HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2012-05-08 #1
CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: May 8, 2012
Case Numbers: CDR12-001
Project Planner: Steve Stafford – (415) 458-5048
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 809 B Street and 1212 and 1214 2nd Street – Conceptual Review requesting preliminary
comments on a proposal to construct a four-story, mixed-use building with 42 residential
apartment units above 2,063 square feet of ground floor commercial retail space and 49
garage parking spaces on four adjacent lots located at the northwestern corner of B and 2nd
Streets; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 & -32; Second/Third Mixed Use District West (2/3MUW)
and Cross Street Mixed Use District (CSMU) Zones; Rick Strauss of FME Architecture +
Design, applicants; Tom Monahan of Monahan Parker, Inc., owner; Downtown Activity Center
Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU Religious Facility; Parking Lot;
Residences
North: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU Commercial; Residences
South: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU Commercial; Residences
East: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW Commercial; Residences
West: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW Residences
Site Development Summary
Lot Size Floor Area Ratio
Required: 2,000 sf / Building (CSMU)
Proposed: 23,614 sf (Combined)
Allowed: 1.50 FAR or 35,421 sf
Proposed: 2,063 sf
Height Density1
Allowed: 42’
Proposed: 42’
Allowed: 30 units
Proposed: 42 units
Parking2 Landscape (2/3 MUW)
Required: 49 Spaces
Proposed: 49 Covered Garage Spaces
Required: 10% or 1,377 sf
Proposed: 762 sf + Unknown Common Outdoor Area
Plantings
Setbacks (2/3 MUW)3
Required Proposed
Front: 5’ (522.5 sf)
Side(s): NA
Street side: NA
Rear: NA
5’ (737.5 sf)
NA
NA
NA
Notes: 1Based on 13,774 sf of site located within 2/3 MUW District at a rate of 1 unit/1,000 sf and 9,840 sf of site located within CSMU District at
a rate of 1unit/600 sf. The concept project includes a 35% density bonus request.
2Downtown Parking Assessment District satisfies on-site parking demand up to 1.0 FAR of non-residential development.
32nd Street frontage must be landscaped.
2
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Board for concept review for site and building design
improvements. The project proposes to demolish an existing 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building and two
residential structures, one of which is a known cultural resource, and to construct a new, 42-unit,
mixed-use (i.e., residential over ground floor commercial), building with 49 garage parking spaces and
associated site and landscape improvements on four adjacent Downtown parcels with a combined lot
area of 23,614 sq. ft. When the project is submitted for formal review, it will require an Environmental
and Design Review Permit (Planning Commission-level), along with Use Permit (residential use in a
commercial district) and Lot Line Adjustment (development across property boundaries) approvals.
As required for all Commission-level, Environmental and Design Review Permits, the applicant has
submitted for conceptual design review to allow the Board to provide early design comments on the
proposed project. The Board’s recommendations will be considered by the applicant for incorporation
as revisions to the project design prior to formal submittal. Based on review of the applicable design
criteria, which is discussed in detail below, Planning staff identified several issues with the project
design. Planning staff requests that the Board review this report and provide recommendations on the
project’s compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, Planning staff asks the Board to
consider the following:
Architecture
• Whether the proposed concept design of the project adequately respects the neighborhood’s
unique design (architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) qualities, which is predominantly
two-story, historic structures
• Whether the proposed cantilevering of upper-story windows and deck projections over the public
right-of-way (ROW), along the entire B Street frontage and along a smaller, 11’ section of the
Second Street frontage, is ‘good design’.
• Whether the proposed brick or a ‘brick-like’ tile façade material of the project adequately relates to
predominant exterior treatments found on buildings within the immediately vicinity, which is a
combination of horizontal board siding and smooth stucco.
This concept design is substantially similar to a conceptual review conducted by the Board on August
16, 2011, as noted on page 4 of this report.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The site is located at the northwest corner of B and Second Streets in the Downtown. It is comprised of
four contiguous parcels containing approximately 23,614 square feet of combined level lot area. It is
currently developed with a single-story commercial building, approximately 4,500 square feet in size, a
private 48-stall parking lot, and two, two-story, residential structures, one of which is a known cultural
resource that is protected under State environmental regulations (Listed as a local historic resource on
the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey, updated 1986).
