No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 21 G StreetCITY OF aft Agenda Item No: 4. a 'n. Meeting Date: June 16, 2014 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: City Manager Approval: Paul A. Jensen (CP) SUBJECT: 21 G Street (West End Townhome Project) — Appeal of the Planning Commission's February 25, 2014 decision to approve an Environmental Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Variance (V12-002), Subdivision Exception (EX13-008) and Tentative Map (TS13-002) to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential townhomes on a .24 acre lot fronting both G Street and Ida Street, with modifications to the roof design, building height and variance (south side) for the G St frontage to reflect an agreement between the appellant and applicant. APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; Daisy Carlson, appellant; Stan Camiccia, applicant; David & Christina Rasonsky, owners; File No. AP 14-001. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1, pages 11 -to 30 of this report), denying the appeal and upholding the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission's approval of the West End Townhome project, with modifications to the project design, including roof design, building height and south side yard variance, as agreed upon between the appellant and applicant. BACKGROUND: Executive Summary: The project proposes to redevelop a 0.24 acre in fill lot located at 21 G St with eight, three story residential townhomes. The property has frontage on both G St and Ida St, where two townhomes are proposed along the G St frontage and six townhome are proposed along the Ida St frontage. The G Street frontage would require variances for encroachments into the required front and side yard setbacks, and the 50% minimum front landscaping requirement. The Ida Street frontage site would require variances for encroachments into the required rear yard, and the required 20 foot driveway setback. The existing home at 21 G Street would be demolished and replaced with 2 attached townhomes, and six attached townhomes would be constructed on Ida Street. After the appeal was noticed for hearing, the applicant and appellant reached a tentative agreement on changes to the project design that would result in changes to the site plan, roof design and building height, thereby requiring amendments to the approved Design Review Permit and Variance. On June 3, 2014, the appellant agreed to withdraw the appeal, contingent on approval of their agreed upon project changes. Site Condons & Operations/Setting: The project site is a 10,836 sq. ft. through -lot located on the east side of G St., between G St. and Ida St. in the West End Village Neighborhood (see Attachment 7, Exhibit 1- Project Vicinity Map). The site is generally flat. The West End Village neighborhood is an area comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. Fourth Street and Second Street host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for high density residential, some structures are still used as single family. In the subject property block between 3 Id Street and 4 th Street, there are 5 single family homes on G St and one single family home on Ida Street. FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paste: 2 The project site contains an existing single family house along the G Street frontage (21 G Street) and a detached garage structure on Ida Street. Both are proposed to be demolished as part of the project. On the G St. frontage, the project site is adjacent to a surface parking lot to the north, and residential homes to the south and across the street. Businesses in the vicinity include Malabar Indian Store at the corner of 4th and G St. and Arrivederci Restaurant on the corner of G and Second Street. On the Ida St. frontage, the proposed site would be on the east side of Ida St. and would abut 4th St. retail businesses to the north, one residential use to the south and commercial building on the west side of Ida St.. The setting on the G St. frontage is more oriented toward residential uses (a total of five homes on both sides of the street), whereas Ida St. is dominated by commercial uses on the corners and along the west side of the street. The only residential property on Ida St. is one single family house at 20 Ida St., adjacent to the project site to the south. Project Description (approved per Planning Commission Resolution 14-03): Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 8 -unit residential townhome development. Two of the townhome units would front on G St and six of the townhome units would front on Ida Street. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces would be provided (2 side-by-side garage spaces for each unit on G Street and 2 tandem garage spaces for each unit on Ida Street). Proposed building height would be approximately 31 feet on G St. and approximately 33 feet on Ida St. (from existing grade to roof mid -point or top of parapet). A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, with a built-in water feature, planters, and seating. One affordable Below Market Rate (BMR) unit would be provided in compliance with the affordable housing requirement (at the low-income affordability range). The applicant has indicated that the layout and materials used for the BMR unit will be identical to the market rate. Site Plan: Theproposed buildings on G Street and Ida Street would be setback 15 feet from the front property lines. Building setback from the side property line would be 4 feet on G Street and 5 feet on Ida Street. There would be 10 feet of separation between the rear of the townhome buildings. Tandem parking is proposed only for the Ida Street townhomes. A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, as well as outdoor common and yard areas. Trash containers would be stored under the stairwell in the garage. Landscaping would be planted in the front yard area as well as at the rear between the two buildings (see additional landscape information below). The property would be surrounded with a decorative metal fence. Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a row house style, with two distinct designs for G St (gable roof) and Ida Street (flat roof). The exterior building materials are a mix of Hardie shingle and stucco, and include accent elements. The top portion of the building would include a cornice element. The garage doors would be designed to look like carriage doors but would operate as roll -up doors. Landscapinq: A total of 4 trees are proposed to be removed (see Plan Sheet L-1). However, the project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G St frontage, and the existing Oak tree along the Ida Street frontage. An additional 31 trees (including Japanese Maples, Dogwoods, Crape Myrtles, and Oaks) would be planted on the site. Boston Ivy would be planted along the sides of the building to provide screening for adjacent residences. There are also a variety of shrubs, grasses and vines proposed to be added to the site, as well as the use of decorative pavers and brick for the driveways and walkways. Total landscaping proposed on site would be 2,883 square feet, with 312 square feet of landscaping proposed in the required 20' front yard setback on G St and 872 square feet of landscaping proposed in the 20, required front yard setback on Ida Street, In addition, the proposed rooftop planters would add an additional landscaping. Design Review Board Review: A summary of the Design Review Board's review of this project is provided below. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7, Pages 73 to 86 of this report) for a more in-depth discussion of each hearing. October 4, 2011: Conceptual Design Review hearing for the proposed 9 -unit townhome development (CDR1 1-004). Based on design criteria and public comment, the Board SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 recommended several changes to the project, the most notable being: 1) reduction in the number of unit proposed from 9 units to 8 units; and 2) changing the roof design on G Street from a flat to a gable roof, 3) change the proposed parking on G Street from tandem to side-by-side; and 4) provide more ground level open space. Oo. April 3, 2013: The Design Review Board (DRB) held a formal public hearing on the proposed project. The applicant had revised the project to respond to the Board's comments on the conceptual design, but the project was continued in order to respond to additional board comments regarding: 1) relocating the ground floor open space area to the south side of the property; 2) preservation of the existing Oak tree on the Ida Street frontage; and 3) confirm Building Code requirements for operable windows along the side property line. 1ust 20, 2013: DRB supported the revisions to the project as requested in the April 3, 201 hearing, voting to support the revised project and variances requested, and put forth a recommendation of conditional approval to the Planning Commission. The Board voted 4-1 (Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. I No written minutes are taken at the City's public meetings. However, actual video recordings of the meetings are available through a video link on the City of San Rafael website, www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings,. Click on the Design Review Board video link for each of the desired hearing dates. Planning Commission Review and Action: On February 25, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applications for Design Review, Variances, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception request. The Commission heard testimony from several neighbors, who expressed concern about the proposed number of units, and bulk and mass of the building as being out of character with the existing neighborhood, as potential impact on availability of street parking from the proposed tandem parking on Ida Street. A copy of the staff report, including selected exhibits, is attached (Attachment 7, pages 73 to 106 of this report). Ultimately, the Commission voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent) and adopted Resolution No. 14-03, conditionally approving the proposed project (See Attachment 4, Pages 52 to 66 of this report). Details of the testimony and Planning Commission discussion are available through a video link on the City of San Rafael website, www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetinqs. Click on the Planning Commission video link for the February 25th hearing date. An 11 x 17 inch set of plans that were approved by the Planning Commission have been distributed to the City Council. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The General Plan Land Use Designation is High Density Residential (15-32 units per acre). The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and found to be generally consistent with the General Plan Policies (See Attachment 8, pages 107 to 118 of this report). Primarily, the density is within the density range allowed for this site Land Use Policy (LU -23) and is at least at the mid-range of the density range as required by Housing Policy (H -18b). The project is in -fill housing, which is encouraged in the downtown area of the City, and also provides one new affordable housing unit. Also, the project would add one low-income affordable unit to the housing stock per Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-19). A complete discussion of the analysis with the zoning ordinance is provided in the PC staff report (Attachment 7, pages 76 to 80 of this report). Staff notes that the reduction in height proposed by the agreement between the parties would address the height limit for this site which is 30 feet. ANALYSIS: Following the Planning Commission J s February 25, 2014 decision to approve the project, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Daisy Carlson, owner of the adjacent property at 15 G Street, a 3 unit residential building. The appeal letter, dated March 5, 2014is included as Attachment 2 (Pages 31 to 45 of this report). The appeal letter was submitted with 3 additional letters of support (not SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 co -appellants) from neighbors residing at 16 G Street, 22 G Street and 20 Ida Street (also included as part of Attachment 2). The appeal letter focused primarily on the proposed project's impact on the property at 15 G Street. The appellant disagreed with the Planning Commission's Findings, and indicated that the proposed project would be detrimental and injurious to her property at 15 G Street because her house is located 6 feet from the proposed development and the development is too tall and does not fit into the existing neighborhood character. The appeal hearing was initially scheduled for the May 19, 2014 City Council meeting. However, in late April, 2014, staff suggested that the applicant contact the appellant to work out possible ways to re -design the G Street townhome to address her concerns regarding the proposed building height and side yard setback encroachments along the south property line. The appellant agreed to discuss design changes with the applicant and both parties then agreed to a new tentative hearing date of June 2, 2014. Both parties then continued to negotiate and discuss changes to the proposed G Street townhomes. The negotiations continued, and a new Council hearing date was set for June 16, 2014. Under discussion between the two parties was a proposal from the applicant to change the gable roof to a mansard roof to help reduce the height and bulk of the G Street townhome, and also to move the G Street townhome 1 foot to the north, thereby providing a code compliant 5 foot side yard setback on the south side of the property (shared between 15 G Street and the project site) and further encroaching 1 foot into the north side yard setback, resulting in a 3 foot setback along the north side, where 5 feet is required. On June 4, 2014, the appellant, Daisy Carlson, sent staff an e-mail formally withdrawing the appeal (Attachment 5, page 67 of this report) contingent upon the following changes to the proposed project design agreed upon by herself and the applicant: 1. The roof of the G Street townhome (Along the G St elevation) be changed from a gable to a mansard type roof; 2. With the change to the roof type, the height of the G Street townhomes would be reduced from 33 feet 3 inches to 29.8 feet as measured to the roof deck on the mansard roof; and 3. The G Street townhome be moved over 1 foot to the north, creating a code compliant 5 foot side yard setback along the south property line closest to 15 G Street, resulting in a 3 foot setback on the north side (where 5 feet is required). There are other agreed upon terms outside the City's purview, not related to building design or City entitlements, that are described in the withdrawal letter, and are described by the applicant in letters included as part of Attachment 5). These other items are private agreements that are between the applicant and appellant, and not part of the City action. There were no changes proposed on the Ida Street frontage nor were any concerns about the project impact on Ida Street directly identified in the appeal letter. The agreement was reached after the public hearing notice was mailed out, and therefor staff could not cancel the hearing. Even though the appellant agreed to a tentative agreement to withdraw the appeal, the proposed changes to the building design represent modifications to the projec plans and the Resolution approved by the Planning Commission. As such, the proposed changes nee to be memorialized in the record, and staff has brought the project forward to the Council for final actio on the appeal, and approval of the agreed upon changes to the project design and variances, The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and elevation to illustrate the agreed upon design changes. (Attachment 6, including Addendums A and B., pages 68 to 72 of this report). Staff supports the proposed design changes, as they will address the appellant's primary concerns by: 1) lowering the building height of the G Street townhomes to 29.5 feet as measured to the roof deck of the mansard roof; and 2) relocating the G Street townhomes 1 foot to the north, eliminating the encroachme into the 5 foot required side yard setback on the south side. However, it is important to note that the majority of the DRB and Planning Commission had no design issues with the project and supported the prior design as approved by the Planning Commission. I SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pau: 5 The proposed changes do not need to return to the DRB or Planning Commission for review and action as they are reductions to the mass and bulk of the building, responding to concerns from the appellant and other neighbors in the vicinity. However, due to the change in the site plan and the change to the ro type/height, modifications are necessary to the approved Variance and Design Review Permit. I Variance - The changes result in a project that now has a greater variance on the north side (2 foot variance, resulting in a 3 foot setback, where a 1 foot variance resulting in a 4 foot setback was approved. This shift in the building increases light and air to the windows along the property line for 15 G Street, thereby addressing the appellant's concern about reduced light and air along the side yard property line. The proposed change to the approved variance from a 1 foot encroachment on the north and south side yard to no encroachment on the south side (5 foot side yard setback) and a 2 foot encroachment on the north side (3 foot side yard setback), would not be a substantial change in what was originally approved. This option was actually even discussed at the DRB and Planning Commission meetings, but ultimately, found that it was better to balance the siting of the building and split the variance amongst both sides, than push it to one side. The existing property to the south is a vacant lot used for parking, and reducing the setback on this side by an additional foot would not create a substantial negative impact to the use of the site. To memorialize this change, revisions to the Variance findings must be made (Attachment 1, pages 18 to 22 of this report). Overall, staff recommends that there still continue to be still unique circumstances applicable to the property that warrant the granting of the revised variance and that the revised variance is still in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Findings in the draft Resolution have been updated to reflect the project changes agreed upon between the appellant and applicant (Attachment 1, pages 16 to 24 of this report) Desiqn Review Permit - By changing the roof type on the G St elevation, the overall height of the building has been reduced by 3.6 feet. The revised plans contained in Attachment 6 illustrate the proposed new design along this elevation. Overall, this reduction to the building height and bulk and does not change the high quality design recommended for approval by the DRB and subsequently approved by the Commission. The findings do not change in that this is a reduction in the bulk and mass. Furthermore, given that the structure is 3 stories, changes to the roof level of the new building would be minimally visible from a person's perspective along the street or adjacent properties. As a result of the project revisions, two changes to the conditions of approval are required: Design Review Permit Condition of approval # 1 (Attachment 1, page 24 of this report) has been updated in the Draft resolution to reflect that the approved plans include the modification shown on Attachment 6; and Condition of approval # 2 (Attachment 1, page 24 of this report) has been added to require that full set of revised plans consistent with the two sheets shown in Attachment 6 be submitted within 2 weeks of the City Council approval to create a complete set of approved plans The plans that were approved by the Planning Commission have been distributed to the City Council. Th proposed modifications to the plan as a result of the agreement between the appellant and ae pplicant ar included as Attachment 6 (pages 71 and 72 of this report). I While the appellant and applicant have reached a tentative agreement based on modifications to the project design, the Council is reviewing the appeal of the Planning Commission decision. As such, below, in bold, are appeal points identified in the appeal letter, as paraphrased and summarized by staff, followed by a brief staff response: Appeal Point #1: "No variances are necessary if they were to comply with the intent of tha code which is to limit the size of buildings on said SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 Staff Response: The "intent of the code" (i.e., the Zoning Ordinance) is to be used as a tool to implement the Goals and Policies in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. As such, the zoning ordinance identifies baseline property development standards for all zoning districts in the City of San Rafael. As part of these standards, there are also stipulated exclusions, exceptions and variances to the development standards that may be requested. Specific "findings" have been identified for exceptions and variances to the property development standards and depending on the level of project review required, Planning staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council may be tasked with determining whether a project meets the required findings in order to approve the proposed deviation from the baseline development standards. The project as originally proposed and presented for Conceptual Design Review only required 2 variances — a portion of the Ida Street townhomes had cantilevered windows encroaching 2 feet into the required 5 foot required rear yard setback; and a variance to the required 20' driveway setback variance was required for both the G Street and Ida Street townhomes to allow a 18'6" driveway setback for the tandem parking. Tandem parking was allowed as a density bonus concession for providing a BMR unit, Also, the City's Department of Public Works reviewed and supported the tandem parking as proposed. However, based on public concerns about parking impacts and recommendations from the Design Review Board at the October 4, 20122 Conceptual Design Review hearing, the applicant substantially revised the project, including but not limited to: 1) reducing the number of units from 9 units to 8 units; 2) re -designing the two G Street townhomes from a flat, row house type design to a gable roof design- 3) adding a shared central exterior entry stairway to the G Street townhome; 4) replacing tandem parking on G Street with side-by-side parking, 5) consolidating driveways on Ida Street to reduce curb cuts; 6) including more detail on the proposed roof -top gardens; 7) added articulation to the rear fagade of the Ida Street buildings; and 8) addition of 732 square feet of common usable open space at the ground level. However, these changes to the site design also prompted the following 3 additional variances to the property development standards: 1) front setback variance (for new entry stair encroachment); 2) side yard variance to encroach 1 foot into the required side yard setback on G Street (required due to the additional width for side-by-side parking)- and 3) variance to the 50% required landscaping on G Street townhomes (landscaping reduced from stairway and wider driveway). This brought the total number of variances to 5 for the proposed project. The DRB supported the re -designed project, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of the multiple variances at length, and determined that there were findings to support granting the variances. Their decision was based on the fact that the project met the findings required to approve the variances requested, and recognition of the fact that there is a need to balance development standards, the community concerns, and goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site is designated as a housing opportunity site in the General Plan 2020. In the end, the Planning Commission did vote (4-2-1, with Commissioners Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting, and Commissioner Paul absent) to approve the project as proposed. Further, the appellant has discussed their concerns at length with the applicant and agreed to withdraw the appeal, based on the applicant's revised project design which eliminated the 1 foot encroachment into the required side yard between 15 G Street and the G Street townhome, thereby increasing light and air between the two properties. Appeal Point #2: "The lot coverage creates a need for a roof terrace which looms above and is not only a menace but poses a public health and safety issue." Staff Response.- The project proposes 52% lot coverage, which is below the maximum allowable lot coverage for the HR1 zoning district (60%). The roof terrace is not a required development standard, nor is it required to meet the minimum usable open space requirement per code. It is proposed as additional common outdoor space for the townhome residents. The Fire Department has reviewed the project and did not identify any public hazards associated with the rooftop gardens. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 Appeal Point #3: "By granting special privileges to the developer they are denying current rights to existing residents. Its mass, girth and height are not consistent with neighboring properties nor are two curb cuts which essentially remove five street spaces to provide four off-street parking spaces. It's proposed physical vicinity to 15 G Street is not consistent with surrounding homes and does not take into account that 15 G Street is just 2 feet from the property line. " Staff Response: The existing project site has one curb cut dedicated to the existing home at 21 G Street. The proposed new project would add an additional curb cut, eliminating 1 on street parking space. Further, the gable roof design will be changed to a mansard roof, reducing the building height from 33'3" to 29.8'. As a 3 -story building, the actual roof will not be visible from the pedestrian street view. However, the re -design will reduce the overall building height by 3.4 feet, and in combination with the increased setback along the side yard, will considerable reduce the mass and bulk of the G Street townhome and increase the amount of light and air to the existing building at 15 G Street. The appellant agrees and has withdrawn the appeal based on the new building design. Appeal Point #4: "This proposal is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning or infill housing on the alphabet streets of San Rafael. It is more consistent with those on the numbered commercial street. Our neighborhood welcomes the BMR unit but sees no need to grant such extensive variances to provide one. ly Staff Response: The project is consistent with both the General Plan Policy and Zoning Ordinance. Based on the lot size, the project would be allowed 10 units on the site. The project originally proposed 9 units on site, but due to site constraints, design criteria, and community input the DRB recommended that the number be reduced to 8 units. The new residents will have easy access to transit bus routes and shopping and parks within walking distance. The project is in -fill housing, which is encouraged in the downtown area of the City (Policy H-22). Also, the project would add one low-income affordable unit to the housing stock per the General Plan Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-19). In addition, the project site is identified in the General Plan as an "underutilized parcel" and a "housing opportunity site" available for development. Appeal Point #5: "A single driveway design would remove the need for front and side yard variances and thus not risk infringing on the rights of 15 G Street and other residents to V.V maintain current light and air" Staff Response: The applicant indicated at the Design Review Board hearing that the idea of "podium parking" design (i.e., one driveway access to parking on site, with units above) had been investigated by the applicant early in the project design, and the applicant responded to questions about the feasibility of the podium design at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant testified that podium parking was not viable for the site because the shape of the lot precluded achieving adequate turning movements for cars. The City's Traffic Engineer supported the tandem parking design. Appeal Point #6: "The granting of the application for variances is detrimental and injurious to properties in the vicinity of the development sight, most specifically 15 G Street. We do not believe that sufficient efforts were made by the developer to design the G Street portion of the project in a manner that does not infringe on the property rights and values of other residents." Staff Response.- The applicant has participated in a total of 4 public hearings on the proposed project, three hearings before the Design Review Board (including Conceptual Design Review), and one before the Planning Commission. The applicant made substantial changes to the project design based on both community comments and DRB recommendation. SAN RAFAEL CITY, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paste: 8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Commission, as part of their approval, determined that this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development) given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020); d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE: In accordance with the City's public noticing requirements, public notice of this City Council hearing, as well as the prior Design Review Board, and Planning Commission hearings were mailed to the property owners, residents, businesses and interested parties within 300 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A copy of the public hearing notice for this Council meeting is attached (Attachment 10 Page 123 of this report). Staff has received one comment letter in response to the noticing on the appeal, dated June 2, 2014 from a resident at 10 G Street concerned about the impact from the proposed project to on -street parking and the driveway encroachment variance (see Attachment 11, page 124 of this report). Staff called the applicant and explained that the project is providing parking for all 8 units on-site (total of 16 spaces), and that the driveway setback (19 feet) is only 1 foot less than the 20 foot required driveway setback) and is supported by the City's Public Works Department as a necessary tradeoff to provide the code required off-street parking. Any additional comment letters received after the distribution of the staff report and before the hearing, will be forwarded to the Council under separate cover. A record of the comments received as part of the Planning Commission hearing can be found as part- of the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7, Exhibit 9, pages 88 to 106 of this report). CONCLUSION: The appellant reached a tentative agreement with the applicant and agreed to withdraw the appeal subject to changes to the site design and building height for the G Street townhome building. However, staff was notified of the tentative agreement after the notice of public hearing for the appeal was mailed out to the public. In addition, the agreed upon changes to the project and variance requested would require modifications to the project design and variances as approved by the Planning Commission. As such, the appeal has been brought forward to the Council with the staff recommendation that the appeal be denied and the Council adopt the attached Resolution approving design and site plan changes to the 21 G St as approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2014, with the following changes as agreed upon between the appellant and applicant: roof of the G Street townhome be changed from a gable to a mansard roof; 2. With the change to the roof type, the height of the G Street townhomes would be reduced from 33 feet 3 inches to 29.8 feet as measured to the roof deck on the mansard roof; and 3. The G Street townhome be moved over 1 foot to the north, creating a code compliant 5 foot side yard setback along the south property line closest to 15 G Street, resulting in a 3 foot setback on the north side (where 5 feet is required). As part of the hearing, there may be other members of the public who were not party to the appeal who may wish to comment on the project. In summary, the majority of the Commission and DRB supported the project as it was approved by the Planning Commission as an example of a good infill type of development, in an area that is zoned for such development. The appeal resulted in an agreement for some minor changes that reduced the scope of the project. for which staff does not have a concern with, nor does it present any issues with consistency with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the revised resolution presented to the Council, staff has also corrected the General Plan Consistency SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paee: 9 Table (Attachment 8) and Subdivision Ordinance Compliance table (Attachment 9) to reflect the project changes. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval with modations to reflect the agreement between the applicant and appellant (staff recommendation); or 2. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval, as approved by the Planning Commission; or 3. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval with modifications to reflect the agreement between the applicant and appellant with additional changes or modifications that the Council finds appropriate; or 4. Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's February 25 2014 approval of the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution reflecting that the project appeal is granted and thus the project is denied; or 5. Continue the item to allow the applicant, appellant or staff to address any comments or concerns of the Council. