Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2017-11-14 Agenda Packet AGENDA SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, November 14, 2017, 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 10/24/17 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 39 Clayton (vacant lot 59) and 33 Clayton (vacant lot 60) – Request for review on proposed development on two (2) adjacent vacant legal lots. 39 Clayton Street (Lot 59; 012-141-59) proposes a new 2,808 sf single-family hillside residence on a 5,851 sf flag lot. 33 Clayton Street (Lot 60; 012-141- 60) proposes a new 2,627 sf single-family hillside residence on a 5,028 sf lot. There is also a proposed adjustment of the parcel boundaries and site improvements, including landscaping and drainage. Access to the parcels is proposed to be from Ross Street Terrace, a new 20 foot wide publicly- owned/privately-maintained street off Ross Street, terminating at the project site and not connecting to Clayton Street. Four (4) guest parking spaces are proposed to be provided on the new roadway; APN’s: 012-141-59 and 012-141-60; Single Family Residential (R7.5) District; Coby Friedman, owner, Francisco Matos, applicant; File No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002. Project Planner: Caron Parker DIRECTOR’S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT I. Next Meeting: November 28, 2017 II. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Thursday, November 9, 2017, I posted a notice of the November 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, October 24, 2017 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 Jack Robertson Barrett Schaefer Sarah Loughran Berenice Davidson Mark Lubamersky Absent: Jeff Schoppert Also Present: Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager Alicia Giudice, Contract Planner 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 10/10/17 Mark Lubamersky moved and Barrett Schaefer to approve Minutes as presented. The vote is as follows: AYES: Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Mark Lubamersky NOES: None ABSTAIN: Larry Paul ABSENT: Jeff Schoppert PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 39 Larkspur Street – Request for a Use Permit and Environmental Design Review to legalize an existing 24-Hour Towing Company, addition of a sliding gate, and a parking modification to convert the required loading zone to additional parking; APN: 018-012-09; CCI/O Zone; Ken, Applicant; Universal Portfolio LTD, Owner; Case Numbers: ED17-004 and UP16-023. Project Planner: Alan Montes Staff Report Jack Robertson moved and Sarah Loughran seconded to approve project as presented. The vote is as follows: AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Mark Lubamersky NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jeff Schoppert 3. 1848 Fourth Street (Pond Farm Brewery) – Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s September 13, 2017 action, conditionally approving a Use Permit to allow a Brew Pub with Live Entertainment and Outdoor Dining within an existing developed site; APN: 010-291-35; WEV (West End Village) Zoning District; Noah Gift, Appellant; Stephanie and Trevor Martens applicant/1801 Eastshore LLC, Owner; Case Number(s): AP17-005/UP17-022/OL17-004. Project Planner: Alicia Giudice Staff Report and Exhibits 1 - 4 Exhibit 5 - 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 - 10 Jack Robertson moved and Larry Paul seconded to deny appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to adopt resolution approving project. The vote is as follows: AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Mark Lubamersky NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jeff Schoppert COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT ___________________________________ ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2017 _____________________________________ Berenice Davidson, Chair Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: November 14, 2017 Agenda Item: Case Number: ED15-088/ED15-089/ LLA15-002 Project Planner: Caron Parker (415)485-3094 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 39 Clayton (vacant lot 59) and 33 Clayton (vacant lot 60) – Request for review on proposed development on two (2) adjacent vacant legal lots. 39 Clayton Street (Lot 59; 012-141- 59) proposes a new 2,808 sf single-family hillside residence on a 5,851 sf flag lot. 33 Clayton Street (Lot 60; 012-141-60) proposes a new 2,627 sf single-family hillside residence on a 5,028 sf lot. There is also a proposed adjustment of the parcel boundaries and site improvements, including landscaping and drainage. Access to the parcels is proposed to be from Ross Street Terrace, a new 20 foot wide publicly-owned/privately-maintained street off Ross Street, terminating at the project site and not connecting to Clayton Street. Four (4) guest parking spaces are proposed to be provided on the new roadway; APN’s: 012-141-59 and 012-141-60; Single Family Residential (R7.5) District; Coby Friedman, owner, Francisco Matos, applicant; File No: ED15-088/ED15- 089/LLA15-002. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing project site consists of two (2) adjacent vacant legal hillside lots that are proposed to be developed with two new single family homes. Lot 59 (aka 39 Clayton; 5,851 sf) proposes a new 2,808 sq. ft. single-family residence with a two-car garage and Lot 60 (aka 33 Clayton Street; 5,028 sf) proposes a new 2,627 sf single-family residence with a two-car garage. A new 425 ft. long access road is proposed to be constructed from Ross Street to the subject site, within an existing unpaved paper street and is to be known as Ross Street Terrace. The four (4) required guest parking spaces are proposed to be located along the new Ross Street Terrace roadway. There is also a proposed adjustment of the parcel boundaries, re-locating the panhandle portion of Lot 59 from the north to the south side of Lot 59. The City received the initial Design Review Permit application submittal on November 11, 2015. The application was first deemed incomplete on December 11, 2015 and has been deemed incomplete four (4) times since the original submittal. The history of the application submittals and staff review is detailed later in this report on Page 3. The application still remains incomplete at this time and full development review is not possible due to missing information and disagreement between the applicant and staff on fundamental information necessary for project review, as discussed below: 1. Incompleteness of Application a. Lot slope: The slope calculation is critical to site development, as it is the base for calculating the “natural state requirement” and the maximum development allowed on the lot. The slope of a project is an existing condition, and cannot be altered based on a Lot Line Adjustment or the fact that a lot is a flag lot. Based on the County Assessor information, Lot 59 has a slope of 31.8% and Lot 60 has a slope of 36.31%. Both would be considered “hillside parcels” because the slope exceeds 25%, and as such, both lots are subject to the Hillside Development Standards. However, the applicant has presented the slope of the lots “without the panhandle”. Further, Lot 59 is presented as a non- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 2 hillside lot (slope 21.9%) and Lot 60 is presented as a flag lot (slope 34.9%). Staff disagrees with this and discussed with the applicant that the lot slope should be based on the site survey information and include the entire lot, including the panhandle. This equates to a slope of 32.7% for Lot 59 and 45.1% for Lot 60. b. Natural State Calculation: The plans present a natural state calculation for Lot 60 only and this is based on a slope of 34.9% instead of 45.1%. Lot 59 is presented as a “non- hillside” parcel, which staff has deemed incorrect. Without accurate information about the slope, the natural state calculation is not accurate and site development is affected. c. Ross Street Terrace Driveway/Roadway Design - The project has been deeded incomplete by the City’s Public Works Department. DPW cited that “significant portions of the design were not submitted and therefore could not be reviewed, which may affect other aspects of the project”. DPW went on to say that “based on the information provided, we do not recommend approval of the project until comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer”. Additional information is required regarding drainage, bio-retention, sidewalks and lighting for the new Ross Street Terrace roadway. 2. Access Plan to site: The applicant has presented options for access from both Clayton Street and Ross Street Terrace. The DRB recommended that access from Clayton Street instead, in keeping with the conditions of approval from the 1963 subdivision and the 2004 Certificate of Compliance. The applicant has indicated they want to only pursue the Ross Street Terrace option, which results in a significant long new roadway, necessitating significant grading and high retaining walls. The Clayton Street access option has not been fully vetted or explored and has stalled due to the applicant’s unwillingness to meet and work with neighbors to seek solutions to widen the pinch point. 3. DRB recommendation not being followed: The project is proposing roadway access from Ross Street Terrace and this conceptual design was not supported by the DRB due to excessive retaining wall height, substantial grading and concerns expressed by adjacent property owners. Despite the recommendations of the Board, the property owner, Coby Friedman, expressed his wishes to move forward with accessing the property from Ross Street Terrace. The proposed project is complicated and the applicant has not provided staff with a complete submittal. Based on the current plans, staff cannot fully review the project since there are still outstanding questions and issues with access and hillside calculations. Staff informed the property owner that because the application is still deemed “incomplete” and the plans have not been revised per DRB recommendations, staff had no choice but to recommend denial of the project as currently presented. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) denying the proposed project without prejudice. Section 14.25.180 of the San Rafael Municipal Code stipulates the following: “If an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit is denied or revoked, no new application for the same, or substantially the same, environmental and design permit shall be filed within one year of the date of denial or revocation of the initial application, unless the denial is made without prejudice.” PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 39 Clayton St (Lot 59) Parcel Number: 012-141-59 33 Clayton St (Lot 60) Parcel Number: 012-141-60 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 3 Property Size: Lot 59: 5,581 sf Neighborhood: Gerstle Park Lot 60: 5,028 sf Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use Project Site: Low density Residential (LDR) Single Family (R7.5) Vacant lots North LDR R7.5 Vacant (012-141-58) South LDR R7.5 Residential East LDR Duplex Residential (DR) Residential West LDR R5 Residential Site Description/Setting: The project site (two adjacent vacant lots) is located on the upsloping west side of Clayton Street (see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map). There is no current vehicular access to the site. Clayton Street is paved for approximately 140 feet and then transitions into a hairpin turn and continues as an unpaved, narrow path, overgrown with vegetation up to the project site (approximately 200 feet). To the south of the project site, Clayton Street continues as a narrow unpaved paper street (also known as Ross Street Terrace) and terminates on the south side of Ross Street. The rears of several other properties abut the project site and/or the Ross Street Terrace pathway (47 Clayton, 56 Clayton, 209 Marin Street, 211 Marin Street, 53 Woods, 60 Woods, 62 Woods, 122 Ross Street, 124 Ross Street, 140 Ross Street and 142 Ross Street). However, these properties do not use Ross Street Terrace for vehicular access (see Exhibit 7 for contextual information). Also, there is another vacant undeveloped lot adjacent/north of the project site (APN #012-141-58) that will, if sold in the future, also have to provide new access to the lot. APN # 012-141-58 is currently owned by the same owner as 47 Clayton Street. Some areas of Ross Street Terrace are used as homeless encampments. There are also some areas of fencing (both wire and wood) in several portions along Ross Street Terrace. These fences would be considered encroachments into the Ross Street Terrace paper street. BACKGROUND Site History The project site is part of a three-lot subdivision conditionally approved by the Planning Commission in 1963 (Exhibit 3). In 2004, the City issued a Certificate of Compliance for all three lots, confirming that there were three legal lots and re-iterating the 1963 established conditions/requirements for future development. (Exhibit 4). One of the conditions was that access be provided from Clayton Street and the road be widened to 16’ with curb and gutter along Clayton Street in front of the proposed lots to be determined by the City Engineer. The site has remained undeveloped for the past 54 years. This application proposes development on two of the three parcels. There is a third parcel from the 1963 subdivision (012-141-58) that is owned by another party, and currently vacant. Below is a timeline related to the current application for this site: 1. May 2015: Current property owner, Coby Friedman, applied for a Pre-Application (PA15-001) to receive Citywide department comments on a proposal to develop the upper lot (Lot 59) with a single family home. A driveway easement was proposed to be created along the south side of Lot 60. No development was proposed for Lot 60 as part of the pre-application. Planning REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 4 provided comments from the Fire Department, Public Works, San Rafael Sanitation District and Planning. 2. November 15, 2015: The formal applications (Design Review Permit and Lot Line Adjustment) proposing development of the two properties with two single family homes (Lot 59 and Lot 60) was submitted. 3. December 11, 2015: Application deemed incomplete for variety of reasons, but primarily that no information/plan was included about proposed roadway access to the vacant parcels. 4. January 14, 2016: Applicant, property owner and the project Engineer attended the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting to present the project to City staff and receive comments. 