Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2015-11-10 #2~ ~CITYO~/ W-:'4n~'! • Community Development Department -Planning Division P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Meeting Date: November 10, 2015 Agenda Item: Case Numbers: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Project Planner: Steve Stafford (415) 458-5048 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 815 B St. (formerly 809 B St. and 1212 and 1214 2nd St.) -Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH # 201306053) prepared for a project proposing to demolish two single family residential structures and a commercial structure and construct a new 4-story mixed use building with 41 residential units above 1,939 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and 48 garage parking spaces; APNS: 011-256-12, -14, -15 &-32; SecondlThird Mixed Use West (2/3 MUW) & Cross Street Mixed Use (CSMU) District Zones;), Rick Strauss of FME Architecture + Design, Applicant; Thomas Monahan and Jonathan Parker of Monahan Parker. Inc. and Harold Parker Properties LP, Owners; Case Number(s): ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of San Rafael is the lead agency responsible for overseeing environmental review for a project proposing to construct a new, 4-story, 42'-high, building with 41 upper-story rental units above 1,939 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and 48 garage parking spaces on four (4) adjacent Downtown parcels. The required and submitted applications for Planning entitlements include: an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060), Use Permit (UP12-029); and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 12-003). In June 2013, the City prepared an Initial Study and released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The NOP and Initial Study process established that the scope of the project would have potentially Significant impacts, which could be reduced to a less-than-significant levels through mitigation measures with the exception of Aesthetics and Cultural Resources (Historical). The Commission conducted a public hearing on the NOP on June 23, 2013, and established that the scope of specific environmental impacts to be studied would be limited to: 1) Aesthetics; and 2) Cultural Resources (Historical) and approved a list of project alternatives to be studied in the DEIR, based upon the Initial Study and public comments. Accordingly, a DEIR has been prepared and released for a public review and comment period, concluding on November 10, 2015 with this Commission meeting. The DEIR concludes the project's impacts to Aesthetics could be reduced to a less-than-significant level if recommended mitigation measures are implemented. However, the DEIR concludes that the project's impacts to Cultural Resources (Historical) would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, when the project merits come before the Commission at a later date for final consideration (along with the Final EIR), the Commission would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if they choose to approve the project as proposed. A finding of overriding considerations means that the project's benefits (social, economic or other) are found to outweigh the significant, unavoidable cultural resource impacts. Consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIR was released for a 53-day public review period on September 18, 2015. The 53-day public review period exceeds the State-mandated 45- day public review period. The purpose of this public hearing is to accept comments on the DEIR. Comments should focus on the environmental issues and project alternatives evaluated in the DEIR, not REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 2 on the merits of the project. which will be the subject of a future public hearing before the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Accept public testimony on the DEIR; and 2. Direct staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Response to comments. PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 809 B SI.; 1212 and 1214 2' Parcel Number(s): SI. I Property Size: I 23,614 sf (Combined) I Neighborhood: Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Site: 2'"/3'" Street Mixed Use 2'"/3'" Street Mixed Use (2/3MU) West (213 MUW) & Cross Street Mixed Use . (CSMU) North: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU South: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW; CSMU East: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW West: 2/3 MU 2/3 MUW Site Description/Setting: 011-256-12, -14, -15 & - 32 I Downtown Existing Land-Use Interim Church, Commercial Parking Lot, 1 Residence and 1 Vacant Structure Residential above Commercial Residential above Commercial Residential above Commercial Lone Palm Ct. Apts. The subject property consists of four adjacent parcels, totaling approximately 0.53 acres in size, located in Downtown San Rafael. The parcels are currently developed with a single-story, approximately 5,000 square foot commercial building, a commercial parking lot with 45 parking spaces and two, two-story Victorian-era residences, located at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street that date to 1887 or earlier, one of which is a known local cultural resource, listed on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey (dated 1976; updated 1986) and is currently uninhabitable due to fire damage sustained in 2006 (1212 2'd Street), and the other was later determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources by survey evaluation (1214 2nd Street). The subject property has little vegetation and is relatively flat. The site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The St. Vincent De Paul Society dining room is located immediately east of the site, on B Street. The 60-unit, Lone Palm Court apartments are located immediately west of the site, on C Street. A 12'-wide public right-of-way (ROW) easement, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access from C Street to the site and neighboring parcels, borders the northwestern property boundary. An existing Canary Island Palm tree, in poor health, is located within the 12'-wide ROW easement. The eastern property boundary of the site fronts B Street, which provides a pedestrian link between the Downtown and the Gerslle Park residential neighborhood. The southern property boundary of the site fronts 2'd Street, which is a one-way (eastbound) "major" arterial roadway. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 3 BACKGROUND Development History: In 1951, a 210 square-foot storefront addition was constructed to the residential structure at 1214 2nd Street for use first as administrative offices and later as commercial retail services. Its current use is residential. In 1967, a third two-story Victorian-era residence (1210 2nd Street), along with a two-story commercial building (811-813 B Street), were demolished during the construction of the existing surface parking lot on the site. Since 2004, a religious institution or church has occupied the commercial building as an 'interim' use' (Use Permit UP04-031; Planning Commission approved). Project Review: Since 2005, numerous redevelopment proposals for the site have been submitted to the City for review. The current project was submitted on August 31,2012. A summary of the project review, prior to review by the Design Review Board (ORB), is attached as Exhibit 3. The project has been reviewed by the ORB on three (3) occasions. Through this process, the project has been redesigned to address many of the ORB's comments and recommendations related to mass, building articulation and relaiion to surrounding structures. At the third ORB meeting, August 5, 2014, the ORB finally recommended approval of the proposed site and building design for the project, subject to the following conditions/modifications: • Eliminate the support column at the corner of B and 2 nd Streets, underneath the 'wrap-around' canopy projection at the pedestrian level; • Eliminate the 2' bay window encroachment over the sidewalk/ROW along the 2nd St. frontage but keeping the building articulation by having the entire wall plane setback 2' from the property line; • Extend the frieze detailing above the bay window 'tower' element (corner of B and 2nd Streets) along both building frontages. The frieze should be less wide but equally detailed; • Provide a cornice cap on the 4th floor penthouses; and • Final details on the site landscaping and permanent amenities for the "Outdoor Community Spaces" shall return to the Board as a consent item prior to building permit issuance. A significant amount of time has lapsed since the original submittal in 2012. This has been due to a few periods during which the project was placed on hold at the request of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant was not eager to address the ORB's recommendations which resulted in extra ORB meetings and redesigns to adequately address the ORB's comments and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to construct a new, 4-story, 41-unit, mixed-use building, with three floors of apartments above 1,939 square feet of ground-floor commercial space along the B Street frontage and 48 garage parking spaces (including 10 tandem parking spaces). The configuration of the proposed residential units consists of two types: 1) 30 1-bedroom/1-bath units (approximately 890 square feet in size and 2) 11 2-bedroom/2-bathroom units (ranging from 973 -1,263 square feet in size). A majority of the units are designed with private decks with the exception of the 10 units along the B Street frontage which are designed with 'French' or 'Juliet' balconies. Common outdoor community space is provided by a patio on the 2nd level podium and roof deck. Both pedestrian access to the residential units and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 4 vehicular access to the ground-floor garage are proposed along the B Street frontage (Exhibit 2, Project Plans). The project's proposed landscape design consists of 2 main areas: streetscape plantings and infiltration planters. The proposed streetscape planting provides six new Crimson Spire Oak trees along the 2nd Street sidewalk. Along the B Street sidewalk, two existing Flowering Pear trees would remain and be augmented by two new Flowering Pear Trees. The infiltration zones are planting areas located at the street level along 2nd Street and also on the north side of property on the 2n level podium. The function of the infiltration planters is to treat storm water run-off from the building roof, which will be collected by gutters and routed to the planters via down leaders. The project proposes to replace the existing Canary Island Palm tree, which is located in the 12'-wide ROW easement on the north side of the site and in declining health, with a new Canary Island Palm tree in