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is a private development and does not have any new fiscal impact on the City budget given that the review and processing of these applications, including the appeal, are subject to cost recovery fees paid for by the applicant. Development impact fees would result from the construction of the new project and these would be paid at the time of building permit issuance, including Traffic Mitigation fees ($29,772) and Parkland Dedication fees ($15,743.81). It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's February 25, 2014 decision with modifications to reflect the agreement between the appellant and project applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision, with with modifications to roof type, building design and side yard setbacks to reflect the agreement between the appellant and applicant 2. Appeal Letter - Daisy Carlson, dated March 5, 2014 3. Applicant response to appeal, dated June 1, 2014 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-03, dated February 25, 2014 5. Appellants e-mail withdrawing the appeal, dated June 4, 2014 6. Letter from applicant, agreeing to changes to design and revised plans, dated June 4, 2014 Addendum A - Revised project Site Plan, illustrating shift in building Addendum B — Revised elevation for G St, illustrating change to roof 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 25, 2014 (with selected Exhibits) Exhibit 1 Vicinity/Location Map Exhibit 9 Public comments received through Planning Commission hearing 8. Revised General Plan Consistency Table 9. Revised Subdivision Ordinance Compliance Table 10. Public Hearing Notice of Appeal 11. Comment letters received after the City Council hearing notice IM= is 31 46 52 67 68 71 72 73 87 88 This Page Left Intentionally Blank RESOLUTION NO. 13746 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP14-001) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S FEBRUARY 25, 2014 DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED12-058); VARIANCES FOR FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD, MINIMUM FRONT LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY SETBACKS (V12-002); TENTATIVE MAP (TS13-002); AND AN EXCEPTION (EX13-008) TO THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE 8 UNIT WEST END TOWNHOME PROJECT AT 21 G STREET BASED ON A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND APPLICNAT. THE AGREEMENT WOULD RESULT IN CHANGES TO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK, ROOF DESIGN AND BUILDING HEIGHT, THEREBY REQUIRING AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED IN THIS ACTION. APN: 011-232-10 TIME CITY COUNCIL OF TIME CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, on August 4, 2011, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review (CDRI 1-004) for a 9 unit townhome development on a 10,836 square foot lot; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly noticed meeting and reviewed the conceptual design proposed and recommended design changes, including, but not limited to reducing the number of units, increasing common open space areas and re- designing the G St. building facade; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2012, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted formal applications, including Design Review Permit (ED 12-058) and Variance requests (V 12-002) for five property development standards (encroachments in the required front setback, side setback and rear setback, minimum landscape requirements and minimum driveway setback); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, a duly -noticed meeting was scheduled before the DRB but was continued due to lack of a quorum; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, the DRB held a duly -noticed meeting and made recommendations for project change, including but not limited to changing the location of the common open space area and preserving the existing oak tree on Ida St.; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013, the DRB held a duly -noticed public meeting and reviewed further revisions made by the applicant in response to the April 3, 2013 meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the DRB voted 4-1 (moved by Garg and Seconded by Lentini, with Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project design and in their motion, expressed support for the proposed five variances requested; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, an application was received by the Community Development Department requesting Tentative Map approval (TS 13-002) to allow the division of the 8 units into air condominiums, and a Subdivision Exception request (EX13-008) to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site; and WHEREAS, based on the 8 units proposed the project is required to provide and proposes to provide 10% of the units as "for sale" and affordable at the "low-income" level; and WHEREAS, based on the provision of 1 of the 8 units as affordable to low income households, the project qualifies for a State density bonus of 20% above the maximum density allowed by the City, or 3 additional units and 1 concession to zoning standards, consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 14.16.030.1-1 of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project proponent has requested one concession to the City's parking standards to allow the use of tandem parking on site, as allowed by Section 16.030.H.3.a(i) of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, which would provide 16 tandem parking spaces for the project site; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts In -Fill Development Projects given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development; and WHERAS, based on a historic resource evaluation by Archaeological Resources Technology, the project was determined not to be a historic resource and that demolition of the structure at 21 G Str. would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, and therefore met the requirement to qualify as categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA section 15300.2 (f); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed by the City of San Rafael's Department of Public Works, Fire Department — Fire Prevention Bureau and Community Development Department - Building Division and the San Rafael Sanitation District and was recommended for approval subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance request, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception request, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, on a vote of 4-2-1 (Commissioners Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting and Commissioner Paul absent) the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 14-03, conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance, Tentative Map and Subdivision Exception applications; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2014, within the 10 -day statutory period, Daisy Carlson, (adjacent resident at 15 G Street), fled a timely appeal (AP14-001) of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058); Variances for front yard, side yard, rear yard, minimum front landscaping and driveway (V12-002); 'Tentative Map (TS13-002); and an Exception (EX13-008) to the recreational facility requirement, pursuant to Chapter 28 (Appeals) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, citing that the proposed project will be detrimental and injurious to her properly at 15 G Street because the proposed 3 -story structure was too tall, was requesting too many variances, eliminating too much on -street parking, and does not fit into the existing neighborhood character and; WHEREAS, near the end of April 2014, at staffs suggestion, the applicant met with the appellant to determine if the project could be re -designed to address the points listed in the appeal; and WHEREAS, staff agreed to the appellant and applicant's request to reschedule the May 19, 2014 City Council hearing to June 2, 2014 to allow the parties time to discuss proposed changes to the project; and WHEREAS, at the request of the appellant, and agreed to by the applicant, staff agreed to reschedule the hearing again, to June 16, 2014 to give the parties time to continue discussions: and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2014, in the absence of a signed agreement, notice of public hearing of the appeal was mailed to residents, property owners, and businesses within 300 feet of the site and the site was posted with the public notification informing the public of the June 16, 2014 City Council hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2014, the appellant agreed to formally withdraw the appeal, submitting an e-mail message stating her intent to withdraw the appeal based on a tentative agreement with the applicant to modify the approved project to reduce height and bulk and increase side yard setback; including: 1) changing the gable roof to a mansard, thereby reducing the height of the building from 33 feet 3 inches as measured to the midpoint of the gable roof to a height of 29.8 feet as measured to the roof deck of the mansard roof; and 2) providing a 5 foot side yard setback along the south side of the G Street townhome; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2014, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (API 4-001) and the modifications to the approved project design as reflected in the tentative agreement between the appellant and the applicant, and accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council discussed the appeal points and the project design modifications reflected in the tentative agreement between the appellant and the applicant, ultimately voting to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to grant approval of Environmental Design Review Permit (ED] 2-058), Variance (V 12-002), Subdivision Exception (EX 13-008), and Tentative Map (TS 13-002) and approve and incorporate into the resolution the modifications in the agreement between the appellant and applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (AP14-001) of Daisy Carlson and upholds the February 25, 2014 Planning Commission decision granting approval of Environmental Design Review Permit (ED12-058), Variance (V12-002), Subdivision Exception (EX13-008), and Tentative Map (TS13-002) to construct 8 condominium townhomes at the 21 G Street project site. The City Council finds that the points of the appeal (identified in bold/italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1: "No variances are necessary if they were to comply with the intent of the code which is to limit the size of buildings on said lots. " Staff Response: The "intent of the code" (i.e., the Zoning Ordinance) is to be used as a tool to implement the Goals and Policies in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. As such, the zoning ordinance identifies baseline property development standards for all zoning districts in the City of San Rafael. As part of these standards, there are also stipulated exclusions, exceptions and variances to the development standards that may be requested. Specific "findings" have been identified for exceptions and variances to the property development standards and depending on the level of project review required, Planning staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council may be tasked with determining whether a project meets the required findings in order to approve the proposed deviation from the baseline development standards. The project as originally proposed and presented for Conceptual Design Review only required 2 variances — a portion of the Ida Street townhomes had cantilevered windows encroaching 2 feet into the required 5 foot required rear yard setback; and a variance to the required 20' driveway setback variance was required for both the G Street and Ida Street townhomes to allow a 18'6" driveway setback for the tandem parking. Tandem parking was allowed as a density bonus concession for providing a BMR unit. Also, the City's Department of Public Works reviewed and supported the tandem parking as proposed. However, based on public concerns about parking impacts and recommendations from the Design Review Board at the October 4, 2012 Conceptual Design Review hearing, the applicant substantially revised the project, including but not limited to: 1) reducing the number of units from 9 units to 8 units; 2) re -designing the two G Street townhomes from a flat, row house type design to a gable roof design; 3) adding a shared central exterior entry stairway to the G Street townhome; 4) replacing tandem parking on G Street with side-by- side parking; 5) consolidating driveways on Ida Street to reduce curb cuts; 6) including more detail on the proposed roof -top gardens; 7) added articulation to the rear facade of the Ida Street buildings; and 8) addition of 732 square feet of common usable open space at the ground level. However, these changes to the site design also prompted the following 3 additional variances to the property development standards: 1) front setback variance (for new entry stair encroachment); 2) side yard variance to encroach 1 foot into the required side yard setback on G Street (required due to the additional width for side-by-side parking); and 3) variance to the 50% required landscaping on G Street townhomes (landscaping reduced from stairway and wider driveway). This brought the total number of variances to 5 for the proposed project. The DRB supported the re -designed project, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of the multiple variances at length, and determined that there were findings to support granting the variances. Their decision was based on the fact that the project met the findings required to approve the variances requested, and recognition of the fact that there is a need to balance development standards, the community concerns, and goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site is designated as a housing opportunity site in the General Plan 2020. In the end, the Planning Commission did vote (4-2-1, with Commissioners Lubamersky and Schaefer dissenting, and Commissioner Paul absent) to approve the project as proposed. Further, the appellant has discussed their concerns at length with the applicant and agreed to withdraw the appeal, based on the applicant's revised project design which eliminated the 1 foot encroachment into the required side yard between 15 G Street and the G Street townhome, thereby increasing light and air between the two properties. Appeal Point #2: "The lot coverage creates a need for a roof terrace which looms above and is not only a menace but poses a public health and safety issue." Staff Response: The project proposes 52% lot coverage, which is below the maximum allowable lot coverage for the HR1 zoning district (60%). The roof terrace is not a required development standard, nor is it required to meet the minimum usable open space requirement per code. It is proposed as additional common outdoor space for the townhome residents. The Fire Department has reviewed the project and did not identify any public hazards associated with the rooftop gardens. Appeal Point #3: `By granting special privileges to file developer they are denying current rights to existing residents. Its mass, girth and height are not consistent with neighboring properties nor are two curb cuts which essentially remove five street spaces to provide four off-street parking spaces. It's proposed physical vicinity to 15 G Street is not consistent with surrounding homes and does not take into account that 15 G Street is just 2 feet from lite property line. " Staff Response: The existing project site has one curb cut dedicated to the existing home at 21 G Street. The proposed new project would add an additional curb cut, eliminating 1 on street parking space. Further, the gable roof design will be changed to a mansard roof, reducing the building height from 33'3" to 29.8'. As a 3 -story building, the actual roof will not be visible from the pedestrian street view. However, the re -design will reduce the overall building height by 3.4 feet, and in combination with the increased setback along the side yard, will considerably reduce the mass and bulk of the G Street townhome and increase the amount of light and air to the existing building at 15 G Street. The appellant agrees and has withdrawn the appeal based on the new building design. Appeal Point #4: "This proposal is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning or infill housing on the alphabet streets of San Rafael It is more consistent with those on the numbered commercial street. Our neighborhood welcomes the BMR unit but sees no need to grant such extensive variances to provide one. " Staff Response: The project is consistent with both the General Plan Policy and Zoning Ordinance. Based on the lot size, the project would be allowed 10 units on the site. The project originally proposed 9 units on site, but due to site constraints, design criteria, and community input the DRB recommended that the number be reduced to 8 units. The new residents will have easy access to transit bus routes and shopping and parks within walking distance. The project is in -fill housing, which is encouraged in the downtown area of the City (Policy H-22). Also, the project would add one low-income affordable unit to the housing stock per the General Plan Inclusionary Housing (Policy H-19). In addition, the project site is identified in the General Plan as an "underutilized parcel" and a "housing opportunity site" available for development. Appeal Point #S: "A single driveway design would remove the need for front and side yard variances and thus not risk infringing on the rights of 15 G Street and other residents to maintain current light and air" Staff Response: The applicant indicated at the Design Review Board hearing that the idea of "podium parking" design (i.e., one driveway access to parking on site, with units above) had been investigated by the applicant early in the project design, and the applicant responded to questions about the feasibility of the podium design at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant testified that podium parking was not viable for the site because the shape of the lot precluded achieving adequate turning movements for cars. The City's Traffic Engineer supported the tandem parking design. Appeal Point #6: "The granting of the application for variances is detrimental and injurious to properties in the vicinity of the development sight, most specifically 15 G Street. We do not believe that sufficient efforts were made by the developer to design the G Street portion of the project in a manner that does not infringe on the property rights and values of other residents." Staff Response: The applicant has participated in a total of 4 public hearings on the proposed project, three hearings before the Design Review Board (including Conceptual Design Review), and one before the Planning Commission. The applicant made substantial changes to the project design based on both community comments and DRB recommendation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this decision is governed by Code of Civil. Procedure Section 1094.6. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby grant approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 12-058), Variance (V 12- 002), Subdivision Exception (EX 13-008) and Tentative Map (TS 13-002) for the construction of 8 condominium units at the 21 G Street project site, as approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2014 and reflecting additional modifications as agreed upon between the appellant and the applicant (as a condition of withdrawing the appeal) based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Findings (ED1.2-058) 1) The proposed construction of 8 townhomes (2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street) is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter given that: a. The proposed project (as conditioned) is consistent with General Plan Policies summarized as follows and discussed in detail as noted in the General Plan Consistency table included in the February 25, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Exhibit 4 (Table Analyzing Project Consistency with General Plan 2020), including the following policiesLU-2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Intensity of'Residential Development), LU -1.2 (Building Heights), LU -1.4 (Land Use Compatibility), LU -23 (Land use Maps and Categories), H -I (Housing Distribution), H-3 (Designs That Fit Into the Neighborhood Context), H-1.9 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements), H-21 (Density Bonuses), H -18b (Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Site), H-22 (Infill Near Transit), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -1.7 (Competing Concerns), NH -22 (Downtown Housing), NH -43 (West End Design Considerations), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping), I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services), 1-4 (Utility Undergrounding),1-6 (Street Maintenance), 1-8 (Street Trees), CA -13 (Historic Buildings and Areas), SU -6 (New and Existing Trees), SU -5a (Green Building Regulations), SU -8a (Affordable Housing), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Requirements), N-1 (Noise Impacts on New Development), N-2 (Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use), AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution From Urban Runoff. b. The proposed project (as conditioned) conforms to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14.04 (Base District Regulations), Chapter 18 (Parking), Chapter 25 (Environmental Design Review Permits), and the San Rafael Design Guidelines in that the project is an allowable use in the HR1 zoning district, the project would provide 16 off- street parking spaces, with tandem spaces allowed as State density bonus concession for providing 1 affordable housing unit, and the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and recommended for approval. The project site is an L-shaped lot located between G St. and Ida St. near downtown Fourth Street. It is a transitional site between the bulk and massing of Fourth Street and the relatively smaller single family homes in the center portion of G Street. The project has gone through considerable revisions since the initial conceptual design review application, reducing the number of units from 9 to 8 units, re -designing the buildings on G St. with a mansard roof and providing 732 square feet of ground level common usable open space. The re -designed project has taken into account the variety of design elements in the neighborhood; and The project has been reviewed by Planning staff for conformance with the applicable design criteria established in Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff determined that the proposed units, as conditioned, would be compatible in color and materials with the existing buildings on site and add much needed in -fill housing to the downtown area, including one affordable unit, thereby improving the overall quality of the streets in the surrounding neighborhood. 2) The project design, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the High Density Residential (HR1) Zoning District in which the site is located given that: a. The proposed 8 units is an allowable use and at an allowable density in the FIR] zoning district; b. In terms of Chapter 25 review criteria, the project has been designed to incorporate two distinct streetscapes. The G St. frontage is less bulk and mass and more akin to a single family residential district, though there are larger buildings at the end of the street. The original design of the entire project was a flat roof row house design. The applicant agreed to change the G Street townhome elevation to take into account the smaller scale of buildings on G St. A gable roof element was introduced and a central staircase was added. Based on discussions with the appellant, the applicant agreed to further design modifications to address the appellant's concerns about reduction of light and air to the 15 G Street property from the proposed 3 -story project. The applicant agreed to change the gable roof design to a mansard roof, to reduce the building height from 33 feet 3 inches to 29.8 feet, thereby reducing the building height by 3.4 feet and reducing bulk and mass. The Ida St. townhornes retained the flat roof design since the predominant feel of the block is tall commercial buildings with only one single family home on the block. The building mass is set back from the adjacent property to the south through the placement of a usable open space area on the south end of the property, as well as the preservation of the existing Oak Tree on Ida Street; The proposed exterior building color and materials will blend in with the variety of architectural styles and materials in the area, including older historic resources in the area; d. The site has 2 existing street trees along the G St. frontage and one existing Oak tree on the Ida St. frontage, all of which will remain. Additional landscaping along the interior and perimeter of the project site will be added, including a total of 4 new street trees (one on G Street and three on Ida Street); e. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board multiple times, including early input during Conceptual Design Review, and recommended multiple changes to the project design and site orientation, which the applicant agreed to and submitted revised plans, which the Board ultimately voted 4-1 to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. 3) The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts given that: The proposed project was reviewed by applicable City departments and no adverse environmental impacts were identified; b. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal building codes and health and safety standards; The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development). A historic resource evaluation was completed on December 7, 2013 by Archaeological Resources Technology. The report concluded that the residence at 21 G Street did not qualify as a historic resource. As such, the residence at 21 G Street can be demolished with no significant impact on historic structures; d. Based on the Findings and Recommendations on Page 12 of the Archaeological Resources Technology Report, Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #10 has been added to ensure appropriate monitoring for any potential archaeological resources encountered during construction. 4) That the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the project is a residential project located in a zoning district zoned for residential uses. The use of the property is a similar use as is seen on other residential lots on G Street and Ida Street. The project is designed with code compliant parking (2 spaces per unit) and the proposed tandem spaces along Ida Street will still provide off-street parking for two vehicles. The proposed project has requested 5 variances to the property development standards. Findings to support project approval are detailed below under "Variance Findings." Variance Findings (V12-002) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated; 3. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; 4. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. 'The project applicant is seeking approval for a total of 5 variances, 3 on the G Street townhomes and 2 on the Ida Street townhomes: • G Street townhomes: Variance request to reduce the minimum 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%), a front entry stair encroachment (11' 8") into the required 15 foot front setback, and a 2 foot building encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback on the north side of the property (no variance is requested for the south side property line, which will provide a code compliant 5 foot side yard setback); • Ida Street townhomes: Variance request for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5 foot rear yard, and a 1 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot driveway setback. In general, the variance requests are relatively minor in nature in ten -ns of the actual amount of encroachment requested, mainly 1-2 feet. The City actually recognizes that many properties in San Rafael pre-existed the zoning code and as such are legal non -conforming. There are many existing legal non -conforming structures in the project vicinity, including the appellant's property at 1.5 G Street. Small deviations to the prescribed property development standards are allowed through either an Exception process or the Variance process. Typically, for new development, the protocol is to direct developers to design the project without the need for variances or exceptions. However, odd -shaped lots present special difficulties. In the case of 21 G Street, the original project presented for conceptual design review was designed with code compliant 5 foot side yard setbacks for the G Street townhome. In addition, no variance for a stair encroachment into the front setback was needed as there was no staircase proposed as part of the fi-ont fagade. Based on public input and concern about tandem parking along G Street, the DRB recommended that parking be re -designed as side-by-side and the applicant indicated in order to accommodate the interior garage dimension, they would have to widen the garage and therefore would request a 1 foot encroachment into the required side yard on the G St frontage. Similarly, the addition of a front staircase to reduce the bulk along G St required an encroachment into the front setback beyond the 6 feet allowed for a stair encroachment. The overriding consideration for granting all 5 variances is based on the size, shape and orientation of the subject lot, which is an L-shaped through lot. In addition, per DRB recommendation, the applicant reduced project size from 9 units to 8 units, which is still 2 units below the maximum density allowed on the site. There is an inherent hardship in the strict application of the development standards for setbacks, minimum landscaping and driveway setback. Further, many other properties in the vicinity also have similar issues of encroachment into the required side yard setback and possibly other setbacks. As such, granting the variance would not bestow a special privilege to the project applicant that is not also enjoyed by other property owners in the area. However, each variance requested has unique impacts and are therefore discussed separately below: a. Minimum Landscaping (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 1.4.04.040, there is a 50% landscaping requirement in the HR1 zoning district. The requested variance would allow a reduction in the required landscaping from 420 square feet to 312 square feet (to 102 square feet less than required). Findings: The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is narrow, at 56 -feet width, whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant H.R1 lot width. Much of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the paved driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. The project was originally proposed with tandem parking, which would have required less paved area for parking. However, the project was re -designed based on public concern about the feasibility of tandem parking. As such, the area available for landscaping was reduced. The project is proposing to provide penneable pavers in order to soften the visual impact of driveway paving and respond to the intent of the landscape requirement. In walking the neighborhood, staff notes that the other homes on the block utilize hardscape in the front yard area, some of which is used for parking. Granting the variance would not be injurious to surrounding properties in that the site will he heavily landscaped along the perimeters and several street trees will be added to the site. While the front landscaping is less than what is required by code, the project is proposing to keep the existing 2 street trees on G Street and plant one additional tree. On balance, this will help mitigate for the loss of landscaping in the required front yard area. b. Front Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required front setback in HR1 zone is 15 feet. Stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8" into the front setback (i.e., 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment). The previous project design did not include stairs, but the G St. townhomes were re -designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in line with existing single-family architectural styling on G St. As such, a front setback variance is required for the new staircase encroachment. Findings: Staff has determined that the stair encroachment is relatively minor, considering that pursuant to Section 14.15.030, stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed encroachment is only 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment, and would add a much needed design element to the streetscape. Many other properties on G Street also have exterior staircases, and the design lends itself to creating a fagade more compatible with the existing properties on G Street. The staircase would not be injurious to adjacent properties as it will meet all code requirements. Side Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5 foot side yard setback is required in the HR1 zone. The proposed project is designed with a code compliant 5 foot side yard setback for the south side of the G Street frontage (adjacent to 15 G Street), and a 3 foot side yard setback for the north side of the G Street frontage (adjacent to a vacant lot used for parking). The variance was needed in order to accommodate code compliant 20' wide 2 -car garage width. Findings: The side yard setback variance is justifiable based on the narrow lot width at this portion of the irregularly L-shaped site, and the fact that several other properties in the area also encroach into the setbacks, although these properties are legal non -conforming. Given that the encroachment is only 1 foot, and given the fact that the encroachment is necessary to provide side-by-side parking specifically expressed as a choice preferred over the tandem parking originally proposed on G St., staff is inclined to support the variance. This requested variance has generated concern from the neighboring residents, particularly the adjacent resident of the single family, two-story home at 15 G St., who expressed concern about the impact of a 3 -story structure on light and air to their property. This home is a two story home and is about 2 feet away from the property line adjacent to the project site, and also encroaches into the required 5 foot side yard setback on their property but is considered legal, non -conforming. The impact of the height of the 3 -story townhome will be somewhat reduced because the side yard area will be heavily vegetated and the outdoor recreational space for 15 G Street is on the other side (south side) of the 15 G Street lot. Though the adjacent neighbor will face a tall wall, the south elevation for G St. does have window openings and is proposed to be covered with Ivy to help soften the wall. The applicant has indicated that there is insufficient interior garage space to further reduce the size of the garage. It is also important to note that the original project was submitted with the code required 5 foot side yard setback for the G Street townhomes, but due to concerns from the public about the tandem parking, the DRB recommended that the parking for the G Street townhomes be re -designed as side-by-side parking (two 20 foot wide 2 -car garages), and indicated that they could support the 1 foot encroachment into the side yard setback in order to allow for adequate garage width. Despite DRB and also Planning Commission support for the I foot side yard variance, the project was appealed by the adjacent property owner at 15 G Street because of concerns that granting the variance would allow the three story building to be too close to the side property line. The applicant and the appellant discussed the matter for several weeks and the applicant ultimately proposed to move the G Street building 1 foot to the north. The new design would eliminate the l foot encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback on the south side of the property, and provide a 5 foot side yard setback on the south side of the G Street frontage. This would increase the encroachment on the north side from 1 foot to 2 feet, providing a 3 foot side yard setback on south side, adjacent to a vacant lot, currently used for parking. The gable roof design was also changed to a mansard roof, which lowered the building height from 33 feet 3 inches as measured to the midpoint of the gable roof to 29.8 feet, measured to the roof deck of the mansard roof. This re -design substantially reduced height and bulk along both the north and south property lines. Based on these changes, the appellant agreed to withdraw the appeal, conditioned on approval of the proposed changes as described in a tentative agreement between the applicant and the appellant (Attachment 5 of the June 16, 2014 City Council Staff report). Staff continues to support the variance, as it is still in keeping with the existing neighborhood character and provides more light and air between the properties, an improvement from the project previously approved by the Planning Commission. d. Rear Yard Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 14.04.040, the required rear yard setback is 5 feet. The Ida St. townhomes are designed with a canti levered window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 ft. rear yard setback. Findings: Again, due to the irregular L-shaped lot, site design is more challenging. The cantilevered section of the rear facade would almost qualify as an "allowable encroachment" as an "architectural feature" except that it is a feature that is repeated for 3 stories. As such it is considered an encroachment into the required yard. Without the variance request, the upper stories would have no articulation which would run counter to the Chapter 25 design review criteria for building design articulation. Further, the impact of the encroachment has no impact on adjacent properties considering that the rear yard abuts the building on the G St. side of the same project site. This property is not like other regular single family lots in that there is no rear property line between the G St. townhomes and the portion of the Ida Street townhomes directly behind them. In addition, the 1 foot rear yard encroachment would not negatively impact usable outdoor space on the lot, as all units have access to both common and private usable open space in the form of terraces, roof gardens, and porches. Given the minimal nature of the impact on adjacent properties and the benefit it would add to the building design, staff can support this variance request. e. Drivewav Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development standards for the driveway setback have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance requires that "where there is a driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty feet (20'). The project is proposing a 19 foot setback for Ida Street. The proposed project would group driveways along Ida St., eliminating the need for six distinct curb cuts. However, due to the tandem parking design, a variance to the 20' required driveway setback is requested. Findings: The L-shaped lot does not have sufficient depth required to meet all of the zoning setback and dimension standards with tandem parking. The variance is deemed justified based on the fact that the project cannot comply with all zoning setback standards, achieve its allowable and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law. Reducing the garage by one foot would most likely compromise the use of the garage for two cars. The goal of the 20 foot driveway setback standard is to ensure that cars do not block the sidewalk. Based on the site design, staff determined that the garage has ample space to ensure the cars wiI l be able to pull onto the lot and not interfere with the sidewalk area. Considering the variance request did not generate much public opposition, it seems that there is value in preserving the option to have more building articulation in keeping with Chapter 25 design guidelines. Tentative Map Findings (TS13-002) 1. The proposed map is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any applicable, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan as noted in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #1 above and the General Plan Consistency table (Exhibit 4) included in the Feburary 25, 2014 staff report to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the map is to create 8 air space condomiums with no real impact on the orientation of the lots on the project site itself, 2. The design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any pertinent, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan in that the subdivision would create 2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street and these units are in keeping with the allowable density and lot configuration for the HR1 residential zoning district with respect to height limit, parking and total lot coverage. Several variances are required in order to construct all 8 units, but staff is in support of the variances, as discussed in the Variance findings above; 3. The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the type and density of the development in that the City has balanced the regional and local housing needs against the public service needs of its residents, as well as available fiscal and environmental resources, and concludes that adequate public services are available to the site based on existing service providers that have reviewed the project and indicated that subject to conditions of approval, the system has the capacity to provide service; 4. The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the density of development that is proposed in that: a) the proposed subdivision would create 8 air condominium units on site, which is below the maximum density allowable per code (10 units); b) the project would also provide two -car garages for all units, which complies with the required parking in the zoning ordinance; c) ample, code compliant private and common usable open space is provided for the project; and d) the proposed subdivision would create air condominiums, with no impact on the actual orientation of the physical lots on the ground level in terms of property lines; 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that: a) the site is currently graded and developed with no known environmental resources on the site, b) the site is an in -fill site that has been designated in the zoning ordinance and general plan as high density residential development; c) the project has been detennined to be categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA findings listed below. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that: a) it is a residential project in keeping with the existing residential zoning for the vicinity; b) the proposed project would be built in accordance with the latest Building and Fire codes to ensure the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors; c) the City's Public Works Department and Sanitation District have reviewed the drainage and proposed sewer connections for the project site and deemed the project design to be in keeping with City standards, subject to conditions of approval; and d) as conditioned, the proposed subdivision would not result in impacts to water quality or impacts to environmental resources in that an erosion control plan is required as a condition of project approval, which must be implemented before any grading or construction commences on the site. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that no easements were identified as part of the Title Report submitted for the project. The project site is privately owned with no known public access through the lot. Subdivision Exception Request Findings (EX13-008) I . That there are special circumstances and/or conditions of the property proposed for subdivision that warrant the approval of the exception to the requirement for a recreation building in that the project site is very small and is not able to accommodate an additional building for recreational use. In addition, the goal of this provision was to target larger residential complexes with many more residents and a higher need for a separate recreational room; That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subdivider or property owner. The property is designed as for -sale condominiums, akin really to a single family home. Requiring a recreation room for such a development style would not be appropriate, given the design of each townhome, with ample access to a garage, common open space, a private roof garden and private patios. Given the size of the project site and the site constraints to provide code complaint parking and setbacks, it would be a hardship to create a recreation room that would most likely be relatively unused. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated. The property will continue to function as a residential development without a recreation room. Adjacent neighbors would not be impacted by the lack of a recreation building on the project site. Residents of the proposed project will have access to a garage area, storage and common open space for their recreational activities. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings 1. The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), since it qualifies as an infill affordable housing project pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21159.21 and 21 159.24 and Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts In Fill Development Projects. This project qualifies for this exemption based on the following; a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designated for the site (High Density Residential); b) The subject site is within City limits and is an infill site that totals less than five acres (0.5 acres) in size and is surrounded by a mixture of uses on three sides, including single-family residential, medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses; c) The entire site and its surroundings have been formerly graded and completely developed. There are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour). It is not anticipated that the proposed project would create significant sources of noise or air pollution, and the new residential use would generate noise levels that are similar to the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, and e) All utlility agencies have indicated that per conditions required, they can provide required services to the new development. Environmental and Design Review (ED12-058) Conditions of Approval Communitv Development Department - Planning Division The project, as approved by the City Council shall be designed and installed in substantial conformance with the approved plans as modified per Attachment 6 in the June 16, 2014 City Council staff report. A frill set of revised plans consistent with the two sheets shown in Attachment 6 of the City Council staff report (dated June 16, 2014), shall be submitted to the Planning department within 2 weeks of the City Council approval to create a complete set of approved plans for the Planning file. The revised site plan, elevations and landscape plan as presented and prepared by Camiccia Construction, date stamped Approved, June 16, 2014, shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body. 3. A copy of the Conditions of Approval for ED12-058 shall be included as a plan sheet with the building permit plan submittal. 4. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board and also shown on elevation plan sheets. The approved color for the exterior stucco is Benjamin Moore #1496 "Raintree Green", Hardie Shingle is Benjamin Moore #1494 "Vale Mist", accent bands paint color is Benjamin Moore "Bone White", standing Seam metal roof color is "Aged Bronze", and windows and door colors is Benjamin Moore "Appalachian Brown". Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division. 5. This Environmental and. Design Review Permit (ED 12-058) and Variance (V12-002) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Commission approval, or until June 1.6, 2016,. and shall become null and void if building permits are not issued, or an extension is not granted before that time. 6. All new and existing landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 60 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning Division to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. All landscaping must be installed prior to calling for the Planning final inspection. 9. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.133 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 10. Archaeological Resources Technology Report (Page 12), dated December 7, 2012, has recommended monitoring at the site to determine the presence/absence of cultural resources. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a letter from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria that the proposed project has been reviewed for potential impacts to Native American cultural resources. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay $15,743.81 in Parkland Dedication fees. Communitv Develooment Department— Building Division 13. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code (CRC), 2013 California Building Code (CBC), 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. Building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2014 shall comply with the 2013 California Construction Codes. 14. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by 4 complete sets of construction drawings to include: a. Architectural plans b. Structural plans c. Electrical plans d. Plumbing plans e. Mechanical plans f. Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g. Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building) h. Structural Calculations i. Truss Calculations j. Soils reports k. Green Building documentation 1. Title -24 energy documentation 15. Based on the CRC and CBC definitions, this project consists of a duplex dwelling and a 6 unit townhouse. Both the duplex and the townhouse are 3 stories in height (the roof deck is not considered a story similar to the CRC definition of a "Habitable Attic." 16. Fully fire-sprinklered duplex dwellings and townhouses with walls 3 feet or further from the property line can have unlimited wall openings (windows and/or doors) per CRC Table R302.1(2) 17. The building height must comply with CBC Section 504 and Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building height. 18. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for commercial applications. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 19. You must apply for new addresses for the buildings from the Building Division. The address for structures is determined by the Chief Building Official. The address for the new units will be legalized upon completion of its construction. Each page of the plan's title block and all permit application documents must show the proposed building's address identification information. 20. The plan does not show the location of mechanical equipment. When located in the garage bollards must be placed to protect water heaters and furnaces from vehicular damage (when located in the path of a vehicle). 21. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. 22. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 23. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. 24. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work. 25. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the total square footage of new single family and duplex dwelling projects. New dwellings must comply with the "Green Building Rating System" by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 75 and 200 points. Additionally the energy budget must also be below Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square footage). Pubic Works Department— Land Development Division 26. A grading permit is required from the City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works. 27. Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention — Its part of the plan." Copies are available on the City of San Rafael website www.citvofsanrafael.ora. 28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Traffic Mitigation fee of $29,772 (3 AM + 4PM trips) is required. San Rafael Sanitation District 29. Existing facilities, including sewer lines, should be screened back to a lighter weight, and proposed facilities drawn in black. 30. The existing sewer lateral which is being abandoned should be in a lighter line type and feature hash marks. The new hashed line type for the abandoned pipe should also be shown in the legend. 31. Pipe material, and minimum cover for the laterals should be indicated. Acceptable pipe materials for side sewer laterals can be found on page 85 of the 2007 SRSD Standard Specification and Drawings 32. The minimum size for any of the laterals shall be 4". All laterals shall have a minimum slope of 1%. Please indicate this on the plans. 33. An additional cleanout is required near the south west corner of the 6 unit complex. 34. Trench section details conforming to the SRSD Standard Specification are required and shall be included on the plans 35. The applicant shall perform a Closed circuit Television (CCTV) inspection of the 6" VCP on Ida Street beginning at the sanitary sewer cleanout extending past the property line. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the San Rafael Sanitation District for their review. If the pipe is detenmined to be in fair to poor condition, you may be required to replace the existing line at your cost. When you televise the sewer mainline, SRSD crews shall be present when you enter the manhole. Please contact SRSD at (415) 458-5369 to coordinate the televising of the sewer main. 36. The utility plans shall be stamped and signed by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California before the plans can be approved or the building permit issued. 37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, sewer connection fees in the amount of $66,753.84 are required and shall be paid to the San Rafael Sanitation District. Marin Municipal Water District 38. The project site is currently being served. The purpose and intent of existing Service is to No. 00900 is to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of eight (8) new townhomes will not impair the Districts ability to continue service to this property. Water service required for the new townhomes will be available upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below. Please note, meter locations are subject to MMWD review and approval. a. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application b. Submit a copy of the building permits c. Pay appropriate fees and charges d. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested e. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following are required: verification of indoor fixtures compliance, landscape plan, irrigation plan, grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415-945-1497. You can also find information at www.marinwater.orf? f. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. Tentative Map (TS13-002) Conditions of Approval Communitv Development Department - Planninv Division 1. The Tentative Map (TS13-002) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of Planning Commission approval, or until June 16, 2016, and shall become null and void unless a Final Map has been recorded or a time extension is granted. 2. The project shall be subject to the affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 14.16,030 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and is therefore required to provide 1 of the 8 units as affordable. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the 1 affordable unit shall be approved by the City Council and recorded on the property. Consistent with the affordable housing requirements and the request for a state density bonus, the unit shall be affordable to low-income households. The location of the BMR units shall be identified on the project plans and the final location shall be subject to review and approval of the City as part of the City's consideration of the BMR agreement. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a Final Map, whichever occurs first, the developer shall pay to the City $15,743.81 in Parkland. Dedication fees in accordance with the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 1558. Adjustments of this figure may be necessary at the time of fee payment if the fair market value for parkland and associated improvements is adjusted in accordance with Section 15.38.045 of the Ordinance. 4. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared and submitted with an application for a Final Parcel Map. The CC&R's shall include the following requirements and provisions: a. The formation of a homeowners association (HOA). b. HOA responsibilities for ongoing maintenance of the shared or common facilities, including but not limited to the common driveway, common landscaping and irrigation, fencing, subdivision infrastructure improvements (stone water and sanitary sewer facilities) and exterior building and lighting improvements. c. HOA financial responsibility for center lane striping modifications that may be required in the future to coordinate with Caltrans street improvements proposed along Lincoln Avenue near the project site. d. Restrictions and regulations imposed on each lot owner. The CC&R's shall include provisions, which restrict the use of the parking spaces to vehicle parking. e. Requirements and provisions for professional management services or the services of a Certified Public Accountant to oversee the HOA responsibilities and budget. Prior to recordation of the final map, the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development, the City Attorney's Office, and the Redevelopment Agency. 6. Approved CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 16th day of June 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Connolly ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk r% mobin Kohn Glazer Attorney at Law 415-328-5564 I-A WITT City of San Rafael Clerk's Office San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 March 5, 2014 RE: Appeal of 21 G Street Development Proposal and Hearing before San Rafael City Planning Commission on February 25, 2014 - ED-12-058Nl2-002/TS13002/EX13-008 To Whom it May Concern, I am writing on behalf of Daisy Carlson, owner of 15 G Street, San Rafael, as her attorney, whom she has hired to represent in appealing the February 25, 2014 decision by the San Rafael City Planning Commission to approve the proposed design and tentative map for the 21. G Street project. This design and tentative map were approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-2 decision after much discussion. There was clearly not consensus by the Commissioners about this overly large project that was approved with multiple variances and exceptions and which will be detrimental and injurious to my client's property next door and to the neighborhood in general. Attached is an appeal letter from Ms. Carlson, with a detailed discussion about why this decision should be overturned and sent back to the Planning Commission for further review'. Attached as well is Daisy's check for $350 for the appeal fee as a San Rafael resident. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 415-328-5564 or Daisy Carlson at 415- 419-6459. Sincerely, Robin Kohn Glazer Attorney at Law 4155-328-5-564 robin co 1001 Bridgeway#107 Sausalito, CA 94965 1 Ends. Letter from Daisy Carlson and neighbors Appeal fee $350 check City of San Rafael Clerk's Office San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 RE: Appeal of 21 G Street Development Proposal and Hearing before San Rafael City Planning Commission on February 25,2014 - 01 01 To Whom it May Concern, I am a neighbor of the proposed project at.2 I G Street and Ida Street, San Rafael, and I am writing to appeal the February 25., 2014 decision by the San Rafael City Planning I , PI Commission to approve the proposed design and tentative map for the 21 G Street project. This design and tentative map were approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-2 decision after much discussion, with one Commissioner, Mr. Pick on the fence until the end of the hearing (it would have been 3 -3 had -he voted the other way). There was clearly not consensus by the Commissioners about this overly large project that was approved with multiple variances and exceptions. This project will be detrimental and injurious to the next door property at 15 G Street; it will be located a mere 6 feet from the proposed development and will tower over this home. As residents, my neighbors and I do not believe that project fits within the General Plan and Zoning framework, and we are therefore requesting further review of the 21 G Street and Ida Street building proposal by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. As stated in the municipal code section 14.23.070: A. Circumstances applicable to the property do not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. No variances are not necessary if they were to comply with the intent of the code which is to limit the size of the buildings upon said lots. Design modification that need no variances would allow two reasonable units without impinging on the current rights of existing property- owners in the area. Story poles would clearly indicate that this building is not in keeping with the neighborhood and is 30% higher than the next door neighbor at 15 G Street,, and 50% higher than adjacent homes and businesses. The lot coverage also creates a need for roof terrace which looms above and is not only a menace but poses a public health and safety issue. The proposals diminished lot coverage is not in keeping with the street and will weigh the streets character down. - a gr B. The variancez const* * Lute. ant of special privileges that are inconsistent with the limitations upoii other es in thi cinit\j- and zon'nudistrict in which the property Ls situated. properti e -v 4- As residents of G and Ida Street Nve believe the curreinp 10posal needs to be limited in scope consistent Ing properties. n seriously .5 G Street, 1 sly compromises the intear'y of not only tll exist* The current design 1 s not keepincT c to pro -it the intea V of cite tcet the character and integrity of the existing n neighborhood and deepens the already difficult parking pressure. The current design undermines the intent of the code and the value of neighboring properties By granting special privileges to the developer they are denying current rights to existing residents. My neighbors and I do not feel that the design proposal of 21 G Street is compatible with land use and adjacent surroundings. Its mass, girth and height are not consistent with neighboring properties nor are two curb cuts which essentially remove five street space to provide four off street spaces. Its proposed physical vicinity to 15 G Street is not consistent with surrounding homes and does not take into account that 15 G street is just 2 feet from the property line. Built in 1909 it was 20 feet from the original 21 G Street structure, which is consistent with other homes on the street. We do not believe it is complicated or difficult to design within the boundaries of the city code set forth to protect neighborhoods from the infringements of developers. As a Transitioning neighborhood it is crucial to design within the scope of city code to preserve the integrity and value of historic neighborhoods in the city. The city need not balance the developers need for profit to the detriment of all existing home investments in the neighborhood. Current homes on the street already provide wit in the scope of the code multiple affordable housing units. For example 15 G Street provides three units and has retained a 20 x 46 side yard. The home looks and feels like a single family home and is consistent with the neighborhood. The developer could design similar scaled home and retain a single curb cut and side and front yard. There is a clear need to develop within the parameters of code to protect both the city and the neighbors in perpetuity and not create unnecessary congestion,, drainage and sewage issues, and a reduction of existing investments or infringement upon the light/ air/ sky and value of existing homes. The current design revisions do not balance adequately the issue at hand which is that they are - squeezing a block size project into half a block size space. The property is obviously too small for what the developer is trying to do. He would not need five variances if he designed a home of appropriate size to the lot. This proposal is not consistent with General Plan and zoning or infill housing on the alphabet streets of San Rafael. It is more consistent with those on the numbered commercial streets. Our neighborhood welcomes the BMR unit but sees no need to grant such extensive variances to provide one. The variances ftirther undermine the existing rights of low income residents in the neighborhood to have street parking available to them. The overall design scaled down by 25% on the G Street side would be a welcome chancre in a neighborhood as the developer currently makes no attempt to maintain the existing propert_-v. As Comm-issioner Lubamersky pointed out at the February 251/ hearing, although this street is Zoned URI it doesn"t i"eel that way. It feels like single family homes. He also acknowledged that Parking is huae issue. This design allows two curb cuts where all multiple unit buildings have only, one. To provide four parking spaces on 21 G Street they absorbs five street spaces. The same is most likely true on the Ida street side, and fin-ther study is necessary to evaluate hm,�,- many street spaces are eliminated by the t curie cuts beiso close tocyether. N proper parking study is needed as there is a tremendous amount o variability as to availability depending on the yoga studio's schedule and dinner hour. Providing Resident permits to on street parking would be -one solution. We would like further study done of parking issues on the street and request that 21 G Street be reduced to a single driveway as is consistent with other multi -unit places on the street. Although we have not seen a parking study my neighbors and I feel there is some misconceptions as to the current amount stress upon the residents and the number of spaces being eliminated by the design. The design reflects that they are removing five spaces to provide four off street spaces on the G Street side. A single driveway design would remove the need for front and side yard variances and thus not risk infringing on the rights of 15 G Street and other residents to -maintain current light air and value. It would allow 21 G Street to install their proposed landscaping at reasonable distance from historic 15 G Street's foundation and city sewer lines that are already in need of repair due to roots in the lines under the city street. The roof top terrace could then also be eliminated. As residents., we request further study of health and safety risks associated with roof terraces, including a possible fire danger of having people on the roof only six feet away from the historic wood building at 15 G. We also request story poles, sewage study and a review of the said parking study, as the findings are inconsistent with the experience of all the residents. D. The granting of the application for Variances is detrimental and injurious to properties in the vicinity of the development sight, most specifically 15 G Street that has clear and imminent detriment to both safety, livability, rent -ability light.and air as well as loss of street parking and drainage and overall value. There is no clear argument to grant such variances to codes that were put in place to protect the character and safety of these historic neighborhoods. Additionally as 15 G street has flooded twice since the three years that the current owner has had it, a drainage study of a property so close to hers is necessary. 15 G has mitigated the flooding issue under 0? current conditions but the addition to of two large units so close to her building pose additional risk. Properties across the street have also flooded so reality once again is inconsistent with th& findings of the city. As Commissioner Lubamersky pointed out "the property not only feels too large for the space, it is too large for the space." The city does not need to grant variances and undermine the intent of their code that protect neighborhoods and current resident investments. The recently remodeled 15 G Street will have 10 windows covered by the exploded girth and height of this design significantly{ reducing light, air, income and value. Gray ti these variances directly pose sionificant financial hardship upon tl-ie owner of I G Street. The scope of the current designs dircctiv undermines both, overall value of I Street as Nell as the rent -ability oftAvo of the three apartments. neighbors and I believe this developer has the capacity to design an adequate building respecting, the intent of the code and the nela-hborinQ properties value and current use. It is not for us to debate the �_ I I N ROI of a developer but it can be argued that designing within the code is very feasible and not a strain to the builder. Without variances he could open up front and side yard as well as reduce the overbearing height. This could be argued is a much better design and would in many ways provide a more desirable space of equitable value for the developer. Respecting the intent of city code does not undermine his capacity to build profitably. A better design that preserves valuable street parking and does not impinge on the light/ air, income and overall value of neighboring properties especially, 15 G Street is within reach and indeed would be a win for the city, the residents and most likely the developer. The obesity of this current proposed design is not appropriate in its -present form. Such an overbearing design engulfing the valuable open yard space is not attractive and diminishes value. One could argue that the cramped interior will not be pleasant for future residents, the rooms are smaller than the average Victorian home. The property as designed now is indeed "spilling over everywhere" as noted by Commissioner Schaefer, and will be just six feet from 15 G Street. The intent of the five foot set back is to keep buildings 10 feet away from each other both to relax the eye, ground the residents and not overcrowd the Z:) neighborhoods with overbearing buildings. This design undermines the desirability of the street in an unnecessary manner. This building is proposing to be 50% taller than adjacent properties and 30% taller and just six feet from 10 windows of 15 G Street. This drastic reduction of light air, safety and value of neighboring property impinges on the rights established by city code to protect from just these types of infringements. It will be the tallest building by 7-10 feet excluding roof terrace provisions making it even higher. Its height exceeds that of the six -unit building across the street. With no open space around this behemoth, it will weigh down the neighborhood in more ways than one. The current design proposal will loom over 15 G Street. Further study is needed to evaluate safety risks posed by the proposed roof terrace 10 feet above 15 G Street., should an ash or cigarette be tossed from the roof it could cause a fire on the neighboring wood roof a mere six feet away. As residents we have the same concerns voiced so eloquently by our planning commissioners in the last meeting are equally concerned about precedent. The Bulk and mass is a significant issue. More support may be found if the height and width where reduced. Commissioncr Pick noted that there are a lot of variances in this project and that he had never seen this many. One needs to ask what is the motive of the city to grant so many variances that impinge on the rights of existing residents. There is an enormous spill-over effect and Mr. Pick rightfiffly expressed great concern. Indeed as he stated there seems like there could be mitigation for each one. Further study is absolutely necessary to proceed with such an overbearincrproj e ct in a neighborhood already Gr stru,-,,gling with parking. drainage and sewage issues. struggling parking. - The reduction of drivewvaN s to one per street would increase landscapincy makina it more consistent e Z_-:� Z=� NA,:-itli current homes on. the street. The 1 foot side �-:-ard variance is significant in this application as it is next to a building built in 1909 xN.itli a foot setback. Granting a variance in this instance absolute1v undermines the intent of the code which is to 'Keep buildings and w-indoNvs 10 feet from each other for lic.-Tht, air and fire safety. It i.s an 1-1 absolute impingement on the rights of retained value and quality of living for the owner of 15 G Street -who provides three residents in a smaller building footprint. The Driveway setback can also be mitigated by designing a building that is in size and scope appropriate to the lot size. The 'city can and should seek approval to study parking options, sewage, drainage, and set back precedent before granting variances. It was noted at the Planning Commission meeting that they wanted to grant the variances because it has been in front of them for over three years. It has been on the table so long because the developer has refused to design within the parameters of the property size and it is unacceptable. If you are presented rotten food long enough I suppose you could finally decide to swallow it, but it seems more sensible to start fresh with a design that is suitable to the lot and does not spill out and infringe on the integrity of city code and current resident investments. We can support density and infill projects* through more thoughtful design that will attract people to San Rafael rather than diminish our design principles to appease developers seeking profit. We do not believe that sufficient efforts were made by the developer to design the G street portion of the project in a manner that does not infringe on property rights and value of other residents. A similar design with single curb cut and reduced height and width is the only appropriate building application for 21 G Street side. We can recom -mend that they seek to purchase off street parking from other properties in the vicinity, a common practice in Europe that has protected the character of older neighborhoods. The developer has not sufficiently balanced the requests of Design Review Board to reduce the size and scope of the overbearing building proposal on G Street. The design is compromising residents on G Street. I am making an appeal for further review as my neighbors and I do not believe that it serves the city or the residents to grant these variances and tentative map and set such a dangerous precedent for our city in the future. Further study is essential. The residents intent to pursue this to the full extent of the law and we hope that as planners you will protect the integrity of your work and follow your own advice ..... it is spilling over, simply too big and is asking too in -Lich of both city planners and local residents. Sincerely, I Llf4 Daisy Carlson, 15 G Street - -1-k 'a , __1 (-,% - C� �__ , -1 111+1 ., " v .I, 1i _,, . 