HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2015-10-13 #4e~' .e::: CITY OF~ ~ ~-;;. ....,...,a.n ~ . -
Community Development Department -Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085!FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: October 13,2015
Agenda Item: 1-\
Case Numbers: AP15-002, ED15-.010
Project Planner: Steve Stafford! (415) 458-5048
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 333 Biscayne Dr. (Peacock Gap Golf Club) -Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
approval of a two-(2) year time extension (ED15-01 0) of an Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED07-080) conditionally approving the construction of an 11,000 square
foot day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace, located immediately
east the Clubhouse at the Peacock Gap Golf Club; APNS: 184-020-03, -04, -05 & 184-
210-01; Public/Quasi-Public -Wetland Overlay, Water -Wetland Overlay (P/QP-WO,
W-WO) District Zones; Steve Foster for Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Applicant;
Peacock Gap Holdings LLC, Owner; John Arnold, Appellant; Case Number(s): ED15-
010, AP15-002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 5, 2015, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved a time extension of an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) approving the construction of an approved, 11,000
square foot, day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace located immediately east of
the Clubhouse at the Peacock Gap Golf Club (PGGC). The project affects the Phase 3 entitlements
original approved by the City Council on October 6, 2008, as part of the Peacock Gap Golf Club Master
Plan (UP07 -046 and ED07 -080). The Zoning Administrator determined, consistent with the requirements
for time extensions, the findings of ED07 -080 remain valid, no substantive modifications or changes were
proposed by the time extension, and the time extension request was made prior to expiration of ED07-
080.
On August 12, 2015, the time extension approval was appealed by an adjacent neighbor to the Planning
Commission. The appeal cites three (3) appeal points: 1) The time extension was not made prior to the
expiration of ED07 -080; 2) There has been "substantial changes in the factual circumstances
surrounding the originally approved design" of the project by PGGC; and 3) Previous violations of
existing conditions of approval (ED07-080) by PGGC, during their operations (outdoor music and
maintenance hours) and prior construction (dust control, drainage and construction hours), render the
original Findings invalid.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that the pOints of the appeal cannot
be supported. The project is consistent with the City's requirement for time extensions, pursuant to
Section 14.25.150 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft Resolution _ the appeal
(AP15-002) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of a time extension (ED15-
010) of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) to allow the Phase 3 entitlements of the
Peacock Gap Golf Club Master Plan (i.e., 11,000 square foot, day spa building with outdoor swimming
pool and deck terrace, located adjacent to the existing Clubhouse building) (Exhibit 2).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED15-010, AP15-002
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 333-337-339 Biscayne Drive Parcel Number(s):
I Property Size: I 128-acres plus 17-acre lagoon I Neighborhood:
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation I Zoning Designation
Project Site: Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP). P/QP-WO
Water/WI
North: Large Lot Residential (ER), PD (1397), PD (163B),
Hillside Residential (HR), Open PIOS
Space (OS)
South: LDR R10
East: MDR, LDR R7.5, PD (1631)
West: LDR, ER, OS, Parks (P) R10, PD 1411, PIOS
Site Description/Setting:
Page 2
184-210-01, 184-020-03,
-04 & -05
I Peacock Gap
Existing Land-Use
Quasi-Public Golf Club
Single family homes and
attached town homes,
private open space
Single family homes
Single family homes and
attached townhomes
Single family homes,
public open space,
Peacock Gap Park
The Peacock Gap Golf Club (PGGC) is comprised of four adjacent parcels with a total area of
approximately 12B acres Of, primarily, golfing fairways and greens and a 17 -acre lagoon, located at the
eastern end of the San Pedro Peninsula. At the northern boundary of the golf course facility lies the
"project area", a 0.75-acre portion which is developed with single-story, Clubhouse, cafe and
maintenance buildings and two surface parking lots with dedicated parking spaces divided among two
terraced parking areas. A series of 'drainage ways' navigate through the site, delivering storm water
runoff from the surrounding hillsides and the existing bio-retention facility, located across from the site
and Biscayne Dr., and to the lagoon located at the southern boundary of the golf course facility ..
The site is bordered, primarily, by single-family residences with additional town home development east,
public open space west, and private opens space north of the project area.
BACKGROUND
Planning permits have conditionally approved entitlements for the on-going renovation of the project
area, including:
• July 29. 200B. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Peacock Gap Golf Club
Master Plan (UP07 -046 and ED07 -OBO) for the renovation of the existing, 30,000 square foot,
multi-story clubhouse building (Phase 2) and the construction of a new, single-story, 2,BOO square
foot, driving range service building (Phase 1) and a new, single-story, 11,000 square foot, day
spa building with basement storage, outdoor swimming pool and pool deck terrace (Phase 3) ,
and parking lot, lighting, landscaping and entry drive site improvements at the PGGC. This
decision was appealed to the City Council by an adjacent neighbor.
• October 6. 200B. The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's
conditional approval of the project (City Council Resolution No. 12604).
• December B. 2010. The Zoning Administrator approved a time extension (Environmental and
Design Review Amendment ED10-075) of two (2) years, or until December B, 2012, for grading
and building permit issuance for the project.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED1S-010, AP1S.o002 Page 3
• April 20. 2011. An administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED11-
023) and Use Permit Amendment (UP11-019) were approved for minor design and use changes
specific to the driving range service building, located adjacent to the existing lower or west
parking lot. The minor amendments included relocating the cafe from the clubhouse to the driving
range service building and approving a Phasing Plan, which divided the project development into
four (4) phases:
o Phase 1 -Limited to the new driving range service building;
o Phase 1A -All site improvements along the frontage and entry portions of the driveway and
the lower parking lot, and fayade renovation of the existing maintenance building;
o Phase 2 -All site improvements associated with the remaining portions of the driveway, the
upper parking lot, and renovation of the existing clubhouse; and
o Phase 3 -: Limited tCil the new day spa building, outdoor swimming pool and pool deck.
Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED11-023) and Use Permit Amendment
(UP11-019) also conditionally approved minor modifications to Phase 1 of the PGGC Master Plan
(Master Use Permit Amendment No. UP07 -046 and Master Environmental and Design Review
Permit No. ED07 -080).
• September 8. 2011. An administrative Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment
(ED11-035) was approved for minor design changes specific to the driving range and
maintenance buildings, the existing lower or west parking lot, and the landscape area in between,
which constituted minor modifications to Phase 1A of the PGGC Master Plan. During the review
of this Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED11-035), Planning staff and the
applicant could not come to agreement on the new tree palette for the re-Iandscaping along the
site frontage al1d within the lower or west parking lot. Instead, Planning staff and the applicant
agreed to modify the approved Phasing Plan and move the re-Iandscaping of these areas of the
site from Phase 1A to Phase 2.
• October 26. 2011. Revisions to the conceptual sign design for the site that was originally
approved with the PGGC Master Plan were administratively approved.
• June 6. 2012. The Zoning Administrator conditionally approved an Environmental and Design
Review Permit Amendment (ED12-005) for design changes specific to the clubhouse building,
and site design changes specific to the area immediately around the clubhouse building, the
driveway and the existing upper or east parking lot, which constituted modifications to Phase 2 of
the PGGC Master Plan. These modifications included removal of the existing, three-story, 30,000
sq. ft., Clubhouse and the construction of a new, single-story, 17,000 sq. ft., Clubhouse building
with a maximum height of 30' above finished grade and the creation of a new 'roof terrace' events
area immediately west of the Clubhouse and an expanded 'lawn' events area immediately south
of the clubhouse.
• Januarv 9. 2013. The Zoning Administrator approved a time extension (Environment~1 and
Design Review Amendment ED12-080) of two (2) years, or until January 9, 2015, for required
design review permit approvals, and grading and building permit issuance for the Phase 3 project
entitlements (new day spa building, outdoor swimming pool and pool decking).
• August 5. 2015. The Zoning Administrator (SS) approved a time extension (Environmental and
Design Review Amendment ED15-010) of two (2) years, or until August 5, 2017, for required
design review permit approvals, and for grading and building permit issuance for the Phase 3
project entitlements (new day spa building, outdoor swimming pool and pool decking.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED15-010, AP15-002 Page 4
• August 12, 2015, John Arnold, a resident of the adjacent The Knolls/Knoliwood Townhomes
condominiums, submitted a Letter of Appeal to the Community Development Department,
appealing the time extension approval and identifying three (3) points of appeal (Exhibits 3 and
4):
~ In violation of Section 14.25.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, the application for time extension
was not made prior to the expiration of the project approvals;
~ Also in violation of Section 14.25.150, there has been "substantial changes in the factual
circumstances surrounding the originally approved design" of the project by PGGC; and
~ Also in violation of Section 14.25.150, PGGC has violated conditions of approval during prior
phases of the on-going redevelopment of the project area which render the original Findings
. invalid.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010) requests a two (2) year time
extension of the Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) for PGGC. Extensive
renovations of the PGGC facilities have been on-going for the past several years and the Phases 1, 1A
and 2 have been constructed. The project would allow all Phase 3 grading and new construction in
compliance with the approved PGGC Master Plan (i.e., new, 11,000 square foot, day spa building with
outdoor swimming pool and decking). The project is not proposing any changes, modifications or
alterations to the original Environmental and Design Review Permit ED07 -080 approvals or conditions at
this time; however, prior approved design modifications to the Phase 2 entitlements (Clubhouse) will
necessitate minor modification of the approved design of the new Day Spa building, prior to building
permit issuance, to match the approved lower roof pitch of the Clubhouse.
ANALYSIS
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Decision on August 5, 2015:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the time extension was filed by John
Arnold, a resident of The Knolls/Knoliwood townhome condominiums, who resides directly adjacent to
the location of the Phase 3 development approvals. The appeal letter (Exhibit 3) cites two (2) appeal
points, which further details are provided in the appellants' comments (Exhibit 4) made during the Zoning
Administrator's review of the project. These appeal points are paraphrased below as best as possible by
staff; each appeal point is fOllowed by staff's response (Please note, the applicant has submitted a
response to Mr. Arnold's appeal letter, which is attached as Exhibit 5):
Appeal Point #1: In violation of Section 14.25.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, the application for
time extension was not made prior to the expiration of the project approvals.
