HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2017-06-20 #2Communitv Deve
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
— Planning Division
Meeting Date: June 20, 2017
Case Numbers: CDR17-005
Project Planner: Steve Stafford — (415) 458-5048
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 703 — 723 Third St. and 898 Lincoln Avenue — Conceptual Design Review for
redevelopment of two contiguous Downtown parcels, currently developed with 15,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space. The project proposes to construct a new, 6 -story, 66' -tall, multifamily
residential building with 138 rental units above 143 ground -floor garage parking spaces. The
project includes requests for height and density bonuses, and a front setback waiver; APNS:
011-278-01 & -02; Second/Third Mixed Use East (2/3 MUE) District Zones; Wick Polite of
Seagate Properties, Inc., Applicant; 703 Third Street LP, Owners; Downtown Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use
Project Site: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUE Commercial retail; office
North: HO HO Private parking lot; retail
South: LO PD (1901) BioMarin parking structure
East: PQP P/QP Public Transit Center
West: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUE Goodwill
Lot Size Floor Area Ratio (Max.)
Required: 6,000 sf Allowed: 1.5 FAR (42,000 sq. ft.)
Proposed: 28,000 sf combined Proposed: None (As concession under State Density)
Height
5'
Residential Density
Allowed:
54' + 12 ' Height Bonus
Allowed: 46 units (1 unit per 600 sf of combined lot
Proposed:
66' (w/12' Height Bonus)
area; 63 units w/max.35% density bonus)
Proposed: 138 units (combined w/max. density bonus)
and concession for affordable housing)
Parking
Landscaping (Min.)
Required:
159 parking spaces
Required: 10% (2,800 sq. ft.; req. front yard setback)
Proposed:
143 garage spaces (135 mechanical lift
Proposed: 23% (492 sq. ft. ground/garage level;
parking spaces)
remaining landscaping in rooftop planters)
Setbacks
Required
Front:
5'
Side(s):
n/a
Street side
n/a
Rear:
n/a
Proposed
0'
0'
0'
0'
* Building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to top of roof deck of a flat roof
building.
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for concept review for the
redevelopment and consolidation of two contiguous Downtown parcels, currently developed with
existing 1- and 2 -story commercial buildings and associated surface parking. The project proposes to
construct a 6 -story, 66 -tall, multifamily residential building with 138 units above 143 garage parking
spaces..
The project will require the following approvals:
• A `major' Environmental and Design Review Permit, for the new multifamily residential building;
• A Use Permit to allow: 1) Residential uses in a commercial (2/3 MUE) zoning district; and 2) A
Parking Modification to allow: A) The reduction in.on-site parking, from 159 required parking
spaces to 143 proposed parking spaces; and B)The use of mechanical parking lifts to primarily
meet the parking requirement for the project; and
• A Lot Line Adjustment for the consolidation of the two contiguous parcels.
The requested 12 ft height bonus is a concession under the State Density Bonus law and under the
City's density bonus provisions, is considered a minor concession. Therefore minor concessions are
just granted if a project provides the required affordability and the concession does not require the
submittal of a financial pro forma by the applicant. The project's Planning entitlements would typically
require Planning Commission review and approval, based on the recommendations of the Design
Review Board (Board). However, the project also proposes:
• An additional 75 unit density bonus; and
• A waiver of the required 5' front setback.
Both of these requested modifications to development standards are also concessions under the State
Density Bonus laws which require the submittal of a financial pro forma by the applicant. Due to the
requested financial pro forma, the project will require City Council (Council) review and approval, based
on the recommendations of the Board and Commission .
The applicant has submitted a Conceptual Design Review, to allow the Board to provide preliminary
design comments on the proposed project. The staff report outlines the project compliance with all
pertinent design criteria. These comments will guide the formal project application submittal.
Overall, the general mass of this proposed project meets the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
provisions for this area, with some minor exception, including the projections over the public sidewalk
Right -of -Way (where stepbacks are called for in design standards) and zero front setback (where 5 feet
is required). Staff is supportive of the addition of housing in this part of Downtown and would provide
much needed housing, near services and transit. In general, the building is well designed and has solid
design concepts. Staff supports the proposed 6 -story scale of the project, primarily based on the scale
of the neighboring BioMarin campus which is 48-67' in height and includes a height bonus. Although
the City has not yet seen mechanical parking lifts in any projects, these are common in many
communities in the Bay Area and staff is supportive of the concept.
The number of units is one major item that needs to be resolved. Overall, the proposed density of 138
units generally appears to fit in the maximum development envelope allowed for this site. However, the
138 units exceed the maximum density allowed by the City, including the 35% State Density bonus.
The applicant will be requesting a concession to allow the additional density above the 35% and that
will be a major policy decision for the Commission and, ultimately, Council. The City's density bonus
provisions allow the City Council to consider densities above the 35% State Density bonus provisions.
There are a few key design criteria in with which the project may not be consistent, including:
• The proposed all -residential project is inconsistent with Zoning Ordinance and two adoptive
applicable `vision' documents (The Downtown San Rafael Vision" and "The San Rafael
Downtown Station Area Plan"), which require or encourage ground -floor commercial as part of
mixed-use development on the site, particularly along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage.
2
• The lack of design details on the south elevation and step backs may conflict with the
"Hetherton Gateway" design considerations in the General Plan
• The proposed projections of the upper stories which include habitable space over/above the
public sidewalk Right -of -Way (ROW) is not something specifically allowed by City code and
needs acceptance by the Public Works Department
Staff requests that the Board provide recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria.
Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Usable Outdoor Area
• Whether the proposed allocation and type of usable outdoor area for residents is appropriate and
the amenities provided in the common outdoor areas are appropriate.
Ground -Floor Commercial
• Whether the provision of ground -floor commercial as required by the Zoning Ordinance and design
criteria is important design feature that should apply to the project
Rooftop Trellis
• Whether a proposed rooftop trellis is a high-quality architectural and screening feature which should
be excluded from building height calculations.
Sight Distance
• Whether the design of the proposed driveways should be inset to better provide the required 15'
sight distance triangle.
Trash Area
• Whether the proposed refuse storage area should relocated to immediately adjacent to the
Tamalpais Avenue frontage for improved operations.
Mechanical Parking Lifts
• Whether the Board supports the use of mechanical parking lifts to meet the project's required
parking.
• Whether the Board supports adjustments to the minimum parking space dimensions, based on the
use of mechanical parking lifts
Building Scale
• Whether the proposed 6 -story scale of the project is appropriate given its close proximity to the
BioMarin campus which has a 4- to 6 -story scale. (The project does comply with the height limits for
this area, which includes the 12 ft. height bonus.)
Building Design.
