Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12016 (Condominiums on Lincoln Ave.)RESOLUTION NO. 12016 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR a new 36 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN AVENUE (CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND MISSION AVENUE) (APNs: 011-184-08 AND 09) The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, on May 31, 2005, a revised Environmental and Design Review Permit application and Vesting Tentative Condominium Map application were received by the Community Development Department requesting approval of construction of a 36 -unit residential condominium building at 1203-1211 Lincoln Avenue with associated parking and landscaping improvements, and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2005 a Use Permit application for a height bonus was received by the Community Development Department and on July 6, 2005, the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map and Use Permit applications were deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared analyzing potential environmental impacts of the project and identified potentially significant impacts on Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Noise. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that project impacts could be mitigated to less -than -significant levels through implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with recommended conditions of project approval; and WHEREAS, copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were made available for a 20 - day review period by pertinent agencies and interested members of the public, commencing on July 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2005, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development, and on a 3-2-2 vote adopted a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2005, the Planning Commission approval was appealed, alleging, among other issues, that adopted mitigation measures associated with the demolition of existing historic structures were insufficient, necessitating the preparation of an environmental impact report; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2005, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of the proposed project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Department of Community Development; and granted the appeal, requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated May 2006 (State Clearinghouse #2006012055), which was released for a 45 -day public review period from May 17, 2006 to June 30, 2006 and included a public hearing with the City Council held on June 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received by persons who reviewed the DEIR and has prepared responses to comments received during the 45 -day public review period; and E� S WHEREAS, said comments received on the EIR and a list of those commenting on the DEIR have been attached to and made a part of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Response to Comments Document, July 2006) for said project as required by Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to outline the procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the FEIR; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City desires and intends to use the FEIR prepared for the 1203-1211 Lincoln Avenue project and the General Plan 2020 EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, as the environmental documentation required by CEQA for the discretionary actions required for this project by the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby certify the FEIR based on the findings that: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 2006, and the Response to Comments Document dated July 2006 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, including Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. 2. The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the FEIR and has considered the comments received during the public review period on the DEIR. 3. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure implementation of and compliance with all measures required to mitigate all but two significant impacts to less -than -significant levels. 4. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment in that mitigation measures recommended by the Final EIR and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been incorporated as conditions of project approval and are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael to assure implementation, as follows: a. Impact AIR -1: Demolition and construction period activities could generate significant dust, exhaust and organic emissions. (DEIR, p. 82) Finding: The Mitigation Measures listed as Mitigation Measure AIR -1 (DEIR, p. 83) have been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Conditions 1 and 2) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and are within the responsibility of the City to enforce. b. Impact NOISE -1: Local traffic would generate long-term noise levels exceeding Normally Acceptable noise levels on the project site. (DEIR, p. 92) Finding: The Mitigation Measure listed as Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 (DEIR, p. 92) has been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Condition 3) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. c. Impact NOISE -2: Noise levels from construction activities could range up to 99 dBA Lmex at the nearest residences to the project site for a limited time period. (DEIR, p. 93) Finding: The Mitigation Measures listed as Mitigation Measure NOISE -2 (DEIR, p. 93) have been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Conditions 4-6) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. d. Impact CULT -3: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation and the construction of the subterranean parking garage, building foundations and underground utilities could adversely affect unique archaeological cultural resources. (DEIR, p. 106) Finding: The Mitigation Measure listed as Mitigation Measure CULT -3 (DEIR, p. 107) has been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Condition 10) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. e. Impact CULT -4: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation and the construction of the subterranean parking garage, building foundations and underground utilities could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (DEIR, p. 107) Finding: The Mitigation Measure listed as Mitigation Measure CULT -4 (DEIR, p. 107) has been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Condition 11) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. f. Impact CULT -5: Ground -disturbing activities associated with site preparation and the construction of the subterranean parking garage, building foundations and underground utilities could adversely affect paleontological resources. (DEIR, p. 107) Finding: The Mitigation Measure listed as Mitigation Measure CULT -5 (DEIR, p. 108) has been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Condition 12) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. g. Impact AES -1: The proposed project could increase the amount of light and glare in San Rafael. (DEIR, p. 118) Finding: The Mitigation Measure listed as Mitigation Measure AES -1 (DEIR, p. 118) has been incorporated into conditions of project approval (Condition 13) which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance and is within the responsibility of the City to enforce. 