The original Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07 -080) for the on-going redevelopment of
the project area at the PGGC was first approved by the City Council in 2008 (The Planning
Commission originally approved the project on July 29, 2008 and the City Council denied an appeal
and upheld the Planning Commission's approval on October 6, 2008). The Zoning Administrator
subsequently approved two previous time extensions, the last expiring on January 9, 2015. On
January 7, 2015, the applicant submitted a signed request for time extension to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division (Exhibit 6). On January 8, 2015, Planning staff
conducted a completeness review of the application submittal and contacted the applicant by email,
requesting additional submittals within thirty (30) days, including: 1) a General Planning Application
Form, signed by the owner and applicant; and 2) a $2,258 deposit fee to meet cost-recovery
expenses for services provided by the City in processing the time extension request. On February 9,
2015, the applicant submitted the additional completeness items requested by staff. Based on past
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED1S-010, AP1S-002 PageS
practices, staff accepted a signed letter from the applicant, requesting a time extension, as a timely
submitted application. Once submitted, staff had thirty (30) days to review the completeness of the
application submittal and to provide the applicant with a list of additional items necessary for staff to
complete their review or deem the application submittal 'complete' and schedule a hearing. On the
day following application submittal, staff concluded its completeness review of the time extension
request and notified the applicant of the additional documents/submittals needed to deem the project
'complete' and to schedule it for hearing. The 30-day deadline for the applicant to submit additional
completeness items requested by staff fell on a weekend. Based on past practices, staff extended
the submittal deadline to the following business day, Monday, February 9, 2015. On Monday,
February 9, 2015, the applicant submitted these additional completeness items and staff deemed the
submittal 'complete' and scheduled the time extension request for hearing after consulting the work
schedules of both staff and the applicant; this hearing occurred on August 7,2015.
Appeal Point #2: Also in violation of Section 14.25.150, there has been "substantial changes
in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design" of the project by
PGGC.
PGGC's completeness review re-submittal, dated February 6, 2015 (Exhibit 6c), expressly states that
" ... there are no proposes changes or modifications to the approved Phase 3 design at this time."
Please note, however, prior approved design modifications to the Phase 2 entitlements (Clubhouse)
will necessitate minor modification of the approved design of the new Day Spa building, prior to
building permit issuance, to match the approved lower roof pitch of the Clubhouse.
Appeal Point #3: PGGC has violated conditions of approval (dust control, drainage,
construction/grading hours, outdoor music and maintenance hours) during prior phases of
the on-going redevelopment of the project area which render the original Findings invalid.
At the Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing, Mr. Arnold made the same comments, that PGGC had
previously violated conditions of approval during their operations (outdoor music and maintenance
hours) and during the prior construction of the Clubhouse (dust control, drainage and construction
hours), in opposition to the request for time extension. At that time, though Mr. Arnold stated that he
has not yet notified PGGC of these alleged violations, the Zoning Administrator reminded all parties
present at the hearing of the importance of complying with all conditions of approval. At the ZA
hearing, Mr. Arnold stated he did not know who to contact at PGGC with questions on condition
compliance. In response, PGGC promised to provide both Mr. Arnold and Planning staff current
point-of-contact for Phase 3 construction/grading-related concerns (Pat Sorber, General Manager of
PGGC).
Mr. Arnold's comments, of alleged violations of conditions of approval during both the on-going
operations and prior construction of the Clubhouse (Phase 2 of the Master Plan), however, do not
provide an administrative basis for denying a time extension of the original design review permit for
the Phase 3 improvements (ED07 -080). The original findings are based on the project's consistency
with applicable design-related General Plan polices, Zoning Ordinance standards and review criteria
for Environmental and Design Review Permits. The alleged violations by PGGC are not design-
related to the new Phase 3 construction as approved. In addition, by the appellant's own admission
(Exhibit 4), he never contacted either PGGC or Planning staff with these alleged violations. Emails
from Mr. Arnold and another Knollwood Townhomes resident (Dianne Kelly), alleging recent
violations of operational conditions of approval by PGGC (noise and maintenance hours of
operations), were sent to staff only after the approval of the time extension. Both emails have been
forwarded by staff to the appropriate point of contact for PGGC (Pat Sorber, General Manager of
PGGC) for review and follow-up action, if necessary. These two comments on the time extension and
the two follow-up comments in support of Mr. Arnold's appeal are attached as Exhibit 7.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED15-010, AP15-002 PageS
In addition to finding the time extension request was submitted prior to expiration and no
modifications or changes to the design of the Phase 3 approvals is requested (see Appeal Point #1
and #2 discussions above), the Zoning Administrator determined that the original Findings, approving
the design of the Phase 3 improvements remain valid, though the conditions of approval were
reviewed and updated to meet current standards, where necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning
staff previously prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project which meets the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On July 29, 2008, the San Rafael
Planning Commission adopted, through Resolution No. 08-16, the MND and approved a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). On October 6, 2008, the San Rafael City Council denied an
appeal of the project and upheld the Planning Commission's adoption of the MND and approval of the
MMRP. No additional CEQA analysis is necessary for the proposed time extension.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of both the Zoning Administrator hearing on the time extension request and the Planning
Commission hearing on the appeal were conducted in accordance with the noticing requirements
contained in Chapter 29 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance (Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal
Code). For both hearings, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants
with a 300-foot radius of the site, and interested neighborhood groups (Peacock Gap Homeowner's
Assn., Peacock Estate Homeowner's Assn., Peacock Point Homeowner's Assn., Peacock Court
Homeowner's Assn., Knoll Recreation Assn., Inc., and Knollwood Townhouses, Inc.) at least 15 days
prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing. In addition, notice was posted on the subject site, along the
Biscayne Dr. frontage, at least 15 days prior to the public hearing in accordance with Chapter 29 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
At the time of printing staff's report, two comments were received as a result of this noticing, one in
support of the time extension and one in opposition of the time extension, for either the time extension
request or the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the time extension, with the
exception of Mr. Arnold's comments which have been discussed earlier in staff's report (Exhibit 4). Don
Weyant (4 Partridge Dr.), a resident of the Peacock Point Homeowner's Association neighborhood,
located immediately across Biscayne Dr. from the PGGC, provided voicemail comments in support of the
time extension, stating that PGGC has been a "good neighbor" throughout their improvement project.
Leonard A. Rifkind of Rifkind Law Group provided written comments in opposition of the time extension,
essentially restating Mr. Arnold's pOints of appeal. Additionally, Mr. Arnold and Dianne Kelly (177
Knollwood Dr.), a resident of the adjacent Knollwood Townhomes neighborhood, provided email
comments, alleging violations of operational conditions of approval by PGGC (noise and maintenance
hours of operations). Both comments were forwarded by staff to the appropriate point of contact for
PGGC, Pat Sorber, General Manager of PGGC. These two comments on the time extension and the two
follow-up comments in support of Mr. Arnold's appeal are attached as Exhibit 7.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the time extension (staff's
recommendation);
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the time extension with
modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
3. Uphold the appeal and deny the time extension request, reversing the decision of the Zoning
Administrator, and directing staff to return with a revised Resolution; or
Peacock Gap Golf Club
N
SCALE 1 : 8,208
500 0 500 1,000
FEET
1,500 EXHIBIT 1 A
Thursday, October 08, 20156:52 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 15-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL
(AP15-002) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A TWO -
(2) YEAR TIME EXTENSION (ED15-01 0) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED07-0BO) CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,000 SQ. FT., DAY SPA BUILDING WITH OUTDOOR SWIMMING
POOL AND DECK TERRACE, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE CLUBHOUSE AT
THE PEACOCK GAP GOLF CLUB AT 333-339 BISCAYNE DR.
APNS: 1B4-020-03 , -04, -05 & 1 B4-21 0-01
WHEREAS , on January 7 , 2015, Steve Foster, on behalf of Peacock Gap Holdings,
LLC, the property owner of Peacock Gap Golf Club at 333-339 Biscayne Dr., submitted a
signed application to the Community Development Department, Planning Division , requesting a
time extension (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010) of an Environmental
and Design Review Permit (ED07 -OBO) conditionally approving the construction of an 11 ,000
sq . ft . day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace, located immediately east
of the Clubhouse at the Peacock Gap Golf Club (PGGC) at 333-339 Biscayne Dr.; and
WHEREAS, on January B, 2015, Planning staff finished completeness review of the
application submittal and contacted the applicant by email, requesting additional submittals
within thirty (30) days; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2015, the applicant submitted the additional completeness
items requested by staff and the application was deemed 'complete' and ready for hearing (The
30-day deadline for the applicant to submit additional completeness items requested by staff fell
on a weekend. Based on past practices , staff extended the submittal deadline to the following
business day, Monday, February 9 ,2015; and
WHEREAS, on August 5 , 2015, the Zoning Administrator, held a duly-noticed public
hearing, accepting all oral and written public testimony , and approved a two-(2) year time
extension (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010) of an Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED07-0BO) conditionally approving the construction of an 11,000
square-foot day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace, located immediately
east the Clubhouse at PGGC, finding that the original Findings to support approving ED07 -OBO
remain valid, there has been no substantial changes in the factual circumstances surrounding
the design approved by ED07 -OBO, and the time extension request application was submitted
prior to the expiration of the most recent two-(2) year time extension of the project; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2015, John R. Arnold, a resident of the adjacent The
Knolls/Knollwood Townhomes condominiums , submitted a Letter of Appeal (AP15-002) to the
Community Development Department , appealing the approved two-(2) year time extension
approval (ED15-010) and identifying three (3) points of appeal: 1) The time extension request
application was not submitted prior to the expiration of the most recent two-(2) year time
extension of the original project approvals (ED07 -OBO); 2) There has been "substantial changes
in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design " of the project by
PGGC; and 3) Alleged prior violations of conditions of approval of the original project by PGGC,
involving dust control, drainage , construction/grading hours, outdoor music and maintenance
hours, render the original Findings invalid ; and
Exhibit 2
File Nos. A P 15-002 & ED1 5 -01 0
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2015, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly
noticed appeal hearing to consider the Appeal (AP15-002), accepted and considered all oral
and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision isbased is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies
the Appeal (15-002) and upholds the August 5, 2015 Zoning Administrator's approval of a two-
(2) year time extension (ED15-01 0) of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07 -080)
conditionally approving the construction of an 11,000 square-foot day spa building with outdoor
swimming pool and deck terrace, located immediately east the Clubhouse at PGGC. The
Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported
for the following reasons:
Appeal Point #1: In violation of Section 14.25.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
application for time extension was not made prior to the expiration of the project
approvals.