• Whether the concept design proposes equal quality attention to architecture details along the
facades, particularly the south elevation which is shared with Marin Color, as required by the design
criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits.
• Whether the concept design is consistent with the design considerations of the "Hetherton
Gateway" District of Downtown, which recommends upper floors to be `stepped back'. .
• Whether the concept design should re -orient the lobby entrance to one of the more pedestrian -
friendly side streets (Tamalpais or Lincoln Ave.) from the Third St. frontage, as recommended by
the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines.
3
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site is comprised of two (2) contiguous developed Downtown parcels with a combined
28,000 sq. ft. lot size. The project site has three frontages: Third St., and Lincoln and Tamalpais
Avenue. It is flat (<l% average cross -slope) and located outside the Downtown parking district. It is
currently developed with 15,000 sq. ft. combine commercial space with two, 1 -2 -story buildings and a
surface parking lot. Access to the project site is currently along both the Third St. and Tamalpais
Avenue frontages. The west portion of the project site (898 Lincoln Ave.) was originally developed in
the 1940s and has a long history of automotive sales and service uses. It is identified in the current
General Plan as a 'housing opportunity' site. The east portion of the project site (703 Third St.) is
relatively newer and was developed in 1995 and until recently long -served the community as "Marin
Filmworks". The east portion of the site is immediately west of the City's Bettini Transit Center and
southwest of the new Downtown SMART station. The BioMarin campus lies south and southwest of the
project site.
History:
On March 2, 2017, the project obtained Pre -application review comments. At that time, the scope of the
project was similar to that proposed in the Conceptual Design Review submittal, with the exception of
the following:
• The overall height of the project was 7 -stories and a maximum 74.5 -tall; and
• The project proposed two floors of garage parking spaces rather than mechanical parking lifts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use:
The project proposes redevelopment of two contiguous parcels currently developed with existing 1 -2 -
story commercial buildings and a surface parking lot. The project proposes to construct a new, 6 -story,
66' -tall, multifamily residential building with 138 units above 143 garage parking spaces. The proposed
unit configuration includes 39 studio units (409-921 sq. ft. in size); 57, 1 -bedroom units (616-825 sq. ft.
in size); and 42, 2 -bedroom units (905-1,239 sq. ft. in size). All existing development on the two parcel
are proposed to be demolished.
The project would provide 20% (or 9.2 units) of the base 46 units as affordable. This amount of
affordability makes the project eligible for a density bonus of up to 35% and up to three (3)
concessions.
Site Plan:
Vehicular egress and ingress to the project site would be along two, 26' -wide, separated, two-way
driveways along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage. Pedestrian access to the project site would be
primarily along the Third St. frontage though secondary pedestrian access is provided along both the
Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenue frontages. The project proposes development to the property lines,
including the front property line (Third St.) which requires a minimum 5' landscaped setback. The upper
stories are proposed to project over the ROW as described below.
Architecture:
The project proposes a contemporary design and a consistent and expansive 'earthtone/woodtone'
material and color palette would provide a unifying visual form among the three street frontages. Large
storefront windows are proposed along the ground floor (parking garage) with a mixture of cementitious
panel siding and corrugated metal siding on the exterior fapade of the upper floors of the building
(Floors 2 thru 6). The upper floors project 4 - 6' into/over the sidewalk ROW along all three street
4
frontages. A majority of windows along the three street frontages would include 1' -wide "shade box"
trim which projects from the building fagade and into/over the ROW. Metal and glass canopies on the
ground -floor would extend 5' into/over the ROW and wood and steel trellis structures on the ground -
floor and roof deck would encroach 10' into/over the ROW.
On the non -street front elevation, the south elevation, the same exterior treatments (mixture of
cementitious panel siding and corrugated metal siding) are proposed, though without the projections off
the building fagade since this is a common property boundary with 770 2nd St. ("Marin Color"). In lieu of
the projection details, the project proposes to inset the upper floors of the building (Floors 2 thru 6) 10'.
The new building is O -shaped with a central landscaped courtyard on the 2nd floor which opens to the
sky. The project includes a common use and partially covered roof deck with recreational amenities and
solar panel array. Fourteen units on the 6th floor would have access to recessed private balconies. The
new buildings proposes a tall (18.5' ceiling plate) ground floor, to allow the installation and operation of
mechanical parking lifts, above more standard (9.5' ceiling plates) upper -story residential floors. (A
Material and Color Board has been prepared by the applicant and will be presented during the Board
meeting.)
Building Height:
The project proposes and is eligible for a 12' height bonus for the project, as a concession under the
State Density Bonus law; for meeting the required 20% (9.2 units) affordable housing requirement. The
maximum height allowed by zoning is 54' and the project proposes a 66' building height, consistent with
the allowable height bonus.
Parking:
The project proposes to utilize mechanical parking lifts to meet nearly its entire parking requirement.
The project is required to provide 159 on-site parking spaces, based on the number of units, their size
and configuration. The project proposes to provide 143 on-site parking spaces, 135 of which are
provided by mechanical or 'jig saw' parking lifts.
Landscaping:
The project proposes a 3,570 sq. ft. landscape courtyard on the 2�d floor and a 2,857 sq. ft. landscaped
roof deck. In addition, the project proposes raised planters recessed at the ground level along all three
street frontages, providing 492 sq. ft. of additional combined perimeter landscaping. Details on specific
landscaping species are not provided with the exception of the roof deck, which is proposed to be a
mixture of sword ferns and yerba Buena herbs. The project proposes to remove a total of four (4)
existing street trees and install a total of five (5) new street trees; primarily along the Third St. frontage.
The plans do not provide details on the proposed species of new street trees.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Second/Third Street Mixed Use (2/3MU).
The 2/3MU designation allows office use, neighborhood serving commercial uses and residential as
part of mixed-use development. The proposed residential only use, without ground -floor commercial
space, would not be consistent with Land Use Policy LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories) since no
ground -floor commercial space is proposed.
The proposed project would be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU -13 (Height Bonuses) with the
granting of a concession under the State Density Bonus law. The project also would be in accordance
with Housing Policy H-18 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) by providing 20% affordable housing
units or 9.2 units. Staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the
following design -related General Plan Policies:
5
• Housing Policy H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) seeks to design new housing,
remodels and additions to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. New housing
development should incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to
respect adjacent development character and privacy. New housing development should respect
existing landforms and minimize effects on adjacent properties.