21 . . ( -, " C , r � - . I _1y 7 i— -.kl— V, kr- � b C4- ."",.III 10 �r` ..,41 , , pa - :0 �. I" �_,_ ,P � � Z� I ol ,- i- I 11b I -4- �n , �.f , P , rT � �14' 0 7- f , __.,�­ �- � � ", Q) , I- 6� "O J I'll"I . � lr,lj ... -4- t -r- 3 1 ., � f"f Q. ,i 1;�._ _41. - ;,. ! I f . -'f : . . T I - � W- I/ , -1 -, � i <D _-- j , _- ; u,i: /' i ;, __ �, . I. I�Y' ,,/ � C� lIO r� k� , J � - I I -,-- 10 V .� itz�l 11 11 Ii --"% t _� � I - I C . I t C " _ , - _____ I . � , 4�v_. - -I-TIj S':%7 -,-r.---- ., r " - '.. I ..­,,Jt,"�11 ,...I�l � - q­iMI�Jst� - !_ 1 .*-,z4<;4*-y *. * I .MS I * _ � , t.%.�y � I - . -*"- dt- 7�ir' 4 _1V , I '.1 " I 'I ff,�x u U � I ,..-'.'4 � . � I ,; t -1 .*� -.;,��. �. , _ X,�..1 , "' `i IIt.. 0 . , .7 ..I � � ..j. . ') � JI �.7 . �i1".:5� .� , � *,-*,-- *I -,,, . I- i� 1,_ rf I , � . ,.� AM�\ N11�, I � i - I- -i., . ., * . .,",._/-- -;- . ,� .11.1 , � I . -P i'Te., 1 00. ! - , W`a;, . , *11 - 4 ,If. I-Ut.�, , ,i J'u - I -r, --, � . . .. 10,7., ,I� *, * -.�%117*-1,19!14rTI T.,r�� 11<% Y , I.� .. .41 It .t. .. :1 , .:_ *0 .. . T. . e .. . I 'a . ,`* �" � ' �,-I 7 1* *.I �. f .;.I - Az I i ­ � I . . k;, - .. 4 1 1� I � .�t �,� '*.", . , 4' - -i�l,.W , ,. , . . -.4. -,., �k I - ,k ,�' - V�_ : . .. o . ., r,.;- I r I I. � I I . I . .1 . V vp- i . .�. lu- , , .� . . � I . . 1,41 ( I - , I , , , , I .. . ..s 'I - I ,,, - I - . i * I ", A . -1 . I . - I 4 ..... . b , 'r Z --_'t WS., � 01;-_ I 'IN � ., 1. � ',� ji! , , _1� Q- . I ., - I ...... � � � . � . .. *� ­*�*­<- 9. � �� '. - " v 4 I %__ - -,,,­ .�k­'E,:f % ` * •, . I -o -,I I I , � . c - `.X1 . 7- ;7-� � __ - ?'I, I I - ?,ff, `� I , -, ", , , .v. .VW1,;1,. - -R . A� ol * - � t - �� . . .. , -, i" . , '. . . eN--f_., - * , - C'-! I . . •41 - , ` -- ... - . - .. ! .1 .. i ,_ . * . A ',IT, ,I' � I v ..I. .� � � . - ,. �� r,,, Ato , 1, -. , `a' I �, 11. " - , -4 . - , - -r- ­�. I . * * , , "" - , , - . � "... . C . _ . I, %N'i, � I- , - *; � ,� % ..'� . -:-,:;- -.-,.* . " . � "-, -J�. .11 fl*,%: - el _ 4 � - - . . - -:'trot.'-- N , , , , , I .�, .. * .1. % I. � I . 4 . ,� 1� , " g�, �,:*.:_.-i�_el it!.- J� . I ­ 'It� 4j. -%,v 11s, . 11, � 1 _4 1 1 . I . i ��' * , I . , '. 1� I �k . �11.�;,� r -C "'--ts �,111 , - v � * , iV ,,;,; 1 7�__ �P_�,,,-- I , , , * : * * * . , : � . C .,.,* � � I.,�., _. i- ..1i . ... I� Z. � ,\ �, t'. -..' 4' ....... " , -,t.- . : 0, L .. .- I �!.',; , . !, I., * I - I. � , , 4 J, f. �t_ r. . .- --!#) 4, , � � . , ,,,, �Ir --, I "', * r- .� -!i tl*�_*_11�1. I " ,;tt I . ,'t . ,,- , - - .. ,* ' , . - �1' *, " ., . " . x ', . , -, ta- 15- .A . ':. . . ... - . :- , -�I.* Ii It I . . _ :*. ;.1-�4->,,-,r,�p',:.1,4;.j-. ... . I . .�.",�,: -C,I � I I � .�� , - - �!,, * Ii 1. I * . , ". - . _d.. 4, .11 . �� I - .- -.., * I, -, ­. r- -,Cl .1 1::. ;. �i . 7% - , / J A - ;-! t., i, -1 Ti i�;,-, q.,� N - , �fj� * , . ­ ;...., - I Opl­k' -1 � ) I . __4_�1111 , - , _ . . - . , - � Ir - ­,Lid_,_-,t71q` I - . - �,% , V�t L 41 I-41, � ;. . -,�'; , . ,;� . . : , .- -.. .;, ... I *"' . - �i ,10� `;� . --v, , . . :;:� _� -;, 11 , I , - � .,.. .. il�4 ww I - /_ _� �j , , . .., . .". � I I ��_: . �'.- � ..'r 10 , '11� e 1. I'- 1, I - � . � . - I . . � I -AAI_�, � �j ,♦* - , . . I , , 4;�� ii� : , , - : .: - , i� 1� .*. -%-,_.'., -.-) ;�; ,:l 'r- � , . . '. - I "{.•,:';a, . . I r.., - ; ,_- I.- ., - � . , - ;,.- , I - f 7�. -V- " . N �. •- . !. 4, . , ') .,rf>. , , -, 7 4. .,.,: ""* 1,-�A: -�.4, I�V,��,� g--,'.� -., �.' % -; * - . - _t! .. , " '. .4. . , I I . . N , - .*, . �t� - , � - � - - .-. - ,�"z I *c1%;_ -%-�4 'JI.. s %:',�. . ,�� '! - . I k, .. � - j ­� ,'1111_ i .0 I �;i F T A - � . . , .-* , _ a 1-1 ,Ir,�'F'ul� -4-' .. - __ . ! . " �, t �- . , , ,; `4 ­� * T_\ _�-z--"tk ��% �.i! - � � - . . - �r_ I I- W�.� , ,�--1 ­'I?��,A - , I .1 >,s I * � I ". �, :*,. 1 , 1� .: � 11. I - . - . '. . j ­ ,I - L - -I I .;-.,%,�, , -, - - - -f , , f. k-�N - � � . . .. I - - - ...I, . , t,;�� ��, k . f., ". :. ;;.*, , ,.r.,t! , � , fl0 . , . . � :1 I.P. ,r- ( :;,i't',�N, ?-:", - - r .. . � " � . . . . I,- i ­'t,4 4 IL - I, ,' �W_,,��Jj!:)__j � ---i . Tll� z ,; . . xi , l..)_:. F. - r . . %_ __I1. � �. -I- I--- I - , .- 4 , � � ! * � . �:r-_ -1 , . - " *y , r- - -:- - ]: -4. i��,, - pd-P!�,--ill /�.' . -i N , , � - ­;** , -­��+�I-._ - .r - 4 1 - -1 - 4.,. . - i �1 , - - � I ., .1 , I , - *r.1 It �� I. :�� -- � - , . . I "' -V­r�_k - ,,-,-e, ;AV t-�,�-�,, � . i -N - * � t �: 1�1 - '_� - -4 .I, i T _W, . 11 " �4 � , __� - � I. j , I , I C, . - , , I - ': - ,t, ­ - ­ . -1 - , . . � . ;t . 1 ... - 4 I.Q:�I,�� , � . , " -- . ,i, 'k� - ; 4 � "it I _�? , , " - Z� . - , .. . �el** , 1-4* k - 1 - I ��l . I i-11 �_ 11 I F ,� I- � tv � I -, F, i ,- - - -i. ­.,•.­- Itfir`,.,,. *" . . �, �;), �,(�.�J.",a;'}`-I --- 11 ,_,74�'. . I .\,I . *1,' 4 ,-- - '-L I t' * �11 141 _i-�., - - .f.1 .T . ,� � ,� 3 *t , R,- �, " f!!r��. � ";k.;.;�­ � � � - I-* ,,���F',Y.Vb �-�7 , ! - �,- 5 . . : z , - , v - ,-r_-� , - v-, '_ "k, .,�-,'!* 4`-' " .4 �. _�,:.­,.. ",�_ " . =•,"r- . . .. ", - It. "til"11 1:�'. .. .. �, . _Z* - 0-;�', J�:-,... �.11t�ne",Ii:..-.-..-4-t-�,-��IZ. - � r%Lr1:t% I . 1� 1:3. . I I I , 'tit' ;,. . -*,,,- ` . � . - '. . �� , ,�- 1,, . ,,, -� . _,_�, , _-_ . � 1 - -I- , , . . .. � _8p - ,�� -- t,__T�!nc � ,I . I - ,-. .r:, i v!- . ; ,, �r - * t :1 '. I ,P- II.- - N, :, t'_- , -',.V -, I 4 - ,4_ ,,�� --i, Z4� . , -, I zs_A� - , ` *1 '­ ), - - . V ,'s- I-, - . ,,,D- 't�y 1� I .Q , . I o, r1p 1:,jze .;,�� i; Wl, + , , � !%, , - -.1, 4 � ., . I - - - , k i. "I VI � - I - f , - � 'i - 1� ,», * , , - -�* i- 0, I I - i0 , . . . .. , � "� --; ­­ � I 0 , . e - . ­ 's .� ; - - " I ,;,. - - , , - - , . .- ju. _F � " *.*, -, " ; , ., ,� - , 41. - , , . . .- � -* e- I- ,..-,:c.- I/ I , .-A - � - , - - 771 -of- 4 � A� I "`.�r i- - 8 � " , . li� . I . - -, , "L � t . Ir .< . , .. ?, ,!:��.N!154, , - ,c I , -.1 , - 1-Y"61 . X - 16:- -_ C. ,;,- ,,,�� - , - �� : . , N! . . I �*l - � . . _. �, � . , � t'• e � ," .� � . � !�L._, �Vli, .. cl� - _. 1 ,-z3i.�-. 7*,,'e.,-t,.,,<.�._�'. .. , "i ,A -v; Y I .IF, -11 .*.. h. � , r, _�, �­,Aj, _� - -�, .T - : .% .�. vl�. . , 0 1, � �i; I '!j,+ ,K-�,' ` ' ", - ..-W;- , I- il'-1j.- �__ I" I -7 __ . 4; , N� I �- jx.� ! . qr , I? I . , . I'w , . � . ': - - , �� - � , .,�).; . - - . , . . - ,i. !,L ,� r�, 2 ��! ,, I- - _­ - , I � � .'�).; . fkok - , I I <n.-,; ; T. . ; , C �j _'��-�Ik,\,;�q�_;;` .- A - - , - i U . I V -s .... - -- , - - . .;".; f um .. _. .;� . ,-,-. _ - �1 ,!. I . .t% k , __ - - . . ­. - I I . . I ­% ­. . . . .% * _ -_ - - � - . . .4, . '� � � -.- *: ,,, - I I I 11 � , " e t � . . Vl�:. . W . .._1 I Zc� -Z . I , it, ^,7v -f , ,.;,,. j - --Il k1l " ,;t� *; r - . '�� - - - - , -_ I .� :�4 ': 4- A I -z . - %,'� I :4�,_n_", r � - " I �, � it*:�_`S, . , , �A , , I * L �,­j ;; ,*-4. ;it'- - ,q , , "_ ,_� .4jijij_:r; 3�� ,(-. � , '( -1 I � I I A - .��_ _L __ It . � i ­ . -­. - - ­ . 1_j3v�.q.!1'1'.j 2,L � I . -1 . "' 1, - r ,p. W , , .1 .1 1� � j . � . 0 I Ir 1. " ____ _-, "Y ..- - % - , - - . � �� ! ;,�'i *,wl, �, "..", -1 i- , 1 ):];�v - � - ,., I -_11 � tit" 1 _u I _­�,:];�i _- - , . % - , " iff, ...­;_ � . I'. � 4 � , -- �_ - — 171�__ - � "I I I I . ­ ... si ,4 r, � - - � t - - .. -I- , -34,- � , . ; . .,_�4�24 4 _� ,a 4 - _'.1 � , ��t " - f1% I 1� --i " I I ,-��;,:, � - 2 '17 .- � I . - ... � - - J, T";,_� .,,7 . I, ( -- . I. , � 1, :)"- . � , � 4,(,:1 -1 -1 , ct - - - I I :�, - :,,:, V i -3, . . I , , - - .1, Wv,�` . . , - , , -�� ��' . .�, I � , . , . � . i�, L_T�• 4 i% . , -�-�; ./ ; I . j -1 �- i- � , . ,I, ­- - , < , . 1::�,��. 6t�j �'--.,V . � I , - � t I �,elq ` - I I ;xI - , :1 I " , . i, . - , '�'..- N �j , 7 , - � ! �6zfflr --1: � �' 5 �'_ - tv*.� I - it- - - -14 1 �' _� i_; .-. . � �': I7.a,.", 1, .. I.' I ,��, � I 1z. -•� .� z%` I- - - � '- -- C I 4W - - ; __ - *.1 I ��-':,n � _�;A� * .... I ! . .Vcli. - � 4 - � - \ 'r� � _ - 't''11. 1 _�.\ M;_ - .� �,• , - J'� . I I.fq ,:r,.. -, N �, ,j:! (1(1 I -1 , , . . I I . 1:'dz\\, - � Ill 011!1) ": -c", I q, . * qp � -;. s *- 4� �p,��.,� 4 : . 4- - - - , �� ;%.. i- I ,� ; .Q I. R -, � �3 , - , I - I Al, v ,�- ptq It, . - � -­,,�\%" • _� I�i. - �. �? - --- : I - - -I' 1; - . ! • .. \%�� ,\",. :,__ _-, _` , �i �Z­ /--I , .; ., n � . ­,?�;, -* - .tl, .-I � �.:- . - � . ­:��, _.".­; - v11 -I. m , 7. ','v' * - -,IV,' !,- H-1 I- I I I - - . *.. .1 �_.­ , I - ,; 1. *,. 11 _ ., A -to _1- -, --R- -- - - % D - 4 � - - �`-L' I -1411 - _L 6.� V'l . � V L,."'' ,:. it-, " , CrIj ! il, I �:, � I- - - - - - 1. 'A.t.'' ,� I - - w _11 - I., %� - - . I -1 I I - It"IIi � 7.V-. t-'� I ter' -1 I � � . ,'.� - , "_Iir;�_. "I ,.- I � , , *i I I _. . 1,'�­V, �_ - _ 1, ,�­ - , z I �­­,�, - : V3 . I -_-j! I :-. I , - in ��' � ­_ � ,'ii; '? I . ..1, ... � *�ig �.� � - .. I . 1. ..L" 111-i - j ., ,,�1,4 � � _, i_, ,�," .8 ,� I � at' f. - ! . - �i.,..: % 1. , - j. -- ,K , I. " � -�,,-� .- - �, 11, * � 1, ", I . �.)il ..� 1c I 4 . % j , I 1� I � I..- ",. . .U.. . , i 4 `T,�,n *, .-"?I*- - , - _z_:,� 41 , *� _J:h�j �'n , � � "Z.171 , -, � 1, -*Vl i4l ­ 11r, __i4 M il � 11 t,, - I ��'411i 4 Q " I - - ,j_1:­t.-:-�, �, I , , . .,-, W �,.­* - - I - �� , 'I I - .11 0 . „'ltd ,,�,,, I . L � N'W�:-,, - _0 _,�r - ! �. 1� - �_ - -1 , -- I - q �:­. - - i V�.*!1..;!,m_-:1- -1,11i..", , jr- - - 11 " . ,:h*1 *1 I 1. I '�;�,_q,��f, V�ti "; ­<' , --I i ­ I - , -) ,, , O It :: - I . t , . 11 . � I 'I � :1 - .- �r -�� ,--- ,--.,t,��,­.-.,�:; � . I - i 4,1 '"Z x � � � I , , �z , I - I - .`� I. r __, ..� , ,744 I )S-..- -- I r�,:J! - W� I . , ,it I-. . \ P# .41 I. i�l * Idt, 11- .,I- X * iL - � * _ "i .. - I'l,"'.."7 .- " - - _� zP1A`­`. .�­L- � . -11 . I ..� - \� � , i . ,,,.I *,�_' . -, 'I - . . � - . -!t A -�j - -�qzj - '*' "" !�-,ii -- - � I - , _1 11 - m - , , � Q) . . 0) , ,-`.-%fT_­_: ,,:- . �. ,J,�l ,� i' 11 J . , . . - ­,; I ; ltk� I 1 .2 I i ,� - � - - Tj-. , e, .. 1: � _\�;Z�:�'�!"r.,*!, . .,r+..,�* t. �, a " .., , :-? � . _k_ _Y­�__ . W .- 1�114I,, '' - 1. I a//}i •. , :�. ;. ,I , ­ -- 'JO, . _ I- .3 ., ,,, - , -Z� -kotv,_,; - . 11 . , - �_ A� - .. ��_i 11 I - � - � ��>, r , �* I k* i4 -1." ACI , -, , ,-.t- != I , -_, � * L � - � .- - I - ,.C.� -, Ili I I . J- . t t e,k:_�tL!�A.; 51 �71J � - .. - - - - � - , -A .14 "'i � .. -�- �- , :�"Tw . .- - - I., ; - --t - "*7 .. *,.?i�: .; ­,;,-J� ��?�. . - . t -1 I I- . , , , v .."Y �i. - - I , � '­ , ,v ... - ,,, .- , I -1L��-o. - I - flin - r- �A - .- - - _. . . I , .�` I- %E411;; ._:� [\\�\ - - I - 4- - - " .k� - .. - .- * SIL - L I*. 6. ,e�. .., .I - - -- 21-Q r ji,tv ,�J:.:, .,j �, .:, , ,Z;�z - - 1 . " At't�j,�,!j - _. I , � I . � - I - _j _ -I - - ,�., . 1. �­_ 11 _ ", i I ­ -It- , I ,:,, � I , ,_ - �_k ... t" "•i ,• NI , � . - __ Vv� ' s .�Z,;ZLT�:" !. � � — � - N- .. i ,-;,- r4 ­� , — � - W� I . I 17--l-.11 7 � 7�1___!i ___x:1_.- - g�­ T-1 ..... * � � � � � � - d *:% -.:I- ,�, � -vim . , .� �� f. � - L ;,� I `_ i., 4 ,��, x �� 111ti, * I .Z�" I - * i - ,v � , - T U 1, -V - � .� I - 4, v;?_A;:�� � I I-` - . I - --- - 1 I.. - i 0 - I -1: � __ I .. .z.D -V- 7 -- , . " A.. . 1, , - - ,ii Ul' ­�' — _ __ .. _ ., . . �, � 'A. i . \ �, ;-. -1, . . :_`�,;. ii ,, "Ai = � . . , I � .11, 1.i . I " i .�: .. . I -,-, , I-- - � P, g� .4, . ... ­�Ll. � _�,,--- . 'A �� . �. _I I , �., ;, #.'.,j1,tE:,* ,Q- , 11 - - j _ � " I I!,. - _�� � . .=-�,,, I - -1 I ­ , , -i -, -i W it * I _ . , - I . Z, �.- o, ; ill � I a , , 1-6 - � � Iii � - ; 14., :_,�, *.v 1, - ­­ �t,-j * - , I , e *.; :q .4,:, - , P I ­t� P I _ N--�, - - ^1� - , ­ � I , , - . . . I . i." ., , ��- :). - -', -i:-��'_� ,� -;��; - ..:� - . - ;_,.jz, * iy - * Ai � ;� ��'! . �-A* �� ,� �_ I -� ji I , it I . - � -Z,-: - '. I ,j -.L at - I -I t , ,?-i N , ,,, - - " -, i I , I , - `_ - -1 ,.t � ljj,�.; 5, I * . . V , ., . � , _ �:'' � �i_- -, -_� " i 1 �i � . I-1-ts . . 4- I If 11 � I . � . lt(� . ,��+--, . - I i I " - �r I � � . . �j ­­ u: � F - I - V I�; �,14, , - - _T1 l I I; I I I ,I �, I . . 't . " .•.�- -.I.- I �T_ �,.� i I, I i I - * ." : . . . ___f7_t a - � � - - i . ___ .� . _ . :. - � - � q, !� I . 1. . ... - . � 1 = �1� --'t - .� . t. , ,��,��,,.*� ) I � .. ,� yam,` = - . I :-'.r �."tt.,-­,_ a t I I � . I �, . � ,b . � � -.A;- � -,lQ 11 . . !!� -W - - - � � ! I I 3 I T" 11 , I - -I- .-- _- �� - i ; � '! ;; ! I 1 - . "�- 1- -, - � I I I v 7- f7r � I I 1i I !i I " I �- -.-,, - '4 1, �. - - I * � - ., � . .. - -,,7 - - , = .1 1 1 lj,p, = . . �, . ; : :( ,- I ,�, , - - - -j-,t ; - . I I I i I : 1 1 1 1 , I , *1 . � - �� � i 11 , � .�T � I I , I I j *, ,;­: - .o.- . _T __ ) *L-1 -r`t`_:..o--^i`�..�-+si �, 1 � .' ll , ,*��71;..I,111 I �U%%� A` -- - _i�_=,__ __�, ;.,- � - 1��-% A 4 ;;; � -`-,-,,- I.I-rk"L_�'�,_�_ �, � -.% 7 -,_, r . �'. . . -,T7.- - 'm- = _': � _..,_ It 'k ­�`: � __1 . -.."j U4 �:-`r*) .- I 11* I I � . : - 11 Ii --. . , -_� , . .. . . I I I , - 4 k __ �1 - I I I I L. . � . =. ;;,: - - ) -a .e - . , � :4 . W_ I .11, I ( __ . - - , -1 I " - - 'CI � �-,.. I 1. I , ;i. - I ., I � � ) � I " .:, - - � , 4 - .� *7. t . . I ;; ­. 4 " - � .rl� - /_ I . * , ti4,4-,a �� . .t , - r .4 I 1�.-.�­- - ) - . . . , ,�� - * - - .__ - , :. � � , . A,. ., � - . -el I -1 f J, �1� -1 � - . . . � , ;% , . - I - I - I . . ... . � I "I Ll - -11 �_- - I :_ - , - H 11.1 . .. . . __�_ 11 _� � :_ 11 I - - . , zn�� k - . — � . - - - _E � .� �­ I _P_ - Y_:,� �,N.,:_Ife_ �O'N - . "I . ::11 . . :. � -�4 7�� �'.� - , , , , I . . E4!1:�,,-A*r_. 117 * - , - * , ot :� _t __ - . ., I ; , , ,� �� , 1:,* '--,' I•X �, . I . _; - - V 'pt � ;�,. . I I /I - %_.k i�, . . I -S,. �: t . � - . .., MIA, 1 1 1 . . . .. . . .,-. ,.\ � ­ � . 1,!I� - � ,..::;:6..1:: _f;i.�Pl4t�".- 11� -;. 4 -, , i -1 , 1.- - I it", . . . . - I, ,:.,Z:A� .i_ , -,, - __ ,1�; - llfia . - ::,. 7 I- . . .. . .6** '. - F.". C'. - . .•: - �!��L; _ �i �i -, . , ,,� 7- . - . � .. . . . 1, r 1c . . . r-,.Y�, ( .:r ',�, �, `,1 . -; j vi, -j`,­I.:- -4,1r_­jLi-0 -1 I i. L. I -;� , t" - 0 1 ... :�Z .� .t V. -t", i J�-� � 1. f r, ,.-�:t-4 - I i,;jj %­* x - - i - -,It ;, - -.Qti'A­ T'_ , -.,tit" r, � - I , \: - --{'­ .."T � A * . - 1: o - �_" -�� - I 1* ,i:, - , "' I . �� *Azj % Irr, , , I:. - , ],,,_.� ,,I�� ,,, I *ff'- �: 4.. , - 'A%:1 I ,'��!� I . . - . . . ­ N. �-`�� t..� , ---. �-14, I!Z - , �� j `4 �t .• - if f � �, __7 U A - r L - - * , ,:::L" I � I T�.,-k4., w: , I:- 71 * In. " Y. ( , - I � , (.'­7,�:'� -'- A,_.. I * �- Z. I i-,�,�:!�p - -- 4 * -�-,,A NN", !�, I _, ­� . , I . I I I � . �: "'�, . . _111j,.1.I 1. .1 �' I , -4 , , - I . . . **, , I; -L ­. " - , t. I - - . - ".*,r,!A -. . I, I - %.. R,___ L" 4: j .I,W . �' , I - IV k, 1. #!.I�--1 - -1 - ­. ,ii. I I -_*-n I -1- ­:� . .. t ": %. I ", ,tL :� , - I - i .) t F. -.*-.rt* -4 - �� . � t I � � I . ,�t �L , � � 'Z1 . i I- " -.�,�; a:"r- I - � - -7 If 5 - " zz .1 . (-­-, -, ..6� . - �', ,� I i. - - ! - I - 1$� -_--v � ty, . 1, I , I, _�. . . �:--/- -- r, �� ,tg - -A� i . ,A .,., ; , ". - 11 I 11 . - I 11 , � - . I 73'4� � I' - I , - .,- . - �t" - -.If - � .- - P. I I I I I"; � I -, :tet 'k- - "IF I f T; 'r -i U. *,;g �j �,,, --c < 1* - , �. . '_��", -- � , , V L � �5 .- . ), )".1, , � , - . - - - . I '. f " * ,�( I" , ­ - . I - !,,!'.I�.; - t--� -1 v_i] t_1 L-1 - . - - / - X-1 ,, !�,�), ­�. - . -, I �. - -, 1, ,--I � 11 � �,. -- _. _�: __ ),.r. I I I r . , ;I- , . . . . . r •`,.. 1_4?� ,1�1441.,� ��_�,� ..K :i,v. 1 �.. ..' �.,'ii. - , * to'.. , - i I � ,.�- I I. _. : KI "it � Ir .1 � - \ %it - , , - - .� , , �, _.;AU*�_ 7 � I . 0-.,-! I � - V, 111, � � . - I ,� . I - I I I I i-)'--�lj . . J,,� --'tL-A. �! - -1 � I - - .. .� �, I'- - . IN! lt�A,,,, " im . ,c , I A - I " . � _��.,!- -_ . t, (.1 , . R �: ,_ � jt�, � .1 ,,, . #_:I" - . � . ';t . 1 7 14 -, N. .. :�,-) I -, I .J- , . - 'I.' ., . - I111111) � , - .� 11 --* � ,It- � . . -r-7 I r. I.,= \. - f-- , - I :�]�ir.(!�_ - " . , i ',i-,- - ,'I - .. � P_ - . t1§ �,. ,,-cil!A - __ ­ I Al � (p ��_ I --I - ­ ,'k � - 1_wqn� A . . .. ,.,, , r - . � ik , "I . , _ki3;;�, __ - (v lz�_f I - - r -E 'V�, -- • � . �,�'# -:V -1 -'.71,"'r� . jpQe.". -1 ` ��- o� X., � ., -' 11 A I. I 4, , , �1,114� - _', "" 1"��_ , 1�! : �� I , . , I I . 1. , .. . - I C.. ,�,.�N-?Ok��r�-:- ,-_-,�"kj-i_. j� i. ­ t.�.. � .1 I '. - - - � �z,i� ; -1 : ..•I I 1, �, �2.-C,5!0�7-��N- --:I- - � i- ! -1 ". . Mme. I -, ii .�:�,,&� - ; rz- - , - .� .. --,,,,. .�� , - - , 1, . I ­� _* . - -I- %,, ,.,� It ! , - � , 6�_- - .1. - 11t1v1_-!/__8_� " .,I . .. ,­_,, ­ - . -1 . -; �, - - I - �j. � " " 1, ­ - -3 '. --- -J. g ... I. �- __ . . . c " .•� I, _, , - . , _. "I I - **cA,A - ��Ioe %� ? . , � 1L. . - A-4 "I � . _P .. 11k , � - _;=r I - -I",- j- •-?__�, I �.r � )­­lf,,-- .�- I � � - 11 .. 1� . f .11:�11 *t. •R' % ,�� _� '.I \\ f .�� Y .A4Qw_ *7-1 - -,% �., -, ..Y .'ol 7 u, %� il . . 'R'`' I�,.':+:G"7�;?_'14;.7"-� � - rf-, , _. TV), I ;, t, � . I - , h , ":,j . I . :;f- _� 1- , 1 - -- � "' I ­._�;" � I ,. I . !�__. ;. . 1. i R'". - -"'I-," *C!7'eIRV " , � . �i� . 6-i! - - .R._� -��._�- v _*­ - 10 I �w _11__�,_ I A-1- 7; , . .. . - �.� -.1 %. .-, '. �f `( _� 1� :"7, , 4 .. * ;: " I , . .rI, - . _.�e'.,4;11v'1 - I , li, -,,: ;�_ � "I �' "W - I - - . � , , . . � .. tI(tr� r�i_ .� X I .1 ,��I�s 1. I . - Ir ., � .. j ! C- 'Al � It -I.- . .- 8 t -� , .I. _ _vQ __ __. . - _.�, .-�-- , 'it; - :,,,7t191' , , , -1 -'. *- et, � , -C VWVI�,. *. * , __4 �A,�:�, I WA , � -. ., I *�,-..tf . , 4 , ', � - - r I v - .I�I. -1 �kj 1_1 . .1 � , ��T� . Jr ,L. -.*, vs �. _, ,. iL,,f­j�l -1 NZ- - : � �,�� �­ - - I 4. ; _Z �Wd, b: _:� J., "- '1� - ,,, - f� - - ,,, - , r, -V- �Lf I I,!.:, f, � I - �VCT � 5'. I,* i - ; _� r- :1 � Lvi?) �.,, , - - - - , ��i i v_, ,� ;1 - 1,11� , , �­ �re ,,;,� A" � �,, i V � ") -, _r , . L - - ,4 "-,- - �a-: -.- , -; , - g - ;, .1 � .� ;f Z�!q* v�l_�". w �_ ., i - �'r -,*O, . - ih,l-��r -�:.,� ­�,C�jj�jw VA , - - - , - \ -_-, 11 S� *rIt -1- r, - \( !.- . - " � .� .P.%,- 4,-, tt�'��j � . V.Aii'�117T­��';, i, 4;'- '. w - - i.,+,;I it N f", i- -", , L � ­ . �, I - -1 ­ I 4-ey+ .. .� , r: * ->- .,it .. ". �4 In l;,, , 1 - . N y:: -i.,*+ . -_.1 * -7 V*f��v-,IN 1 . r- i I . �r:l I 1:-,;!,� , �-* ,LN' - �- TV.. I. , It . itut"�R.s-1, t . . . I N, 1,,,.,!4: . ___T:1,�t . It- , ;,� 'O 'I I I , . , , �;.� ! ,111 _ 9 ,,, - ,w- L - R�-X'. -NI I . L. •iJi - "! .. . . . . , I .� I , ,_I`( I _ . _1 -(I, .`A4� - , *11 - or, I . . ... t�;� -4,. r,, � - . � . . it m1i '. I � _, . .,� V. - .�,v - - . I , . - ,,, 7 - t�*� I,- � - 11 , W! i: -I 4- -;- :I- - , % , �. ,�,� . , 1l, ,� - 1-1 - - -0 . L( Ir'. ',-v, r". - - f *,��N,___ 1� '. ;_-�-41!�J�i� i " , V �O�j_:,;�Pr - %- , -, I !t . u � . Jr � .. III- -� I . I - T N ,I- , : _. " ,._ , �9�-,;� t , _v 1_' - � I ­_ , , � , I* �7i­ -yt' - -_&_ - - - .+-J, If: - f , I or, --IT.: � . $4 , \ - ., I .. I - I �. I � , U I— e,p . '9-1,1 . 7;, . :., q.�� . ., , - I I .* � ) K 1-1 � - I ._1 ; . *-! : .. __ � ':� '. I Z L. f� 4 #1 -_`1 , + I - ­� ;?� � .. � I V I rj .- - ' .' ' -'� � � . + � .• , . t - . . f � - "71. "!�rlj5�'* '1*Y'e--_- ,�" � . , -( . �­­ -1 t,, . - :�. " 4 :. 1-. J-L!�- �_ 4 , - - h( 4 , � ItI, -i-,; I '. _rl� -.)* � "-�- -.�: - ­ ,,,, f * I j ,� . ._�.A . I-— - '. I - 2_, )!,i * � , � ,� -�� _ , . . I . .I � 0 .,,I., - .., _;� '. � 11�_l , - - �� - ., I - --;T��, I - �/. i, . * *.' . I ­­. , '. z, N * � �` I ;j , I ,W,',' ­ot- I. I , - - .,:. - -1� , I � .. - .".. - �. .. , -1 . r, �r..., Q�L_­,,,;�,4�,�V. - - � " * � . I "!.1R, . �. -- " . . , � , - - '' ,:,i ., I - i * L . "I 4,2 �, . . � ;� �f , . � � ... .11�_ � .. _. � . . � bIr, �. _:r4 � , I .� -- ­ , * , *'I- I " - , - - �_ * . . I i I . �Ijv . .,�, / ..04- � Y_ ,,:i�,� �, ��j ., 4�- f I . � . . -­krt,-,,4 .. I "" . . ,;_�, � �_��,. . � . . - , ; -. v * - ­.. .�l . . _\ .,-(�.�,l � p, .,-,-�,�-_ �z7b� I 1!\-�� . 4,*' - k I. s- - - ­:�, t_.�W, - * It - .e . . �,* *-., - 't -o- �..- , . . .1. _* ,� I`-, " *­ - i -ii �, . -�,� , - . ;,�, - * " .; v, w ., ;l-, . - 7- ._� -.;17 . %, � %,- -__�, "I I � . - .- % ,;. .:c . -__ -, 4�7 ukt_ �� .��`: . I �, , ,'-!4 � ;,�� �, �,,� t.i-j ��:S_ - ..t:4 . . e+' .�, I I J, " .. - 4, 1 e + - - , is �f .X , . .;.:. v _ ` - - ��!,7.,<[ � , ` *. I. -1• . e� � ., ,,, r I _,� '. t�,.,i "", ;� _F2 I - - , � I - - " I - . :�� v I . � " �­ .',­;;-, I - . -C-170�71. 1 ,�/" ­ '. *.*-. � -t4 , I. - 1-1%, I - .. � . *.' .:: i.`: :.-.1;y*')---, .- ,�_,: - , . , , -- rl�� _+ I .. ., .; * �:i., -�t,l , , , I * \ , - Nr I \,.. - .. i . , . �. 1+1 � , � . ll�,,�� ­ ,�. ;;, . I .-' � �� . 2 - . -1 ti . t��;;'.. �,.�", 7 -*4 . - ..., �. �, .� - � - ,�o- 1� j,; .( "N - , 1 `�. , -Ii� -Ij " ; 1. . - . it I - 'A I- I* - - I .... . I . � � .�, - * ­-:,,V�e .; lrlj�,,"` - , �, . . . . - ", � , .•, �t� � * , , ?".;.g ., ."Q.,; ,�,Jg -It,. VT, 'r;k - ( , _:: - . . i :, t'l :, I - - , . - ,�� z,F, I:: .1 - �11__._ .- - . 1� {tom o. ., �,�.. d �� I 4 * 1,2 � " - -�­� - ., . . . . � '. 1.10tLA t _ :f.�.r..� ��,., r , - ; � `�Zl , -'-' - .�4. , � , _%\: , _t. - � ,� � - N ff � - ­� -.1.1i i ,:�­�. I - -,:r " ua"-, � + . - ,t':Rgo � _- .. u `.z `� 1_1�� � �­,STI .,� . t;,� .�..�,,�. )%;L;4f, 1 I " - r ,YO , v , � i _ �. : _1 I ",!,l A 1 �?,�, 4'1 �­ �iilj r � ., '11RO" - � - 1� i I ,r4 0��;iikt%k�, - , a ,ii��fe. I 111. I 1_,j��_fer 1,1��! � ��*, 1 fl. I I.- 'l - ;,,+),r-.,�+-- - 'S"'N -1Ai4,TyiVi I " - . ILL.� t;;ef14'1, I . . j-1 ;t. ..•_ I� . I , -1 , , . J � i, I , !y :.E ­i� . . , f. r , .j .� �.J, N, �- - ,x�; -A, . ��/, � T -);. : - , * - .y,,�T I � . I , I . " , i'VE-1- ,�-,!z : _1 , ,.� . 1 "7 " , 13 il-11- - I \ * I � + - kv 11- - - - :_ - . J:E!:�l . , �L-, - 5 - - �_ 'c , e�-,1� - 't r 1 � 1-4. � 4 ;+ I .. __ - � - t 'i I `t`.',:., _,�v -4 ,Hc�,,i, - � ('� I, -,r - I I I � �, ,\'r " ., I 'C � - It . I,' �";, � w , "I', .* � !1; I . r ,,�� ) �; q - _� , 1, "1�7. - � f" I; ­,�­ 4 � .-" I , . I , 1, r � . Lr� . i�� . . - . - I I , 1��.".. " .,-1 , . t � . � .�. -,. O -11, - - �, �l� I` - -19.1 _. I f�",.!] - N'll ��v 1. tI � 011i i , - �.n.zl . :N! f -�� ­,7­1�1 (1�1 __ , _ 'I _VA"��V _f, , 'm ,,��,,,-��t.­nw � . , Viy�,7 � ,�r 1. " _� I IF . y ­�� I �, I . � . I � I - � 7�1f' `4 ,�It _. 11 , o- , '111� , -I . : , ,!­�7.4,t -, fl;:;:�,,%, � - 4 . . - , ..i�� . , '.-' - ��7 4t rp _q_ I- . _o t ,I , __ I I I - 7-. I - , , --� i - ­ * . ? 4 , I - I - _V1 � ,%, -- .z � t, i � -��- MiR,�-,, " .:-.-* I -_ _!�- N] .- w - , - _ _111 , . .j 14 '­� �1� , z P�*, '. �; t. - - *R% , , . � I , 4. - 'r .., . . I . , -04 .vt`,T+,- , Zlv_,,,�­,(,�,;�,D_1�1 lj�i'�.. - I , -�. s it�, , - , , I . , - I - 1, - � .�.,,',, 9& � I I � �, ; ., ft,��Nl w, - ,�_ _Z�Ofzi I illlr�*A? I'__;, 1 ,,,,,�3 ,i " ,;:, i 1. � � � zx, - '�, - , , - IV, � � I" _,_ , i 1, . t__ �11 � c 2! .;�z.-�c�,,F,��--3,0� �!V, � _7 4,i1_r_Ai I +j � V �, "" MI: - ,� It , , - 1'> - 11 wim .il -;,, .." +­ 1. - . , . - - .- I) � �, , , � � . - - - " - - .41" . I � ,, %,Al,i :t� ! �, * ­­ - .- I I 1:i I I .:,I I !!, , - �t"ti� ,­ I. ��,_ I I � I ''t� " -�-,Z;-: i�, � �Cz , "'i,, " ,Wit{, !-_I�_j 1 4 1p. T , , � .",411, . - � , , - ­" I -1 j �, .%r ,_i��t­i Z,'.,!, ­ 1 -,7 -1 7' - ,, I * 1. -� " � I. i Il . - � - ,1 1�� -I�,, -i , - . ]:� " ,!:!!, ' L - - , I , " �,� 11 ". r - ­_;­�,.�,'.I, �, , : w. T:--:+,;. , L U-�"' ; � I i ." - � - t� I I � t� ", _ �,. , 3' . i :_ - 11 .i. . 11 ., 1 � !i ­ 'i .,- , I! 1 � j,•1�1 . IV - _i�i I �, -� ,I- . I I � � 11 �, r� + I , - , " 71, .� " .,� ". " �; i : � I - , * L�. -,*,--"7,-�,'_`,r i.`.��,Hj -�: I. 17, i i - , � - - . � � _1 � , ,l�N � ,� 10 , - -7:" - - � t'\ -1 - i� :��, - " I I , -, , 4, t" I t �! i I � 1 - I ­,;, 4 L, J - L f� � � - , - -1 � - �V_ '! , ,I - , ,��;�J­, - 1.J I , , - , - - " - -N--- " t ', 1 I .. , . , - \1 1� I -- Ul I 41 - , - � N;- - - Ll P111 � I ­�z - , _ r i5�� I_v--!n.. ,I .. � _ .Iz:"A�114_ .. 1_14��_11 , .Y Ali, r + � " - '. 3_zli ,\ -, ii� , �1 - ".'2�1 , , -? - �} . I .. !_ R: �-: -_P1!:,ti--,.1,- -- J -�! i 11 ­ .5 , -1-1, , F7 -s\ , -t�;,�,!r,fllik�, -i��F 1; I i - - , -, , , � - "I , I - t7l, I .� .4 - . :�,_ - �� � I , '_M ,_z ; ___��_11_1 I _N; I . - .,4 -\� � �-,- - 7'a -.- - _�, - %J - * - . , \�� ,-_ _ ­��J'Ui ­ �, ��� i Viilelll; 1i t j: i 11 � , L � i I `;, ���� I '' 4 , _� 1; �,, I �- � ,_!�_-, - � , � i - L� , , , ­ , -r _ , �1 ! , - � - g � ifQ-r, - - , � t�y, . 5.:-,* , " I, - 'l - 1. V, - ,Ii __ , �_- ,,- � ­1,%I_� - -1 jit!-��. �;#. . , . Z�r Z - -, -_1 �, - � - �� I I.. A�V � � � ; � _J. � ; s. , � I i 'I ;I I I -," - *V I -1 Id.._-, N J, " " I ­ � ,.­:r-L�1,; * 1, � lo, I, I - -�! - !--iO� . - , ;Q_ -I - T , , , t `,tZ." I . - , , _ - ;_ I � ,,W:1* ic 1;61 1 - � �� I. ; , , - _14� , �i7 , " � I ,, . I t - " 1 7 - -�� -F,��!i*:�,, 1%, �,',1_:,� : 11 I .V _,� ,�,4-4"F � , 1� - ­ , I ,�.%, -,--,,, ­, 1, ; 5��­ _�: ii , 1'� M. - � -;- i", - 4- 1 '11: � - 1f7.­1I­,____-, _rt�A( ­�, � R, '� -,- � -, - -I- "��­ - - , � , _�', 1.1 � ­�.:'. 1'� 14 1 �r -.:I- �z ,;�-.! i � ,-�..Z�117�,: , .�, - P� � . I � � � - �-,I� �0,; , 11 1. - - - - , . - I - " + I i- � .1 � -,-,-��,-;,i�-.- - , ,',�-.7,�,��-,I.j�tz-,I , I I � 'I . - �k_ , !Q�*T'_�l,, - I � _-,---��­:` - Ir. - I Z��­�,, ,,��r,n�,` C I .1 � � . '' - - '. : I - , qL_ �lt q1:z-!;Z c V-4 � - �ij 'r ,", �rleR �,'L`_� * :� ",l- - , � ­ � , � , , , 1,� � � n- . 1. - ,�! . - , - , - �' �4i -, 2 -1-_s- - � � -- ,��!�:,�t,�-'.\�,�_� �!; + . ,,� *t , �-�t -,�j,,,�t " 5, " - ­­�p - " - I . , - �,� , � i. I - - ,� - ", -' � - - j�� , I , f',��, , -:�--:�� v - : , ,ztjl � , � ��. -1 ,�-17. , - ,-4 ;- ­ '. . . t, J�� __ - F�:=� - _­ - I _ , .:k I ,_- � I - 1� ,_`��__ _j'_�, - � .1 ______ I --- -177 I , -"­� -v -, - , '� " " �^ +'�, �k�p�� _ ; r ', f,pi� f - �' Y� W i I �,­ , I , J-,�, �",!,Vi!!, " _ I _t L t �4' l e�� - "�'_'-jr �j ._�j�!��_ , j_,,i, �k! � + � , . . 1. " . t I , I '­ _.!, ­i�.-% . �,-_ �.` - , t-, :�­ I - 4:-��,.; i � ,4,�,�� r- --- -1 I I I f I : . .! - I - r . I - - I E-�.��'�� [ . -1 : I V­,-� ��4�� ;I , _,Lf��! P. , + V , 1 ­­­- - - 5 q . � It � . , - --�-_ !-:.! 1, , 1! 11 - . : I;, . . �' - � _ - , � I _ -I:, - A- _,` ­ ,I! i;� -�- � , - 1 4- +/, � i - , ,�,.� " 1 -7 - , - - ___ ­ ­ � . ,­_ ­_,_ a- � i- / d , - S� - _� - . � I lk -, _ _x - 4 , - � , - - ---, , � ­ , -, 4 : `mak -7 � - , I � ,.7'r- - __� i " ; __ , --" - + - � . . �, 1"_c__i,:__ � .�:,.j _�� � �, %­ ,_ :_ ", _11� _�� ­ j . � ','a K�. � i , .t _: - ilv� - - . ,;, _-7_� , - � ­- , �-NZ , ' �,,�. ��,--,--:, "r + - I - ,-, `­/ . _- -1,, : - -* 1� --,, " 1"i -i �-�,I- _�. , 1 -,4- �. , �,- � 5 � I . . '. "i I - 1. *,:"_��' !il r I i .-_ -, r - -l- - I , V..,- _- � r *, - , . - - - ' i- �_ f�7� .,:,v*.� __7 __��-_�-:� e , r I - " -1 " - I -L ' - - - , - ._ ,,. - .�:,,, . � - 1;: ___ - __ - - __ - 1, tl 9 j - , , , I , . , __�__�,Apr__11' ­ � _* , - , - _,.. - - . � ,___ _ F� - <-- I , ­�_ ,,:,:. _ 115- - , � -47 .� i,� � �. -L"--_,-,N,- .1 , , �t>l['�,_ �! ,!Z 1 �­,. I - - , - - - - - ­ 11 - ­.�. �, '.. �' , , f7x'� , ��: I, - ., - ��.­' -1 - -��-_�:�t_ -- _;.!�,-.�N�i 7_j t, -, - , - rZ -. ,-:� + - : + - , , \� , - + ,_�i�_ -.: -, � - I - � , - - .1 I ­ I--,:�f!--_� -1, -,-Zi_ ,,,-,- + ,- + ,,.! -v�,, 1:� L:;-�-,��"`.yam..I - -, " - : i7,* , , -k � N . - � ,.-:- - 1-1 -1 I---- �­{•t"' , I �,,_ - ,�-_ ,;, " - , '- " _- --, , - - - - -;-, �- � ��N_: , 1-_. � , , - '1- -- � ,f. � I. � - , .`-! � ,_ - - . - - -t;,�L - - - � ,,Jk- , I, ,,I,-�,�7­,,� , - i I - -_ -,I� V--1 , -, :,� ­��-_t:-- I - I � - ­ . iV " ,I ' I Ir'!,.k-�,� I �-_-_�-��,-�;'­ - - i . � . , ­ , - - I . I . .. 1,�,t t Ic ".���r�:,,__;�_� �, k� *!'�, - I - t.-, - � 4: - - - j'� . , ": I --I -i- � � -"- _-__'­�7 -� _­A'� - � - - _ - . k - I - �j L. - " 1 I . � �' ** I __ .. - ._, - I _,�r t �,l�--.�.z,,-:r--�- � -�`,, . I � , . �- ,, - _ � __;_'.�.� * � * I . ;,. , . - - -7 .: I - ­ � . I lt�, -I , - __ __ - '- -`.- - � _f - r - ,t�_,, - � - , t , , -, . , - " - - , 14,* . ,,, I ,:, ---,'.��_ ;7� � " � _� I "-'--- " ", -17�, : ��­ - - il� , - , - f I - " --- , ­ - - - M•••AMr1.111Ar __ G STREET EXtST1N TREE ` TO TINg tz NEW TREE. SEE EDGE OF PAVEMENT REMASHL•L-I { _ ST?�G 1RrC ., /'� REMAIN Iwt3 ;tTE • t r ' , si (DECOR T VE OR1tN7D.- aTER t -, �} YARD • r s r • • r PLANIM t WALK I 'CiD 0n�:RO T� l ARU V Ln FRONT YARD WOOD FENCE �o BE Y 4 i`3` }{tGH AtID 80;: OPEN A@I lE , SIQr'.tYALK @LEND ERRINGBO'NE 3 HIGH AND 1 3' TO A W. OF fir` HIGii t t IfN, .��PATTER dt EDGE TRIM 3' TO A MAX. -, i ii i , i , i . •.. 7�1 ��~`�'�'ONT YARD m( FRt�'tT YAM C� � 15 CORA11W BRICK ,� 0 -z .� I LANDSCAPE .. , , . UVIDSWE Q ' AREA 123 SF PAYER ORIVc1YAY ,r ' , ' r � AREA 123 SF � � "' , w„.•--- HERRINGBONE PATTERtin i & EXE TRIM 7 t;q'DECOR PAYER DRIVEWAY 0 c .- C::" 409�9 ON HERRINGBONE PATTERI�t :� � +� �� al j= EDG�... TRIhI CL_ AQ J'" � j • , . ! r ASS. • ""'7 fy V+tr,.w ... w,lr ..•s ,!r •S'`�/�ri : !w ...EN t ,AP•wt'•.. r•.>, w.r •.... r,,.. l... «.•r• o•Ar(�., L i wy . ExISTIFIG HOUSETOS.,-�,� :: , f 1:r•• t `-s~,r ;:., �......... XI E St= PRIV"E a , BE REMOVED HEIGHT I BE REMOVED +24'-7' CAR) LE -- CAR, GE _..-.....,. UNI1 7 . y B UNIT H .01 tsa NDTE.. SEE CONTEXIUAL tt3 C t , PLAAPLANfl}R AT APPROXI} �-. » FOOTPRINTS &HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES Ott ADJACE.IIT LOTS 51SIDE rryi? NATE: FOR OMENSIONS I SIDE Q L SEE ENLARGED PLANS ';���a LOCATION OF GARBAGE YARD `25 LOCATION OF GAREAGE ,AND RECYCLE BINS, ANI RECYCLE BINS XTBAC F. �"I (;V) 6' HIGii MAX. St�JO� � � PA1t0 A prw-m m m m PATIO t .► REDWOOD FENCE' TYPICAL. � � � � � STORAGE _ S'70 R G£ -- j ----AT SIDE k ftp YARDS LINE O� �° 144sF � PRIVATE Ac1��5 TO � � �, tsF ��cK�aBc�Y- � I , COMMO`I OUTD100 T OEC„ ABOVE . . __ _... .. r. —PRIVATE ACCE, � � .�..•,.......•. _ ...•„ ........ � oil O�IT� RECREA'r)ON AREA OILY N} 6'P,� MAX. LIO ,r I GO.�1M c am m.r� IEDY FENCE AT EAR YARD, PECRE1�Tiitt ; (E) FEAR TRIES TO IPRIV'A Y � PR, ATE ,ARD BE RENOVEDILD r n w aY.w.• oi• 'm. 9 ±i b• .eu?q sWkt 8iAN •+• •w,r. wr.r •w ,rw .#+, 1r M1 w,• wwi PI•w wi sW Z • • i aMw •Pb, r,+• •+ti +. 11 L13 ' M• Lr)x I , AL� tt , PEzeu REQ co '25' W ' I 1 •---..,._.ter....-- . .( tyj t,.S w,w, ,...... 1 t '' ILI, L -W. `♦}� �•,� a„M tear✓ i,3r LAx.. V � - t. 7 � '. � � � � � � f � ` •i I +. E rm 4 [" + rf lo } r•! w j -•---- .. - . j ,__„•,.A.+^ _ � - _ Fr' "`"- ''" 1 .-'---'...' = -- } I ' } S. H IAS R EID`t ODD FEN DR.MWAY APPROKII bTREET (NN CURB CUT M CURB T fill Lo JL I I'M j,L i, 'I'l 111 ill 77 A AN EET `G' "TOEET 21 Ill".11-11 2 lie fill PROPOSED TWO ou"Nim"ImS ell _.� Ku 0 EIGHT + 23 —1 F H +32-9 11 leId, mill, Jw j rill or IN O'ED Si'X UN I t� 4 ;ems f R 0 l o HEI H T `00F H EGH -T ROOF GHT I 21 HE] +10 March 5, 2011 City of San Rafael Clerk's Offic San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 1 RE: Appeal of 21 G Street Development Proposal and Hearing before San Rafael Ofty Planning Commission on Februarlr 25 2014 - ED-12-OSS/VI2-002/TS13002/EX13-008 To Whom it May Concern., , We are neighbors of the proposed project at 21 G Street and Ida Street, Sa R.afael,, and we are writing to support Daisy Carlsonfs appeal of the Februar 25,r 2014f decision by the San Rafael City Planning Commission,, to approve the proposed design and tentative map for the 21 G Street project. We are in support of the attached letter by Daisy Carlson, 15 G Street, and Liz Fordyce, 20 Ida Street. I Joseph Adams, 22 G Streel N Eli.S6A"dams, 22 G Street z City of San Rafael Clerk" s Office San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 RE: Ap#eal of 21, , G Street Development Proposal and Hearing before San Rafael City 0 Planning COMMiSsRon on FebruaU 25,2014 - ED-12-058Nl2-002/TS13002/EX13-008 To Who-rin it May Concer_r4 .A. a We are neighbors of the Proposed project at 21 G Street and Ida Street, San Rarae I i, and we are writing to support Daisy Carlson's appeal of the February 25, 2014 decision by the San Rafael City PlanninCommission to koprove -the g proposed design and tentative map for the 21 G Street project. We are in support of e attach -ed ltter by Daisy Ca • e rlson, 15 G Stre thet L1'7,F r cc, 20 Ida Street Rob - ce'> 20 1da StTed City of San Rafael Clerk*s Officd San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 RE.- Appeal of 21 G Street Development Proposal and Hearing before San Rafael City Planning Commission on February 25, 2014 - ED-12-OSS/VI2-002/TS13002/EX13-008 To Whom it May Concern, We are neighbors of the proposed project at 21 G Street and Ida Street, San Rafael, and we are writing to support Daisy Carlson's appeal of the February 25f 2014, decision by the San Rafael City Planning Commission, to approve the proposed design and tentative map for the 21 G Street project. We are in support of the attached lel,...tter by Daisy Carlson, 15 G Street, and Liz Fordyce, 20 Ida Street. Sincerely, Susan Zelinsky, 16 G Street Michael lobe,, 16 G Street C:AMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BUILD GREEN 6/1/14 Response to Appeal Letter Dated March 5, 2014for 21 "G" Street Appeal fo,int, #1: "The project does not fit within the General Plan and Zoning and is not in keeping with the framework o the code or other infill projects in San Rafael. !f R,e,sp,onsle: The General Plan 2020, Section 4 NH -3 encourages a housing mix with a broad range of affordability, character, and sizes. In areas with a predominance of rental housing, encourage owner units to increase a variety of housing types. The General Plan 2020, Section 18, Appendix B Site Inventory and Residential Capacity Analysis states: Sites suitable for redevelopment are currently zoned to accommodate housing and able to support at least 15 housing units, and may be developed at 86% of the maximum allowable density for density bonus projects. None of the listed constraints that might act as a deterrent to developing new housing are applicable to the site. Under Exhibit 2: Residential Inventory Vacant and Underused Sites, with planning approvals, under review or available for development, 21 "G" Street is on the list for an underutilized property. "One small housing unit on a lot zoned for high-density residential. HR -1. This parcel has received development interest by multiple non-profit housing developers. Maximum zoning capacity as specified by the General Plan is 13 units for this property. The total realistic units for the site at 2 1 "G** Street. is I I units." and we are providing S. Undei- zkppendix B. San Rafael*approving track record of approvin Z:1 Z:1 residential -only housing developments. the average potential of units achieved is 86`,� as sho\vn in Exhibit HH: Historic Approvals of Zoned Residential 2000-2010. The projects approved closest to the site are all listed as over I 00cl-� approved of maximum potential P.O. Box 2668 0 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 0 FAX (415) 479-0699 501 CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION - DESIGN Bu I LID GREEN for units. The proposed number of units for 21 "G" Street is at 61% of its potential under the density bonus provision this project is less than the typical infill project approved in downtown San Rafael. The "intent of the code," or zoning ordinance is to be used as a tool to implement the goals of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, in which this project is not only compliant but is recommended. Appeal Point #2:1 "No variances are necessary to comply with the code. Variances are a grant of special privileges consistent with properties in the vicinity, and the physical vicinity is not consistent with these surrounding homes. Response: The code, or zoning ordinance, is a standard for development, and as part of the standards there are exclusions, exceptions, and variances to these development standards that may be requested. Planning staff, the Design Review Board, and Planning Commission decide if the project meets the required findings in order to approve our project. Although Commissioner Pick acknowledged that there were "a lot of variances," he did vote in favor of approving our project with all of them. Based on the projects history and the small infractions requested. the Design Review Board as well as the Planning Commission approved all variances. As originally presented at Conceptual Design Review, our project was a row house -style with tandem parking on "G" Street and Ida Street. (Tandem parking was allowed as a density bonus concession for providing a BINIR unit.) Our project was compliant with * Iticling the side and front standards in HR -1 (High Densit\ Residential) zonimi district. inc vard setbacks and the Landscaping requirement. This project design reqLICSted tW`0 small variances. one for the 20* driveway setback to be 18'- 6% and a cantilevered 2* encroachment into the rear vard setback on two units to provide building articulation. (!