The original Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) for the on-going
redevelopment of the project area at the PGGC was first approved by the City Council in
2008 (The Planning Commission originally approved the project on July 29, 2008 and the
City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval on October
6, 2008). The Zoning Administrator subsequently approved two previous time extensions,
the last expiring on January 9, 2015. On January 7, 2015, the applicant submitted a signed
request for time extension to the Community Development Department, Planning Division.
On January 8, 2015, Planning staff conducted a completeness review of the application
submittal and contacted the applicant by email, requesting additional submittals within thirty
(30) days. On February 9, 2015, the applicant submitted the additional completeness items
requested by staff and the application was deemed 'complete' and ready for hearing (The
30-day deadline for the applicant to submit additional completeness items requested by
staff fell on a weekend. Based on past practices, staff extended the submittal deadline to
the following business day, Monday, February 9, 2015).
Appeal Point #2: Also in violation of Section 14.25.150, there has been "substantial
changes in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design" of
the project by PGGC.
PGGC's completeness review re-submittal, dated February 6, 2015, expressly states that
" ... there are no proposes changes or modifications to the approved Phase 3 design at this
time." Please note, however, prior approved design modifications to the Phase 2
entitlements (Clubhouse) will necessitate minor modification of the approved design of the
new Day Spa building, prior to building permit issuance, to match the approved lower roof
pitch of the Clubhouse.
Appeal Point #3: Also in violation of Section 14.25.150, PGGC has violated conditions
of approval (dust control, drainage, construction/grading hours, outdoor music and
maintenance hours) during prior phases of the on-going redevelopment of the project
area which render the original Findings invalid.
2 Exh ibi t 2
F ile Nos. A P 15-002 & ED 15-01 0
At the Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing, Mr. Arnold made the same comments, that PGGC
had previously violated conditions of approval during their operations (outdoor music and
maintenance hours) and during the prior construction of the Clubhouse (dust control,
drainage and construction hours), in opposition to the request for time extension. At that
time, though Mr. Arnold stated that he has not yet notifiedPGGC of these alleged violations,
the Zoning Administrator reminded all parties present at the hearing of the importance of
complying with all conditions of approval. At the ZA hearing,Mr. Arnold stated he did not
know who to contact at PGGC with questions on condition compliance. In response, PGGC
promised to provide both Mr. Arnold and Planning staff current point-of-contact for Phase 3
construction/grading-related concerns (Pat Sor~er, General Manager of PGGC).
Mr. Arnold's comments, of alleged violations of conditions of approval during both the on-
going operations and prior construction of the Clubhouse (Phase 2 of the Master Plan),
however, do not provide an administrative basis for denying a time extension of the original
design review permit for the Phase 3 improvements (ED07-080). The original findings are
based on the project's consistency with applicable design-related General Plan polices,
ZOriing Ordinance standards and review criteria for Environmental and Design Review
Permits. The alleged violations by PGGC are not design-related to the new Phase 3
construction as approved. In addition, by the appellant's own admission (Exhibit 4), he never
contacted either PGGC or Planning staff with these alleged violations. Emails from Mr.
Arno!d and another Knollwood Townhomes resident (Dianne Kelly), alleging recent
violations of operational conditions of approval by PGGC (noise and maintenance hours of
operations), were sent to staff only after the approval of the time extension. Both em ails
have been forwarded by staff to the appropriate point of contact for PGGC (Pat Sorber,
General Manager of PGGC) for review and follow-up action, if necessary. These two
comments on the time extension and the two follow-up comments in support of Mr. Arnold's
appeal are attached as Exhibit 7.
In addition to finding the time extension request was submitted prior to expiration and no
modifications or changes to the design of the Phase 3 approvals is requested (see Appeal
Point #1 and #2 discussions above), the Zoning Administrator determined that the original
Findings, approving the design of the Phase 3 improvements remain valid, though the
conditions of approval were reviewed and updated to meet current standards, where
necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the approval of
the two-(2) year time extension (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010) of
an Environmental and Design Review Permit. (ED07 -080) conditionally approving the
construction of an 11,000 sq. ft. day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace,
located immediately east of the Clubhouse at PGGC, based on the following findings:
Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings
(ED15-Q10)
A. The proposed two-(2) year time extension request, extending the Environmental and
Design Review Permit ED07-080 approvals to October 13, 2017, for issuance of all required
grading and building permits for the Phase 3 improvements (Le., new, 11,000 sq. ft. day spa
building, outdoor swimming pool and decking, and upper or east parking lot landscaping,
lighting and re-striping), as proposed and conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San
Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the City of San RafaeJ Municipal
Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Environmental and Design Review Permits) in that: as approved per Environmental and
3 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
Design Review Permit ED07-080 (City Council Resolution No. 12604), the project is
consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and programs, the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits and the
requested time extension will result in a procedural modification only and would not make
any substantive changes to the original Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-
080) approval for the project;
B. The proposed two-(2) year time extension request, extending the Environmental and
Design Review Permit ED07 -080 approvals to October 13, 2017, for issuance of all required
grading and building permits for the Phase 3 improvements (Le./new, 11,000 sq. ft. day spa
building, outdoor swimming pool and decking, and upper or east parking lot landscaping,
lighting and re-striping), as proposed and conditioned, will comply with all applicable site,
architecture' and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Public/Quasi Public
(P/QP) District in which the Peacock Gap Golf Club is located, in that: as approved per
Environmental and Design Review Permit ED07-080 (City Council Resolution No. 12604),
the project is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria
and guidelines for the P/QP District and the requested time extension will result in a
procedural modification only and would not make any substantive changes to the original
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07 -080) approval for the project;
C. The proposed two-(2) year time extension request, extending the Environmental and
Design Review Permit ED07-080 approvals to October 13,2017, for issuance of all required
grading and building permits for the Phase 3 improvements (Le., new, 11,000 sq. ft. day spa
building, outdoor swimming pool and decking, and upper or east parking lot landscaping,
lighting and re-striping), as proposed and conditioned, minimizes adverse environmental
impacts, in that; the conditions of approval have incorporated mitigation measures required
by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project and the
proposed building and the requested time extension will result in a procedural modification
only and wquld not make any substantive changes to the original Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED07 -080) approval for the project; and '
D. The proposed two-(2) year time extension request, extending the Environmental and
Design Review Permit ED07-080 approvals to October 13,2017, for issuance of all required
grading and building permits for the Phase 3 improvements (Le., new, 11,000 sq. ft. day spa
building, outdoor swimming pool and decking, and upper or east parking lot landscaping,
lighting and re-striping), as proposed and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
of the subject site, in that: as approved per Environmental anq Design Review Permit ED07-
080 (City Council Resolution No. 12604), the project was determined to minimize potential
adverse impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood and would not make
substantive changes to the original Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07 -080)
approval. '
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed.
Planning staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project which meets'the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On July 29, 2008, the San
Rafael Planning Commission adopted, through Resolution No. 08-16, the MND and approved a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). On October 6, 2008, the San Rafael
4 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
City Council denied an appeal of the project and upheld the Planning Commission's adoption of
the MND and approval of the MMRP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the approval of
the two-(2) year time extension (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010) of
an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-0BO) to allow all Phase 3 grading and new
construction in compliance with the approved Peacock Gap Golf Club Master Plan (Le., a new
11,000 sq. ft. day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and deck terrace, located
immediately east of the Clubhouse), subject to the following conditions:
General and On-Going
Environmental and Design Review Permit
Conditions of Approval (ED1S-010)
Community Development Department. Planning Division
1. Prior to Building Permit submittal for the Phase III construction, the applicant shall submit an
Environmental and Design Review Permit to the Community Development Department,
Planning Division, to amend the PGGC Master Plan (Master Use Permit Amendment
NO.UP07-046 and an Environmental and Design Review Permit No.ED07-0BO) and modify
the approved architecture of the Day Spa building in order to provide greater design
consistency between the recently constructed Clubhouse and Day Spa building, which are
located close to one another on the site. These design modifications shall include, but are
not limited to, changing the roof slope for the Day Spa building from a 'B-in-12 pitch' main
gable with '6-in-12 pitch' smaller gabled ends to a '4.375-in-12 pitch' main gable with '6-in-
12 pitch' smaller gabled ends.
2. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as
presented for approval (see Environmental and Design Review Permit ED07-0BO) on plans
prepared by McGinnis Chen Associates, Inc, Donald L. Blayney & Associates, Forrest
Richardson & Associates, revision dated March 17, 2008, and on file with the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of
all building permits, subject to these conditions. Minor modifications or revisions to the
project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department,
Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director
shall require review and approval by either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning
Commission, and may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review
Board.
3. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development
Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette for the clubhouse, day
spa, and driving range service buildings and frontage improvements consists of high-quality,
clear-seal finish, B" Western Red Cedar horizontal lap siding with "Spruce Woods" green
primary trim, "limestone" green and "Wilderness" green secondary trims, high-quality dark
fiberglass asphalt roof shingles, bronze anodized aluminum window frames, and "Cliffstone"
drystack manufactured stone veneer columns and pilasters. Any future modification to the
color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those
modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board for review
and recommendation prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning
Commission.
5 Exhibit 2
Fiie Nos. AP15~002 & ED15~01 0
4. This time extension approval (Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-010)
allows the construction of an approximately 11,000 sq. ft.' Day Spa building with uncovered
outdoor swimming pool and decking, and associated drainage and landscaping
improvements at the PGGC. The approved design of the new Day Spa building includes,
generally, a fitness center, multi-purpose/wedding space, salon, massage rooms, locker
rooms, restrooms and separate restrooms for the pool area above mechanical equipment
'overflow' golf cart storage in the understory basement area. This new D~y Spa building is
approved for location immediately east of the existing Clubhouse.
