Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2018-01-23 Agenda PacketAGENDA SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, January 23,2018, 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 1400 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA Sign interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling 415/485-3085 (voice) or 415/ 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at 415/454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Agency Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the Community Development Department, Third Floor, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda-related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL TAKE UP NO NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11:00 P .M. AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. THIS SHALL BE INTERP RETED TO MEAN THAT NO AGENDA ITEM OR OTHER BUSINESS WILL BE DISCUSSED OR ACTED UPON AFTER THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 11:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND THIS RULE TO DISCUSS AND/OR ACT UPON ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM(S) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.APPEAL RIGHTS: ANY PERSON MAY FILE AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS (NORMALLY 5:00 P.M. ON THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY) AND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS OF AN ACTION ON A SUBDIVISION. AN APPEAL LETTER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, ALONG WITH AN APPEAL FEE OF $350 (FOR NON -APPLICANTS) OR A $4,476 DEPOSIT (FOR APPLICANTS) MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SHALL SET FORTH THE BASIS FOR APPEAL. THERE IS A $50.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF AN APPEAL BY APPELLANT. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION Anyone with an urgent communication on a topic not on the agenda may address the Commission at this time. Please notify the Community Development Director in advance. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Minutes 01/09/18 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.3773 Redwood Highway (Oakmont Senior Living)–Request for a Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review for a new 83,093 sq. ft. assisted care facility containing 89 units and 93 beds; APN: 179-064- 01; General Commercial (GC) Zone; Bill Mabry, Applicant; Eric Ziedrich, Owner; Case Numbers: ED17 -035 & UP17-012. Project Planner: Alan Montes DIRECTOR’S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT I.Next Meeting: February 13,2018 II.I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, January 19,2018,I posted a notice of the January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,January 9, 2018 Regular Meeting San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings CALL TO ORDER Present:Larry Paul Barrett Schaefer Berenice Davidson Jeff Schoppert Sarah Loughran Mark Lubamersky Absent:Jack Robertson Also Present:Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager Alan Montes, Assistant Planner Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Jim Myhers, Manager, Parking Services PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Minutes 12/12/17 Sarah Loughran moved and Jeff Schoppert seconded to approve Minutes as presented.The vote is as follows: AYES:Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky NOES:None ABSTAIN:Barrett Schaefer ABSENT:Larry Paul, Jack Robertson (Larry Paul arrived late) PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.3255 Kerner Blvd. Suite #2 –Request for a Use Permit to allow a church in a 521-sq. ft. 2nd floor office suite; APN: 009-191-18; General Commercial (GC) District; West Bay Builders, Carlos Israel Avalos, Applicant; Shao Hua Shen, Owner; Case Number: UP17-013-(Project Planner: Alan Montes) Staff Report Barrett Schaefer moved and Jeff Schoppert seconded to approve project as presented.The vote is as follows: AYES:Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Jack Robertson 3.DRAFT DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL PARKING & WAYFINDING STUDY –Presentation of the Zoning and Development Standard recommendations presented in the Draft Downtown San Rafael Parking & Wayfinding Study. This draft study, which was prepared by the City of San Rafael, provides a comprehensive review of Downtown parking and includes numerous recommendations on parking rates, wayfinding, SMART, parking policies, marketing and promotion, pedestrian network, bicycle parking, and zoning/development standards. The Planning Commission review will focus on the recommendations related to zoning and development standards. P17-012. (Project Managers: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director and Jim Myhers, Parking Service Director) Staff Report Jeff Schoppert moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to accept the report as present.The vote is as follows: AYES:Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Jack Robertson 4.Annual Meeting of Planning Commission for 2018 to include: a) election of officers; and b) review of Planning Commission “Rules and Procedures”; and c) selection of liaisons to DRB meetings. (Planner: Raffi Boloyan) Staff Report Jeff Schoppert moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to elect Berenice Davidson as Chair and Sarah Loughran, as Vice Chair for 2018.The vote is as follows: AYES:Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Jack Robertson Mark Lubamersky moved and Larry Paul seconded to approve Rules and Procedures as recommended by staff.The vote is as follows: AYES:Larry Paul, Barrett Schaefer, Berenice Davidson, Jeff Schoppert, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Jack Robertson DIRECTOR’S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT ___________________________________ ANNE DERRICK,Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2018 _____________________________________ Berenice Davidson,Chair Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: January 23, 2018 Agenda Item: Case Numbers: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Project Planner: Alan Montes 415.485.3397 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 3773 Redwood Highway (Oakmont Senior Living) – Request for a Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review for a new three story 83,093 sq. ft. assisted care facility containing 89 units and 93 beds, with an underground parking garage; APN: 179-064-01; General Commercial (GC) Zone; Bill Mabry, Applicant; Eric Ziedrich, Owner; Case Numbers: ED17-035 & UP17-012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project is proposing a new three story 83,093 sq. ft. assisted care facility with a 29,892-sq. ft. underground parking garage. This use is unique as assisted care facilities are a hybrid between residential and commercial uses. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance both permit the use, but don’t establish guidelines on how to process this kind of hybrid use. During the review process when the code remained silent on a standard, such as Floor Area Ratio (FAR), staff has applied the hotel standards as this use is akin to a resident hotel. The project has been reviewed by all necessary City and outside agencies, including the Design Review Board (DRB). Through this process the project has been modified and conditioned to comply with all City regulations and is recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the project with conditions. PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 3773 Redwood Highway Parcel Number: 179-064-01 Property Size: 56,125 sq. ft. Neighborhood: Civic Center Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: General Commercial General Commercial Retail North: General Commercial General Commercial Restaurant South: General Commercial General Commercial Retail East: N/A N/A Highway 101 West: High Density Residential High Density Residential (HR1) Residential REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 2 BACKGROUND The site is currently developed with a single-story 19,684 sq. ft. commercial building (previously, “Hudson Street Design”). The site was originally developed as a furniture store in 1971 and has sat vacant since mid-2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to demolish the existing commercial building and to construct a new 35’-tall, three- story assisted living facilities, with a tower reaching a maximum height of 42’. The structure is proposed to be 83,093-sq ft. of living space and an additional 29,892 sq. ft. of underground parking. The underground parking will account for 51 of the 53 on-site parking spaces. The facility includes the following accessory uses private and formal dining rooms, a café, entertainment/activity rooms, beauty salon, library, and a courtyard. The project proposes a total of 89 units comprised of the following: • 23 Assisted care dwelling units, which count towards as the units contain private sanitary