The site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The St. Vincent De Paul Society
dining room is located immediately east of the site, on B Street. The 60-unit, Lone Palm Court
apartments are located immediately west of the site, on C Street. A 12’-wide public right-of-way (ROW)
easement, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access from C Street to the site and neighboring
parcels, borders the northwestern property boundary. An existing mature Palm tree is located within
the 12’-wide ROW easement. The eastern property boundary of the site fronts B Street, which provides
a pedestrian link between the Downtown and the Gerstle Park residential neighborhood. The southern
property boundary of the site fronts Second Street, which is a one-way “major” arterial roadway.
3
History:
The site’s commercial building history includes its original use as a restaurant (“Gonzales’ Hacienda”),
followed by administrative offices for the non-profit Center Point Foundation. In 2004, the Planning
Commission approved a Use Permit (UP04-031) to allow a religious institution or church to occupy the
building as an ‘interim’ use’. In 2009, the church submitted a Use Permit application to operate a
seasonal emergency or “warming” shelter for women, which was later withdrawn due to a lack of
funding.
The two, two-story Victorian-era residences (1212 & 1214 Second Street) were originally constructed
together, circa 1887 – 1894. They were constructed along with a third, late-19th Century, Victorian-
period residence (1218 Second Street) that was later demolished and its property incorporated into
development of the Lone Palm Court housing complex. In 1951, a 210 square-foot storefront addition
was constructed to the residential structure at 1214 Second Street. This commercial addition was used
first as administrative offices and, later, as retail services. The residential use continued until
November 15, 2006, when fire damaged the residential structure at 1212 Second Street, rendering it
uninhabitable. Since that time, the City spent significant efforts addressing a reoccurring homeless
encampment issue at 1212 Second Street. The existing residential structure at 1214 Second Street
continues to be legally inhabited.
The Board has reviewed and provided comments on numerous redevelopment proposals for the site,
including:
• On May 3, 2005, the Board conducted Conceptual Design Review (PA04-006) of a project that
proposed demolition of all structures on the four, commonly-owned parcels and construction of 20,
three-story, residential condominium townhomes, within four buildings, with ground floor parking
and 4,100-square feet of commercial space. At that time, the Board expressed favorable support of
the concept.
• On September 19, 2006, the Board reviewed a formal project (ED05-091/UP05-042/SR05-066) for
the site. The project was greatly reduced since the Board’s preliminary review, and proposed a
single, two-story, mixed-use building over two of the four contiguous parcels, with four residential
condominium units above 7,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 15 uncovered
parking spaces. The redevelopment project was reduced as a result of multiple cultural resource
evaluations conducted by the property owner and peer reviewed by the City. This resulted in the
determination by the City that at least one of the existing Victorian-era residential structures (1212
Second Street) is protected by CEQA (Californian Environmental Quality Act). Specifically, the
residential structure at 1212 Second Street was listed on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural
Survey as a ‘local’ cultural resource and determined to have provided worker housing during
construction and operation of the North Pacific Coast Railroad; which maintained a passenger
station and freight house until the late 1950s at the southeast corner of the intersection of B and
Second Streets (behind the current Flatiron Saloon located at 724 B Street), less than one block
away. The redevelopment project would continue to demolish the existing single-story commercial
building at the northwest corner of B and Second Streets.
At that time, the Board again thought the reduced project was well designed, though they
requested more attention to building articulation and fenestration, more generous site landscaping,
and removal of a secondary driveway exit onto Second Street. The Board continued their review to
allow the applicant an opportunity to explore possible revisions to the project.
On March 12, 2008, after 18 months of inactivity on the formal applications, the City deemed the
project automatically withdrawn.
• On March 3, 2009, the Board again conducted Conceptual Design Review (PA09-002) of a project
that proposed demolition of all structures on the four, commonly-owned parcels and construction of
4
a three-story, mixed-use building at the corner of B and Second Streets, with two floors of office
space (15,316 sq. ft.) above ground floor parking (38 parking stalls; both ‘garage’ and uncovered
parking spaces) and retail space (4,400 sq. ft.). The project again proposed to demolish all existing
structures on the combined site, including at least one known historic structure /cultural resource
located at 1212 Second Street.
At that time, the Board expressed concern that the project site and building design were driven
more by the desire to maximize parking on-site rather than creating site and building design that is
appropriate for the site and the vicinity. The Board believed the proposed site design and,
specifically, the proposed parking lot layout, eliminated opportunities to make improvements to the
building design necessary to provide better context with the locally-listed historic structures located
within the vicinity.
