Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2014-08-05 #2CITY OF Meeting Date: August 5, 2014 Case Numbers: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003; mow,` IS12-001 Project Planner: Steve Stafford — (415) 458-5048 Community Development Department — Planning Division REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 815 B St. (formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) — Requests for an Environmental and Design Review Permit, a Use Permit, a Lot Line Adjustment and Environmental Review to allow the construction of a new, 4 -story, mixed-use apartment building proposing 41 upper - story rental units and 2,031 square feet of ground -floor commercial space, and 48 garage parking spaces, on four (4) adjacent parcels located within downtown San Rafael. The project proposes to demolish the existing structures on the site, including two single-family residential units that have been identified cultural resources; APN's: 011-256-12, -14, -15 &-32; Second/Third Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) & Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) District; Rick Strauss of FME Architecture + Design, Applicant; Tom Monahan and Jonathan Parker of Monahan Parker and Harold Parker Properties LP, Owners; Downtown Neighborhood. ***Continued from the July 8, 2014 Design Review Board Meeting*** PROPERTY FACTS Site General Plan Designation Project Site: 2/3 MU North: 2/3 MU South: 2/3 MU East: 2/3 MU West: 2/3 MU Lot Size Required: 2,000 sf/Bldg (CSMU) Proposed: 23,614 sf (Combined) Height Allowed: 42' Proposed: 42' Parking Required: 47 spaces Proposed: 48 garage spaces Outdoor Area (Min.) Required: 4,100 sf (100 sf/unit) Proposed: 7,398 sf total Grading Total: 1,500 Cu. Yds. Cut: 1,500 Cu. Yds. Fill: 0 Off -haul: 1,500 Cu. Yds. Zoning Designation 2/3 MUW; CSMU 2/3 MUW; CSMU 2/3 MUW; CSMU 2/3 MUW 2/3 MUW Existing Land -Use Church use, Parking Lot & 2 residential dwelling units Commercial; Residences Commercial; Residences Commercial; Residences Lone Palm Court Apartments Floor Area Ratio (Non-residential) Allowed: 1.50 FAR or 35,421 sf Proposed: 2,031 sf; Density Allowed: 30 units Proposed: 41 units (35% density bonus) Landscape Area (213 MUW) Required: 10% (1,377 sf). Proposed: Unknown Setbacks (2/3 MUW) Tree Removal Total(No.ispecies): 7 (3 on-site; 1 off-site; 3 street trees) Requirement: None Proposed: 9 Trees (1 off-site; 8 street trees) Required Existing Proposed Front: 5' n/a 5' Side(s): n/a n/a n/a Ext side: n/a n/a n/a Ped. side: n/a n/a n/a Rear: n/a n/a n/a Tree Removal Total(No.ispecies): 7 (3 on-site; 1 off-site; 3 street trees) Requirement: None Proposed: 9 Trees (1 off-site; 8 street trees) BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION The project site includes four (4) adjacent Downtown parcels located at the northwest corner of B and 2nd Streets (809 B Street and 1212 and 1214 2nd Street). It has a long history of both conceptual and formal reviews by the City's Design Review Board (Board) for redevelopment The current project proposes to demolish an existing 5,000 sq. ft. commercial building and two residential structures, both of which are cultural resources, and construct a new, four-story, 41 -unit, mixed-use (i.e., residential over ground floor commercial) building with garage parking spaces and associated site and landscape improvements. The project requires an Environmental and Design Review Permit (Planning Commission -level), a Use Permit (residential use in a commercial district) and a Lot Line Adjustment (development across property boundaries). The project will require the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (currently ongoing) to evaluate a "Potentially Significant Impact" on Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, and will require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration by the City Council due to the proposed loss of two cultural resources. (Specific comments provided by the Board during conceptual review, comments made during the required Neighborhood Meeting a summary of the Initial Study prepared for the project is attached to staff's report as Exhibit 2.) On August 20, 2013, the Board conducted formal review of the project. At that time, the Board requested that the project return for their review to address the following design issues (The meeting is available for review on the City's website at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings • Further reduce the massing of the building at the corner by one full floor; • Eliminate all or most of the upper -story bay window, deck and eave projections into the