the same location. The project requests the following planning entitlements: 1. An Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED12-060) for the proposed building and site design; 2. A Use Permit (UP12-029) to allow the proposed residential use on the site, which is located within two commercial zoning districts; and 3. A Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 12-003) for the consolidation of the existing four adjacent parcels that comprise the project site. DRAFTEIR Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP): An Initial Study was prepared for the project in June 2013. On June 21, 2013, a Notice of Preparation (NaP) was mailed and published for a 30-day public review and comment period, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study/Nap evaluated the full range of potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study concluded that: • The effects upon Aesthetics and Cultural Resources (Historical) would be significant and unavoidable, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • The effects on Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and TransportationlTraffic could be potentially significant, but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. These mitigation measures are included in Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, on pages 10 -13 of the DEIR. • The project was found to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact upon the remaining environmental topics evaluated in the Initial Study, including Agriculture Resources, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, HydrologylWater Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation and Utilities/Service Systems. On July 23, 2013, the Commission held a scoping meeting at the conclusion of the 30-day comment period and approved a list of project alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR, in addition to a "No project/No Development' alternative, including: • Preserve and rehabilitate the two historic structures on-site while reducing the project to accommodate the historic structures (,Preservation Onsite' Alternative); • Preserve and relocate one or both of the two historic structures off-site to a publicly-owned or private site allowing the project to be developed as proposed (,Preservation Offsite' Alternative); and REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case NO.5: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 5 • Revised project design to incorporate substantial elements and features of the two historic structures, such as building facades, as part of the proposed project ('Adaptive Re-use' Alternative). Notice of Completion (NOC) and Publication of DEIR: Since June 2013, the City's environmental consultant has been working on preparation of the DEIR. During this time, the project was put on hold for over a year at the request of the applicant and the contract with the City's environmental consultant had to be updated given additional work that was required to prepare the DEIR. The DEIR was completed and a NOC was distributed on September 18, 2015, pursuant to Section 15372 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Availability and public hearing was also mailed to all interested parties, including property owners, businesses and residents, within 300 feet of the site, as well as appropriate neighborhood groups (the Downtown Business Improvement District, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods). Additionally , notice was posted on the site , along both the B Street and Second Street frontages, and published in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper on Saturday, September 19, 2015. The DEIR was mailed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 201306053) and responsible State agencies at the start of the public review period. The DEIR was also made available for review online at the City of San Rafael website (http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-proj-815b/), at the San Rafael Public Library, and at San Rafael City Hall Planning Division offices. A limited number of printed copies have also been available for loan, and electronic CD copies of the document have been available for purchase. Pursuant to the CEQA-mandated 45-day public review period from receipt of the NOC, the City will accept written comments on the DEIR until the Commission hearing on November 10, 2015, which extends the public comment period an additional 8 days. Verbal comments will also be accepted at the Commission meeting, although the public is encouraged to submit comments in written format so that they can be accurately and adequately responded to in the Final EIR. Comments should be restricted to the scope and adequacy of the DEIR , and not focus the merits of the project. The Planning Commission will hold a separate , noticed public hearing on the merits of the project at a future date . Draft DEIR Summary and Conclusions: All impacts must be mitigated to the extent feasible. The City would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines before approving any project having unavoidable significant effects. In this case, the DEIR concludes that the project would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to: 1) Aesthetics; and 2) Cultural Resources (Historical). The DEIR identifies mitigation measures that could reduce the project's impacts to Aesthetics to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR concludes, however, that the project's impacts to Cultural Resources (Historical) would remain significant and unavoidable, thus requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations: Aesthetics Aesthetics and visual quality impacts are analyzed in Chapter IV. A (pages 33 -43) of the DEIR. As outlined in the DEIR , Painter Preservation & Planning , Architectural Historians, prepared a comprehensive Historic Resource Report (dated June 2013) as part of the environmental review of the project and determined the neighborhood surrounding the 2nd and B Street intersection retains its unique historic identity or character (i.e., train depot and surrounding railroad housing and commercial services) and appears eligible for listing as a Historic District under the California Register of Historic Resources under Criteria 1 (associated with events making Significant contribution to local or regional history) and 3 (distinctive architectural or design characteristics). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 6 Painter Preservation & Planning first analyzed aesthetics and visual quality impacts of the project design prior the Design Review Board's review (The Board reviewed the project design on August 20,2013, and after project modifications, again on July 8, 2014 and recommended approval of the project design with minor changes and conditions on August 5, 2014) and determined: "The proposed new structure has a negative effect on the present historic character of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the intersection of 2nd and 8 Streets. It has a particularly negative effect on 2"d Street, due to the loss of residential scale and amenities along this street, including front porches, architectural features such as bay windows, small scale architectural detailing, and the opportunity for interaction between people and the built environment in this location. The proposed design features at the corner of 2nd and 8 Street, and the retail frontages along 8 Street do not relate to the traditional historic character of this street and late 19th century commercial streets in general, which are typically more conducive to pedestrian activity. In addition, the historic character of the neighborhood, the late 19th century setting for the project, is significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative effect of prior demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered around the railroad station and early commercial development in this area." (page 38) Partially in response to the City Engineer's refusal to allow bay windows or any other construction creating FAR (Floor Area Ratio) over the public sidewalklright-of-way (ROW), design modifications were incorporated into the project throughout the review of the project by the Board which also reduced the scale of the building by stepping back the fourth floor and eliminated most deck and eave projections into the required setback and over the ROW. Painter Preservation & Planning re-analyzed potential aesthetic and visual quality impacts of the final project design (after the Board recommended approval of the project design with minor changes and conditions) and determined the final project design: " ... presents a more positive scale relationship to 2nd and 8 Street at this important intersection. Corresponding changes in building articulation and form, however, present a negative appearance and therefore less positive relationship to the historic neighborhood than the design scheme presented in January 2013. The loss of such features as vertical bays, 'real' balconies, deep eave overhangs and sidewalk canopies has affected the design of the building, as have significant setbacks at the 2"d, 3rd and 4th floor levels. The materials, workmanship and architectural detailing of the building do not mitigate for this change in architectural design. The pedestrian environment, also an important positive feature of the built environment in this neighborhood, is not adequately addressed in this design scheme." (page 42) Recommended Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics The DEIR concludes that the final project design does not enhance the aesthetic setting of the historic built environment of the 2 nd and B Street neighborhood and remains a potentially significant Aesthetic impact, in addition to causing the loss of historic resources. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure (pages 42-43): • Mitigation Measure AES-1: Incorporate building elements that relate the new building to its historic context through the use of projecting bays, usable building balconies, deep eave overhangs, a substantial element at the building corner at 2 nd and B Streets, and canopies at the ground floor that extend over the sidewalk. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case NO.5: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 7 Cultural Resources Cultural resources impacts, both historical and archaeological, are analyzed in Chapter IV.B (pages 43 - 60) of the DEIR. Historical Impacts Implementation of the proposed project would demolish the two existing two-story residential buildings at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street, which are listed in the local register of historical resources (1212 2nd Street) and has been determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources by survey evaluation (1214 2nd Street). The Victorian-era residences at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street are historically significant for their association with patterns of local history under Criterion 1 of the California Register Eligibility Criteria, and for their architecture, meeting Criterion 3 of the California Register Eligibility Criteria. Demolition of the buildings will constitute a significant adverse impact as demolition of a historic resource cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Recommended Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources The following mitigation measures are recommended as reasonable and feasible, and appropriate for the resources, given their significance and integrity. These mitigation measures would reduce significant adverse impact of demolition of the Victorian buildings but not to a level of insignificance. Therefore, without an action to adopt the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Commission would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approval of the project as proposed: • Mitigation Measure CULT-1A: The building at the subject property shall be documented. Documentation shall consist of a narrative, which may consist of the Historic Resource Report, and archivally-stable black and white photographs documenting the building exterior and interiors as they exist today, and the building's general setting. It is not necessary to photograph the property to HABS standards, as the integrity of the property does not warrant this level of documentation. This documentation will be produced and submitted to the California Room of the Marin County Free Library, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (NWIC). Photographic negatives shall be retained by the City of San Rafael. Costs associated with CUL T-1A are anticipated to be no greater than $5,000. • Mitigation Measure CULT-1 B: Update the historic survey of the San Rafael with a focus on the San Rafael original townsite area (an approximately 16-block area) and evaluate the area in the immediate vicinity of 2nd and B Street (boundaries to be determined by the survey) for a potential historic district. Costs associated with CUL T-1 B are anticipated to be approximately $20,000. • Mitigation Measure CULT-1C: Develop an interpretive panel, to be installed at one of the corners at 2nd and B Street, which depicts historic photographs of the area, including historic buildings and the train track, a map of the resources, and provides information about the historic buildings and streetscape in the area. Costs associated with CUL T-1 C are anticipated to be approximately $20,000. • Mitigation Measure CULT-1D: Provide a duplicate of the photographs and information that is used for Mitigation Measure CUL T-1 C, the on-street interpretation of the 2nd and B Street area, and mount them in a prominent location, such as the lobby of the proposed building. Costs associated with CUL T-1 D are anticipated to be no greater than $5,000. • Mitigation Measure CUL T-1 E: Working with the Marin Historic Museum or an equivalent historical society or organization, develop programming that commemorates the history of the 2nd and B Street area, including the railroad station, to be presented as a lecture, exhibit, online REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 PageS video. or similar public presentation. Costs associated with CUL T-1 E are anticipated to be no greater than $5,000, assuming some volunteer time on the part of the partnering organization. Archaeological Impacts On October 1, 2001, the San Rafael City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1772 and Resolution No. 10933, which established procedures to identify, protect and preserve archaeological resources, and codified these in Chapter 2.19 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The Archaeological Resource Protection Ordinance included the preparation of an Archaeological Sensitivity Map by a qualified archaeologist. This map identified geographic areas of archaeological sensitivity and assigned an archaeological sensitivity rating of 'high', 'medium' or 'low' based on a site's proximity to: 1) known and/or recorded sites containing archaeological resources; and 2) sites and/or geographic areas where studies or individual archaeological site assessments have been completed. This map was subsequently used by staff to create a citywide database ('PastFinder') in which to generate parcel-specific archaeological sensitivity reports for development proposals that involve excavation or grading. Recommended Mitigation Measures for Archeological Resources According to both the City's adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and PastFinder, the level of archaeological sensitivity on the subject site is 'low' and no archaeological evaluation is required. While no further archaeological review is necessary, the City's Archaeological Resource Protection Ordinance does prescribe standard conditions to mitigate and monitor archaeological finds during grading and construction activities associated with the project. By incorporating these required conditions, archaeological impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measures (pages 10-11): • CUL T-2: If archeological or cultural resources are accidentally discovered during excavation/grading activities, all work will stop within 100 feet of the resource and a qualified archaeologist will be notified immediately. The qualified archaeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning Division and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of the find and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No work shall occur in the vicinity until approved by the qualified archaeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. Prehistoric resources that may be identified include, but shall not be limited to, concentrations of stone tools and manufacturing debris made of obsidian, basalt and other stone materials, milling equipment such as bedrock mortars, portable mortars and pestles and locally darkened soils (midden) that may contains dietary remains such as shell and bone, as well as human remains. Historic archaeological resources that may be identified include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, structural foundations, cabin pads, cans with soldered seams or tops, or bottles or fragments of clear and colored glass; and • CUL T-3: If human remains are encountered (or suspended) during any project-related activity, all work will halt within 100 feet of the project and the County Coroner will be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify FIGR within 24-hours of such identification who will work with Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. No work shall occur in the vicinity without approval from Planning staff Project Alternatives Section V of the DEIR (pages 61-78) contains an analysis of the Project Alternatives. CEQA requires that an EIR describe and analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts of the project. The sponsor submitted a list of project objectives, which were re-formatted in the EIR for conciseness as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 9 • To redevelop an under-utilized area of Downtown consistent with General Plan policies; • To develop a mixed-use project that is appropriately designed for the immediate neighborhood considering the scale and architectural style of surrounding development; • To meet the City's affordable housing requirements; • To increase the economic vitality of the Downtown area; and • To seek approval of a reasonably proposed density bonus with concessions and incentives as permitted under State law. The following discussion summarizes the key aspects of the three alternatives focusing on whether the alternatives lessen the severity of the project's environmental impacts and would meet key project objectives: • No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project alternative assumes the project site would generally remain in its existing condition and would not be subject to redevelopment. Under this alternative, the existing commercial building would continue to be occupied by a church tenant, the Victorian-era residence at 1214 2nd would continue to provide two rental units and the Victorian-era residence at 1212 2nd Street would remain vacant because public health and safety code violations prohibit the structure from being occupied. There would be no new mixed-use structure constructed on the project site. The No Project alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. This alternative would not redevelop an under-utilized area of Downtown or increase the economic vitality of the Downtown area. This alternative would not help the City achieve in meeting its affordable housing goals. Additionally, this alternative would allow the existing residential building at 1212 2nd Street, which has been determined to be uninhabitable due to safety and building code violations, to continue to exist in its dilapidated condition and potentially become a greater public nuisance. Under this alternative, however, there would be no demolition of the existing structures, which are eligible for the California Register, so unlike the proposed project, there would be no impacts to Cultural Resources or Aesthetics. The project sponsor, Monahan Parker, prepared a financial feasibility analysis of the four identified project alternatives under consideration in this EIR in March 2015 that was reviewed by City staff and subsequently revised in May 2015 in response to City comments (see Appendix A). With regard to the No Project alternative, the study concludes that without development of the proposed project, redevelopment of the project site would be postponed indefinitely, new residential and commercial development would not be created, new tax revenues would not be realized nor new commercial activity introduced into the Downtown through the proposed 41 residential units and ground floor commercial space. • Preservation Onsite Alternative The Preservation Onsite alternative assumes the Victorian-era residential structures would be maintained and rehabilitated to meet the applicable health and safety codes. The remainder of the site would be redeveloped to provide a reduced scale, mixed-use residential/commercial development focused on the corner of 2nd and B Streets. The Preservation Onsite alternative would largely achieve all five of the project objectives: renovating the Victorian-era residences and constructing a reduced scale, mixed-use project that would revitalize an under-utilized area of Downtown, enhance the relationship of the project to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, meet the City's housing needs requirements, although at a reduced level due to a reduction in the size of the proposed project (Monahan Parker's financial feasibility study assumes a loss of 14 units or 34% density for this alternative), and provide for a greater diversity of housing types in the Downtown. Twenty percent (20%) of the remaining reduced project units would be affordable housing units and the overall project would be eligible for a reasonably proposed Density Bonus under State law, thereby achieving some of the City's affordable REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case NO.5: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 10 housing goals. The reduced project plus the revitalized two Victorian-era homes would increase the vitality of the Downtown area, although to a lesser degree than the proposed project. The retention and rehabilitation of the existing two Victorian-era residences and reduced project would enhance the relationship of the project to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural style, provide an adequate setting for the historic structures, and would eliminate the loss of historic resources. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, as preservation in place is the preferred method of treating historic resources. The setting of the structures would be affected, particularly for 1212 2 nd Street, as the proposed 4- story project would immediately abut the 2-story house and overshadow it, as indicated in the scenario prepared by the applicant. However, this could be mitigated with improved design modifications to the proposed project that could step the proposed building mass further from the Victorian-era residences. Additionally, the Preservation Onsite alternative would result in reducing any potential significant environmental impacts to less-than-significant levels. The applicant's financial feasibility analysis of the Preservation Onsite alternative concludes that it is not feasible from an economic perspective. One key assumption is that the two Victorian-era residences would be fully repaired to market standards and sold at market rate rather than rented as they have been in recent years (the fire damage to the 1212 2nd Street property in 2007 was not repaired and it has deteriorated to an uninhabitable state and therefore has not been a rental property since the fire). Monahan Parker's financial feasibility study found that the cost to renovate the Victorians ($1.2 million) would be more than their market value estimate to sell them for $1.13 million. The study further concludes that in addition to this minor loss in revenue for renovation and sale of the Victorian-era residences, the 34% reduction in the proposed project denSity would create a loss of $4.27 million for the project sponsors and that it would not be financially feasible. • Preservation Offsite Alternative The Preservation Offsite alternative assumes the existing Victorian-era residences would be relocated to another suitable, privately-owned location off-site within the Downtown. This alternative could require significant work to prepare the new site prior to relocating the structures, including but not limited to: purchasing the property, grading and drainage improvements, utilities connections, construction of new foundations for the structures, and moving the structures to the new site. Once the existing structures were relocated to the new site, this alternative would require significant repairs to the exterior and interior of the structures to comply with Historic as well as California Building Code requirements, consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards, plus the installation of access and landscaping improvements. After the existing Victorian-era structures were relocated, the project site would be developed in accordance with the proposed plans. This alternative would allow for the existing historically significant structures to be maintained off-site in a location and manner that protects their historic significance and reduces the project's significant unavoidable impact upon historic resources to a less than significant level. City staff analyzed a number of potential, privately-owned, sites within and proximate to the project site and Downtown area that could be suitable for relocation of one or both Victorian-era residences. An initial list of eight undeveloped or underdeveloped sites were carefully evaluated and reduced to four sites that satisfy several criteria including: appropriate zoning, appropriate site area, reasonable proximity to the original site, and beneficial residential and historical context: • Alternative Site A -1201 2nd Stf745-747 B St.( APN: 012-075-06) REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 11 • Alternative Site B -712 D SI. (APN: 012-073-28) • Alternative Site C -1628 Fifth Ave.(APN: 011-193-06) • Alternative Site D -Between 1135 and 1145 Mission Ave. (APN: 011-213-03) All four alternative sites are considered feasible in terms of the City's policies and Code requirements (pages 68-78). One of these alternate sites, Alternative Site A (1201 2nd St.l745-747 B SI.; APN: 012-075-06), is considered the most practical and is also the only site that represents an appropriate historic setting for the structures. While not preserving the same orientation as the existing buildings, Alternative Site A is within proximity of 2nd and B Street; is visible from this corner; and is adjacent to two historic structures that are also associated with 19 th century San Rafael at this location. Moving the structures to this site would allow them to retain sufficient integrity of location and setting to maintain their historic status The Preservation Offsite alternative would relocate and rehabilitate the Victorian-era structures while allowing development of the project proposal and thereby achieve the applicant's objectives. This alternative would result in a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources and, in the case of Alternative Site A, would retain and enhance the historic character of the B and 2nd Street neighborhood. The applicant's financial feasibility analysis of the four sites evaluated within the Preservation Offsite alternative concludes that none are feasible from an economic perspective (Appendix A). The study assumes a uniform purchase price of $750,000 for each of the four sites. Soft costs and construction costs were estimated for each site as follows: • Site A: $1,905,629 • Site B: $1,904,629 • Site C: $2,122,101 (substantial cost for PG&E power line and higher house moving cost) • Site D: $2,260,491 (additional engineering, grading, new foundation, retaining walls, and waterproofing increased costs for this site) The analysis concludes that the cost to relocate the buildings results in a financial loss, as the estimated building cost to complete the proposed project plus Preservation Offsite alternative of $22,430,000 is higher than the projected project building value of $21,820,010, as calculated in the Residential Rent Roll. One key assumption of the financial feasibility study for the Preservation Offsite alternative analysis is that the project sponsor would purchase the property for relocation, adding a substantial $750,000 financial burden to the cost analysis. It is possible that land purchase may not be required, as was indicated to City Planning Department staff by the owner of one of the four sites. In this case, the owners expressed interest in receiving the structures at their site, while retaining ownership of the land. Based upon the cost estimates in the financial feasibility study, removing the land purchase cost estimate of $750,000 and including an appropriate remuneration for the restored Victorian-era structures themselves would likely restore the overall project plus Preservation Offsite alternative to a profitable state, making the Preservation Offsite alternative financially feasible. • Adaptive Reuse Alternative The Adaptive Reuse alternative assumes the that substantial elements of the existing Victorian- era buildings, such as the building facades, would be incorporated into the new building and become part of the new uses, consistent with the project proposal. This alternative would allow for greater flexibility than the Preservation Onsite alternative, but would not fully preserve the buildings to the same degree as the Preservation Onsite alternative. The Adaptive Reuse alternative may address Aesthetic issues by better integrating the proposed project with the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 12 neighborhood through addressing scale and architectural design, but does not mitigate for the loss of historic resources. The Adaptive Reuse alternative does not preserve the historic resources in that it does not preserve the buildings. Aesthetic impacts cannot be addressed at this time due to the lack of a specific proposal that illustrates the Adaptive Reuse of the existing historic resources. The Adaptive Reuse alternative would largely meet project objectives to revitalize this area of Downtown; meet the City's affordable housing objectives; increase economic vitality in this area; and achieve a reasonable density bonus. However, as stated earlier, it cannot reduce the loss of historic resources to a less-than-significant level and the potential of the Adaptive Reuse alternative to mitigate potentially significant Aesthetic impacts cannot be analyzed at this time based on the current project design which does not attempt to incorporate any of the substantial elements from the existing Victorian-era buildings into the project design. The applicant's financial feasibility analysis of the Adaptive Reuse alternative did not draw a financial impact conclusion about this alternative but rather stated that incorporating architectural elements from the existing Victorian-era structures into the mixed-use project design that was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board, with minor modifications and conditions, would not benefit the aesthetics of the building nor pay homage to the Victorian- era structures themselves. Therefore, whether the Adaptive Reuse alternative may be financially feasible is unknown; however, as stated earlier, it would not be a desirable solution to the significant Cultural Resources and Aesthetic impacts. • Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, determining which of the alternatives analyzed by the DEIR would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts The DEIR concludes that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Preservation Onsite alternative, which is the preferred method of treating historic resources, preserves the two Victorian structures in place and rehabilitates them according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, restoring them to a safe and habitable condition through a renovation that meets the Historic Building Code. The Preservation Onsite alternative provides a mixed-use project that better addresses the architectural scale of the neighborhood and, although reduced in scope and therefore the ability to maximize project objectives, would still reasonably achieve the project objectives. Consistent with the recommended Mitigation Measures to reduce potentially significant Aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level, re-design of the project to achieve architectural compatibility with the 2nd and B Street neighborhood is feasible, and was, in fact, the original project design when the Design Review Board initiated their review of the project. This alternative would result in a design that achieves key project objectives, although at a smaller scale. The Preservation Onsite alternative would also preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and enhance the integrity of a potential historic district in this area. The Planning Commission should, in their review of the DEIR, consider which, if any, alternative would be preferable to the project as proposed or which combination of alternatives and the project would best achieve the goal of reducing the identified significant adverse impacts to historic resources. Public Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations Given that the DEIR concludes that the project would result in significant, unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources (Historical), in order to approve the project, the Commission would have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This is not a topic for this meeting, but would be a finding that the Commission would have to make if they elect to approve the project when it returns for final action at a future date (project merits and Final EIR). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 13 A Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives (including environmental, legal, technical, social, and economic factors). Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations would mean that the Commission finds that on balance, the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable environmental impact(s). In this case, the applicant has presented that the project by itself, development of infill downtown housing, as encouraged by the General Plan, including the provision of 20% housing affordability within the project, would provide enough public benefit to outweigh the impacts of the demolition of the cultural resources. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the condition of the cultural resources themselves are such as to not warrant their preservation. Staff has previously initiated discussions with the applicant to explain that there may be additional public benefits needed in order for staff to be able to recommend adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and strongly recommend that they may want to consider identifying additional public benefits to off-set the proposed impact to historic resources. These benefits would be in addition to the recommended mitigation measures in the DEIR. CONCLUSIONSINEXT STEPS The DEIR has been prepared in accordance with the EIR preparation provisions of the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. It is recommended that the Planning Commission accept public comments on the document and direct staff to prepare a Final EIR. The EIR consultants will then prepare a written response to all comments, which will be published in a second volume entitled, "Final EIR/Response to Comments". Once the FEIR is completed, a follow-up review by the Planning Commission will be scheduled, concurrent with a review of the project merits and the Planning entitlements. It is anticipated that this FEIR review/project merits hearing by the Planning Commission will occur in Spring 2016. CORRESPONDENCE All correspondence received on the DEIR, in response to the NOC, is attached as Exhibit 4. At the time of the printing of the staff report, only two comments have been received, from the the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the project sponsor. In promoting their updated mission, vision and goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) statewide and increase alternative modes of transportation, Caltrans provides the same comments that were originally provided during the EIR NOP scoping session: • Please perform a queuing analysis to evaluate potential impacts on U.S. Highway 101 (The Focused Traffic Analysis for the project identifies that the project will impact the southbound 101 off-ramp to Mission Ave. and the northbound 101 off-ramp to 2nd St.). As lead agency, the City of San Rafael is responsible to mitigating all potentially significant project impacts, including needed improvements to the State Highway, presumably U.S. Highway 101. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and the lead agency's monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures; and • The project is encouraged to develop Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies to promote smart mobility and use of the nearby San Rafael Transit Center and Marin Transit Routes 68, 122 and 125. To reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the State Highway, please consider the following TDM strategies: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No.s: ED12-060; UP12-029; LLA12-003 Page 14 ;.. Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and convenient transit access; ;.. Provide on-site showers and bicycle racks to accommodate employees using modes of active transportation; ;.. Implement preferential carpool parking near the building entrance as an incentive for employees; ;.. Encourage employer subsidy contributions to promote the use of public transit; and ;.. Encourage public-private partnerships or employer contributions to provide improved transit or shuttle service to/from the project. Monahan Parker, the project sponsor, comments that not all of their submitted Project Objectives were included in the DEIR, resulting in incomplete analysis and faulty conclusions of the Project Alternatives. Specifically, an important goal of the project, "To improve the site and neighborhood livability via development the site with an economically and technically feasible project", was left out when the seven (7) original Project Objectives were reworded to five (5) revised Project Objectives by staff to improve clarity and readability. The applicant also provides additional background on the history of proposed redevelopment of the project site. Any additional comments received after the printing an distribution of the staff report will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Direct staff, by motion, to respond to comments on the DEIR and prepare the FEIR (staff recommendation); 2. Extend the public review period and continue the hearing; or 3. Direct staff to prepare a revised DEIR and re-circulate for public review. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map 2. Reduced Project Plans 3. Summary History of Project Review Prior to DRB Review 4. Public Comments on DEIR Hard copy and CD of DEIR (previously distributed to the Planning Commission on September 18, 2015) Summary History of Project Review Prior to ORB Review 815 B Street (Currently 809 B Street and 1212 and 1214 2 nd Street) Conceptual Design Review On May 8, 2012, the Board conducted Conceptual Design Review (CDR 12-001) of the most recent redevelopment proposal for the site, which proposed to demolish all structures on the four adjacent parcels and construct a four-story, 42-unit, mixed-use building, with three floors of apartments above 2,063 square feet of ground-floor commercial space along the B Street frontage and 49 garage parking spaces (including 8 tandem parking spaces). At that time, the Board expressed support for the proposed contemporary design but found that it lacked adequate context (scale, colors and materials) with the existing design of the immediate neighborhood, particularly along the B Street frontage. The Board provided additional direction on recommended improvements to the proposed design of the project, as follows: • The Board believed that the corner portion of the project is too big and too high; they recommended stepping back the top floor, providing a setback to create plaza-type building entrances and eliminating cantilever window and deck projections over the public right-of-way. • The Board recommended greater 'stepback' of the fourth floor, generally, along both the B Street and 2 nd Street frontages. • The Board recommended greater building articulation and detailing, particularly with the windows along both the B Street and 2nd Street frontages. • The Board requested specific details, including alternatives, on the proposed disposition of the existing Victoria-era structures on the site A video of the Board's May 8,2012 meeting may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/ Neighborhood Meeting On March 12, 2013, pursuant to City Council Resolution No.8038, a Neighborhood Meeting was conducted by the applicant on-site, at the church facility located in the existing commercial building. Planning staff assisted by noticing the Neighborhood Meeting consistent with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Meeting was attended by approximately 20 residents and interested parties. Comments provided during the Neighborhood Meeting included: • The two Victorian-era structures should be preserved and rehabilitated "at all costs" as part of the project either on-site or off-site, with relocation only if an appropriate alternative site is found. • Meeting the City's parking standards is not enough; the parking demand for the project needs to be thoroughly evaluated and mitigated, if necessary, for impacts on the adjacent Gerstle Park neighborhood. • The proposed design of the project is out of context with the predominant design character (architecture, scale, materials and colors) in the vicinity, particularly along B Street. • The two Victorian-era structures should be preserved, relocated and rehabilitated but not at the expense of the proposed project or the proposed redevelopment of the site. • The proposed project should provide better neighborhood context by reducing the building to two-stories and the site redevelopment should provide significant landscaping. • The commercial space presence proposed by the project should be increased along the 2 nd Street frontage. • The corner treatment of the building design should push up rather than step down. EXHIBIT 3 1 • The site provides great bicycle access to the Downtown, shopping and mass transit; it should be an important part of the project. • The upper-story bay window and balcony projections over the sidewalk should be supported, as it helps to break up the building mass and is a fairly common practice in other cities. • The extensive use of brick along the building exterior is excessive and overpowering; additional exterior materials should be incorporated in the building design to help break up the