Loading...
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.