5. April 22, 2016: Revised plans submitted, proposing to pave and build out Clayton Street as a 12’ wide roadway. Plans were reviewed and comments about the proposed roadway were made, including that the proposed road width was inadequate per Municipal Code. The Fire Department identified that the minimum width of a fire apparatus access road is 20 feet. The applicant’s engineer submitted an “Access Alternative Report” which identified Access Alternative 1 (a 12’ Wide Clayton Street) as the preferred alternative, despite the information provided to the applicant that a 12’ wide roadway did not meet Fire Department Code. 6. May 13, 2016: Application deemed incomplete again. Staff advised applicant that the City could not support the Clayton Street access as designed and that he had the option to propose an alternative access route for City review. Applicant requested multiple 30-day time extensions (8/11/16, 9/12/16, 10/11/16 and 10/25/16). 7. October 17, 2016: Revised plans resubmitted, now proposing access from Ross Street Terrace, and also showing possible easement options to extend turn radius for Clayton Street. However, the turn radius information was not sufficient for staff analysis, as there was no indication that effected neighbors had been contacted to discuss access easements over their property. Without further analysis, the Fire Department was unable to support the Clayton access. The property owner also expressed that he did not want to have to work with private property owners. At this time, the Fire Department did “conditionally accept” the Ross Street access alternative, but was concerned about whether the slope was too steep for the engines. However, any new road access also required support from other City Departments, as well as the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Also, there were fundamental issues noted with the proposed Ross Street Terrace, including roadway width not meeting City standards, length of proposed new roadway and the grading and retaining walls that would be required to accommodate the roadway. 8. November 17, 2016: Application deemed incomplete once again for a variety of reasons, primarily lack of cut/fill information and conflicting information about lot slope and natural state. Planning also indicated that DPW deemed the application incomplete due to missing information about bio-retention/drainage on the new roadway and the Lot 59 driveway, as well as missing information about street lights. Formal written comments from DPW were delayed until February 14, 2017 and forwarded to the applicant. 9. May 31, 2017: Revised plans submitted. 10. June 30, 2017: Application deemed incomplete. Based on some of the additional information that was finally submitted with this resubmittal, it became clear that the project proposed cut/fill on site over 1,000 cubic yards, and thus triggered a requirement for Conceptual Design Review required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 14.25.030.B. Staff had initially requested the cut/fill information in the May 2016 incomplete letter, but had not received the information until this submittal 11. August 22, 2017: Conceptual Design Review Board hearing conducted even though the project was still not complete (project “completeness” is not a requirement for conceptual review). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 5 12. August 23, 2017: Staff summary of DRB recommendations e-mailed to property owner (Exhibit 5) and property owner responded to staff (Exhibit 5.1). 13. August 24, 2017: DCC meeting to discuss project. DPW and Fire indicated that the Clayton roadway could possibly be widened to meet Fire Department standards, but additional information is needed. 14. September 28, 2017: Property owner indicates he does not want to explore Clayton Street as an access road and did not wish to return to the DRB with a formal application. Requested that staff schedule the project for Planning Commission hearing for a vote (Exhibit 6). 15. November 14, 2017: Planning Commission hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes to develop both Lot 59 and Lot 60 with a two-story single family house with attached two-car garages. The home on Lot 59 (flag lot) is proposed as a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom house. The home on Lot 60 is proposed as a 3 bedroom 2.5 bath home with a “future elevator”. Reduced project plans are attached as Exhibit 9. An 11” x17” project plan set was distributed by mail to the Planning Commissioners. Site Plan: The proposed homes, driveways and guest parking are shown on Plan Sheet 1 of 2 (Site Plan). The project also proposes a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to relocate the original panhandle on Lot 59 from the north side of the lot to the south side. It also changes the lot lines for Lot 60 and creates a narrow strip along the rear (northwest) portion of lot 60. It is unclear whether this change to Lot 60 maximizes or constrains the development options on Lot 60. The applicant indicated that the adjustment to the lot lines was to minimize excavation and reduce the slope of the new driveway to the house on Lot 59. Vehicular access and parking: As currently proposed, access to