massing of the building. • The interim church use indicated an interest in staying at the site, within the proposed new ground-floor commercial space. • Local contractors and labor should be used in building the project. Environmental Review An Initial Study (IS12-001) has been prepared for the project by Newman Planning Associates (NPA) which has determined that the project will have "No Impact", a "Less Than Significant Impact" or a "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" on the following environmental factors and do not warrant further study: Agriculture Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, HydrologylWater Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, TransportationlTraffic and Utilities/Service Systems. The Initial Study determined that the project will have a "Potentially Significant Impact" on the following environmental impact categories: • Aesthetics -Impact to scenic resources or visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings due to the proposed design of the new 4-story building in relation to adjacent historic properties; and • Cultural Resources -Impact to historic resources due to the proposed demolition of two (2) historic structures (1212 and 1214 2nd Street) on the project site. Due to these "Potentially Significant Impacts", the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project, which will focus on these potentially significant impacts as follows: Aesthetics The Initial Study is supported by an Historic Resource Report prepared by Diana Painter of Painter Preservation and Planning, dated June 2013, which determined that the proposed demolition of the historic resources at 1212 and 1214 2 nd Street will have an effect on the known or 'listed' historic properties on B Street between 745 and 848 B Street and 1201 and 1115 2nd Street. The historic character of this important corner will be lost, and the urban design character will be affected by changes in the scale, design, materials, workmanship, detailing, and architectural character of the proposed new structure. The character of the street will also be affected by the proposed garage entrance on B Street, which will affect the pedestrian environment. The Initial Study additionally determined the proposed new structure has a negative effect on the present historic residential and commercial character of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the intersection of 2nd and B Streets. It has a particularly negative effect on 2nd Street, due to the loss of residential scale and amenities along this street, including front porches, architectural features such as bay windows, and small scale architectural detailing, and the opportunity for interaction between people and the built environment in this location. The proposed design features at the corner of 2 nd and B Street, and the retail frontages along B Street do not relate to the traditional historic character of this street and late nineteenth century commercial streets in general, which are typically more conducive to pedestrian activity. In addition, the historic character of the neighborhood, the late nineteenth century 2 setting for the project, is significantly impacted with this proposal, due in part to the cumulative effect of prior demolitions in what was a highly intact neighborhood centered around the railroad station and early commercial development in this area. The EIR will include analysis of potential design mitigation measures as well as project alternatives to address this significant adverse impact. Cultural Resources The Initial Study, through the Historic Resource Report, finds that the residential structures at 1212 and 1214 2 nd Street meet two of the four Eligibility Criteria of the State of California. These criteria are used by the State and local agencies to determine whether, under CEQA, impacts to a historic property as a result of a project proposal have the potential to create a substantial adverse change to the resource. In order to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources and be determined significant, a historical resource must meet one or more of the four criteria. Therefore, the properties are deemed historic resources and proposed demolition is considered a "substantial adverse change". A substantial adverse change is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities, which would impair historical significance. In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria, a property must also retain its integrity. Integrity is defined as a function of a property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Historic Resources Report finds that the structures both retain integrity. The proposed demolition of the historic structures at 1212 and 1214 2nd Street would be a potentially significant adverse impact, requiring the preparation of an EIR. On June 24,2013, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent to the Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and all interested parties (Planning Commissioners, responsible agencies, utility providers, neighborhood groups and property owners and occupants within a 300' radius) announcing the initiation of the EIR process, providing a 30-day review period and soliciting comments on the scope of issues to be addressed and alternatives that should be considered in the EIR. The 30-day review period for the NOP ended on July 23, 2013, culminating with the Planning Commission (Commission) holding a scoping session. The purpose of the public hearing was also to solicit those comments on the issues and alternatives to be studied in the EIR. At the scoping session, the Commission supported the determinations in the Initial Study and, after reviewing the project and accepting all public comments, identified 'legitimate' potential alternatives to the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. As directed by the Commission, these 'project alternatives', in addition to the 'no-project' alternative, include: 1. A reduced project which preserves either one or both historic structures on-site, either in their existing location or relocated on-site, and builds a smaller project ('Preservation On-site -Cultural Resources' Alternative); 2. A reduced and redesigned project which preserves either one or both historic structure on-site, in their existing locations or relocated on-site, and responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact by redesigning the project to better respect the historic physical context of B Street (,Preservation On-site -Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 3. A revised project which preserves and relocates either one or both historic structures off-site to a publicly-owned or privately-owned site (,Preservation Off-site -Cultural Resources' Alternative); 4. A revised project which relocates one or both historic structures to an off-site location where they will be preserved and restored, and which responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact by redesigning the project to better respect the historic physical context of B Street ('Preservation Off- site -Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 5. A reduced and redesigned project which responds to the significant adverse aesthetic impact through modifications to project scale, massing, materials and pedestrian access to achieve a 3 design that better respects the physical historic context of structures along B Street (,Aesthetics/Contextual Design' Alternative); 6. A revised project which reduces the loss of historic context by preserving the character-defining historic features of the two historic structures and incorporating these features into the project design ('Adaptive Reuse' Alternative). A video of the Commission's July 23, 2013 scoping session may be viewed at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/ 4 MONAHAN PARKER INC. November 4, 2015 Steve Stafford City of San Rafael Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Ave. -PO Box 151560 San Rafael CA 94915 -1560 1101 5ili Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 94901 Subject: 2nd & B Street DEIR Response to Comments Dear Mr. Stafford, After review of the DEIR, we noticed that the Project Objectives have not been listed in their entirety, resulting in flawed and inaccurate conclusions of Project Alternatives. Our comments and questions are listed in the subsections of this letter below. We ask that these errors and inaccuracies be corrected in the Final EIR. We also believe that the long Project History has not been provided to the Planning Commission or Public. We ask that this information included in the Final EIR, and the Public Record. Property History: It has been nearly two decades since the City of San Rafael Redevelopment Agency's release of their Request for Proposal (RFP) for the 'B Street Redevelopment Project' (see attached RFP dated October 1997), which identified 809 B Street, 813 B Street 1212 2nd Street, and 1214 2nd Street as blighted parcels for redevelopment per the attached Project Area Map (Exhibit B). The City of San Rafael's 'B Street Redevelopment Project' RFP included many Project Objectives in consonance with those of the Proposed Project. The Objectives per the RFP (Exhibit C), in their enti rety, are: • Create a high quality, active mixed use project to revitalize the "B" Street area that is consistent with Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael and the City's General Plan. • Retain and/or enhance the historic character and pedestrian-friendly nature of the frontages of "A" and "B" Streets. • Provide affordable and market rate housing in the downtown. Eliminate or rehabilitate substandard housing units. At a minimum, replace on site all housing units destroyed at comparable affordable rental rates. • Create well designed buildings for significant entry statement at the "A" Street entrance to downtown. • Eliminate blighted conditions in the area. • Create jobs and improve economic vitality of the area. • Complete construction and rehabilitation in the shortest time possible. RECEIVED NOV 04 2015 PLANNING MONAHAN PARKER INC. 110] 5" Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 9490] • Deliver retail tenants in the shortest time possible. Agency approval of tenants will be required. • Minimize Agency financial assistance for the project. This site has been identified by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency to have numerous characteristics of blight, including high crime rates, depreciated or stagnant property values, and high vacancies with low lease rates. In the years since, the neighborhood condition has further deteriorated. The corner parking lot and the neighboring parcels are still utilized by transients daily. San Rafael Police Department Reports and comments from neighbors and residents of Gerstle Park all support the conclusion published nearly twenty