• On January 25, 2010, the applicant submitted a formal project to the City, proposing, essentially,
the same project though the site design was revised to reduce on-site parking from 38 to 33
parking spaces and to provide more generous site landscaping while the building design was
improved to provide more attention to building articulation and fenestration.
The Board never reviewed the formal project design. Planning staff provided the applicant with a
Letter of Incompleteness and spent significant time working with the applicant to obtain the
additional information and details still needed prior to review by the Board. On January 26, 2011,
after 12 months of inactivity on the formal applications, the City deemed the project automatically
withdrawn.
• On August 16, 2011, the Board again conducted Conceptual Design Review (CDR11-003) of a
project that proposed demolition of all structures on the four, commonly-owned parcels and
construction of a three-story, 41-unit, mixed-use building at the corner of B and Second Streets,
with three floors of apartments above 1,400 square feet of ground floor retail and 57 garage
parking spaces (including 8 tandem parking spaces).
At that time, the Board expressed support for the proposed contemporary design but found that it
lacked adequate context with the existing architectural design of the immediate neighborhood.
Specifically, the Board believed the proposed scale of the project did not adequately respect the
scale of adjacent structures within the vicinity. In addition, the Board believed that the proposed
ground floor commercial space needed to better relate to both the project and the neighborhood to
create a true ‘pedestrian active’ environment. The Board provided additional direction on
recommended improvements to the proposed design of the project, as follows:
• Provide secured on-site bicycle parking, given the site’s close proximity to the Downtown.
• Provide an off-street loading/unloading space which meets minimum required dimensions for
commercial establishments (10’ x 35’ with 14’ height clearance) and is not located within the
required drive aisle or backup area for required parking spaces.
• Provide ‘meaningful’ courtyard landscaping with amenities
• Control access to the outdoor space; limit access to outdoor space to internal access.
• Provide a ‘rich’ or generous landscape strip along the 2nd Street frontage; landscape “green
screen” wall is not enough.
• Provide details on the project’s proposal for the two-story, Victorian-era, structure located at
1212 2nd Street; which has been deemed a cultural resource protected under CEQA.
• Provide a common, community space or recreational area
Staff notes that the current concept design has been developed further based on these comments.
Staff’s analysis discusses the revisions made in response, beginning on page 9 of this report, under
the ‘Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit’ heading.
5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The Conceptual Design Review proposes to construct a four-story, mixed-use building with 42 ‘rental’
residential units or apartments (41 ‘rental’ units and one,- on-site manager’s unit), 49, at-grade, garage
parking spaces, and 2,068 sq. ft. of commercial retail space located at the northwest corner of B and
Second Streets. The proposed configuration of residences includes 11, one-bedroom/one-bathroom
units, 800 sq. ft. in size and 31, two-bedroom/two-bathroom units, 900 -1,040 sq. ft. in size (17, 900 sq.
ft. units and 14, 1,090 sq. ft. units). The concept project includes a 35% density bonus request.
Site Plan:
The project proposes to demolish all three existing structures on four adjacent lots, including a single-
story, 4,500 sq. ft., commercial building located at the corner of B and Second Streets and two, two-
story, Victorian-era residences along Second Street, one of which is a local cultural resource. The
project proposes to concentrate redevelopment at the southeast corner of the site, at the intersection
of B and Second Streets. Pedestrian access to the ground floor retail tenant areas and the lobby area
to the upper-story residences would be along the B Street elevation. A secondary means of
egress/ingress for residents would be located along the Second Street elevation, at the western
property boundary.
Vehicle access to the site would be off B Street, through a secured, 21.5’-wide, two-way driveway
located along the north property boundary line. This driveway would be located approximately 96’ north
of the intersection at B and Second Streets. The project also proposes 49, covered parking spaces on
the ground floor, including ten (10) tandem parking spaces.
Architecture:
The project proposes a unique. somewhat ‘retro’, design with Craftsmen-style details, predominantly
characterized by a brick-like façade, mullioned, upper-story, bay window-like projections, flat roof form
and wide eaves with outrigger features. Varied articulation and fenestration is created by these eave,
window and balcony projections. Along the B Street elevation, the project proposes storefront windows
and recessed entries to the ground floor commercial space and the lobby area to the residential units
above.