required setback and over the sidewalk; • Provide more building articulation along the 2nd Street frontage; 'stepback' the top floor to reduce the perceived mass of the project; • Provide more of, or identify better, the character -defining elements of the neighborhood to connect with the project design; • Provide more successful or meaningful usable outdoor areas, both common and private, in location, size and/or amenities; • Not providing an on-site loading/unloading area is acceptable; • The canopy projection provides a successful pedestrian scale; • The proposed location of the access driveway along B Street is appropriate though the pedestrian scale along B Street needs improving though the reduction of the driveway width as much as possible and providing a paving pattern at the driveway entrance; • On-site landscaping should be provided along the B Street frontage to improve the pedestrian scale; and • The Board has no preference on the Project Alternatives currently being reviewed by the EIR but, instead leave it up to the EIR to analyze. On July 8, 2014, the Board continued their formal review of the project. At that time, the Board requested that the project return for their review to, again, address the following design issues (The meeting is available for review on the City's website at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/). The Board's recommendations are provided below in bold, followed by staff's comments: • The stepback of the 4th floor has improved the scale of the proposed building. The revised project design continues to stepback the 4th floor level of the building along both B and 2nd Street elevations as previously proposed. The revised project design reduces the scale or perceived massing of the proposed building by stepping back the fourth floor, generally, 43' from the building fagade along the B Street frontage (the proposed elevator and stairwell penthouse will 2 stepback 10' from the building fapade). Additionally, the project redesign includes a 10' stepback of the 2nd and 3rd floors and a 25' stepback of the 4th floor above the podium along a majority of the 2nd Street frontage. The revised project is able to reduce the building mass by, predominantly, eliminating the central courtyard feature of the original design. The revised project also reduces the building mass by reconfiguring the residential units. While the number of units has not changed, their configuration has. The number of 2 -bedroom units has been reduced from 30 to 11 units while, correspondingly, the number of 1 -bedroom units has increased from 11 to 30. The revised project has increased the number of units on the 2r�d floor from 13 to 18 units and on the 3rd floor from 15 to 18 units and decreased the number of units on the 4th floor from 13 to 9 units. Staff's Comments. Staff finds the redesign of the project has successfully reduced the perceived massing of the proposed building, particularly at the corner of B and 2nd Streets. • The corner `tower' element needs better detailing to provide a better `statement', such as extending the cornice detailing. The revised project design has incorporated the following modifications to emphasize the corner `tower' element better: • The bay windows or the corner 'tower' element (first 10' from the corner of the second and third floors along both the B and 2nd Street elevations) have been extended out over the sidewalk along the 2nd frontage, to encroach two feet (2') into the public right-of-way (ROW); and • The cornice cap has been extended on top of the third floor parapet along both the B and 2nd Street elevations. Staff's Comments. While no detail of the cornice cap is provided in the most recent redesign of the project, it appears to Planning staff that it will provide dimensional treatment of the third floor brick parapet by projecting approximately four inches (4") out from the building wall plane. Planning staff finds this `wrap around' projection along the third floor brick parapet provides greater overall articulation for the project. Staff finds that installation of the same dimensional cornice cap at the top of the garage podium parapet along the 2nd Street elevation would further articulate the building. However, it is staff's understanding that the Board wanted to see the frieze detailing, the decorative molded band below the cornice and above the window, also extend further along both the B and 2nd Street elevations as part of the cornice 'wrap around'. The Department of Public Work (DPW) conditionally supports the most recent redesign of the project, which includes a 5' -wide canopy projection above