years ago, that this blighted area should be redeveloped. After numerous design submissions, and City of San Rafael Design Review Board approval of the project design, Monahan Parker is eager to fulfill the goal of the City's former Redevelopment Agency as well as this project's stated Objectives for a revitalization of the Downtown B Street corridor, while benefitting the community as a whole. Following review of the Draft EIR, dated September 2015, the Applicant would like to offer the following comments and clarifications. Project Objectives On page 21 of the Consultant's Report, five (5) Project Objectives are noted. Monahan Parker's October 31,2014 submission of Project Objectives for the Proposed Project to The City of San Rafael, attached (Exhibit A), lists seven (7) project objectives. Objective #6 states, "To improve the site and neighborhood livability via developing the site with an economically and technically feasible project." This is an essential goal of the project and should be included in the EIR as such. Therefore we request that the Project Objectives on p. 21 of the DEIR be revised to include this important objective, and that the alternatives' discussion (discussed in detail below) be revised to include consideration of each alternative's conformance with this objective. Comments & Action Required: 1. The DEIR did not list all Project Objectives as submitted on 10/31/14. These must be added to have an accurate discussion of alternatives in the FEIR. MONAHAN PARKER INC. 1101 5"' Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 94901 2. Project Objective #6 states; 'To improve the site and neighborhood livability via developing the site with an economically and technically feasible project." DEIR Alternatives Analysis Preservation On-Site Alternative: On page 64 of the DEIR it is stated that, "The Preservation Onsite Alternative would largely achieve all five of the project objectives ... ,". However" this alternative is not consistent with the Project Objectives provided by the applicant to the City, specifically Objective #6, discussed above. As calculated in Exhibit #3 of the Applicant's May 14, 2015 Alternative Feasibility Study, the Preservation Onsite Alternative would result in a project loss of $4,271,828, which includes costs for the rehabilitation of the two existing houses, and decreased size of the proposed project by 14 units. This analysis of building reduction is shown in Exhibit #1 of the Applicant's Alternative Feasibility Study, which was provided to the City on (3/10/15 & revised 5/14/1 S). This $4.2M financial loss fails to meet the project's Objective #6 of creating an economically feasible project, due to the financial losses that shall be incurred due to the loss of the 14 units should this alternative be adopted. In addition to the failure of this alternative to achieve this objective, the alternative should be rejected because it is economically infeasible (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), discussion of feasibility, which includes "economic viability"). In addition, the Applicant disagrees with the DEIR's statement on page 64, "The retention and rehabilitation of the existing two Victorian residences and reduced project would enhance the relationship of the project to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural style, provide an adequate setting for the historical structures, and would eliminate the loss of historic resources." Because the extensive financial loss that would occur would render this project economically infeasible, this alternative would leave the existing structures and the neighborhood in its current blighted condition. This Alternative would leave two single family residences on an extremely busy street (that acts at one of the City's main arteries to Highway 101) and would be boxed-in between the Lone Palm Housing Complex to the West, and the Proposed Project to the East resulting in drastically decreased desirability as a residential unit due to limited light and air, proximity to traffic noise, limit vehicular access, resulting in decreased property value & rent-ability compared to similar properties in the area. We therefore request that the above statement on p. 64 of the DEIR be revised to reflect the likely outcome of this alternative. Comments & Action Required: 3. Per the 5/14/15 Alternative Feasibility Study the on Site Preservation Alternative resulted in a financial loss, which results in this alternative failing to meet the project's Goals and Objectives. MONAHAN PARKER INC. 11015" Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 94901 4. Even absent the above Objective #6, as described above, the On-Site Preservation Alternative is infeasible per criteria set forth in Guidelines Section 1 S126.6(f)(1). S. The project sponsors believes that the DEIR is making an inaccurate claim that this Alternative would fulfill the project's Goals and Objectives because this alternative is not financially feasible. 6. The project sponsors Alternative Analysis submitted to the City on May 14, 2015 shows that the On-site Alternative results in a financial loss and therefore cannot be considered as a viable alternative. 7. Revise the language on page 64 of the DEIR to reflect the likely outcome of the Alternative, taking the omitted Project Goals and Objectives into consideration . Preservation Off-Site Alternative The applicant attempted to contact the property owners of the four relocation sites provided by the City of San Rafael regarding the availability of their parcels for relocation of the two houses on the Project site. As documented in the Alternatives Feasibility Study, none of the property owners expressed interest in selling their parcels. The DEIR concurs, and on page 72 notes that, " ... in one case, the owners indicated [to City Planning Department staff] that although they did not want to sell their property, they expressed interest in knowing more about the potential for relocating the Victorian structures to their property." To date no property owner has step forward with interest in accepting the two buildings in question. Our analysis (shown in Exhibit 9 of the Alternatives Feasibility Study) concludes that the cost of the project after relocation and rehabilitation of the two buildings location on 2nd Street would be $22,430,000. The cost of the project with the Preservation Off-Site Alternative would be in excess ofthe Project's projected value of $21,820,011, as calculated in Exhibits 2 & 11. The result of the Preservation Off-Site Alternative remains a financial failure, which fails to meet the project's goals and objectives. The DEIR's claims that any of these relocation sites satisfy the project goals and objectives is again incorrect, due to the fact that the Draft EIR does not take into consideration the Project's Objectives, specifically objective #6 .. As with the Preservation On-Site Alternative, the alternative should be rejected because it is economically infeasible (See CEQA Guidelines Section 1 S126.6(f)(1), discussion of feasibility, which includes "economic viability"). In response to the DEIR's analysis of the four potential relocation sites, the Applicant has the following comments: Site A-1201 2 nd Street: As noted by the DEIR, this site is an existing parking lot that is located amidst many commercial uses. The lot is fully occupied by reserved parking spaces of tenants of various businesses in the MONAHAN PARKER INC. 1101 5'h Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 94901 vicinity. Although the DEIR notes the parking may not be a zoning requirement for the office space on the same parcel, the reserved lot is currently fully occupied and used on a daily basis by its tenants. As noted in the DEIR, the Cross Street Mixed Use zoning present on this site does not allow for single-family or duplex residences. Each 1400 SF Victorian would have to be converted from a single unit, to a three residential unit building. Aside from the previously calculated restoration costs resulting in a loss, the multi-family renovation costs of each unit would be in addition, and result in an even larger financial loss to the project. It should be noted that the average living area of a triplex carved out of the existing structures would average 466 square feet each, which is below average living space for a rental unit in this area. The incurred cost of converting the two houses into triplexes would further increase the rehabilitation cost as well as further decrease the end product's value. Aside from the financial burdens of this Alternative, the property owner at Site-A has not expressed any interest in selling the parcel. Site B-712 D Street: As stated by the DEIR this site contains 36 parking spaces that are required by the office use onsite. Relocating the houses to this site would require providing the office use alternative parking space. In addition to the parcel's required parking, the relocation results in a financial loss for the project. Therefore, this Alternative fails to meet the Project's Objectives. In addition to the infeasibilities mentioned above, the owner of this parcel has not expressed any interest in selling the parcel, nor allowing relocation of the houses to the site. Site C-1628 Fifth Ave: As the only vacant lot in the list of parcels for potential relocation, the Applicant thoroughly researched this option. Due to its location, 1628 Fifth Avenue is far from the historic context by which the historian has based her opinion of the structures historical significance. This site is not in proximity to the historic workforce housing, representative of turn of the century railroad neighborhoods. The immediate vicinity of 1628 Fifth Ave is a lush, affluent, tree-lined block, comprised of much larger homes (>2,300SF), and the modern school campus of Marin Academy. In addition, removing the historical context by which the building's historical significance is based, the project would incur a financial loss would again fail to meet the Project's Objectives. The owner of this parcel has not expressed to us any interest in selling the parcel. Site D-1135/1145 Mission Ave: Site D is an existing parking lot with excessive slope, squeezed between two exisiting structures. The site access to this property is from Mission Avenue, which provides access to Downtown San Rafael and Highway 101 for many commuters. The high slope of this lot increases engineering & construction costs associated with relocating the Victorians to this site. Pursuing the relocation of the Victorians to this site fails to meet the Project Objectives, as it results in a financial loss to MONAHAN PARKER INC. 11015· Ave Ste 300 San Rafael CA 94901 the project. Similar to the other sites, the owner of this parcel has not expressed any interest in selling the parcel, nor allowing relocation of the Victorians to the site. Preservation Off-Site Alternative Financial Feasibility: The DEIR claims that one of the four property owners is interested in taking the two structures while maintaining ownership of the property, which would then result in a reduction the construction cost of the project, and therefore financially feasible. Due to the lack of information provided in the DEIR validating this claim no evaluation of reduced relocation and reconstruction costs can be made. The DEIR does not provide the address for the interested property owner. Therefore the costs associated with relocating the buildings to the specific site (including meet zoning standards of multifamily dwelling which will impact construction costs) cannot be made. The information presented in the DEIR regarding an "interested property owner" is insufficient to make an accurate assessment of the feasibility of the economic impacts. Comments & Action Required: 8. As documented in the DEIR, after multiple attempts to contact the property owners, none of the owners of the potential off-site relocation properties has stepped forward with interest to sell their property. 