the project site would begin south of the project site at Ross Street (see Plan Sheet 3 of 6). A new, 425’ long, 20’ wide privately-maintained, public street (Ross Street Terrace) would be constructed from Ross Street north towards the subject site. The new roadway would terminate at a new guardrail at the northern boundary of Lot 60 and would not connect to Clayton Street. A fire truck turn-around hammerhead is proposed at the end of the panhandle driveway on Lot 59. The roadway would widen to between 28’ to 36’ wide in front of the subject property in order to accommodate the required 4 guest parking spaces. Architecture: Both houses are proposed as a contemporary style, with no bays or gable features. Windows would be glass with steel trim, exterior material proposed is a combination of wood, painted Hardie Board and stucco. The proposed new roadway would require the construction of new retaining walls along the entire length of the new Ross Street Terrace roadway. Plan Sheet 3 of 6 (Ross Street Access Plan/Profile) shows the proposed retaining wall heights, which range from one (1) foot to 12 feet in height. Landscaping: The proposed tree/plant list is detailed on Plan Sheet L3. Plan Sheet L2 shows seven (7) existing trees on Lot 59, with six (6) proposed to be removed and three (3) new trees to be planted (Arbutus Marina, Crepe Myrtle and Flowering Cherry), in addition to a variety of one (1)-gallon and five (5)- gallon shrubs (50 total plants). Lot 60 shows five (5) existing trees to be removed and replaced with two (2) new trees (Smoke Bush and Hybrid Bottlebrush), with a variety of one (1) gallon and five (5 and 10) gallon shrubs and groundcover to be planted (41 total plants). Lighting: The project proposes exterior wall lights (15 watts/1000 lumens) along all building elevations, as shown on the plan elevations. DPW has indicated that street lighting would be required on the proposed new Ross Street Terrace roadway, but this is not shown on the plans. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 6 Grading/Drainage: Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (Cut/Fill Plan) shows the cut/fill amounts for Lot 59, Lot 60 and the new roadway. A total of 2,140 cu. yds. of cut and 590 cu. yds. of fill is proposed. Total off-haul estimated is 1,550 cu.yds. Utilities: The project would need to extend water, sewer and power lines to Lot 59 and Lot 60 (Exhibit 7). ANALYSIS This is an unfortunate situation where a property owner has requested to bypass the regular development review process and request a hearing and decision from the Commission on an application that is still incomplete. The application is lacking required information/plans/details, including insufficient details on a proposed access plan to the site that creates unnecessarily long roadway with excessive grading and environmental impacts. Furthermore, the property owner has indicated that he does not want to address the DRB’s or staff’s recommendation regarding the access to the site. Therefore, based on the property owner’s request, staff has scheduled this matter for the Commission’s review and action. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the applications, without prejudice. The recommendation for denial is based on: 1) incompleteness of the application, 2) roadway access issues; and 3) negative Design Review Board recommendation, which are discussed in more detail below. 1. Incompleteness of application The application is still currently incomplete. Completeness of an application is the first step in processing any development application. Once an application is received, the City has 30 days to review and identify if the application is complete based on submittal requirements and if not, identify the items that are still outstanding. If an application is deemed incomplete, once it is resubmitted by an applicant, the City then reviews the resubmittal and provides a determination within 30 days as to whether the required information submitted is complete or not. The applicant then has 30-days to re- submit revised plans, or request a time extension. The information needed to complete an application of this nature are appropriately detailed plans (architectural, civil, landscaping, drainage, etc.), technical studies and any other information necessary for the City to understand the project and be able to render an informed decision on a project. It is important to note that the City is not responsible to prepare the plans or studies for the project, but rather, the applicant must submit the required information and the City‘s role is to evaluate the information submitted with an application. In this particular case, the City has gone through four (4) plan re-submittals and each time, provided a listing of information needed to complete the application. On a few of the resubmittals, additional information was shown on the plans, which led to new questions or additional submittal requirements. This is typical, as the responsibility