Neighborhoods Policy NH -37 (Netherton Office District Design Considerations) encourages high-
quality and varied design with landmark features that enhance the District's gateway image". New
buildings design should:
✓ Emphasize gateway character by incorporating transitional treatments such as accent elements
and public art;
✓ Stepback upper stories;
✓ Ground -floors include a pedestrian scale; and
✓ Include useable outdoor areas, courtyards and arcades that are landscaped, in sunny locations
and protected from freeway noise
• Community Design Policy CD -1 (City Image) seeks to reinforce the City's positive and distinctive
image by recognizing the natural features of the City, protecting historic resources, and by
strengthening the positive qualities of the City's focal points, gateways, corridors and
neighborhoods.
• 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 -5 (Views) seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and
its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais,
Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible
pathways.
• CD -11 (Multifamily Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the design elements
that ensure multifamily housing is visually and functionally compatible with other buildings in the
neighborhood. Develop design guidelines to ensure that new development fits within and improves
the character defining elements of neighborhoods.
• CD -14 (Recreational Areas) requires multifamily development to provide private outdoor areas and
on-site common spaces for low and medium densities. For high density and mixed-use
development, private and/or common outdoor areas are encouraged. Common spaces may include
recreation facilities, gathering spaces, and site amenities such as picnicking and play areas.
• CD -18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design.
Staff finds the proposed concept design would not be consistent with Neighborhoods Policy NH -37
(Netherton Office District Design Considerations) due, primarily, to the lack of stepback design for the
upper -stories. Staff finds the project would be in accordance with Community Design Policy CD -5
(Views), which seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and its
islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic
Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways. The project
proposes to replace existing 1- and 2 -story buildings on the site with a 6 -story, 66 -tall, building. Staff
finds the scale of the project would have negligible impacts to public views of hills, ridgelines or St.
Raphael's church bell tower. At formal project submittal, photo simulations, in addition to those provided
in the conceptual review package may be required. Staff would work with the applicant to identify
locations for additional photo simulations. Private and common outdoor area and space is encouraged
on
rather than required in the Downtown districts. The project proposes both a combination of private and
common areas.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 5 — Commercial and Office Districts
The project site is located within the Second/Third St. Mixed Use East (2/3 MUE) District, a Downtown
zoning district. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards
for the 2/3 MUE District, including maximum density (600 sq. ft. of lot area/unit), minimum setbacks (5'
front), building height (54' + 12' height bonus ) and minimum landscaping (10% including required front
setback). Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Property
Facts summary above.
As conceptually designed, the project would conditionally comply with the maximum density and height
standards for the 2/3 MUE District with a 12' height bonus a concessions under the State Density
Bonus law for a height bonus and a density bonus above the 35% allowed. (see discussion below).
The project also would conditionally comply with the minimum setback requirement with a setback
waiver as another concession under the State Density Bonus law for meeting the City's affordable
housing requirement (20% or 9.2 units). With the setback waiver approved, the project would comply
with the minimum landscape requirement when the proposed landscape planter areas along the
ground -floor are combined with those proposed within the 2nd floor courtyard and roof deck. As stated
earlier in staff's report, private and common outdoor area is encouraged rather than required in the
Downtown districts. The level of details provided in the concept design submittal limits staff's ability to
determine whether the application meets the minimum landscape requirement; formal project
application submittal will be required to provide landscape plans for all three new lots.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed allocation and type of usable outdoor area for residents is appropriate
and the amenities provided in the common outdoor areas are appropriate.
The project would not be consistent with Section 14.05.022 of the Zoning Ordinance, which clearly
states that residential uses in the 2/3 MUE District are allowed only as part of mixed-use projects. This
restriction is supported by both the adopted Downtown Vision and the Downtown Station Area Plan, the
later which encourages ground -floor retail uses along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage and no additional
on-site parking for the ground -floor retail space, due to the proximity to the Downtown SMART station,
even though the site is located outside the Downtown parking district.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the provision of ground -floor commercial, as required by the Zoning Ordinance and
assumed by two adopted `vision' documents (Downtown Vision and the Downtown Station Area
Plan), is an important design feature that should apply to the project..
Chapter 16 — Site and Use Regulations
Affordable Housing Requirement
Pursuant to Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, projects
proposing 21 or more housing units are required to provide 20% of the proposed units as `affordable'
housing units. The base density for this site is 46 units (28,000 sq. ft. lot/600 sq. ft. density standard).
The project proposes to set aside 20% (9.2 units) of those 46 units as affordable and is therefore
eligible for a 35% density bonus (or 17 bonus units). That would make the total of 63 units. This
affordability will allow the project to seek the maximum allowable density bonus (35% or 17 units) and
three (3) concessions (12' height bonus, additional 75 -unit density bonus and setback waiver) under the
State Density Bonus law.
Two of the proposed concessions, are considered major concessions and therefore are subject to
approval of the City Council and require that the applicant demonstrate through a pro forma that the
concessions are needed to make the project financially feasible.
At the time of formal project submittal, staff will require specific details from the applicant on how the
project meets their affordable housing requirement and how it is eligible for a density bonus and
concessions under the State Density Bonus law.
Density Bonus (Automatic)
By providing the required 9.2 `affordable' units (20%), project is eligible for an automatic 35% density
bonus or a total of 17 additional `density bonus' units above the 46 base units, for a total of 63 units ,
As noted above, the project proposed the project proposes a total of 138 units or an additional 75
density bonus units.
Additional Density Bonus (Discretionary)
The project proposes a total density of 138 units, 75 units above the maximum allowable density on the
site with the 'automatic' density bonus provided by complying with the City's affordable housing
requirement (20%). The density bonus law allows the city at its sole discretion, to consider a density
bonus exceeding the state minimum requirements where the applicant agrees to construct a greater
number of affordable housing units than required pursuant to subsection (B)(2) of this section and
necessary to qualify for the density bonus under this section. If such additional density bonus is granted
by the city and accepted by the applicant, the additional density bonus shall be considered an additional
concession or incentive. At this point, the applicant has indicated that they are not proposing more
affordable units than the 20% and they plan to seek a concession and demonstrate that the project in
infeasible without 138 units.
At the time of formal project submittal, the applicant will be required to provide a financial pro forma
demonstrating that the additional density bonus results in "identifiable, financially sufficient and actual
cost reductions" (underline added) to the project. This concession requesting a density bonus above
the maximum allowed under the State Density Bonus law is discretionary, allows staff to hire a
consulting economist for peer review (at the applicant's cost) and requires City Council review and
approval. Though skeptical the applicant's financial pro forma may not meet the required findings for
the 75 -unit density bonus concession, staff supports an additional density bonus concession if the
number of affordable housing units proposed by the project and percentage of affordability provided by
the project were increased above the minimum 20% affordable housing requirement.