5. All "off-haul" of excavation shall occur during off-peak traffic trip hours -between 9:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only. '
6. All grading and construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Low-noise construction, occurring entirely within the interior of the building, may be
permissible beyond these approved days/hours of operation with prior approval by the
Planning Division and only after the building is completely enclosed (walls, roof, doors and
windows). If requested and approved, Saturday work shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Sunday and federally-recognized holiday work is strictly prohibited.
7. All mechanical equipment (Le., air conditioning units, meters and transformers, rooftop
vents) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure shall be completely
screened from public view at all times. The method used to accomplish the screening shall
be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance
of a building permit.
8. Final landscape and irrigation plans for the project shall comply with the provisions of Marin
Municipal Water District's (MMWD) most recent water conservation ordinance (currently
Ordinance 421). Construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall
be pre-approved by MMWD and stamped as approved by MMWD. The building permit
application submittal shall include a letter from MMWD approving the final landscape and
irrigation plans. Modifications to the final landscape and irrigation plans, as required by
MMWD, shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department, Planning Division.
9. All new landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic drip system and maintained in a
healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead
landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion.
10. All site improvements, including but not limited to, the site and parking lot lighting, fencing,
landscape islands, signage, and parking lot striping shall be maintained in good,
undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged improvements shall be replaced in a
timely manner.
11. All pubic streets and sidewalks and on-site streets which ·are privately owned that are
impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and
free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and
sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of
sweeping.
12. All submitted Building Permit plan sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these
conditions of approval.
6 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
13. To mitigate the potential impacts of evening light and glare all new exterior site and
building lighting shall meet the following standards:
a) Exterior lighting shall be designed to meet minimum San Rafael Police Department
standards of one foot candle at ground overlap for all building entrances and parking
areas and one-half foot candle at ground overlap for walkways Type of lighting and
placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the San Rafael Police Department.
b) Fixtures and pole standards shall be vandal-resistance.
c) All lighting standards shall be shielded down to direct illumination downward and to limit
casting light and glare on adjacent properties.
d) All parking lot lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell, which is set to operate
during hours of darkness. A minimum of one foot-candle at ground-level overlap shall be
provided in all exterior doorways and parking areas, and one-half foot-candle at ground
level overlap shall be provided along all outdoor pedestrian walkways.
e) At building occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a gO-day review period to
allow the City of San Rafael to require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the
lighting, if necessary (Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-1).
14. To mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with construction and grading, prior to
the issuance of a grading permit or a demolition permit, whichever occurs first, a Dust
Control Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City of San Rafael, Community
Development Department, for review and approval. The Dust Control Plan shall include the
following measures:
a) Watering active grading zones a minimum of two times per day.
b) Replacing groundcover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible following grading ..
c) Enclosing, covering and watering down stockpiles of exposed soil material.
d) Covering all trucks hauling dirt or construction debris.
e) Sweeping up dirt and debris several times per day during all phases of construction.
f) Maintaining and operating equipment so as to minimize particulates from exhaust
emissions.
The Dust Control Plan shall be implemented during all phases of grading and site
construction periods when potential dust emissions are likely to occur (Mitigation Measure
Air Quality-1).
15. All species of oak trees proposed to be removed by the project shall be replaced in kind at
a 3:1 replanting ratio. All replacement oak trees shall be 24"-box size or larger. All
replacement trees shall be adequately support staked. All landscaping shall be drip irrigated
and maintained in a healthy condition at all times, with replacement in place and in kind due
to loss.
16. The project has the potential to impact archaeological resources. If, during grading or
construction activities, the existing foundation of the clubhouse is removed or the clubhouse
is demolished and grading occurs where the clubhouse is currently sited, additional
archeological evaluation shall be required (Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources-1).
17. A qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional
Archaeologists) shall be on-site at all times during all grading and excavation activities. If
any archaeological artifacts or human remains are encountered, the procedures identified
7 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & E015-01 0
below in Cultural Resource-3 shall be implemented immediately (Mitigation Measure
Cultural Resources-2).
18. If, during grading or construction activities, any archaeological artifacts or human remains
are encountered, the following measures shall be implemented:
a) If prehistoric or historic human interments (human burials) are encountered within the
project area, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find. The County
Coroner, project superintendent, and the City of San Rafael shall be contacted
immediately. The procedures to be followed after notification are prescribed by law.
b) If significant cultural deposits other than human burials are encountered, the project
shall be modified to allow the artifacts or features to be left in place, or the
archaeological consultant shall undertake the recovery of the deposit or feature. Any
artifacts or features recovered by the archaeological consultant shall be properly
conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated, and curated in a manner consistent with
current professional archaeological standards. Significant cultural deposits are defined
as archaeological features or artifacts that associate with the prehistoric period, the
historic era Mission and Pueblo Periods and the American era up to about 1913.
c) Whenever the monitoring archaeologist suspects that potentially significant cultural
remains or human burials have been encountered, the piece of equipment that
encounters the suspected deposit shall be stopped, and the excavation inspected by the
monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected remains prove to be non-significant or non-
cultural in origin, work may recommence immediately. If the suspected remains prove to
be part of a significant deposit, all work shall be halted in that location until removal ~as
been accomplished. If human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner shall be
contacted so that they (or a designated representative) can evaluate the discovered
remains. If discovered human remains are prehistoric Native American interments, the
coroner shall implement proper contacts with pertinent Native American representatives
through the Native American Heritage Commission.
d) Equipment stoppages shall only involve those pieces of equipment that have actually
encountered significant or potentially significant deposits, and shall not be construed to .
mean a stoppage of all equipment on the site unless the cultural deposit covers the
entire building site.
e) During temporary equipment stoppages brought about to examine suspected remains,
the archaeologist shall accomplish the necessary tasks with all due speed (Mitigation
Measure Cultural Resources-3).
19. The project has the potential to be impacted by ground shaking and liquefaction. At a
minimum, the improvements and structures shall be designed in accordance with the
California Building Code (CBC). Design compliance with CBC standards will need to be
addressed in the subsequent construction drawings, prior to the issuance of grading and/or
building permits. Due to the potential impacts of seismic shaking and the presence of
liquefiable soils as identified by the geotechnical investigation, the day spa building and
outdoor swimming pool/deck terrace shall be designed with pier foundations. The driving
range service building shall be designed with either a pier or footing-type foundation
(Mitigation Measure Geology-1). .
20. The project shall follow all noticing, permitting and licensing requirements by Fed-OSHA
and Cal-OSHA necessary for any abatement of hazardous materials such as asbestos.
These include:
8 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-00~ & ED15-01 0
a) Providing written notification to the !3ay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) on their form, at least 10 days prior to the beginning of any work on friable
or non-friable ACM. ,
b) Providing written notification to Cal-OSHA, on their form, at least 24-hours prior to
beginning any work on ACM or LBP.
c) Prior to abatement of ACM, all employees, contractors, or other parties who may be
affected by the abatement must"be advised in writing of activities pursuant to Cal-OSHA
requirements.
d) The abatement contractor must obtain all building and special permits required for ACM
removal work, including permits required by the California Fire Code, prior to demolition.
e) The abatement contractor must maintain current licenses as required by applicable state
or local jurisdictions for the removal, transporting, disposal, or other regulated activity
(Mitigation Measure Hazards-i).
21. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the
purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the
adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall
include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness
fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third
parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this
application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of
the indemnities.
22. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City
shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will
cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the
applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said .claim, action or
proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2)
approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted;
and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or
proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim,
action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in
such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by
the City.
23. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all
City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney
consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing
of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses
shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to
cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of
any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City
Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City.
24. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-010) shall extend the original.
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) approvals for two (2) years from the
hearing date, or until October 13, 2017, and shall become null and void if the appropriate
grading permit and building permits are not issued. This is the third time extension approved
for the project and further time extensions will likely not be supported by staff.
9 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
25. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-01 0) shall run concurrently with the
original Use Permit (UP07 -046) approval for the project. If this Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED15-010) expires, that portion of the Use Permit approval, for the 'Phase
3' development and improvements, shall also expire and become invalid.
Prior to Issuance of Grading/Bui/ding Permits
Community Development Department. Planning Division
26. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval. The CMP shall include a projected schedule of work,
projected daily construction truck trips, proposed construction truck route, proposed location
of material staging areas, proposed location of construction trailers, proposed location of
construction worker parking, proposed dust control program, a statement that the project
shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal
Code) as modified by Conditions 5 and 6 which limit the day and hours of all grading and
construction activities, a statement that no construction truck traffic shall encroach into any
of the surrounding residential neighborhood streets at any time, and a statement that the
existing roadway conditions on Biscayne Drive (from Pt. San Pedro Road to Partridge Drive)
and Pt. San Pedro Road (from Heritage Drive to Biscayne Drive) shall be memorialized on
digital recording format prior to the start of construction and that the Peacock Gap Holding,
LLC shall be required to repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction
truck traffic. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the
grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail.
27. The project shall submit an affordable housing in-lieu fee, in accordance to San Rafael
Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.030, for approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of new non-
residential development intended for "personal services uses" (Phase 3 improvements). The
City's affordable housing requirement calculates these types of uses at .0225 for every
1,000 of new gross floor area. Based on this calculation, the current project would have an
affordable housing requirement of .25 (.0225 x 11 based on approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of
new non-residential development). (The current Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee is $254,600
per affordable unit. If the building permits for the day spa building were issued now, the
project would be required to pay approximately $63,014 of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Fee -.0225 x 11 = .25 x $254,600.)
Public Works Department
28. A grading permit is required for the project.
29. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with both the Grading Permit and Building
Permit application submittals.
30. The property owner shall monitor water quality in drainage ditches during construction to
ensure soil and silt debris is contained within the project area at all times.
31. No grading operation or construction of retaining walls shall be allowed between October
15th and April 15 th
32. All work in the public right of way requires the issuance of an encroachment permit from the
Public Works Department. The project engineer shall submit three (3) sets of plans showing
all work proposed in the public right-of-way, including details of all utilities, to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
10 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15 -01 0
33. Include the attached sheet "Pollution Prevention -Its Part of the Plan" with each
construction drawing set submitted for building permit.