9. As documented in the DEIR, Off-Site relocation properties A, B, & D are currently being used as commercial parking areas for existing buildings with no response from ownership's desire to sell their properties. If the EIR is to seriously consider this alternative, it also must consider the potential impacts of developing replacement parking for the lost lots. 10. Off-Site relocation property C is zoned for residential use but is outside the historically significant district that the Historical Resource Report (June 2013) claims lends historical significance to the 2nd Street building; and no response from ownership regarding a desire to sell the property. 11. DEIR has documented that; "owners expressed interest in receiving the structures at their site, while retaining ownership of the land." To Date no information has been provided to the project sponsor regarding the specific property or property owner that an owner is interested in receiving the buildings. Without an actual property to evaluate and owner to discuss terms with no actual analYSis can be conducted. 12. The Project Sponsor do not believe the Off-Site Alternative is a viable project Alternative without an available relocation property, that is historically appropriate, property zoned (or a willingness of the City of San Rafael to allow rezoning), and with a property owner willing to sell the property or receive the buildings to be relocated. Since none of the property owners of the City of San Rafael listed Off-Site Alternative relocation properties has shown any documentable interest in selling their property or receiving the structures; the property Sponsor requests that this alternative be removed as a potential alternative, unless the City of San Rafael can produce a written document before Certification of the MONAHAN PARKER INC. !lOI S" Ave Ste 3 00 San Rafael CA 9490 I Final EIR, from the property owner that they are willing to receive the structures or sell the property. Adaptive Re-Use Alternative: The Project sponsors believe, supported by our Architect's professional opinion Adaptive Re-Use of the existing buildings would not result in an homage to the historic nature of the neighborhood but, rather, would result in a contrived aesthetically unattractive appearance. The exterior architectural elements are in poor condition and would not enhance the appearance of the Approved Exterior of the Proposed Building. Please see attached letter from our Architect regarding the Adaptive Reuse Alternative. Therefore this alternative, while feasible, would not meet CEQA's requirement that alternatives "avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project" (Guidelines, Section 1S126.6(a). Comments & Action Required: 13. Per the Project Architect's attached letter (Exhibit D) addressing Adaptive Re-Use this alternative would result in an aesthetically inferior appearance in comparison to the existing design, and therefore fails to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 1S126.6(a). The exterior elements of the buildings in question are in poor condition and aesthetically would not mitigate the loss of the historic resource. 14. In light of the Project Architect's attached letter the project Sponsor requests that the Adaptive Reuse Alternative be determined to be not a viable project alternative. Environmentally Superior Alternative: Please see On-Site Preservation Alternatives Comments regarding this item since the DEIR claims that the On-Site Preservation Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Should the City determine that an additional alternative be necessary to meet CEQA requirements for a "range of reasonable alternatives (per Guidelines Section 15126.6(a», in light of the infeasibility of several of those considered in the DEIR, we suggest that the project plus mitigation measures identified in the DEIR be formulated into a "Mitigated Project Alternative", which would be a feasible Environmentally Superior Alternative, and which we would wholeheartedly support. ,- EXHIBIT C EXCERPT FROM B STREET REDEVELOPMENT RFP PG.3 Request for Proposals "B" Street Project Area , ' REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Redevelopment Agency fmancial assistance may be available depending on the merits of the proposed project. Additionally, the Agen,cy is committed to working with the developer to expedite the processing of the City development approvals. Any Agency assistance requiJ;ed by the developer will need to be specified in the proposal as detailed in "Submittal Requirements" section below. ,., REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES FOR "B" STREET PROJECT o Create a high quality, active mixed use project to revitalize the "B" Street area that is consistent with Our Vision of Downtown Scm R,afael and the City's General Plan. o Retain and/or enhance the historic character and pedestrian-friendly nature of the frontages of "A" and "B" Streets. '0 Provide affordable illld market' r.ate housing in the downtown. Eliminate or rehabilitate substandard housmg units, At a minimum, 'replace' on site all housing units destroyed at conipar~ble affoidable'remal rates: ' o Createw!)ll designed buildings for a significartt entry statement at the "A" Street,entrance to downtown. '. "',' , ' o Eli~ateblighted conditions in the,atea, o Create j~bs and improve e'conomic vitality of,t4.e area. , o Complete ,constructi~n and rehabilitation in the 'shortest p'ossible time. , '0 Deliver retail t~n'ilntS in the shorteSt possible time. Agency approval of tenants will be required. " o Minimize Agency financial assistance for the project. ...... "B" STREET DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Active Mixed Use Development. The develop.q).ent concept for the "B" Street project is a mixed use project which must include housing (as described below), ground floor retail along "A" and "B" Sfteets, and my, combination of office, retllil, entertaiument, or restaurant use and parking that is consistent with Our Vision and the General Plan. Active pedestrian uses along "A" and "B" Streets are desired. The tenants in the project should stimulate interest and vitality in this area of downtown for residents, employees and visitors, Our Vision specified the desired development in the Second/Third Street corridor (in part) as follows: o Establish a vital, varied and compatible mix of office, retail and residential uses that utilizes the speci~ strenilths given this District by the high traffic volume and visibility Qf Second and Third Streets ' o Make Second and Third Streets a very attractive, safe and efficient transportation corridor. o Strengthen the unique character of each cross street and give special treatment to "B" Street as an area of strong historic character and the primary connection between the Gerstle Park Neighborhood and the Fourth Street Retail Core. • EXHIBIT D F M E October 19, 2015 To City of San Rafael Planning Commission, I am the Project Architect with 30 years of professional experience. FME is an award winning Architectural Firm and has been the project Architect for five years. We are the third architectural firm that has presented project designs to the City of San Rafael for this site. Since 20 lOwe have completely redesigned the project three different times based on direction from the C ity of San Rafael Design Review Board (DRB). What began as a modern 4-story building with tile and glass exterior is now a scaled down project with articulated roof canopies and vertical window bays. Rich brick and warm metal architectural details help evoke the historical fabric of the neighborhood. Each design scheme has incorporated a deep canopy at the retail frontage to engage the pedestrian scale on B Street and mimic the existing historical architectural elements of the buildings in the surrounding B Street neighborhood. A lush landscape wall will help screen the open parking garage from the traffic on 2"" street. To illustrate our design evolution and the benefits of the project I have attached Exhibit I to this letter which is a rendering of the DRB approved project design as well as the design par ameters that were given to us by San Rafael DRB. Exhibit 2 (attached) shows the Evolution of the project's multiple designs . Exhibits 3 & 4 (attached) shows the DRB approved project design which include the various historical architectural elements found on the buildings in the B Street neighborhood . These historical architectural elements include, Bay Windows , Vertical Window Mullions, Canopies, Varying Roof Lines , contemporary Materials that reflect a historical vernacular, & Canopy Projections that mimic existing canopies existing in the neighborhood. The project also improves vehicul a r safety by removing the three existing driveways on 2"d street which is a very busy street and limiting vehicular access to B Street. The building capitalizes on a transit orientated green design that is located near public transportation, shall have an electrical car charging station within the garage, planted roof decks, onsite storm water filt"ations systems, and solar applications. We have studied Adaptive Reuse of the existing building elements from the structures located on 2'd street and conclude that this is not practical nor possible. There is no part of the building that should be incorporated into the proposed project. We do not believe that the Adaptive Reuse Alternative is a viable option for this project. Reusing portions of the two dilapidated structures on site does not provide a benefit to the historic character of the neighborhood. We have reviewed the Adaptive Reuse FEE MUNSON EBERT I ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN 500 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 -2579 415-434-0320 FX 415·434-2409 WWW.FME-ARCH .COM