Height Bonus Concession (Automatic)
The project proposes a 12' height bonus, from a maximum allowable 54' to 66' building height, for
meeting their affordable housing requirement. Both the General Plan and Section 14.16.190 allow a
height bonus up to 12', in the 2/3 MUE District for complying with the City's affordable housing
requirementA height bonus, if approved, counts as a concession under the State Density Bonus law,
though it does not require submittal of a financial pro forma.
Setback Waiver Concession (Discretionary)
The project requests a waiver of the required 5' landscaped front setback (Third St. frontage) also as a
concession under the State Density Bonus law for meeting their required 20% affordable housing
requirement. At the time of formal project submittal, the applicant will be required to provide a financial
pro forma demonstrating that the waiver of the required 5' landscaped front setback results in
"identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions" (underline added) to the project. This
concession requesting a waiver of the required 5' landscaped front setback, Like the additional 74 -unit
0
density bonus above the maximum allowed under the State Density Bonus law, is discretionary, allows
staff to hire a consulting economist for peer review (at the applicant's cost) and requires City Council
review and approval. Like the requested 75 -unit density bonus concession, staff supports the requested
setback waiver concession.
Building Height Exclusion
Pursuant to Section 14.16.120 (Exclusions to Maximum Height Requirements) of the Zoning
Ordinance, architectural and screening features, which extend above the maximum allowable building
height, may be excluded from height calculations with an Environmental and Design Review Permit.
The project proposes a 12' -tall wood and steel trellis on a small portion of the roof deck area which
increases the overall height on that portion of the project from 66' to 78', where a maximum 54' building
height is allowed (66' with height bonus). The rooftop trellis is an architectural feature and is excluded
from building height calculations, based on the following:
It is an architectural or design feature which coordinates with another trellis at the ground level
that projects over/above the ROW and creates a sense of entry to the lobby for the residential
units;
It is an architectural or design feature which screens the elevator shafts for the residential units;
and
It is an integral shade structure for the common roof deck amenities for the residents.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether a proposed rooftop trellis is a high-quality architectural and screening feature which
should be excluded from building height calculations.
Sight Distance
Pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the Zoning Ordinance, driveways shall provide a
sight distance triangle of 15' from the curb return, or as determined by the City Engineer. The project
proposes two, 26' -wide, separated, two-way driveways along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage, which
limit the sight distance triangle to 6' only. The City Engineer has not reviewed or provided comments on
the proposed sight distance; however, staff believes the project design can and should be modified to
inset the driveways better provide the full 15' sight distance triangle.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the design of the proposed driveways should be inset to better provide the required 15'
sight distance triangle.
Chapter 17 — Performance Standards
Pursuant to Section 14:17.100 (Residential Uses in Commercial Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance, Use
Permit approval is required to allow residential uses in commercial zoning districts, which is subject to
performance standards. One of these performance standards is adequate size and location of refuse
storage area. The project proposes a 210 sq. ft. (14' x 15') trash enclosure, locate adjacent to the
central elevator/stairwell along the Third St, frontage. Staff finds proposed location of the refuse storage
area to be unnecessarily inconvenient for both the on-site operations (the site manager will be required
by Marin Sanitary Service or MSS to haul all trash and recycling containers out to the street curb along
Tamalpais Ave.) and MSS. Staff finds the refuse storage area should be relocated immediately
adjacent to the Tamalpais Avenue frontage. In addition, staff has concerns that the proposed size of the
trash area is adequately designed to accommodate both the trash and recycling needs of 138
residential units. While the appropriate size of the trash area will be better determined by MSS at the
time of formal application review, staff finds the location of the trash area can and should be evaluated
during conceptual review of the project.
9
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
Whether the proposed refuse storage area should relocated to immediately adjacent to the
Tamalpais Avenue frontage for improved operations.
Chapter 18 — Parking Standards
The project proposes the use of mechanical parking lifts to primarily meet the required parking for the
project; 135 of the 143 parking spaces are proposed.to be provided by mechanical parking lifts, though
not the required ADA -accessible parking spaces. The applicant is currently exploring the use of the
Klaus Multiparking TrendVario 4300 model of mechanical parking lift, which can park up to three (3)
vehicles vertically and shift parking both vertically and horizontally. The parking space dimensions of
this mechanical parking lift are:
• 17' length;
a 7.5' width;
Up to 7.5' height; and
• 4000 lbs. load or weight
A pit of up to 7.5' deep is required. The driver is required to manually engage the system to moves the
parking `platforms' to an empty space. Access may be secured by adding sliding metal wire doors
which are opened by the driver only after the shifting process is completed.. The Board may learn more
on the Klaus Multiparking TrendVario 4300 through the following link: http://www.kiausparkin.g.com/. At
formal application submittal, staff recommends organizing a site inspection to an existing apartment
building in Berkeley (1797 Shattuck Ave) which is currently operating a Klaus Multiparking TrendVario
4300 mechanical parking lift.
These proposed `vertical' or stacked parking lifts are a departure from the parking facility design
envisioned by the Parking Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which is providing parking on a
horizontal configuration. A Parking Modification will be required, through a Use Permit, with the
recommendation of the Public Works Director and the Board, to allow mechanical parking lifts. In
addition, the dimensions of the parking spaces provided by the mechanical parking lifts do not appear
-to meet the City's minimum standards for the Downtown (8.5' x 18' 'standard' parking space; 8' x 16'
'compact' parking space).Section 14.18.130 allows adjustments to these minimum parking space
dimensions with the recommendation of the City's Traffic Engineer and the Board. At the time of formal
application submittal, staff will require dimension details on the proposed parking spaces.
The proposed parking appears to comply with all other applicable parking standards. Under the Zoning
Ordinance, the all — residential project is not required to provide clean air vehicle parking or EV (electric
vehicle) charging stations, an off-street loading/unloading space or bicycle parking. The project
proposes a "bike storage" area though no loading/unloading or EV parking spaces. However, this will
likely change as the residential uses are allowed on the site and, generally, in the 2/3 MUE District in
mixed-use development with ground -floor commercial retail space.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
Whether the Board supports the use of mechanical parking lifts to meet the project's required
parking.
Whether the Board supports adjustments to the minimum parking space dimensions, based on
the use of mechanical parking lifts.
Chapter 22 — Use Permits
As discussed earlier in staff's report, the project will require Use Permit approval to allow: 1) Residential
uses in a commercial (2/3 MUE) zoning district; and 2) Parking Modification to allow: A) Reduction in
10
on-site parking, from 159 required parking spaces to 143 proposed parking spaces; and B) use of
mechanical parking lifts to primarily meet the parking requirement for the project.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
This project typically would require Environmental and Design Review Permit approval by the Planning
Commission (Commission), given .that; it proposes to construct a new multifamily residential structure.
