HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 13746 (21 G Street)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
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2011, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted an
application for Conceptual Design Review (CDR11-004) for a 9 unit townhome development on a
10,836 square foot lot; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly noticed
meeting and reviewed the conceptual design proposed and recommended design changes, including,
but not limited to reducing the number of units, increasing common open space areas and re-
designing the G St. building facade; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2012, Stan Camiccia, project applicant, submitted 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 025 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 detennined 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 (AP 14-001) 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 (VI 2-002), Subdivision Exception (EX13-008), 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 1T 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 #l: "No varuuices 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."
Stuff 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 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. "
Stuff 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 #r5: "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 oil the property rights
and valves 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
(ED12-058)
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 Tinning), LU -8 (Intensity of Residential Development), LU -12
(Building Heights), LU -14 (Land Use Compatibility), LU -23 (Land use Maps and
Categories), H -I (Housing Distribution), H-3 (Designs That Fit Into the Neighborhood
Context), H-19 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements), H-21 (Density Bonuses), H -18b
(Efficient Use of Multifamily Housing Site), H-22 (Infill Near Transit), NH -2 (Nein
Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -17 (Competing Concerns), NH -22
(Downtown Housing), NH -43 (Nest End Design Considerations), CD -2 (Neighborhood
Identity), CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -15 (Participation in
Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping), I-2 (Adequacy of City Infrastructure and Services),
I-4 (Utility Undergrounding), I-6 (Street Maintenance), I-8 (Street Trees), CA -13 (Historic
Buildings and Areas), SU -6 (Nein and Existing Trees), SU -5a (Green Building
Regulations), SU -8a (Affordable Housing), S-6 (Seismic Safety of Nein Buildings), 5-25
(Regional Nater Quality Control Board (RIVQCB) Requirements), N-1 (Noise Impacts on
Nein Development), N-2 (Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use), AW -1 (State and
Federal Standards), and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution From Urban Runofj).
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 HR1 zoning
district;
b. In terms of Chapter 25 review criteria, the project has been designed to incorporate two
distinct streetscapes. The G St. frontage is less bulk and mass and more akin to a single
family residential district, though there are larger buildings at the end of the street. The
original design of the entire project was a flat roof row house design. 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. 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;
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;
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 I foot encroachment into the required 20 foot driveway
setback.
In general, the variance requests are relatively minor in nature in teens 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 15 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 front facade. 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 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 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 14.04.040, there
is a 50% landscaping requirement in the HR1 zoning district. The requested variance
would allow a reduction in the required landscaping from 420 square feet to 312 square feet
(to 102 square feet less than required).
Findinf4s: The variance is considered to be justified given that this portion of the lot is
narrow, at 56 -feet width, whereas 60 -feet is required for a compliant HR1 lot width. Much
of the frontage along the G Street townhomes would be utilized to create the paved
driveway access to provide side-by-side parking. The project was originally proposed with
tandem parking, which would have required less paved area for parking. However, the
project was re -designed based 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 1 1'8" 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 fayade 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.
Findinzs: 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 fayade 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
cantilevered window projection for the two floor levels above the garage. For two of the
units, this cantilevered section extends 2 feet into the required 5 ft. rear yard setback.
Findings: Again, due to the irregular L-shaped lot, site design is more challenging. The
cantilevered section of the rear 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 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 #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;
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
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 full 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.
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 16, 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 Development 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
pen -nit 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 '/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).
Public 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 detennined 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 tirne service is requested
e. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirernents of District Code title 13 — Water
Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confine 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.orr?
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 - Plannin4 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.
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 (storm 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.
1, 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