the pedestrian level along the,entire B Street frontage and wrapping around the corner along the 2nd Street frontage, subject to the project obtaining a Licensing Agreement. However, DPW continues to oppose that portion of the redesign that locates 'livable area', the bay windows or the corner 'tower' element, encroaching two feet (2') into the ROW along the 2nd Street elevation. • The 2nd Street elevation is too `horizontal' and needs more detailing and articulation. The revised project design has incorporated the following modifications to de-emphasize the horizontalness of the 2nd Street elevation with more detailing and articulation: • The bay windows or the corner 'tower' element (first 10' from the corner of the second and third floors along both the B and 2nd Street elevations) have been extended out over the sidewalk to encroach two feet (2') into the public right-of-way (ROW); • The cornice cap has been extended on top of the third floor parapet along both the B and 2nd Street elevations; Though no detail is provided, it appears the approximately six inches (6") from the building planter along the 2nd Street elevation; and garage podium support columns project out wall plane into the raised landscape filtration 3 • The previously proposed 5' -wide canopy projection above the pedestrian level has returned to the project design along the entire B Street frontage and wrapping around the corner along the 2nd Street frontage, approximately 50'. Staff's Comments. Staff finds the most recent redesign of the project de-emphasizes the horizontalness of the development along the 2nd Street frontage by providing more detailing and building articulation. Staff finds that installation of the same dimensional cornice cap at the top of the garage podium parapet along the 2nd Street elevation would further articulate the building. Additionally, it is staff's understanding that the Board wanted to see the frieze detailing, the decorative molded band below the cornice and above the window, also extend further along both the B and 2nd Street elevations as part of the cornice 'wrap around'. Lastly, it should be noted that DPW conditionally supports the most recent redesign of the project, which includes a 5' -wide canopy projection above the pedestrian level along the entire B Street frontage and wrapping around the corner along the 2nd Street frontage, subject to the project obtaining a Licensing Agreement. However, DPW continues to oppose that portion of the redesign that locates `livable area', the bay windows or the corner 'tower' element, encroaching two feet (2') into the ROW along the 2'd Street elevation. • The B Street elevation needs more detailing and articulation to create a better pedestrian character. Building projections over the public sidewalk/right-of-way is `OK'. The revised project design has incorporated the previously proposed 5' -wide canopy projection above the pedestrian level to the project design along the entire B Street frontage and wrapping around the corner along the 2nd Street frontage, approximately 50'. Staff's Comments. Staff finds the return of the previously proposed canopy projection over sidewalk along the entire B Street frontage and wrapping around a portion of the building's 2nd Street elevation, together with the proposed storefront windows, recessed entries, and 2' -wide raised landscape planter, all add to creating a pedestrian character for the project along the B Street frontage. (The revised project submittal does not include landscape plans so no planting details are available for any of the proposed landscaping.) Staff finds, however, the support post or column for the canopy projection cumbersome at best since it will install a physical impediment to pedestrian travel along the public sidewalk. Staff finds either the project should propose appropriate structural materials for the canopy projection, such as aluminum, to eliminate the need for a support column altogether or the length of the canopy projection out from the building wall plane should be reduced to eliminate the need for a support column. Once again, please note that DPW conditionally supports the most recent redesign of the project, which includes a 5' -wide canopy projection above the pedestrian level along the entire B Street frontage and wrapping around the corner along the 2nd Street frontage, subject to the project obtaining a Licensing Agreement. However, DPW continues to oppose that portion of the redesign that locates 'livable area', the bay windows or the corner 'tower' element, encroaching two feet (2') into the ROW along the 2nd Street elevation. The "Outdoor Community Space" is not very usable for the residents and needs to include an adjacent indoor common kitchen and permanent amenities, both inside and on the patio. The revised project design is proposing to increase the square footage of usable outdoor area, both common and private, from 5,379 sq. ft. to 7,398 sq. ft., including: • A 1,500 sq. ft. "Outdoor Community Space" on the 3rd floor level roof deck along the B Street frontage which would be accessed from the elevator/stairwell `penthouse'; • A 953 sq. ft. "Outdoor Community Space" located on the 2nd floor level on the north (interior) building elevation, adjacent to the "Landscape Filtration" area, 2 A 519 sq. ft. `residential lobby' at the pedestrian level "...set up like a living room with seating for informal meetings"; and Private outdoor decks and balcony projections for 31 of 41 units, totaling 4,426 sq. ft., all located along the north (interior) and south (2nd Street frontage) building elevations. Staff's Comments. The minimum required usable outdoor/indoor area for the project is 4,100 sq. ft. (100 sq. ft./unit). Staff finds the most recent redesign of the project clearly exceeds the minimum requirement for size. However, staff continues to find that the project redesign falls short of the Board's recommendation that this community area be thoughtfully designed into the project and provide quality amenities for the perspective residents. No details are provided on the permanent amenities proposed for these "Outdoor Community Space" areas on the 2nd and 3rd floor levels. Staff continues to question the usability of the "Outdoor Community Space" on the 2nd floor level; given that access is limited by a 5' x 45' uncovered walkway. Staff finds the conceptual design for the project had originally proposed truly meaningful usable outdoor/indoor area. At that time, the conceptual design of the project proposed a 900 sq. ft. "Community Recreational Room" with full kitchen amenities and bathroom, located on the 2" floor level. Staff finds that the project would better meet the required usable outdoor/indoor area by eliminating the currently proposed 953 sq. ft. "Outdoor Community Space", located on the 2nd floor level, altogether. And, instead, focus the project's attentions on the 1,500 sq. ft. "Outdoor Community Space" on the 3`d floor roof deck by providing comprehensive genuine amenities for the benefit of the residents, such as an outdoor fireplace, all-weather seating, shading structures, a garden water feature (waterfall, fountain, etc.), planter landscaping and an outdoor BBQ. • Give consideration to saving the Victorian -era structures on the site; the loss of these historic structures is undesirable. The revised project design continues to propose demolition of the two Victorian -era structures though the applicant is proposing to document by photograph these historic structures for posterity. Staff's Comments. The proposed loss of these historic structures ,will result in a significant unavoidable environmental effect for which there is no mitigation. The project will require the preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (currently ongoing) to evaluate a "Potentially Significant Impact" on Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, and will require the adoption of a Statement of Findings of Overriding Consideration by the City Council. This statement must describe: 1) the specific reasons the City supports the project; and 2) how the City balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks to substantiate the project. These 'benefits' can be economic, legal, social, technological, and can include region -wide or statewide environmental benefits. The applicant has not formally provided staff with the 'benefits' of the project other than the 'implied' benefit of providing needed Downtown housing that are `affordable' by design or smaller unit size. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the hearing for the resubmitted 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 (Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), and all other interested parties, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the site along both the B Street and 2nd Street frontages. At the time the staff report was printed, staff had received no new comments on the resubmitted project. 