However, the City Council will have final decision on the project, based the recommendations of both
the Board and the Commission, due to the major concessions, requested (additional 75 -unit density
bonus and elimination of required 5' landscaped front setback) under the State Density Bonus law. The
pertinent review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050
(Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits), are 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. Major views of theSan
Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills should be preserved and
enhanced from public streets and public vantage points. In addition, respect views of St. Raphael's
Church up "A" Street.
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.
• 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.
• 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 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 or `character -defining' design elements existing in the vicinity.
The scale and quality of the existing development, located south of the core Downtown (Fourth St.) and
near U.S Highway 101 is changing, thanks primarily due to the ongoing development of the BioMarin
campus. Low profile (1- and 2 -story) development is being replaced with much taller (5- and 6 -story)
11
buildings. As stated earlier in this report, staff supports the 6 -story scale proposed by the project.
Determining the predominant design character is a little more difficult. Structures within the adjacent
BioMarin campus are integrated with a cohesive architectural design with expansive fagade detailing.
The project proposes a more contemporary design with modern fagade treatments and fewer detailing
and expansive use of building projections (both habitable living space and architectural detailing)
over/above the sidewalk ROW.
Also, the project proposes similar -quality fagade treatments along only three of the four building
elevations, primarily due to these building projections over the ROW. The building encroachment over
the ROW is an important part of the project design along all three street frontages. However, there are
no proposed projections along the fourth building elevation (south elevation), which shares a common
property line with an existing 1 -story commercial structure ("Marin Color"). This significantly diminishes
articulation along the south building elevation, which has as much or greater public visibility as the other
three building elevations. Staff finds that greater attention to the south building elevation The Review
Criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits recommends equal attention to architectural
design and detail along the facades of all elevation in sensitive locations.
According to the General Plan, the project site is located within the "Netherton Gateway" District of
Downtown. Design considerations for this area call for "... high-quality and varied design with landmark
features that enhance the District's gateway image". New buildings design should:
• Emphasize gateway character by incorporating transitional treatments such as accent elements
and public art;
• Stepback upper stories;
• Ground -floors include a pedestrian scale; and
• Include useable outdoor areas, courtyards and arcades that are landscaped, in sunny locations
and protected from freeway noise.
With the exception of the proposed courtyard feature, Staff finds the project should comply better with
the design considerations of the "Netherton Gateway" District, as adopted in the General Plan. The
level of details provided in the concept design submittal limits staff's ability to comment on the site
landscaping; formal project application submittal will provide detailed landscape plans, in addition to
visual simulations of the project site from several vantage points identified by staff.
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
Whether the proposed 6 -story scale of the project is appropriate given its close proximity to the
BioMarin campus which has a 4- to 6 -story scale.
Whether the concept design proposes equal quality attention to architecture details along the
facades, particularly the south elevation which is shared with Marin Color.
Whether the concept design is consistent with the design considerations of the "Netherton
Gateway" District of Downtown, which recommends stepped back upper floors..
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
Planning staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following
applicable Downtown Design Guidelines:
Second/Third and Environs
Second and Third Streets are to be attractive, landscaped major transportation corridors. While
increased pedestrian safety and comfort is desired on Second and Third, greater pedestrian use of the
cross streets is encouraged. 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.
12
• Building walls should be articulated;
• To create a boulevard effect along Second and Third Streets, varied landscape setbacks are
appropriate;
• Additional high -canopy, traffic -tolerant street trees are strongly encouraged;
• Where possible, residential buildings in this area should orient to the more pedestrian -friendly
side street; and
• Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized to prevent vehicular conflicts.
The project proposes to orient pedestrian activity through the lobby area along the Third St. frontage.
The pertinent Downtown Design Guidelines recommends orienting this lobby entrance to one of the
more pedestrian -friendly side streets, either Tamalpais or Lincoln Avenues, where possible..
Staff requests the Board's comments on the following:
• Whether the location of the lobby entrance should be re -orient to one of the more pedestrian -
friendly side streets (Tamalpais or Lincoln Avenues) from the Third St. frontage, as
recommended by the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Downtown Vision.
The proposed project is located should be consistent with as many of the applicable policies in the
adopted Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael; Second/Third Corridor Vision, including:
• Capitalize on the proximity to the freeway, Transportation Center and vitality of the Lindaro District,
in the area east of B Street with housing in mixed use projects with ground -floor retail uses to
support the needs of the residents and surrounding office uses.
• Make Second and Third Street more attractive and safe for pedestrians by: A) Planting for street
trees; B) creating a visual buffer between pedestrians and the street; and C) Reducing the number
of driveways which interrupt sidewalks.
• Encourage safe and efficient auto transportation to and through the Downtown on Second and
Third Streets and respect the needs of pedestrians. Second and Third Streets are the county
access streets.
• Vary building heights and densities, concentrating the most intense development towards the east,
closest to the freeway and Transportation Center, including building heights of two to five stories
and higher densities east of B Street and heights of one to three stories and lower densities west of
B Street
The proposed project would be consistent with most of the applicable policies in the Downtown Vision
document with the exception of ground -floor retail space.
Downtown Station Area Plan.
The project site is identified as a "potential development opportunity site" within the Downtown Station
Area Plan (SAP). Maximum development is assumed; a five -story mixed-use building with retail uses
on the ground -floor facing Tamalpais Avenue (fronting the SMART station). No on-site parking is
assumed for the ground -floor retail uses, even though the site is located outside the Downtown Parking
District. Auto access and egress occurs on Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenues. The following are
recommended land use policy changes from the SAP that are applicable to the project site:
Short -Term
• Reduce minimum parking requirements to one (1) space for two-bedroom residential units and 1.5
spaces for 3 -bedroom units.
• Allow tandem parking spaces.
13
Long -Term
• Allow one-half space per residential unit to be located off-site in a municipal parking facility.
• Allow off-site parking for ground -floor retail uses.
• Allow unbundled parking, where parking spaces are leased separately from residential units.
• Allow bicycle parking in lieu of some portion of the required on-site parking.
• Adopt a Form -Based Code and eliminate maximum density and FAR (Floor Area Ratio) limits.
Together with requiring no more than one parking space per unit, a Form -Based Code may allow up
to 200 residential units within maximum allowable building height and setbacks required on the site.
• Allow development `bonuses' (like reduced parking), beyond concessions under the State Density
Bonus law, in exchange for community benefits. Examples of community benefits include amenities
to support the more transit -oriented surroundings such as wider sidewalks and landscaping, open
space or plazas, provisions for car -sharing, and additional affordable housing units above the
minimum 20% requirement.
• Allow shared parking between daytime retail uses and nighttime residential uses.
• Allow stacked parking or parking lifts, to meet required on-site parking.