facilities, sleeping facilities, and kitchens. • 28 Memory care units. • 38 Assisted care units. Site Plan: The egress and ingress to the project site would be along Las Gallinas Avenue. The curb cuts are proposed to be 26’ along the western end of Las Gallinas and 15’ along the northern end of Las Gallinas. The larger curb cut is meant to accommodate two-way traffic, while the smaller one is intended to be an exit only. The structure is intended to fill much of the site, while still providing the required setbacks, and provide the majority of the onsite parking underground. Architecture: The project proposes a craftsman bungalow-style design. The structure incorporates articulation, which steps in on the third-floor corners and steps in and out along the Redwood Highway frontage to lessen the bulk and mass. The tower element has been added and increased height per the Design Review Board’s (DRB) recommendation. The primary exterior colors and materials are a Kelley Moore KM4642 Bird’s Nest for the stucco and a “Hardieshingle” primed siding painted Kelly Moore KM5706 Bonnies Bench. In addition, the project proposes a stone façade along portions of the ground floor and full cladding the tower element in a stone façade. Along the west elevation a green screen is proposed to mitigate the bulk and mass of the structure. Landscaping: The project proposes landscaping along the site perimeter and within the interior courtyard. The project proposes 14,488 sq. ft. (25.8%) of landscaping, where a minimum 15% (8,418 sq. ft.) is required. The perimeter of the site is proposed to consist primarily of Autumn Blaze Maple, Arbutus, and Sweet Laurel trees. The courtyard will consist of lawns, a garden, Japanese maples, and dwarf magnolias. ANALYSIS San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: The proposal at 3773 Redwood Highway is substantially compliant with General Plan 2020 and specifically, the project is consistent with the following General Plan 2020 Policies: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 3 Land Use Policy LU-8, Intensity of Residential Development, states that maximum residential densities are not guaranteed but minimum densities are generally required. Density can be limited based on the following factors: site resources and constraints, potentially hazardous conditions, traffic and access, adequacy of infrastructure, City design policies and development patterns and prevailing densities of adjacent developed areas are required. This project complies with the residential density as the proposed density is in the middle of what is permitted and the limiting factors have all been reviewed and have been found to not be limiting factors for this proposal. Land Use Policy LU-9, Intensity of Nonresidential Development, states Maximum allowable FARs are not guaranteed, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. Intensity of commercial and industrial development on any site shall respond to the following factors: site resources and constraints, traffic and access, potentially hazardous conditions, adequacy of infrastructure, and City design policies. The proposal has been reviewed against the criteria listed above and it has been found that the proposal complies with the requirements, except for FAR. However, as this project is being reviewed akin to a resident hotel and hotels are exempt from FAR by Land Use Policy LU-20 and in the Zoning Ordinance. Land Use Policy LU-12, Building Heights, establishes height limits throughout the City, as well as establishing exceptions to the height limit. This project site has a height limit of 36’ and takes advantage of the exceptions established in the Zoning Ordinance to exceed the height limit for architectural features. The height of the structure is 35’ feet with the exception to the clock tower, which reaches a maximum height of 42’. This exception in the height for the clocktower is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Land Use Policy LU-14, Land Use Compatibility, requires that new development in mixed residential and commercial areas to minimize potential nuisance effects and to enhance their surroundings. This project complies with this policy as an assisted care facility has minimal noise and traffic impacts. Land Use Policy LU-20, Hotels, Motels and Inns, encourages the development hotels throughout the commercial, multifamily and industrial zoning districts. This policy also exempts hotels from FARs and allows for height bonuses with City Council approval. Land Use Policy LU-23, Land Use Map and Categories, as the site is designated General Commercial and large assisted care facilities are identified as allowable in this designation subject to a Use Permit. Housing Policy H-6, Funding for Affordable Housing, requires new development to either pay an in-lieu fee or develop affordable units. Through the review process staff has determined and conditioned the project to pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee of $396,320.58. Housing Policy H-13, Senior Housing, encourages more housing options that will meet the need of San Rafael’s older population. This project will increase the housing options for San Rafael’s older population by creating 89 new units for seniors and of the 89 new units 28 of the units will be dedicated to memory care. Housing Policy H-14, Adequate Site, encourages residential development in areas appropriate and feasible for new housing. This policy also requires that new residential developments are developed at a minimum of the mid- to high- range of the zoning density. This project complies at it will be providing new 23 new dwelling units. The amount of provided dwelling units complies with the mid-range of the maximum zoning density (56 Dwelling Units). Community Design Policy CD-10, Nonresidential Design Guidelines, requires that new nonresidential project be reviewed against the nonresidential design guidelines. This project has been reviewed against the nonresidential design guidelines and has been found consistent by the Design Review Board. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 4 Community Design Policy CD-15, Participation in Project Review, encourages public involvement in the review of new development through the use of noticing and public hearings. This project is consistent with this policy as the project has been properly noticed and scheduled for all required hearings. Community Design Policy CD-18, Landscaping, requires that the City recognizes the contribution of landscaping. The design of the building highly incorporates landscaping by planting trees between the ins and outs of the east elevation and the green screens along the west elevation. Community Design Policy CD-20, Commercial Signage, requires that signage complies with the regulations in the Sign Ordinance. The project complies with the sign ordinance and has less signage than what can be permitted. Circulation Policy C-8, Eliminating and Shifting Peak Hour Trips, the project will not generate any additional peak hour trips from the existing use, as the majority of employees will be arriving and departing outside of peak hour trips. Noise Policy N-2, Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use Areas, this policy requires exterior noise for common useable areas to not exceed a Ldn of 60dB, which the project has been conditioned to comply with. Noise Policy N-3, Planning and Design of New Development, encourages new development to be planned and designed to minimize noise impacts. This project complies with this policy as the bedroom are designed to be facing the courtyard as opposed to the perimeter of the building. The building will also function as a sound wall mitigating the noise impacts within the courtyard. Safety Policy S-4, Geotechnical Review, requires geotechnical investigations for development proposals be submitted to the City to assess potential hazards. The applicant submitted a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Reese & Associates, Exhibit 5. In conclusion, the report identifies that the project can be built on this site with recommended mitigation measures. Air and Water Quality Policy AW -2, Land Use Compatibility, requires that through the development review process the City ensure that siting of any new sensitive receptors provides for adequate buffers from existing sources of toxic air contaminants or odors. The applicant submitted an Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by First Carbon Solutions, Exhibit 6 and 7, states that the level of cumulative health impacts of the project do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for sensitive receptors. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 5 – General Commercial District Use Assisted care facility are identified as allowable uses in this District subject to obtaining a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The Use Permit is required to ensure that the use is compatible with its surroundings and would not negatively impact this site nor those in the surrounding area. Density The San Rafael Municipal Code limits the maximum density to 56 dwelling units for this site. The project proposes 23 dwelling units and 66 units which do not meet the definition of a “dwelling unit” due to their lack of kitchens (the San Rafael Municipal Code defines dwelling units as one or more rooms designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters for the exclusive use of one household, with a kitchen, sleeping facilities, and sanitary facilities). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 5 Setbacks The General Commercial District does not have any setback requirements, unless located adjacent to a Residential District. This property abuts a residential district on the western property line and thus provides a 10’ setback on the west side of the property. Height The site is subject to a 36’ height limit pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.05.030. The project proposes a 35’-high structure, with a clocktower that extends to a maximum height of 42’, which is allowed for architectural features and subject to Environmental and Design Review. Landscaping The project proposes landscaping along the site perimeter and within the interior “courtyard”. The project proposes 14,488 sq. ft. (25.8%) of landscaping, where a minimum 15% (8,418 sq. ft.) is required. Chapter 16 – Site and Use Regulations Refuse enclosure requirement All nonresidential and multi-family developments are required to provide a refuse storage area that’s screened from view. This project proposes the refuse area to in the underground garage, which meets the intent of this section. Affordable housing requirement For assisted living facilities, the City has historically used the nonresidential inclusionary housing requirements rather than the residential requirements. The proposed assisted care facility project offers permanent residency, which is like a resident hotel. The facility also offers services to the residents, which would not be typically found in a resident hotel. These services include a restaurant, movie theater, and other services that are more akin to retail and personal services. Therefore, it is credible to consider using a hybrid rate for determining the requirement and linkage fee. The proposed facility is 83,093 square feet in size and would employ 35-55 service employees within a 24-hour period (2-3 work shifts). Applying both hotel and retail/personal service rates that are averaged is reasonable given the layout of uses within the proposed facility and the projected staff. The following rates are averaged: Retail/Personal Service Affordable Housing Rate: .0225 new units per 1,000sq.ft. Hotel Rate: .0075 new units per 1,000sq.ft. Last updated in 2016, the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee per single residential units is $317,973.50. The average between retail and hotel would be .015/per 1,000sq.ft., which would translate to a requirement for 1.246 low income units and thus would equal an affordable housing in lieu fee of $396,320.58. See Exhibit 9 for more information. Exclusions to the maximum height requirement. This section of the Municipal code allows for architectural features, such clocktowers, to be excluded from the height calculation subject to Environmental and Design Review. The DRB specifically requested that the clocktower element of the structure be increased above the height limit to improve the design. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 6 Floor area ratios and densities applicable to nonresidential and mixed-use development Given the unique nature of assisted care facilities and that the use does not cleanly fit into the current zoning standards, staff has reviewed this application to be more akin with a hotel or residential project in terms of floor area ratio (FAR) in that the project is not subject to FAR. Mechanical equipment screening All rooftop and exterior mechanical equipment is required to be screened and the applicant proposes that the parapet walls will be enough to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. Staff is satisfied with the site lines provided and has conditioned the project to additional screening should the parapet not satisfactory screen the mechanical equipment. Noise standards An acoustical study will be required as part of the conditions of approval in order to verify that the residential dBA does not exceed 40 dBA for bedrooms, 45 dBA for other rooms and that the useable outdoor space not exceed 60 dBA, prior to the Planning Final. Should the project not comply with the Nosie standards additional insulation, sound proof windows, or other mitigation requirements would be required prior to occupancy. Chapter 18 – Parking Standards Parking Requirements The parking requirement for assisted living facilities is one (1) space for each five (5) clients plus one (1) space for each staff person, visiting doctor or employee on maximum staffed shift. The applicant has submitted a parking study prepared by Crane Transportation Group. The parking study identified that the facility will need to provide 49 parking spaces based on the facility having 89 bedrooms with up to 93 beds, a maximum of 25 employees during a single shift, and up to five (5) visitors (including health professionals). The City’s Parking Ordinance would require the following based on the parking study provided during the pre-application: 1 space for each 5 beds = 19 spaces 1 space for each staff member, during a shift = 25 spaces 1 space per maximum number of visitors = 5 spaces TOTAL 49 Required Spaces The proposed plans identify that there will be 89 units and a maximum of 93 beds in the facility. The project, as presented proposes 53 parking spaces. Based on the formula above the project will have a surplus of three (3) parking spaces. The project currently proposes 51 underground parking spaces and two (2) surface level parking spaces. The project is proposing to exceed the City’s parking requirement for the proposed use and development. Chapter 19 – Signs The project proposes one (1) monument sign located at the northwest corner of the property. The sign is proposed to be approximately 10 sq. ft. and complies with all signage requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION On November 9, 2016 and February 22, 2017, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) for conceptual design reviews. During the first concept review the Board and Planning Commission Liaison (Commissioner Paul) provided a lot of constructive criticism for the design. The primary suggestions were to add more detailed articulation along the east (street side) elevation of the building, having the building cut in and out along the east elevation, and to cut the building back on the third story REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 7 corners to mitigate the visual mass and bulk of the structure. The applicant took these suggestions and revised their proposal and elected to go before the DRB again for a second concept review (February 22, 2017). During this second concept review, the DRB were highly favorable to the revisions, which applied the Board’s initial comments as well as a new tower element. The only remaining concern for the Board was that the tower element was not tall enough and suggested that the tower element be taller. Commissioner Lubamersky was the Planning Commission Liaison for this meeting. On November 7, 2017, the project returned to the DRB for formal review. Overall, the comments were positive. The only points of concern were that the tower should be further increased, one to two more feet, and that additional articulation should be applied to the west elevation. The DRB voted 4-0-1-1 (Board Member Blayney abstaining and Board Member Spielman absent) to support the design of the project and to have staff work with the applicant to address the remaining concerns. The applicant has since further increased the tower element form 40’ to 42’ and added more detail to the screen wall along the west (interior side) elevation. During this hearing Commissioner Loughran was the acting liaison for the Planning Commission. The City no longer prepares written meeting minutes, but actual video proceedings from the DRB meeting can be reviewed at: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/public-meetings/ then clicking on the DRB under archived meetings, and then selecting the February 22, 2017 and November 7, 2017. The November 9, 2016 meeting took place outside of the Chamber Councils and the written minutes are attached as Exhibit 11. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts infill development if; a) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations; b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; c) the project site has no value for endangered species; d) the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and e) the site can be adequately be served by all required utlities and public services. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning regulations, takes place within the City Limits in a completely developed area under five acres, will result in a decrease in trips generated, will produce minimal noise, meets the necessary requirements in the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist (Exhibit 8), and the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and the San Rafael Meadows Improvement Association and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. During the November 9, 2016 DRB meeting a member of the public stated that the colors were too beige, the density is too high and that the structure has too large. During the February 22, 2017 meeting, there were two public comments. The first comment stated that living next to a freeway is unhealthy and shouldn’t be allowed and that the roof form isn’t complementary to the Civic Center. The second public comment stated the redwood trees fronting Las Gallinas should try to be retained, the building should be softened and that an analysis should be prepared to determine the potential SMART ridership generated from this Project. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED17-035 & UP17-012 Page 8 OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the application as conditioned (Staff Recommendation) 2. Approve the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval. 3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission’s comments or concerns 4. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised resolution EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Letter from applicant 4. Traffic/Parking Study 5. Geotechnical Investigation Report 6. Toxic Air Contaminant Effects Memo 7. Air Quality Impact Analysis Report 8. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist 9. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Memo 10. Renderings 11. Design Review Board Minutes for the November 9, 2016 Meeting. 12. Reduced Plans Exhibit 1 – Vicinity Maps RESOLUTION NO. 18- RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW (ED17-035) AND USE PERMIT (UP17-012) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, THREE STORY, 83,093 SQ. FT. ASSISTED CARE FACILITY CONTAINING 89 UNITS AND 93, WITH AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE LOCATED AT 3773 REDWOOD HIGHWAY APN: 179-064-01 WHEREAS, on October 6, 2016, William Mabry of Oakmont Senior Living submitted an application to the City of San Rafael requesting a Preapplication and Conceptual Design Review regarding a Senior Assisted Care Facility at 3773 Redwood Highway; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2016, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the conceptual review of the project, providing constructive criticism of the proposed design; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2017, William Mabry of Oakmont Senior Living submitted an application to the City of San Rafael requesting a Conceptual Design Review regarding a Senior Assisted Care Facility at 3773 Redwood Highway; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the conceptual review of the project, providing favorable feedback; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2017, William Mabry of Oakmont Senior Living submitted an application to the City of San Rafael requesting an Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit to allow a Senior Assisted Care Facility at 3773 Redwood Highway; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the project and on a vote of 4-0-1-1 recommending approval (Board Member Blayney abstained and Board Member Spielman was absent); and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts infill development; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit (ED17-035 & UP17-012), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. - 2 - NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following findings relating to the proposed Environmental and Design Review and Use Permit: Use Permit Findings (UP17-012) A. The project would be consistent with the General Plan 2020 given that the proposed project would be consistent with Land Use Policies LU-8 (Intensity of Residential Development), LU-9 (Intensity of Nonresidential Development) LU-12 (Building Heights), LU -14 (Land Use Compatibility) LU-20 (Hotels, Motels and Inns), LU-23 (Land Use Map and Categories); Housing Policies H-6 (Funding for Affordable Housing), H-13 (Senior Housing), H-14 (Adequate Sites); Community Design Policies CD-10 (Nonresidential Design Guidelines), CD-15 (Participation in Project Review), CD-18 (Landscaping), and CD-20 (Commercial Signage); Circulation Policy C-8 (Eliminating and Shifting Peak Hour Trips); Noise Policies N-2 (Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Use Areas), N-3 (Planning and Design of New Development); Safety Policy S-4 (Geotechnical Review); and Air and Water Quality Policy AW-2 (Land Use Compatibility), in that: a. The proposal will comply with Policies LU-8, LU-9, LU-12, LU-14, LU-20 and LU- 23, given that the proposal will comply with the height requirements, as the code allows for architectural features to exceed the height requirements. The project will comply with both the residential and nonresidential intensity and density requirements. The project is a compatible land use as the use is both commercial and residential in nature with minimal impacts and assisted care facilities are permitted uses in the General Commercial Designation subject to a use permit. b. The proposal complies with Policies H-6, H-13, and H-14, given that the new development will be providing an affordable housing in-lieu fee of $396,320.58. The project will be providing additional senior housing opportunities to meet the needs of San Rafael’s aging population. The site will be providing new housing on a housing opportunity site that will comply with the mid-range of the zoning density. c. The proposal complies with Policies CD-10, CD-15, CD-18, and CD-20 in that the project meets the intent of the nonresidential design guidelines with the stepbacks on the upper story, a clear point of entry, screening of mechanical equipment, articulation on the east elevation of the building. The project has gone through the public review process in that it has been properly noticed for all of its hearings. The landscaping has been integrating into the design of the building with the use of screen walls for vines and having the building step in and out along Redwood Highway which allows for tree to be planted between the building. The proposed signage will comply with the standards in the zoning ordinance, as described in the staff report. d. The proposal complies with Circulation Policy C-8 as the project will reduce the number of peak hour trips. e. The proposal will comply with Policies N-2 and N-3 as the project is conditioned to submit an acoustical study ensuring that the outdoor and indoor spaces do not exceed the allowable dBA requirement. f. The proposal complies with Safety Policy S-4 in that the applicant submitted a geotechnical report that identifying the potential hazards and mitigations for the site. - 3 - g. The proposal complies with Policy AW-2 as the project has submitted an Air Quality Impact Analysis report that states that of cumulative health impacts of the project do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for sensitive receptors. B. The proposed large assisted care facility use together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City in that: a. The proposed use will generate minimal noise, traffic, and the facility will be fully licensed and regulated by the California Department of Social Services; and b. The reviewing City Departments have reviewed the project, monitored the project site, and developed conditions of approval that would ensure that the use would operate in a manner as described and comply with all life and safety code requirements. C. That the proposed large assisted care use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, in that: a. That the proposed use, a large assisted care facility, is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the GC district in which the site is located; and b. The proposal use is a permitted use in the GC district, subject to obtaining a use permit from the Planning Commission. c. The large asissted care facility, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Environmental and Design Review Findings (ED17-035) A. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, the non-residential design guideliens, and the purposes of Zoning Code Chapter 25 given that the project has been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for compliance with the design criteria contained Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the design is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding environs, as required by the General Plan Land Use Element. B. As conditioned, the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts by proposing development of a level site that is surrounded by urban development on all sides, with public utilities and services readily available, the required setbacks and landscaping are incorporated into the project, lighting fixtures are shielded and directed down, and new development is subject to building permits that will ensure the building is constructed in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. C. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located given that the site development complies with the GC District requirements and has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. - 4 - D. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly. California Environmental Quality Act Finding A. The project qualifies as a Class 32 Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 which exempts the project as in-fill development given that a) the proposed assisted care facility is consistent with the applicable General Commercial (GC) General Plan and Zoning Designations, policies and regulations; b) the site is located within the City limits on a site under five-acres in size that is surrounded by urban uses on all sides; c) the site does not contain or have value as suitable habitat for rare, threatened or endangered animal or plant species; d) the project does not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air or water quality as it will be developed within General Plan specified limits with utility connections and public services readily available; e) it has been determined through the review process that the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; and f) the project is not pre-empted by any of the Exceptions listed in the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael approves the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit subject to the following conditions: Use Permit (UP17-012) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The Use Permit (UP17-012) for this project is valid for two (2) years, until January 23, 2020, at which time the permit shall expire unless initiated by issuance of a building permit or an extension of time is requested prior to the expiration date. 2. Prior to operation the facility shall be licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services and a copy of the license shall be submitted to the City of San Rafael Planning Division. 3. This Use Permit allows for the operation of a senior assisted living facility in an 83,093sq. ft. structure with a maximum of 93 beds, 89 units, and 53 parking spaces. 4. This approval allows for 23 assisted care dwelling units, 38 assisted care units, and 28 memory care units. Any modification of this configuration requires approval from the Planning Division. Depending on the extent of the modification of units the reviewing body may be staff, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission. - 5 - 5. The facility shall provide a minimum of 23 dwelling units. The dwelling units shall have private kitchens, sleeping facilities, and sanitary facilities. 6. Non-administrative employees shall be scheduled to start and end their shifts outside of A.M. and P.M. traffic peak hours (7a.m. – 9a.m. and 4p.m. – 6p.m.). 7. Failure to comply with any project conditions of approval may result in the revocation of the Use Permit. The San Rafael Planning Division can bring up this Use Permit (UP17-012) for review if problems arise from the use. Environmental and Design Review (ED17-035) Conditions of Approval Fire Department 1. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 2. 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: i. Fire Sprinkler Plans ii. Fire Alarm plans 3. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show the location of the following: i. Designated fire apparatus access roads. ii. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs. iii. Fire Hydrants. iv. Street address signs. v. Provide a note on the plan, as follows: the designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrants shall be installed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to construction of the buildings. The fire lane must be asphalt or concrete and be improved to support an imposed load of 75,000 pounds. 4. Approved fire hydrants are required; the fire hydrant shall be located no more than 600 feet from any portion of the buildings. The fire hydrant shall be a wet barrell Clow model 960 and supply at least 1250 gpm. Developer might be required to upgrade or add to existing hydrants along roadways. 5. Fire hydrants shall be spaced not more than 500 feet apart on the fire apparatus access road. 6. Provide 3 feet of clearance around the fire hydrants. 7. Interior standpipes and hose connections could be required. 8. Elevator emergency recall system will be required. - 6 - 9. Gurney accessible elevator cars will be required. 10. An emergency personnel phone communications system could be required. 11. Emergency radio signal amplification system as per CFC might be required. 12. When a building is fully sprinklered all portions of the exterior building perimeter must be located within 250-feet of an approved fire apparatus access road. i. The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road is 20 feet. ii. The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access roadway is 28 feet. iii. The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150 feet in length; provide an approved turn-around. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specific details. 13. An aerial apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building. i. The aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. ii. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26 feet. iii. Overhead utility and power line shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building. 14. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating, “No Parking Fire Lane”. A sign shall be posted in accordance with CFC Section 503.3. 15. Contact Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to plan for the water supply serving the fire protection system. Community Development Department, Building Division 16. A building permit is required for the project. 17. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. Department of Public Works 18. A public access easement or Right-of-Way shall be required for the portion of the sidewalk at the corner that is located on the property, as a utility pole is currently located in the curb ramp area on the corner. Alternatively, the applicant may coordinate with PG&E to relocate the utility pole. 19. Prior to any work within the Right-of-Way, an encroachment permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works located at 111 Morphew St. - 7 - 20. Redwood Highway is currently a moratorium street, which requires full width resurfacing if any construction or curb cuts occur within the Right-of-Way. Based on the scope of the project the Department of Public Works would require that resurfacing of Las Gallinas Ave. be included to Merrydale Rd. The extent of the paving shall be shown on the building permit plans. 21. Additional signage and striping shall be required for the entrance and exit. 22. The driveway located at the eastern end of the property shall be designated as exit only. A Type I (10’-0”) pavement arrow shall be located in the driveway. 23. Two R5-1 “DO NOT ENTER” signs shall be installed; one on each side of the driveway, located on site and facing Las Gallinas Ave. 24. An “EXIT ONLY” plaque(s) may also be installed, below the required R5-1 Signs. 25. The project soils engineer shall review and approve the plans submitted for a building permit for compliance with the recommendations of the project soils report. 26. This project proposes creation or replacement of over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface and is a regulated project under MCSTOPPP requirements. Additionally, it appears that the project disturbance is greater than one acre, therefore SWPPP shall be required. 27. Provide a post construction stormwater control plan, which includes a written document, in addition to the drainage and erosion sediment control plans. If the disturbance is greater than one acre and a SWPPP is required, then a copy of the SWPPP may be acceptable for the erosion and sediment control plans, but construction and Stormwater control plan would still be required. More specific information is available from MCSTOPPP, hosted on the Marin County Website. See tools and guidance, and post construction requirements at: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new- andredevelopment-projects 28. A grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael. 29. Based on the previous use of the site and according to the traffic study the net peak hour trips do not result in an increase, therefore no traffic mitigation fee is required. 30. A construction impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance; which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. Marin Municipal Water District 31. Additional water entitlements will need to be purchased from Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). - 8 - 32. The project shall comply with District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation. 33. Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed as a condition of water service. 34. Landscape plans shall be submitted and reviewed to confirm compliance with MMWD. The written approval from MMWD shall be provided to the San Rafael Planning Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 35. The project shall comply with Ordinance No. 429, which requires installation of gray water recycling systems when practicable for all projects required to install new water service. Community Development Department, Planning Division 36. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-035) shall be valid for two years from approval or until January 23, 2020, and shall be null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension requested prior to the expiration date. 37. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this project, as presented for approval by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2018, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division in writing detailing the changes prior to submitting to the Building Division. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be clearly detailed and submitted directly to the Planning Division subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and the Design Review Board, if necessary. 38. A copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated into the building permit plan sheets. 39. The materials and colors for the project shall be as follows: a. Roofing: Composition shingles “Pabco”: Weather Wood b. Stucco: Kelly Moore: KM4642 Bird’s Nest c. Hardieshingle Primed Siding: Kelly Moore: KM5706 Bonnies Bench d. Trim: Kelly Moore KM4603 Grand Avenue and KM171 Sand Pebble e. Stone Fields: El Dorado Stone Cascade Rustic Ledge and Country Rubble Polermo f. Stone Wall Caps: El Dorado Stone Buckskin g. Vinyl Window Frames: Brownstone 40. This approval approves one 10 sq. ft. monument sign located at the northwest corner of the property, as detailed on the stamped approved plans. 41. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. 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 - 9 - permit. If at the time of the Planning Final the mechanical equipment is visible additional screening may be required. 42. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying plants, bushes, or trees shall be replaced with new healthy stock of a size compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement. 43. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to comply with conditions of the Marin Municipal Water District for the landscaping improvements. 44. Landscaping and irrigation must meet the Marin Municipal Water District's (MMWD) water conservation rules and regulations. For projects that are required to provide a water-efficient landscape pursuant to Section 14.16.370 of this title, the landscape plan and supportive materials shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 414, and future amendments as adopted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a grading permit or other authorization or city approval to proceed with construction and landscape installation, the applicant must provide written verification of plan approval from MMWD. 45. Construction activities shall comply with the City of San Rafael’s Noise Ordinance. 46. An acoustical consultant shall review the building design and provide a letter showing how the project will be designed to comply with permissible noise levels for indoor areas and outdoor recreational areas prior to issuance of a building permit. This letter must outline the requisite window and/or wall Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings needed to meet the City’s indoor noise standard of an Ldn of 40 dBA in bedrooms and 45 dBA in other rooms. 47. An acoustical study shall be required prior to the Planning Division Final demonstrating that the project complies with the noise standards listed in Condition of Approval #50. 48. Final construction plans submitted for issuance of a building permit shall be designed to incorporate green building measures to comply with the City’s green building ordinance (Cal- Green). 49. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30-day lighting level review by the Planning Division staff to insure compatibility with the surrounding area. All lighting improvements, facilities and fixtures shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 50. If, during the course of construction, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project planner - 10 - and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery. Prior to Building Permit Issuance 51. An affordable housing in-lieu fee of $396,320.58 shall be submitted to the City of San Rafael for the project, in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.030. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 23rd day of January 2018. Moved by Commissioner _____________ and seconded by Commissioner ________________. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Paul A Jensen, Secretary Berenice Davidson, Chair 1 Wednesday November 9, 2016 Design Review Board Meeting CALL TO ORDER Present: Jeff Kent, Chair Stewart Summers Cheryl Lentini Bob Huntsberry Steve Stafford, Senior Planner Alan Montes, Assistant Planner Absent: Eric Spielman Don Blayney, Alternate STAFF COMMUNICATION Senior Planner Steve Stafford welcomed the Design Review Board and public for their presence on a Wednesday night as the Design Review Board meeting normally meets on a Tuesday. He gave the following Staff communication: He updated information on the 270 Linden Lane project that was appealed to the City Council. The project appeal was denied and the Planning Commission approval was upheld. At Monday’s Council meeting the Resident Resale Program (RBR) was addressed and for the most part, the program will remain intact. He stated that on the 21st of November the City Council meeting will review Planning Commission candidates. He stated that the second Design Review Board meeting in November will be cancelled the next meeting will be on December 6, 2016. Steve briefly described the meeting procedures. BOARD COMMUNICATION There was no Board communication. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Exhibit 11 2 1. October 4, 2016 Bob Huntsberry moved and Cheryl Lentini seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote is as follows: Stewart Summers abstained. AYES Hunstberry, Lentini, Kent NOES None ABSENT Blayney, Spielman ABSTAIN: Summers CONSENT NEW BUSINESS The next Agenda Item was presented and is described as follows: 2. 3773 Redwood Highway (Oakmont Senior Living) – Conceptual Design Review for redevelopment of a 1.29-acre site with a three-story senior assisted living facility containing ninety-two (92) units, with a maximum capacity of 100 beds, and 50 parking spaces; APN: 179-064-01; GC Zone; William Mabry, Applicant; Eric Ziedrich, Owner; Civic Center Neighborhood. Project Planner: Alan Montes Chair Jeff Kent asked staff to present the item. Planner Montes described the project as Conceptual Design Review. He stated that the structure is proposed to be 35 feet tall, three stories, approximately 90,000 square feet and that it will have up to 100 beds, 92 units; approximately 30 will be defined as “dwelling units” as they have kitchens and will therefore be counted against density. He stated that the other units do not count against density, as they are living units not dwelling units. Planner Montes described that the parking will be for 25 spaces for staff and one parking space per five residents and five additional spaces for visitors to include medical staff for a total of 50 spaces. He stated that 48 of these spaces will be below ground and 2 above ground. Also, there is a proposed courtyard in the center of the building with a usable outdoor area. Planner Montes stated that the site was developed in 1971 as a retail sales facility and that it is currently 20,000 square feet and 17 feet in height. He mentioned that Staff has concerns about the design of the building and that the first concern is the visual compatibility with other buildings in the area. Also, Staff has concerns about the height of neighboring structures in the area are from 20 to 35 feet. Montes stated that Staff has concerns of the visual bulk and mass of east and west walls as they are unbroken and would like feedback on this aspect. Lastly, he stated that Staff would like recommendation on landscaping. Montes stated that staff has received two comments on this project. One comment referred to the visitor parking and noted that the parking should be located above ground as it is easier to access 3 building. Another comment was that the site was more appropriate for affordable housing than a senior living facility. Staff explained that both uses would be permitted at this site. Staff asked for questions from the Board. Chair