5 CONCLUSION Staff finds the revised project design responds with some success to the recommendation provided by the Board to expand the level of articulation and detailing along both the B and 2nd Street frontages. However, staff finds refinement in the project's level of articulation and detailing is still in order. DPW continues to oppose that portion of the redesign that locates 'livable area', the bay windows or the corner `tower' element, encroaching two feet (2') into the ROW along the 2nd Street elevation. Staff finds the project's proposed usable outdoor/indoor areas to be more 'size over substance'; staff finds that the project would better meet the required usable outdoor/indoor area by eliminating the `hard -to - find' "Outdoor Community Space", located on the 2nd floor level, and, instead, concentrate on providing comprehensive genuine amenities to the "Outdoor Community Space" on the 3`d floor roof deck, such as an outdoor fireplace, all-weather seating, shading structures, a garden water feature (waterfall, fountain, etc.), planter landscaping and an outdoor BBQ, which will provide a truly usable benefit of the prospective residents. Staff requests the Board comment on the design appropriateness of the most recent revisions to the project made in response to the previous directions given by the Board. Specifically, staff requests the Board's comments on the following items: • The appropriateness of the expanded corner `tower' detailing. • The appropriateness of locating 'livable area' into the ROW along the 2nd Street elevation. • The appropriateness of the expanded level of articulation and detailing along the 2nd Street elevation to de-emphasizes the horizontalness of the proposed building. • The appropriateness of the expanded level of articulation and detailing along the B Street elevation to create pedestrian character for the site. • The appropriateness of the usable outdoor/indoor area proposed by the project. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Summary History of Project Review 3. Original Project Plans (Reductions provided to the Board only) 4. 1st Revised Project Plans (Reductions provided to the Board only) 5. 2nd Revised Project Plans (Both full-size plan sets and reductions provided to the Board only) cc: Tom Monahan — 1101 Fifth Ave., Suite 300; San Rafael, CA 94901 Jonathan Parker — 1101 Fifth Ave., Suite 300; San Rafael, CA 94901 Rick Strauss — FME Architecture + Design; 500 Montgomery St.; San Francisco, CA 94111 Lisa Newman — Newman Planning Associates; 2201 Mulberry Terrace; San Rafael, CA 94903 Diana Painter — Painter Preservation & Planning; P.O. Box 2899; Salem, OR 97308 11 Street (Formerly 809 B St.; 1212 and 1214 2 "d St.) Exhibit 1 Summary History of Project Review 815 D Street (Currently 809 B Street and 1212 and 1214 2nd Street) ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Conceptual Design Review On May 8, 2012, the Board conducted Conceptual Design Review (CDR12-001) of the most recent redevelopment proposal for the site, which proposed to demolish all structures on the four adjacent parcels and construct a four-story, 42 -unit, mixed-use building, with three floors of apartments above 2,063 square feet of ground -floor commercial space along the B Street frontage and 49 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 (scale, colors and materials) with the existing design of the immediate neighborhood, particularly along the B Street frontage. The Board provided additional direction on recommended improvements to the proposed design of the project, as follows: • The Board believed that the corner portion of the project is too big and too high; they recommended stepping back the top floor, providing a setback to create plaza -type building entrances and eliminating cantilever window and deck projections over the public right-of-way. • The Board recommended greater `stepback' of the fourth floor, generally, along both the B Street and 2nd Street frontages. • The Board recommended greater building articulation and detailing, particularly with the windows along both the B Street and 2nd Street frontages. • The Board requested specific details, including alternatives, on the proposed disposition of the existing Victoria -era structures on the site A video of the Board's May 8, 2012 meeting may be viewed at http://www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetings/ Neighborhood Meeting On March 12, 2013, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.8038, a Neighborhood Meeting was conducted by the applicant on-site, at the church facility located in the existing commercial building. Planning staff assisted by noticing the Neighborhood Meeting consistent with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Meeting was attended by approximately 20 residents and interested parties. Comments provided during the Neighborhood Meeting included: • The