-6,.0. Box 2668 * SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 * FAX (415) 479-0699 501 **W0,1,`*AMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN Bull LID GREN Because of concerns expressed by the neighbors at the Conceptual Design Review meeting on October 4t", 2011 that the residence wouldn" t use the 2" d tandem space, our project underwent substantial revisions. The redesign included a reduction of units from, 9 to 8, and the request was made that the two units on "G" Street be revised to side-by-side parking. This required each side yard on "G" Street have a 12" variance. This change also required alteration of the driveway layout, which resulted in the need for a variance to the 5010 landscaping requirement. As requested, a gable roof was used as opposed to a flat parapet roof for the two units on "G" Street. Also, a shared exterior entry stairway was incorporated into the design, which required a minimal variance. Curb cuts were consolidated on Ida Street to leave as much parking as possible. Articulation to the rear of Ida Street and 732 sf of common usable open space were added. The changes requested by the neighbors and the Design Review Board required three of the five variances. The Design Review Board and the Planning Commissions supported these variances. The Design Review Board also requested to switch the outdoor common area to the south to save the existing oak tree, thereby creating distance from the only resident on Ida Street. This was done at great cost. as there is a significant amount of PG&E, cable and Pac Bell utilities that must now be relocated. As to the appellant's claim that this project "is a errant of special privileges inconsistent with properties in the vicinity" the existing buildings at 15 (the appellant's property)! 6 and 16 "G" Street are all encroaching into their respective side yard setbacks. 16 "G" Street and the project site have stairs that are encroaching into their front yard setbacks. 15. 11. 6 and 16 "G" Street do not meet the aforementioned 50% of landscaping require -tent, Parking setback encroachments have been utilized b1Sa6 and 11 "'G" Street and 20 Ida Street. therefore the grant of these variances is not special.. but is Z� consistent with the privilegres enjoyed by the mI:joi-itv of residences in the neighborhood. r.O. Box 2668 * SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 * FAX (415) 479-0699 CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BUILD GREEN The appellant has said that no variances are necessary to comply with the code however, the appellant's property has three rental units that currently provide no onsite parking. The appellant purchased her property in the spring of 2012 after the Conceptual Design Review in 2011, and was not privy to the requested changes at that time. She was Informed prior to purchasing the property about the project and she said she thought it was already approved and wanted to reuse trim from the building that was about to be demolished. We informed her we weren't completed with the approval process yet. We are at minimums in our side-by-side parking width, however we have discussed shifting the two units to the north so that the side closest to the appellant C 1 "G" Street) would not require a variance. We also will provide a mansard roof as opposed to a gable roof, which will lower the height and visual mass of the two units on "G" Street. Appeal Point #3:, "[This prqject.1 removes 5 parking spaces to provide 4 [off '-street spaces on "G " Street] and said that she ganted "a better design to preserve valuable street parking to provide a single curb cut. Response,; The residence at 21 "G" Street has one existing 16'-8" curb cut / driveway approach which will remain the same width and be moved to the north 1. This will increase the parking space in front of 15 "G" Street by 1' . One additional 13' curb cut / driveway on zn 3 Id Street is being added with a total loss of only one parkiner space on "G" Street. The common entry staircase (which resembles the neighboring residences) that was requested at Design Review, prevents a single curb cut. Althoucrh Ida Street Curb cuts were not mentioned in the appeal, they have been consolidated and there is an existing 54" Curb cut. Therefore, only two parking spaces will be affected. P.O. Box 2668 0 SAN ANSELMOM1 , CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 0 FAX (415) 479-0699 I CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION . . . ............. ....... .. . . .. ................ .. .. . .. ....... DESIGN BU I LID GR EEN Avveal Point #41: "The lot coverage creates a need for a roof terrace which ... poses a public health and saftty issue. " Response:. The project proposed is 52% lot coverage which is below the maximum allowable coverage for HR -1 Zoning District (60%). The roof terrace is not required but is proposed as a private outdoor amenity for the resident. The San Rafael Fire Department has reviewed our project and did not identify a public hazard. Appeal Point #5: "Its mass, girth and height are not consistent with the neighboring properties... 30% higher than is "G" Street, and 50% higher than adjacent homes and business." Response: The adjacent commercial buildings flanking our project on both "G" Street and Ida Street are consistent with our project's height and width. On "G" Street and Ida Street (the side of the street on which our project is on) there is only one residence each, other than the project site itself. We have been working with the appellant as to her concerns regarding the height and have agreed to make "G" Street a mansard roof, which would lower the roof height. The roof deck is now at +?-9.83*. The figures provided by, the appellant. statim that heicrht of the bUildina. is "30% hither- and "-50% higher" than adjacent homes are misleading figures which do not take into account all nearby structures. as well as hol-vv roof height is measured according to the cities* standards. This project does not P.O. Box 2668 # SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 # FAX (415) 479-0699 CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN B U I LD GREEN "exceed the tallest building on the street by 7 — 10 feet," as hypothesized by the appellant, but in fact is lower than other nearby structures. And, as stated before, while there are a few residences that are not as tall as our two units on "G" Street, the General Plan, Section 4 NH -3 encourages a housing mix with a broad range of affordability, character and sizes. Appeal Point ##6; "Sewage is an issuefor "G" Street and drainage ... further study is required. Response; As per the City of San Rafael Sanitary Review, all sewer laterals for all eight units have already been redesigned to outlet into the existing sewer main on Ida Street which is currently only serving one residence. This was part of the Planning Commission's submittal and the Sanitary District has already reviewed it and found it to be adequate. The Department of Public Works has already reviewed and Oven its input into the onsite drainage system that will have in-depth review by the city's engineer at the building permit -phase. With today's code requirements, the drainage for our new project will of course be far more efficient than the existing residence and the surrounding older structures and properties. P.O. BOX 2668 * SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 0 FAX (415) 479-0699 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED12-058). VARIANCES FOR FRONT -YARD, SIDE YARD, REAR YARD.) MINIMUM FRONT 1 1 r AND DRIVEWAY TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION r (EX131-008) TO RECREATIONAL REQUIREMENTr A PROPSOALCONSTRUCT i► RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME CONDOMINIUMS AT 21 G STREET (A THROUGH LOT BETWEEN G ST. AND IDA ST.; APN: 0 11-23 2- 10) WHEREAS, on August 4, 2011, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted an application for Conceptual Design Review (CDRI 1-004) for a 9 unit townhome development on a 10,836 square foot lot; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly noticed meeting and reviewed the conceptual design proposed and recommended design changes, including, but not limited to reducing the number of units, increasing common open space areas and re -designing the G St. building facade; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2012, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted a formal applications, including Design Review Permit (ED 12-058) and variance requests (V12-002) for five property development standards (encroachments in the required front setback, side setback and rear setback, minimum landscape requirements and minimum driveway setback); and WHEREAS, on March 19, 20131 a duly -noticed meeting was scheduled before the DRB but was continued due to lack of quorum; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013. the DRB held a duly -noticed meeting and made recommendations for project change, including but not limited to changing the location of the common open space area and preserving the existing oak tree on Ida St.; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2013, the DRB held a duly -noticed public meeting and reviewed further revisions made by the applicant in response to the April 3, 2013 meeting At the conclusion of the meeting, the DRB voted 4-1 (moved by Garg and Seconded by Lentini, with Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project design and in their motion, expressed support for the proposed five variances requested; and �p�REAS. oil November , 2013, an application Jas received by the Community Development Departiiei t requesting Tentative :Flap approl,=al TS 13.0{ 2 to alloNv the division of the 8 units into aii- condornini lies, and a Subdivision Exception request (Ex 1.3- 0 to.N-aive the req lireinent for a recreation blylildin.), on site. and WFIEREI: S. based on the 8 tinits proposed the project is required to provide and proposes to provide ide 1 o rt of the ul its as : f oi- sale' and affordable at the "loN-v-income- IeNl-el.. aiid N TF1E:REAS. based o1i the proNeision of 1 of the 8 units as affordable to loNN income households. the project gtlalifies for a State density bonus of 20% above the maxis -Titin densit-, allowed bN� the Cite, or 3 additional units and I concession to zoning standards, consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 14.16.030.H of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project proponent has requested one concession to the City's parking standards to allow the use of tandem parking on site; as allowed by Section 16.030.H.'.a(i) of the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance, which would provide 16 tandern parking spaces for the project site; and WHEREAS., the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15312 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts Ili -Fill Development Projects given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and deteri-nined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development; and WHERAS, based on a historic resource evaluation by Archaeological Resources Technology, the project was determined not to be a historic resource and that demolition of the structure at 21 G Str. * would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, and therefore met the requirement to qualify as categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA section 15300.2 (f); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed by the City of San Rafael's Department of Public Works, Fire Department — Fire Prevention Bureau and Corni-nunity Development Department - Building Division and the San Rafael Sanitation District and was recommended f6r approval subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variance request, Tentative z__ Map and Subdivision Exception request, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Comi-nunity Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the Cit},, of San Rafael does hereby approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 12-058), Variances (V]2- 002) for the townhornes on G St. for a reduction in the minimum front landscaping requirement, stairway encroachment into the required front setback, and encroachment into the side yard setback, and for the townhornes on Ida St for enroachment into the required rear yard setback and an encroachment into the driveway setback, Tentative Subdivision Map (TSI' -002) for 8 air space coiidoi-niiiiums, and Subdivision Exccptioii request {E13-008)to waive the requirement for a recreation rooni on the site based on the following Findings and subject to the Conditions of A-pproval beloNv. Environmental and Design Review Findings {EIS12-058) The proposed construction of 8 townhomes (2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street) is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter given that: a. The proposed project (as conditioned) is consistent with General Plan Policies summarized as follows and discussed in detail as noted in the General Plan Consistency table included in the February 25, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Exhibit 4 (Table Analyzing Project Consistency with General Plan 2020), including the following policiesLU-2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Intensity of Residential Development), LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -14 (Land Use Compatibility), LU -23 (Land use baps and Categories), H-1 (Housing Distribution), H-3 (Designs That Fit Into the Neighborhood Context), H-19 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements), H-21 (Density Bonuses), H -18b (Efficient Use of jWultifamily Housing Site), H-22 (Infill wear Transit), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods). NH -17 (Competing Concerns), NH -22 (Downtown Housing), NH -43 (l= est End Design Considerations), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity). CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping), 1-2 (adequacy} of City Infrastructure and S(-,,rviccs), 1-4 (Utility, Undergrounding), 1-6 (Street Maintenance), 1-8 (Street Trees), CA -13 (Historic Buildings and Areas), SU -6 (New and Existing Trees), SU -5a (Green Building Regulations), SU -8a (Affordable Housing), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings), S-25 (Regional Water Oualitya Control Board (RTYQCB) Requirements), N-1 (Noise Impacts on New Development), N-2 (E.-werior Noise Standards for Residential Use), AW -1 (State and Federal Standards), and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution From Urban RunofJ). b. The proposed project (as conditioned) conforms to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14.04' (Base District Regulations), Chapter 18 (Parking), Chapter 2.5 (Environmental Design Review Permits), and the San Rafael Design Guidelines in that the project is an allowable use in the HR zoning district, the project would provide 16 off-street parking spaces, with tandern spaces allowed as State density bonus concession for providing I affordable housing unit and the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and recommended for approval. The project site is an L-shaped lot located between G St. and Ida St. near downtown Fourth Street. It is a transitional site between the bulk and massing of Fourth Street and the relatively smaller single family hornes in the center portion of G Street. The project has gone through considerable revisions since the initial conceptual design review application, reducing the number of units from 9 to 8 units, re -designing the buildings on G St. with gable roof forms and providing more ground level usable open space. The re -designed project has taken into account the variety of design elements in the neighborhood; and c. The project has been reviewed by Planning staff for conformance with the applicable design criteria established in Chapter '114.25 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff determined that the proposed units, as conditioned, Nvould be compatible in color and niaterials with the existing - buildings on site and add niuch needed in -fill housing to the downtown area. including one affordable tinit. thereby improving the overall quality of the streets in the surroundina neighborhood. The pi -Qject design. as conditioned. is consistent with all applicable site. architecture and landscaping d Aesian c-iteria and guidelines for the Hicyli Densitv Residcntical (HRI) Zoning District in which the i site is located (Tiven that: 1- a. The proposed 8 units is an allowable use and at an'allowable density in the IRI zoning district; b. In terms of Chapter 25 review criteria, the project has been designed to incorporate two distinct streetscapes. The G St. frontage is less bulk and mass and more akin to a single family residential district, though there are larger buildings at the end of the street. The original design of the entire project was a flat roof row house design.. This design was changed on the G St. side to take into account the smaller scale of buildings on G St. A gable roof element was introduced and a central staircase was added. The Ida St. townhomes retained the flat roof design since the predominant feel of the block is tall commercial buildings with only one single 'family home on the block. The building mass is set back from the adjacent property to the south through the placement of a usable open space area on the south end of the property,, as well as the preservation of the existing Oak Tree on Ida Street; c. The proposed exterior building color and materials will blend in with the variety of architectural styles and materials in the area, including older historic resources in the area; d. The site has 2 existing street trees along the G St. frontage and one existing Oak tree on the Ida St. frontage, all of which will remain.. Additional landscaping along the interior and perimeter of the project site will be added, including a total of 4 new street trees (one on G Street and three on Ida Street); and e. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board, which recommended multiple changes to the project design and site orientation, and ultimately voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the revised project. 3) The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts given that: a. The proposed project was reviewed by applicable City departments and no adverse environmental impacts were identified.; b. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, State and Federal building codes and health and safety standards; c. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development). A historic resource evaluation was completed on December 7, 2013 by Archaeological Resources Technology. The report concluded that the residence at 21 G Street did not qualify as a historic resource. As such, the residence at 21 G Street can be demolished with no significant impact on historic structures. d. Based on the Findings and Recommendations on Page 11 of the Archaeological Resources Technology Report, Design Review Permit Condition of Approval 49 has been added to ensure appropriate monitoring for any potential archaeological resources encountered during construction. 4) That the project design Neill not be detrimental to the public health, safetAi or welfare, nor mate Hally injurious to. properties or improvements in the Vicinity in that the project is a residential pl-Qject located in a zoning district zoned foi- residential LISCS. The use of the property is a similar LISC as is seen on other residential lots on G Street and Ida Street. The project is designed N�,,ith code compliant ,,- parking ' I spaces pei- unit) and the proposed tandem spaces along Ida Street N,\;i still pre Ide off- street parkin -g- fbi- txNvo Niehicles. The proposed project has requested 5. variancet-y s to the proper developnient standards. Findings to support pi-cject approval are detailed belo\,Ne- ender "Variance Findin(.)-s.- F. Variance Findings (V12-002) 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification-, 2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated; 3. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; 4. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. The project applicant is seeking approval for a total of 5 variance, 3 on the G Street townhomes and 2 on the Ida Street townhomes: G Street townhomes: Variance request to reduce the minimum 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%), a front entry stair encroachment (I P 8") into the required 15 foot front setback, and a I foot building encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback. Ida Street townhomes: Variance request for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5 foot rear yard, and a I foot encroachment into the required 20 foot driveway setback. In general, the variance requests are relatively minor in nature in terms of the actual amount of encroachment requested, mainly 1-2 feet, The City actually recognizes that many properties in San Rafael pre-existed the zoning code and as such are legal non -conforming. Small deviations to the prescribed property development standards are allowed through either an Exception process or the Variance process. Typically, for new development, the protocol is to design the project without the need for variances or exceptions. However, odd -shaped lots present special difficulties. In this particular instance, the original project presented for conceptual design review was designed with code compliant 5 foot setbacks for the side property line. In addition, no variance for a stair encroachment into the -front setback was needed as there was no staircase proposed as part of the front fagade. Based on public input and concern about tandem parking along G Street, the DRB recommended that parking be re -designed as side-by-side and the applicant indicated in order to accoi-ni-nodate the interior garage dimension, they would have to widen the garage and therefore would request a I foot encroachment into the required side yard on the G St -frontage. Similarly, the addition of a front staircase to reduce the bulk along G St required an encroachment into the front setback beNland the 6 feet allowed for a stair encroachment. The overriding consideration for granting all 5 variances is based on the size, shape and orientation of the subject lot. NN--hich ;is an L-shaped through lot. In addition, per DRB recommendation. the applicant reduced project size fi-orn 9 units to 8 units, NNuhich is still 2 units below the niaxiniurn densit-y cilloA�;ed on the site. There is an inherent hardship in the strict application of the development standards for setb�icl<.s, rninirnuin landscapina,, I -Lind driveway setbacl�_ 'FUrther, mane other properties in the vicinity also have siniih,11, issues of encroach into the required side yard setback and possibly, other setbacks. As such. granting the variance would not bestow any a special privilege to the prQject � granting Z:� applicant that is not also enjoyed by other property owners in the area. However, each variance requested has unique impacts and are therefore discussed separately below: a. Minimum Landscaping (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, there is a 50% landscaping requirement in the HRI zoning district. The requested variance would allow a reduction in the required landscaping from 420 square feet to 312 square feet (to 102 square feet less than required). Findings: The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is narrow, at 56 -feet width., whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant HRR lot width. Much of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the paved driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. The project was originally proposed with tandem parking, which would have required less paved area for parking. However, the project was re -designed based on public concern about the feasibility of tandem parking. As such, the area available for landscaping was reduced. The project is proposing to provide permeable pavers in order to soften the visual impact of driveway paving and respond to the intent of the landscape requirement. In walking the neighborhood, staff notes that the other homes on the block utilize hardscape in the front yard area, some of which is used for parking. Granting the variance would not be injurious to surrounding properties in that the site will he heavily landscape along the perimeters and several street trees will be added to the site. While the front landscaping is less than what is required by code, the project is proposing to keep the existing 2 street trees on G Street and plant one additional tree. On balance,, this will help mitigate for the loss of landscaping in the required front yard area. b. Front Yard Setback (G Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required front setback in HRI zone is 15 feet. Stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8" into the front setback (i.e., 5'8" further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment). The previous project design did not include stairs, but the G St. townhornes were re --designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in line with existing single-family architectural styling on G St. As such, a front setback variance is required for the new staircase encroachment. Finding_�: Staff has determined that the stair encroachment is relatively minor, considering that pursuant to Section 14.15,030, stairways are allowed to encroach Lip to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed encroachment is only 5'8"' further than the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment, and would add a much needed design element to the streetseape. Many other properties on G Street also have exterior staircases, and the design ]ends itself to creating a facade more compatible with the existing properties on G Street. The staircase would not be injurious to adjacent properties as it will meet all code requirements. c, Side Yard Setback (G Street: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, la 5 foot side, yard setback is required in the HR I zone. The proposed project is designed -VN.;ith a 4 foot side setbaclt for the G Street frontage. in order to accommodate code compliant 20" Nvide 2 -car garage NN�'idth. 1.7 Findinas: The side yard setback variance is justifiable based on the narrow lot NNidth at this portion of the irregularly L-shaped site, and the fact that several other properties in the area also encroach into the setbacks, although these properties are legal non -conforming. Given that the encroachment is only I foot. and given the fact that the encroachment is necessary, to proN4,-ide I side-by-side parking specifically expressed as a choice preferred over the tandem parking originally proposed on G St., staff is inclined to support the variance. This requested variance has generated concern from the neighboring residents, particularly the adjacent resident of the single family, two-story home at 15 G St., who expressed concern about the impact of a 3 -story structure on light and air to their property. This home is a two story home and is about 2 feet away from the property line adjacent to the project site, and also encroaches into the required 5 foot side yard setback on their.property but is considered legal, non -conforming. The impact of the wall will be somewhat reduced because the side yard area will be heavily vegetated and the outdoor recreational space for 15 G Street is on the other side of the lot. Though the adjacent neighbor will face a tall wall, the south elevation for G St. does have window openings and is proposed to be covered with Ivy to help soften the wall. The applicant has indicated that there is insufficient interior garage space to further reduce the size of the garage. It is also important to note that the original project was submitted with the code required 5 foot side yard setback for the G Street townhomes, but due to concerns from the public about the tandem parking, the project was re -designed to in order to accommodate side-by-side parking (two 20 foot wide 2 -car garages). The applicant is requesting a I foot encroachment into the side yard along the north and south property lines in order to accommodate the garage size and meet interior dimensions required to open the car doors, d. Rear Yard Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 14.04.040, the required rear yard setback is 5 feet. The Ida St. townhomes are designed with a canti levered window projection for the two -floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 ft. rear yard setback. Findini ,zs: Again, due to the irregular L-shaped lot, site design is more challenging. The cantilevered section of the rear fagade would almost qualify as an "allowable encroachment" as an "architectural feature" except that it is a feature that is repeated for 3 stories. As such it is considered an encroachment into the required yard. Without the. variance request, the upper stories would have no articulation which would run counter to the Chapter 25 design review criteria for building design articulation. Further, the impact of the encroachment has no impact on adjacent properties considering that the rear yard abuts the building on the G St. side of the same project site. This property is not like other regular single family lots in that there is no rear property line. between the G St. townhomes and the portion of the Ida Street townhomes directly behind them. In addition, the I foot rear yard encroachment would not negatively impact usable outdoor space on the lot, as all units have access to both common and private usable open space in the form of terraces, roof gardens, and porches. Given the minimal nature of the impact on adjacent properties and the benefit it would add to the building design., staff can support this variance request. e. Driveway Setback (Ida Street): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development standards for the driveway setback have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance requires that `where there is a drive�,vav perpendicular to the street, ani, cyaraac built after Jan Hary L 1091 -hall be setback tN-vent-v feet (20". The ng project is proposia 19 foot setbacl- for Ida Street. 'lie proposed 01 t__ project Nvould QTOLT driveNva-ys talo n -a Ida St., eliminating the need for six distinct curb cuts. HmN,ever, die to the tandem parkim-4 design. a \,,ariance to the 20' required driN;evN;ay setback is requested. Findings: I -lie L-shaped lot does not have sufficient depth required to meet all of the zoning setback and dimension standards Nvith tandem parking. The variance is deemed justified based on the fact that the project cannot comply Nvith all zoning setbaclt standards, achieve its alloN�-able and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law. Reducing the by garage one foot would most likely compromise the use of the garage for two cars. The goal of Z:) .11 the 20 foot driveway setback standard is to ensure that cars do not block the sidewalk. Based on the site design, staff determined that the garage has ample space to ensure the cars will be able to pull onto the lot and not interfere with the sidewalk area. Considering the variance request did not generate much public opposition, it seems that there is value in preserving the option to have more building articulation in keeping with Chapter 25 design guidelines. Tentative Map Findings (TS13-002) 1. The proposed map is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any applicable, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan as noted in Environmental and Design Review Permit Finding #I above and the General Plan Consistency table (Exhibit 4) included in the Feburary 25, 2014 staff report to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the map is to create 8 air space condomiums with no real impact on the orientation of the lots on the project site itself-, The design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan and any pertinent, adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan in that the subdivision would create 2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street and these units are in keeping with the allowable density and lot configuration for the HRI residential zoning district with respect to height limit, parking and total lot coverage. Several variances are required in order to construct all 8 units, but staff is in support of the variances, as discussed in the Variance findings above; The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the type and density of the development in that the City has balanced the regional and local housing needs against the public service needs of its residents, as well as available fiscal and environmental resources, and concludes that adequate public services are available to the site based on existing service providers that have reviewed the project and indicated that subject to conditions of approval, the system has the capacity to provide service; I The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable for the density of developmentthat is proposed in that: a) the proposed subdivision would create 8 air condominium units on site, which is below the rnaxirnurn densiq,, allowable per code (10 units); b) the project would also provide two -car garages for all units, which complies with the required parking in the zoning ordinance; c) ample, code compliant private and common usable open space is provided for the project; - and d) the proposed subdivision, would create air condominiums, with no impact on the actual orientation of the physical lots on the ground level in terms of property lines; I The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likeIN, to cause substantial eliVironmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that-. a') Z:� W l.,, the site is currentl-%; graded and developed with no known environmental resources on the site, b) the site is an in -fill site that has been designated in the zoning ordinance and general plan as high density residential development; c) the project has been determined to be categorically exempt fi-om CEQA revieNv pursuant to CE QA findings listed below. 4.- The design of the subdivision or the t�'pe of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems In that: a) it is a residential project in keeping .with the existing residential zoning for the vicinity; b) the proposed project would be built in accordance with the latest Building and Fire codes to ensure the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors; c) the City's Public Works Department and Sanitation District have reviewed the drainage and proposed sewer connections for the project site and deemed the project design to be in keeping with City standards, subject to conditions of approval; and d) as conditioned, the proposed subdivision would not result in impacts to water quality or impacts to environmental resources in that an erosion control plan is required as a condition of project approval, which must be implemented before any grading or construction commences on the site. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that no easements were identified as part of the Title Report submitted for the project. The project site is privately owned with no known public access through the lot. Subdivision Exception Request Findings (Ex13-008) 1. That there are special eircui-nstances and/or conditions of the property proposed for subdivision that warrant the approval of the exception to the requirement for a recreation building in that the project site is very small and is not able to accommodate an additional building for recreational use. In addition, the goal of this provision was to target larger residential complexes with many more residents and a higher need for a separate recreational room; 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subdivider or property owner. The property is designed as for -sale condominiums, akin really to a single family home. Requiring a recreation room for such a development style would not be appropriate, given the design of each townhome, with ample access to a garage, common open space, a private. roof garden and private patios. Given the size of the project site and the site constraints to provide code complaint parking and setbacks, it would be a hardship to create a recreation room that would most likely be relatively unused. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated. The property will continue to function as a residential development without a recreation room. Adjacent neighbors would not be impacted by the lack of a recreation building on the project site. Residents of the proposed project will have access to a garage area, storage and common open space for their recreational activities. Z__ .pct proposed project exempt from the requirements of the California Eii�!ironniental Qualit-\1 The pi is 11. --Ject pursuaiit to Public Resources Code �CEQA since it qualifies as an infill affordable housing pro Sections '2 111 59.21 1 and 2 11 -.9.24 and Section 15_3J 3J 2 of the EQ. Guidelines which exempts In Fill Develoinent P7-ojccts. This project qualifies foi- this exemption based on the followilig: l) Z7� a) The project is consistent NNI;ith the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designated for the site 'Hiah Density Residential): a b) The subject site is within City limits and is an infill site that totals less than five acres (0.5 acres) in size and is surrounded by a mixture of uses on three sides, including single-family residential, medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses; 4- c) The entire site and its surroundings have been formerly graded and completely developed. There are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings; d) The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour). It is not anticipated that the proposed project would create significant sources of noise or air pollution, and the new residential use would generate noise levels that are similar to the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, and e) All utlility agencies have indicated that per conditions required, they can provide required services to the new development. Environmental and Design Review (ED12-058) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department - Planning Division I The proposed 8 unit townhome development shall be installed and designed in substantial conformance with the proposed site plan and elevations and landscape plan as presented for approval on plans prepared by Camiccia Construction, date stamped Approved, February 25, 2014, and shall be the same as required for issuance of a building permit, subject to the listed conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body. 2. A copy of the Conditions of Approval for ED12-058 shall be 'Included as a plan sheet with the building permit plan submittal. 3. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board and also shown on elevation plan sheets. The approved color for the exterior stucco is Benjamin Moore 9 1496 "Raintree Green", Hardie Shingle is Benjamin Moore #1494 "Vale Mist", accent bands paint color is Benjamin Moore "Bone White", standing Seam metal roof color is "Aged Bronze", and windows and door colors is Benjamin Moore "Appalachian Brown". Any future modification to colors shall be subject to review and approval ng by the Planning Division. .1 Z__ 4. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-058) shall be valid for two years from the date of Planning Commission approval. or until February- 25, 2016, and Shall become mill and void if building permits are not issued, or an extension is not granted before that time. Once a building permit for the proposed site improvements is issued within the two-year Period. then the EnN-ironniental and Design Revie�NPermit shall become valid and run with the land and will not have an expiration date. On-going cornpliancc,�vith all conditions of approval shall be required to keep the On-going EnN-1ronniental and Desiorn Review Permit valid. Z7� W 5. All new and existing landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 6. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning Division to ensure coi-npatibility with the surrounding area. 7. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection,, prior to the issuance of the final building permit. The request for final inspection by the Planning Division shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 8. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.133 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 9. Archaeological Resources Technology Report (Page 12) has recommended monitoring at the site to determine the presence/absence of cultural resources. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When the project ject planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a letter from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria that the proposed project has been reviewed for potential impacts to Native American cultural resources. Community Development Department — Building Division 11. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code (CRC), 2013 California Building Code (CBC), 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. Building permit applications submitted on or after January L, 2014 shall comply with the 2013 California Construction Codes. 121. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by 4 complete sets of construction drawings to include: a. Architectural plans b. Structural plans c. Electrical plans d. Plunibing plans e. Mechanical plans f, Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bui-eau) g. Sitec'vil plans ("cleai -Iv identifying grade plane and height of the building) , .1 V. h. Structural Calculations i. Truss Calculations Soils I I S I reports o k. Green Building docurnentation 1. Title -24 energy documentation 13. Based on the CRC and CBC definitions, this project consists of a duplex dwelling and a 6 unit townhouse. Both the duplex and the townhouse are 3 stories in height (the roof deck is not considered a.story similar to the CRC definition of a "Habitable Attic." 14. Fully fire-sprinklered duplex dwellings and townhouses with walls 3 feet or further from the property line can have unlimited wall openings (windows and/or doors) per CRC Table R302.1(2) 15, The building height must comply with CBC Section 504 and Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building height. 16. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted- on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for commercial applications. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 17. You must apply for new addresses for the buildings from the Building Division. The address for structures is determined by the Chief Building Official. The address for the new units will be legalized upon completion of its construction. Each page of the plan's title block and all pen -nit application documents must show the proposed building's address identification infori-nation. 18. The plan does not show the location of mechanical equipment. When located in the garage bollards must be placed to protect water heaters and furnaces from vehicular damage (when located in the path of a vehicle). 19. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan., asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made I to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. 20. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently compute - 'd at $2.05 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools,, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 21. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soi Is report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed -foundation design. Chis information should be provided to Building Zn Zn Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. oi quired f - the above-i-nentioned Nvork. A .grading permit may be i -e 23. This project is subject to the Cite of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance, k sliding scale is applied based of the total square footage of new single family and duplex dwelliiig projects. 'NeN.N: dN-\,cl1ings niust comply with the "Green Building Rating System" by shoNv-in-g- a rniniiiium compliance threshold between 75 and 2:100 points. Additionally the energy budget mustalsobe belmNl, Title 1-4 a Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square footage). Public Works Department — Land Development Division 24. A grading permit is. required from the City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works. 25. Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention — Its part of the plan." Copies are available on the City of San Rafael website w--vvw.citvofsa,nraf,'Clel.org. 26. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Traffic Mitigation fee of $29,77/2 (3 AM + 4PM trips) is required. San Rafael Sanitation District 27. Existing facilities, including sewer lines, should be screened back to a lighter weight, and proposed facilities drawn in black. 28. The existing sewer lateral which is being abandoned should be in a lighter line type and feature hash marks. The new hashed line type for the abandoned pipe should also be shown in the legend, 29. Pipe material, and minimum cover for the laterals should be indicated. Acceptable pipe materials for side sewer laterals can be found on page 85 of the 2007 SRSD Standard Specification and Drawings 30. The minimum size for any of the laterals shall be 4". All laterals shall have a minii-nurn slope of 1%. Please indicate this on the plans. 31. An additional cleanout is required near the south west corner of the 6 unit complex. 32. Trench section details conforming to the SRSD Standard Specification are required and shall be included on the plans 33. The applicant shall perform a Closed circuit Television (CCTV) inspection of the 6" VCP on Ida Street beginning at the sanitary sewer cleanout extending past the property line. The results of the inspection shall be submitted to the San Rafael Sanitation District for their review. If the pipe is determined to be in fair to poor condition, you may be required to replace the existing line at your W, cost. When you televise the sewer mainline, SRSD crews shall be present when you enter the manhole. Please contact SRSD at (415) 458-5369 to coordinate the televising of the sewer main. 34. The engineer utility plans shall be stamped and signed by a civil licensed in the State of California .1 before the plans can be approved or the building permit issued. i 35. Prior to issuance of a building permit, sewer connection fees in the amount of $66,753.84 are required and shall be paid to the San Rafael Sanitation District. Marin Municipal IAVater District 36. The protect site is currciitly being served. The purpose and intent of existing Service is to NN'o, 00900 is to provide water to a sincrie fainfly, dNN--elling. The proposed deniolition of the existing structure and sig le Construction 01, eiglit (8) new townlionies vv'ill not impair the Districts abi liq, to continue service to this property, NNVater service is required for the iie", townlionies -Nvill be available upon request and fulfillment oftlic requirements listed below. Please note, meter locations are subject to NVIMWD reN,Tiew ai-id approval. 99 a. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application b. Submit a copy of the building permits c. Pay appropriate fees and charges d. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested e. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following are required: verification of indoor fixtures compliance, landscape plan, irrigation plan, grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415-945-1497. You can also find information at w-wAv. m ari n water. org f. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. Tentative Map (TS13-002) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department - Planning Division 1. The Tentative Map (TS 13-002) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of Planning Commission approval, or until February 25, 2016, and shall become null and void unless a Final Map has been recorded or a time extension is granted. 2. The project shall be subject to the affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 14.16.030 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and is therefore required to provide I of the 8 units as affordable. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the I affordable unit shall be approved by the City Council and recorded on the property. Consistent with the affordable housing requirements and the request for a state density bonus, the unit shall be affordable to low-income households. The location of the BMR units shall be identified on the project plans and the final location shall be subject to review and approval of the City as part of the City's consideration of the BMR agreement. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a Final Map, whichever occurs first, the developer shall pay to the City in lieu parkland dedication fees for 8 new units in accordance with the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 1558. Parkland dedication in lieu fees are, at this time, based oil 1989 dollars. Adjustments of this figure may be necessary at the time of fee payment if the fair market value for parkland and associated improvements is adjusted in accordance with Section 15.3 8.045 of the Ordinance. 4. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared and submitted with an application for a Final Parcel 'Nvlap. The CC&R's shall include the following rcquirements and PrON,isions: a. The formation of a lionieovvners association (HOA). b. HOA responsibilities for ongoing including maintenance of the shared or common facilities, includi Z__ Z:� Z:� but not limited to the common drive�vav, common landscaping and irricration, fencing, subdivision infrastructure improvements (storm Neater and sanitary sewer facilities) and exterior building and lighting Improvements. a c. HOA financial responsibility for center lane striping modifications that may be required in the future to coordinate with Caltrans street improvements proposed along Lincoln Avenue near the project site. d. Restrictions and regulations imposed on each lot owner. The CC&R's shall include provisions, which restrict the use of the parking spaces to vehicle parking, e. Requirements and provisions for professional management services or the services of a Certified Public Accountant to oversee the HOA responsibilities and budget. 5. Prior to recordation of the final map, the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development, the City Attorney's Office, and the Redevelopment Agency. 6. Approved CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 25t" day of February, 2014. Moved by Commissioner Belletto and seconded by Commissioner Wise as follows: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: Belletto, Pick, Robertson, Wise Lubamersky,, Schaefer ABSENT: Commissioners.- Paul ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Pau I A. Jensen,ocretary a SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION AM Laron Parker From-, Daisy Carlson < Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:04 PM To: Caron Parker; Subject: FW: canceling appeal to 21 G ME= I am fora ially withdr-,nving my appeal of 2.1 G Street, based on the agreements that ?1 G street building will be a n-Animum 5 feet from the 15 G street property line and reduced to9.- m feet. Also the Developer promises to provide at no charge, to me .2 �) the sidewalk, curb cut and curb cut removal according to city code and requirement in exchange for my loss of parking due to his development after I have applied.and aquired the variance for side yard parking. This will. both add street parking and provide two off street spaces. I will also have die ability to select trim prior to the demolition of 21 G street for restoration purposes. This cancellation is based on the promises of the owner of 15 G and Camiccia Construction company to uphold in. good faith all of die agreements in a timely and orderly manner. Sincerely-, Daisy Carlson CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BuILD GREEN To: 6/4/14 Owner of 15 V Street San Rafael, CA Daisy, This a written statement as to what was agreed upon in our meeting with Stan Camiccia, representative of David Rasonsky owner of 21'G' Street, and Daisy Carlson on May 22, 2014. We discussed the withdrawing of the appeal by June .4th if the following redesign, pending city approval, included these mitigation measures so as to soften the impact of the project to 15 'G' Street. The first item of the redesign is to shift the two residences on 'G' Street so that the side yard at 21'G' Street is as shown in Addendum A. This will mean that no variance would be required on the side closest to IS V Street. This would, of course, soften the visual and light impact to the units at IS 'G' Street. I The second item of the redesign is to change the roof type from gable roof to a mansard roof. This lowers the roof height and reduces the mass of the building. The redesigned building height is as shown on Addendum B. These are concession agreements made in good faith that the appeal will be withdrawn in writing on June 4th. We believe these changes will mitigate the impacts of the project. These additional agreements are contingent on any further appeals being made against the project at 21 'G'Street. Thank you for your consideration, Stan Camiccia Camiccia Construction (Applicant) P.O. e0X 2668 9 SAN ANSEL-IM0, CA 94979 upgqm�qjl Daisy Carlson (Appellant) (415) 479-0599 0 FAX (415) 479-0699 CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BuILD GREEN To: Daisy Carlson Owner of IS 'G'Street San Rafael, CA Daisy, This a written statement as to what was agreed upon in our meeting together on May 22, 2014. The withdrawing of the appeal was discussed if the redesign included two mitigation measures to soften the impact of the project to 15 V Street and by these additional items as provided by Stan Camiccia of Camiccia Construction. The first additional agreement between Stan Camiccia and Daisy Carlson is that after Daisy obtains the approval and permits from the City of San Rafael, Camiccia Construction promises they will construct the curb cut and sidewalk approach where the new driveway is proposed and this will be done without charge. This work will also include to remove and replace the existing driveway approach with curb and sidewalk. This is to facilitate side yard parking at IS V Street. The work shall be performed as per city codes and requirements. If the variance is approved but the work is not completed by June 1, 2015, then Camiccia Construction agrees to provide a cash payment of $6000 to Daisy Carlson by June 1, 2015 in lieu of the labor. The Second additional agreement between Daisy Carlson and Stan Camiccia is that Daisy may have some of the interior trim that is not being reused, that is now in the .W existing residence that will be demolished. This will be coordinated with Stan Camiccia. There is a public hearing for the variance requested for the side yard parking at 15 'G' Street and neither the owner of 21 'G' Street or his representatives will contest the variance for the side yard parking at 13 'G' Street. P.O. Box 2668 10 SAIN11 ANSELMO, CA 94979 (415) 479-0599 * FAX (415) 479-0699 I CAMICCIA CONSTRUCTION DESIGN BUILD GREEN The withdrawing of the appeal from Daisy Carlson is contingent on Camiccia Construction building 21 V Street within a timely manner. The hours of construction will be limited to normal construction hours as dictated by the city ordinances. These additional agreements are made in good faith that the appeal will be withdrawn in writing on June 4th. These additional agreements are contingent on any further appeals being made against the project at 21 'G' Street. Thank you for your consideration, Stan Camiccia Camiccia Construction (Applicant) P.O. BOX 2.668 0 SAN ANSELMO, CA 94979 Daisy Carlson (Appellant) Page 3 of 5 (415) 479-0599 * FAX (AIS) 479-0699 "DO -GLI, N19 M mmPut Ato tax) Mot Y3 '"011yl YW2 NOIS114cl DMO:) 3WOOO-A OZ6 i o NV l I INVI19daM VVITVIVU mv's -Urml A)4".WVWV YN11 IS WAVa s3snommuz QN3.MM a.;SOd011d 133HS Ire 19 NV 1d 311S V wnGN3aav Ell E" MR 6- ZN all "r W PO J2 ZVI cr LA w TO ZS th ILI w 2: dvlf 3WY10-1 INVI19daM VVITVIVU mv's -Urml A)4".WVWV YN11 IS WAVa s3snommuz QN3.MM a.;SOd011d 133HS Ire 19 NV 1d 311S V wnGN3aav Ell E" MR 6- ZN S, = "r W PO J2 ZVI w TO ZS th ILI w 'n ki �64 64 W4 c, cz 0 Lf' 06 In ir th Too no "Y" 1) 411 M" NMI w" V( -.L!3 ;114 rznw A"Cw <! Ilk jj t is -t 7 - 4r Vill *"',"� =71 ljl[am 7 L 0 r -T "A Xm MIA, r 1115 v CITY OF Meeting Date: February 25, 2014 Agenda Item: Community Development Department — Planning Division Case Numbers: ED12-058N12-002/_FS13- P. 0. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 002/EX 13-008. PHONE: (415) 485-30851FAX: (415) 4853184 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415) 485-3094 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 21 G St.: Requests for Environmental and Design Review Permit and Variance to a-Ilow the construction of 8 three-story residential townhomes on a 0.24 acre through lot between G and Ida Streets. The existing home at 21 G St would be demolished and replaced with 2 townhomes. Six townhomes would be constructed on Ida St. The G St. project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required front and side yard setbacks, and the 50% minimum front landscaping requirement. The Ida St. project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required rear yard, and the required 20 foot driveway setback. The project is also seeking Tentative Subdivision Map Approval to divide the 8 units into air space condominiums, and approval of a Subdivision Exception request to waive the requireme recreation building on site; APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1 vid Rasonsky, owner; Stan Camiccia, applicant; File No(s). ED12-058/V,rl 3 /EX1 3-008 FAECUTIVE SUMMARY The project currently proposes to demolish an old single family home and garage on a 10,836 sq. ft. lot and in its place, construct an 8 unit townhome on a through lot between G St and Ida St. This project design was reviewed by the DR13 on three separate occasions, first as a Conceptual Review and twice as a formal Design Review application. During the entire design review process, the project was modified to create the current design form through the reduction of density, redesign of the tandem parking on G Street, change to building ' architecture and materials, adding ground level common open space, enhancing the rooftop garden feature and preserving the existing Oak tree on Ida Street. The project design in its current form has been reviewed and ultimately recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on August 20, 2013. The main issue with the project is whether it is of an appropriate density and size to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and whether the five requested Variances (side, rear and front setbacks, landscaping, and driveway depth) are justified and appropriate. Overall, the density is below the maximum allowed by the High Density Residential General Plan and Zoning designations for this site. Ir addition, the City's has a Ho*using Policy (H-1 8b) that states that residential -only projects should be approved at the mid- to high -range of the zoning density. The project is seeking approval of 5 variances, three for the G Street development (reduction in minimum landscaping requirement, stair encroachment in the front setback, and encroachment into the side yalrd setback) and two for the Ida Street development (encroachment into the rear yard and reduction in required driveway setback). The need for many of the variances is driven by design issues and site constraints. The L-shaped lot presented a design challenge for building setback in terms of creating an adequate building articulation and parking configuration compatible with the adjacent homes in the vicinity. Overall, the deviations from the code requirements are in the 1-2 foot range, which are fairly small. Overall, the Design Review Board recornmends approval of the project design, recognizing that the site was challenging in terms of site design and indicating that it was difficult to balance all the competing • I I 1 ;11 1 1 � i , i I I 1 11 0 concerns related to site design criteria, building design and compatibility with a transitional neighborhood character. Staff recommends that this projectwell-designed, infill development project that respects both the high density residential zoning envisioned for.this area of West End, while respecting the existing under -developed properties that currently exist. This type of infill housing in and around downtown is what the General Plan envisioned for development in this area. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving with conditions the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Variances, Tentative Subdivision Map and Subdivision Exception request for the new 8 unit residential project. PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics I Project Site: North: South: East: West: General Plan Designation !11� IIIIIIIIq� III ��i !!111 West End Village (WEV) Second/Third Mixed Use HDR WEV Zoning Design1i Existing Land -Use High Density Multi- Single Family Residence, Family (HRI) garage WEV Commercial HR1 and 2/3MUW Residential and Commercial HR1 , WEV Residential and Commercial WEV Commercial 1111111 1 The project site is a 10,836 sq. ft. Through -lot located on the east side of G St., between G St. and Ida St. in the West End Village Neighborhood (see Exhibit 1 - Project Vicinity Map). The site is generally flat. The West End Village neighborhood is an area comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. Fourth Street and Second Street host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for Lot Size Lot Coverage Required: 6,444 sf Allow/Req: 60% (6,501 sf) Proposed: 10,836 sf (existing) Proposed: 52% (5,653 sf) Height Density or Floor Area Allowed: 36' Allowed: 1,000 sf/dwelling unit (10 units) Proposed: 31'10" (G St)/334" (Ida St) Proposed: 8 units (including 1 BMR) Yard or Landscape Area Setbacks Required: 100 sf usable open space/du (800 sf) Required Existinq — G Proposed—G Proposed: Roof patio (G St. 491 sf, Ida St. 540 sl], St/Ida St St/Ida St Decks and Private Yards at G St (288 Front- 15' 8 15' both sf) and common recreation area (732 Side(s): 51 4'/24' 4'/6' sf). Total = 2,051 sf Rear: 57 N/A N/A/5 Required: 50% of front yard landscaped Proposed- 37% on G St./52% on Ida St. Grading Tree Removal Total: Gravel import = 105 cu.yds Total(No.ispecie s): 3 (Privet, Pear, Walnut) Dirt export =315 cu.yds. Requirement: N/A Proposed: 30 trees Parking: required = 16 spaces Proposed = 116 spaces (14 tandem spaces) The project site is a 10,836 sq. ft. Through -lot located on the east side of G St., between G St. and Ida St. in the West End Village Neighborhood (see Exhibit 1 - Project Vicinity Map). The site is generally flat. The West End Village neighborhood is an area comprised of a mix of residential and commercial uses in the Downtown District. Fourth Street and Second Street host the majority of the commercial uses with predominately residential uses in the streets between. Although most of the residential area is zoned for I 1 11 �"I I III � 111�1111�pil 11111 �71 Jill I I 1311111� high density residential, some structures are still used as single fa ' mily. In the subject property block between 3 rd Street and 4 th Street, there are 5 single family homes on G St and one single family home on Ida Street. On the project site, there is an existing single family house along the G Street frontage (21 G Street) an( a detached garage structure on Ida Street. Both are proposed to be demolished as part of the project. On the G St. frontage, the project site is adjacent to a surface parking lot to the north, and residential homes to the south and across the street. Businesses in the vicinity include Malabar Indian Store at the corner of 4t� and G St. and Arrivederci Restaurant on the corner of G and Second Street. On the Ida St frontage, the proposed site would be on the east side of Ida St. and would abut 4 th St. retail businesses to the north, one residential use to the south and commercial building on the west side of Ida St.. The setting on the G St. frontage is more oriented toward residential uses (a total of five homes on both side,, of the street), whereas Ida St. is dominated by commercial uses on the corners and -al g the west side of the street. The only residential property on Ida St. is one single family hous St., adjacent t the project site to the south. % PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes construction of a three-story (two-story over garage level) 8 -unit residential townhome development (see Exhibit 3- Appficant's Design Process Narrative, and Exhibit 11, Reduced Project Site Plan). Two of the townhome units would front on G St and six of the townhome units would front on Ida Street. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces would be provided (2 side-by-side garage spaces for each unit on G Street and 14 tandem garage spaces for each unit on Ida Street). . Proposed building height would be approxi ' mately 31 feet on G St. and approximately 33 feet on Ida St. (from existing grade to roof mid -point or top of parapet). A roof patio is proposed for each townhome unit, with a built-in water feature, planters, and seating. One affordable Below Market Rate (BMR) unit would be provided in compliance with the affordable housing requirement (at the low-income affordability range). The applicant has indicated that the layout and materials used for the BMR unit will be identical to the market rate. The 8 townhome units are designed as follows: 1111 R MINI! 211=� 0 Ground Floor.- Central entry stairs leading to a covered porch and a 2 -car garage with storage area 0 First Floor. Living room, dining room, kitchen, officelden and access to a rear deck 0 Second Flood Three bedrooms (two bedrooms, bathroom, and a master bedroom1bath), launder. 0 Roof patio (491 square feet, with additional 34 square feet of potted plants) 0 Gable roof design with front stair and entry alcove * Ground Floor An entry door leading to upstairs and also to the garage with too tandem spaces (approximately 10" 8" wide by o' deep) * First Floor., Living room, dining roorn, kitchen, half bath; and balconies for 2 units Second Floor., Two master bedrooms each with a bath, laundry Roof patio: 540 square feet (with additional 50 square feet of potted plants) Flat roof, row house design Site Plan: The proposed buildings on G Street and Ida Street would be setback 15 feet from the front property lines. Building setback from the side property line would be 4 feet on G Street and 5 feet on Ida Street. There would be 10 feet of separation between the rear of the townhorne buildings. Tandem parking is proposed only for the Ida Street townhomes. A roof patio is proposed for each townhorne unit, as well as outdoor common and yard areas. Trash containers would be stored Linder the stairwell in REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page4 the garage. Landscaping would be planted in the front yard area as well as at the rear between the tw?#, buildings (see additional landscape information below). The property would be surrounded with a decorative metal fence. Architecture: The proposed townhomes are designed in a row house style, with two distinct designs for G St (gable roof) and Ida Street (flat roof). The exterior building materials are a mix of Hardie shingle and stucco, and include accent elements. (See Plan Sheets DR1 0, DR1 1 1 DR1 2 and color renderings). The top portion of the building would include a cornice element. The garage doors would be designed -to look like carriage doors but would operate as roll -up doors. A Color and Material Board has been included for presentation at the hearing (referenced in elevation plan sheets), and a color rendering is included as part of the plan set. Landscaping: A total of 4 trees are proposed to be removed (see Plan SheetHowever, the project would retain one Elm tree and one Sycamore tree along the G St frontage, and the existing Oak tree along the Ida Street frontage. An addonal 31 trees (including Japanese Maples, Dogwoods, Crape Myrtles, and Oaks) would be planted on the site. Boston Ivy would be planted along the sides of the building to provide screening for adjacent residences. There are also a variety of shrubs, grasses and vines proposed to be added to the site, as well as the use of decorative pavers and brick for the driveways and walkways. Total landscaping proposed on site would be 2,88 quare feet, with 312 square feet of landscaping proposed in the required 20'front yard setb St and 872 square feet of landscaping proposed in the 20' required front yard setback on Id ilk.addition, the proposed rooftop planters would add an additional landscaping. ts ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan Land Use designation is High Density Residential (15-32 units per acre). The proposed project is generally consistent with the General Plan policies discussed in the attached General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 4). Primarily, the density is within the density range allowed for this site Land Use Policy (LU -23) and is at least at the mid-range of the density range as required by Ho . using Policy (H-1 8b). The project is in -fill housing, which is encourage in the downtown area of the City, and also provides one new affordable housing unit. Also, the project would add one low-income affordable unit to the housing stock per Inclusionary Housing (Policy Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The Zoning designation for the project site is HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential). The fact that the project is a through -lot presents a challenge in project design. Staff has evaluated the project based on two very distinct street frontages and neighborhood character. The Ida St. frontage is dominated by two-story commercial structures, with one single family home and detached garage on the east side of Ida St. The G St frontage is dominated by single family homes (one story and multi -story) . . I with larger commercial structures anchoring the corners of the block. The proposed design for the G St frontage reflects some of the architectural elements of the single-family homes along G St by uzing a gable roof form and entry stair design. The design will help to reduce the impact of having a 3 -story structure adjacent to the two-story adjacent property at 15 G St. The Ida St. frontage is designed as a row house style, which is taller than the adjacent existing single-family house to the south of the project site at 20 Ida St. However, the proposed new townhomes meet the required 5 foot setback on the south side, and the townhome is adjacent to a detached garage and not the main residence at 20 Ida St. The proposed Ida St. frontage would add interest to a streetscape currently dominated by the blank wall of the commercial building across the street. The Board reviewed these issues and determined that the project could proceed with a recommendation for approval. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page5 Chapter 14.04 - Base District RequIations The proposed 8 -unit townhome development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section 14.04.040 - the HR1 (High Density Multifamily Residential) Zoning District. The base density for the site would be 10 residential units; with 10% affordability required pursuant to the City Affordable Housing requirements of Chapter 14.16. This level of affordability would qualify the project for a 20% State density bonus, or three (3) additional market rate units over the base allowance for 10 units, and granting of one zoning concession. The State density bonus law allows the project to propose tandem parking, pursuant to Section 14.16.030. H. 1. This allowance would constitute the one zoning concession for the project. The project is in substantial compliance with the HR1 zoning regulations, including height, lot coverage, off-street parking, and usable open space (private and common) as summarized in Property Facts chart on Page 2 of this staff report. However, the proposed project is not in compliance with several development standards as described below and would require consideration of the following Variance requests by the applicant: 1 1W Gas 2. Front Yard Setback, (G St.): Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, the required front setback for the project site is 15 feet. The proposed front access stairway encroaches 11'8"' into the front setback. Analysis: The previous project design did not include stairs, but was designed as a row house with ground level access to the units. Based on the Board recommendation, the G St. townhomes were re -designed with stairs in order to bring the fagade more in'line with existing single-family architectural styling on G St., which includes fronts stairs and front porch features. Staff has determined that the stair encroachment is relatively minor, considering that pursuant to Section 14.15.030, stairways are allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into any required front yard. The proposed encroachment is only 58" further than'the 6 foot allowable stair encroachment, and would add a much needed design element to the streetscape, 3. Side Yard Setback G. St. ' 1: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.04.040, a 5 foot side yard setback is required in the H zone. The proposed project is designed with a 4 foot side yard setback for the G St. frontage. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page 6 Analysis: The original project was submitted with the code required 5 foot side yard setback for the G Street townhomes. Based on concerns from the public about the tandem parking, the project was re -designed to in order to accommodate side-by-side parking (two 20 foot wide 2 -car garages). The applicant is requesting a 1 foot encroachment into the side yard along the north and south property lines in order to accommodate the garage size and meet interior dimensions required to open the car doors. This encroachment has an impact on the adjacent property to the south at 15 G Street. This home is a two story home and is about 2 feet away from the property line adjacent to the project site, and also encroaches into the required 5 foot side yard setback on their property but is considered legal, non -conforming. While the applicant is requesting only a I foot encroachment, the proposed 3 -story townhome would create a wall that would add a substantial amount of bulk along the south property line. There are two windows proposed for the first floor living space (living room windows) and an open deck area at the rear portion of the floor plan. There is a large upper story window and several lower story windows on north side of the 15 G Street property that would be impacted. However, this side of the property is currently heavily vegetated and would continue to be vecletated with the additi0h of 3 trees, Boston Ivy and smaller shrubs. Further, the active recreational area for 15,G�__ tis on the other side of the house (south 'Side). As such, staff has determined that the, -l..,- toadhment 0' C would not have a significant negative impact on the adjacent property.,,".,,,, 4. Rear,Yard Setback (Ida SQ: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 1 4.04.046,,.tN�feq u i red rear yard setback for the project site is 5 feet. The Ida St. townhomes are designed with a " c-antilevered window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard setback. As such, a variance would be required for the portion of the Ida St. buildings encroaching into the required rear yard. Analysis: During DRB review, the Board recommended that the applicant look into providing more building articulation. Typically the type of cantilevered design proposed would be considered an It allowable encroachment" into the setback, pursuant to Section 14.16.130. However, the proposed feature extends from floor to ceiling and for all stories. Only two the six Ida St. townhomes (northeastern portion) are impacted by the rear yard setback requirement, as there is no rear property line between thetownhomes and the portion of the Ida St. townhomes directly behind them (due to the L-shaped ' lot). Further, the Ida St. units encroaching into the rear yard abut a parking lot fronting on G St. serving commercial development in the WEV district and not the rear of a single family home. If the variance is not approved, the projecting portions of these two units would need to be removed. As a result, the units would be reduced in size and the articulation of building walls on this rear elevation would be eliminated. Given the minimal nature of the impact on adjacent properties and the benefit it would add to the building design, staff can support this variance request. 5. Drivewav Setback (Ida St.): Pursuant to Table 14.04.040, the development for driveways requires that 4( where there is a driveway perpendicular to the street, any garage built after January 1, 1991 shall be setback twenty feet (20'). The project is proposing a 19 foot setback for Ida St. Analysis: Based on the fact that the project qualifies for a State density bonus, the project is entitlei to one zoning concession. The applicant chose tandem parking as the concession but the L -shape, lot configuration does not have sufficient depth required to meet the 20 foot driveway setback standard. The variance is deemed justified based on the fact that the project cannot achieve its allowable and reasonable density and provide tandem parking as permitted under state law. Reducing the garage by one foot would most likely compromise the use of the garage for two cars. The goal of this setback standard is to ensure that cars do not block the sidewalk. Based on the sit design, staff determined that the garage has ample space to ensure the cars will be able to pull ont the lot and not interfere with the sidewalk area. The applicant has provided staff with justification for the variance findings (see Exhibit 5: Applicant's Variance Justification). Staff has determined that on balance, th e* requested variances are deemed to b minor in nature and are being requested to help create a site design with workable parking design, provide building articulation and achieve a reasonable density and livable floor areas within the units. Staff is able to support findings for the variances on the basis that: 1) the project site is oddly shaped which limits design options; 2) many of the other properties in the area also encroach into the required setbacks; 3) on balance, the encroachments requested were only 1-2 feet; and 4) granting the variance, will not be deleterious to surrounding properties. See Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) for detailed Findings t support variance approvals. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Desiqn Review Permit The project was evaluated by staff and the Design Review Board for conformance with the review criteria identified in Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. This chapter states that the new structures should be harmoniously integrated in relation to both the specific site design and the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. Specific architectural design considerations reviewed included, but were not limited to the following: Creation of interest in the building elevation- particularly the G St. elevation Encouragement of natural materials and earth tone wood tone color The project size/scale should be analyzed as to the appropriateness to the existing neighborhood scale J Variation in building placement and height Equal attention to design of all facades NkIPI shadowing on recreational spaces on adjacent properties Landscape design Historic resources Yaf San Rafael Design Guidelines: The San Rafael Design Guidelines are discretionary and intended to assist projects in achieving high quality design. Staff has presented the following Design Guidelines to the Board for their use in their review and recommendation of the project design: Building Design: Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to malntaininci consistent streetscape. Scale: Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. Building Height: Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. Roof Sha,pes: Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. Buncl. Entrances: Usable front porches, verandas or an overhead trellis can be used to define the pnmary entrance •and to further define street the fagade. Parkinq. Driveway curb cuts and widths should be minimized. At the conclusion of the three meetings on this project, the Board found that the project was generally consistent with many of the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed development onhas been designed with entry stairs and a gable roof to be more compatible with the architecture of the existing single family homesthe project design on Ida St. is compatible with the taller commercial buildings along Ida St.; 3) the proposed materials and colors are compatible with the variety of existing home colors in the vicinity; 4) the architecture for the development is a mixture of several materials to add interest to all building elevations; 5) the front and 1110%-M "0 i1q, YJ i rear fagade of the Ida St. townhomes would be articulated to provide depth; and 6) though 4 trees would be removed, landscaping would be added to the site, including 4 street trees on Ida St. and 1 new street tree on G St. (and additional trees throughout the project perimeter), as well as preserving two existing trees (an Elm and Sycamore tree) on G Street. A detailed discussion of Findings for the design review approval is on Page 2 of the attached Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2). State Densl'ty Bonus and Concess'ionsm. In 2005, the State revised California Government Code Section 65915 (State Density Bonus law). This law required that local jurisdictions adopt an ordinance that provided density bonuses plus certain incentives to developers 'that agreed to construct affordable housing units dedicated to very low, low, or moderate -income households. In late 2005, the City enacted an ordinance consistent with the State law, which provides density bonuses and concessions to development projects that meet certain levels of affordability. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No.: EDI 2-0581VI 2-002/TSI 3-002/EX1 3-008 Page 9 The base requirement for affordability for this condominium project is 10% of the project designated t# affordable units, with 50% of the units dedicated to low-income households and 50% of the units dedicated to moderate income households. By providing 1 affordable unit, the project would provide an overall affordability of 12.5% and therefore qualifies for a 20% State density bonus and 1 zoning concession. With the State de n*sity bonus, the project would be entitled to construct 3 additional units (3 units above the base density of 10 units allowed for this site) for a total of 13 units. The applicant is not proposing to use the State density bonus to increase the number of units on site and has kept the project under the City's maximum allowable zoning and not utilized the bonus units. However, the State density bonus does allow the applicant to choose one (1) zoning concession. In implementing the State Density Bonus regulations, the City created two levels of concessions: a) those requiring the submittal of a financial pro forma to document the financial need for the concession to make the project financially viable; and b) those not requiring a pro forma. Based on the City's density bonus regulations (Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.030.H.3.a (i), the use of the state parking rates is a type of concession that must be granted by the City without any requirement that the applicant demonstrate to the City that the requested concession or incentive results in "identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the project" (i.e. the requirement for the submittal of a financial. pro forma). The applicant proposes to provide 16 off-street parking spaces for the project, conforming to the parking requirements in Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, they are choosing to use the option to provide 14 of the spaces as tandem spaces, an allowable concession through the state density bonus. The two parking spaces on G St. will not be tandem spaces because of strong opposition to tandem parking by residents during the conceptual design review. The residents testified that thpy would much prefer a side-by-side parking arrangement on G Street to mitigate for the lack of,.on.;��U,6 Pt p a rk i n g a n d ensure that the garage spaces were used. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a summary of the three DRB meetings that occurred on this project. No written minutes are taken at the City's public meetings. However, actual video recordings of the meetings are available through a video link on the City of San Rafael website, www.citvofsanrafael.orci/meetinq �i. Click on the Design Review Board video link for each of the desired hearing dates. The project was initially reviewed as a Conceptual Design at the October 4, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At the time, the project was proposing to build 9 townhome units with 18 tandem parking spaces. By providing 1 affordable BIVIR unit, the project qualified for a State density bonus and was allowed 1 zoning concession. The applicant elected to choose tandem parking as the qualifying concession. The proposed project met the development standard for the side yard setback of 5 feet, but did required variances for rear setback, driveway setback and minimum landscaping requirement. During the conceptual design review hearing, several neighbors expressed concern about the feasibility of tandem parking, building height/bulk, the impact of 3 -stories on the light/air for adjacent single-family homes, and the loss of on -street parking spaces. The Board was generally supportive of the conceptual design, but did express concern regarding the following: • Bulk of the project seemed large along G St. • Provide stepbacks for upper levels if the design remains 3 stories • Reduce the number materials used for the building exterior • Feasibility of tandem parking design • Consider a reduction in the number of units to improve site design/landscaping options • Provide more ground level open space or augment the proposed roof patios • Consider reducing the number of curb cuts on Ida St. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Page10 In response to the DRB recommendations at the conceptual design review meeting, the project was re designed and submitted to the City as a formal application for planning entitlements and included the following major changes to the project: I 0 The number of units proposed were reduced from 9 units to 8 units 0 Private ground level patio and first floor decks added to the G St. townhomes 0 The addition of 757 square feet of ground level common recreational space 0 Parking for the two G St. townhomes was changed from tandem to side by side (independently accessible). Tandem parking is still proposed for the six units on Ida St. 0 The roof patio amenities were identified to include seating, planters, and a water feature. The proposed BBQ grills were eliminated, as a BBQ grill is proposed for the common recreation area 0 The number of exterior building materials proposed on the fagade was reduced awl 40 ii.. W IWOURMWWWWAL15! Ift Ift Ift i ii fee 0 laid off 0 dW AM 10 Am a was Ak Ab Am Ak an All Ab AM do do a ®R AOL z on rein we lit St. In terms of the requested Variances, the Board offered the following consensus comments: 1 Minimum Landscaping (G St.): The Board supported variance to 50% front yard landscaping on G St. (reduced to 37% landscaping). 2. Front Yard Setback (G St.): The Board supported variance to 15 -foot front setback to allow for an 11' 8 ;11 stairway encroachment into the front setback on G St. (6 foot stair encroachment allowed by Code). 3. Side Yard Setback (G St.): The Board supported the variance for a 1 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot side -yard setback on G St., with the caveat that the Building Department verifies that there would be no impact on operable windows on the adjacent property. 4. Rear Yard setback (Ida St.): The Board supported variance for the 2 -foot encroachment into the 5 -foot required rear yard setback on Ida St., as long as the applicant can verify that the proposed operable windows within 5 feet of a property line can comply with the Building Code. R-EPORTTO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.: ED12-058IV12-002/TS13-002/EX13-008 Pagell 5. Driveway Setback (Ida St.): The Board supported 20 foot driveway setback variance in orde to avoid reducing the depth of tandem parking on Ida St. I The Board voted unanimously to continue the project to a future date. On August 20, 2013, the Board reviewed the revised project. The design of the townhome buildings and proposed exterior materials remained the same. However, the applicant did implement the Board's recommendations to relocate thitt proposed ground level common recreational area from the north side of the property on Ida St. to the south side of the property and relocating the utility boxes. These revisions were implemented at the recommendation of the Board in order to: 1) preserve the existing Oak tree on Ida St.; 2) provide more distance between the 3 -story townhome and the adjacent sincile family home, thereby reducing the impact of the proposed building; and 3) provide a better opportunity for southern sun exposure to the common recreational area. With respect to the variances requested, as stated above, the Board was supportive of all 5 of the Variances requested. Per Board direction, Staff referred the revised project plans to the Building Department for review of the issue of operable windows within 5 feet of a property line. The response from the Building Division was that operable windows are allowed because "fully fire-sprinklered duplex - dwellings and townhomes with walls three feet or further from the property line can have unlimited wall openings ( It windows and/or doors"). As such, the proposed 2 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot rear yard setback on the Ida St. townhomes and the 1 -foot encroachment into the required 5 -foot side yard setback on the G St. townhomes would not impact future window placement or operability along the adjacent properties. Further, based on Building Department review, the proposed 8 foot separation at the'rear of the townhome buildings complies with the Building Code. )) There was considerable concern expressed throughout the design review process by the adjacent property owner at 15 G St. about the potential impact of the proposed 3 -story townhome on light and air to her property. The Board also discussed this issue, but there was no consensus to re -design the project. The applicant's response to the concern about the bulk of the building on G Street has been to state that the side-by-side design of the parking on G St. was done specifically to provide independently accessible off-street parking for two vehicles, as requested by residents during conceptual design review. The applicant believes that reducing the interior garage dimension would discourage the use of the garage. As such, no changes to the garage design were presented. In conclusion, the Board voted 4-1 (Member Summers dissenting) to recommend approval of the project as re -designed. Commissioner Wise served was the Planning Commission this meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an, environmental review is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff has determined that this project is exempt per Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15332 (Infill Development) given that: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density; b) the site is 0.25 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings (See Exhibit 38 of the San Rafael General Plan 2020); d) the project has been reviewed by the City I s Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no' impact on LOS in the area; and e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development; and However, pursuant to CEQA Section 15300.2 (f), "a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource." The property at 21 G St. is not listed on the City's 1986 Historical/Architectural Survey, however, City records show that the residence was built in 1910, and like other homes over 50 years old, it is required to be evaluated for potential historic value. At the direction of City staff, the applicant submitted a historic resource report prepared by Archeological Resources Technology (dated December 7, 2012). The report discussed the history of the area and made the following statement: "in terms of massing and physical shape, the residence at 21 G St. retains sufficient integrity in that it represents the period in which it gained significance, namely, 1910 - circa 1920..." (p. 8). The report also identified that many of the structures in the surrounding area have " some degree of diminished architectural integrity" and that "incremental alterations to many residential properties may have compromised the potential for a historic district." (p. 10). The report goes on to state that there were several modifications to the 21 G Street structure, but that the "front fagade ... retains good integrity, retaining most, if not all, of its historic fabric and design" (p. 8). The report concluded that the subject property at this point in time does not appear to be a significant resource under CEQA, California Register of Historic Resources, Criterion 1 and 3. The report went on to state that the project area is considered to be moderately sensitive for prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits, and recommended monitoring during construction to determine the presence/absence of cultural resources. As such, a Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #9 has been added (see Draft Resolution, page 9) to ensure that no potential resources are overlooked during project construction. It is staff's opinion based on the recommendations in the historic resource report that the proposed new development at 21 G St. would not compromise historic value of properties in the vicinity because the design of the townhomes are in keeping with many of the materials used in the historic properties (shingles, cornice elements), pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.050F, which states that the project design (i should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity, and should enhance important gateways, view corridors and waterways as identified in the General Plan. 1) The project site has been identified as being in an area with a "Medium Sensitivity" to potential archaeological resources. Per City Council Resolution 10933, projects so identified must also be referred to Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University and also to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria for as part of the planning review process. Staff has completed referrals to both agencies. Comments have not been received from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. As such, a Design Review Permit Condition of Approval #10 has been added (see Draft Resolution, page 9) to ensure that prior to issuance of a grading pe ' rmit, the project site has been reviewed and evaluated for potential impacts on Native ♦American cultural resources. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of this hearing before the Planning Commission (along with the prior DRB meetings) have been conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. Notice of the public meetings before the DRB as well as this public hearing before the Commission was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (West End Neighborhood Association), and all interested parties at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. Fill 11111MI III The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the applications as presented (staff recommendation); 2. Approve the applications with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval, 3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution. - A IN 0 AM W 1. Project Vicinity Map a-fi" ----Glenerat- Ptan-20-20-Ccmai-stemy-T-able fcanfs-dustilt affm-faT-VaTiw B,-e--r-uquetits bdi-vis-ion-Gr6nanee fGons-jsten ey-taNe- 9. Public Correspondence received (includes comments made during DRB s three meetings) 4-07-pubk--Geff-e e-fe-eemioved-sIii���notice a m 0 rujeut Vicinity Map G 5t t SCALE 1 545 20 0 20 40 60 FEET Tuesdav, Auqust 13, 2013 1:10 PM Page I of 3 r.nmn Pnrkar a a a ..... a V, law a From: Daisy Carlson [ Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 20.13 1:06 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: FW: Contest Variances of 21 G Street Hi Caron, I hope this note finds you well. I have been looking over the plans of 21 G street and I am very unhappy with several of the proposed variances. I own 15 G next to the proposed building. The building is simply too big for the property and needs to be brought to scale. This would resolve all of the following I would like at the minimum the legal set backs as the property is simply too close to mine & too tall and too big for our street. My house has -several large windows on that side, building so close will severely compromise my homes light and livability. A foot matters both vertically and laterally when it comes to light. These windows provide my home with a significant source of light. The height variance and set back variance compromise the livability and value of my historic home as well as the neighborhoods. - I think the proposed building is simply too big for the lot, it will remove two or more parking spots from the street and simply is not in. character with the rest of the street. The comparisons they used are retrofit public works buildings and not relative to our traditional residential streets. This developer feels compelled to compromise the value and character of the neighborhood for profit and it truly disrupts the entire neighborhood. It really changes character of the neighborhood putting in a subdivision, removing historic trees and going so high and wide. Also roof terraces "ire not consistent with the neighborhood and pose fire hazards and additional height to the variance. Their property, currently is spilling in to mine and so the property line is not clear and has already caused major drainage problems to my home which they have not addressed when I asked them to earlier this Arear. I absolutely appose the building of such a large structure ne-:t to rnine. It lacks le *91ti_n-iac-'._' in its claims and does not provide adequate parkfi-icrb as it is a known fact that people do not use tandem situations as they are an inconvenience and the tandem variance compron-lis es height, lateral set back -whfleStill _temoVinCr two parking spaces from an already inundated street. Can the owner, who currently lives on a four acre San Anselmo N`illa, verift- the :, -wiU indeed live on G street 3/1, 1201.3' Page 2 of 3 I question the legitimacy of the intent for building a subdivision on this property. I know it helps the city but it disregards the other property. owners in the neighborhood. It feels like this may be a case of developers muscling in for profit, using the cities need for funding to destroy a currently pleasant neighborhood with buildings that are not in keeping with a historic street with some of the oldest homes in San Rafael. This compromises the value of my home and m investment in restoring a historic property on many levels and other nneighbors have shared similar concerns. The building is too big and needs to be brought to scalCE To re -clarify. Height not consistent with the street in question. Too close to my home not sufficient, safe or adequate set back. Severely compromises the light of both Liz and I -reducing our property values dramatically. C�l property Removes existing parking spaces for garage entrances making itharder to park especially with out resident permits, (This will strengthen out argument for making our street resident only with a 2/3 majority. ) Roof terrace increases j height. noise and fire hazards. height, Pass through is consistent with spaces that draw homeless and drug activities and other crimes. Water and drainage and soils tests inadequate, may increase flooding on our street - their garages are below grade. Not sure how this effects. Removing historic trees that are consistent with the rest of the street not beneficial to neighborhood. I also wonder if removing the trees may also damage sewer and water lines and who would be - responsible. iMy proposal is that they build a reasonable size two unit home on G and 3 units on Ida that meets height and set back requirements and open space rules the property should not compromise the neighborhood to the extent that the current propos-al does. I believe they can maintain respect for neighboring propert-v- values and livabiliv,- while still providing the cit�- with per at income and buildi-lic-r a loveh/ propetty. V '_ A. Thank vou for �.-our consideration M' these inatters. I see vou on Tuesday. and am happy- to ZD(Yo over .1 .1 1/ tl-ds prior by phone, Sincere Regards, rtnrnn Pnrlcar 4MW**%N1%01NU From: Liz Kalloch [ Sent.- Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:01 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Proposed 21 G Street Project Dear Caron Our names are Rob and Liz Fordyce and we are home owners at 20 Ida Street in San Rafael in the West End Village. We are writing in reference to the project called 21 G Street. While we very much like the prospect of having residential neighbors on our street (we are the only home there now) we have some grave concerns about the scope and size ofthe project that is being proposed. After attending the conceptual Design Review meeting on October 4, 2011, we feel that the concerns raised by both the neighbors and the Design Review Board have not been addressed by the design that has now been submitted for official review. Some of the key points were: • Buildings are too massive and the scope and size is too big for the space available. • Articulation needed in the form of step backs on the side walls to keep the mass and size to a minimum for the neighboring properties at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street. • Wider setbacks (124) at the side property line to accommodate a true walkway, and give some breathing space to the neighbors at 20 Ida Street and 15 G Street. • Tandem parking concerns and the use (or non-use of the front tandem spot) adding pressure to an already over -parked and congested situation, when the proposed construction will delete approximately 5-6 street parking spots now available on Ida and G Streets. • More green space on the grounds At the DRB meeting in October 2011, there was much conversation about the charm of G Street, and several references made by members of the DRB about Ida Street being able to carry a more dense structure, but we would like the DRB and the Planning Department to consider that since these are proposed residences (and not commercials spaces) that the same flavor of design be carried through to Ida Street. The larger buildings referenced by the architect as cues for the project design are all out on the 4th Street Corridor, and do not reflect the more residential feel of the historic and residential nature of our neighborhood. We understand that our home is the only one on Ida Street, and that we are surrounded by more commercials style buildings, but we feel that that is all the more reason that the structures that are being proposed be scaled down to reflect a residential feel. In the re -designs that were submitted. we can see that the G Street units were re-desianed considerably. We would like the architect and owner to consider re-N�.-orklno` the design of the Ida consi Z:) Street units to better match what they've done with the G Street units. They have the opportunity here to create a cohesive and strong statement that would tie both streets together architecturally and add to the overall value and beauty of the neighborhood. We feel that the overall design of the Ida Street units is too in beeping with the back of the QF Yardbirds building - a behemoth that does not need to be used as a cue for design. The overall look of the front elevation of these units is too akin in looks to a lot of the low income housing 311/15/20 E-3 EXHIBIT 9--* z that 1kn arvilin, im A nup I IQ "r the oni rn fnr i s in fiarmz nf nrgnertu vnIiieQ 'k Infy This is n"k;g conce X.L%.411�j Z:.%-PA.L%W VOr %16, XX %a I A. %,JL JL %.e %.1 %-e L.L %,Wy * JL L.LAI.J A %,S, L..O X %,�AA A. Al JL. %-1 AL A 1.0 A. A A A. LJ %.P *V V %,4,4 %es. L.P The setback between our property and the proposed complex is only 5'. At the meeting in October 2011, many of the DRB members mentioned that they felt these set backs were too little and should be pushed back to the zone requirement of 12' in order to accommodate movement through what will be walkways, as well as plantings on the sides of the buildings and greenery planted at the proposed fence line. As they are laid out now, these set backs/walkways will be areas that potentially collect trash and could be scary to walk on at night. Since this setback borders our property we are very concerned about how they would be maintained and lit, and right now we have heard nothing about. how the owner plans to maintain and keep the exterior walkways on the property, secure. We feel that the detail on the sides of the building - the part of the building we will be living quite close to - needs to have step backs added, to break up the height and bring down the weighty feel of a 33'4" sheer wall that will be towering above our house, all our living space windows and our back yard. In thep reliminary, design meeting most all of the DRB members made strong suggestions about this, saying the wall was too massive and that step backs were needed on the upper floors. And then there's the parking. As was discussed at the conceptual meeting this neighborhood already has considerable parking problems. Every member of the DRB referenced the existing parking problem in the neighborhood., and one member said at the meeting: "The parking {in that neighborhood) is a disaster situation". It was also discussed that even though intentions are good with creating tandem parking spots, the front spot is never used. We had hoped that the owner and architect would take that discussion under advisement and come up with some viable parking solutions rather than putting more pressure on an already congested neighborhood. That hasn't been done, and in fact this project could potentially add greatly to the existing problem. Overall, we feel that the scope of this project is too big for the size of the lot — as exemplified in the need for a variance to the set back width between the properties at 21 G Street and 15 G Street — and also in the need to utilize tandem parking as part of the overall design scheme in order to gain the total number of parking spots needed to qualify for zoning standards, If the number of overall unit's was reduced to better fit on the available lot, the 3 stories could be reduced to 2 stories {and better fit within the existing neighborhood) and there would be more green space and plenty of space for parking. We feel that the project as it is being presented will both compromise the character and disrupt the visual feel of the neighborhood and could potentially lower the value of our property both monetarily and in terms of quality of life. We feel *that the proposed. height of the buildings is out of scale on both Ida and G Streets, and that the architect and owner are attempting to put too many, units on a small parcel of land.. Our hope is that the project be re -worked to better fit into the neighborhood in the following ways: Height and mass of the buildings is brought down to be in better scale with the current homes on Ida and G Streets A design that would be cohesive through the kN--hole lot form G to Ida Street. tying the neighborhood together * Parking secured on the property that will not add to the parking burden already felt on these 2 streets * The number of units proposed be reduced so that the design can include both adequate parking, a better ratio of green space to building mass. Right now there is too much being asked to fit into the space available A 31115 /2 0 133 EXHIB101`9 - Z 1 h More art*culation added to t ta sides nf t"he.hiii1clincro, that -xv♦ ill be niiitF. p (,-jnzP fn nirr nrnper3. kK. 7 lines in the form of step backs. I Thank you for your time and your consideration on these issues, and than. you for all your help answering our questions. We look forward to hearing your response Rob. and Liz Fordyce San Rafael. CA 94901 C.nrnn Pnrkp-r From: Susan [ Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:52 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Regarding project 21 G Street, San Rafael To Whom it May Concern: Our names are Michael Jobe and Susan Zelinsky-Job e. We live at and own Susan has lived at this property since 199 1, becoming the owner in 1999. We are very concerned and dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design proposals. In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those vocalized by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the new plans. In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a number of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns: • It incorporates too many units, • Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area • Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for surrounding residents and poses a number of safety issues • Does not provide a truly workable parking solution and decreases the number of existing parking spaces on an already parking starved street. • Does not incorporate appropriate set backs • Does not address open space requirements • Has an alley walk through, which we feel will be a draw to the current riff-raff ' that smokes pot/shoots up/drinks and leaves alcohol bottles in the parking lot of the Red Dragon Yoga studio, and in plain sight on G street, at night. We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, parking limitations and height of G street. Thanks, Michael Jobe and Susan Zelinsky-Jobe ( x/ / 15/ 201.3" To Whom it May Concern: Our names are Josseph and Elise Adams, we Live at We have jointly owned the property with my wife's parents Michael and Honore Weiner for the last ten years.. We are very concerned . and dismayed about many of the 21 G Street project design proposals. 