficult Parking Problem as well as lots of bike traffic now that Clayton St. is designated an official bike path. In addition, I’ve always liked the woods above my house as I see birds and wildlife up there. I’ve been a resident here at 2 Weld St. on the corner of Clayton and Welch for the past 31 years. And I have seen the neighborhood get more and more congested. After consulting with my neighbors at four Welch one Welch and others on Clayton St. we all feel this would be a big mistake. Thank you for considering our opposition. Sincerely, Mark Strauss SanRafael CA 94901 Mr. Dave Hogan April 29, 2021 City of San Rafael Project Manager 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA Dave.hogan@cityofsanrafael.org. Re: Two-house project at 33 and 41 Clayton Street, San Rafael Good Day Dave, We are the current owners of the which is adjacent to the to the entire southern boundary of the 41 Clayton Street parcel and portion of the western boundary of Ross Terrace Road. The 62 Woods Street property has been owned by our family for over 50 years. We currently have two tenants residing at 62 Woods Street who also support our opposition. We are opposed to the proposed two-house project based on the inadequate emergency vehicle access, negative environmental impacts without adequate mitigation, loss of access to Ross Terrace and Clayton Road from our property and the other properties adjacent to Ross Terrace and Clayton Road, and our potential liabilities associated with construction and maintenance of the private driveway. The 25% grade from Ross Street to proposed new Ross Terrace is unrealistically steep. Therefor, emergency vehicles will not have adequate access to the 33 and 41 Clayton Street properties. Emergency vehicles do not currently have access to the 33 and 41 Clayton Street properties. The fire risk to structures on adjacent properties from fires originating from the 33 and 41 Clayton Street properties is significant. There should not be any activities that could start fires on the 33 and 41 Clayton Street properties until emergency vehicles have adequate access to those properties. The proposed exceptions to the required lot sizes and maximum building heights should not be allowed. The proposed structures allowed by these exceptions negatively affect the views from our property and the property west of the project and the available light to the property west of the project. The project also fails to adequate mitigate the loss of parking on Ross Street and increased noise due to additional automobile and truck traffic. All of Ross Terrace and the portion of Clayton Road fronting the 33 and 41 Clayton Road properties will be converted to a private drive way. Clayton road is a City of San Rafael street and the owner of the 33 and 41 Clayton Road properties does not own Ross Terrace. The owner of the 33 and 41 Clayton Road properties should not be allowed to convert to portion of a City of San Rafael Street and unowned property to a private driveway. The blocking of Clayton Road at the northern boundary of the 33 Clayton Road property and the retaining walls as tall as 14’ on both sides of the private driveway prevents the adjacent residents from accessing an historical pedestrian and vehicular route to downtown San Rafael. The residents of 62 Woods street have used Ross Street Terrace – Clayton Road to access downtown for over 50 years. The extensive excavation and grading required for construction of the private driveway and associated retaining walls has a probability of creating slope stability issues on our property and the other properties adjacent to the private driveway. Any project approvals should be withheld until an adequate geotechnical analysis is conducted and confirms there will not be any slope stability issues that affect adjacent properties. The responsibility for the maintenance and policing of the private driveway and retaining walls are extremely important. Improper maintenance of the private driveway and retaining walls will adversely affect the adjacent property owners. There should be an adequate maintenance and policing plan securely funded by the owners of 33 and 41 Clayton Road, in perpetuity, that releases the adjacent property owners from any liabilities associated with construction, maintenance, and policing of the private driveway the project should not be approved. Respectively Submitted, Lori Stickel Ronald Stickel 2 1 Dave Hogan From:Peter Marks (Peter R. Marks) < Sent:Thursday, April 29, 2021 8:17 PM To:Dave Hogan Subject:Project 33/41 Ross Street Terrace ** Statement of Opposition ** Attachments:Letter to Dave Hogan April 29 2021.pdf ** Kindly Acknowledge Receipt ** April 29, 2021 Dear Mr. Hogan, I’m writing you IN OPPOSITION to project 33/41 Ross Street Terrace and the proposed access via Ross Street. I oppose this project’s access via Ross Street for the following main reasons, among others. 1. Access via Ross Street will have a major impact over 45 residents both short-term and long-term (when the proposed road is completed). Access via the existing Clayton Street road will only impact 5 residents in the short-term, and none in the long-term, while improving access to their properties. Please see attached diagram. 2. Access via Ross Street has a substantially greater environmental impact. The deeded Clayton Street access to these lots will only require an estimated 150’ of new pavement along an existing graded roadway. The existing road would need to be widened and improved which would benefit the current residents on Clayton. Access from Ross Street to these lots will require 480’ of entirely new roadway, removing existing greenspace that has been enjoyed by both wildlife and residents, and generating unnecessary hard-scape, light and noise pollution for all adjoining residents. This is an environmental blunder. 3. Access via Ross Street will hinder existing fire escape routes and access to town for current residents along Ross Terrace, while doing nothing to enhance fire protection (other than undergrounding utilities which should be required irrespective of access route). Access to these lots via Clayton will improve fire safety, access and existing drainage issues for all residents on upper Clayton. 4. Mr. Friedman has told property owners along Ross Terrace that he doesn’t prefer one access option over the other. The City, DPW and Fire Department should work with Friedman Residential to find:  A solution that protects the vast majority of residents who would be impacted,  A solution that improves an existing street, and  A solution that enhances fire protection for residents. This is access via Clayton Street. Respectfully, 2 San Rafael, CA (property boarders Ross Terrace) Peter R. Marks April 29, 2021 Dear Mr. Hogan, I’m writing you IN OPPOSITION to project 33/41 Ross Street Terrace and the proposed access via Ross Street. I oppose this project’s access via Ross Street for the following main reasons, among others. 1. Access via Ross Street will have a major impact over 45 residents both short-term and long- term (when the proposed road is completed). Access via the existing Clayton Street road will only impact 5 residents in the short-term, and none in the long-term, while improving access to their properties. Please see attached diagram. 2. Access via Ross Street has a substantially greater environmental impact. The deeded Clayton Street access to these lots will only require an estimated 150’ of new pavement along an existing graded roadway. The existing road would need to be widened and improved which would benefit the current residents on Clayton. Access from Ross Street to these lots will require 480’ of entirely new roadway, removing existing greenspace that has been enjoyed by both wildlife and residents, and generating unnecessary hard-scape, light and noise pollution for all adjoining residents. This is an environmental blunder. 3. Access via Ross Street will hinder existing fire escape routes and access to town for current residents along Ross Terrace, while doing nothing to enhance fire protection (other than undergrounding utilities which should be required irrespective of access route). Access to these lots via Clayton will improve fire safety, access and existing drainage issues for all residents on upper Clayton. 4. Mr. Friedman has told property owners along Ross Terrace that he doesn’t prefer one access option over the other. The City, DPW and Fire Department should work with Friedman Residential to find: • A solution that protects the vast majority of residents who would be impacted, • A solution that improves an existing street, and • A solution that enhances fire protection for residents. This is access via Clayton Street. Respectfully, Peter R. Marks (property boarders Ross Terrace) San Rafael, CA Residents Impacted by Access Route (Ross St. vs. Clayton St.) Valerie A. C. Lels Attorney at Law Post Office Box 812 Kentfield, CA 94914 April 29, 2021 Sent via email attachment Mr. David Hogan Planning Department City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 33/41 Ross Street Terrace (Friedman Residential) Objections to be submitted to Design Review Board prior to 5/4/2021 7:00pm meeting Dear Mr. Hogan: By way of background, Coby Friedman, owner of the referenced property and developer of this project, proposes to construct two single family dwellings: one on Lot #59 and one on Lot#60 with access from Clayton Street/Ross Street Terrace, as shown on the plans he has submitted to the City of San Rafael. I own the property known as in Gerstle Park, which borders on Lot #59. I am writing to you to register my strong objections to this project, and I respectfully request that you forward this correspondence to the Design Review Board prior to the May 4, 2021 public meeting to be held at 7:00pm. My objections concern the variances/exceptions required by the plans currently submitted by this developer, as follows: Natural State. The most recent set of plans that I have show s the Natural State calculations on Page A0.1. Lot #59 - The Natural State requirement is 3610 square feet (5851 square foot lot with a 36.7% slope); however, the proposed plans allow for only 1950 square feet of Natural State, which is only 54% of the Natural State requirement. This would result in the loss of 1660 square feet of required Natural State Lot #60 - .The Natural State requirement is 3283 square feet (5028 square foot lot with a 40.3% slope); however the proposed plans allow for only 1730 square feet of Natural State, which is only 52.7% of the Natural State requirement. This would result in the loss of 1553 square feet of required Natural State. Mr. David Hogan Planning Department, City of San Rafael April 29, 2021 Page 2 Further to the above, the developer's proposed plans for this construction project would result in a loss of approximately 3200 total square feet of required Natural State. Maintaining the required Natural State not only prevents over-building and preserves the beauty of unspoiled landscape, it also ensures absorption of precipitation, which, along with undisturbed established vegetation, stabilizes the soil and helps protect against erosion. In addition, Natural State provides vital food, shelter and nesting for an abundance of wildlife, including many species of animals, local and migratory birds, and pollenating insects, all of which help keep our ecosystem in balance. For the above reasons, I respectfully request that the proposed variance/exception with respect to required Natural State be denied. Off Street Parking. According to Table 14.18.040 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, single-family residential hillside properties located on streets less than 26 feet wide, shall provide a minimum of two additional on-site parking spaces per unit (not to be located on the driveway apron). The developer is requesting a variance/exception to this requirement, and his plans propose the widening of Clayton Street/Ross Street Terrace to 26 feet. However, even a cursory on -site inspection of the existing narrow, undeveloped roadway leads one to question whether this can be accomplished without invading the private residential properties located along the roadway. Thus, for good reason, both the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission have been clear with the developer that they recommend the two required guest parking spaces be located on the project site. To my knowledge, this recommendation has not been incorporated into the plans. On a practical level, it seems unlikely that this can be accomplished, in that the lots, which are significantly sub-standard in size, are already over-burdened with construction to the extent that the Natural State requirements cannot even be met and are approximately only half of what is required. Further to the above, I respectfully request that, until and unless the developer can stake out the proposed roadway and demonstrate that it can indeed be widened to 26 feet, any proposed on-street guest parking be denied. Development of sub-standard size lots. The developer proposes construction of two single family dwellings on two lots that are far too small to accommodate the extensive driveway paving and multiple retaining walls that Mr. David Hogan Planning Department, City of San Rafael April 29, 2021 Page 3 he incorporates into his design. This is due to the extremely difficult site he has chosen for his project. Lot #59, at 5851 square feet, is 1,649 feet smaller than the 7500 square foot lot required for R7.5 zoning; Lot #60 at 5028 is 2472 smaller than required. The proposed construction on lots of this sub-standard size is what gives rise to the request for variances/exceptions as to Natural state and on-site guest parking requirements. If these two lots are developed as proposed, it would result in over-building, compromising and seriously altering the character of the neighborhood. It should be noted that on January 10, 2020 the developer was informed in writing by the Planning Department that the 2004 Certificate of Compliance does not ensure that the parcels he purchased are buildable parcels, nor does it entitle him as the parcel owner to a construction permit or other permits. It merely verifies that the three lots created by the 1963 three-lot split are legal lots of record. The developer was further reminded that to obtain a construction permit or other land use approval for the parcels he must complete the appropriate application process and meet all existing regulations. In that the developer is unable to meet all existing regulations for the proposed construction on Lot #59 and Lot#60, construction on those lots should be denied based on the sub-standard size of the lots alone. Having said that, I would like to suggest that a potential way to resolve this situation would be for the developer to construct one residential dwelling on a double lot. That approach would provide a building site of almost 11,000 square feet, which would allow for construction of a residence of substantial size, would enable compliance with the City’s Natural State requirements, and would allow for two on-site guest parking spaces. It would also provide more flexibility with driveway location as well as the approach to the residence on this extremely difficult site. With sincere thanks for your attention to the above, I remain, Very truly yours, Valerie A. C. Lels Attorney at Law cc: Raffi Boloyan, City of San Rafael Alicia Giudice, City of San Rafael 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject: Opposition to Clayton Street project Dave Hogan Friday, April 30, 2021 11:31 AM Prem Byrne < > San rafael Jonathan Steel Best Regards, I will be attending the town meeting on this issue. Thank you for taking the time to read my opposition. access to the project via Clayton Street. Leaves the end of Clayton Street with existing inadequate emergency vehicle access that can be improved by providing Loss of emergency fire access to residents because new large retaining walls block access. Loss of public pathway to downtown used by the entire neighborhood. Loss of undeveloped open space. Noise impacts from increased vehicles, particularly on the 25% grade section. Light impacts from vehicles entering and existing new proposed 500 foot private driveway. Leads to loss of parking on Ross Street. Terrace. It creates unreasonable steep access for emergency vehicles with 25% grade from Ross Street to proposed new Ross Major excavation creates retaining walls as tall as 14 feet high. Clayton Street project should be served by Clayton Street, not Ross Street. It creates an unnecessary new road through the middle of an existing neighborhood. I live at and am strongly opposed to the Clayton Street project because: Dear David, Rifkind Law Group 1010 B Street, Suite 200, San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 785-7988 * www.rifkindlawgroup.com Leonard A. Rifkind len@rifkindlawgroup.com 1 April 30, 2021 VIA EMAIL: dave.hogan@cityofsanrafael.org; Alicia.giudice@cityofsanrafael.org City of San Rafael Design Review Board Re: Conceptual Design Review 33 and 41 Clayton Street Dear Design Review Board Members: Our firm represents Robert and Emily Foehr, 122 Ross Street (25 units), Michelle and Patrick Killian, 209 Marin Street, Peter and Leslie Marks, 60 Woods, Kurt Scheidt, 137 Ross Street, and Ronald and Lori Stickel, 62 Woods, all of whom oppose the proposed access for the referenced project via a new to be constructed private street some 500 feet in length to be named “Ross Terrace.” Our clients oppose the proposed Ross Terrace access for several reasons: 1. 45 Units Impacted by Ross Terrace Access Compared to 5 Units on Clayton Street. Ross Terrace will be massively disruptive to 45 housing units. Building a new 20-foot wide, 500-foot road with retaining walls up to 14-feet high is an anathema to the neighborhood, replacing green space that provides public pedestrian access towards downtown and an alternative emergency egress. 2. Clayton Street Needs Improved Emergency Vehicle Access. Improving existing Clayton Street will enhance existing poor emergency vehicle access. 3. Ross Terrace Access Will Require Retaining Walls 14 Fee High. Ross Terrace will require retaining walls collectively equal to 14 feet in height in some locations. Such walls will be unsightly, massive and block access to adjoining property owners that have prescriptive rights on undeveloped Ross Terrace. 4. Ross Terrace Access Has Excessive Grade. Ross Terrace as designed calls for an initial 25% grade, and will cause a standard fire truck to bottom out/scrape its undercarriage on the transition from Ross Street to Ross Terrace. A 25% grade for a fire truck and other emergency vehicles is objectively unreasonable. The only way to reduce the grade is to increase grading resulting in even higher retaining walls. 5. Loss of Existing Public Access. Developing Ross Terrace will cut off public access to Clayton Street that has been used by the public for over a hundred years as access towards downtown. 2 6. Loss of Alternative Emergency Escape. Developing Ross Terrace with massive retaining walls will cut off alternative public emergency egress, e.g., a fire escape route for the 45 units affected. 7. Loss of Parking Spaces on Ross Street. Developing Ross Terrace will cause the loss of at least four (4) valuable parking spaces on overparked Ross Street. 8. Light, Noise and Traffic Impacts to Residents. Developing Ross Terrace will create headlight impacts on Ross Street housing facing the new driveway. Additionally, because of the excessively steep grade vehicles will have to go into low gear and generate significant engineer noise affecting 45 housing units. The hidden nature of the new roadway, with its massive retaining walls, is an invitation to criminal activity. 9. Drainage Impacts. A Ross Terrace access will increase the amount of surface waters draining towards Clayton Street. 10. Utility Impacts. A Ross Terrace access will adversely affect existing utilities for several adjacent units that have been in place decades. 11. Loss of Green Space and Wildlife Habitat. Developing Ross Terrace eliminates a public social trail in place for over 100 years, and eliminates green space. 12. Developer Does Not Have Preference on the Access Route. The developer does not care which access, Ross Terrace or Clayton, only that he is approved to construct his two-unit project. The majority of the neighborhood deeply cares and is strongly opposed to constructing a new 500-foot roadway through the middle of the neighborhood. Even the developer believed Clayton Street was the correct access for the project, having directed his engineer, ILS and Associates to prepare engineering plans for Clayton access in 2016, and again in 2019. 13. Maintenance. Imposing the maintenance of 500-foot private road and adjacent retaining walls on the proposed two new homes invites the likelihood of abdication by future homeowners of the two-unit project, leaving the surrounding neighbors with a concrete eyesore. A shorter 150-foot private access route from Clayton is more feasible. There are several provisions of the City’s design review ordinance that require the Board to recommend that the project does NOT receive conceptual design review approval: No Balance Between the Project and the Natural Environment. The Board cannot support or recommend conceptual design review approval for this project with a Ross Terrace access. The very purpose of design review fails: “first and foremost, maintain a proper balance between development and the natural environment.” SRMC Sec. 3 14.25.010. A Ross Terrace access obliterates the natural environment. The project access creates a Caltrans level infrastructure in a small residential neighborhood. Project Access on Ross Terrace Fails to Comply with Design Review Requirements in Multiple Respects: • The proposed Ross Terrace access fails to “display sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting.” SRMC Sec. 14.25.050C(1). • The proposed Ross Terrace access fails to minimize grading, retain more of the project site in its natural state, minimize visual impacts . . . and with sensitivity to nearby structures. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050C(2). • The proposed Ross Terrace access maximizes grading. Site design requires a project to minimize grading and removal of natural vegetation. Highly visible hillsides and wildlife habitat should be preserved and respected. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050E(2). • The project solution for access by creation of a new 500-foot road bounded by massive retaining walls fails the fails the “good” circulation test. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050E(3) • Ross Terrace access fails to preserve the natural landscape in its natural state as much as practical and should be rejected in favor of the shorter less intrusive Clayton Street access. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050G. • Construction impacts will be increased with a Ross Terrace access and cause substantial disruption to 45 households. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050H. We anticipate that the developer will claim the Clayton access is not viable because the Fire Department does not support it and it requires acquisition of private property for right of way purposes. Given the incredible impacts that will occur with a Ross Terrace access, we respectfully request the Board direct staff, including the Fire Department, to explore every opportunity to enhance fire safety access on Clayton Street, which is demonstrably deficient, before allowing a new freeway level of improvement on Ross Terrace. Respectfully submitted, RIFKIND LAW GROUP By:__________________________ Len Rifkind 5/3/2021 Mail - Dave Hogan - Outlook 1/1 1 attachments (131 KB) neighbors_letter.pdf; Dave, Our neighbors and tenants signed the attached letter of opposition to this project. I apologize for sending it this late, and I hope it's not too late. Please let me know if it can be attached to the report. Victor. To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 5/3/2021 10:40 AM Victor Kunin <> neighbors letter of oposition 5/3/2021 Mail - Dave Hogan - Outlook 1/1   Mon 5/3/2021 10:37 AM Wilfried <> 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Project Wilfried Kruse Kind regards, recommendations for the proposed project. Review Board can incorporate this topic into their reviewof and Ross Street Terrace for a future expansion. I would appreciateif the Design about an approach that would require agreement of the owners at 33/41 extended in the future with reasonable effort. I am especially concerned not "orphan" my undeveloped lot and allow for the access roadto be that any approved proposal to provide street access for lots 59& 60 will the third undeveloped lot I would like torequest My name is Wilfried Kruse. I live at __ Clayton Street, and am the ownerof Terrace (formerly referred to as Clayton Street lots 59 & 60). this note is in regards to the proposed development at 33/41 Ross Street Hello David, To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> 5/4/2021 1/2 REALTOR Sandi Luna -- Please please don't remove it. The current use of the public walkway to downtown is a charming feature of any historic area. hundreds of years.  This undeveloped land in our neighborhood is precious and must be preserved. I'm not writing here to preserve a house, I'm writing to keep green space where it is and has been for As you may know, Gerstle Park goes back to the building of our town before the Gold Rush. households. There is no reason to pave over 4,800'+++ of wild lands servicing wildlife to make way for two This new development, if approved, should access through Clayton St. to park and it's difficult for two cars to get through if going opposite directions. If you've been to the site you know Ross is already a very narrow road with tons of cars and nowhere I am also a realtor, much in favor of new housing but not this project. I am a resident of Gerstle Park. Hello Mr Hogan, To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 5/3/2021 3:45 PM Sandra Luna Corcoran Global Living < > Opposed to the Ross Terrace lots #59 and #60 project This email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately and delete this copy from your system. an attempt to steal your money. Coordinate all wire transfers via phone conversation with your escrow officer. WIRE FRAUD WARNING: Do not respond to ANY wire instructions that appear to be from me or anyone at Corcoran Global Living. They are likely to be 5/4/2021 1 attachments (14 KB) Lindsay Lara 5.3.21.docx;   To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 5/3/2021 4:19 PM Sandy Baker < > Fw: Objection to 33/41 Ross Street Terrace www.mamabakes.org Sandy Baker, MBA Many thanks. Sandy Baker Lara to put us on the Agenda). we can do...besides attend and speak up at tomorrow night's meeting (I've already asked Lindsay think it's a horrible plan. Please see my attached letter, and let me know if there is anything else project. My husband and I have become much more engaged and educated about it and we really Hello again Mr. Hogan - I spoke with you last Tuesday voicing my "vehement objection" to this Subject: Objecon to 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Cc: billb@xxxxxxx To: davehogan@cityofsanrafael.org <davehogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 4:08 PM From: Sandy Baker May 3, 2021 Lindsay Lara, SR City Clerk Cc: Planning Commission (please make sure this letter is forwarded to all members prior to the meeting). RE: Planning Commission Meeting – Tuesday May 4, 2021 7:00 pm Discussion about Agenda Item, entitled 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Bill Baker, General Building Contractor Sandy Baker, MBA Sincerely, Sandy and Bill Baker Please, rightly, reject this project! issues throughout the neighborhood. Fire issues for our neighborhood. It has also already resulted in very divisive “Access” We believe that allowing this project to move forward would result in serious Safety and surrounding homes/streets. homes in question. This violates regulations/building codes, and creates safety issues for We understand the developer is requesting unreasonable exemptions to build the two property is not buildable. proposed building sites do not have sufficient lot size to build compliant homes. The is above the proposed property. We have walked this property multiple times. The My husband (a building contractor) and I live in the Gerstle Park neighborhood; our home same. The density of surrounding neighborhoods has not changed. is again under consideration. Nothing has changed. The land demographic remains the that the parcels he’d purchased are buildable parcels”. We do not understand why this advised the lot owner that the “Certification of Compliance” he received did NOT ensure rejected numerous times, beginning back in 2014. In 2019, the Planning Department Terrace, which is physically located at the top end of Clayton Street. This project has been This letter is in Strong Opposition to the development project proposed at 33/41 Ross Vista Dear Ms. Lara – 5/4/2021 Mail - Dave Hogan - Outlook 1/2 dave.hogan@cityofsanrafael.org alicia.giudice@cityofsanrafael.org Raffi.Boloyan@cityofsanrafael.org beauful neighborhood 14 feet high, all visible when driving down Ross St. and making an unsightly look in our old and Access from Ross St would require major excavaon which would create retaining walls as tall as neighborhood, whereas Clayton Street has existed for many years. · Access from Ross St. creates an unnecessary new road through the middle of an exisng least 3 to 4 essenal parking spaces. There is never enough parking on Ross St. right now. An entrance off Ross St. would remove at · The Gerstle Park neighborhood is already ght on street parking, but Ross St. is the worst. emergency. know that is the only way to gain access? They would lose valuable me responding to an down Bayview, right on Clark, then east on Ross St. What happens if the drivers do not angle of the turn would be too ght. They would instead have to drive around the block o The trucks would not be able to access this entrance going west on Ross St. for the o The road would be very steep coming off Ross St. are present with the Ross Terrace entrance. Even though Clayton has a steep road and a sharp curve to deal with much of the same issues · There has been much discussion about the fire trucks accessibility to the new development. dismissed. There are so many issues when considering the Ross Terrace access and they should not be maer what direcon is chosen. the access to this development is to go. It really is up to Coby Friedman to work out the hurdles no This weighing of the pros and cons has got to be the determining factor in the decision of which way challenges and would affect far more people and really the whole neighborhood. required to make the Clayton access viable. The fire road called Ross Terrace has at least as many St. This contractual spulaon seems to have been set aside simply because of some of the challenges The property bought by Coby Friedman stated in its documents that the access was to be via Clayton reason. neighbors feel that much of that prisne quality we have enjoyed is being threatened for no good Now that there is a potenal development of the fire road directly behind our house, we and our backs up to the “fire road” which the city is calling Ross Terrace. the quiet and natural seng that we have been lucky enough to have lived in all these years. Our house My wife Michele and I have lived at for around 25 years. We have parcularly enjoyed Dear Dave, Alicia, and Raffi To: <Raffi.Boloyan@cityofsanrafael.org> To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org>; Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org>; Raffi Boloyan Mon 5/3/2021 4:40 PM Patrick Killian < > Ross Terrace issues 5/4/2021 2/2 Emergency vehicles would have to navigate a very steep 25% grade from Ross Street to proposed new Ross Terrace. The retaining walls would also prevent emergency egress for residents. The impacts from vehicle headlights entering and exing a new proposed 450-plus foot private driveway would disturb many of the neighbors on Ross St. as well as the properes that border Ross Terrace. There would be impacts from noise, light & exhaust from delivery vehicles, garbage and cars that would affect many more people than the Clayton St access. Not only are there single-family homes bordering the Ross Terrace road, but one 4-plex, one very large apartment complex with over 20 units, and one 6-unit apartment building. The proposed road would come within feet of many of those who live in the large apartment building. Therefore, if you weigh the impact on the local residents there is no queson that developing Ross St Terrace would affect far more people detrimentally. This undeveloped open space, the “fire road” called Ross Terrace has served as a wildlife corridor as well as a public pathway to downtown used by the enre neighborhood. That is one major reason Hugo Landecker was so vehemently opposed to this road being developed during his lifeme. Therefore, one major queson to ponder is how this development is going to affect the character, quality, and even property value of the highly sought Gerstle Park neighborhood. It also leaves the end of Clayton Street with exisng inadequate emergency vehicle access that can be improved by providing access to the project via Clayton Street. One of the issues that has not been addressed is the maintenance of the proposed new Ross Terrace road. To assume that the owners of the new properes are going to be liable and maintain a 400 plus foot road is untenable and absurd. That is not acceptable to all the homeowners adjacent to the road. Please take the wishes of the local residents, and the wildlife corridor in our very special neighborhood into account when determining the access to this new development. Thank you, Patrick and Michele Killian 5/4/2021 1/2                           … driveway is to be taken by this plan. We do not understand how the city will approve a plan for steepness of the sharp turn at the top of the existing Clayton street. A large portion of our properties to install retaining walls, widen the road, and modify the turning radius and this upper portion of Clayton St that involve accessing and usurping portions of multiple Page 26 of the building plans posted on the San Rafael website shows plans for modifications to of emergency. by its interference with emergency services access, and/or our ability to exit the vicinity in event profound inconvenience to our daily lives, but also impose a persistent health and safety threat section of the street that this construction project will likely create would at very least cause a There are six residences on this slope. The imposition of ongoing periods of closure to this parking available. It is a dead end street, our sole means of accessing or exiting our residences. The upper portion of Clayton St where we live is a one lane street with virtually no street access to the residence entry imposed by construction traffic and obstructive parking of vehicles impeding proper and safe our upper duplex apartment (56B). We cannot tolerate any unsafe conditions likely to be This unimproved section of roadway serves as sole and primary entry access for the residents of historically beset the general area. probable future soils migration and deleterious moisture drainage conditions that have not yet been filed. We need and expect to review such documentation as it concerns past and been informed that an independent environmental impact report for the proposed project has adjacent to our 56 Clayton St address as result of our personal efforts to make it so. We have road cut has suffered landslides and significant erosion over the years, and is only drivable provided any maintenance or exercised authority over conditions on this unimproved road. This here for over 40 years, we can attest that the city, nor anyone other than ourselves, has ever not a publicly maintained roadway and the City does not control the use of the road. Having lived We have recently been informed by City Planner Alice Guidice that this unimproved roadway is private use? What is the process by which the city permits conversion of dedicated public use property to for future maintenance and liabilities associated with these proposed roadway improvements? intend to perform these roadway improvements, or will the contractor? Who will be responsible home owners, was originally declared as an easement dedicated to public use. Does the city for the purpose of executing this building project and for the future daily use of the eventual According to the original deed, the Ross Terrace road cut that has been slated for improvement building project on lots 59 & 60 on Ross St Terrace. We write to express our serious concerns about the wisdom and viability of the proposed Dear Design Review Board, Ross St Terrace Proposed Project To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org>; alicia.guidice@cityofsanrafael.org <alicia.guidice@cityofsanrafael.org> Tue 5/4/2021 11:03 AM David Campbell < > 33/41 Ross St Terrace Proposed Project 5/4/2021 2/2               San Rafael Jeanne and David Campbell share our perspective in detail.Thank you for your kind attention, challenges of this proposed development. We would gladly meet with any such persons to cannot provide adequate basis for making informed decisions concerning the many, many site and witness the conditions here at play. Merely looking at a set of plans does not and We strongly urge any and all individuals involved in decisions concerning this project to visit the general, and inevitably for the City of San Rafael. monstrous headache for our immediate neighborhood, for the Gerstle Park neighborhood in We strongly oppose the approval of this building project. It seems quite certain to cause a to allow such transgression. As I understand, none of these properties has granted such permission, and no one is inclined a private developer to use properties he does not own to achieve his proposed project goals. … 5/4/2021 1/1 Clayton Street Susan Miltner and Marco Berti Sincerely, Thank you for consideration of our concerns. . We are right on the road. I am fearful for our animals and us.9 the level of work involved on building a road and continuing road traffic. . I am concerned for the ability of the house directly above us and for our house to sustain8 sense. park two blocks away. Taking away private parking from a residence does not make the street. Parking is highly impacted on Clayton Street. It is not uncommon to have to . A parking space will be taken away from our property and be created for pubic use across7 taking away any property will impact us negatively. . Property will be taken away from us to make the street larger. We have a very tiny lot and6 more than 10 feet high. . With the street being raised, the retaining walls on our property at the backyard will be5 below the street. We will no longer be able to look out the windows. . In addition, the proposal is to put a 6 foot retaining wall right next to our house. We will be4 feet away from our house, the length of our house. . The proposal is to put a guard rail about 2 feet away from our house. A metal guard rail 23 below street level. How will we access 53 Clayton Street? . The access to 53 Clayton Street would no longer be at grade level, but would be six feet2 This is our entryway and part of our property. . The stairs to 51 Clayton Street will have to be taken down to provide for a widened street.1 devastating and have long term impact on us. From the drawings presented, the impact to our property specifically (51-53 Clayton) will be lots to understand more fully the impact that this project will have on us and our neighbors. We kindly request that the Design Review Board walk along Clayton Street up to the proposed the top and they would not pave the road further to the existing two homes further up the way. When Clayton Street was being repaved, we were told by the city that Clayton Street ended at provides a better access to 33/41 Ross Street Terrace. We also are writing this letter in response to the suggestion by some that Clayton Street the natural state requirements. a hillside area. Are these buildable lots? Of great concern to us is that the properties to meet We would like to express our concern as to the building of two large homes on two small lots in Dear San Rafael Design Review Board, To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 5/3/2021 10:32 PM Susan Miltner < > 33/41 Ross Street Terrace … 5/4/2021 1/1 Rd.San Rafael, CA 94901 Amy and Joe Likover Yours truly, neighborhood. Mr. Friedman's proposal puts the entire neighborhood at risk. responsibility to comply, as we did when we built our home. We are safer for it, and so is our agreement with the City's 2019 estimation.Property owners who build on a hillside lot have a Certificate of Compliance does not ensure the parcels he purchased are buildable. We are in as described in the December 6, 2019 correspondence to the applicant, Mr. Coby Friedman, the lots, is so far out of compliance that the City must reject it as unbuildable. In the City's estimation hazard.There are some lots that are simply unbuildable as proposed, and this proposal on these street due to the topography; any blockage from guest parking is an evacuation and fire safety and 2 guest parking spaces (not in the driveway). The proposed Ross Street Terrace is a narrow maintained.The second exception requests an exemption from the City's requirement for 2 covered rationale for this regulation on hillside lots, they are best practices, and this requirement must be exemptions.The first exemption requests a hugely diminished natural state. There is a sound Ross Street Terrace is too narrow given the lots' topography and the applicant's request for inaccessible lot. The proposed structures are too large for the parcels and the proposed roadway exceptions to the Hillside Design Guidelines should never be granted on such a steep and Re: File No(s).: LLA19-008/ED19-090/ED19- 091/EX20-006.We object to the proposed project.The Cc to Planners Dave Hogan and Ali Giudice To The Design Review Board, <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org>; Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org>; Dave Hogan Mon 5/3/2021 8:16 PM Amy Likover <> DRB Agenda Item #1 - 33/41 Ross St. Terrace 5/4/2021 1/3                                                Gerstle Park Valerie Lels Thank you sincerely, the developer’s request for the Natural State variance/exception. Please do not deprive the wildlife as well as the neighborhood of this vital Natural State. Please deny from the Friedman lots. If this variance/exception is granted, 3200 square feet of required Natural State would be eliminated Rafael Municipal Code. variance/exception that would leave remaining just over half of the Natural State required by the San standing mere feet from the Friedman property, where the developer is requesting a Natural State Please see the below photos, taken today, of a mother deer and her just-born twin babies. They are Hi Dave, Cc: Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org>; Raffi Boloyan <Raffi.Boloyan@cityofsanrafael.org> To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Mon 5/3/2021 8:07 PM Valerie Lels < > Natural State … 5/4/2021 2/3… 5/4/2021 Mail - Dave Hogan - Outlook 3/3 Sent from my iPhone 5/4/2021 1/1 San Rafael, Ca 94901 Katy Chamberlin Thank you, for residents because of the proposed retaining walls that would block access. The road would not be adequate for emergency response vehicles via Ross St. or emergency fire access resulting in loss of open space. This is a Clayton St project and any access roads should not cut through the existing neighborhood of us who live along the proposed road. construction and excavation equipment outside my front door. As well as future noise impact for those project, I am starting chemotherapy for cancer treatment shortly. I can’t see getting much rest with This proposed road to access is approx 25ft from my front door. While I don’t know the timeline of the 41 Clayton St in San Rafael (Ross Terrace). As a resident of I am writing to oppose the proposed new house project for 33 and Hello Dave, To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Tue 5/4/2021 11:52 AM Katy Chamberlin < > Ross Terrace St - San Rafael 5/4/2021 1/1 Megan Gordon -- Best, hearing from you. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or points of clarification. I look forward to this project personally. I know many other Clayton St residents plan to do the same. I plan to attend this evening's Design Review Board Meeting to register our complete disapproval of prioritize existing residents and longtime landowners, over new developers. at worst dangerous situation, just so a developer can make a buck. I hope the City of San Rafael will It's unclear to me why residents of Clayton St should be forced to live in an at best inconvenient and will therefore impact my livelihood. function of my job. These are at varied times, and sometimes with little warning. This planned project and frequently blocked. I need to leave my home to give site tours to potential clients as a regular dump trucks, etc. I work primarily from home. It is also highly likely our driveway would be impacted, One must also take into account the disruption and noise pollution of jackhammers, earth movers, fire prevention activities. Adding more residences in this already crowded area also reduces defensible space for much needed dangerous, potentially deadly. of emergencies. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the upcoming fire season is likely to be very If construction vehicles block Clayton St, residents may be denied ingress and egress, even in the event in a life threatening manner. planned project goes forward, all residents of Clayton St will be deeply inconvenienced, possibly even As I'm sure you are aware, Clayton is a very narrow street. Parking is already problematic. If the our beautiful new community. life. So, imagine our distress upon seeing notice (forwarded by my mother) of the planned project in We were thrilled to move into this family home, and excited to live in a quiet area, with a calm pace of CA. Previously it belonged to my grandmother, Katherine Ettienne of Fairfax, since the mid 50's. The property we now reside in is owned by my mother, Donna Mickelson, of Berkeley moved on 4/17/2021 from Oakland. I hope your day is going well. My husband (copied here) and I are new residents in San Rafael, having Hi Dave, Cc: travis turner <tturner03@gmail.com> To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org> Tue 5/4/2021 11:37 AM Megan Gordon <> Opposition Regarding Project 33/41 Ross Street Terrace, (Freidman Residential) 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Hogan, For this evenings Zoom Meeting 897-5606-9694 I am one of many concerned actually, annoyed neighbors that do not want to see this pass. I can’t even believe this proposal is even being considered as a possibility. As one of my other neighbors pointed out, if this steep driveway can be engineered, then so can the gravel portion of Clayton street. That’s where the driveway belongs, closer to the actual site. I would never begrudge someone who wants to build a home or two, but a driveway where there isn’t supposed to be one? That’s different, it’s a big no. Let’s really think about the dangers and the impact this will have on the entirety of the residents on Ross street. Please DO NOT PASS this portion of the project proposal. Thank you for listening and for your consideration. Veronica Page-Affoumado Ross Street Resident Proposed Ross Street driveway. Dave Hogan Tuesday, May 4, 2021 2:58 PM Veronica Page < > 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: May 3 letter re design review board_final.pdf Comments for Design Review Board on Ross Terrace St project Scott Loarie Dave Hogan; Alicia Giudice; planning Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:10 PM Jessica Yarnall Loarie < > Jessica L Yarnall Loarie, esq. and Scott Loarie Thanks, Please see the attached comments and picture of the already congested parking situation on Ross St. 2 May 4, 2021 City of San Rafael Dave Hogan and Alicia Giudice Planning Department Design Review Board 1400 Fifth Ave San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Letter of Opposition to Ross Terrace Road and Homes Project Dear Mr. Hogan, Ms. Giudice and Members of the Design Review Board: We join our many neighbors and write to oppose the Ross Terrace project homes and the new private two lane 500ft Ross Terrace road. We purchased which is across the street from the proposed road, and are the parents to two young children, ages 6 and 3. We frequently walk, bike, scoot and play on Ross Street and its sidewalks with our children and pass this area daily while en route to Gerstle Park. We have grave concerns about this entire development project, a few of which are outlined below. 1. Inadequate notice We live across the street from the project and newly proposed 2 lane private access road and have requested to be added to the project notice list several times, to no avail. We have never received notice from the city or the developer of this project. Moreover, in at least one place noticing the May 4 Design Review Board meeting, the notice lacked the date and the zoom link which was only found on the street sign. The City’s website for the Ross Terrace project indicates that there are no decision points at this time-- https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/ross-clayton/. This is not adequate notice. 2. The New Two-Lane Road and Two Large Single-Family Homes Will Take Away Necessary Parking Parking along Ross Street is extremely constrained and is worse than in many neighborhoods in San Francisco. I’m attached a picture of a normal day on Ross Street. When cars are parked on both sides of Ross Street, there is only room for one car to pass and not two lanes of traffic. Thus, having a two-lane access road of a width of 16-20 feet (Staff report at p. 2) take 2-4 parking spaces out of commission for Ross Street presents a serious problem for our already congested neighborhood. Moreover, the two proposed houses apparently lack adequate off-street guest parking under city regulations. This is unacceptable and will further add to the parking congestion. The homes can be downsized to accommodate the required parking on the existing lots. Finally, the San Rafael Planning Commission recently approved a remodel for the 147 Ross Street apartments. I understand the developer there had asked for additional 2-bedroom units but was denied due to the site having inadequate off-street parking. Two new single-family homes should be subject to these same standards—and should not be built as presented if they cannot meet the parking requirements. 3. Traffic Ross Street is a main access route for many parts of Gerstle Park. It is not unusual for many cars and delivery vehicles to be on the street in any given day, many of which are traveling far above a residential speed limit. Adding a new private road and two large, single family homes will add more traffic to an already congested area. This will be even worse during construction, but presents a long-term issue with the addition of two large single-family homes and a new 2 lane road. Ross street is not a very wide street and when cars are parked, only a single car can safely pass. This means there is a rather constant stream of cars pulling into driveways and stopping for other cars to pass, a dangerous situation for young kids and pedestrians. 4. Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety from Addition of Two-lane road with High Retaining Walls The proposed two-lane road at Ross Terrace is at a steep grade and apparently will require 6-12 foot+ high retaining walls. When coupled with congested neighborhood parking, any driver pulling out of this Ross Terrace road and onto Ross Street will have an incredibly difficult time viewing passing pedestrians, such as young children walking or on bikes, or the other cars driving down Ross Street. It’s analogous to coming out of a parking garage in an urban area (most of which have alarms to alert pedestrians). (Staff report at p. 10). The staff report even notes that the present design with inadequate guest parking and garage exit space may require a car to *back down* the full 500 ft Ross Terrace road. This is absurd and extraordinarily dangerous. (Staff Report at p. 7—erroneously stating that Ross Terrace is only 100 ft.). I foresee the potential for accidents for both pedestrians and vehicles. We often have a tough time safely pulling out of our own driveway that does not have 6-12 foot retaining walls blocking our view. The line of sight issue poses a severe safety issue. 5. Drainage concerns from Road and New Homes The new 2 lane road is on an extremely steep grade. Adjacent property owners have already expressed concern about how those steep retaining walls could impact their properties, and questioned who will be responsible for maintaining the walls over the long-term. Another concern is how changing the grading and slope of the natural hillside and paving it will impact drainage for nearby property owners, including those of us across the street. Essentially, the new two-lane Ross Terrace road will channel water directly at our properties. The natural dirt and trees on the property that currently absorb water will be removed. The project includes the removal of more than 25 trees for the access road alone (Staff Report. P. 8). No drainage study has been conducted to assess this issue my knowledge. 6. Fire access Improving Clayton Street would provide safer fire access for a number of homes already on Clayton. This alternative should be analyzed for this project. Adding Ross Terrace to Ross Street is not a great fire access alternative. A recent fire alarm at an apartment building on Ross Street required closure to traffic for the entire street for fire trucks to access an at-grade property. With congested parking and a steep hill, Ross Terrace is not a great fire access point. Further, if the new homes pose a fire danger in that area, one should question whether this is an appropriate location to site two new homes. 7. Character of homes is not aligned with Historic Gerstle Park The staff report for this meeting is the first place we’ve seen any sort of design plans for the homes on Ross Terrace. The homes appear to be very modern, which is out of character for the historic Gerstle Park area. The homes should be designed to harmonize with the surroundings of this unique and special area. 8. Granting numerous exemptions—natural state, guest parking is not warranted City policies requiring a certain amount of natural space and guest parking exist for good reason. This project requires so many exceptions that it is not a viable and compliant design. No exemptions should be granted here. a. Loss of natural state The developer here is asking for a large exception to the natural state requirement. This requirement exists for good reason. Green space is important. The current property is an important wildlife habitat and corridor. We regularly see deer, wild turkeys and even foxes in this area. The large mature trees provide vital shade, retain carbon, and the soil absorbs moisture. Taking out more than 25 trees, paving over this area with a road and two large homes—as the design currently suggests—does not comply with city policies and does not warrant any exemption. b. Guest Parking As previously outlined, parking is a massive problem on Ross Street already. This 16-20ft access road will take 2-4 parking spaces out of commission. Adding two new homes without adequate guest parking would take away another 2-4 spaces for a net loss of 8+ parking spaces. This is an extremely bad idea. Moreover, the Planning Commission recently scaled back the 147 Ross St apartment design plans due to inadequate off-street parking. The policy should be consistently applied. No exemption should be granted to the Ross Terrace homes for guest parking. 9. Alternatives a. Clayton Street Access as Viable, Preferred Access Alternative The Design Review Board should re-consider access via Clayton Street instead of a massive new road being constructed off of Ross St. It would benefit the homes on Clayton street to have better fire access. And a less extreme road would need to be built from the Clayton side and the Ross Street parking and pedestrian safety would be preserved. Apparently, a 2017 recommendation from the Design Review Board endorsed the Clayton Street access alternative (Staff Report at p. 12). Nothing has changed to necessitate access from a new road at Ross Terrace. b. Downsizing project to One House At a certain point, the exceptions swallow the rule. That’s the present situation. Two large homes just do not fit into this very small, sloped space. One home would be enough of a stretch. A one home alternative should be explored. c. Downsizing size and scope of the two houses The homes are too large for the space given. If two homes will be built, they must be greatly scaled back to accommodate the natural space requirements and adequate guest parking. No exceptions should be granted. d. Designing home(s) to be more in character with an historic neighborhood If this Board requires the developer to reconfigure the homes, they should be designed with the historic character of this neighborhood in mind. e. No Build alternative A no build alternative should also be examined. These comments are based on a very quick review of the staff report and public information available about the project and we reserve the right to make additional comments at a later time. San Rafael, CA 94901 Jessica L. Yarnall Loarie, esq. and Scott Loarie Sincerely, current form are wholly unacceptable. delay a decision on this project while other viable alternatives are explored. The plans in their In sum, we would ask the Design Review Board to not approve the proposed plans or, at minimum, 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Cc:Dave Hogan Subject:Re: Proposed Ross Street driveway. Dave Hogan Tuesday, May 4, 2021 6:22 PM Seth Affoumado < > San Rafael, CA Musician Teacher Photographer Seth Affoumado Seth and Veronica Page-Affoumado With respect and gratitude, Thank you for considering our request. equitable solution for all. Ross Street is our home too. My wife and I strongly urge you to vote against this construction and find a better more where the homes will be situated. The engineering opportunity to design a better more efficient road to Clayton street should be the priority since that is and environmental impact. This project only will benefit the person who builds the house and not the general public. The private road will impact more than 50 residents on Ross Street with unnecessary construction noise, inconvenience consider before making your decision. There are many ways to avoid the unnecessary construction of a private driveway on Ross Street which I hope you I am a neighbor that lives at the top of Ross Street crossing Reservoir Road. Dear Mr. Hogan, 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject: Lot 59 and 60 Ross Terrace Dave Hogan Wednesday, May 5, 2021 1:21 PM Carol Smith < > Carol Poshepny Thank you, believe is slated for tmwr. I am unable to attend remotely. 5-10-20 drawn by Joseph Farrell. Please make sure that my approval is noted in the Planning Review meeting which I I am a property owner on Welch Street in San Rafael and I approve of this project as detailed in the plans on view dated Hi Dave, 1 Dave Hogan From: Sent: To: Subject: Ross St. Terrace Proposal Dave Hogan; Alicia Giudice; Jeanne Cronis Campbell Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:56 AM David Campbell <> Jeanne and David Campbell Thank you for your careful consideration, approval? Surely you understand this is something we will not allow, and such being the case, why would you recommend shows a significant portion of our property being usurped by the modifications shown to be performed on Clayton St. properties not owned by the applicant, particularly to the __ Clayton property where we live. Page 26 of the plans in fact Also, the plans currently posted on the San Rafael website show significant building activity to be performed on variances/exceptions for approval, and is not compliant with San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines. importance, and we anxiously await the opportunity to review contents of such report. This project requires multiple independent environmental impact report? The environmental impact this project threatens is a matter of critical building plans submitted. We are curious as to how you could recommend a project prior to the submission of an On the web link to the recent design review board meeting, we noticed that you have recommended approval of the presented against the approval of this project. Hopefully, that will allow time to properly consider the massive body of complaints and opposition that have been We applaud the design review board's decision to carry over consideration of this Ross St. Terrace project to May 18. Dear San Rafael Planning Department, Pav Wilkinson Best regards, neighborhood making it a worse place to live. In conclusion: The proposed plans for an approach from Clayton St. would significantly impact our quant neighborhood gatherings. You and the design review board should come and enjoy the food. this is a terrible idea and I vehemently oppose it. This would ruin our quant neighborhood and our neighborhood garden in front of 51 Clayton St where we host neighborhood parties 4-6 times a year, from Clayton st. it will require Installing +/- 200’ of retaining walls, one running right through the The plans provide by the developer do not adequately show the grade properly. If the approach comes Issue #3: Retaining walls I walk my dogs long the nature trail at Ross St Terrace that will be lost if this project moves forward. Issue #2: Open space. existing off-street parking at 51 Clayton St. of 4 cars. using very bad judgment. Additionally, the proposed approach from Clayton St would remove the parking spaces. To build 2 additional homes that do not have the required off-street parking would be 14.18.040 of the San Rafael Municipal Code these new homes are required to be built with 2 off street We currently have 4 rental units on Clayton St. that have no off-street parking. According to Table Issue #1: Parking proposed on substandard lots, with inadequate parking. I live on Clayton St. and will be directly affected by the widening of the road to access the 2 building sites Dear Mr. Hogan, Objections submitted to Design review board prior to the 5 18 2021 7:00 PM meeting. Reg: 33/41 Ross St Terrace [Friedman Residential] San Rafael CA, 94901 1400 5th Ave City of San Rafael Planning Department Mr. David Hogan [Sent via email attachment] 5 5 2021 San Rafael California 94901 Mr. Pavil Wilkinson 5/11/21 To: Dave Hogan, Ali Giudice , planners; City of San Rafael. Re : 33/41 Ross Street Terrace Development of Ross Street Terrace for development access. Dear Mr Hogan, Ms. Giudice and members of design review board. My Name is Jeff Mcphail. I am the managing member of Canal Front Properties LLC which owns the four-unit building at 124 Ross Street. Our property is downhill and East of proposed development of Ross Street Terrace as a driveway to serve two proposed homes. The deepest excavation proposed is abutting our property. I am writing because the development as proposed will negativ ely affect our property and prohibit future access to Ross Street Terrace. Like the applicant’s property, our property does not have vehicular access. We would like to enjoy the same consideration as applicant and to maintain our legal right to access the property by way of Ross Valley Terrace. Adjacent landowners should have rights to access the right-of-way which current design makes difficult or impossible. I spoke to the architect of the project several months ago regarding my concerns but the current drawings of high retaining walls do not reflect any consideration for neighbor access. We would strongly urge the city to reject the project as drawn and would suggest a redesign that would respect our property rights and provide equal access to Ross Street Terrace. Thank you for your attention. Jeff McPhail San Rafael CA. 94901 1 is overbuilding. He is not meeting the required parking requirements because he does not have the space to do so. Why? Once again, he have room for two properties. required, and he is asking for an exception. Why? Because he is proposing to build two properties on land that does not trying to get close to meeting the requirements. The natural habitat reserved on his land is barely over 50% of what is He does not care if he does not meet the requirements for allowing natural habitat on his properties. He is not even responsible to maintain or be liable for the road and retaining walls he proposes to create. He does not care if he is putting the adjoining neighbors in a precarious situation because he himself will not be He does not care if it removes a large area of wildlife land. He does not care what chaos he might unleash on the neighborhood factor to make a profit. surrounding neighbors and the City of San Rafael into accepting what he wants to develop, with the only motivating What we have now is a developer who wanted to roll the dice and thought he could bully his way into forcing the development to go forward. That is not the case. It should be obvious that these lots would have been developed long ago if there was a simple and reasonable way for a and relatively inaccessible lots on Ross Terrace. We would like to summarize our feelings of what is going on with the proposed development of two homes on steep Dear Folks, Re: Proposed development of Two homes and Ross Terrace driveway From: Patrick and Michele Killian To: Design Review Board of San Rafael of San Rafael. Please see that this letter is forwarded to all on the Design Review board and the appropriate agents of the City Subject: letter to design review board regarding Ross Terrace development To: Distrib- City Clerk <City.Clerk@cityofsanrafael.