The layout of the project proposes that all upper-story residential units to be accessed from an open,
three-story, central landscaped courtyard. An additional uncovered, landscaped outdoor common or
‘open space’ terrace is proposed on the first residential floor along the north property boundary, which
would be accessed through a ‘community room’ off the central courtyard. Balcony amenities are
proposed for all upper-story units with frontage and many of the interior units. Balconies located along
the Second Street frontage are approximately 38.5 sq. ft. in size and balconies located along the B
Street frontage are approximately 38.5 – 45.5 sq. ft. in size. Balconies associated with interior units,
located along the north and west elevations, are also approximately 38.5 sq. ft. in size. Patio terraces
are proposed for some interior units, located on the second floor immediately above the podium
parking garage. These private patio terraces are associated with units located along the north and west
elevations and will be approximately 110 – 360 Sq. ft. in size.
Landscaping:
All existing landscaping is proposed to be removed from the project site. The project submittals include
a site plan with only conceptual landscaping shown. The project concentrates landscaping primarily
along the Second Street frontage by continuing the existing required 5’ landscape setback provided by
the adjacent Lone Palm Court apartment site design. Additionally, the project proposes to install
landscape trees within raised planters, located with the common areas on the second floor
immediately above the podium parking garage: the 2,250 sq. ft., central courtyard and the 1,325
sq. ft., ‘open space’ patio terrace. The project proposes to either fully replace the existing sidewalk
street trees or preserve the existing sidewalk street trees and add three (3) new street trees along
6
Second Street and two (2) new street trees along B Street. The existing mature, 36”-diameter, Palm
tree located within an adjacent 12’-wide, City easement strip along the northwestern property
boundary, will be preserved.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan land use designation for the site is Second/Third Street Mixed Use (2/3MU). The
2/3MU designation allows office and office-support retail and service uses, and encourages
neighborhood serving and specialty retail uses on cross streets to facilitate an active pedestrian
environment, especially west of B Street. Residential uses are also encouraged on cross streets,
especially west of B Street. The project’s proposed uses are consistent with Land Use Policy LU-23
(Land Use Map and Categories) and the project’s proposed 42-foot building is in accordance with Land
Use Policy LU-12 (Building Height). Staff requests the Board’s guidance in evaluating the project for
consistency with the following design- and historic preservation-related General Plan Policies:
• NH-7 (Neighborhood Identity and Landmarks) seeks to enhance neighborhood identity and
sense of community by retaining and creating gateways, landmarks, and landscape
improvements that help to define neighborhood entries and focal points.
• NH-15 (Downtown Vision) seeks to design infill office and residential development to be
compatible with existing neighborhood qualities, including landscaped front yards and historic
building characteristics.
• NH-29 (Downtown Design) requires new and remodeled buildings in the Downtown to
incorporate design elements that are compatible with and enhance the Downtown’s identity and
complement the existing attractive environment. These design considerations include: 1) Varied
and distinctive building designs; 2) Sensitive treatment of historic structures; 3) Generous
landscaping to accent buildings; 4) Appropriate materials and construction; and 5) Site design
and streetscape continuity.
• NH-32 (Historic Character) encourages new development on sites in the Downtown area to be
compatible with nearby historic buildings, the historic Downtown street pattern and the area’s
historic, pedestrian-oriented character.
• NH-33 (Downtown’s Neighbors) seeks to distinguish Downtown from adjoining neighborhood
areas by, among other goals, providing a gradual transition into adjacent residential
neighborhoods in terms of building scale and intensity of use.
• NH-40 (d) and (e) (Second/Third Mixed-Use District) seeks to make Second and Third Streets a
very attractive, safe and efficient transportation corridor through the Downtown by reducing the
number of driveways that interrupt sidewalks, and develop attractive, screened, easy-to-find
public and private parking areas serving the Fourth Street Retail Core and the Second/Third
Street Corridor.
• NH-41 (Second/Third Mixed District Design Considerations) encourages the creation of an
attractive, creative and varied architecture on Second and Third Streets, with design detail on
all sides of buildings visible to the street or pedestrians. Additionally, A, B, C and D Streets are
important pedestrian links between the Downtown and surrounding residential neighborhood.
Special treatment should be given along B Street as an area of strong historic character.
• CD-2 (Neighborhood Identity) seeks to maintain the urban, historic, and pedestrian character of
the Downtown while preserving and enhancing the scale and landscaped character of the City’s
residential neighborhoods.
7
• CD-3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that
give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design.
New development should respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods.
• CD-4 (Historic Resources) seeks to protect San Rafael’s positive and distinctive image by
recognizing, preserving and enhancing the City’s historic resources.