Jeff Kent, asked about what dictates the number of rooms/beds allowed at the site since there are no F.A.R. requirements and no restriction on lot coverage. Planner Montes reassured him that the parking requirement and the height of building would dictate the number of rooms allowed. Board member Huntsberry asked for staff to go through how the parking was determined. Planner Montes explained that a parking study was completed and is still being reviewed. The study indicated one parking space required per five residents and the number of employees per maximum shift (that number being 25 employees) and the number of visitors being five. Bill Mabry, project applicant gave a presentation of project. He described that the facility would provide transportation for its residents and utilizes town cars to take residents to events, doctor appointments, etc. He stated that the entry would have a concierge and there would be a café area for people to sit and wait for a resident or meeting. In addition, he stated that there would be private dining facility for residents for events and to have family/friends over if desired. He described the living room in one of the larger units. Applicant Mabry stated that there are hydro tubs and massage facilities. He stated that there will be a small theater for residents and their guests. Also, a full wellness center will be provided and a concierge doctor service where a doctor can see residents on-site. There would be a small fitness center, reading rooms, beauty salon and in the interior courtyards would be raised flower-beds to allow residents to do gardening. The interior central courtyard will be used for activities for residents. He introduced Robert South, the Architect for the project. Robert South, Architect, referred to the Design Guidelines and referred to matching buildings in the neighborhood and remarks that it is a mixed neighborhood. He stated that the approach of the entry is on the north side (on Las Gallinas) because of less traffic on that street (as opposed to Redwood Highway) He stated that the intent was to break up the east elevation which looks out onto the freeway and provide a break-up with an eye-brow roof at the lower level. He stated that they have used a variety of materials like stucco and wood with step-stone accents and wood shingles. Also, they have used some exposed trusses, small gable elements and shed roofs covering the windows. He stated the landscape architect has reviewed the courtyard there is opportunity for landscaping on the south side with a 12-foot set back and the west side has an 8-foot set back. He stated that they have not addressed exterior landscaping at this point. He mentioned that the Parking is almost all subterranean. He indicated that they have spoken with the fire department and they have ensured that the building would be fire sprinkled. He described the surrounding buildings. He pointed out renderings of the proposed building from the freeway and from Northgate Mall and viewing the building Southbound. He asked for input from the Board. Board Member Lentini asked about clarification of the drawings that were presented. 4 Board Member Kent asked about the lack of amenities close-by so that the resident might heavily rely on car to get to places. The architect explained that this is not a senior apartment facility, but a licensed, residential care facility for the elderly. The residents will rely on people/staff to drive them places. Board Member Summers asked about the parking standard as one for five residents. The Applicant stated that the implication is that residents will NOT be parking their own vehicles in the 25 spaces provided. These spaces will most likely be used for visitors, doctors, etc. No car storage would be allowed in the parking spaces generally since most residents are not active, he remarked. Board member Huntsberry asked about landscaping in the front area along the freeway – since there is a one foot setback. The Architect indicated that there is no landscaping plan for the area by the freeway. Board member Huntsberry remarked that the interior area is claustrophobic - and recommends an open area to the outside to enable a sense of “wellbeing”. He stated that resident may feel “trapped” once inside the courtyard without easy access to outside areas. Chair Kent said that some of the units are very far from the entrance. Board member Hunstberry suggested placing an entrance off Redwood Highway. The Architect remarked that it would make it more difficult for underground parking and keeping the interior courtyard as large as possible if you have an entrance off Redwood Highway. Board member Huntsberry remarked that since the parking layout is one-way traffic – what happens if a car becomes disabled? How do cars get out? He suggested utilizing the interior area for more parking and creates a two-way ingress/egress. The Architect said he wanted to have the courtyard remain down to the parking area. Board Member Summers asked if the applicant has ever built a structure this size (36-foot building) and configuration before. The Applicant said that he has and that there is one such building in San Jose. Board Member Huntsberry asked about the room layouts and the windows facing the freeway. The applicant responded that there are barriers to the noise of the freeway. Board member Kent asked the public to speak. Michael Hooper asked what the average age of the residents will be and is this an “age in place” facility which means that a resident will move from one room to another as their condition changes. Also, will medicines be dispensed and what is the plan on signage. How big are the units? Lisa Strandegard, a neighbor, asked where the applicants are from. She remarked about the mass and bulk of the building and density along the freeway. She said the building is too dense for the site. The colors are too beige and the building needs to be lowered by one story. She remarked on existing parking issues and that this site would make that worse. The applicant responded that the average age continues to rise to go to about mid-80s. In addition, visitors are older as well. Medications will be handled on site. He remarked that Signage has not been looked at yet. Also, he remarked that the size of the bedroom is about 11 x 16 with some larger bedrooms and rooms. 5 Board member Kent brings it back to the Board. Board Member Summers remarked that there is a growing need for these facilities. He remarked that there is a need for landscaping along Redwood Highway and perhaps increasing the setback from 1 foot would be necessary. He suggested creating more break-up of the monolithic bulk and mass of the building and that this would help the building blend in better to the environment. He recommended pulling the upper level in on some spots would help to create articulation and undulation. He stated that the building mass needs some work and the lower eyebrow roofs needs to not look “stuck on”. He mentioned that adequate parking is important and that the staff should make sure residents are not permanently storing cars in spaces. He suggested perhaps having vehicle ingress/egress off Redwood Highway. He stated that Signage needs to be looked at. The color scheme is monolithic – he recommended more colors and maybe stone materials. Board Member Lentini emphasized the bulk and mass should be broken up and more moving in and out with landscaping and clean material changes that create a richness rather than eyebrows and hats to make it “look” broken up. She remarked that the portico is too big for the building and that Landscaping is very important along Redwood Highway. She indicated that the Color Palette needs to be less beige and the use richer materials are recommended. Board Member Huntsberry said that the massing is a problem and that the building is basically a three- story box with a few textures thrown in. He stated the project is way too big for this size lot and recommends going at least one story less at the ends of the building or on the east side. He stated that this would create articulation and that perhaps two-story areas in the middle would reduce massing. He stated he would like to see a better plan showing the window details. He challenged the parking stipulation that no one can store a car in the parking area. He stated that people who live in these facilities do use cars and that they should be allowed to have a parking space. He stated that the dining area is too far for some residents and perhaps should be in a more central location. He remarks that there is not enough parking for the resident/employee and potential visitors and these needs to be addressed. Planning Commission Liaison Larry Paul recommended breaking up the massing and changing the roof heights. He stated that landscaping setback would soften the area by Redwood Highway. He remarks that a good example of this project would be Alma Via which represents the broken-up massing. Chair Jeff Kent recommended breaking up massing and landscaping on Redwood Highway side. He stated that the West side also needs landscaping as there are neighbors nearby. He recommended sitting areas in the Courtyard. As this project is Conceptual Design Review there is no vote on this item. Items #3 64 Oakmont – Chair Kent introduces item. 6 3. 