4 0 In Reviewing the most recent set of plans it's clear that most of our concerns and those vocalized by the Design Review Board at the last meeting have not been addressed by the new plans. In short, we feel that the present design oversteps in terms of size, scope, and requires a number of questionable variances. Here are some of our concerns-, a It incorporates too many units, • Is taller than any other residential dwelling in the area • Incorporates a roof top recreation area that impacts height, increases noise for surrounding residents and poses a number of safety issues ® Does not provide a truly -workable parking solution and decreases the number of existing parking spaces on an already parking starved street. • Does not incorporate appropriate set backs • Does not address open space requirements We are not opposed to a smaller building in keeping with the aesthetic, -parking limitations and height of G street. EXHIBIT 9 1'-nrnn Pnrkar From: Daisy Carlson [ Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:42 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: 15 G street Hope you had a nice summer. We met earlier in the summer, I purchased 15 G street. We also spoke about the neighbor developing a few condos. I am concerned that they will block all the light on that side of my house with such a close set back (there building will literally be about 5 feet from all windows on that side and higher than my home totally changing the light, feel and value of my home. Additionally and more seriously their property is currently spilling water into my foundation causing serious issues and flooding. Even with the repairs I can make on my side their property is higher and water goes directly into my mud sill. I have tried throughout the summer to politely ask them to remedy this and to date they have not. It is starting to be an issue as I can not rent until I am sure the apartments won't flood and rainy season is around the corner. I just wanted to let you know. If they would agree to fix the damage and condition that causes damage to my homes foundation, I may be more amenable to the other inconveniences. Best wishes, I Us- 1*14 i M 9 ==014ral I R, V �' , Page I of I N -MM From: Daisy Carlson [ Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:47 AM To: Caron Parker; Steve Buffenbarger; com; com; Joseph Adams Subject: 21 G street - opposing variance -eve 0,1,C) Ile 2 d S t T !�Irrl . 1 4 on� (.Ies, -I 1-C - 1" 4" 1- Z*.I� "� G- followl.11S)r U]. Ig .1ap 'Is G fz f -re t 'n 19( 9 01, 1 C la s I MNI bt-4111ding" 1-5 Y '11 V I-(,- T)MV, 11J, f .1 C r,A 0 -D TI t w 111d. -111C P.IATC CC 4 Ile Aft r(.'!CI knxe -oc)sed t)roperty fUtillre. 10 0 P enlblk-- wIn.doA,%7,s on. th,,i.t side wlaid S(:",t ba to Ix - 8 fc,,et fto yj M-01)erty- C I C)�y 1 c n�e _YJ Ices 01 C ""PilfAk 0TAV, Se *11 IS 1) 1 .P11111k, ce. I i. I J,.a ai.ac-t G stre�et exIstitiOr will -I be tiscdbv propo,,,,ed propew. as the�fC-- is not I Ct*1011,94-1 -t-0 P'If DeL ell 10 drivewgay "S. "I Ile IOSS Of '21-ldrllg £iN IJp to all bi-is-iess 4�trid tes �idcjars in, rl-)c are�i. .'Is .1 P park.1.11��r IS 0J.r(-,,,qdv extre-inicly diffic-ult.- i.t.a -t I _, )orbood. • W11111 a 3 -won.derlixiLg who the 6 lettcts "/Iw" th.c.- Dlrooertv fro -11-.1 qa,-�, 1. thoil,4,41t, I( J61 WCTC 0 d' CAVA. d. i I C ed. I -w, I, go -irou..al ar).d gct Inst' - so �,ve I-1,CwT 2 Oett.'C--r ide'4-11- ()I` the over. -all opill., flon-a the neio,hbors whik-) ;;i -re. 1.1'eadyinvc,"t.•ed ion Lr -M tICS In tri 's 11.e :-i-nd !I vq.bill 0 i I" ort th(." Hl-. dcsircs ofont,, Soir,e rese,..-rch. in. i - °, ,}:•t c si-cd ho+i A A. 4 ye. R a cn, L Ovell!%I c,.i ter II vahie thon, 8 cr,,-rnped d'atr'.14". ul-t-va's in--).PIJI'Ige 011 CD c cc... �A- A I loolk fo-nv'ud t(-) ilI-(I)� C S 'W.I i e; 1 : 1 1011 0 1 o a b -c-11.( -1-i 11 or 6 TV on Ole "�31"C". CE, C, 6 J. L 4 ' Candace and Aki Yoshida St. San Rafael, CA 94901 August 91 2013 Dear Community Development Members, This is a le.tter to protest the proposed eight three story town homes on G and Ida Streets.' My husband and I have lived at for thirty years and raised our family i*n this West End area of San Rafael. This is an old neighborhood and perhaps the only neighborhood like it in San Rafael. We are a small, friendly and old residential neighborhood close to Fourth Street. The two three story buildings in existence in the West End area block the light, add to the congestion and certainly take away from the character of thisdeep-rooted and long- standing neighborhood. Our residential neighborhood is already very dense and three story buildings take the light and son from the houses along with jamming the streets with cars. Even if there is parking in these large buildings, the tenants usually have additional cars along with many gu./..-.,st cars. Please consider the density of eight three story town homes and the congested streets and approve something of a smaller scale, Sincerely, AkiYosHioa PLO Candace Yosh.1da Page *1 of* 2r r�rmn Parker- FForm : Daisy Carlson [ Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 3:29 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: RE: 21 G Street Carone) I am sore to hear that they have not addressed the *4 foot set back issue. The 4 foot variance coinp-tot-nises my property considerably and does not allow for legal fae code. It also cot-nproinises the future potential of i-ny property should we rebuild, we would they. require a 6 foot set back on our side so this variance may not be legal. Regards, Daisy DaisyCarlson coin RootFo:Weace.org Subject: RE: 21 G Street - Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:48:39 -0700 From: Caron. To: Hi Daisy - The only change is that the location for the ground level open space was flipped to the south side of the L proper tv (see atLtached site plan) in order to save the Oak tree. The proje-cl is still requesting all the same variances. A copy oy'my staff report is attached, Let me know ifyou have questions, Carcn x J Dalisv C-rJQC11 if S-enlc- friday, A.1aust 116, 2013 11:2Q AM To-, Caron Parker C-Llbicactx 2-1 G Street 14 1-11 C ai o -t up Hope -his -� finds 7-oii �vell, winc onderin-%rou hm/-e Inforniation aild dates on the des ian tincy. 1 w'll 'le t' 'f there chancycs fo I G street so mwr reviow, th-eni before tne mee i u nere so i is t-1 ZD 8/19/2013 EXHIBIT 9 - 8 a change please let me know as I have guest in town I do not want to unnecessarily inconvenience. Below is my response to the last design review of 21 G Street. Thanks so much, Hi Carone and Steve am following up on the design review meeting last week for 21 G Street. I want to clarify that my building, 15 G street, built in 1909 only has a 24 inch set back. I do not approve of the proposed 4 foot variance as it impinges on my property now and in the future. I have 10 operable windows on that side which may require the proposed property to be 8 feet from my property line. The larger set back would also give back at least one parking space. It seems that 14 parking spaces on Ida and G street (I think only one or two of those is existing ) will be, used by proposed property as there is not enough space to park between driveways. The loss. of parking causes a hardship to all business and residents in the area as parking is already extremely difficult in this neighborhood. I was also wondering who the 6 letters 'Yor" the property are from as I thought 100 % of surrounding property owners were opposed. I will go around and get signatures for and against so eve have a better idea of the overall opinion from the neighbors who are already invested in properties in this neighborhood. Retaining the value and livability of our properties may outweigh the desires of one developer. Some research indicates that 4 reasonable sized homes on the lot may have a greater overall value than. 8 cramped dark units that impinge on the neighborhood and bring the values down for everyone else. I look forward to working together to find an amicable and mutually respectful solution, I am cc- ing four of the six surrounding neighbors -who attended the meeting in opposition. Three of the four neighbors who are next to the property who are also concerned about parking and I will talk to the owners of yoga studio as they live in MV and it may be difficult for them to attend. One on the street did not speak at the meeting as the parking issue had already been stated. s/ 1 013 c�t� o f savt. �za fae� :L400 AVevute sav, RRfael, CA94901 -� 1-1 Rp,: 2--L cl street To Whom It MRu.3Dvzervl,: mo Mother, V'b'robvLw swttk., civi'd oltrfum*blowvis the py-operg u at I:f- street. R&,evitLU, DUN` d RPSOV1,S)ZU h2s s6vLt me p[Of oz for izke 000AoK&blAftxw"r, ke hopes t6 K,?-'Uot ovv Ks propeYt� at 21 C, Street. I WRs bmpyelss d w4th tie, ciesib'q V'I, of the nol,kow WeLL tlqeu btevudO W&tk the "Cke mbokbor�oac� CIVIA MUL fu her eohavze the fmprovemeKts tke, c,�t� kas made. t Jb's MU kopp, the pLcms WIUL be approved bu the cbt rnv^n From: Diprete, Catheryne [ Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:12 PM To: Caron Parker Cc: Subject: Condos on G Street Dear Caron, I just wanted to express my support for the condos David Rasonsky and Iiis wife, Tina, are hoping to build on G Street. The developments would do a lot for the improvement of the neighborhood, and I hope you will provide your support. Catheryne DiPrete, UP Associate Vice President Morgan Stanley Wealth Management 1101 Fifth Avenue San Rafael., CA 94901 Please visit my website CA Insurance License #OD89946 I mport2nt Notice to. Recipients, Pkeas, do not use e-ma,11 to request, authorize or effelct the porch se" or sale of any security Or z cornmoditv, Unfortunateiv, we cannot execuib(�,� such ins-iffuctllons provided in e-mail. Thank you, 'J . 4 1 0-.- 1 cl if 111 el The sender of this e-mail is an e'mplloyee of lhvlorgan, Stanley Smith Bairr�iey LLC (14"OrgCan, sti3�11-11;'-aly you! N-ic and paper -aind n04-� I-L'he have rl�---,clved t eehis commOuni"i,-,n in please destroy all e I fa cl, ro i 's L.o,li"'4.y or privillege., [Alorgan sle-Mcfe-F irnmedh--:As,-=-1v. Err,311-E-OUS "Fa-n-m`s,::Jon �-s not `n-,--,nd-d to vv—ive co--fidnti S ;a r, i" et• S; R*�" e� S t h, r I g! -11. to t h t e n t' Pe-1-11"HIi,d U111der appific<-Vel liav,;, o m o, Y c oiai m u n c a'i o n s i s rni e- ts, s a e s u b 8 c t o ternns al V L YOU CC'Mllot a cle� s s ',h; s p e at s ncM -h N/ioraan S�, {-Oev vt7u rti n i:� i &--nnd c - n `-e 's B v re', p y rn - s -c' ark :::,n�j �-e v.-, -A E4 CC 0 Page I of I r.nrnn Pnrkar From: Alyssa Catanio [ Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:38 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: San'Rafael West End Developments Attachments: BRN001BA9A48814002557.pdf Decir Planning Commissioners, I am writing to urge you to support building development at the West End of San Rafael as I would love to see new housing developments bui ' It in the area. As I work in downtown San Rafael, I recently spent months searching for housing close to my place of employment but was unable to find anything that was both available and affordable in the area. These new developments would provide new housing options for me and fellow coworkers who have also had a difficult time finding housing nearby. Although there are a limited number of apartment complexes currently in the area, I found that the majority were rentals. I think it would be nice to have some properties.that we can invest in and purchase. A coworker 'of mine is currently looking for a condo to buy in the area, and is having a very difficult time. This vevelopment would be perfect for her family, and many O*thers in similar positions. In addition to providing much needed housing, the proposed project would promote a quicker, more ;tnviron mental ly-friendly commute for the many people employed in downtown San Rafael. Thank you, for taking my thoughts into consideration. 866-248-8388 fax A X4 I S JP111110l; I I� �gii� 111��;Ip�1111111 11�11�� Ingill 111�qp��Ipiip� Confidentiality Notice., This rnessage and any attachments are confidential and are intendcai solely for the USC- Of t1le in -tended reciplent(s). Any unauthoriZed review, LITS"?", disci sure or distribution is str1ctl,,,1 proh0bited. For your protection, do not include any non-public inforniation in your Pik'dele--e R- from your systc-,%rn, dleastroy Pny hCard copies and irnMed"i-ately ra&lszel the sender you h a v ci r c. c ei �i e d t h Is rn e s sa Ug e ire e icor, i <4 Y_ ,11n (_ -,r by etrna'$l &t i,nfo@axis-a.�"c.coni. Cipinicils and, Ideas expressed ill this message do not necessoanly reD're.se-nt tha"t ofAxl)Appra,Sal 1 .1 �­� �' %, 0.; ir%l rn t ... o I u, 'c— s. A' x i n- t- r__&2tVO,' t mcn��­o- ti 0 I�Oil� U'U Downtown San Rafael Condo Project From: Knolanflatch [ Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:01 PM To: Caron Parker Subject: Downtown San Rafael Condo Project Dear Caron Parker, Page I of I My name is Knolan and I am the Vice President for Marin Design Group, LLC. I Just -wanted to say how excited we were when we heard about the San Rafael condo project on G Street. I - firmly believe that a project like this will be good for Downtown San Rafael and will. increase foot traffic to local businesses. In addition, I feel that if there were more condos / townhomes in Downtown San Rafael this would allow More individuals to live and work in the downtown area. I would like to see more projects like this. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, knolan keith marindesigngroup 1005 a street, ste 308 san rafael calif 94901 From: John and Gwen Greene Dandggreene@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:50 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: Rasonsky condo project i have had an opportunity to view the drawings of this prof ec-'(--. i think It is very attractive and would be an improvement for the site which contains an old House and a vacant lot. it would be a change but I think it would be an improvement for the neighborhood. I also think that the plan for the Rasonkys to occupy one of the units is very positive because that would assure that the property will he kept in good condition. I 'wish you and the Rasonkys success with this project. Sincerely, John Greene (A resident of San Rafael for the past 30 years) 9 From: Jennifer Lebsack Dlebsack@comcast. net] Sent: Tuesday, April o2, 2013 8:37 AM To: Caron Parker Subject: The project at 21 G Street To whom it may concern I am small business owner -in downtown San Rafael for over 17 years. The proposed new housing at 21 G Street has m overwhelming approval. The West End San Rafael Village has y -A- CI been developing nicely over the last years. The addition of .duality living spaces for more people, couples, faml-lies to live, shop, dine and form comm.-nitv is a vital part to the success of San Rafael. I am hopeful that this project and others like it will be supported by the city and be approved. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. Sincerely, Jennifer Lebsack Avalon 1016 B St. San Rafael CA Sent from my iPad q EXHIBIT 9- 1� JamesAnrCr'ew Lydon, Trccstee 10 "orty. Court Novato, CA 94947 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 5thAvenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Proposed project at 21 G Street 01 Thank you for taking the time to review the -contents of this letter in support- of the proposed project at 21 G Street in San Rafael. My family has lived, worked, owned businesses and residential property within San Rafael since the early 1950's. Although I am the trustee for my mother's trust, she is stilt alive and we own the family home that was purchased over 50 -years ago in the Gentle Park nei ' ghborhood. It is my -understanding that the applicant for thig project also shares many- s'limilar longtermconnections with the conununity. I view the, prof ect on G- Street as -a significant improvern oat that will add to the revitalization of the West oJ End of town. 'I hav"e, reviewed the site and noted that the only residential structure on the propel Is rundown. 18ven with restoration it will. not provide the level of in -fill housing that is possible with the proposed project. The opportunity to increase the available residential units within walking distance of the west end of 4h Street* will further assist in efforts to increase spending at the local, businesses, while not-signifflantly i i nereasing traffic to the -area. As a professional in the fire service t;Mso see this project as one that will assist in risk reduction for the t0i community. The modem construction materials and metbods, that will be used in the new building will limit the potential for catastrophe resulting from a seismic or fire event. This not only provides benefitto those that will occupy thle*strif6ture, but. those adjoining -properties will henefit from -the reduced potential for risk associated with the existing. old structure.' in. addition, the modem structure with ihicreased housing potential and reduced risk of catastrophic loss of the dwelling units will .help the City by limiting the potential number. of displaced residents in the ocmrronco of a major seismic event. Even with renovation of the existing Property you may not be able to create the same levels of risk reduction -and cer-taiffly, would not be able to- achieve the level of residential space that you will be gaining by the proposed project. I certainly hope you will consider moving this prof ect fo-rward. I feet it provides an opportunity for the 01 City to complete an in -fill reidenti8l project that is not over burdening to.!he neighborhood.,* It will assist in the revitalization ofthe West End, while also providing some risk reduction opportunities for the CO�munity. ydon JIM L Trustee I POO Federal Tax ID 20-7034582 EXHIBIT 9 - �) polio 0 -W Pon* 0 P004 rA 0 POO 0 PIZ 4� Q -6wo cLi 24: ct 03 ,2 cti 42, Ct m -0 4-4 4t C� 4-4 4ct- 03 ct ct In, 4Ct m cr mM m ct Ojo M =- Un 4-4 4-4 ct > Ln 4-1 4-4 CA ct 00 a) 4-4 ;z sn. ;-.4 4-4 M 4--4 4-4 -a 140, M Ln 0 cn Q C3 GT cn 0 7� m ct ....4 4-4 4-0 CHCS'+ co. +..a M C't cri to 'M 4-4 IIIII cn 7:; V C�5 4--d 4-1 ce Ct 4-1 4:2 4-4 a.) I - F5 c"Z cl:5-T:� 75 ct = 7:; 7� 7) > rcr� 7:� C3- Cz > > 44 OMAN > C'Z C73 > C.) rn 117: :lr r- CI� C5 > ill r > 7:1 Now > > > 7= 7:1 Now > �i) "t - CIZ 7= -75 7y 24: Mi 20: 7:1 4-4 4-0 " v� 4 03 tU C'g 1-0 4-4 4- V) 4- V) Ct Ct V) P- 4-4 vi ry 7:1 V) kA Ln V) t�b ct Ln V) V) Ln V) ca v V) Ln 4-� cn V) rA tO 0 Ln CA V) C/) Z 42 V) V) rA o o Ln 4-0 cn Ln Ln cn V) Ln un *6 Ln Q cn E E V) V) V) V) cn m o r 0 cn '-0 4-4 V) -n cn 4-4 vn -* - Ln 4.4 Qn 'n 0 77 V) ClIZ cl, vVI V) Q Vj' m v 5 ) 4-4 cn u ct C7: tocs0— C. Cl smas Wm mow fob, 73 z M ti� 20: 2 rel flr. 4- 4-0 4..o Vol C13m E c' r- 5 �1 r t e©+ 0 �} 1vlE CtIt •4 wi. :3 ctz +-j +5• ct ct ON E ct =• .— 4 o cl:3 E "0 a.) 4.+/c V) as V) al t�q 4-4 �A cn -T:j 4-4 ct :3 E kf) 4- 4- C) +C� fl ccs 4 -In X E clz$ T-4 ct ct 4-J Ct Ct ct ct -7� m (n V) n ct 4- Ct 4-j 4-4 cis th 4-� V) 4-4 4- c:3 ct V) ct r -n ct Q.) E 4� ct 7, 4.� 44 Ln == C�l — 04 C�. = 4— k.%J *-j c"I v Ln clz$ 7E '75 kr) CA Ir r ct ct +-07� — 7"z: e-- wift 14 tor csz Ct ca- 4ow C-) `icy,{ p K 404 "—I p �d ell, -75 r- ^10" r- 2 wi O ct -0 ct 4- �4 V) +->ct CO P--.ct O en 4-J V) V) 1 �4 V) CL a) E ct ct 4-J ct e- Ct co ,S:} CLS a1 ,�� to a3 a3 V) -r-J Ct = = U 4-0 ^ } Ct m ct as ct 00 0 V) V) V) 4-4 cn P-4 Lr) u Lr) 45 . v tb 4- Ct U ct 4-1 S Q 4-� V) P-4 +- a) t. - v 4 ct 4 V) (U nz� 03 V) 4-J Ct ct Lh $:I. ct Ct = 0ct ;F t > 4--1 c � v — 0 4-4 V) 4--J 03 V) ct C,3 4-4 .. .. 4-1 0 m ct 4-J ct a)V) 4-4 4-J 4-.4 v —.4 4--4 . tc:3 C4 C- cr s= = m 45 V) (U 63 4-4 4-1 4..j CIO V) V) V) u E E 4-40 a) -a Q 4-4 ct :3 (U 0 4-1 4-4 (wn V) 4-4 a) (4-, C4 cl� cl 4-4 V) V) 4-1 Ct 4-4 1-14 V) V) 4-4 un cn ...* Ct V) 4-0 ct m C� u -$:"- N 4-4 0 ct Q -cz 0 4-4 V) 0 7:1 tjo�n U,* 4-J P-" (n 4--J z 44 th CCS � +Z 4--1 > V) V) ct > 4-1 4-4 oz V) on U. -O V) rur (A 4-4 V) CCS C. C75 cr� 7= c7z 7t ciz pro 17� rll�: V, Inz 4-0 t wmw Lr *Nwm 442 C�- -c; CL G. cell Z Z ON, 24: PON" 4* 0 -4000 PON* 01*0 CZ 1i CCS 0 POO (A m Wo a rn 4 lzr V) tC3 :�""� � � � �., Qom,? �, � * • Ln ,-r Q 4-4 4 V) QJ •� •� ct G V C)ct 45 4-4 `n03 N �•-' N ' P Q�i? U U •� �vi � 4�i � cru � U V Ln � • � �'' * G? � � � ,.� cn oz on "'C3 cit ct CA 57 un s.. * rll * ►, +�-� "L '- tib - r �°. +-'�, 64 i tir '�'� •�^r #f�.,. ;�~ v/,.., y r ♦ `.w% l {^•,} • :CIZ3 ��+$.ey� "t"" •� /:%'.l } *_ `.i y� `'�. e...+ 3 f yam»,/ r� " ' a�•�eJJ� ��t€� �4 per+ t'e ') !�� v...+ • � � p+, »�,,,. +�.�+ }moi � � � j � .j�s1 Q} ;.� c-* J"< � . ,•~-1..� .�'®..'''j � n� .�.,�" ,., n;,,� n,� . '.c� � �aJ `�' s- � v�1 �, , � "" � "� i"�`"� s . ®11 - s�.y1 » '� �•.:. : t..�1 ; PON*�.... y�• "` * >l p'w „^�„'0-„r �j *�'®. yy nj ' tom+ t'�» p'^rrtr 4--1 A ''•iii s _ / r✓j ;� a�� / j �~ r""' �,�.. ... ,,, i »4- ♦ �»+f `. y•a�l � t j %� ♦ V�.% Vit � � * ' � �' '^�,�, � � %� /�� � � 1R - � 7 baa ♦ � �.wt `� �' Y{� � of twF LYt '+ul/ `»/f 'r✓ w/ � .tel r� i� !mow! � s � > � 1� �.�.a � �. �1 � � /+ "•j » w�pu. ♦^� 7[Ty J s » ��� } - �� � t � #� ■1i1�14 i�+! :l)I�IIi1 IIl R! - l� � fVVV4 • � i^� i.�'*t * ems+ �"w Art �' i� » y^�+�' ' "\. iy „�.. w� 1tf,f #srt *ins �� vim,( � a.�� » *+.1 � %� 1 � i"�u[ r� \�'�f • fl�l {� } � • .}.+�.. �.�" � - � '+'+ti'r .,� i � y� - "Woos�K $ »' �i V . {� '1� `✓ . ..i..r ,..+�, Mi+1 • !'S ;"/i {"" +fid ) �►+t '!fes} •�/^ mer/ rvi �'* :'j. » � �^1 {''+ �� (y'�� ■n €j '.,, 77 3 `wl�../ sw1 l.,,w t * rt �F'�F * }✓ 1* j` YI�M( �s#i'J �r izvow f t V w.w a.+� = �1I » �.1 . r r• 0-0, LO;4,t ci 4-4 0 0 V) � (1) 0 ;_, 03 > ct ct ct C5 Ct -rt -a o M ct�v ct k,--4 ct Ojo 4-4 tb ct ct cn 4-40 Un 0 . N , U v cn v U 6. AN no Ln cr V Q cn cn 'o Z cn o c"ll cn 4-4 cn cn cn 4-4 ."..4 +J " a) ct cr 4--J O V) V nz; ct Fs sm. 7:1 al CT� u Ln Ct Ll� "I +-, V) M sn. 4-4 m CIZ Q ., v �, +-j 4-J .4-4 chi E-54 *MO clz (t a� 4-4 • � � �, � > � cr • u 4-4 C�3 4-J cl:3 —4 4-0 + MW4 7:1 ct,.' L=3 Cd i 4-1 �•� C5 >=•�� Clz Lnc—, '�.,.� .gyp++' ' *'.i r+. -t L1 �*^r- :"V 3.�„ ""^'z C^' C+ 'CL fd L,- ct:z V -d VMMw 4-0 4-4 r• 0-0, LO;4,t Mi V) V) CIZS � ct 4-4 0 cl�$ 7E 4c� V) v3 C�3 > C'Z CIZ ct Fl ct E o3 a ct CZ C13 cr V) a) ct M � :z o3 > v ct ,� , cl, (L) 03 O cl;3 C) el) ....4 4--J ct 03 C�3 "a ct ct ct > .0 ct ct 4mJ a3 ct ct o3 a) 4-J L4 E P2 e- 4--1 tz ct �n coo 4-4 4-1 4-0 Ct 4--J 4-4 X., ct ti) ce ct b C..) 72 0 oz lz +--# ctzs CZ v > CIL) ct 7-- 4-0 V 7:; C-5 u cll� X � C.) !�� c �D r- ;?U OAO -1, `,� ou r. 60 cr, L4 CL c5 cz: 7� 7z WAIR 4d 71� MONO oc OWN No" M '"Olk ., 24: I El +-0 Qn c"I oll as m 91 4-4 Ln ct c7s ct Ln cn it. run un r -n Ct Z v Un `'� � � L1 , v � � ,,,� . � N vi r. a3 Lr -7p C�5 4-0 cr 4r, 44 j ,yam SIN Lor, SA 4-0 coo r7� P.M Oft 7p It :.Cd 6 OC MWI "dw r— 17; tri Nd Lr OC zr I El PONO tLi 4-o 0 ima PON" 00*0 0 • 0 pool ;0- w 0 pmml� rlQ 6 P= P= .ot 0 *00 Cl C� ct cri Ct 7p ct 4Z 4-4 as -0 in. 4---) �z ct m > OJ) > CJ ti) 03 4 ct 2: CL 4-i cr 4-t �' 0 C13 ct ct tD ct 4-4 ct ct ct C�3 ct -7p C�3 Al ar ,w Ct +-J Ct v > = ct V) 1-0 A-4 +C-' 7:$ (4-4 7:$ C) Ct q3 ct :z - o C73 C73 7:$ 4-4 Ct 4-4 ct ct V) -4 -cs v3 ,.�ct 3 Q ct ct ro , 0 ct 4-4 ct 7:$ Q.) I -C 4-4 *-.4 4-0• 03 4..4 Q . UL4n ct ct Cr ct m m +C� "Iz; 5j) Q ct 03 03 ct E ct ct m ct Ln -4 po -C ct CLI ct cl� 't vl Ct C�3 ct V/ 7= 4-4 ;> WJ, ct .t c.0 I -W -100, M 7Z -d>1 7z C.) 7:; C-5 7 = tiJ w Fi C) ct 7� > 7� W, Ct c"I E Ct Ct a3 0 :j 3 v ct Ej ct ct •Ct U 4-4 ct ct "0 ct E s.. ct ra Ct .6 cz) ct o3 4-4 CE C':3 R Ln Cc3 Cg cn V4 c"I Fs E E clzs 4-4 ct a3 44 4-.r 4� CY2 cr� ct c7: vow* • www/� V-4 TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) Updated to Address Project Revisions as a Result of Appeal The proposed subdivision is subject to the major subdivision and condominium provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance as follo W 10 1 A 0 As 0 15.02.080 Findings required. (a) Findings for Approval. Approval or conditional approval of a tentative map shall be supported by the following findings: (1) The proposed map including the design or improvement of Conforms the proposed subdivision is consistent with the San Rafael The proposed map is consistent with the San general plan and any applicable, adopted specific plan or Rafael General Plan as noted on Page 4 of neighborhood plan. the staff to the Planning Commission. There is no adopted specific plan or neighborhood plan for the project area. (2) The property subject to subdivision is physically suitable Conforms for the type, density and intensity of development that is The property is currently underutilized based proposed. on the HR1 zoning designation. The project site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of a 8 unit development, with 2 units on G Street and 6 units on Ida Street in that: a) Adequate water, sewer and other utilit services systems are available to serve th proposed site. Each of the agencies hav reviewed the uses and improvements the project and indicated that there i adequate capacity for this development. b) More than adequate landscaping an usable open space area is provided a indicated in the landscape pla conditionally approved as part of ED12 058, and through the provision of combination of outdoor deck, roof decks private patios, roof decks and 732 squar feet of common open space on site. c) The project is consistent with the bas density requirements on the project sit and in fact is below the maximum allowabl density based on the Zoning Ordinance (1 units,1 unit for every 1,000 sq. ft. of Ian area). The project also would provide affordable unit low-income BMR affordabl units thereby qualifying for a State densit bonus of 3 additional units, which they ar not proposing to construct. d) The project proposes to construct condominium units, Using the on concession allowed under the state densit bonus for the percentage of dedicated unit on the project site. the project is priii sin Attachment 9 Attachment 9-1 TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) Updated to Address Project Revisions as a Result of Appeal to provide a total of 14 tandem parking spaces on Ida Street only. In response to community input and direction from the Design Review Board, the parking on G Street is proposed as side-by-side (3) The design of the subdivision or the proposed Conforms improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental The design of the subdivision and the damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or proposed improvements are not likely to their habitat. cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the subject property: a) is currently a graded and developed site and no known environmental resources are found on this site or immediately surrounding the site; b) is located r k " il in a developed corridor between 3 and Streets and is surrounded by graded and developed properties; and c) neither contains, nor is contiguous to existing wetlands or creeks. There is a creek identified, but it is located on the adjacent property to the north. (4) The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed Conforms improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems in that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA under CEQA Section 15332 (In -Fill projects) because: a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation for the site which allows residential uses at the proposed density (with the State Density Bonus); b) the site is 0.5 acres, less than 5 acre threshold, and is an infill site located in an urban area that is surrounded by development on all sides; c) the entire site has been formerly graded and developed and there are no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings- d) the project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Division and determined to result in 7 additional peak hour trips (3 in the AM peak hour and 4 in the PM peak hour) and determined to have no impact on LOS in the area; e) all utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development. design of the subdivision or the type of proposed Conforms Attachment (-)-,) TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) Updated to Address Project Revisions as a Result of Appeal improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the city may approve the map if it is determined that alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired or secured for public use. CHAPTER 12:— CONDOMINIUMS 15.12.030 Subdivision map. All condominiums of two (2) or more units shall be subject to planning commission approval of a tentative map filed in accordance with this title. 15.12.040 Compliance with Title 14 (Zoning) All condominiums shall comply with the provisions of Title 14, Zoning, for the zoning district in which the condominium is located. In the event that development standards stated in Title 14 conflict with the development standards stated in this chapter, the more restrictive standard shall apply. 15.12.050 Property owners' association a) For all condominiums. a property owners' association shall be established by recordation of the following, (1) Articles of incorporation of the association - (2) Declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC Attachment 9-3 There were no easements identified on the property. Conforms The applicant has submitted for a Tentative map approval for 8 air condominiums on the site. The development proposal has already received conditional design review approval and the Commission is now only reviewing the proposed tentative Map for a minor subdivision. Conforms with variance approval As discussed on page 1 of the attached staff report, the project would require a total of 5 variances. For the G Street townhomes, variances are requested for front entry stair encroachment (11' 8") into the required 15 foot front setback, a 1 foot building encroachment into the required 5 foot side yard setback, and the 50% front yard landscaping (proposing 37%). For the Ida Street townhomes, the project was revised such that the requested side yard variance on the G Street townhome will be limited to the north side of the property. The applicant is requesting a 2 foot encroachment on the north side and no encroachment on the south side of the property. The side yard setback for the south side property line would meet the 5 foot side yard setback requirement. The project proposes to encroach 1 foot into the required 20 foot driveway setback and a variance for a 2 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 5 foot rear yard setback. The Board has reviewed the variances and recommended project approval as designed. Separate findings have been drafted and included in the Resolution attached with the staff report. Conforms As proposed, this project would comply with Section 15.12.050 in that the project would establish .ins- owners" association for the management of the common area TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SAN RAFAEL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 15) Updated to Address Project Revisions as a Result of Appeal Rs), (3) Bylaws of the association. 15.12.060 Recreational facilities, residential condominiums All residential condominium developments shall be designed to include the following recreational facilities: (a) Community center or recreational center buildings shall be provided within the development. (b) Bicycle and pedestrian paths shall be provided through the open, common areas of the development. (c) Common areas for outdoor, active and passive recreation shall be provided in central locations throughout the development. For small residential condominium developments, these recreational facility requirements may be reduced or waived based on development size, location and physical property conditions. Should a waiver from these requirements be requested by the subdivider, an exception to the provisions of this title shall be filed and processed consistent with Section 15,01.120 of this title. proposed within the development and the establishment of declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R' s), and bylaws of the association. The CC&R ) s would include language for maintenance, access, utilities, shared costs and proposed use within the condominiums. CC&R's would have to be submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's office prior to recordation of the Final Map if this project is approved. Does Not Conform The project applicant is seeking a waiver for this requirement due to the small size of the development and the fact that each unit has access to private open space (patio and rooftop garden areas) as well as 732 square feet of common usable open space, equipped with BBQ area and picnic tables. Overall, the project is proposing a total of 2,883 square feet on new landscaping on the project site. Based on the layout of the project site and the ample provision of private and common usable open space areas, staff supports the waiver request, which is discussed on page 8 of the Planning Commission staff report. The approval of this waiver is consistent with the City's position for other smaller downtown projects. 15.12.070 Noise attenuation, residential Conforms condominiums. The compliance with section would be All condominiums shall meet the sound transmission control required with the building permit process. requirements of the Uniform Building Code. At% Ichment 9-4 CRYOF 0.�440K NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 21 G Street - Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of an Environmental Design Review Permit, Variance, Subdivision Exception request (to waive the requirement for a recreation building on site), and Tentative Map (to divide the 8 units into air condominiums) to allow the construction of 8 three-story residential townhomes on a .24 acre through lot between G Street and Ida Street. The G Street project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required front and side yard setbacks, and the 50% minimum front landscaping requirement. The Ida Street project site would require Variances for encroachments into the required rear yard, and the required 20 foot driveway setback. The existing home at 21 G Street would be demolished and replaced with 2 townhomes. Six townhomes would be constructed on the Ida Street; APN: 011-232-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; Daisy Carlson, appellant; David Rasonsky, owner; Stan Camiccia, applicant; File No(s). AP14-001/ED12-058/Vl2-002/TS13-002/EX13-008. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332 (In -Fill Projects). If the Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, June 16, 2014, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Caron Parker, Project Planner at (415) 485-3094 or caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www,citvofsanrafael.orq/meetinqs WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to uphold or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to Esther Beirne, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915- 1560. A letter can also be hand -delivered to the City Clerk's office prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 901h day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the mee June 2., 2014 Esther Beirne, City Clerk City of San Rafael P.O. Box 1515680 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Regarding: 21 G Street The day time parking and congestion on G Street is already unacceptable. There is inadequate street parking for residences and business owners and customers. The on-site parking for this development is inadequate for the proposed units and the residents of the proposed development. Currently, oncoming traffic must stop and pull to the side of street to let oncoming cars pass. The two hour allowed timed parking already is insufficient. Adding more cars, for less space for existing home owners, business and customers of business exceeds capacity. This project will make the current traffic and parking situation worse. Please do not allow this project to go forward without significant on-site parking to cover the future number of prospective tenants for each residential unit at 21 G Street. I do not feel that the waivers for encroachments and the drive way are consistent with the area. The visual impact and safety to pedestrians and traffic is not acceptable. Pete y urn ugh, CPA San Rafael, CA 94901