two Victorian -era structures should be preserved and rehabilitated "at all costs" as part of the project either on-site or off-site, with relocation only if an appropriate alternative site is found. • Meeting the City's parking standards is not enough; the parking demand for the project needs to be thoroughly evaluated and mitigated, if necessary, for impacts on the adjacent Gerstle Park neighborhood. • The proposed design of the project is out of context with the predominant design character (architecture, scale, materials and colors) in the vicinity, particularly along B Street. • The two Victorian -era structures should be preserved, relocated and rehabilitated but not at the expense of the proposed project or the proposed redevelopment of the site. • The proposed project should provide better neighborhood context by reducing the building to two -stories and the site redevelopment should provide significant landscaping. • The commercial space presence proposed by the project should be increased along the 2 I Street frontage. • The corner treatment of the building design should push up rather than step down. 1 EXHIBIT 2 • The site provides great bicycle access to the Downtown, shopping and mass transit; it should be an important part of the project. • The upper -story bay window and balcony projections over the sidewalk should be supported, as it helps to break up the building mass and is a fairly common practice in other cities. • The extensive use of brick along the building exterior is excessive and overpowering; additional exterior materials should be incorporated in the building design to help break up the massing of the building. • The interim church use indicated an interest in staying at the site, within the proposed new ground -floor commercial space. • Local contractors and labor should be used in building the project. Environmental Review An Initial Study (IS12-001) has been prepared for the project by Newman Planning Associates (NPA) which has determined that the project will have "No Impact", a "Less Than Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" on the following environmental factors and do not warrant further study: Agriculture Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities/Service Systems. The Initial Study determined that the project will have a "Potentially Significant Impact" on the following environmental impact categories: • Aesthetics — Impact to scenic resources or visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings due to the proposed design of the new 4 -story building in relation to adjacent historic properties; and • Cultural Resources — Impact to historic resources due to the proposed demolition of two (2) historic structures (1212 and 1214 2nd Street) on the project site. Due to these "Potentially Significant Impacts", the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project, which will focus on these potentially significant impacts as follows: Aesthetics The Initial Study is supported by an Historic Resource Report prepared by Diana Painter of Painter Preservation and Planning, dated June 2013, which determined that the proposed demolition of the historic resources at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street will have an effect on the known or `listed' historic properties on B Street between 745 and 848 B Street and 1201 and 1115 2nd Street. The historic character of this important corner will be lost, and the urban design character will be affected by changes in the scale, design, materials, workmanship, detailing, and architectural character of the proposed new structure. The character of the street will also be affected by the proposed garage entrance on B Street, which will affect the pedestrian environment. The Initial Study additionally determined the proposed new structure has a negative effect on the present historic residential and commercial character of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the intersection of 2nd and B Streets. It has a particularly negative effect on 2nd Street, due to the loss of residential scale and amenities along this street, including front porches, architectural features such as bay windows, and small scale architectural detailing, and the opportunity for interaction between people and the built environment in this location. The proposed design features at the corner of 2nd and B Street, and the retail frontages along B Street do not relate to the traditional historic character of this street and late nineteenth century commercial streets in general, which are typically more conducive to pedestrian activity. In addition, the