64 Oakmont Ave. – Environmental and Design Review for a new 6,498 sq. ft. single-family residence with a second dwelling unit on a hillside parcel; APN: 010-121-19; Single Family Residential (R1a-H) Zone; Curt Cline, Applicant; Ryan Ashley, Owner; Fairhills Neighborhood; Project File: ED16-057. Project Planner: Alan Montes Project Planner Montes described the project as a new single family residence with a second dwelling unit with a total building footprint of 6,498 square foot. The main residence is approximately 5,700 square feet and the second dwelling unit is approximately 700 square feet. The building height is 22 feet not 24 as indicated in staff report. The existing building is 4,700 square feet and the building height is 16.5 feet tall. The new building is a modern design. The site proposes five parking spaces and only three are required in this case as the road is more than 26 feet wide. Overall, this project does meet the development standard of the zoning ordinance. He stated that the project complies with lot coverage, height restrictions, gross building square footage, set backs and step backs. He stated that there will be 2500 of cubic yards of grading that requires Planning Commission approval. Project Planner Montes indicated that staff is concerned with issues regarding the Hillside Guidelines. The Hillside Guidelines discourages flat roofs and glass walls. However, he stated that these features can be approved through the Design Review Board. He stated that staff would like recommendation from the Board on the new plantings along the southeast and southwest side of the project and the appropriateness of the Oaks in that location. He asked the Board for their feedback and question. Ryan Ashley, Applicant, presents the project. He remarked that he grew up in this home. He stated that his parents started to rehab the home 25 years and ago and have been sitting vacant and are in disrepair. He wanted to create his forever home for his wife and children. Curt Cline, the representative or architect described the desire of the owner to create a modern home and to take advantage of the view on the site and to create more yard space. He stated that the intent was for a more compact footprint. He said they took efforts to lower the second story as much as possible to reduce the height impact on the property and utilize existing coverages to screen the house from the street. He described the house as traditional modernism with simple living space with an upper bedroom space that crosses it with a garage hidden below. Also, there would be an exercise space that will be hidden from street view. The exercise space would double as an office/study. He stated that solar panels will be explored for the house. Chair Kent asked about the elevator and if it goes all the way to the basement and if it will be used in the future. The applicant responded that it will not go to the basement but from the main floor to the second floor. He asked about the ponds and safety issues with kids. The Applicant responds that the ponds are very shallow (16 inches deep) and will be a still pond. He asked about the existing walls and decks and if they will be removed and the applicant responds that they will be removed. He asked about whether the exercise/office room will be at grade and whether or not you can walk on it. The Applicant responded that that is correct and that there will be a guard rail at the end. Chair Kent asked about the driveway material and the Applicant responded that it will be made of decomposed rock/gravel. He asked about the landscaping in the rear and the applicant stated that it will be lawn. 7 Bob Huntsberry asked about the long lavatories in the master bathroom whether or not there are really five feet and the Applicant responded that they are. Board Member Summers asked about the lighting in a modern building with such large windows and whether the light will be recessed down lighting and the applicant says that it will. Chair Kent opened up the meeting for public comment. Dianne Newhouse has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. She saed that there are six bedrooms and a study. She remarked that she is concerned about the potential to use the property as an “Air BnB”. Staff explained that the AirBnB issue is a complicated issue that is currently being addressed and monitored by the City Manager’s Office and that other legal ramifications are being looked at. The owner/applicant reassured the public that he does not intend to use the property as an Air B&B Bob Newhouse, a neighbor, a resident of 51 years, stated that he feels that the architecture is not fitting with the environment and the size of the building detracts from the existing neighborhood. He stated that the design of the house violates the wild and the native look of the existing houses. Frank Smart, a neighbor, recommended placing some large potted plants to break up the massing of the glass wall. The Architect explained that there would be ground cover. Mr. Smart expressed concern with safety with the concrete trucks, heavy equipment and construction parking. He stated that he thinkgs that the parking should be restricted to Wildwood and not on the North side of Oakmont Avenue due to many people walking their dogs and kids. The applicant explained that these safety issues will be addressed as part of the Construction Management Plan before the project is built. Mr. Smart expressed concern about parking problems due to the narrow street. He expressed concern about the potential for the construction of solar panels on the roof of the new residence and their impact on neighbor’s views. Staff responded that the State has jurisdiction over regulating solar panels and that Cities has their hands tied in many ways over design and that Staff would be happy to discuss the solar panel issue with him any time. George Huff, neighbor, asked what the house would look like from his perspective at 26 Wildwood. The Owner/Applicant explained what it would look like from his perspective. The public comment period was closed. Stewart Summers, stated he has a client two doors away but that there is no conflict of interest (i.e. financial). He stated that he feels that introducing this style of architect in this neighborhood is a good thing. It is designed very well and is very interesting. He stated that the height of the building is not a concern and the light impacts have been mitigated. He believed that the perception of this 6500 square foot house appears that it is smaller than it really is. He remarked that the exterior building colors may be a little bright and he recommends more muted colors. Cheryl Lentini remarked that she likes the architecture of the building. She stated that she has a concern of the lighting at night and how it affects neighbors. She stated that the renderings on the 8 plans and the colors on the color board are not the same and has a concern about the brightness of the colors. She stated that she thinks that it is a beautiful home. Bob Huntsberry stated it is a beautifully designed home and that San Rafael has many eclectic designed homes and that this he likes the style of it. Chair Kent remarks the he thinks that the architecture is extraordinary but is excited to see it. He recommended good tree protection plan and the importance of addressing the light issues and mitigating them by adding more trees. He stated the importance of safety with the amount of water (the ponds) in the design. He stated that due to the existing water shortage, that perhaps the still pond near the parking area could use low planting ground cover instead of a pond. Overall, he stated that he likes the project. Senior Planner Stafford summarized the consensus items and that the Board is in support of the unique design and that the surrounding architecture is an eclectic mix. He stated that there was concern over the brightness of the colors on the color board and the Board would like to see more muted shades that would blend in with the natural colors of the hillside. He stated that due to all of the windows, there was concern of lighting intrusion issues, and the Board suggested mitigating it with strategic plantings. He stated that the Board is also sensitive to the solar panel issues and how they affect the neighbors. Board member Summers motions/Cheryl Lentini seconds to approve the project as presented and directs staff to work with the applicant on the color and lighting issues as discussed. The vote is as follows: AYES Hunstberry, Lentini, Kent, Summers NOES None ABSENT Blayney, Spielman ABSTAIN: None ADJOURNMENT ___________________________________ ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2016 _____________________________________ JEFF KENT, Chair