• Explore reconstruction of Tamalpais Avenue to serve as a "Complete Street" to serve all travel
modes. In concept, Tamalpais Avenue may be converted to one-way northbound travel with a Class
II bicycle lane, pull-out staging areas and wider sidewalks.
The proposed project would be consistent with most of the applicable recommendations in the Station
Area Plan document with the exception of ground -floor retail uses, particularly facing Tamalpais
Avenue for SMART users. However, the recommended changes of the SAP have not yet been
implemented by the City, so they are still a vision document.
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency
The project proposes to allow construction of a new multifamily residential structure over the current
property boundaries of two adjacent legal Downtown parcels. As one of the conditions of approval, the
project subject to the lot consolation provisions pursuant to Chapter 15.05. of the Subdivision
Ordinance. If the project is approved, staff will work with the applicant and the City Engineer to
consolidate the project site into one parcel which must be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
The project is proposed as a rental project only. The applicant has not indicated their make them
individual condo units.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Conceptual Review for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements
contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Meeting was mailed to all property
owners, residents, businesses and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the project site and the
appropriate neighborhood groups (the Downtown Business Improvement District, Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Assn. and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), a minimum of 15 calendar
days prior to the date of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the project site, along both the
Third St. and Lincoln Avenue frontages.
Staff has received one (1) comments as a result of noticing the project as of the date of printing of this
report. The owner of the closest neighbor to the project, the Marin Color site (770 2nd St.), provided the
following concerns:
1. The proposed 66 -tall building height is out of scale or out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood, similar to the former `WinCup' site ("Tam Ridge" residences) in Corte Madera.
2. The traffic impacts will degrade the already diminished traffic flow within the Downtown,
particularly along Tamalpais Ave., which will also negative impact Fife safety response times.
3. The proposed project should provide both guest parking and an adequate loading/unloading
parking space.
14
4. The proposed 138 -unit density will negatively impact the ability of Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) to provide services to the project.
Staff's responses to these comments are, as follows:
1. Staff finds that the proposed 66' -tall scale is in context with the increasingly taller scale of this
area, south of Downtown and close to U.S. highway 101, primarily due to the recent expansion
(and approved development that have not yet been issued building permits) of the BioMarin
campus, which has building heights 48'-67' with a height bonus.
2. A traffic study ("Transportation Impact Analysis Report, dated October 31, 2016; Fehr and
Peers) was submitted during Pre -application review. The City Engineer has not yet provided
comments to Planning on this traffic study.
3. The parking standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance do not require the project provide `guest'
parking unless the site is located within 200' of a residential zoning district. The project site is
located over 1,000' from a residential zoning district and is not required to provide `guest'
parking as part of their development proposal. The parking standards also only requires an off-
street loading/unloading space for non-residential development. Since the project is currently a
rental apartment project, no loading/unloading space is proposed or required.
4. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) provided comments during Pre -application review
of the project. MMWD provided comments that, while they will be able to provide water service,
the proposed project will need to purchase additional water entitlement annually.
CONCLUSION
In general, staff recommends that this project is on the right design track. Staff supports the proposed
6 -story scale of the project, primarily based on the scale of the neighboring BioMarin campus which is
48-67' in height and includes a height bonus. The project would put housing in he core of downtown,
near services, employers and transit. In general, adding housing to downtown has been a major city
policy since the mid 1990's.
There are a few areas noted throughout this report, where consistency with current design policies or
standards needs to be reviewed and the project potentially refined.
• The most notable is whether ground floor retail is needed in this project as outlines by
"Downtown San Rafael Vision" and "The San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan", which
require or encourage ground -floor commercial as part of mixed-use development on the site,
particularly along the Tamalpais Avenue frontage. This is not just a design item, but also a land
use matter.
• Environmental and Design Review Permit Review Criteria and "Hetherton Gateway" design
considerations in the General Plan due to a lack of facade details on the south building
elevation and upper -stories stepped back.
• Downtown design guidelines due to a lack of orienting the lobby entrance along one of more
pedestrian -friendly side streets, Tamalpais or Lincoln Avenues.
• proposed projection of habitable space over/above the public sidewalk ROW; the Public Works
Department has not commented their support for the proposed project design and has not
developed a permitting process of allowing the types of ROW encroachment which create
private habitable space over the public ROW.
There is also a major fundamental land use policy question with this project, which relates to the
density and whether the 75 -unit density bonus is warranted and justified.
15
At the time of formal project application submittal, staff will require a financial pro forma for peer review,
additional visual simulations, parking and traffic studies, landscape, grading and drainage plans,
geotechnical investigation and hydrology reports, and an amenities plan for the proposed common
outdoor areas.
Staff requests the Board provide direction on the points specified in the Analysis section of this report
and any other additional plans, details and materials that the. Board would like to see when the
proposed project returns for formal review. Following the Board's comments, the applicant will submit
their formal project application.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced Project Plans
3. Public Comments
Full-sized and reduced color plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Wick Polite — Seagate Properties, Inc.; 980 Fifth Ave.; San Rafael, CA 94901
16
fu 0
9 09
U--
Ar'-
�
CL 0
u r= +�" -
_ f
tr
on uL4 f
cAj r -
b � v
v v
o J--On
S
n 'A —
m
X00'1 - ,
f.11
:1
1
�iA b?
V-t1p 0O-Njj
ro
aO
O u A
S
0O — ro
CL o c
itj
R a o�IL
>: on�
u C ro
!+
ro
� vl
V L y
I I
o t v a
a a n
u�
a
M
� i
-
`�
r
n 'A —
m
X00'1 - ,
f.11
:1
1
�iA b?
V-t1p 0O-Njj
EXHIBIT 1
S
I
4
45
I I
-
`�
r
�
.+ Der
I
v�d
Q
EXHIBIT 1
R
cc by Z �• LL
O O O In
c a `oo fir' a o E a
3° a o c Yq LL
ado WW� c 'om�fl$3E�go
'Fa 1O a_
i -i [n�� a'i Z� W Z W �HZfmn ZZ�¢�'
J� aaaoaa=�Q��SB�a��aa
E E E L a. 0 0 o Q Q Q Q Q Q o Q o 0 0 o E
c�a<nwaaaaradu'San.a¢aaaaa-a-D- .aa_a
d
_ r } K
V U)
Lm L
t a >3 O
M.