historic character of the neighborhood, the late nineteenth century V setting for the project, is significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative effect of prior demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered around the railroad station and early commercial development in this area. The EIR will include analysis of potential design mitigation measures as well as project alternatives to address this significant adverse impact. Cultural Resources The Initial Study, through the Historic Resource Report, finds that the residential structures at 1212 and 12142 Id Street meet two of the four Eligibility Criteria of the State of California. These criteria are used by the State and local agencies to determine whether, under CEQA, impacts to a historic property as a result of a project proposal have the potential to create a substantial adverse change to the resource. In order to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources and be determined significant, a historical resource must meet one or more of the four criteria. Therefore, the properties are deemed historic resources and proposed demolition is considered a "substantial adverse change". A substantial adverse change is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities, which would impair historical significance. In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria, a property must also retain its integrity. Integrity is defined as a function of a property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Historic. Resources Report finds that the structures both retain integrity. The proposed demolition of the historic structures at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street would be a potentially significant adverse impact, requiring the preparation of an EIR. On June 24, 2013, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to the Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and all interested parties (Planning Commissioners, responsible agencies, utility providers, neighborhood groups and property owners and occupants within a 300' radius) announcing the initiation of the EIR process, providing a 30 -day review period and soliciting comments on the scope of issues to be addressed and alternatives that should be considered in the EIR. The 30 -day review period for the NOP ended on July 23, 2013, culminating with the Planning Commission (Commission) holding a scoping session. The purpose of the public hearing was also to solicit those comments on the issues and alternatives to be studied in the EIR. At the scoping session, the Commission supported the determinations in the Initial Study and, after reviewing the project and accepting all public comments, identified 'legitimate' potential alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. As directed by the Commission, these 'project alternatives', in addition to the 'no -project' alternative, include: 1. A reduced project which preserves either one or both historic structures on-site, either in their existing location or relocated on-site, and builds a smaller project (`Preservation On-site — Cultural Resources' Alternative); 2. A reduced and redesigned project which preserves either one or both historic structure on-site, in their existing locations or relocated on-site, and responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact by redesigning the project to better respect the historic physical context of B Street ('Preservation On-site — Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 3. A revised project which preserves and relocates either one or both historic structures off-site to a publicly -owned or privately -owned site ('Preservation Off-site — Cultural Resources' Alternative); 4. A revised project which relocates one or both historic structures to an off-site location where they will be preserved and restored, and which responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact by redesigning the project to better respect the historic physical context of B Street (`Preservation Off- site — Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 5. A reduced and redesigned project which responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact through modifications to project scale, massing, materials and pedestrian access to achieve a 3 design that better respects the physical historic context of structures along B Street (`Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 6. A revised project which reduces the loss of historic context by preserving the character -defining historic features of the two historic structures and incorporating these features into the project design ('Adaptive Reuse' Alternative); and 7. 