34. The project shall pay a traffic mitigation fee of $131,626 for 31 additional peak hour
(a.m./p.m.) traffic trips (31 x $4,246), as identified in the Traffic Study dated February 11,
2008 (Mitigation Measure Traffic-2).
35. A final Drainage Plan, by a licensed civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City's Land Development Engineer, which shall include the following:
a) A site plan of the project area with existing and proposed grade contours.
b) Details on the bio-retention facility, such as location, capacity calculations, storm water
drain inlet and outfall, cross-sections, and proposed landscaping (Mitigation Measure
Hydrology-'I).
36. A Storm .Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required and must be approved by
the Storm Water Pollution Manager. SWPPP shall include:
a) Hydrology and hydraulics analysis, based on 10-year and 100-year storm frequency for
pre and post construction to verify that no increase in drainage is generated from the
proposed development. Provide engineering calculation and solutions to mitigate the
increase runoff.
b) Mitigations measures to show where runoff is being treated.
c) All roof downspouts shall be directed to landscaping area for treatment.
d) Pool water must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and not discharged into storm drainage
system.
e) Overflow from swimming pool must be plumbed to sanitary sewer.
f) Storm water runoff from development must be treated before discharge into the storm
drain.
g) Cover, berm and plumb refuse area to the sanitary sewer.
h) Pavement pavers that will filter surface water and runoff.
i) Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement
with City to maintain storm water controls and yearly report.
j) A Best Management Practice (BMP) plan shall be included in the building plans.
k) SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or
building permits.
Community Development Department. Building Division
37. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California
Residential Code, 2013 California Building Code, 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical
Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy
Code, 2013 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building
Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or as amended at
the time of building permit submittal.
38. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by
four (4) complete sets of construction drawings to include:
a) Architectural plans
b) Structural plans
11 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
c) Electrical plans
d) Plumbing plans
e) Mechanical plans
f) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
g) Fire alarm plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
h) Site survey/civil plans (clearly identifying the property lines, grade plane and height of
the building)
i) Structural Calculations
j) Truss Calculations
k) Soils reports
I) Green Building documentation
m) Title-24 energy documentation
39 . The occupancy classification , construction type and square footage of each building shall
be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of
each building . Site/civil plans prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly
showing topography , identifying grade plane and height of the building .
40 . Walls separating the purposed occupancies may be required to be a minimum of 1-hour fire
resistive construction. You may provide justification per CBC 508 that the mixed occupancy
types do not need to be separated by fire resistive construction because they comply with
CBC 508.2 Accessory Occupancies or CBC 508.3 Nonseparated Occupancies.
41. The on-site fire hydrant shall be. upgraded to comply with California Fire Code (CFC) fire
flow requirements.
42 . Building areas are limited by CBC Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building
area .
43 . The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in
any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705 .8
"Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree
of Opening Protection ." In order to calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings
you must provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the
percentage of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or
protected.
44. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and
visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not
satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels , the address must
be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness.
Numbers must be a minimum 6 inches in height with Y, inch stroke for commercial
applications. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12 .12 .20.
45 . The address for structures is determined by the Chief Building Official. The Chief Building
Official shall determine the address of the project at the time of permit submittal.
46. The address for the new building will be legalized upon completion of its construction . Each
page of the plan 's title block and all permit application documents must show the proposed
building 's address identification information.
12 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
47. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for commercial space are computed
currently at $0.54 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San
Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the
building permit.
48. If on-site streets are privately owned, certain on-site improvements such as retaining walls,
street light standards; and private sewer system will require plan review and permits from
the Building Division.
49. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide.
a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In
particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at
future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This
information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for
review and comments prior to any such activities taking place.
50. Geotechnical and civil pad certifications shall be submitted.
51. Based on the distance to the property line (and/or adjacent buildings on the same parcel),
the building elements shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC
Table 601 and exterior walls shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in
CBC Table 602.
52. Each building shall be provided with sanitary facilities per CPC Sec 412 and Table 4-1
(including provisions for persons with disabilities). Separate facilities shall be required for
each sex.
53. In the understory parking areas, where motorized golf carts are stored, floor surfaces shall
be of noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil
separator or trap discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and
SWPPP.
54. In the understory parking areas where motorized golf carts will be stored, mechanical
ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of 1.5 cubic feet per minute
per square foot of gross floor area. Automatic carbon monoxide-sensing devices may be
employed to modulate the ventilation system. Connecting offices, waiting rooms,
restrooms, and retail areas shall be supplied with conditioned air under positive pressure.
55. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) 60" wide by 30" deep with an entrance
opening of at least 60" or a car size of 42" wide by 48" deep with an entrance opening of 36"
or a car size of 60" wide by 36" deep with an entrance opening of at least 36".
56. The site development of items such as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps,
common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility standards contained
in Title-24, California Code of Regulations. Pedestrian access provisions should provide a
minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface to and along all accessible routes. Items
such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles, etc., shall not encroach
on this 4' minimum width. Also, note that sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed
published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2. The civil, grading and landscape plans
shall address these requirements to the extent possible.
13 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15 -002 & E D 15-010
57. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following
table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site:
Total # of Parking Spaces Provided Minimum ReQuired # of HIC Spaces
1 to 25 1
26 to 50 2
51 to 75 3
76 to 100 4
101 to 150 5
151 to 200 6
201 to 300 7
301 to 400 8
401 to 500 9
501 to 1,000 Two percent of total
1,001 and over 20, plus one for each 100 or fraction
thereof over 1,001
58. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and
8 feet wide off-load area. Additionally,: one in every eight required handicap spaces must
be van accessible.
59. As a new building, the project is required to comply with the California Green Building Code,
including Tier 1 standards. The specific requirements are as identified in San Rafael
Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 12.23.020.
60. All new construction, additions or remodels must comply with the Wood-Burning Appliance
Ordinance. New wood burning fireplaces and non-EPA certified wood stoves are
prohibited. Non-EPA Phase II-certified wood stoves must be removed in remodels and
additions which: exceed 50% of the existing floor area and include the room the stove is
located in.
61. In-ground grease separator(s) will be required outside the building perimeter to handle
waste water from the restaurant and food court areas.
62. Prior to any use or occupancy of this building or structure or any portion there of a
"Certificate of Occupancy" must be issued by the Chief Building Official pursuant to
California Building Code Section 111.1. Failure to secure a "Certificate of Occupancy" is a
violation and will result in a $500 citation per day that the violation continues.
San Rafael Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau
63. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire
Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
64. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall
show the location the following:
a) DeSignated fire apparatus access roads.
b) Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.
c) Onsite fire hydrants.
14 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
d) Fire Department Connection (FDC).
e) Double detector check valve.
f) Street address sign.
g) Recessed Knox Box
h) Fire Alarm annunciator panel.
i) NFPA 704 placards.
j) Note the designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant shall be installed and
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to construction of the building.
Complete and submit the attached Fire Prevention Bureau Fire Apparatus Access Road and
Fire Hydrant Worksheet.
44. Please add the following information to the plans submitted for building permits:
Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems:
a) Private Fire Service Main. .
b) Automatic Fire Sprinkler System ..
c) Fire Alarm System
45. Show the location of address numbers on the building elevation. Each building must have
address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or
road fronting the property. Refer to the attached Fire Prevention Bureau Premises
Identification Standard 09-1001, Table 1.
46. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. A recessed
mounted Knox Box # 3275 Series is required for this project; the Knox Box shall be clearly
visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane. Note th~ Knox Box must be
installed from 72" to 78" above finish grade; show the location on the plans.
47. Onsite fire hydrants are required for this project. The fire hydrants shall be a wet barrel Clow
model 960. The locations of the fire hydrants are to be determined by the Fire Prevention
Bureau. Please contact Fire Inspector David Heida (415) 458-5004 to schedule a meeting.
48. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum width of the
road shall be 26-feet. The 26-feet width is required to remain clear and obstructed for at
least 20-feet of roadway on each side of the fire hydrant.
49. When a building is fully sprinklered, all portions of the exterior building perimeter shall be
located within 250-feet of an approved fire apparatus access road. ,
50. The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road shall be 20-feet.
51. The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access road shall be 28 feet.
52. The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150-feet in length. The
project shall provide an approved turn-around. Please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau
for specific details.
53. Fire lanes shall be deSignated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No
Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance with the CFC Section 503.3.
15 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
54. Please note on the plans that a complete fire alarm system per CFC section 907 shall be
installed throughout the building as part of this construction project.
55. Please note on the plans that a complete automatic fire sprinkler system per CFC section
903 shall be installed throughout the building as part of this construction project.
56. Evacuation placards shall be installed at all classrooms.
57. Hazardous Materials Placard shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704.
58. Provide a copy of the Hazardous Materials Management Plan which has been submitted to
Marin County Department of Public Works, CUPA.
59. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to
provide adequate water supply service for the required fire protection system.
60. To mitigate construction noise:
a) Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the
construction site associated with the project in any way should be restricted to the hours
of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction activities shall occur on
Saturdays without prior City approval. Sundays work is prohibited. Post signs stating
allowable hours of construction per the City's Noise Ordinance.
b) The day spa building and outdoor swimming pool/deck terrace shall be designed with a
pier rather than pile foundation. Pile-driven foundations are not permitted. The driving
range service building shall be designed with a pier type or footing-type foundation
rather than a pile foundation.
c) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
d) Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
e) Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
exists.
f) The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for
major noise-generating construction activities and distribute it to all adjacent neighbors.
g) Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any
local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine
the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will
require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
Conspicuously post a telephone contact number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction
schedule.
The property owner shall monitor the construction noise for conformance with the above
limitations. If self-monitoring indicates non-conformity, the property owner shall take
immediate action to correct, which may include better management of contractors and
subcontractors on-site. Repeat violations documented by the San Rafael Police Department
shall subject the project sponsor to a revocation hearing of the use permit. (Mitigation
Measure NOise-5).
16 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15·002 & ED15-010
During Construction
Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD)
61. At the time of building permit issuance on the day spa building, the property owner is
required to enter into a pipeline extension agreement with MMWD for the installation of
facilities and said agreement must be approved by MMWD's Board of Directors. In the
alternative, the property owner may apply for a variance to MMWD's Board of Directors for
their review and action. All costs associated with the pipeline extension are borne by the
property owner. The property owner shall submit a copy of the executed pipeline extension
agreement or the approved variance to the City.