O n
d ICC N
a
M _
WA �cls
d
E
re§9g 0
T �p
E
o. rnd =vE-N .Sy o� c o 67 cu
L E N
:' Z
Z o 0 0 a_ co Suo<c 16 3
c? aha 2 =i 'm c�Q O
d 4 a v = 0
in o
in 16
N �
m — �
io o y1
E
Y3 m� ro
hLu �v?te_co .E K c x x
ornW�fp[�VIc�E?4
o
C
c a M
E
_ a o '2
c
E �¢ d-p'�oo mom- °[q $v `S Em :� m E¢� US
o CD
m Y 16 m
•� C ¢_ o€ a 2 'e� Q Q m= E L E Q o E IO Cn
C �o Zaa_2 E a Eo_ maU ra.�
CL not u< w 4 U a
' EXHIBIT
;a=
c
I`
a�� 3
z N N N N W<
O
M
t! (n N m y LL ~
N N
m t+�N m fLL/I rn a
W �
�
N
iz
ri
o v
o
0
s
a cc m M W M
m rn N
c �e
i7
F- d v J -o G
Q p� LL r
vJ
t E 2 ;3 a o0
<o w
i
d
E
O
d
Z _O
aaaaaaa
mmm�mm�mm
.c
�
•=
C � N N N N� N SV N
a a a a a a a a a
00000080 O
0 0 0 LL 0 J 0J LO O
09999
JLL LL LL JL LL 11
,
J W W W W t0 W W W W
LL LL y W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL y LL LL LL LL LL (� LL LL (LL/J LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
(n
•�y N•• m t0 oN
owop r W WW O tO O oW 2 tN0 N � � 0 1�
O
� m r ti �
i
00 tW0 V E;
¢ V CD t0 V' � t0 r e� W 1� � ^ tW0VO' f0 O)
m
�-
m
�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
a
d
? v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
aaaaa�a�aaa a as as aaaa�a�aaaaaa�asaaoa as
r
d
M W n W O r N M eF to W n W O) O NN M V' W W n W N M}} b (p n W 0< N M 'W t2 t2 n W
O S O-- O r N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r
� �� m m is in is n n e � n � �
N
Q
W W co W co <o <o �o m co W W W W W n n n n n n n n n n
O
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a s a a a a a a a aaaaaa
O O O
O O O O O
O�
OJLL
OlJL OLJL
OLL OLL OLL OLL OLL OlL OLL OIL
od
o
J000oooo
(
LLo0LL00LL0LL00o00o
JJ=LL lJ
LL lJL LL LL tJL lJL LL IJL LL ll. LL LL LL JLL LL LL. LJL LL LJ
aj
I=L lJl. lJl. lJL LLJ. lL
LL LL� LL LL LL LL LL y y LL LL LL LL LL y LL LL y LL LL LL LL LL y LL LL LL LL LL� LL LL LL LL LL f j y LL LL LL LL LL
� N m p N N m m N M N fn N y tq M O N n N to N N N o N N fn N N N m N m N� M N cq tq vJ �/J
d
°1
O O O O O O o O o O O O O
N
o O O o O
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a a a a a7 a
m F- m
rrn<
a
V•a
W n W 0 N M T Y'1 m n W N M LLS
V V n
N- 0 0 -- h O O ON LLN„ N LLN,�
� V' @ C d' R V 'R 'V' et V' V 4J 4"J 4J -----------
rN N
aaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oa b o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J0J J0J 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J0 0 0 0 0 0
IJL IJL LL IJL LL LJL lJL LL LL lJ1 IJL J LJL �Jy, LL ll.. LL LL LL LL LL LL LJ.. LL LL LL IJi lJi_ IxJL � lJl lJL LL lJL LL LL lJi J lJi LJL. LJ1. lJL LL
d
a aaaa a a OfaF=-
J
N N N N N m� N
N� N
N N f7 N Cq omp N trop f/1 N N to fWq [A N fA N N N ( N N m (q N m m m N p m N
�� m}{ N N
�
d
E o 0 0 0 2!2 O O O O o 0 0
v
t
? o 0 0 0 0 0 o a v a o 0 0
c rmmmmmm�....m�mmmrF.�mm mm�mmm m�m�mmmmmm�m�-mmmF...m
•C
•C r N M O -- - N-
p app p N �p
------------
O M th M M M t�
a aaaaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aaaa of a a a a a a a a a a a
o
00LL
00LL
8800000J0800J00JJo00oJJJ0J0JLL00o0J000LL
00LL
00LL
oJLL
oJLL
oJLL
oJLL oLL 0LL0oLL 0LL oLL oLLoLL oLL oLL
oLL oLL oLL oLL oLL oLL oLL oLL 0LL 8LL 8LL 8LL
Q
J0008000
. JLLo
LLo
J
J JJLL JLL LL LL LL LL LL
•c!(YU�
ZLL
N Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M M M M M M M
J N N N N N N N N N N N N (V tV IIVV [[VV ((VV (f VV
'A
�
�
co1645
�
N
Q
A
ƒ
/
�
k
/
a
3 -
\
a
A
f
k
�
�
co1645
�
N
Q
A
ƒ
/
3nN3AVSIbdlHWN1 ¢
I
I i
I i
i7777
LU a
ca
zm
US
OF
= I a
t6
d
i
3nN3AV N100NII
m
ILI
m
IL
w Cn
c 4
�2 611
�w
�t-Vr
M
z
8
3nN3AV SIVdIVWVI 77
II
I
F
ry B£H
E
i
! w ! w !
lwwwwwlli■w
lww�w!lw�w
�a,°r,.b, ll�iwwww�w
z
3NN3AV Nl00N11
c+i
Q
I
r'
._ -
711z
c
P ca
i
�
a
" s
x rLL
Amy
am
"
a -
�m�
g�+
i
s
BnN3AV SIVdlVWV.L ¢
X _ H f
A'rn.0-fief s -e
.L -R
ate.••., A-J.Z
A -9Z XcWtZ .S•S
O -SZ S -DZ
w
rl w
- 6
3 I
LI ti
m
?
ofm
g
d
of
a If
tm
I
pp.
1
I
�
I
L
___sem=c"�
js£dl :�.••,
S6R
s8:
.4/EE•JZ
.E -k5 °A -b
AIL SI -fib �O
t=
g
�
o i9
3nN3AV Nl00Nll
m
�
m
0
0
E2
LL
D
o 0
m=
oO o 0
'C�
�LLI ��
psi
t-
L.
LL
zCn
LL- LU
Q
m
N
m -
2i
u a x
o co NI
M
$
K
i
vl
u � m
t3
Ed
—
I
I Tp:;
�I
N
a
-
I I
1 1 I
t
F-
I
i
I
I
a
d
�
1
N
N
L—i 0 ��
I I }
1 I I
1 I
I
I I
�
I
o
w
'Iz
F -o LT
W
'
Q'io w wtD �o bio
O O O O O
�o
O
I—o
Z
I'LL
v.