• CD-9 (Transportation Corridors) seeks to improve the function and appearance of corridor by
addressing building massing, articulation of building facades, detailing, lighting, landscaping,
street trees and other desired infrastructure improvements.
• CD-10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the design
elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas. New nonresidential and
mixed-use development should fit with and improve the immediate neighborhood and the
community as a whole.
• CD-18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design.
Planning staff believes there my still be General Plan consistency issues with the concept design in
terms of architectural context with adjacent historic structures. The San Rafael Historic/Architectural
Survey lists a high concentration of historically significant structures or protected cultural resources
within the immediate vicinity of the site, including seven sites alone within the same 700-block of B
Street. Across the street from the site, both the southwestern and southeastern corners of B and
Second Streets have listed historic structures or cultural resources, including 724 B Street (the ‘Flatiron
Building’), which is also a designated “landmark’. Staff will require additional information and details at
formal application submittal – including a cultural resource assessment/historic resource study, visual
simulations, a geotechnical investigation report and a traffic study – to assess whether the proposed
project meets the applicable General Plan policies.
Staff requests that the Board comment on the following:
• Whether the proposed concept design of the project adequately respects the neighborhood’s
unique design (architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) qualities, which is predominantly
two-story, historic structures.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 5 – Commercial and Office Districts
The site is split zoned; the site is subject to the development standards for the Cross Street Mixed Use
(CSMU) and Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) Districts, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the San
Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance). Those property development standards applicable to
the project are identified in the Site Development Summary matrix located on the front of this report.
As conceptually designed, the proposed project appears to comply with all applicable property
development standards for the CSMU and 2/3 MUW Districts, including maximum building height and
minimum landscaping requirement.
Chapter 16 – Site and Use Regulations
Affordable Housing Requirement
Under both the City’s General Plan (Land Use Policy LU-23; Land Use Map and Categories) and
Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.05.032; Property development Standards for Downtown Commercial
Districts), the maximum allowable density on the site is 30 residential units. Both the City’s General
8
Plan (Housing Policy H-19; Inclusionary Housing Requirement) and Zoning Ordinance (Section
14.16.030; Affordable Housing Requirement) further require that housing projects, which propose more
than 20 new units, provide 20% of the total units at ‘below market rates’ (BMR units) for a minimum of
55 years. Based on the 20% “affordability” requirement, the project would be required to provide 6
BMR units (20% x 30 units = 6 units). The concept project proposes 42 rental units and does not
provide specific details on the number of BMR units. Furthermore, no details were provided to explain
how the concept project proposes to meet the City’s affordable housing requirement. For rental units, a
minimum of 50% of the required BMR units shall be made affordable to very low-income households at
50-80% of the median County income, with the remainder affordable to low-income households at 80-
120% of the median County income level.
If the formal application submittals were to propose that 5 of the 6 required BMR units would be made
affordable to very-low income households, and the remaining required BMR unit would be made
available to low-income households, the project would be eligible for up to a 35% density bonus or 10.5
additional market-rate units and one concession or incentive. Fractional density units are rounded up to
the highest whole number; therefore, the maximum number of density units allowed for the project is
11 additional market-rate units or 41 total units. Thus, the concept project is required to be reduced to
a maximum of 41 rental units in order to achieve the allowable density on the site with a maximum 35%
density bonus.
The concept project also proposes ten (10) tandem garage parking spaces, which is prohibited by the
City’s Parking Standards (Section 14.18.120) unless granted as a concession or incentive for meeting
the affordable housing requirement. The use of tandem parking as a concession under the under the
State Density Bonus law will need to be requested. The concept project indicates that, at formal
application submittal, a request will be made to reduce the number of BMR units proposed; however,
any request for reduction of the number of BMR units provided by the project will have consequences
on both number of ‘density units’ and any concessions or incentives available to the applicants.
Chapter 18 – Parking Standards
The site is located within both the Downtown and the City’s Downtown Parking Assessment District.
The Downtown Parking Assessment District essentially allocates all non-residential parking demand for
the project, up to 1.0 of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), among Downtown public parking lots and structures.
All non-residential parking demand for the project above 1.0 FAR shall meet the City’s on-site parking
requirements, pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, all on-site parking may meet
reduced standards for Downtown development, including a reduced parking rate (1 space per 300
gross building square footage) and reduced parking space dimensions (8.5’ x 18’). For residential
development, new one-bedroom units and new two-bedroom units, less than 900 sq. ft. in size, located
within in the Downtown Parking Assessment District, shall provide one (1) on-site parking space. New
two-bedroom residential units, 900 sq. ft. or greater in size, located within in the Downtown Parking
Assessment District, shall provide 1.5 parking spaces.
