HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Appeal of Approved 7-Unit Multifamily Residential Bldg. - 104 Shaver Street - Appellant Presentation IShaver Street, 1887
Isaac Shaver Planing Mill
Currently 1 Latham Street
San Rafael Creek
Originally flowed near current
104 Shaver Street (orange shape)
Bird’s Eye View
N
Existing single family home at 104 Shaver Street
-architecture consistent with neighborhood
-two story
-some visibility from Third Street
Proposed 7-unit apartment complex
-modern architecture
-three story
-note zero visibility to Third Street
-note proximity of driveway to corner
of Third Street
Driver’s View:
Upper 3rd to Middle 3rd -Blind Corner at Shaver
Driver’s View:
Lower Third Street
The Shaver intersection is only just
becoming visible beyond the tree.
At the speed of traffic, it is
approximately one second away.
The tree on the corner is located
approximately where the staircase
for the new project will end.
City of San Rafael Collision map 2011-2016
Collision Types
•Broadside
•Rear end
•Sideswipe
•Vehicle-pedestrian
Shaver/3rd Intersection
Shaver/3rd Intersection
Map from saferoutestoschool.org
Car swinging wide on turn onto Shaver, 6:30 am
Shaver/3rd Street Intersection
Too Dangerous for Bicycles
104 Shaver Proposed Footprint due to reductions of Setbacks on all sides
Obstructed View
-Building extends well into the
line of sight
-Trees lining 3rd Street and extending
over the sidewalk block view
-Planter boxes and shrubs block view
-Trees in bioswale on Shaver Street
further block view
-Cars exiting the driveway cannot see
oncoming traffic from 3rd Street
As proposed, this project unacceptably makes an already dangerous intersection untenable.
San Rafael General Plan 2020, Zoning as of 2017 Density Affects:
Traffic, Safety, and Parking
For approximately 20 years,
104 Shaver has been zoned
for 15-32 housing units
per acre.
At 0.13 acre, this parcel
should have
1.95 to 4.16 housing units;
7 is asking too much of this
lot.
Especially since they can not
comply with minimal
parking requirements for
HD.
Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study of 2017
study conducted in 2015
“…an area determined to have ample street parking in the vicinity…”
June 1, 2020-San Rafael City Council Agenda Report
Existing and Proposed Footprints
With current COVID conditions
Has there been a
Lack of Due Process?
Residents sense that this project is being
Pushed Forward
WITHOUT
necessary Studies and Assessments:
Parking and Traffic Impacts
Regarding the Developer:
•The Public Commentors were told after the DRB meeting 12/19 by the
Developer that ATT had agreed to let them stage the construction in the
ATT parking lot. This was not the truth.
•When I spoke with the Property Manager of ATT, he emphasized that there
would be absolutely no access to the parking lot given to anyone. “Not on
My watch.” was his quote.
•This developer does not live in Marin, and has made zero suggestions of
ways to try and align with the neighborhood.
•For weeks, 4-5 Fontana vehicles were parked on Shaver and Latham making
parking much worse than usual.
•As proposed, this project feels like a Neighborhood Bully.
1. Process has been flawed:
•A petition with 32 signatures was presented at DRB meeting 12/19. It
was mentioned just once and slid aside.
•6 members of the public attended to express concern.
•The petition was not included in the file as it passed from DRB to
Planning Commissioners.
•There was no mention of the 6 people expressing their concerns in the
Staff report to the Planning Commission
•Planning was told there had been 3 public comments.
•Public outcry was silenced.
2. The process has been flawed…
•Making public comment on
YouTube is very cumbersome
and several of my comments
were not read at Planning mtg.
•The contact information to
appeal was incorrect, both the
email and the phone number
and the deadline to appeal.
•Parking was described as ample
and this purportedly came from
Public Works and Community
Development. When I asked
Senior Planner exactly WHO had
said that, he told me he had
misspoken…that it was his
phrase.
•PARKING IS NOT AMPLE.
Current Public Comments
111 Signatures on Petition of Concern
re. Safety, Traffic, Flooding
•77 Public Comment Letters
•ATT : Sound concerns re. 24/7 use of 2 Industrial Air conditioners
•Former Planning Commissioner
•Lawyer that made first 3 public comments in 12/19
•Baker at Pondsford Place
•73 Concerned Neighbors, Visitors, Customers and Local Employees
Please RE-EVALUTE plans for 104 Shaver Street
•After COVID, conduct Traffic Safety Assessment and Parking Study
•Reduce the number of units and the footprint of the project
•Meet the meager Parking requirements for High Density buildings
•Consider the Neighborhood character and find ways to align better
with current difficult realities that already exist around Safety, Parking
and Flooding.
What l Believe…
THIS APPEAL AFFORDS AN OPPORTUNITY
…to begin to rekindle Public Trust in
City Leadership.