'No project' (as required by CEQA). A video of the Commission's July 23, 2013 scoping session may be viewed at http://www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings/ 19 w LLJ cn W1111 Z Q L EXHIBIT 3 1411 -AVL Sass ° ° $ UP =- " W poll - a all, 51 1 < L EXHIBIT 3 1411 -AVL e I r n U -J »LU # 0 Cieco §} �3 CN 7 . � e I r n 1 L� I I I I I ro[ fl/L ®= n-�I=.ALAVI ' a ee o� s o e i i i o ei a i s o •C I ill. 'S�: � 11. ..� I■ i�l 'I hail je:iiiiiii 11.11—" five.INN ME � 1 1, M! = �r3[111L js�llfl?' i�4l.lii'i¢;; � w.67r'i'A.ji , [ � L. hi:•' .1Txi'ddl,pi i iI= 2; . a 1vot ill. 'S�: � 11. ..� I■ i�l 'I hail je:iiiiiii 11.11—" five.INN ME � 1 1, M! = �r3[111L js�llfl?' i�4l.lii'i¢;; � w.67r'i'A.ji , [ � L. hi:•' .1Txi'ddl,pi is I kl.t. w6j, IT���"l JOIN "Al"i'liil " `4 141, Ink -- ou gril 4© ®&-I -M ®q"d--Sn ®&A-.9VL J z - rV F. U, MON. Ig M, IInWO M-willioll A 1� lumflj d 1119 1 ON Iwo w OR Imm, Im a F j; =;-, AN 6 L (' LL rvgceS W _�,r�- 3 ,I �vZ L L — & �. LO LU ~. LU ULJ O - co o z Q � w 6-.9 Wye �= RH Q Z 8 t as N m t Ea o ua EXHIBIT 4 O Q i[ qlmp� %� II �ssaaG����F ddo'3���ui o �3-LL.�sd6a W�000 Sze W na ��Y< SWES N ,jo 00 go g 3 = 0 Dal ei W911p s 1 11 i HUM MOM MUM E� �g=gamo ogee N �W O 'fie sob -F# I N gmw s gaW mM2 LLJ . i ] o .s5 ,s^ o J W _�,r�- •.Iv�SL ,I LO LU LU w ce - co o z Q i[ qlmp� %� II �ssaaG����F ddo'3���ui o �3-LL.�sd6a W�000 Sze W na ��Y< SWES N ,jo 00 go g 3 = 0 Dal ei W911p s 1 11 i HUM MOM MUM E� �g=gamo ogee N �W O 'fie sob -F# I N gmw s gaW mM2 LLJ . i ] o .s5 ,s^ o Im _�,r�- •.Iv�SL •r���. '�,'1 4 Wit- m s� - o �� 6-.9 Wye �= RH I-� Z � 8 t as ua EXHIBIT 4 Im CD n �-- z z Z Q Lu LU 0 s w� CV CO z Q V�. J F 1 4 I I I I I I I I ,________—__— 133i11S 8 � i I I I I _ 1 I f � I I I � 1 , I LL' ONISIIOR ONUSM! J LU �Mff Z Lu UJ 0 m c Z V7 w S N m N 4 I I I I I I I I ,________—__— 133i11S 8 � i I I I I _ 1 I f � I I I � 1 , I LL' ONISIIOR ONUSM! J F 9 A K - z LL Z w LU 0 Q gx �s I Q 9 A K - 0 LL 'r o gx - � oc\ j'%/j�am� / ��il/ N oK I ~ m a Sze �Y I Z � -i --- I dl G � S a s i ^ai D I j K 1 LL 4-1 I j j r jt4 E 8 eFF FF 77, I olz M • I �� III u t o I ~ I Z I � -i --- I dl G S a i ^ai D I j K 1 LL 4-1 I j j r 0 � 0 z Z W Q LU 0 �s z chi) CN m Z Q s� I olT 81= gla W =c a / C� LU LU / <LU 0 ®� 3 \ § § \ §� _ CN 7 LL | a \ | C� \ / < 3 \ § § \ §� _ \ \ I �| t §| § \ | C� \ 3 \ § § \ 2 _ \ \ I �| t §| a i 94.E �r Y � I .r rarr e•�. `zo d N 60 '✓:Yh o O oG Z N LTJ LU oce s Q � Z N CO i 94.E �r Y � I .r rarr e•�. `zo d N 60 '✓:Yh o O lei �•`; I I I i i r �.oa =.eir �a.r-sn �oo,r=evr oG r_ li it lei �•`; I I I i i r �.oa =.eir �a.r-sn �oo,r=evr iM- F �3 t: ss6��Gog�ss� 5''<QSS84s�EQQ� 0 z 1 'h $@4-1ar r4n4-w $ W 0 Z u 2 V$. w� m�� LLLL a "c boa o cozy e Pry �sj< �� tg Eros LL_ ngg 86 r = LU ` w Os��� _S Boz__ +1 ' _ i,R� �Samo3o g� �3=e zoo 1 WLU ce— Ln ca HUMbe Qa 3t3 c i mg OZ w9lin t @� boy <... JSP: oz =_ oW' z � V + o a=r� a a so Q9W 5 zoo Lu o ra sLL€��a � .^ oSo�s 2��� �1 8i= goo n LU Fir -4 ' s wMY s 0„6 �zz y� 188. EXHIBIT 5 J Z QLLJ w e � o 9s i. i m� sok (� Ca Z N a . �3 t: ss6��Gog�ss� 5''<QSS84s�EQQ� 0 z 1 'h $@4-1ar r4n4-w $ W 0 Z u 2 V$. w� m�� LLLL a "c boa o cozy e Pry �sj< �� tg Eros LL_ ngg 86 r = LU ` w Os��� _S Boz__ +1 ' _ i,R� �Samo3o g� �3=e zoo 1 WLU ce— Ln ca HUMbe Qa 3t3 c i mg OZ w9lin t @� boy <... JSP: oz =_ oW' z � V + o a=r� a a so Q9W 5 zoo Lu o ra sLL€��a � .^ oSo�s 2��� �1 8i= goo n LU Fir -4 ' s wMY s 0„6 �zz y� 188. EXHIBIT 5 J F 7 ZA-WL -.91A 1 2 1 CD LIJ LU 0 Cie 35- rs LU z N 7 ZA-WL -.91A 1 2 1 `u F - Z W z i Y Ual_a$ e 3B 4 1 Lu Z Lu 0 + ------------------------------------=-----------------a I I ¢ CO CN I I tt, 11 I I I - • ^� I I --------------I o d I S� IS . 4N a �v 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 , : .1�� .13 ONWONONUSr ONISIION ONOSKi `\III III II I I I III I -------------- iI 133b1S 9\ + ------------------------------------=-----------------a I I I I I I I I - • ^� I I --------------I o d . I El �s I I LL I I I I I I a I O I j I I w I I I m w I � I s O 1 I Z I Q I U I I. e e " o I I I I , : .1�� .13 ONWONONUSr ONISIION ONOSKi `\III III II I I I III F W z Will e W 0 5� w E d 5S - o e os �� �� i• I Ji Al, 10 �m �m 0 1334158 LLY y P. a a i W z 0 5� w o e os �� �� i• I W z r Z LU Q W p I - Z (� N m I — r X4'.1 - 2/1 q- Nut F L7 F— LU —LU Q w o J y$ Q e i LL CV o0 e� -, F U W 'iY LL z Z 0 N W p U -I Z LU Q W CV m �I 0 s a � HA G c �w8 eWu�=��= fitE aGO f Ilii } r C) C� z Z W Lu O r Z N Co F- N� U F 0 F—Z z W � Q W O rJ Q � Q N co a 3a - �3o aYSa O � s .14 to i O � 1 9 m9 Z l� GC 1. Y oo� Sao — 0 a w