62. The property owner shall satisfy the following MMWD conditions of acceptance of the
pipeline extension agreement, or approval of the variance, and submit confirmation to the
City:
a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
b) Submit a copy of the current building permit.
c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges.
d) Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested,
including the installation of a separate meter to serve the new structure.
e) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 -Water
Conservation. Landscape, irrigation, grading and fixture plans shall be submitted to the
District for review and approval. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 -Water
Conservation should be directed to the District's Water Conservation Department at
(415) 945-1497. You may also find information on the District's water conservation
requirements online at www.marinwater.org.
f) The project is within a designated future recycled water area. It is necessary to design
irrigation systems in compliance with MMWD's Recycled Water Requirements.
g) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the Districts review backflow
protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions
regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention
Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1558.
Pacific Gas & Electric
63. Electric and gas service to the project site will be provided in accordance with the applicable
extension rules, which are available on PG&E's website at
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservicelother/newconstruclion or contact (800) PGE-
5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there
is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work.
64. The cost of relocating any existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead
facilities to underground shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or property owner.
65. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground
facilities marked in the field.
Prior to Occupancy
Community Development Department, Planning Division
66. Final inspection of the project by the Community Development Department, Planning
Division, is required. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final
17 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED 15-010
inspection upon completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of
48-hour advance notice.
67. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. In the alternative, the
applicant or property owner shall post a bond with the City in the amount of the estimated
landscaping/irrigation installed cost. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed
for landscaping shall be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning
Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3
months past occupancy.
68. The landscape .architect for the project shall submit a letter to the Planning Division,
confirming the landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved project plans
and the irrigation is fully functioning.
69. All exterio(lighting shall be shielded down. A minimum of one (1) foot candle at ground level
overlap shall be provided at all exterior doorways and throughout the vehicle parking area.
A minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided on all
outdoor pedestrian walkways and common areas. Following the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, all. exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90-day lighting level review by the City
to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not
creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During
this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of
the lighting, if necessary.
70. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-010) requires final inspection by the
Community Development Department, Planning Division. The applicant/property owners
shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon completion of the
project. This final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 13th day of October, 2015. "
Moved by Commissioner XX and seconded by Commissioner XX
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY: --------~----~~~--~~-----Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Barrett Schaefer, Chair
18 Exhibit 2
File Nos. AP15-002 & ED15-010
August 12, 2015
Hand Delivered
Mr. St'eve Stafford
John R. Arnold
161 Knollwood Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-256-9336
jramgt@comcast.net
Community Development Department,
Planning Division
City of San Rafael
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL
Project 333-335-337-339 Biscayne Drive (Peacock Gap Golf Club)
Dear Steve:
This is an appeal of the decision to grant the extension for the Environmental and
Design Review Permit ED07-080 for the above project. The decision violates the San
Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.150 Extensions. which requires the application for
extension be submitted prior to the expiration of the Permit and "there have been no
substantial changes in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved
design."
On Page 4 of the August 5, 2015 letter approving the time extension, states "" the City
has deemed that the time extension application is valid and was submitted prior to the
filing deadline." The application date on the General Application Form requesting the
time extension is February 9, 2015. The January 9, 2013 minutes of the meeting
approving the previous time extension extended the permit to January 9,2015. Clearly,
the application was submitted one month after the expiration of the Permit and the City's
statement is incorrect and in error. Therefore, the time extension approved at the
August 5,2015 meeting was in violation of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
In my August 3, 2015, letter to you, specific violations of the Conditions of Approval of
the original Permit by the Peacock Gap Golf & Country Club were listed. Had the
Planning Commission foreseen these violations the original Permit would never have
been approved. These actual violations of the Conditions of Approval constitute a
substantial change in the factual circumstances surrounding the original approved
EXHIBIT 3
design and, therefore, violate a condition for the extension in the San Rafael Municipal
Code.
This appeal of the decision to approve the time extension of the Environmental and
Design Review Permit (ED07-080) is based on the above detailed violations of the
San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.150 -Extensions.
Sincerely, ~
\/l ·~( lL vY\~~
Joh R. Arnold
Attachments:
John R Arnold to Steve Stafford August 3, 2015
Application for Time Extension
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Ran Rafael Zoning Administrator, January 9, 2013 (pages
1-5)
San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.25.150 -Extensions
August3,2015
John R. Arnold
161 Knollwood Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-256-9336
jramgt@comcast.net
Via e-mail steve. stafford @cityofsanrafael.org
Mr. Steve Stafford
Community Development Department,
Planning Division
City of San Rafael
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
RE: Project 333-335-337-339 Biscayne Drive (Peacock Gap Golf & Country Club)
Dear Steve:
The request for time extension for the above project should not be approved for the
following reasons.
1. The previous extensions have expired and accord Ing to Code an application
for extension must be made prior to expiration.
According to the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING the "San Rafael Zoning Administrator
approved two previous time extensions, which have expired."
An environmental and design review permit may be extended by the
zoning administrator, if the findings required by Section 14.25.090
Findings, remain valid, there have been no substantial changes in the
factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design, and
application is made prior to expiration. -San Rafael -Code of
Ordinances 14.25.150 Extensions
2. The original Approval was flawed.
When this project was initially reviewed, the environmental impact of the noise
associated with the outdoor swimming pool was a major issue that significantly delayed
the approval of the project. The original submission was accompanied by faulty science
and a lack of alternative site plans to mitigate the noise impact on the adjacent
residential area. After multiple reviews the Planning Commission approved the project
by a very tenuous 4 to 3 vote. It was obvious that some of the commissioners were
very displeased with the lack of responsiveness and professionalism of the applicant. If
EXHIBIT 4
the project had not been approved, it would have been referred back to the Design
Review Board for further review and adjustments.
Apparently, referral back to the Design Review Board was a step four members of the
Planning Commission were unwilling to take and the project was approved. However,
at least three of the Commissioners were not convinced that the project design did not
minimize adverse environmental Impacts and did not adequately consider the welfare of
the residential properties in the vicinity. (San Rafael -Code of Ordinances 14.25.090 -
Findings C,D)
In any case, it is a reasonable assumption that the Commissioners who voted to
approve the Permit expected the Owner to follow the Conditions of Approval contained
in the Resolution. An assumption that has proven to be incorrect.
3. The conduct of the Owner during and after Phase II construction Indicates a
disregard for fhe welfare of the properties in the vicinity and disregard of the
Conditions of Approval. (If the items below are questioned, any number of
witnesses can be produced to corroborate the facts.)
DUST. (Condition 57) During construction the dust from the project was not
adequately controlled. A water truck was on site and used on the dirt access
road but not consistently. The neighbors were subjected to clouds of dust on a
daily basis. Even with windows closed during the summer, the dust invaded the
homes and required daily cleaning. Two neighbors were compensated for carpet
cleaning; however, only after multiple requests. There was no outreach to the
community.
The Conditions of Approval require a Dust Control Plan. Was such a plan
submitted for this project?
DRAINAGE. (Condition 64) The Conditions of Approval require a drainage plan
by a civil engineer. Was such a plan submitted? During construction, excess dirt
was piled east of the building construction near the property line of the Knollwood
Townhouses. The neighbors were concerned that during a storm a slide could
occur, damaging their property. A road was graded on the property line in such a
manner that the existing drainage was diverted to the Townhouses property.
During either a test or a breakage of a water pipe, the driveway of the
Townhouses was flooded with muddy water and would have entered the garages
if the alarm was not given to the construction crew. Both of these problems were
mitigated but only after a San Rafael City Engineer reviewed the situation at the
request of a homeowner. In other words, mitigated under duress.
CONSTRUCTION HOURS. (Condition 68) "Construction hours of operation
shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only. No weekend construction
is permitted." Saturday construction was routine and activity frequently
continued until 7:00 p.m.
MUSIC. (Condition1. h. & L) "Outdoor music use, limited to background or
"mood music" "in and around" the clubhouse -including the "events terrace"
and "events lawn" areas -and the driving range service building only." The
outside speakers at the club house are often used when there is no event in
progress. Frequently, the music can be clearly heard 300 yards away -much
too loud. During events loud speakers are used (particularly weddings) and
bands have played outdoors. During evening events the doors to the building
have been left open, allowing the music to be clearly heard by the neighbors.
MAINTENANCE HOURS. (CONDITION 2. c.) "Golf course maintenance 6:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m." Noise producing golf course equipment is routinely in
operation starting at 5:30 a.m.
CONCLUSION. Complaints concerning these violations of the Conditions of
Approval have not been made as the homeowners wish to be good neighbors. A
successful golf course and event center is in everyone's best interest. The
primary concern of the neighbors is the Spa and Swimming Pool which would
significantly degrade the quality of the environment of the adjacent residential
properties. The Conditions of Approval (3 -7) for the Spa and Swimming Pool
are very specific and limit the use of the pool and cart storage area in an attempt
to reduce the noise impact on the neighboring properties. (The effectiveness of
this mitigation was the primary reason for opposition during the review process.)
However, given the above detailed willful violations of the Conditions of Approval,
it can be assumed that the Owner will not adhere to the restrictions placed on the
use of the Spa and Swimming Pool. When these violations occur, the neighbors
are required to call the San Rafael Police Department to document the violation.
Setting up this inevitable confrontation is not in the best interest of any of the
neighbors, the Owner, the San Rafael Police Department, and the City of San
Rafael Planning Division.
For the above detailed reasons, I submit that the Request for Time Extension be
denied. The requirements for extension outlined in 14.25.150 Extensions have not
been satisfied since the existing permit has expired and the factual circumstances
surrounding the original approval have change substantially in that the Owner has failed
to followed the Conditions of Approval for the project already completed.
Sincerely,
John R. Arnold
cc. Knollwood Townhouses, Inc
Peacock Gap Holdings LLC
September 23 ,2015
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS U.S. MAIL
Steve Stafford
Community Development Department
Associ ate Planner
City o f San Rafael
P .O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
steve.s tafford@cityofsanrafael.org
Re: Response to Notice of Appeal by Mr. John Arnold -Time Extension Approval
333-335-337-339 Biscayne Drive (APNs: 184-020-03, -04, -05 & 184-210-01)
Dear Mr. Stafford:
This letter is in response to Mr. John Arnold's August 12, 2015 appeal of the City'S decision to grant the
time extension request of the Environmental and Design Review Permit ED07 -080 under the Peacock
Gap Golf Club (PGGe) Master Plan.