As proposed, the concept design is generally consistent with the City’s parking requirements with the
exception of the tandem parking spaces, which requires the granting of a concession by the City under
the State Density bonus law, as discussed above. Additionally, seventeen (17) of the proposed 2-
bedroom units will need to reduced slightly in size, from 900 sq. ft. to 899 sq. ft., in order to meet the
parking provided by the concept design. Surrounding Downtown public parking lots and structures
accommodate the 2,063 sq. ft. of non-residential FAR proposed. The City’s parking standards require
that the project provide 49 on-site parking spaces to meet the residential parking demand, which may
meet reduced Downtown dimensions and may be either covered or uncovered; the concept project
proposes 49, on-site, garage or covered parking spaces.
As proposed, the concept design appears to comply with the following parking standards:
• Minimum Downtown parking stall dimensions, both ‘90°’ (8.5’ x 18’) and ‘parallel’ (8.5’ x 22’)
space designs;
• Minimum aisle width or minimum parking space backup area (26’);
9
• End of drive aisle parking stall access extension (2’);
• Guest parking (None required in Downtown unless within 200’ of a residential district);
• Screening of all parking areas visible from public streets to headlight height through the use of
landscaped earth berms, low walls, fencing, vegetation hedges or combination of trees and
shrub plantings (Concept design proposes a 5’-wide, landscape planter along the Second
Street frontage); and
• Covered, secure bicycle parking.
The formal application submittal will be required to meet the following additional requirements:
• Minimum driveway access width (26’);
• One, off-street loading and unloading space with minimum dimensions of 10’ in width, 35’ in
length and 14’ in height clearance, which may be incorporated into a drive aisle if adequate
backup distance is provide as determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer;
• Parking garage and exterior building lighting designed to provide adequate minimum
illumination levels of:
a) One (1) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided in all exterior doorways and in
all vehicle parking areas; and
b) Minimum one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided along all
outdoor pedestrian walkways.
Chapter 19 – Signs
The City’s Sign Ordinance (Section 14.19.047; Environmental and design Review Permit) requires all
signage shall be incorporated into the design of new commercial or mixed-use (with ground floor
commercial) buildings subject to Environmental and Design Review Permits.
No details are provided in the concept project on how the project proposes to meet the sign needs for
the ground floor commercial space. The formal project will be required to provide proposed sign details
at the time of application submittal. As designed, it appears that the building signage would include a
building ID sign with, possibly, under marquee and window signage for the commercial retail tenants.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
The concept project requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit given that it proposes to
construct a new multifamily residential structure, with three or more units. The project is subject to the
review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review
Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
• Site Design. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in
the vicinity. The development should have good vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access.
Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to provide easy access to building
entrances. The traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be considered.
• Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in
the building elevation; b) pedestrian-oriented design in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient
design; d) provision of a sense of entry; e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal
attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location.
• Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding
area. Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding
landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. Natural materials and
colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be
colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function.
10
• Walls, Fences and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and
loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of
mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building
and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project
design.
• Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide safety for building occupants, but not create glare
or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas.
• Signs. Signs shall be designed consistent with the guidelines of the City’s Sign Ordinance, pursuant
to Chapter 14.19 of the Zoning Ordinance.
• Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site and
existing tree shall be preserved as much as possible. Water-conserving landscape design shall be
required. A landscaped berm around the perimeter of parking areas is encouraged. Smaller scale,
seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian-oriented streets while high-
canopy, traffic-tolerant trees should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets.
The site is located at the corner of B Street, an active pedestrian link to the Downtown, and Second
Street, an active vehicular corridor to U.S. Highway 101. This large, high-profile location provides the
project with a unique opportunity to do “something special” during its redevelopment. This is also a
particularly difficult site for redevelopment, primarily due to the high concentration of historic
structures/cultural resources within the immediate vicinity and the Secretary of the Interior Standards
which protect these by requiring that new development complement or be compatible with, and not
detract from, the historic character of these surrounding sites. Additionally, the review criteria for
Environmental and Design Review Permits require that the proposed design (architecture, form, scale,
materials and color, etc.) of all new development ‘relate’ to the predominant design existing in the
vicinity.