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:33 PM From: Patrick Killian < > 2 He is trying to cram two large properties on land that should only house one home with the appropriate natural habitat, parking, and turnarounds. Why is he doing that? Because he cannot make a profit on building just one home considering that he will have to spend a considerable amount of money developing the road access no matter which direction it goes. He is rolling the dice and hoping he can steamroll his way to approval. This developer has only been antagonistic to the neighborhood and downright offensively aggressive in his interactions with individuals who live nearby. He has no interest in working together or to find common solutions other than ways he can put more money into his pocket. I would think it would be eye-opening to have anyone approach the Design Review Board when their proposal does not even come close to meeting requirements and yet they are asking for a stamp of approval. What is alarming and unconscionable is that the city seems to want to give him the stamp of approval. The Board of Review and the City of San Rafael have a moral, legal, and ethical obligation to not cave to this kind of activity. It is wrong and should not be entertained. There is absolutely no reason to grant exceptions to a developer that wants to push his agenda and his disregard for rules and regulations forward. The entire local neighborhood supports this stance and we demand that his current proposal be rejected. Sincerely, Patrick and Michele 1/2 while at the same me improving fire access for all properes along Clayton St. How does preservaon of global warming. The Clayton Street access largely exists, thus would be far less environmentally impacul, in excess of the foot prints of the proposed homes, creang more hard-scape and pavement contribung to far Destrucon of exisng open space: The proposed Ross Street roadway will destroy current open space we believe it would be a crical part of the DBR’s analysis. Why has the CEQA report not been delivered for review? This is an important aspect of this project, and proposed Ross Terrace entrance for the DBR to see. access, as he did for Clayton. This should be done to provide a true perspecve of the impact of the The developer did not deliver the same photographic representaon of the road for the Ross Street side) – the actual impact is far greater than it looks on the drawings. retaining walls along the enre route should be detailed for both the uphill (west side) and downhill (east road starts to level out and where the walls are sll over 12’ tall on the west side. The actual height of all part of the proposed Ross St entrance to Ross Terrace, instead they only show secon A-A aer where the Height of retaining walls at Ross St Entrance. The drawings do not show the wall heights at the steepest There are also several inaccuracies in the report, and other items le unaddressed: the developers desire to maximize profit). smaller (or maybe only a single home be built) which will easily solve the issues outlined above (but not large proposed homes that are completely out of character with the nearby houses. The homes should be Exisng Lot Size: Both lots are ny – less than 78% and 67% of the 7,500 sq/ minimum respecvely, with a garage? Again, this only serves to maximize the size of the homes and the profit for the developer. reducon in the required guest parking requirement, with one of the spaces actually impeding the use of Parking Excepon: Why aer proposing to build a 480’ drive way should the developer be granted a 50% developing a home or homes that are suitable for the site and stay within the rules. of the required minimum. This is over building the lots to maximizing profit for the developer instead of Minimum Natural State. The proposed development is not just a few percent off; it’s 53% and 54% short magnitude, and only serve the interests of the developer, and perhaps the City in terms of future tax revenue. project and followed as closely as possible. The excepons being requested are not minor in nature or environment and all neighborhood residents. The rules and guidelines set by the City should be applied to this The applicant should not be granted these gross excepons for his sole benefit (profit) at the expense of the reduced in scope. the environment and the neighborhood. The size of the homes and impact on the neighborhood should be plans. This project clearly proposes overbuilding the two lots, requiring significant variances to the detriment of We’re subming this addional leer of opposion the to project as proposed aer having further reviewed the *** Kindly Acknowledge Receipt *** Dear Dave and Alicia, Cc: Leslie Marks To: Dave Hogan <Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org>; Alicia Giudice <Alicia.Giudice@cityofsanrafael.org> Thu 5/13/2021 4:57 PM Peter Marks (Peter R. Marks) < > Additional Comments: Project 33/41 Ross Street Terrace ** Statement of Opposition ** 2/2 San Rafael, CA 94901 Peter & Leslie Marks Respecully, granted, the impact of the proposed access routes, and adjust the scope of this project accordingly. These are just a few of the concerns we have. We urge the DBR to carefully consider all the excepons being released of its obligaon to manage, maintain and police. already fall upon the City for a Clayton St access, and if access is granted via Ross St, the City should not be and liability, upkeep, maintenance and policing on adjacent property owners. These responsibilies The City seems happy to relinquish any responsibility for the Ross Terrace street, pung the responsibly (unanswered) requests for informaon. either the applicant or the design review board, while at the same me there have been repeated impacted). No property owners along Ross Terrace have been approached about the impact to them by property owners along Ross Terrace should be access be via Ross St. (where 9x’s as may families would be The Planner discuss the impact on neighbors with access via Clayton, but did not do the same for profit. future problems, and is only being considered so the developer can maximize the size of the homes and his on Lot 59 approximately 1½ feet from the property line. This is exactly the type of excepon that causes There is an unaddressed issue where the proposal located the garage level of the single-family residence neighbors. Terrace, not just the two lots currently in queson, in addion to many other benefits outline by various a plan for access via Clayton Street. Providing access from Clayton will solve access for all lots on Ross Ross Street this lot will effecvely be blocked from future development, or the City would need to approve There is another undeveloped, triangular, lot to the north of the subject lots. If access is granted from route for all property owners along Ross Terrace. safely access Ross Terrace cannot simply be taken or given away, especially since it’s a crical fire escape high retaining walls and fences on both sides of the proposed road. Owners rights to connuously and Access for current property owners all along Ross Terrace will be blocked by a Ross Street entrance due to open space? How does the developer propose to offset the environmental impact, loss of natural state, and loss of habitat and open space factor into the City’s analysis in light of it’s current and future (2040) planning? Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Case Numbers: UP21-006, ED21-022 Project Planner: Steve Stafford – (415) 458-5048 Agenda Item: 3 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 800 Mission Ave. (“Aegis Living San Rafael”) – Request amendment of Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit approvals to allow a 11’ 2” height bonus for a previously approved senior assisted living and memory care facility on two vacant Downtown parcels with 29,885 sq. ft. of combined area. Amendment of the approvals would increase the height of the building from 36’ to 47’ 2” and increase the unit count from 77 suites to 106 suites. The remainder of the approved site and building design would remain unchanged ; APNS: 011-184-08 & -09; Multifamily Residential – High Density (HR1) District Zone; Geoff Forner, Applicant; ASC San Rafael LLC, Owner; Downtown Neighborhood. ***Continued from the May 4, 2021 Design Review Board Meeting*** PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: High–Density Residential (HDR) HR1 Vacant Lot North: HDR HR1 SFR South: 5/M R/O 5/M R/O Apartment Buildings East: 5/M R/O 5/M R/O Service Station w/Mini-Mart West: HDR HR1 Office Lot Size Lot Coverage (Max.) Required: 29,885 sf Proposed: 6,000 sf Allowed: 60% (17,931 sf) Proposed: 59% (17,720 sf) Height Density (Max.) Allowed: 36’ Proposed: 47’ 2” (includes height bonus; excludes domes, trellis elevator and staircase protruding features) Allowed: 29 units (1 unit per 1,000 sf of gross lot area) Proposed: None (‘efficiency kitchens’ only for assisted care units only) Parking Usable Outdoor Area (Min.) Required: 53 parking spaces Proposed: 40 parking spaces Required: None (Recommended 100 sf per unit) Proposed: 6,248 sf (common indoor and outdoor recreational area) Landscaping (Min.) Setbacks Required: 50% of Front and Street Side Setback (2,164 sf) Proposed: 51% of Front and Street Side Setback (2,209 sf) Required Existing Proposed Front: Side(s): Street: Interior: Rear: 15’ 10’ 5’ 5’ n/a n/a n/a n/a 15’ 10’ 5’ 5’ Tree Removal Grading 2 Total(No./Species): 6 (4 ‘mature’) + 5 Street Trees (1 ‘mature’) Total: 14,000 CYDS Requirement: None (15 Replacement Trees Encouraged) Proposed: 13 Replacement Trees (includes 3 Street Trees) Cut: 13,000 CYDS Fill: 1,000 CYDS Off-Haul: 13,000 CYDS SUMMARY The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of proposed amendments to an approved project. On September 4, 2018, the City Council denied an appeal (City Council Resolution No. 14575) and upheld the Planning Commission’s July 10, 2018 conditional approval of a new assisted living facility with memory care services and 40 garage parking spaces, located at 800 Mission Ave. (previously 1203-1211 Lincoln Ave.). The proposed amendments request a height bonus of 11’ 2”, increasing the overall height, from 36’ to 47’ 2”. The proposed height bonus would also increase the size of the project, from 77 resident ‘suites’ to 106 ‘resident’ suites. The site is currently vacant, and the project would include site grading, drainage, landscaping and signage. The proposed amendments to the approved project require the following approvals by the Planning Commission with the recommendation of the Board: • An Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment for modifications in the design of the approved building and site improvements; and • A Use Permit Amendment to allow both the new assisted living facility to operate on the site , the requested height bonus and a Parking Modification to reduce the parking requirement for the project, from 53 to 40 on-site parking spaces. This is an amendment of an approved project in which the Board’s review is limited to the scale/mass of the requested height bonus; how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood since the expanded project retains the California Mission Revival architecture, which the Board unanimously recommended for approval to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2018. No other changes to the approved design of the project are proposed. Staff supports the scale/mass of the requested height bonus, finding it adequately relates to the predominant four- and three-story scale of existing development immediately adjacent to the project site. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: Scale/Mass • Whether the scale/mass of the requested height bonus adequately relates to the predominant scale of existing development of development in the immediate neighborhood. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The project site is comprised of two (2) adjacent parcels located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and Mission Avenues. The site is a combined 29,885 sq. ft. in area and has an approximate 10% cross-slope, trending northwest to southeast. In 2007, prior buildings located on the project site were demolished, which remains vacant. The project site is surrounded by predominantly multifamily residential development immediately to the north and west, a service station to the south across Mission Ave. and a mixture of commercial office and single-family residential development to the east across Lincoln Ave. History: • On September 4, 2018, the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of a Use Permit (UP17-030) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) to allow the construction and operation of a new 77-suite 3 assisted living facility with memory care and associated garage parking, and site improvements on two (2) vacant Downtown parcels located at 800 Mission Ave. • On October 8, 2019, the Design Review Board recommended approval of final details on the site landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes. • On March 10, 2020, Planning staff approved a minor modification to the design of the blue-tiled tower/dome feature, located at the southeast corner of site, to include additional windows to match the existing approved window design. • On August 21, 2020, Planning staff again approved a minor modification to the design of the blue-tiled tower/dome feature, located at the southeast corner of site, to reduce the overall height, and to redesign and relocate the approved water fountain feature. • On September 8, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the consolidation (LLA19-006) of the two (2) parcels. This Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation will need to be recorded with the County of Marin by the applicant or property owner prior to issuance of building permits. • On February 25, 2021, the Zoning Administrator approved a two (2) year time extension for the project due to project’s financial infeasibility to construct during a global pandemic event. No additional changes, modifications or additions were proposed or approved to the project. • Building permits for the project were submitted on September 3, 2019 (foundation only) and October 21, 2019 (building) and approved on December 20, 2019 (foundation only) and August 21, 2020 (building). The building permit for the foundation only was issued on December 20, 2019 though no site grading has occurred on the site. The building permit for the building has not be issued. • On May 4, 2021, the Board unanimously (4-0 vote, Blayney absent) approved a requested continuance by staff to a ‘date certain’, to the next scheduled Board meeting on May 18, 2021, to allow staff time to better provide the Board with plans in a format more usable for the complexities of the project. This continuance was approved without staff introduction, acceptance of public comments or Board discussion on the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes to amend the height and unit count of an approved assisted living facility with memory are services on the project site. Site Plan: No design changes are proposed to the approved site plan. Building Height: The project proposes to increase the approved height of the building, from 36’ to 47’ 2”. The project essentially proposes to add an additional or fifth floor with additional residential ‘suites.’ The approved height of the domes features, and rooftop elevator and stair overruns will not increase. Floor Plan: The project proposes to add an additional or fifth floor with 29 additional residential ‘suites’, increasing the overall unit count, from 77 approved ‘suites’ to 106 proposed residential ‘suites’. No changes are proposed to the remaining approved floor plans. The second floor continues to provide secured 4 memory care services and includes common indoor and outdoor terrace areas. The previously approved rooftop terrace was removed from the project design during the approval of the time extension by the Zoning Administrator in February 2021. Architecture: No design changes are proposed to the approved architecture. Rather, the proposed amendment to the project would return the blue -tiled dome feature along Lincoln Ave., which was previously approved by staff at the request of the applicant to meet cost-efficiencies. The project is approved with a Spanish Colonial- or Mission Revival-like architecture with predominant design features including large arched windows, whitewashed stucco walls, red clay roof tiles and tile dome towers. The dome on top of the tower features were approved to be externally-illuminated and tiled in a color (blue) distinct from the red roof tile which would complement the blue fabric awnings along both street elevations. Decorative heavy-timber rafter ‘tails’ are included under the roof eaves. Decorative wrought iron balconies, railings, fencing and gates are well-presented along all building facades. The previously approved, externally- illuminated, 12’-dia. circular fountain with a center statue or sculpture, located at the Mission and Lincoln Ave. intersection, was removed and replaced with additional landscaping as an administrative amendment by staff in 2020. No changes are proposed to the approved exterior colors and materials. The proposed additional or fifth floor is proposed to match the approved exterior colors and materials. Parking: No design changes are proposed to the approved parking garages plan. The project is approved for 40 on-site garage parking spaces. Of these, 37 parking spaces are located in the subterranean parking garage accessed by the driveway along Mission Ave. and three (3) additional parking spaces will be located on the first floor and accessed by the driveway along Lincoln Ave. Landscaping: No design changes are proposed to the approved site landscape plans. The project proposes to remove six (6) existing on-site trees on the smaller (1211 Lincoln Ave.) portion of the site, four (4) of which are ‘significant’ (A ‘significant’ tree is any tree 12” or greater in diameter, as measured 4.5’ above the root crown, or any Oak tree 6” or greater in diameter, as measured 4.5’ above the root crown). In 2007, all site landscaping was previously removed from the larger parcel (1203 Lincoln Ave.) during demolition of the prior motor court. The project also proposes to remove five (5) existing street trees along the Lincoln Ave. frontage, one (1) of which is ‘significant’. The project is approved to plant new landscaping along both the Mission and Lincoln Ave. frontages, including 10 replacement trees, plus three (3) new street trees along Lincoln Ave., and a mixture of shrub, grass and vine plantings. New landscaping is also required within a raised bioretention ‘planter’ bordering the 2nd level outdoor rear terrace. Grading/Drainage: No design changes are proposed to the approved preliminary grading and drainage plan. The project proposes a total of 14,000 cubic yards (CYDS) of excavation with 13,000 CYDS of ‘cut’, 1,000 CYDS of ‘fill’ and 13,000 YDS of off -haul. A raised, 1,036-sq. ft., bioretention ‘planter’ is approved bordering the 2nd level outdoor rear terrace with landscaping. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan land use designation for the site is High Density Residential (HDR). Pursuant to Land Use Policy LU-13 (Height Bonuses) in the San Rafael General Plan 2020, a height bonus of up to 12’ may be granted with a Use Permit for development projects that meet the affordable housing requirement, provided the building’s design is consistent with Community Design policies and design 5 guidelines. The project requests a 11’ 2” height bonus. Staff requests the Board’s guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following design-related General Plan Policies: • Community Design Policy CD-1d (City Image) Landscape Improvements) recognizes that landscaping is a critical design component to. 