1. The last extension period expired on January 9, 2015. PGGC submitted its time extension application
on January 7,2015. Thus, PGGC's request was timely filed.
2. Mr. Arnold's August 3, 2015 letter claims the original approval was flawed. PGGC denies such claim,
but more importantly, the opportunity to di spute the original approval has long since passed.
3. The alleged violations detailed in Mr. Arnold 's August 3, 2015 letter were discussed at the August 5,
2015 Zoning Administrator regular meeting. There, it was not determined that PGGC actually violated
any conditions, and PGGC continues to deny any such violations. Moreover, Mr. Arnold in his August
3 , 2015 letter acknowledges that complaints were not made by homeowners . Mr. Arnold also expressed
concern at the August 5, 2015 meeting about the appropriate contact person regarding construction-
related issues, but PGGC promised to provide updated contact information for the point person for
neigbbors to call with questions or concerns about construction-related issues (daytime and weekend) if
Phase 3 construction happens.
For these reasons, PGGC's time extension request should be granted. Thank you for your attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
Dave Shesgreen
Vice President of Business Affairs
150 Pelican Way. San Rafael , CA. 94901 • (415) 448-8300
EXHIBIT 5
Peacock Gap Holdings LLC
January 7,2015
BY EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
(steve.slafford@cl.san-rafael.ca.us)
Mr. Steve Stafford
Senior Planner
Community Development
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: Request to Extend Peacock Gap Project Approvals, Entitlements, and
Permits for Day Spa and Outdoor Swimming Pool ("Phase m")
Dear Mr. Stafford,
As you will recall, the approvals for the renovation of Peacock Gap Golf Club were
extended twice by the San Rafael Zoning Administrator in order to accommodate a three-
phased renovation process following the bankruptcy and sale of Peacock Gap to Peacock
Gap Holdings LLC, the current owners.
Since the approvals were extended, first on December 8, 2010 and again on January 9,
2013, the Range Building ("Phase I") and the new Main Clubhouse ("Phase II") have
both been completed and are open to the public.
At this time, Peacock Gap Holdings LLC requests a further extension of two years for the
existing entitlements and approvals for the Day Spa and Outdoor Swimming Pool
("Phase III"). .
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation.
Steve Foster
Vice President of Construction
cc: Paul Jensen (by mail only)
150 Pelican Way. San Rafael CA· 94901 • (415) 448-8300
EXHlBIT6a
Steve Stafford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Morning Steve,
Steve Stafford
Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:12 AM
Steve]oster@150Pelican.com
'Andrew_McCuliough@150Pelican.com·
RE: Request to Extend Peacock Gap Project Approvals
Thank you for your request for time extension on behalf of Peacock Gap Holdings in regards to the approved Phase 3
development at Peacock Gap Golf Club (PGGC). Pursuant to Section 14.25.150 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, the
Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080) for the long-range redevelopment of the PGGC may be
extended by the City's Zoning Administrator ifthe original findings of the project are determined to remain valid and the
time extension request is submitted to the City prior to expiration. The design review entitlements were set to expire on
January 9, 2015 so your time extension request is timely. In order to schedule a hearing before the Zoning Administrator
and formally extend the entitlements, it will be necessary to you to submit a $2,258 deposit fee to cover staff time in
processing the time extension request. It will also be necessary for you to submit a statement identifying all proposed
changes to the Phase 3 design approval or a statement that there are no proposed changes or modifications to the
approved Phase 3 design at this time. Please note that any substantive changes or modifications to the approved Phase
3 design (i.e., increasing the size of the day spa building or use of the understory or basement for any other purpose
than storage or mechanical equipment) may also require amendment of the Master Use Permit (UP07-046). You will
remember on May 16, 2014 you submitted a request for immediate amendment of the approved hours of operation in
the Use Permit (i.e., increase from 11 p.m. daily to 1 a.m. on weekends and holidays) to accommodate an event
previously scheduled at PGGC. At that time, Planning indicated that the amendment ofthe Use Permit would require 4-6
weeks to process and, due to the potential controversy of increasing the hours of operation with the adjacent
town home neighbors, recommended suspending the request until PGGC conducted outreach with these adjacent
townhome neighbors. it was agreed to suspend the request until PGGC could conduct outreach meetings with the
neighbors; however, if substantive changes or modifications to the approved Phase 3 design are proposed that also
require amendment of the Use Permit, I recommend that proposed increase in the hours of operation at PGGC also be
reviewed at that time. Please note that, since the comprehensive redevelopment entitlements were originally approved
in 2008, further time extension requests may require Planning Commission review and approval. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please submit the required document and deposit fee as identified
above within thirty (30) days, or by Monday, February 9,2015, or your time extension request will be deemed
withdrawn due to incompleteness of the application submittal. Thanks.
Steve
Steve Stafford
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Associate Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
415.458.5048 (0)
415.485.3184 (f)
1
EXHlBIT6b
From: Andrew McCullou!:Ih\wlS0PeUcan.com [mailt9:An rew McCulouy !l:!'150Pelican.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 07, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Stafford
ubjed:: quest t d Peaco Project als
1
ndrew C. lIough
Enterprises
an Rafa
415.44
415.25
Way
94901
This electronic metSS,~Qe transmission contains information that may be proprietary, confidential and/or "'1'1\,11' ... ""1"1
If you not the recipient, aware that any disclosure, copying of this is
you hay ved this ge in er ase not ender i ately.
-FOlWard raw Mile OPelican015 02:3
nniferPu ellcan
01/011201501:24 PM
Good afternoon Stafford,
easese ttached end on
ve.staffQf rafael.ca.
cc Steve Fosterl150Pelican@150Pelican, Andrew McCullough
Subject Request to Extend Peacock Gap Project Approvals
ofStev r.
Let me know if have any aUI~SIli[)nS or trouble the attachment.
Thankyo I
nnifer
nnifer
dministr ssistant
Enterprises
P""lil"l:InWay
CA 94901
!;R150P om
Peacock Gap Holdings LLC
February 6, 2015
BY EMAIL AND FEDEX
(steve.stalford@cityofsanrafaeJ.org)
Mr. Steve Stafford
Senior Planner
Community Development
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: Request to Extend Peacock Gap Project Approvals, Entitlements, and
Permits for Day Spa and Outdoor Swimming Pool ("Phase m")
Dear Mr. Stafford, .. cr . . . ,
In response to your email datedJanuary8.2015.pl~ase find enclosed a check payable to
the City of San Rafael in the amount of $2,258 and as our deposit to cover the staff time
necessary for processing our request for an extension of the Phase III entitlements.
Please be advised that there are no proposed changes or modifications to the approved
Phase III design at this time.
Very truly yours,
1StDru-u ~~ ppCf~~ ~~~
Steve Foster
Vice President of Construction
Enc!.
150 Pelican Way· San Rafael CA· 94901 • (415) 448-8300
ExmBIT6c
DATE: October 8,2015
TO: Project File
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Steve Stafford, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: [AP15-002; ED15-010] Public Comment
Don Weyant (4 Partridge Dr.) a resident of the Peacock Point Homeowner's Association
neighborhood located immediately across Biscayne Dr. from the Peacock Gap Golf Club
(PGGC), provided voicemail comments in support of the time extension, stating that PGGC has
been a "good neighbor" throughout their improvement project.
EXHIBIT 7
L.CONAftO;'. RIFJ{IND
-;'t-<QMA5 C . TAYLOR. JR.'
'01< C;OUN9£L
October 6, 20 15
RIFKIND LAW GROUP
100 B o.=;6.":C'& lANe "-IG ~OI.O. Sum: 260
(3REENBR.,\!=:. C t.L.roP"' .... 9 ~19D4
TEL (41 5 \ 765-79SIl • FA X 14 t 51 785-7976
W WW .RI F"I{INOi..'\Wril'<!J\J'P.caM
VIA EMAIL: planningta;citvofsanrafael.org
Barrett Schaefer, Chair
Members or the San Rafael Planning Commission
ci a Community Development Department
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Re: 333 Biscayne Drive
Dear Chair Schaefer and Members of the Planning Commission:
L..I.Nil usc
eU!fl .... f;!'>S LAW
E S TA.T[" Pt.A .... ""t~13
Our firm has been consulted and retained by Knollwood Townhouses, Inc. (KTll, located
adjacent to the applicant's property. KTI opposes the applicant's request to extend
eOlitlement approvals for a master use pennit (UP07-046) and environmental and de,ign
review permit (ED07-080) for two years for Phase 3, to construct a swimming pool and
spa center.
KTI opposes the request permit extension on the following grounds:
1. Extension Request Is Untimely. The ret1:renced permits expired on January 9,
2015. (See San Rafael Zoning Administrator Minutes, Dated January 9, 2013).
On February 9, 2015, one full me nth after expiration of the Permit ED07-080. the
City received the applicant's General Application Fornl. SRMC Sec. 14.25.150.
This section provides in pertinent part , "An environmental and design review
penn it may be extended ... if findings required by Section 14.25 .090 , Findings.
remain valid , there have been no substantial changes in the factual circumstances
surrounding the o.riginal design , and application is made prior to expiration."
[Underline original, emphasi.s added]. "If more than one phase of n development
is approved in a single action and the later phases remain outstanding, their
approval shall lapse at the e nd of the authorized time frame:' SRMC Sec.
14.25.200. Here, the applicant cannot seck to. extend a permit that has lapsed.
Barrett Schaefer, Chair
Members of the San Ratael Planning Commission
October 6,2015
Page 2 of3
2. Project Design Will Be Detrimental to Public Health, Safety and Welfare,
and Materially Injurious to Properties in the Vicinity. Because Permit ED07-
080 has lapsed, Phase 3 improvements related to the proposed swimming pool
and spa center as previously approved should be subject to design review on a de
no vo basis. KTI does not oppose Phase 3 improvements to be located at 333
Biscayne Drive , but does oppose their proposed location immediately adjacent to
KTI owner's units . The swimming pool and related public events around the pool
will generate unacceptable noise impacts. The applicant plans for a golf cart barn
under the spa building in a configuration that will require carts to back up with a
warning bell that will create additional noise impacts to adjacent homeowners.