Planning staff believes that the proposed concept design has responded well to many of the Board’s
recommended improvements provided during the project’s last conceptual review on August 16, 2011:
• Covered, secure bicycle parking is provided in the ground-floor garage, adjacent to the
handicap parking area;
• Controlled access is provided to the outdoor ‘open space’ terrace on the second floor (The
previous concept design proposed direct access to the outdoor patio terrace from Second
Street, while the revised concept design proposes direct access to the same common area
from the secured, ground-floor garage);
• More generous landscaping appears to be proposed along the Second Street frontage (The
previous concept design proposed a “green screen” or creeping vine-planted wall at the garage-
level along Second Street, while the revised concept design appears to propose a combination
of shrubs, groundcover and a “green screen” or creeping vine-planted wall); and
• A community room, approximately 822.5 sq. ft. in size, is provided on the second floor that
connects directly to the proposed ‘open space; patio terrace.
The proposed concept design does not provide details on the other recommendations provided by the
Board during the project’s last conceptual review:
• No off-street loading/unloading space details are provided, which meet the required dimensions
(10’ x 35’ with 14’ height clearance) and is not located within the required drive aisles.
• No details are provided for the landscaping and amenities proposed for the uncovered,
“Courtyard” common area; and
• No details are provided for the existing two-story, Victoria-era structure, located at 1212 Second
Street, which has been deemed a ‘cultural resource’ protected under CEQA.
11
The applicant, FME Architecture + Design, has submitted a letter, outlining how the current concept
design has responded to the Board’s comments made during their review of the previous concept
design, which is attached to staff’s report as Exhibit 2.
Overall, Planning staff believes that the proposed concept design is a considerable improvement over
the previous concept design for the site. Greater vertical and horizontal articulation and fenestration is
proposed through varied roof forms, window, balcony and eave projections, and mullioned raised
windows. Scale is improved as the tallest section of the proposed building is located at the corner of B
and Second Streets and decreases in height where it is adjacent to existing buildings; it is four-stories
in height at the corner of B and Second Streets and three-stories in height along Second Street,
adjacent to the Lone Palm Court apartments (3-story), and along B Street, adjacent to building at 821-
823 B Street (2-story). Staff believes the proposed outrigger under-eave projections help to provide
context between the concept design and the predominant architectural character of the surrounding
historic neighborhood and its eave/parapet and window detailing. Staff further believes the distinctive
building base façade material further helps to provide a pedestrian ‘sense of entry’ to both the
commercial tenant and residential lobby areas of the concept building.
However, Planning staff is concerned with the concept design’s proposal to cantilever the upper-story
windows and deck projections along the entire B Street frontage over the public right-of-way (ROW)
and along a 11’ section of the Second Street frontage at the corner of the building. Additionally, staff
has concerns that the proposed façade materials does not adequately relate to that found on buildings
within the immediately vicinity, which is a combination of horizontal board siding and smooth stucco; it
appears the proposed exterior material for the concept project is brick or a ‘brick-like’ tile. Staff
requests the Board’s comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed cantilevering of upper-story windows and deck projections over the public
right-of-way (ROW), along the entire B Street frontage and along a smaller, 11’ section of the
Second Street frontage, is ‘good design’.
• Whether the proposed brick or a ‘brick-like’ tile façade material of the project adequately relates to
predominant exterior treatments found on buildings within the immediately vicinity, which is a
combination of horizontal board siding and smooth stucco.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
On November 15, 2004, the City Council adopted (by Resolution No. 11667) the interim San Rafael
Design Guidelines to give the City staff direction in the design of new development in accordance with
the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Community Design Element’s implementing programs. These
guidelines provide a framework of design principals that builds on the strength of the existing character
of an area and that strives to improve the visual unity of the area. Planning staff requests the Board’s
guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following applicable Downtown-specific and
historic building design guidelines:
Downtown Design Guidelines
Active Pedestrian and Commercial Streets
The B Street elevation of the project site is located within the boundaries of the Active Pedestrian and
Commercial Streets area of the Downtown, where the following specific design guidelines apply:
• The front and street side facades of the ground floor should extend to the property line, with the
exception of public plazas, courtyards or landscape setbacks.
• Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized and ground level parking should be placed
behind buildings.
• Ground floor entries should be frequent, well-defined and well lit for pedestrian safety.
12
• Large storefront display windows should be provided at the street level (i.e., approximately 75%
of clear glass on the primary street level frontage.