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: a) Maintaining the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of the Downtown; b) Preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the City's residential neighborhoods; c) Improving the appearance and function of commercial areas; and d) Allowing limited commercial uses in residential neighborhoods that serve local residents and create neighborhood-gathering places. • CD-3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. New development should respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods. • CD-5 (Views) seeks to 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 pathways. • CD-7 (Downtown and Civic Center) Build upon the character of these areas by controlling land uses to clearly distinguish their boundaries; by recognizing Mission San Rafael Arcangel and St. Raphael Church, Marin Civic Center, and other buildings that help define the City’s character, and requiring that these and other architectural characteristics and land uses that give these areas their identity are strengthened. • CD-9 (Transportation Corridors) seeks to improve the function and appearance of transportation corridors, recognize those shown on Exhibits 17 and 18 and define each corridor's contribution to the City based upon its land use and transportation function and how it is experienced by the public. • CD-10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines) Recognize, preserve and enhance the design elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas. Develop design guidelines to ensure that new nonresidential and mixed-use development fits within and improves the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole. • CD-18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design. Planning staff continues to find the landscaping and pedestrian scale along the street frontages helps connect the predominant residential character along Lincoln Ave., a transportation corridor, with the commercial Downtown immediately south of the project site. The proposed Mission Revival architecture appears to respect and not compete with the scale and design of St. Raphael’s church bell tower. While the St. Raphael’s church bell tower is approximately 10’ lower in height of the domed towers in the proposed project design, St. Raphael’s church bell tower is located more than two city blocks (1,100’) west of the project site and approximately 30’ higher in elevation. While the towers in the proposed project design would likely create a new view impact of Puerto Suello Hill as seen from northbound U.S. Highway 101, staff finds this to be limited. 6 General Plan 2040 Consistency: The City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan. Under the draft General Plan 2040, the General Plan land use designation for the site is Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) with a maximum height as determined by the draft Downtown Precise Plan (currently 40’). The draft Downtown Precise Plan allows a height bonus of up to 10’ (overall maximum height of 50’) on the site. The project requests a 11’ 2” height bonus for an overall height of 47’ 2” (per UBC measurement of height. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4 – Residential (R, DR, MR, HR) Districts The site is located within the Multifamily Residential – High Density (HR1) District. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards for the HR1 District, including maximum 60% lot coverage, minimum required yard setbacks (15’ front; 10’ street side; 5’ interior side and rear) and minimum landscaping (50% of required front and street side yards). The project will exceed the maximum 36’ height for the site, subject to the requested height bonus. Additionally, the project voluntarily proposes to create 3,970 sq. ft. of usable common outdoor area for the residents, reduced from 5,876 sq. ft. of usable common outdoor area previously approved by the project and after the elimination of the roof terrace. Pursuant to SRMC Section 14.04.040 (Property Development Standards for the HR District), common indoor area suitable for recreational uses may be counted toward the usable outdoor area requirement. Once these areas are included, the project proposes 6,248 sq. ft. of combined common indoor and outdoor area suitable for recreational use. These property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Property Facts summary above. As designed, the project complies with all applicable property development standards for the HR1 District, including maximum lot coverage, minimum required yard setbacks and minimum landscaping. The project also would comply with the maximum height, subject to the requested height bonus. Chapter 16 – Site and Use Regulations Affordable Housing Requirement SRMC Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirement) requires all non-residential development projects to comply with the City’s adopted inclusionary housing requirement through the payment of an in-lieu fee based on the type of development proposed for the site. The project continues to propose an assisted living facility with memory care services which is comparable to a hotel use. The proposed facility would continue to provide rooms or ‘suites’ with limited ‘efficiency kitchens’ and offer ancillary services to the residents like communal dining (both indoor and outdoor), “juice bar”, “pub”, “bistro”, fitness, barber/salon, cinema and activities areas, in which some of these services would not be typically found in a hotel. Therefore, it is still credible to apply a hybrid rate for determining the amended affordable housing requirement linkage fee. The approved project is 64,054 sq. ft. in size and, when applying both the hotel (0.0075 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) and personal service rates (0.0225 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) identified in Table 14.16.030 – 3, was required to provide 0.015 affordable housing units per 1,000 gross sq. ft., which translates to 0.96 low income units or an affordable housing in-lieu fee of approximately $318,827.20 for the project, using the then-current affordable housing in-lieu fee of $331,070 .00 per unit. To further contribute to the City’s affordable housing initiatives, the prior property owner voluntarily increased the affordable housing in-lieu fee to $500,000 as a ‘public benefit’ (a 63.8% increase in the required affordable housing requirement), which was accepted by Planning Commission and the City Council on project appeal as a condition of project approval. The amended project proposes to increase the new building size to 75,489 sq. ft. which, when applying the same affordable housing requirement formula (0.015 affordable housing units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) translate s to 1.13 low income units, or a revised affordable housing in-lieu fee of $389,488.66 for the project, using today’s updated affordable housing in-lieu fee of $343 ,969.47 per unit. The current 7 property owner, Aegis Senior Communities LLC (‘Aegis Living’), proposes to continue to voluntarily increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee to $589,569 as a ‘public benefit’ (a 66% increase in the required affordable housing requirement). Height Bonus SRMC Section 14.16.190 (B) (Lincoln Avenue Height Bonus) a height bonus may be granted through Use Permit by the Planning Commission of up to 12’ for projects located on Lincoln Avenue, between Mission Avenue and Hammondale Ct., on lots greater than one hundred fifty (150′) in width and 20,000 sq. ft. in size and meeting their affordable housing requirement. The project meets the location, width and size requirement. As stated previously in staff’s report, the required affordable housing in-lieu fee for the amended project is $389,488.66 (1.13 affordable housing units), using the current affordable housing in-lieu fee of $343 ,969.47 per unit. The project proposes to voluntarily increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee to $589,569 as a ‘public benefit’ (a 66% increase in the required affordable housing requirement). Chapter 18 – Parking Standards Parking Requirements SRMC Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements), the project requires on-site parking, based on the following proposed uses: • Assisted living facilities are required to provide one (1) parking space for each five (5) clients; plus • One (1) parking space for each staff person, visiting doctor or employee on maximum staffed shift . Based on this formula, the project was required to provide 44 off -street parking spaces though it was approved to provide 40 off-street parking spaces, subject to a requested Parking Modification and supported with a traffic and parking study (Transpogroup, dated May 30, 2018), which anticipated peak parking demand of 31 parking spaces for residents, staff, physicians and guests, based on a proposed 88-bed assisted living facility. The amended project proposes to increase both the number of residents and staffing levels. Based on this formula, the amended project is required to provide 53 off-street parking spaces. The project continues to propose to provide 40 off-street parking spaces, subject to a requested Parking Modification and supported with an updated traffic and parking study (Transpogroup, dated March 3, 2021), which anticipated peak parking demand of 37 parking spaces for residents, staff, physicians and guests, based on a proposed 106-bed assisted living facility (Updated Transportation and Parking Study). The amended project essentially requests a height bonus to increase the number of beds for memory care residents. This updated traffic and parking study, like the original analysis, finds the memory care residents would create no parking demand since memory care residents are prohibited from vehicle ownership due to cognitive difficulties. The total required parking for the amended project is 53 on-site parking spaces while 40 on-site parking spaces continue to be proposed with requests for a Parking Modification for 13 required on-site parking spaces. Parking Modification The revised project continues to request a Parking Modification, through the Use Permit Amendment, to reduce the parking requirement by 13 parking spaces, from 53 to 40 on-site parking spaces, based on the historic operational needs from other assisted living facilities similar to the project. The amended project, like the approved project, supports this request with an updated traffic and parking study (Transpogroup, dated Ma rch 3, 20 21; access here ), which anticipates peak parking demand of 3 7 parking spaces for residents, staff, physicians and guests, based on a proposed 106-bed assisted living facility. All requests for Parking Modification require the review and recommendation of both the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, and the approval of the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director, through Planning staff, and the City Engineer 8 support this request for Parking Modification, concurring with the analysis and findings in the submitted updated traffic and parking study, and, like the approved project, subject to the subsequent submittal of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations to reduce employee/staff trips and minimize parking and/or traffic impacts. The TDMP shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, who reserves the right to require modifications to the TDMP and the applicant agrees to incorporate all recommendations outlined in the TDMP, including modifications required by the City, during the occupancy of the site by the approved use. Guest Parking Guest parking spaces are not required in the Downtown unless located within 200’ of a residential district. While the project site is located within a residential district, guest parking is required for multifamily residential projects, based on residential units. As stated earlier in staff’s report, the amended project does not propose any residential units (The project is comparable to a hotel by proposing to provide rooms or ‘suites’ for residents with ‘efficiency kitchens’ and with communal dining and entertainment and personal services) and, therefore, is not required to provide guest parking though voluntarily provides it. The project has submitted an updated traffic and parking study to support a request for Parking Modification, which anticipates peak parking demand (weekday) of 37 parking spaces which reduces to 28 spaces on weekends. Since the amended project continues to propose 40 off -street parking spaces, all parking spaces in excess of the 37 required parking spaces (weekdays, 28 weekends) would be available for guest parking. Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit The project requires amendment of the existing approved Environmental and Design Review Permit by the Planning Commission with the Board’s recommendation. The pertinent review criteria for Environmental and Design Review permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits), are as follows: • Site Design. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in the vicinity. The development should have good vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access. Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to provide easy access to building entrances. The traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be considered. Major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills should be preserved and enhanced from public streets and public vantage points. In addition, respect views of St. Raphael’s Church up “A” Street. • Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in the building elevation; b) pedestrian-oriented design in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient design; d) provision of a sense of entry; e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location. • Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area. Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. Natural materials and colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function. • Walls, Fences and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building 9 and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project design. • Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide safety for building occupants, but not create glare or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas. • Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site and existing tree shall be preserved as much as possible. Water-conserving landscape design shall be required. A landscaped berm around the perimeter of parking areas is encouraged. Smaller scale, seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian-oriented streets while high- canopy, traffic-tolerant trees should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets. Staff’s Comments. This is an amendment of an approved project in which the Board’s review is limited to the scale/mass of the requested height bonus; how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood since the expanded project retains the California Mission Revival architecture, which the Board unanimously recommended for approval to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2018. No other changes to the approved design of the project are proposed. The topography of the project site slopes (11% average cross-slope) up from the intersection of Mission and Lincoln Avenues to the rear of the site, trending southeast-to-northwest. This site topography helps to underground the 1st floor of the new building at the rear of the site. The amended project would have the visual appearance of a five-story building at the intersection of Mission and Lincoln Avenues and a four-story building at the rear and interior side elevations. The predominant scale of existing development immediately adjacent to the project site is four-story (west; 820 Mission Ave.) and three-story (north; 1215 Lincoln Ave. and 111 Laurel Pl.). Staff supports the scale/mass of the requested height bonus, finding it adequately relates to the predominant four- and three-story scale of existing development immediately adjacent to the project site. Staff requests the Board’s comments on the following: • Whether the scale/mass of the requested height bonus adequately relates to the predominant scale of existing development of development in the immediate neighborhood. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 5 – Lot Line Adjustments and Consolidations The amended project continues to propose to construct the new assisted living facility across the legal property line boundaries of two (2) adjacent Downtown parcels. On September 8, 2020, a Lot Line Adjustment was administratively approved for the consolidation of the two parcels which comprise the project site. New Grant Deeds, accompanied with a Plat Map and legal descriptions, will need to be recorded prior to building permit issuance for the amended project. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD At the opening of the May 4, 2021 Board meeting on the project, staff requested a continuance to a ‘date certain’, to the next scheduled Design Review Board meeting, to May 18, 2021, to better provide the Board with plans in a format more usable. The Board unanimously (4-0 vote, Blayney absent) approved the requested continuance without staff introduction, acceptance of public comments or Board discussion on the project. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the original May 4, 2021 hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, the appropriate 10 neighborhood groups (the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), and all other interested parties (applicant and planner), a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the Board meeting. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site, at the corner of Mission and Lincoln Avenues, also a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the Board meeting. Since review of the project was continued to a ‘date certain’, to the next scheduled Board meeting on May 18, 2021, a 15-day noticing period was not required. However, a Notice of Continued Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), and all other interested parties (applicant and planner), with the new online meeting details prior to the Board meeting. Additionally, notice which was previously posted on the project site, at the corner of Mission and Lincoln Avenues, was updated. At the time of the distribution of staff’s report to the Board, staff had received 26 written comment as a result of this noticing; 18 comments opposed to the project and eight (8) comments in support. Most of the comments in opposition were from owners of separate condominium units within the building (820 Mission Ave.) located immediately west of the project site, along the Mission Ave. These comments strongly oppose the requested height bonus, stating the additional building height would create “detrimental overshadowing”, noise, traffic, parking, light/glare and financial impacts, and “diminution of quality of life”. These comments further express concern that the requested height bonus would overpower the Mission/Lincoln Ave intersection as a ‘Gateway’ to the Downtown and the general character of the existing neighborhood. The comments in support of the proposed height bonus state that the project would continue to provide a significant contribution to the City’s affordable housing in-lieu fee fund and initiatives while continuing to propose outstanding building design. These comments further state that the Mission/Lincoln Ave intersection, as a ‘Gateway’ to the Downtown, continues to deserve an iconic building design and the proposed height bonus would result in a building which sits only five feet (5’) higher than the adjacent building along the Mission Ave frontage. Staff’s Comments: This is an amendment of an approved project in which the Board’s review is limited to the scale/mass of the requested height bonus; how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood, and the traffic and parking impacts of the taller, larger building. The topography of the project site slopes (11% average cross-slope) up from the intersection of Mission and Lincoln Avenues to the rear of the site, trending southeast-to-northwest. This site topography helps to underground the 1st floor of the new building at the rear of the site. The amended project would have the visual appearance of a five-story building at the intersection of Mission and Lincoln Avenues and a four-story building at the rear and interior side elevations, similar to 820 Mission Ave. condominium building. The predominant scale of existing development immediately adjacent to the project site is four-story (west; 820 Mission Ave.) and three-story (north; 1215 Lincoln Ave. and 111 Laurel Pl.). The amended project submittal included an updated traffic and parking study which found that, while the proposed increased height and unit count would increase traffic impacts and required parking, these will be negligible (increased traffic over approved project) or mitigated (increase unit count is for memory care beds which increases staffing demand modestly and will be met by parking provided). The City Engineer has reviewed and supports findings presented in the updated traffic and parking study. The expanded project retains the California Mission Revival architecture, which the Board unanimously recommended for approval to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2018, which was ultimately approved. All public comments received on the amended project are attached as Exhibit 4. 11 CONCLUSION Planning staff supports the scale/mass of the requested height bonus, finding it adequately relates to the predominant four- and three-story scale of existing development immediately adjacent to the project site. Planning staff finds the expanded project retains the California Mission Revival architecture, which the Board unanimously recommended for approval to the Planning Commission in 2018. No other changes to the approved design of the project are proposed. The amended project continues to meet the applicable design-related General Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance regulations and standards, with the exception of the parking requirement for which the project submitted a updated traffic and parking study and requests a Parking Modification. The project continues to propose to develop two (2) Downtown parcels which have been vacant since 2007. Staff, however, requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Analysis section of this report. Staff further welcomes additional comments or guidance on the any site or building design details that would further improve the project. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Narrative 3. Updated Transportation and Parking Study 4. Public Comments 5. Approved Project Plans 6. Proposed Project Plans (Proposed Project Plans; https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/1203-lincoln/) Reduced (11” x 17”) color plans have been provided to Board members only. cc: ASC San Rafael LLC – 415 118th Ave. SE; Bellevue, W A 98005 Geoff Forner – 1 Belvedere Pl.; Mill Valley, CA 94941 Aegis Senior Living LLC 415 118th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98005 March 5, 2021 City of San Rafael Planning Division Attn: Steve Stafford 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: 800 Mission Avenue – Aegis San Rafael Design Review Modification Dear Mr. Stafford, On behalf of Aegis Senior Living LLC, we are pleased to present the revised DRB application for the previously approved senior assisted living project at 800 Mission Avenue. This project was last seen by the San Rafael Design Review Board on June 5, 2018 as an 88-bed project, comprised of four-levels over one level of subgrade parking. At that meeting, the project was unanimously approved, and the architectural character was praised by numerous Board members. Since its approval, the lending and construction environment has changed profoundly. This was largely driven by the global pandemic. As a result, the project has been financially infeasible to break ground with its current approved configuration. Fortunately, there are provisions in the San Rafael Zoning Code which allow for a height bonus in this location which we did not pursue originally but are now opting to incorporate. This results in a feasible project, which in turn will allow us to fulfill our commitment to the City’s affordable housing fund, development of this long vacant site into a vibrant and beautiful addition to downtown, and an increase by 26 suites of housing for San Rafael’s senior population. It also allows for the return of the architectural dome element that was part of the original DRB approval that was removed for cost purposes in 2020; an evolution of design is shown on Sheet A8.2 We have continued to evolve the design and we believe we have improved upon it, while at the same time also improving the economics of the project. The project’s revised design retains the high-quality Mission-style architecture that was originally approved in 2018, but now utilizes the height bonus allowed by section 14.16.190.B of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The revised building retains many of the project’s original architectural features and provides an additional 5th level without exceeding the allowable building height. As demonstrated in Exhibit #1, the difference of massing between the two buildings is minimized by the revised building design. Please review the detailed project description from Ankrom Moisan Architecture, summarizing all changes to the building design. A Traffic and Parking Analysis from TranspoGroup is also included. The parking provided on-site for this project is sufficient to accommodate all residents, staff, and visitors to the building during both the weekend, and weekday peak demands. The traffic impacts of this project are tremendously lower than other allowable uses on this site. The attached Traffic Impacts Analysis concludes that this project, even with the additional units, does not negatively affect any nearby intersections at peak, nor non-peak hours. We look forward to working with the City of San Rafael to create a beautiful and feasible new assisted living community in San Rafael. Sincerely, Geoff Forner Aegis Senior Living LLC 1 Belvedere Pl. Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-720-3806 Aegis Senior Living LLC 415 118th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98005 EXHIBIT #1 FD DN FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FSFS FS FSFS FS FS FS FS FD FD FD FD DN MISSION AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUELL LL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL CO CO COGMT R A N S F O R M E RFC LLLLLL DN DN MISSION AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUELLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL COCOCO COCOCOCO COGMT R A N S F O R M E RFC S D LLLLLL FRONT YARD SETBACK:2515 SF LANDSCAPED:1330 SF LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:53% LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:50% SIDE YARD SETBACK:1813 SF LANDSCAPED:930 SF LANDSCAPE PROVIDED:51% LANDSCAPE REQUIRED:50% USEABLE OUTDOOR AREA 1850 SF USEABLE OUTDOOR AREA 2120 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 17,707 SF LOT SIZE: 29,621 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 59% MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 60% PROJECT INFORMATION GENERAL PROJECT DIRECTORY GENERAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: R2.1 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS AN 106 UNIT, FIVE STORY BUILDING WITH SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE. THE LOCATION IS AT THE CORNER OF MISSION AND LINCOLN IN SAN RAFAEL. IT IS WALKING DISTANCE TO DOWNTOWN, THE TRANSIT CENTER, AND FUTURE SMART RAIL STATION. THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL LIVING, LOCATED ONE LEVEL ABOVE STREET, WILL HOUSE 54 UNITS DEDICATED TO MEMORY CARE RESIDENTS. THE UPPER TWO FLOORS WILL HOUSE 52 UNITS OF ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENTS. THE GROUND FLOOR PORT COCHERE WILL CONTAIN 2 ADA SPACES, 1 AEGIS VAN PARKING SPACE AND LOADING AREA. THERE ARE 2 STREET PULLOUTS PROPOSED FOR FIRE ACCESS AND LOADING. ONE AT MISSION AVE AND ONE AT LINCOLN AVE. THE SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE WILL CONTAIN 37 SPACES TOTAL (INCLUDING 2 ADA SPACES). THE PARKING TOTAL FOR THE COMPLEX WILL INCLUDE 40 DEDICATED SPACES (INCLUDING THE 4 ADA SPACES). ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE WILL BE LOCATED OFF MISSION. ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO GROUND LEVEL GARAGE WILL BE LOCATED OFF LINCOLN. PROJECT CONTAINS A MIX OF 1 BEDROOM & STUDIO UNITS. FIRST AND SECOND LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL ( ONE LEVEL UP FROM STREET), WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR MEMORY CARE USE. THE UNITS ON THIS FLOOR WILL HAVE NON OPERATIONAL DOORS TO 'FALSE BALCONY'S'. THERE WILL BE ONE CONTROLLED ACCESS POINT FOR GARDENING PURPOSES ON THIS FLOOR. THE FORTH AND FIFTH RESIDENTIAL FLOORS (UPPER TWO) WILL BE DESIGNATED FOR ASSISTED LIVING AND WILL HAVE EXTERIOR BALCONY ACCESS FROM DESIGNATED UNITS ON THE MISSION AND LINCOLN SIDES. THE ARCHITECTURAL GOALS OF THE GROUND LEVEL ARE TO CREATE A VERY AESTHETICALLY RICH, INVITING ENVIRONMENT WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RELATING TO THE EXISTING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE OF SAN RAFAEL. FROM THE STREET, A DEDICATED ENTRANCE FACADE, COUPLED WITH MULTI LEVEL, STAGGERED ROOFING ON EXTERIOR BALCONIES AND A FOCAL TOWER, WITH ARCHITECTURALLY SEPARATED BUILDING SECTIONS PROVIDES AN INTERESTING VIEW CONTAINING DESIRED CURB APPEAL. VISUAL DEPTH IS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE BALCONY'S, THE ROOF SEPARATIONS, AND THE BUILDING SEPARATIONS FROM VERTICAL MOVEMENT POINTS. SHADOWS AND DEPTH PREVENT MONOTONOUS WALLS AND BORING PLANES, OR BORING OVERALL MASSING IN GENERAL. THE SITE WILL BE LANDSCAPED TO PROVIDE SCREENING AND NATURAL APPEAL. ZONING: HR-1 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) 1,000 SF LAND PER DWELLING UNIT MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT: 48' PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 47' MIN. USABLE OUTDOOR AREA: 100 SF PROPOSED USABLE OUTDOOR AREA: 3,970 SF AP NUMBERS: 11-184-09, -08 UNITS PROPOSED: 106 BEDS: 114 APPLICANT AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES 415 118TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98005 CONTACT: WALTER BRAUN BRYON ZIEGLER PHONE: (425) 861-9993 EMAIL: walter.braun@aegisliving.com bryon.ziegler@aegisliving.com ARCHITECT ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS 38 NEW DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 CONTACT: RYAN MIYAHIRA LAURIE LINVILLE-GREGSTON PHONE: (503)245-7100 EMAIL:ryanm@ankrommoisan.com laurieg@ankrommoisan.com SETBACKS THE SETBACKS OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVED DESIGN ARE MAINTAINED TO INCLUDE 5' SETBACKS ON THE REAR AND SIDES OF THE FOOTPRINT, AS WELL AS A 10' SETBACK FROM MISSION AND A 15' SETBACK FROM LINCOLN. PROPOSED BUILDING FACADES/ARTICULATIONS EMULATE APPROVED DESIGN. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE GENERAL DESIGN ELEMENTS. DEVIATIONS MAY EXIST BETWEEN THESE DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AUTHORITIES. PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:23:56 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 TITLE SHEET 11 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM SHEET INDEX PROJECT NORTH SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 1 TITLE SHEET 2.1 LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN 3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 4.1 SECOND FLOOR -RESIDENTIAL PLAN 4.2 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 5.1 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN -FORMERLY L3 6.1 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN -FORMERLY L4 7.1 ROOF PLAN 8.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -DESIGN EVOLUTION 9.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -DESIGN EVOLUTION 10 SECTIONS 11 DETAILS 12 MAIN LEVEL -PLANTING PLAN 13 SECOND FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN 15 PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE 16 PLANT MATERIAL IMAGERY 17 SITE PLAN -LIGHTING 18 SECOND FLOOR PLAN -LIGHTING PLAN 19 OVERALL ROOF -LIGHTING PLAN LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM 1" = 50'-0" 1" = 50'-0"UNIT SCHEDULE UNIT TYPE COUNT AREA TOTAL LEVEL 5 AL.1 3 2004 AL.S 24 8747 27 10751 LEVEL 4 AL.1 2 1388 AL.S 25 9652 27 11040 LEVEL 3 LN.S 26 8931 26 8931 LEVEL 2 LN.S 26 8969 26 8969 Grand total 106 39691 W/D W/DWUP UP A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 161 SF ELEVATOR LOBBY 400 SF MAINTENANCE OFFICE 5.0%10.0%20.0%LEVEL P1 PARKING 37 STALLS STAIR 3 ? SF ?8' - 8"28' - 4"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"18' - 0"27' - 0"19' - 2"28' - 0"28' - 0"28' - 0"28' - 0"16' - 7" ELEV 1 ELEV 2 109' - 6"SECURED LONG-TERM WALL MOUNTED BICYCLE PARKING 22' - 8"OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE STORAGE ? SF ? 70 SF EXHAUST 147 SF STAIR 2 215 SF STORAGE 492 SF BOH LAUNDRY 81 SF SOILED LAUNDRY STAGING 286 SF STAFF LOUNGE 98 SF STAFF R.R. 93 SF ELEV. EQUIPMENT11' - 11"FLOOR LINE FOR PREVIOUS SENIOR LIVING PROPOSAL 1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:23:59 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 LOWER GARAGE PLAN 2.12.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER GARAGE PLAN DN DN DN DN UP DN LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25'-2" RAMP 27'-2"LINCOLN AVEMISSION AVE 15' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK 2003 SF DINING 488 SF ACTIVITY 127 SF OFFICE 807 SF OUTDOOR DINING ELEV 1 ELEV 2 520 SF LIVING 104 SF OFFICE 68 SF R.R.TRASH & RECYCLE PICK-UP/ DELIVERIESDECELERATION LANE FOR GARAGE ENTRY 26'-9 5/8" 26'-3 3/4" ROLL-UP OPEN GRILL GARAGE DOOR VIDEO & ENTRY PHONE TRENCH DRAIN RIGHT TURN ONLY TRANSFORMER 83' TRAVEL 240 SF MAIL ROOM 29'-6"29'-6"28'-6"28'-6"27'-6" 27'-6" 30'-6" 26'-2" 27'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 5.8 % 26'-10" 26'-10" 31'-2 3/8"5.0%10.0%4.2%30'-2" 30'-2" OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE TRENCH DRAIN OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE (OPEN TO THE SKY) 25'-6" 4309 SF COVERED DROP OFF 101 SF WORKROOM/PACKAGES 232 SF JUICE BAR 1229 SF BISTRO 133 SF ENTRY 90 SF CONCIERGE 160 SF MAIN ENTRY 148 SF R.R. 133 SF R.R. 346 SF PRIVATE DINING 1022 SF KITCHEN 163 SF DISPLAY KITCHEN 86 SF VESTIBULE 56 SF CHEF OFC 66 SF FREEZER ? SF ? 600 SF FITNESS 311 SF SALON 40 SF MIXING 127 SF MASSAGE 77 SF BARBER 182 SF VESTIBULE 670 SF CINEMA 1128 SF MERCADO (DINING) 122 SF WINE CELLAR 163 SF STAIR 3 93 SF SEATING NICHE 147 SF STAIR 2 OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:05 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3.13.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN WWUP UP DN DN A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LN.S STAIR 2 STAIR 1 10' STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.SLN.SLN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.SLN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S ELEV 1 ELEV 2 ELEVATOR LOBBY LN.S LN.S ? ACD LN/ACD OFFICE ELECTRICAL FIRE DOOR OUTLINE OF NEW BALCONY ABOVE LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.SLN.S LN.S LIFE HAVEN R.R. LAUNDRY SERVERY VESTIBULE LN. DINING BATHTIQUE OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE5' - 10 79/256"1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 LN.S PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:10 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 SECOND FLOOR - RESIDENTIAL PLAN 4.14.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR - RESIDENTIAL PLAN WWA B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.SLN.SLN.SLN.S LN.S LN.SLN.SLN.S LN.SLN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN. DINING LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S ACD LN/ACD OFFICE LIFE HAVEN ELECTRICALR.R. LAUNDRY ELEVATOR LOBBY VESTIBULESERVERY BATHTIQUE NEW BALCONY PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:16 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 L3 FLOOR PLAN 4.24.2 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 L3 FLOOR PLAN WWUP UP DN A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LED OFC 1 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.1 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S ELEV 1 ELEV 2 AL.SAL.S AL.SAL.SAL.S AL.1 ? AL.S AL.S LAUNDRY ELECTRICAL STORAGECARE DIRECTOR STAIR 2 STORAGE STAIR 1 OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE OUTLINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:21 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 L4 FLOOR PLAN 5.15.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 L4 FLOOR PLAN DN DN A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 COVERED DECK0"COVERED SETBACK ELEV 1 AL.S AL.S HSD AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.1 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S ELEV 2 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.1 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S CORRIDOR AL.S NURSE STATION MED OFC AL.S AL.S STORAGE STAIR 2 ELECTRICAL JANITOR BATHTIQUE STAIR 1 COVERED SETBACK 1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:26 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 L5 FLOOR PLAN 6.16.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 L5 FLOOR PLAN A B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ROOF TOP MECHANICAL ROOF TOP MECHANICAL 1 10.0 2 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:24:29 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 ROOF PLAN 7.17.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 0 321684NORTH1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" 2 10.0 LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"14' - 0"LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0"BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT 48' - 0"10' - 0"SURVEY DATUM POINT 24'-0" LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LEVEL 3 50' -2" 1 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"14' - 0"LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0"TOWER HEIGHT: 71' - 3"ZONING BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: 48' - 0"KEY MAP PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:25:21 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8.18.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED DESIGN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED DESIGN 1 2 LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0" LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"14' - 0"LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"14' - 0"LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:25:56 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DESIGN EVOLUTION 8.28.2 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 2 1/16"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION -BUILDING PERMITTED IN 2020 1 1/16"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION -APPROVED BY DRB IN 2019 1/16"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION -BUILDING PERMITTED IN 2020 1/16"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION -APPROVED BY DRB IN 2019 1/16" = 1'-0"3 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED DRB DESIGN 1/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED DRB DESIGN LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" 2 10.0 LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0"48' - 0"LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" 1 10.0 3 10.0 4 10.0 11' - 0"11' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0" LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" KEY MAP PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:26:42 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9.19.1 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1 2 LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:27:13 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DESIGN EVOLUTION 9.29.2 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 2 1/16"=1'-0" WEST ELEVATION -PERMITTED IN 2020 1 1/16"=1'-0" WEST ELEVATION -APPROVED BY DRB IN 2019 5 1/16"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION -PERMITTED IN 2020 4 1/16"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION -APPROVED BY DRB IN 2019 1/16" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED DRB DESIGN 1/16" = 1'-0"6 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED DRB DESIGN LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL P1 14' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2"10' - 0"10' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 0"CORRIDOR CORRIDOR AL.S AL.S AL.S MED OFCELECTRICALBATHTIQUE AL.S AL.S AL.S ELECTRICAL LAUNDRY CORRIDOR CORRIDOR LN.S LN.S LN.S LIFE HAVEN ELECTRICAL LAUNDRY COVERED DROP OFF PARKING PARKING LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL P1 14' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.1 AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S ? LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S LN.S RAMP KITCHEN PARKING DINING LIVINGWINE CELLAR LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL P1 14' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" AL.S CORRIDOR AL.S AL.S CORRIDOR AL.S LN.S CORRIDOR LN. DINING PRIVATE DINING DINING VESTIBULE CORRIDORDISPLAY KITCHEN R.R. PARKING LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL P1 14' -2" LEVEL 5 71' -2" LEVEL 3 50' -2" 31'-2 3/8" 1 0 .0 %5.0% 2 0 .0 % 79'-2 1/4"5'-0"5'-0" AL.S AL.S AL.S AL.S LN.S LN.S MIXING SALON RAMP PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:27:22 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 SECTIONS 10.010.0 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1/16" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION 1 1/16" = 1'-0"2 BUILDING SECTION 2 1/16" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION 3 1/16" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING SECTION AT PARKING RAMP LEVEL 1 25' -2" LEVEL 2 39' -2" LEVEL 4 61' -2" ROOF 81' -2" LEVEL P1 14' -2" ZONING REFERENCE 34' -0" LEVEL 5 71' -2"10' - 0"10' - 0"11' - 0"11' - 0"14' - 0"OUTDOOR DININGDINING 11' - 0"AB LN.S AL.S AL.1 PARKING LEVEL 3 50' -2" LN.S LANDSCAPE PUBLIC SIDEWALK LIMIT (ROOF DECK) 82' -0"48' - 0"LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" LIMIT PITCHED ROOF 87' -0" PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER C:\_Revit Projects\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael\174170-20-Aegis San Rafael_mattw.rvt3/8/2021 11:27:59 AM174170 PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901MAR 3, 2021 DETAILS 11.011.0 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WALL SECTION 6 51 3 2 1. TILE ROOF 2. BLUE ROOF TILE 3.TIMBER DETAILING 4. WROUGHT IRON 5. STUCCO 6. FABRIC AWNINGS 42 PROJECT NUMBER© ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300PORTLAND, OR 97209503.245.71001505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300SEATTLE, WA 98101206.576.16001014 HOWARD STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103415.252.7063DATESHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBERC:\_Revit Projects\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_samc.rvt 2/27/2018 2:59:04 PM 174170PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAEL ASC SAN RAFAEL LLC 800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94549MAR 3, 2021REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUELandscape Architecture232 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.San Anselmo, CA 94960Phone: (415) 721-0905Fax: (415) 721-0910Email: info@studiogreen.comwww.studiogreen.comABBREVBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE SPACING MATURE SIZE/ PLANT TYPE WUCOLS RATINGTREESACE APO ACER SACCHARUM 'APOLLO'APOLLO MAPLE36" BOX PER