Accordingly, findings cannOI be made to support Phase 3. See SRMC Sec . .
14.2S.090(D). An extension of an ED permit can only occur, assuming it is
otherwise not lapsed, provided all required findings can be made and they cannot
as indicated for the reasons stated.
3. Permit ED07-080 Has Been Exercised in Violation of its Conditions of
Approval. KTI tmderslands the agenda item before the Commission is a request
by the Applicant to extend Permit E007-0S0. which should be denied for the
grounds set forth above. If the Commission should deny the appeal, KTI requests
the Commission schedule a future hearing for revocation of the subject permit.
SRMC Sec. 14.25.170. Specifically, during course of construction of Phase I and
2 , th e Applicant has breached or violated the following conditions of approval:
a. Condition No. 57. Dust. During construction of the project, dust has nol
been adequately controlled.
b. Condition No. 6S. Construction Hours. Pemlitted hours are 7 to 5,
Monday to Friday. Construction frequently continued to 7:00 p.m., and
often on Saturdays.
c. Condition No. I h and Ii. MusicILoud Speakers. Loud music and loud
speaker or public address communications can be clearly heard at KTI's
members' residences.
d. Condition No . 2c. Maintenance Hours. Golf course maintenance is 6:30
a.m., to 5:30 p.m. Noise producing golf course equipment is routinely
commenced at 5:30 a.m.
In conclusion, the applicant without debate failed timely to renew its permit and it has
lapsed by operation of law provided in the City's municipal code. Phase 3 needs to
return to the design review planning process because the proposed uses as designed will
adversely affect the neighboring property owners. Further, the Applicant has
d emonstrated under the first two phases of this project that it cannot comply with express
Barrett Schaefer. Chair
Members of the San Rafael Planning Commission
October 6,2015
Page 3 of3
conditions of approval. and therefore Phase 3 needs to be reconsidered as a new project
subject to the full panoply of planning review.
Respectfully submitted,
RIFKIN#A W GROUP
By:~o(~>~J\~~~~~~-=~
Leonard A. Rifkind
LARlf\v
cc: Knoliwood Townhouses. Inc.
-------
~ARADIS E PR OPERTIES , INC.
A Rea l Esta t e Brokerage an d M anagement Company
July 21 , 2015
City of San Rafael
Attn: Steve Stafford, Project Manager
Planning Division Office, City Hall
1400 Fifth Ave .
San Rafael , CA 94901
Dear Mr. Stafford,
< j
. j
~J
The Knoll Recreation Association (KRA), representing the homeowners at The Knolls, a
community adjacent to the Peacock Gap Golf Club, wishes to express its concern regarding
the time extension of the extensive renovations previously approved and completed, except
for the 11,000 square foot day spa building with outdoor swimming pool and adjacent deck
terrace at the Peacock Gag Golf Club.
Completion of the renovation was challenging . and disruptive due to construction traffic and
nOise, but the results proved worth the inconven ience. We believe the work done to be an
improvement to our neighborhood. The down side of course is the increased traffic and
parade of cars at the completion of events held in the new facility. None the less, we consider
the Peacock Gap Golf Club to be a good neighbor, which offers benefits to our neighborhood.
We had understood that the outdoor pool and spa building would not be built, but the request
for an extension would indicate that is not the case . With that in mind, the homeowners at
The Knolls would like to express their concerns regarding yet even more increased traffic in
this pleasant setting, as well as noise concerns with an outdoor venue being a focal part of
the planned construction. Is this really the right facility to place in the middle of a quiet
residential neighborhood? Please consider our concerns when the City determines whether
to allow a time extension of this permit (ED07 -080). We urge that the City consider the
renovation completed under the current permit to be the completion of work, based on the
time allowance cited in the permit.
Should the Peacock Gap Golf Club plan to add the 11,000 square foot spa facility, we request
that a new permit for Environmental and Design Review be submitted and the a more
rigorous process than a time extension be required prior to moving forward with the proposed
project.
Respectfully,
T H E KNOLL RECREATION ASSOCIATION (KRA)
clo Paradise Properties, Inc.
CC: Peacock Gap Holdings, LLC
Growth is o ur goal and service [0 o ur clients is our first prio rity.
1001 Bridgeway • Sa usa lito, California 94965 • 415/332-7900 • Fax 4 15/331-3509
Steve Stafford
o.
Diann
Wed
<dian
Octob
Steve rd
177@c
0158:4
Subject: 333-339 Biscayne Dr. (Peacock
Mr.
ference proj~c ioned a
munity. e in on e two c
affected the club's continued infringement
wish t
immed
the noise
myou
djacen
net>
Golf Club)
nt incid
prope
pactin
'ofthe
nollwo
and su ntly
aturda st 29, 2 placed 0 the P ubhous a comp f the m plified event
The 10 sic app 0 be a in that pieces eing p The sta n who red
the assured me he would the persons the music was subsequently lowered to reasonable
level. On Sunday, 30,2015, I placed a call to the PGGC at 5 music amplified appeared to be
the music bein day I received answer leaving a message I then called the SR PD and
a dispa with my laint. S d if the she co r in the round ( I was m my
room) e nois compla bout; I ded in h she r "that's ud, I
will send a uniformed officer to the club." At approximately 5:30 PM I Alex who stated
that he would speak to staff re: the music. The music ceased shortly and the assembled
Ie in th t area ed to g rs.
On September , Ie music again occurred in e event are n every y f musi ould
not reconsidered music could be The level was lower than the previous however.
On September 6,2015, the continuous music and use microphone was loud na,,,A/c,on 4:45-6:30
Again, sic was ood" ground but lou
On
directing groups of
2015, there was loud music in addition to a photographer, on
about where/how to assemble.
using a microphone
of the
o and/
mentio curren dered of my mpossib to exc se. Tur my
id not ut the n om the area. If
future, be
SR PD to complain if I
Icon
street.
Since
o wish
Dian y
177 Knollwood
415-460-1048
that I be monitoring/recording decibel
the noise exceeds the levels set law.
e Knoll ommu n remai d neig
San CA
1
b's pia he poo pa go f in
and will continue to call the club and the
ith the buttha wo-way
Steve Stafford
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbJect:
Attachments:
Steve
jramgt@comcast.net
Thursday, October 08, 201S 12:42 PM
Steve Stafford
Arnold, John
Peacock Gap Golf Club Violation of Hours of Operation .
Equip Exit Maint Building.png ; Machine Operation.png; Maintenance Building.png; IMG_
2S04.m4v -Video Machine Operation.m4v
The attached pictures and a video of maintenance operations at the Peacock Gap Golf Club were
taken this morning October 8, 2015 prior to 6:30 a.m. in violation of the conditions of approval of the
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-080). Please include these in your staff report to
the Planning Commission. (The video must be downloaded to be opened.)
The machine operating is a roller on the practice green . The lights in the maintenance building were
on prior to 5:30 a .m. with workers inside and cars in the lot. At 5:30 a.m . the lights to the parking lot
were turned on . Over the next half hour small equipment exited the maintenance area and
proceeded to the golf course. The big mowers were not operating today, but on most days they are
on the course between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
In Dave Shesgreen's September 23,2015 Response to Notice of Appeal, he acknowledges receiving
my August 3, 2015 letter detailing the violations of the Conditions of Approval, maintains none of the
violations discussed in that letter were proven, and states "PGGC continues to deny any such
violations." The attached photo record proves the violation of the hours of maintenance
operation. Mr. Shesgreen (the Vice President of Business Affairs for Peacock Gap Holdings LLC),
Ms. Pat Sorber (the General Manager of Peacock Gap Golf Club), and Mr. Andrew McCullough were
present in the August 5 meeting and were informed of the violations. The fact the violation of hours of
operation continued after the meeting proves Peacock Gap Golf Club knowingly and deliberately
violates the Conditions of Approval.
Violations of the Noise Conditions of Approval regarding loud speakers and amplified music were also
discussed in the meeting. In a separate e-mail to you, Dianne Kelly provides evidence of violations
that occurred after the August 5 meeting. Of course, that e-mail should also be included in the staff
report.
Thank you
John
John R. Arnold
Phone (415) 256-9336
FAX (415) 257-8971
e-mail jramgt@comcast.net
1
• 2 1 'O i 3 2
Equipment Ex,l tlng Mafnten ance Areal
IMG _2511.JPG
October 8 ,2015 6:00 AM
~ Iir.~ Apple l Ph'One 6 (~8 ~.!!!l
IPhone 6 back camera 4.15mm f /2.2
2448 x 3264 1.2 MB mE
1502000 4m m 0 0,\1 J /2.2 1/15
Add a Descnprio n
Add a Keyword
{+" A dd Fac es
~
Peacock Gap & Cou ntry Clu b, San
Rafae l. Un i t ed States
ChmaCamp
Slate Park
i e r
3.r k'
Le9S!!l._'.:....... --'
r _l + .
• 12 of 30
Mach ine operationl
IMG_2504.MOV
October 8,2015 5:53 AM
Apple IPh one 6
No l en s informatton
1060 x 1'9,20 5.4 MB
29.gS lps
Add a Description
Add iii Keyword
',"", , ,
v
H.264 .~
00:3 1
Peacock Gap & Co untry Club, San
Ra f ae l, U nf t ed Stat es
China Camp
5 1111<' PII,k
rtUt:H
ark
1!!~1
-
---EI±J
e _ 2 of 3 0
Peacock Gap Maintenance Buil di ng
IMG_2494.JPG
October 8 ,20 15 5:30 AM
.. '
Apple IPh one 6 @ :::·::1
i Phone 6 back camera 4.1Smmf/2.2
2448 x 3264 1.2 MB ~
ISO 1250 ?mm Oev /12 .2
Add a Des criptio n
Add a Keyword
+ Ad d Faces
Peacock Gap & Coun t ry Cl Ub, San
Rafael, Unlted States
China Camp
sr ~r jt Pa rk
.:itk
!5~
11 15