5. The Draft EIR determined that demolition of the structures at 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Avenue would constitute significant impacts since structures on both sites were found to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Places (Impacts CULT - 1 and CULT -2, DEIR p. 104-106). Mitigation measures were identified, including photo documentation prior to demolition, but documentation would not reduce the level of impact to an insignificant level. Since the structure at 1211 Lincoln was found to be historic due to its architecture and not associated with its physical location, relocation of this structure to another site was also suggested as a potential mitigation measure that would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Although it is unlikely that a suitable alternate site could be found in San Rafael for the vicinity due to the lack of vacant, relatively flat lots, and the cost of stabilization, relocation and renovation of the dwelling would likely exceed its value for reuse, a condition of approval has been included (Condition 8) to require the property owner to offer the structure at 1211 Lincoln for relocation by placing an advertisement in the local newspaper of general circulation for a minimum of 30 days. Unless the structure is relocated, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Specific economic considerations make infeasible the reuse and rehabilitation of the historic structures at 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Avenue (the Preserve and Renovate Alternative, DEIR p. 122-123) since rehabilitation costs, excluding land value and associated financing costs, substantially exceed the potential revenues from renting the units as market -rate housing as demonstrated by the cost estimates for renovation of the dwelling units for reuse as code -complying rental housing units provided by the project applicant (Exhibit la — Preliminary Budget for Renovating Existing Units), the verification of the estimated rehabilitation costs by local architect Fred Divine and local contractor Rich Timmons, both of whom have extensive experience in building rehabilitation (Exhibit 1 b — May 3, 2006 letter from Fred Divine) and the economic analysis by Stephanie Lovette, Redevelopment Specialist with the City of San Rafael (Exhibit 1 c — May 15, 2006 memo from Stephanie Lovette). The No Project/No Development Alternative (DEIR, p. 121) is not feasible since retention of the apartment units at 1203 Lincoln Avenue without extensive renovations would be in violation of Section 12.42.080 of the San Rafael Municipal Code due to the presence of numerous violations of the California Building Code and the Uniform Housing Code, as last documented in June, 2002, when 215 violations were identified in 20 units at this property. Mitigation measures contained in the General Plan 2020 EIR that address potentially significant offsite impacts and cumulative impacts of the project have been undertaken by the City of San Rafael or are required to be implemented as part of this project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, subdivision (c). Some mitigation measures contained in the General Plan 2020 EIR, however, are not applicable to the project site in that the site is greater than 500 feet from Highway 101 in terms of air quality effects on sensitive receptors, no hazardous materials exist on site requiring soil remediation, a lighting plan will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and field -reviewed by City staff after installation as conditioned, no creeks, oak woodlands or landslides are present on site, the proposed facility is not a critical facility requiring post -earthquake inspection, the site does not contain and the project does not propose a septic facility and the site is not subject to flooding due to anticipated sea level rise. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, the 7th of August, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Cohen ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None '4 J NNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk I FREDRIC C. DI /11\1 ' ASSOCIATES May 3, 2006 Bob Brown City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Street ad(' San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 1203 Lincoln Avenue Review of� Preliminary Building Renovation Estimate Dear Bob: I am writing, as requested, regarding the above referenced project. We were asked to comment on the construction cost estimates for the renovation of the project structures. Our scope was very limited. It included a site visit to the "motel" portion and inspection of many units on April 4, a site visit and inspection of the "Victorian" building on April 28, and review of the cost breakdown provided by the project applicant and a survey of the site. I was joined on the site visit of the "motel" portion by Rich Timmons of Millenium Construction Group, an experienced contractor whose input I value. I reviewed the applicant's cost estimate in light of the site visit, my observations, some ver) basic area calculations, and the "ballpark" nature of the estimate. I spoke with Mr. .loschart to clarify my understanding of the estimate and with Mr. Timmons to confirm impressions and estimates. I also looked at the actual construction costs for 1103 Lincoln Avenue, a project in which we are involved a block away from the project site that is Stucco and residential. That project is smaller, two story, and in much better shape but the costs are of'some value. I assumed that in the use of terms "renovated" and "rehabilitated" that the level of work was to make the units livable and have the exterior character repaired to be like it was. I do not use the word "restored" as that might involve questions of original use which is not the current use. I have looked briefly at a portion of the staff report and believe this is what was intended. Interestingly, the character of this structure from the exterior is a combination of the structure with the mature landscaping which may have been original. In order to "renovate" the structure much of the landscaping should be removed as the yucca type