• Building design should provide interest and variety at the street level through awnings, entries
and display windows.
• Provide difference in façade treatment between the ground level and upper levels to add visual
interest to the building and the pedestrian experience.
• Heights should be minimized through methods such as building colors, upper-story stepbacks,
and placing rooftop mechanical equipment under eaves.
Second/Third and Environs
The Second Street elevation of the project site is located within the boundaries of the Second/Third
and Environs area of the Downtown, where the following specific design guidelines apply:
• To provide visual interest, long and monotonous walls should be avoided.
• Building walls should be articulated.
• To create a boulevard effect, varied landscape setbacks are appropriate.
• Additional high-canopy, traffic-tolerant street trees are strongly encouraged
• Parking lots should be landscaped between the street and the parking area.
• Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized to prevent vehicular conflicts.
Historic / Architectural Significant Building Design Guidelines
Additionally, the project site is located within close proximity of identified historic/architecturally
significant structures, where the following specific design guidelines apply:
• New buildings, additions or major remodels in the vicinity of a building in the Survey should
respect the pattern, scale and design of the older building, and not create visual distractions.
• Provide an appropriate transition in height between low rise and taller buildings, through
example, careful use of building stepbacks and variable roof heights.
• Windows should be properly proportioned and upper story windows should be vertically aligned
with windows and doors on the ground floor.
• On streets with a concentration of older buildings that have a well-defined design pattern or
rhythm, preserve and complement horizontal building lines, such as cornice lines and window
frames of adjacent architecturally significant buildings.
• On streets with a concentration of older buildings that have a well-defined design pattern, the
size and proportion of window and door openings should be similar to those of surround
facades.
• On streets with a concentration of older buildings, an infill façade should be composed of
materials similar to adjacent facades and should not stand out against the others.
• Relate new roof forms to those found in the area.
Planning staff has no additional issues or concerns with the site and building design of the project
beyond those listed elsewhere in this report.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (the
Downtown BID, the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, and the Federation of San Rafael
Neighborhoods), and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings,
including this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site along both B and Second
13
Street frontages. As a result of this noticing, Planning staff received three (3) email comments (Exhibit
3). Stephen Bowman, the proprietor of Sunrise Home furnishings, located immediately north of the site,
and Alison Buck, Program Director for Homeward Bound of Marin, located immediately east of the site
on B Street, appear to support the redevelopment of the site. Christine Strand, San Anselmo resident,
appears to oppose the proposed quality of the concept design.
CONCLUSION
This application submittal is for a conceptual design review of the project. Conceptual review provides
the applicant with an informal critique and evaluation of the project’s basic design approach. It gives
both the Board and the applicant the opportunity to achieve a quality project. The Board will identify
relevant issues, prioritize concerns and, if possible, develop a consensus as to the appropriateness of
the conceptual design and its compliance with design review criteria and guidelines.
Planning staff is sensitive to the difficulties redeveloping the site presents due to its close proximity to a
high concentration of ‘listed’ historic structures/cultural resources with varied architectural design
(exterior materials, finishes and colors, detail features, etc.); however, any new building on the site will
need to adequately respect, and not detract from, the value of these protected historic or cultural
resources that surround the site. Planning staff believes that the proposed concept design is a
considerable improvement over the previous concept design for the site; it has responded well to many
of the Board’s prior recommendations provided during the project’s last conceptual review. The
concept building’s articulation and fenestration have improved, as has the scale of the concept
building.
However, staff is concerned with the concept design’s proposal to cantilever the upper-story windows
and deck projections over the public right-of-ways (ROW) along both Second and B Street.
Additionally, staff has concerns that the proposed façade materials (brick or a ‘brick-like’ tile) does not
adequately relate to that found on buildings within the immediately vicinity, which is a combination of
horizontal board siding and smooth stucco.
Staff requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Summary section of this report.
Staff also requests that the Board comment on the additional plans and materials or information that
the Board would like to see when the proposed project returns for formal review (i.e., landscape,
lighting photometric plans, photomontage, contextual streetscape renderings, section details, etc.).
Following the Board’s comments, it is anticipated that the applicant will submit their formal design
review permit application.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant’s Response Letter
3. Public Comments
4. Reduced Project Plans
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Tom Monahan; Monahan Parker, Inc. – 1101 Fifth Ave., Suite 300, San Rafael, CA 94901
Rick Strauss; FME Architecture & Design – 500 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA 94111