PLANS 30'/ DECIDUOUSLOWMUS BAS MUSA BASJOOJAPANESE BANANA24" BOX 4' O.C. 12'/ HERBACEOUSMEDIUMOLE EUR OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL'FRUITLESS OLIVE - TREE FORM 36" BOX PER PLANS 25'+ / EVERGREEN VERY LOWPHO DAC PHOENIX DACTYLIFERADATE PALM12' BTH30' O.C. 30'+ / EVERGREEN LOWPIS CHI PISTACIA CHINENSISCHINESE PISTACHE36" BOX PER PLANS 30'/ DECIDUOUSLOWSHRUBS, GROUNDCOVERS & VINESBUX GRE BUXUS M. VAR JAPONICA 'GREEN BEAUTY' DWARF BOXWOOD5 GAL 1'-0"2'/ EVERGREENLOWCAR DIV CAREX DIVULSABERKELEY SEDGE1 GAL1'-8"12" / EVERGREENVERY LOWDIA REV DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'LITTLE REV FLAX LILY1 GAL1'-6"18" / EVERGREENLOWGEL SEM GELSEMIUM SEPERVIRENS 'MARGARITA' CAROLINA JESSIMINE1 GAL PER PLANS 12' + / EVERGREEN LOWGER MAC GERANIUM MACRORRHIZUMBIG ROOT GERANIUM1 GAL 1'-6"8" / SEMI-EVERGREEN MEDIUMLAM WHI LAMIUM MACULATUM 'WHITE NANCY' WHITE NANCY DEADNETTLE1 GAL1'-6"6" / SEMI-EVERGREENMEDIUMLIR MUS LIRIOPE MUSCARIBLUE LILY TURF1 GAL1'-0"12"/ EVERGREENMEDIUMLOM BRE LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'DWARF MAT RUSH1 GAL 2'-6"2' / EVERGREENLOWLOM PLA LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' VARIEGATED DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 2'-6"2' / EVERGREENLOWLON JAP LONICERA JAPONICAJAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE1 GAL3'-0"2' / EVERGREENMEDIUMLOR CHI LOROPETALUM CHINENSEFRINGE FLOWER5 GAL4'-6"3'-6' / EVERGREEN LOWPHI XAN PHILODENDRON XANADUPHILODENDRON5 GAL 3'-0"2' / EVERGREENMEDIUMRHA CAL RHAMNUS CALIFORNICACOFFEEBERRY5 GAL PER PLANS 6'-8' / EVERGREEN LOWROS SPP ROSA SPECIES CARPET ROSEGROUNDCOVER CARPET ROSE 'PINK' 1 GAL3'-0"18" TO 2' /SEMI-EVERGREENLOWSTR REG STRELITZIA REGINAEBIRD OF PARADISE5 GAL 4'4' TO 6' / EVEGREEN LOWBIOFILTRATION PLANTSACE CIR ACER CIRCINATUMVINE MAPLE15 GAL PER PLANS 10'+ / DECIDUOUSLOWACH MIL ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUMCOMMON YARROW1 GAL 2'-0" 1'-6" / PERENNIALLOWCAR DIV CAREX DIVULSABERKELEY SEDGE1 GAL 1'-6"12" / EVERGREENLOWCHO TEC CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUMSMALL CAPE RUSH1 GAL2'-0"2' / EVERGREENLOWIRI DOU IRIS DOUGLASIANADOUGLAS IRIS1 GAL2'-0"2' / EVERGREENLOWLOB CAR LOBELIA CARDINALISCARDINAL FLOWER1 GAL 2'-0"3' / PERENNIALLOWRHA CAL RHAMNUS CALIFORNICACOFFEEBERRY5 GAL PER PLANS 6'-8' / EVERGREEN LOWPLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULEBUXUS M. VAR JAPONICA'GREEN BEAUTY'MUSA BASJOOPISTACIA CHINENSIS(Street Trees)CAREX DIVULSACHONDROPETALUM TECTORUMDIANELLA REVOLUTA'LITTLE REV'LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA'BREEZE'LONICERA JAPONICAPLANT MATERIAL IMAGERYLOROPETALUM CHINENSEPHILODENDRON XANADUROSA SPECIESSTRELITZIA REGINAEGELSEMIUM SEMPERVIRENS'MARGARITA'TREESSHRUBS, GROUNDCOVERS & VINESLIRIOPE MUSCARIBIOFILTRATION PLANTSCAREX DIVULSAIRIS DOUGLASIANALOBELIA CARDINALISNOTE: PLANTER MATERIAL IN THE LEVEL 2 INDIVIDUAL PLANTER POTS WILL BE SEASONAL AND CONSIST MAINLY OF FLOWERING PLANTS. THIS PLANTING AREAHAS BEEN ADDED TO THE IRRIGATION AND IS PART OF THE WATER USE CALCS.PLANT MATERIALSCHEDULE& IMAGERYACER SACCHARUM'APOLLO'OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL'PHOENIX DACTYLIFERAGERANIUM MACRORRHIZUMLAMIUM MACULATUM 'WHITE NANCY'LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA'PLATINUM BEAUTY'RHAMNUS CALIFORNICAACER CIRCINATUMACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUMRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA16 FDCWMGM WMSSPIVEM DNCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCONFORM TO (EX) SIDEWALK(N) CONCRETE CURB& GUTTER, S.C.D.CAR DIV98 SF-(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK,S.C.D.PIS CHI-1CAR DIV195 SF-PIS CHI-1(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK,S.C.D.DIA REV-3STR REG-8BUX SEM-17PHO DAC-2DIA REV-48GEL SEM-7STR REG-10BUX SEM-36ROS SPP-50LOM BRE-29LOR CHI-40PHI XAN-26LOM PLA-58ROS SPP-26OUTDOOR DININGSTR REG-18LOR CHI-10CAR DIV-95PORTE COCHERES.A.D.STR REG-5LOR CHI-5CAR DIV-34PHI XAN-3OLE EUR-5ACE APO-3DROP OFF/ LOADINGFIRE ACCESSLINCOLN AVENUEMISSION AVENUECOVERED PARKING/DROP OFFENTRANCEENTRANCE TOUNDERGROUNDGARAGEWATER FEATURE, S.A.D.MUS BAS-3PIS CHI-1CAR DIV130 SF-LON JAP150 SF-PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED BUILDINGS.A.D.RHA CAL-7PROJECT NUMBER© ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300PORTLAND, OR 97209503.245.71001505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300SEATTLE, WA 98101206.576.16001014 HOWARD STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103415.252.7063DATESHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBERC:\_Revit Projects\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_samc.rvt 2/27/2018 2:59:04 PM 174170PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAEL ASC SAN RAFAEL LLC 800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94549MAR 3, 2021REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUELandscape Architecture232 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.San Anselmo, CA 94960Phone: (415) 721-0905Fax: (415) 721-0910Email: info@studiogreen.comwww.studiogreen.comNOTE:1. SEE SHEET 16 FOR PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE &IMAGERY.SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"0 5' 10'20'30'LINCOLN AVENUE LANDSCAPE:FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA: 2,515 SFLANDSCAPE AREA: 1,299 SFLANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE PROVIDED: 52%LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED: 50%MISSION AVENUE LANDSCAPE:SIDE YARD SETBACK AREA: 1,813 SFLANDSCAPE AREA: 910 SFLANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE PROVIDED: 50%LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGE REQUIRED: 50%1201GROUND LEVEL PLANTING PLANGROUND LEVELPLANTING PLANNorth PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE CAR DIVBIOFILTRATION14RHA CALBIOFILTRATION14ACE CIRBIOFILTRATION7CHO TECBIOFILTRATION8RHA CALBIOFILTRATION 10CHO TECBIOFILTRATION10ARTIFICIAL TURFSEE MATERIALS SCHEDULEIRI DOUBIOFILTRATION 29PARAPET WALL, S.A.D.LOB CARBIOFILTRATION19GER MAC16PROPOSED BUILDINGS.A.D.ACH MILBIOFILTRATION 67PLANTER POTSSEASONAL-LAM WHI15LIR MUS16IRI DOUBIOFILTRATION 30ACH MILBIOFILTRATION 46IRI DOUBIOFILTRATION 26PROJECT NUMBER© ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300PORTLAND, OR 97209503.245.71001505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300SEATTLE, WA 98101206.576.16001014 HOWARD STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103415.252.7063DATESHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBERC:\_Revit Projects\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael\174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_samc.rvt 2/27/2018 2:59:04 PM 174170PLANNINGAEGIS SAN RAFAEL ASC SAN RAFAEL LLC 800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94549MAR 3, 2021REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUELandscape Architecture232 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.San Anselmo, CA 94960Phone: (415) 721-0905Fax: (415) 721-0910Email: info@studiogreen.comwww.studiogreen.comSCALE: 1" = 10'-0"0 5' 10'20'30'1301LEVEL 2 PLANTING PLANNOTE:1. SEE SHEET 16 FOR PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE & IMAGERY.LEVEL 2PLANTING PLANNorth 09.17.19 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLANNING DATE 05.30.2018 SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1515 09.17.19 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLANNING DATE 05.30.2018 SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1616 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 5.5 4.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.7 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.7 4.8 4.1 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.9 2.9 3.8 3.9 3.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.4 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 4.8 6.5 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.3 4.8 1.9 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.8 5.9 7.7 9.9 8.6 7.9 7.9 8.9 7.5 5.4 4.8 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.6 1.7 1.1 7.4 7.6 8.2 9.9 8.6 7.6 8.7 10.0 9.1 6.8 7.5 5.2 3.4 5.5 4.4 2.9 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.9 3.3 6.0 10.3 10.2 8.2 7.8 7.2 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.7 8.3 10.2 8.3 4.8 3.9 4.1 2.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 2.0 3.3 6.2 8.4 9.4 6.9 5.8 5.1 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.9 7.0 10.1 7.8 4.3 5.8 4.1 2.8 1.9 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.9 5.0 7.9 8.4 6.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.6 5.4 6.9 8.9 7.0 4.4 5.0 3.4 2.4 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.8 5.2 8.1 8.6 7.0 5.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 5.2 6.0 8.2 9.2 7.2 4.7 4.7 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.1 5.6 9.8 10.9 7.8 7.9 7.4 6.3 6.5 7.1 7.2 9.4 11.7 7.8 4.0 4.3 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.6 4.2 6.9 7.6 8.1 9.9 8.9 7.9 8.8 9.6 7.9 7.1 7.9 6.1 3.4 3.5 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.2 8.9 9.1 7.0 8.6 10.6 7.2 5.1 4.3 3.3 2.3 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.4 3.0 4.3 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.2 1.7 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 1.5 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 7.2 1.9 6.4 0.5 6.0 0.4 5.9 0.4 5.9 0.5 6.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 FDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD SR1 SW2SW2SW2 SW2 SW2 SW2 SW2 SW2 SW1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1SS1 SW1 SW2 SW2 SP1 SP1 SP2 SP2 SW3 SW3 SW3 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 engineers for a sustainable futureTM www.glumac.com Job. No.: Project Manager: PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 2210 Seattle, WA 98101 05.19.00126 Adam Leingang T. 206.262.1010 F. 206.262.9865 BIM 360://05.19.00126 Aegis San Rafael MEP Energy Narrative/174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_MEP_v17.rvt9/17/2019 12:51:13 PM174170 DD PROGRESS SETAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 9490108.08.2019 SITE PLAN - LIGHTING EL1.01EL1.01 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"1 SITE PLAN - LIGHTING 09.17.19 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING SW1, SW2 19" AND 30" TALL DECORATIVE WALL SCONCES WITH LED CANDELABRA BASE LAMPS IN WARM WHITE COLOR TEMPERATURE(2700k) SS1 RECESSED STEPLIGHT AT PATHWAYS SP1, SP2 30" AND 19" TALL DECORATIVE POLE-TOP LUMINAIRES WITH LED CANDELABRA BASE LAMPS IN WARM WHITE COLOR TEMPERATURE(2700k) AT MAIN ENTRY AND DRIVE ENTRY TO COVERED PARKING SW3 WALL PACK FOR SECURITY AND EGRESS LIGHTING AT BUILDING EXITS 16 SF1 CEILING MOUNTED LIGHTING FOR COVERED PARKING AREA SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1717 PLANNING DATE 05.30.2018 WW 1.7 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.4 5.0 4.7 4.3 1.2 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.5 3.7 4.5 4.1 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.6 3.3 2.7 4.0 4.4 6.4 7.4 7.5 7.6 2.9 1.4 2.2 5.2 3.0 6.9 6.1 7.6 6.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 3.1 1.4 3.5 2.2 5.5 5.3 7.1 3.1 3.8 OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS DcDb OS DcDbOS OS D DSOS OSOS DaOSA B C D F E G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CORRIDOR 236 BATHTIQUE 213 STAIR 1 ST1-2 ELEVATOR LOBBY 200 ELEV 1 EL1 ELEV 2 EL2 FEATURE STAIR ST3-2 CORRIDOR 237 CORRIDOR 237 STORAGE 235 STAIR 2 ST2-2 VESTIBULE 217 LAUNDRY 221 JANITOR 238 ELECTRICAL 220 R.R. 216 ACD LN/ACD OFFICE 215 LIFE HAVEN 219 LN. DINING 214 ERH 0105 EL3.01 1 5 7a 7a 7a 7a 7a 7a 7a 7a 1a 1a 3a 1a 1a 5a 5a 7a 5a 5a 7a7a 3a 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3b7 3 3 1 1 7 3 33 7 33 3 31 7 1 1 1 7 7 5 5 5 3 3 5 2 2 1b 1b 1b 1c 3c 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 3 3 L3 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 AS1 RB1RB1 AS2 WA1 WA1 RA1 RA1 RA1 RA1 RA1 RB1RB1 L11 L11 L11 L11 RB1 RB1 RB1RB1 RB1 RB1RB1 RB1 RB1RB1 RB1 RB1 RB1 RB1 RB1 RB1 RB1 B1 B1 RA1 RA1 B1 WA1 WA1 RB1 RB1 RB1 L14 L14 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 RB1 SW1 SW1 SW1 SW1 SW1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SW1 SS1 SS1 SS1 SS1 engineers for a sustainable futureTM www.glumac.com Job. No.: Project Manager: PROJECT NUMBER © ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300 PORTLAND, OR 97209 503.245.7100 1505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.576.1600 1014 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 415.252.7063 DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 2210 Seattle, WA 98101 05.19.00126 Adam Leingang T. 206.262.1010 F. 206.262.9865 BIM 360://05.19.00126 Aegis San Rafael MEP Energy Narrative/174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_MEP_v17.rvt9/17/2019 11:15:44 AM174170 DD PROGRESS SETAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 9490108.08.2019 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - LIGHTING PLAN EL2.02EL2.02 REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 2 - FLOOR PLAN - LIGHTING SHEET NOTES A. ALL NORMALLY POWERED LIGHT FIXTURES CIRCUITED TO PANEL L2-1 UON. B. ALL EMERGENCY LIGHT FIXTURES CIRCUITED TO PANEL EL1-1 UON. PROJECT NORTH 09.17.19 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING 17 SW3 SS1 RECESSED STEPLIGHT SW4 TRELLIS-MOUNT DOWNLGIHT SCONCE SW1 19" TALL DECORATIVE WALL SCONCES WITH LED CANDELABRA BASE LAMPS IN WARM WHITE COLOR TEMPERATURE(2700k) SHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER 1818 PLANNING DATE 05.30.2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.91.11.3 1.2 0.9 0.40.1 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 2.9 0.1 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 2.9 0.1 2.5 0.6 1.5 3.8 5.1 3.5 1.1 0.69.3 2.9 0.5 0.2 0.7 3.8 9.3 2.8 0.5 0.2 0.7 3.8 9.3 2.9 0.7 1.2 6.5 10.44.70.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.30.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.12.0 6.9 7.3 6.9 6.7 0.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.8 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.9 0.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.2 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.5 0.50.2 0.2 1.0 3.11.71.6 2.1 0.41.3 0.6 0.5 5.0 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.41.40.5 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.31.5 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.31.40.4 0.2 4.8 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.31.50.4 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 2.7 1.8 2.11.50.4 0.4 1.6 0.6 1.31.41.2 1.9 1.6 1.61.5 0.5 0.3 4.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.21.6 0.5 0.51.40 2.9 2.31.6 0.6 0.5 1.8 0. 1.01.5.51.11.0 5.2 0.51.1 1.50.51.4 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.4 2.01.0 2.1 2.5 2.11.10.5 0.42.2 2.7 1.9 3.0 2.4 1.6 0.8CDFEG678VESTIBULE500ELEV 2EL2ELEV 1EL1STAIR 2ST2-RWA1WA122SW3SW2B2SB2SB2SB1SB1SB1SW3SJ1SJ1SJ1SB1SS1 SS1SS1 SS1SS1SS1SS1 SS1SS1SS1 SS1SS1 SS1SS1SS1SS1SS1SS1SS1SS1SS1SW5SW5SC1SC1SS1SS1SJ1engineers for a sustainable futureTMwww.glumac.comJob. No.:Project Manager:PROJECT NUMBER© ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.38 NORTHWEST DAVIS, SUITE 300PORTLAND, OR 97209503.245.71001505 5TH AVE, SUITE 300SEATTLE, WA 98101206.576.16001014 HOWARD STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103415.252.7063DATENOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 2210Seattle, WA 98101 05.19.00126Adam LeingangT. 206.262.1010 F. 206.262.9865BIM 360://05.19.00126 Aegis San Rafael MEP Energy Narrative/174170-17-Aegis San Rafael_MEP_v17.rvt9/17/2019 11:45:32 AM174170DD PROGRESS SETAEGIS SAN RAFAELASC SAN RAFAEL LLC800 MISSION AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 9490108.08.2019OVERALL ROOFPLAN - LIGHTINGPLANEL2.05EL2.05REVISION DATE REASON FOR ISSUESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1ROOF - FLOOR PLAN - LIGHTINGPROJECTNORTH09.17.19LANDSCAPE LIGHTING18SC1FLEXIBLE FACADE TSHEET NUMBERSHEET NUMBER1919PLANNINGDATE05.30.2018 Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Case Numbers: CDR21-001 Project Planner: Krystle Rizzi Agenda Item: 4 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 16 De Luca Place - Request for Conceptual Design Review to demolish an existing one-story industrial building and construct a new two-story, 7,774 square foot building. The building will contain primarily storage/factory spaces with ancillary office space not exceeding 25 percent of the overall building square footage.; APN: 013-081-04; Industrial (I), Zoning District; Mark and Kathleen Barger, Owner; Stewart Summers, SKS Architects, Applicant; File No.: CDR21-001 PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use Project Site: Industrial Industrial Industrial (Allied Heating & AC) North: Industrial Industrial Industrial building South: Industrial Industrial Industrial building East: Industrial Industrial Automotive services West: Industrial Industrial Automotive services/manufacturing Lot Size Maximum Lot Coverage Required: 6,000 s.f. Proposed : 20,611 s.f. (no change) Standard: NR Proposed: 19.7% (4,080 s.f.) Height Max Floor Area Ratio Allowed: 36 feet Proposed: 31 feet Allowed: .38 (7,832 s.f.) Proposed: .37 (7,774 s.f.) Parking Min. Lot Width (New lots) Required: Industrial: 1/500 s.f. (12) Office: 1/250 s.f. (8) Total: 20 Proposed: 20 spaces Required: 60 feet Proposed: 62 feet (no change) Minimum Landscape Area Setbacks Required Proposed Required: 10% (2,061 s.f.) Proposed: 4.2% (866 s.f.) Front Side - North Side - South Rear NR NR NR NR 52’ 9”’ +/-20’ 5’ +/-160’ SUMMARY The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for conceptual review of a proposed demolition and rebuild of an existing 4,974 square foot industrial building . The project site is approximately 20,611 square feet with frontage on De Luca Place to the west. The applicant is seeking the Board's recommendations on the proposed project design which will be the basis for submittal of a formal application. With the Board's recommendation, the applicant will submit a formal application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit. Once a formal application has been submitted, the project will be scheduled to return to the Board for a formal recommendation on site and building design, which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final decision. Staff is seeking the Board's evaluation of the project's consistency with design criteria contained in the applicable design-related General Plan policies, Zoning Ordinance regulations, and San Rafael Design Guidelines for non-residential development, discussed further below. Staff is requesting that the Board provide recommendations on how to effectively address the following: • Site Plan - Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site. • Architecture - Whether the design proposed for this project is appropriate given surrounding development. • Colors and Materials - Whether the colors and materials are appropriate. • Landscaping - Whether the proposed landscaping is adequate in location, type and proportion. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The project site is approximately 20,611 square feet and is currently developed with a one-story, 4,970 square-foot building which has historically been used for industrial operations and is currently occupied by Allied Heating and Air Conditioning. The site is surrounded by a variety of other industrial uses that feature a mixture of one and two-story buildings with primarily metal building facades. The site is designated as Industrial (I) in the City’s General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ordinance which provides for motor vehicle services, contractor uses and yards, manufacturing, storage uses, wholesale, incidental employee-serving retail and service uses, specialty retail uses consistent with industrial uses, rock, sand and gravel plants, solid waste management and recycling facilities, trucking yards or terminals, and ancillary and small office s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use. The conceptual design proposes demolition of the existing one-story industrial building which will be reconstructed as a two-story structure and will continue to be operate d by Allied Heating and Air Conditioning. The project proposes primarily storage/manufacturing space on the first floor with a small ancillary office and storage and office space on the second floor. The proposed office spaces will occupy approximately 25% of the total building floor area. Site Plan: Pursuant to Section 14.05.030 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), the Industrial Zoning District does not have a maximum limit on lot coverage nor does the district have minimum setback requirements. As proposed, the project will provide approximately 20% lot coverage. The proposed structure provides the greatest setbacks from the front and rear property line, with side setbacks of approximately 20 -feet from the northern property line and five-feet from the southern property line. Architecture: The overall height of the building is approximately 31-f eet which is consistent with the requirements of the Industrial Zoning District. Proposed materials include metal ribbed siding and roofing , composite panel awnings, and metal framed windows. Building elevations are provided on Sheet A2 of the Conceptual Design Review submittal and are further described below. West (Front). The front elevation, facing De Luca Place, includes a substantial amount of glazing including an overhead garage door which includes paneled windows separated by metal panes, four metal framed windows at the second floor, and a glass front entry door which is flanked by two vertically oriented windows. A projecting composite panel awning is located above the entry door and windows providing a sense of pedestrian entry. A similar awning is located on the second floor above the four metal windows. Vertical landscaping on a wood trellis is located adjacent to the front entry door. East (Rear). The rear elevation contains similar architectural features as the front elevations including an entry door with projecting awning above, four evenly spaced metal framed windows at the second floor, and two additional windows on either side of the entry door. South and North (Side ). The south side elevation also includes an overhead garage door, windows with composite panel awnings on the second floor, and a vertical landscape feature. The north elevation includes metal framed windows and light fixtures. Landscaping: As shown on the preliminary landscape plan submitted with the Conceptual Design Review application, the project proposes to install landscaping along the north, east, and west property lines and will include trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Additionally, the project proposes to install vertical landscaping at the southwest corner of the new building. The project proposes a total of 866 square feet of landscaping, excluding the vertical landscape wall. As proposed, the landscaping does not meet the minimum 10% required by the zoning ordinance. Lighting: Plans submitted for conceptual review include lighting details on Sheet A3. As proposed, the project would install downcast black LED wall sconces along all building elevations. ANALYSIS Conceptual Design Review provides an opportunity for feedback on the design, color, and material concept of a proposed project prior to formal application submittal. The conceptual review seeks feedback from the Design Review Board, City Staff, and the public and provides comments to the applicant on appropriateness of design and compliance with design review criteria. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and provided preliminary feedback and questions regarding the design approach for the Board to consider in providing its comments. Below is a general analysis of the project's consistency with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Guidelines. General Plan 2020 Consistency: In general, the project is consistent with the applicable design-related San Rafael General Plan policies. A full consistency review will be conducted upon formal project submittal. The site is designated Industrial (I) on the General Plan 2020 Land Use Map. Design-related policies applicable to the project at a conceptual stage and how the project complies with these policies are described below along with specific areas where staff is seeking feedback from the Board. It should be noted that the updated General Plan and General Plan EIR are in the process of being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Should the General Plan be formally adopted prior to formal review of the proposed project, the discussion of the project’s consistency with the updated General Plan will be included as applicable. Land Use Policy LU-12 (Building Heights) Exhibit 7 of the General Plan identifies maximum building height limits in Central San Rafael. The area of the proposed project allows buildings to be a maximum of 36 feet. The project proposes a height of 31-feet, which is consistent with the maximum allowable height for the site. Community Design Policy CD-3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to preserve and enhance the positive qualities that are unique to each neighborhood. The area immediately surrounding the project site contains a variety of industrial buildings. The Board is being asked to provide feedback on the proposed design and recommend additional design qualities that fit within the context of the neighborhood, as appropriate. Community Design Policy CD-12 (Industrial Areas) recognizes the economic importance of industrial areas and seeks to design them in such a way that creates a visually comfortable and welcoming appearance. As proposed, the project appears to be improving the visual appearance of the site by providing a building with increased transparency oriented toward the public right-of - way, increased sense of pedestrian entry as compared to the existing building, and increased landscaping. The Board is being asked to provide feedback on the proposed design and recommend design qualities that are consistent with this General Plan policy. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The following development and performance standards are applicable to the project. As noted in the development summary table earlier in the staff report, the project proposes to comply with the majority of development standards of the Industrial Zoning District. The following items are applicable to the project. As noted, some items will need to be addressed or clarified upon submittal of a formal application: Height The applicant proposes to comply with the maximum height permitted by the District. Surrounding development is similar in scale to the proposed project. Landscaping The Industrial Zoning District requires a minimum landscaped area of 10% of the project site, which is equivalent to 2,061 square feet for the project. Plans submitted for conceptual review are inconsistent with this requirement as the total landscaped area provided is 866 square feet (excluding the vertical landscape feature), which equates to 4.2% of the total site. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board relative to the placement, type, and size of proposed landscaping as well as recommendations for modifications to the site design that will accommodate an increase to the landscaped area in order to meet the minimum requirements, as appropriate. Refuse Pursuant to Section 14.16.025 of the SRMC, the proposed project will be required upon formal submittal to provide an area on-site suitable for collection of trash and recyclable materials. Plans submitted for conceptual design review indicate that a 10-foot x 12-foot covered refuse enclosure will be located at the northeast corner of the site. As noted in comments provided by Marin Sanitary Service on the proposed project, the enclosure will need to be enlarged to accommodate an 18-yard bin which measures 13-feet x 9-feet. Parking The total parking obligation for the project is one space per 500 square feet of building area for industrial uses and one space per 250 of office space. Based on the proposed square footage, the project is required to provide a total of 20 parking spaces. As presented, the conceptual design complies with the minimum parking requirement. Parking is primarily located at the rear of the building, with two spaces located near the front entrance along De Luca Place. Staff is seeking feedback and recommendations from the Board on the appropriate location of required onsite parking. Bicycle Parking Secti on 14.18.090 of the Zoning Ordinance provides requirements for bicycle parking in new non-residential developments. The number of short-term bicycle parking spaces required is equal to five percent (5%) of the required automobile spaces with a minimum of one rack that can accommodate two bicycles. As such, the project is required to provide one rack accommodating two bicycles. Plans submitted for conceptual design review do not indicate bicycle parking. Plans submitted for formal review will need to demonstrate how bicycle parking will be accommodated and shall comply with design standards pursuant to section 14.18.090(E) of the SRMC. Parking Facility Dimensions and Design As proposed, non-compact parking stalls do not meet the minimum length requirements set forth in Section 14.18.130 of the SRMC. Specifically, the SRMC requires non-compact parking stalls to measure 9-feet wide by 19-feet long. As proposed, the non-compact parking spaces measure 9-feet wide by 18-feet long. Additionally, the minimum required drive aisle width is 26-feet whereas the project proposes 25-feet 6-inches. Off-street Loading and Unloading Industrial uses are required to provide off-street loading and unloading spaces at a ratio of one space per 20,000 square feet of gross building area and measuring a minimum of 12- feet wide, 165-feet long, and a 14-foot height clearance. The project proposes a total of 5,830 square feet of gross industrial building area and is therefore required to provide one loading and unloading space. As proposed, the project provides two loading and unloading spaces at the front and side of the proposed building, however, it does not appear that the loading spaces meet the minimum dimensional requirements set forth in the Municipal Code. Fencing and Screening As proposed, the project will install an 8-foot in-swing gate between the proposed building and the northern property line. Material details of the gate are not provided. Staff is seeking the Board’s feedback and recommendations on the location and design of the proposed gate. Light and Glare Pursuant to Section 14.16.227 of the SRMC, colors, materials, and lighting shall be designed to avoid creating unique offsite light and glare. The proposed colors, materials, and lighting appear to be consistent with this requirement. Shading The proposed building will be 31-feet and will be located approximately 5-feet from the southern property line. Based on the height of the building located south of the project site, it is not anticipated that the project would result in shade impacts to the adjacent building. Similarly, the project is not anticipated to result in shade impacts to the building to the north as the new building will be located approximately 20-feet from the northern property line. San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development. The project proposes demolition and re-construction of an industrial building, and therefore needs to demonstrate compliance with the Design Guidelines for non-residential development. Criteria applicable to the project are as follows: Parking • A logical sequence of entry and arrival as part of the site’s design should be provided. • Where possible, design entrances from the street to direct views towards the building entry. • Parking should be distributed to provide easy access to building entrances. • Where possible, parking should be located to the rear or side of a building in order to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. • Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street. • Parking areas should be screened from the street with hedges, walls, fences or berms, subject to security considerations. • Auto and pedestrian entrances into the development should be easy to find. For example, special entry treatments, such as colored concrete, special planting and signage should be located at the entries to the site. • Shade trees should be provided in parking lots per the zoning ordinance. Landscaping • Landscaped areas should be planned as integral parts of the development and to create a strongly landscaped character for the site. • Trees should be planted in a variety of locations, such as along the side property lines, clustered in planting areas, or distributed throughout the parking lot, consistent with the zoning ordinance. • Pedestrian areas should be made visually attractive with special planting and flowering trees. • Where feasible, landscape the area between the building and the property line even when a building is located at the minimum required side or rear yard setback. • Retain and maintain existing public street trees and add additional street trees where practical. Lighting • Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and vehicular safety. • Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the property. • Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project. • Consider pedestrian orientation when designing building entries, windows, signage and doors. • Include a well-defined pedestrian walkway between the street and building entries. • Clearly define pedestrian movement through the parking lot. For example, provide changes in pavement or separate landscaped walkways. • Adequate facilities should be provided for bicycle parking, consistent with zoning requirements. Building Form • A continuity of design, materials, color, form and architectural details is encouraged for all portions of a building and between all the buildings on the site. • Consider the development’s visual and spatial relationship to adjacent buildings and other structures in the area Materials and Colors • Use articulation, texturing and detailing on all concrete exposed to exterior view. • Exterior materials should minimize reflectivity. • Use color to provide appropriate accents on a building. In general, the project appears to be consistent with most criteria included in the guidelines. Where information is lacking from the Conceptual Design Review application, staff has noted the need for information and is also seeking the Board’s feedback with regard to all design elements. Staff seeks the Boards guidance regarding the following: • Site Plan - Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site. • Architecture - Whether the design proposed for this project is appropriate given surrounding development. • Colors and Materials - Whether the colors and materials are appropriate. • Landscaping - Whether the proposed landscaping is adequate in location, type and proportion. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the Design Review Board meeting for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Meeting was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Bret Harte Community Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), and all other interested parties (applicant and planner), a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the Board meeting. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site along the De Luca Place frontage, also a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the Board meeting. As of the publishing of this staff report, no public comments on the project have been received. CONCLUSION As stated above, the applicant has submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review seeking input from the Board with regard to architectural design, site design, and adequacy of landscaping. With the Board's recommendation, the applicant will be able to submit a formal application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit, which will return to the Board for a formal recommendation to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a final action. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plans Map Report This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 3,881 © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 646.8 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet Feet646.80323.38 Notes Legend Parcel Note easement centerline Address Parcel Condominium Common Area Mobile Home Pad City Community Marin County Legal Boundary Other Bay Area County Stream - Perennial (NHD) STAIROFFICESTAIRENTRYENTRYENTRYUPUPRESTRM APN 013-081-04NEW STEEL BUILDINGADA PRK’GPLANTERPLANTER DRIVEWAYPLANTER8’ GATE8’ GATEHALLPLANTERRAMPPLANTERPARK’GASPHALT WALKWAY PLANTERPLANTERCONCGUTTERPLANTER#1#6#7#8#9#10#11#12#15#16#17#18#19#20#3#4#5-COMPACTPLANTER6" WIDE CURBSTO FORM PLANTERSASPHALTASPHALT PARKING LOT(20 CARS)APN 013-094-01DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYAPN 013-081-03APN 013-081-45APN 013-081-50 APN 013-081-03EXGDRIVEWAYGATEEXISTING METAL CONTAINERS TO REMAIN EXISTING METAL CONTAINERS TO REMAIN#13COMPACTLINE OF (E) BLDG TOBE REMOVEDLINE OF (E) BLDG TOBE REMOVED#14COMPACT10’ x 12’TRASHENCLOSURE6" WIDE CURBSTO FORM PLANTERS6" WIDE CURBSTO FORM PLANTERS6" WIDE CURBSTO FORM PLANTERSDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY/PARKING6" CURB6" CURBPLANTERRAMP pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now ! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now ! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now ! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA C-1 0 1 3 COVER SHEET San Rafael, CA 94903 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 450 Tel. 415.446.7402 Cell 415.717.8719 LTD Engineering, Inc. gdearth@LTDengineering.com SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 10 & 12 DELUCA PLACEALLIED HEATING & A.C.NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSECONSTRUCTION NOT FOR ISSUED FOR REVIEWPROGRESS PRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAPN 013-081-04C?CAD?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ SDQ RDIDHO  ?DHVLJQ?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ DUDLQDJH PODQGZJ   P0 pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA 3 4 5-COMPACT 1 6 7 8 9 11 12 17181920 15 14 COMPACT 13 COMPACT 10 16 2-TANDEM NOPARKINGC-2 0 2 3 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN San Rafael, CA 94903 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 450 Tel. 415.446.7402 Cell 415.717.8719 LTD Engineering, Inc. gdearth@LTDengineering.com SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 10 & 12 DELUCA PLACEALLIED HEATING & A.C.NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSECONSTRUCTION NOT FOR ISSUED FOR REVIEWPROGRESS PRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAPN 013-081-04MATCH LINE -SHEET C-3C?CAD?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ SDQ RDIDHO  ?DHVLJQ?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ DUDLQDJH PODQGZJ   P0 pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA 12 15 14 COMPACT 13 COMPACT APN 013-094-01 C-3 0 3 3 DETAILS San Rafael, CA 94903 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 450 Tel. 415.446.7402 Cell 415.717.8719 LTD Engineering, Inc. gdearth@LTDengineering.com SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 10 & 12 DELUCA PLACEALLIED HEATING & A.C.NEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSECONSTRUCTION NOT FOR ISSUED FOR REVIEWPROGRESS PRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAPN 013-081-04MATCH LINE -SHEET C-2C?CAD?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ SDQ RDIDHO  ?DHVLJQ?AOOLHG +HDWLQJ DUDLQDJH PODQGZJ   P0 pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA 0SCALE: feet1020301" = 10'NORTHSTAIROFFICESTAIRENTRYENTRYENTRYUPUPRESTRM APN 013-081-04NEW STEEL BUILDINGADA PRK'GDRIVEWAY8' GATE8' GATEHALLRAMPPARK'GASPHALT WALKWAY CONCGUTTER#1#6#7#8#9#10#11#12#15#16#17#18#19#20#3#4#5-COMPACTPLANTER6" WIDE CURBSASPHALTASPHALT PARKING LOT(20 CARS)APN 013-094-01DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYAPN 013-081-03APN 013-081-45APN 013-081-50 APN 013-081-03EXGDRIVEWAYGATEEXISTING METAL CONTAINERS TO REMAIN EXISTING METAL CONTAINERS TO REMAIN#13COMPACT#14COMPACT10' x 12'TRASHENCLOSURE6" WIDE CURBS6" WIDE CURBSDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY/PARKING6" CURB6" CURB#2-TANDEMPARKINGRAMPTREESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTWUCOLS2Acer rubrum `October Glory` / October Glory Red Maple15 gal.Moderate1Arbutus x `Marina` / Marina Strawberry Tree Standard15 gal.Low3Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud Multi-trunk15 gal.LowSHRUBSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTWUCOLS8Agave x `Blue Flame` / Blue Flame Agave5 gal.Low24Phormium tenax `Tom Thumb` / Dwarf Green Flax5 gal.Low9Phormium x `Dark Delight` / Dark Delight Purple Flax5 gal.Low45Rhaphiolepis indica `Ballerina` / Ballerina Indian Hawthorn5 galLow22Yucca x `Bright Star` / Variegated Spanish Dagger5 galLowVINES/ESPALLIERSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTWUCOLS3Lonicera sempervirens / Coral Honeysuckle5 gal.ModerateGROUND COVERSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTWUCOLSSPACING39Echeveria x `Imbricata` / Hen and Chicks4"potLow16" o.c.36Festuca ovina glauca `Elijah Blue` / Blue Fescue1 gal.Low18" o.c.NativePLANT SCHEDULEGENERAL NOTES1. All landscape planting areas shall receive a minimum 3"-4" layer of organic mulch top dressing. Mulch inBio-Retention basin shall Include 3-4 inches of composted, non-floatable arbor mulch in areas between plantingsand side slopes.2. All trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be irrigated with a drip system, smart controller , weather sensor, etc.and shallmeet Marin Municipal Water District's Water Efficient standards/regulations.3. All new trees located within 7' of pavement or permanent structure shall have a root barrier. EXISTING OFFSITE TREES/SHRUBS TO REMAIN (TYP.)EVERGREEN VINES TO BE PLANTED AT TRELLIS/GREENWALL (3 LOCATIONS). SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANSELEVATIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDINGAPPEARANCEEXISTING OFFSITE 4"-6" DIA.TREES/SHRUBS LOCATED ONADJACENT PARCEL TO REMAIN.STORM WATER TREATMENT AREA TO BE PLANTEDWITH LOW GROWING ORNAMENTAL GRASS.(REFER TO GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FORMORE INFORMATION)EASEMENTPARKING LOT SHADE TREE (TYP.)--Prepared Under the Direction of:CaliforniaState OfMarinCounty OfSan RafaelCity OfLANDSCAPE L1SheetPlan File:Project Number:--Scale:Date:1"=10'2/5/21Rev Date Description Designed Drawn CheckedALLIED HEATING AND A.C. COMPANY, INC. -2/10/21 PLANNING RLS RLS PLAN SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 16 DE LUCA PLACE. OLIVE STREETLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREPO Box 2083Petaluma CA 94952707-280-8990OliveStreetLandscape.comrod@olivestreetlandscape.com pdfMachine - is a pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease! Get yours now! “Thank you very much! I can use Acrobat Distiller or the Acrobat PDFWriter but I consider your product a lot easier to use and much preferable to Adobe's" A.Sarras - USA