plants have grown so large that they are causing structural damage. Without those plants an important element of the character would be gone. To change the building to protect the plants would seem foolish. The motel buildings are in very poor shape with significant roof issues, dry rot issues, code issues, and the need for complete new interiors. The applicant's estimate is in line with the costs at 1103 Lincoln. That building was in better shape but had significant basement work included. I lowcver, please note that the shape of 1 103 is a simple I9X,1 FUlIVITI S N ;1 "I', SAN RAFAE:L, CA 91901 (415,' 457 - EXHIBIT lb rectangle of two floors; the motel is narrow and one story with a court between buildings in addition to the auto court. That shape increases the amount of exterior and makes the application of standard square footgge estimates low with relation to exterior work. The applicant has broken his estimate down into categories. Each of those seems reasonable except as noted. The paving item seerrts significantly low. The property has extensive street frontage and interior paved areas, Paving costs are very high because of the high cost of oil. An initial check of the main parking area in front at $3 per square foot would use the entire budget. This does not necessarily allow for removal, does not include the back area, any sidewalks, or street garage approaches. That item should be doubled to $30,000 at a minimum. The exterior finishes estimate seems too low. Based on conversations with the applicant, the stucco would be in exterior finishes. Demolition of' the stucco would be in seismic. We estimated that the stucco alone will be closer to $80,000. As discussed earlier, much of the mature yucca needs to be removed to protect the structure. New mature lanoacaping and, irrigation will be needed to preserve the character. Tine landscaping is all- W small areas which will be more expensive to redo. The lump sum, for this item while apparently seasonable is probably low. Given the poor shape of the structure, the good chance of additional work hidden by existing finishes, and the preliminary nature of this estimate, we think the applicant's addition of a 20% contingency is reasonable and wise. However, we think the base estimate is low, particularly as pointed out above. We think for the motel; portion the base estimate should be $80,000 to $100,0.00 higher. The Victorian is older but in better shape. The interior has original plaster ceilings and nice original wood detailing. The building appears to be about 150.0 square feet. The applicant applied $8.5,000 to its renovation or $57 per square foot before markup. The kitchen and bathroom need to be completely redone with new fixtures and appliances, some of the ceilings are falling in, the building exterior badly needs paint, the entire inside needs paint and floor covering, and the. site deeds to be cleared and at least rudimently landscaped. The roof appears to. be in good repair, although we have no independent verification of that. Some electrical and rt}echagical would need to be done as well. At a preliminary level $8.5,000 would be a nktinimuni budget for very basic renovation. One could argue tltat the character of the ht?use and iitteripp deserygs a better renovation. In 4#dition; Yye know noticing of dry rot and have not discpssed upgrading windows. 1 believe a budget of $80-1 p4 Rei square foot Qr $129,000 to $150,000 would be more realistic. If you add the two base adjustments, the total rangp is $115,0109 to $165,000 higher before markups and $166,0010 to $23$,0.001 after. The numbers diseussed aro in relation to the building renovation portion of the appiicatlt's estimqte only. ''lease calf if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Fre, ric C. Divine hitect SAN RAFAEL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICAl I I IINKLI: FW)M: ti'l'lTI I A N I I " SMITII L0VI I"I'I: SUBJECT: 1203 LINCOLN DATE: 5/15/2006 At your request I have evaluated the financial feasibility of rehabilitating the units on this site for market rate rentals. I do not know the cost of acquisition or the owner's current carrying costs. Since I did not have this information, the analysis assumes that the developer owns the site free and clear and has no carrying costs. I also did not include carrying costs during the construction period. Based on current units advertised in the Marin Independent Journal and the City's rent survey last conducted in 2004, I have estimated that the following monthly rents after rehabilitation: One Bedroom $1,050 Two Bedroom $1,150 llouse $2,300 These rents are probably a little high since most of the advertised units had pools or other amenities and were located farther off the street. The operating costs were based on a similar project at 1103 Lincoln. The property tax estimate was based on a $3,000,000 estimated value. Using these assumptions, the net income after expenses for the 24 units and the house would be approximately $16,000 per month. The net income must be offset by the cost of the rehabilitation and the permanent loan. Based on the owner's figures of $1.8 Million for rehabilitation, we have estimated the construction loan cost to be approximately $154,000 monthly or $2,772,000 for eighteen months. I have assumed a loan of $2,750,000 for the permanent financing. The monthly cost of the permanent financing would l?XCEED the income by approximately $7,000 per month. Since this analysis has not assumed the owner will be reimbursed for the cost of the construction loan or the carrying costs during the construction period, and does not include land costs as noted above, the actual cost to the owner will be much higher than the estimate. Based on my experience with project financial feasibility and conversations with local real estate developers, the rehabilitation project is not financially feasible for a market- Ssl\bmr\1203 Lincoln EXHIBIT lc rate rental project, and would be even less feasible for an affordable Dousing project with rental rates limited to those affordable to lower-income tenants. 2 1203 Mission i 153,620 2,765,160 12 I I 151,189 1,814,268 Monthly Annual 1 BRM 231 1,050 24,150 289,800 2 BRM 1 i 1,150 1,150 13,800 Total 241 (32) 25,300 303,600 Vacancy 5%i (1,265) (15,180) Income 24,035 288,420 Replacement Reserve -per unit 325 7,800 93,600 Operating Reserve -per unit j 325 7,800 93,600 Operating cost -per unit i 3,0_00 7_2,000 864,000 RE Taxes on Est. AV 3,000,000 _3,125 37,500 _ Total Expeses 90,725 1,088,700 Net Income- apartments I _ _ _ (66,690) (800,280) House I 1 2,300 27,600 Total Income (64,390) (772,680)1 18 month construction loan -$1,800,000 @ 8% 153,620 2,765,160 Take Out 15 yr -$1,800,000 #@ 6% I 151,189 1,814,268 Income i (64,390) 2,902,968 Net Loss 86,799 1,088,700 Net Income (86,799), (1,041,588) Months to pay off construction (32)