O� Ov OM ON Or°
��
��
a e <
Q
d
I
LL LL LL
S
lzI ti vl NI
LL
-I
LU
M
w b
C5
MI
m
I
'
p Jp1
II I ;i I
I
I
3
I
I
i
I
-
CIO
I'-
t
Q
>l�
FT
N
0
ICD
Z
�I
O
CDO)
i9
N
I
uiQ
m
p
C
76
W
N
-o
N
O
§ n
CL
e
g
■
M
N = 5y
Q y e
a �&
Q
.
��m
W olo �I " 06 � � �I"
z o
o __pR o o o 1 o_ o
� ilio OI`�i Olv O��+i OIN OI°.' OJI
W
Q LL U- LL U- U- LL
Q
O ml �) m N
�
IIII
r �_. __� �____► � a _ —
IIIA
III
C
1 I I
Q
El
III
III
III'
=1
T
O
J
m
L
O
�7
N
Z
v
N
d
>a
Fyo
Hcy � z
w O_ Ob LL 'K_' 0,' O O_' O_'
S
O_'
z \V
LL
�a
a o OF. Ov Ov OM ON
LU ■
awe r
d' J J J J J`
-j
a I L�I Lt -I FI �I of
-j
J
�I
a Q
m
CO tfJ 'd' M N
O
m
�II
Ir
O
I
V
.=
L
t'
�
I
L7.
I_ "tj IL
�� l
l it
EP, FE
i
I 1
�
2
\
CIO2
L
I
L
F
O
W
N
p
4
�\ C)
D= o&
& ° ®
&
~
0
o
_
/
\%0
o»
»
/
o
�
7
0
om
2
\
o?
o,
£
2
§\
o°
e
§
a
Q.§§°
k/k )
._m
/
.
.
.
�.
..
J
�
2
; &
\
Cl)
/
|
) (
k
;
\
) )
�
B
§
�
7
k
/
cu/
/
J
2
�
�
�
\§
�mN ff
r
t-
CL
�
b
,
U
•C)
.rote-,u
.6•.e
.roIEE•5Z
.e-.m
CN
IO
Qo
Z
I
Gc
C) II
W
C7
ElY
E
' Z
O
�
cl
I"
y
o
e
V
ti
N
d
i
d
O_
O
.LPtt
m
i6
rn
R
N
Lo-moi.ro-isz)
SNtlld 33S'S3MtlA
'r71 _ICl
I
Q o
I
N _
K
O
-
H
Q
m
m
LG
O
O
-O
N
t0
Fill
Lu
y
jr�
m
R
a
m �
I
R
_
�
I
I
U
T
77
N
o
b
.6-.E
.E-AI
p
'- `gam,
a
�-
ui
III f
-
4 S I J•
1�
AIEMU Mk
I
1
~
�
O
�1
1
z
-a
0
o
d
a
?:—,, MAY -
MM
110
a var �} 4 ill
7,o;orl I I t
��' - - -
2
9 J
AF
?:—,, MAY -
MM
110
a var �} 4 ill
N
L6
Q
2
0
vAD
�;oAU-AWA ca
�- �o o a cr� \ (n
L
|2f~2
■;!
a
,
�
§�)
§)`
)
.
y— — ---
--
- — --
qk!
,
21
®` ED
-:
G
®
F
& :§
-o
m
—
�MAL
® \
•
9 )}IL
323Am
S3
k
A99 -At
_a ama
: .
»«
a
/
cn\
CL
\ 2
.
&/k §
M
§;A |
�)
)§`
/
_W%—
MRS.
@/
/
\
Zit
I
q %
2XCD
}
at
OVA
r. -
�
-
T
�
k
CL
&!\\
-l. 2
cm.
y
/
2
�
.
/.
�N % ,■t{
\
§q/ \
|
CL
\
I`
.
/
(I
� 0
—
|\$�}
,
k
§$T {
# 2
rx
m •
2
�
r
,m77
k
cD
-
cl
RTT
k
2
2£§ƒ
R§\
w
2caIm
/
�
)
!
+_
:
/
LL
f
§!, D
CL
\ 2
_
101 Francisco Boulevard, I.I.C.
City of San Rafael
RE: Project at 703-723 Third Street and 898 Lincoln Ave.
File # CDR17-005
Dear Design Review Board Members,
A quick explanation of our background and that of our property........ .
Marin Color Service has been a family owned business in San Rafael since 1948
when it was started by our Father, Ernest Beckstrom. It has been a landmark paint
store in downtown San Rafael, passed down from Father to Son over the last 70
years. It's continued success has been in part due to the ease of access and plentiful
parking for it's customers.
Below you will find a partial list of our major concerns regarding the above
mentioned project proposed for the property immediately adjacent to our property.
• A towering 66 -foot building will be totally out of character with the
surrounding buildings. Similar in scope to the unpopular building at the
former Handi-Cup site in Corte Madera.
• The project will create a monumental traffic jam on Tamalpais Street, the
only entrance and exit to the building for a minimum of 13 8 new residents.
Tamalpais is already a congested two lane street caused by the current Golden
Gate Transit, Marin Airporter, Taxis, and now the Smart Train all loading and
unloading passengers who will become pedestrians trying to navigate this
dangerous area.
EXHIBIT 3
• There is no accommodation for a parking area for any guests who may visit
the residents, nor is there sufficient area for all the possible deliveries of
Amazon packages ordered by the new residents. Yes, this seems like a far-
fetched concern but it is something that must be considered as the wave of the
future.
• Water supply to the 13 8 new units plus the additional number of residents in
the multi bedroom units is a major concern. We just exited 5 years of drought
without any additional storage facilities being built. In previous years there
was a moratorium on the number of water hook ups being allowed to address
this issue. Possibly now is a good time to implement that again.
• The traffic congestion issues as mentioned previously would dramatically
affect the Fire and emergency response time and access to 138 additional
residents and those already in the surrounding areas thus creating a safety
issue.
Once again, a major concern is that this 66 foot tall behemoth is completely
out of character with the architecture in both size and scope of the
surrounding buildings. It is also a potential eyesore, similar to that at the
former Handi-Cup facility in Corte Madera, located at the entrance to
downtown San Rafael. The small town appearance and atmosphere that the
city wishes to maintain will succumb to the "Big Box" look.
My Sister, Wife and I all were born and raised in the San Rafael area and my
in-laws attended San Rafael High School in the 1940's. We have watched the
city evolve over the past 70 years of our lives......... San Rafael does not need
this over sold project at the entrance to downtown and we hope that the
Design Review Board will continue to maintain the "Down Home" feel of
San Rafael and not fall victim to any high pressure tactics that may be put
upon them.
Sincerely,
Rick Beckstrom, 101 Francisco Boulevard, LLC
Lynn McIntire, 101 Francisco Boulevard, LLC