of providing complete plans is incumbent on the applicant, not the City or staff. One such example of this with the current application was when the proposed access roadway was changed (from Clayton Street to Ross Street Terrace). This change resulted in additional information being requested (sidewalks and lighting, roadway drainage calculations) once we reviewed the plans. For a project of this type, it is typical to have multiple re-submittals and staff 30-day review periods, as well as time extension requests, which staff wholly supports approving so that applicants have the time they need to prepare revised plans. At this point, there are still three (3) main items that are still incomplete, based on the June 30, 2017 completeness letter and the DRB recommendation about preferred roadway access:  Access to Site - The applicant has not submitted sufficient information for Planning, Building and Public Works to fully review Clayton Street as the primary access to the project site. Both REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 7 Lot 59 and Lot 60 were created as part of a 3-lot subdivision in 1963, with a condition that access to the lots be via “construction of a road, pavement 16’ in width with curb and gutter along Clayton Street in front of the proposed lots, location to be determined by the City Engineer.” The need to extend Clayton Street and the road parameters was later confirmed through a Certificate of Compliance in 2004. When the application was initially submitted in 2015, road access was shown to come from Clayton Street. However, the applicant was informed during the first completeness review of the need to widen the road to 20 feet to meet Fire Department Code requirements and this would require that the applicant contact adjacent neighbors to establish an access easement. At the applicant’s request in January 2017, staff provided address information to him for 9 adjacent property owners. Thus far, the applicant has not presented any information to staff about whether he met with the property owners about securing easements to widen Clayton Street. o The current application has since proposed to change the access to a new road off Ross Street, called Ross Street Terrace, which is currently an unimproved “paper street” accessed from Ross Street. This would entail improvements to the narrow unpaved Ross Street Terrace and construction of a new paved 20 foot wide, 425’ foot long roadway. The new roadway would not connect to Clayton Street (see Plan Sheet 3 of 6: Ross Street Access/Profile). The new roadway would be a publicly-owned/privately-maintained street, terminating at the project site. The City’s Public Works Department (DPW) has confirmed that Ross Street Terrace was deeded to the City in 1886 to serve as a public street. The new Ross Street Terrace roadway would require retaining walls of heights varying from one (1) foot to eight (8) feet along the middle length of the roadway to a maximum of 12 feet near Ross Street and 11 feet at the terminus at the end of Lot 60 (see Plan Sheet 3 of 6). DPW has indicated that a boundary survey will be required to identify the exact location of the right-of-way along Ross Street Terrace. o For the proposed Ross Street Terrace roadway, DPW has requested preliminary grading/drainage and bio retention information to be included in the plans; however, the applicant has not submitted the required information.  Lot slope: The slope calculation is also required to determine whether the property is subject to the Hillside Overlay District and certain hillside development standards. The slope calculation is critical to site development, as it is the basis for calculating the “natural state” requirement and the maximum development allowed on the lot. The applicant continues to disagree with the required method to establish average slope for the property. o Staff has informed the applicant that the existing condition of a property is the basis for determining whether a site is subject to the hillside standards. The applicant continues to contend that the post lot line adjustment condition should be the calculation that should be used for determining whether the site is a hillside property. According to County GIS, Lot 59 has a slope of 31.8% and Lot 60 has a slope of 36.31%, therefore both are considered “hillside parcels” because the slope exceeds 25%, and as such, both lots are subject to the Hillside Development Standards. o The applicant continues to exclude the panhandle portion of the lot in the slope calculations. Staff and the DRB have both indicated that the entire lot, including panhandle in the current configuration, should be used for calculating lot slope. In their current plans (see Plan Sheet 1 of 6: Lot Line Adjustment Map), the applicant is showing that the lot slope (without panhandle) is 21.9% (Lot 59) and 34.9% (Lot 60). Staff disagrees with this and believes the correct lot slope should be 32.7% for Lot 59 and 45.1% for Lot 60, which were the slopes were presented on plans submitted to the City (April 8, 2016) and include the panhandle portions of the lot in the slope calculation. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 8  Natural State Conformance: Based on the disagreement by the applicant in identifying Lot 59 as a hillside lot, and the presentation of Lot 60 as a “flag lot” due to changes made by the LLA, staff is unable to evaluate the project due to incorrect calculations for lot slope. Further, without the correct lot slope, staff cannot calculate required natural state. 2. Access Issues to Site In their June 17, 2017 comment letter regarding revised plans submitted on May 31, 2017, DPW cited that “significant portions of the design of the Ross Street Terrace access road were not submitted and therefore could not be reviewed, which may affect other aspects of the project”. DPW went on to say that “based on the information provided, we do not recommend approval of the project until comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer”. These items include bio- retention/drainage calculations, sidewalk/lighting information and boundary survey information for the proposed Ross Street Terrace roadway. The applicant did attempt to set up a meeting with DPW, however, because the project now required Conceptual Design Review, staff recommended that the applicant wait until the DRB was able to review and make recommendations on the proposed project. Staff has continued to request that the applicant research widening Clayton Street, as this was the original intent when the subdivision was approved in 1963. No other access was identified as an option at that time. At the time of approval of the subdivision, the roadway width was required to be 16 feet. Current fire and safety codes require a 20 foot wide road for Fire vehicle access, and there are other standards that apply, including the need for a fire truck turnaround. It is also important to note that the original subdivision approval also required curb and gutters along Clayton Street. The applicant has presented a design for Clayton Street and staff feels if they could secure the necessary easements, they would be close to a design that could meet all city specifications. However, the applicant has not presented any additional information that he has pursued obtaining access easements from adjacent property owners. The property owner seems to believe staff is here to develop and design their project and serve their project research needs. Staff works for the City Council, Planning Commission and the general public to:  Process development applications in accordance with required and established processes;  Review the plans and materials that are required to be submitted by an applicant to evaluate consistency with city policy; and  Make professional recommendations to decision making bodies. Staff does not represent nor work for private developers and cannot orchestrate meetings on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant or their team needs to develop their project and represent their project. Staff has provided information as requested and has been available to review, comment and provide direction on what is submitted. Staff encouraged the property owner applicant to work with them to see if Clayton Street could be made wider, for the safety of all residents. The property owner repeatedly indicated that he did not want to talk to neighbors about securing easements due to fear that it would cost more money than building a new roadway. City staff has reviewed the proposed Ross Street Terrace alternative roadway and determined that, as designed; it does not meet city standards for width, and will require significant grading and high retaining walls. Further, it would replace an extensive area that is currently a fairly natural habitat, with pavement. It seems premature to design a new 425’ roadway with such an extensive impact to adjacent residents and the environment without fully vetting and attempting to design the more logical access and the road identified in the original subdivision and Certificate of Compliance - Clayton Street. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 9 3. DRB Recommendation - The project is proposing roadway access from Ross Street Terrace and this conceptual design was not supported by the DRB due to excessive retaining wall height, substantial grading and concerns expressed by adjacent property owners. The applicant received feedback from the Board at the hearing, and the Board expressed concern about (but not limited to) the retaining wall height, and location of the guest parking, and excessive grading. The Board directed staff and the applicant/property owner to work together with all stakeholders on adjacent properties to explore Clayton Street as an access option. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: Although development of two single family homes on two legal lots would be consistent with a few of the key policies, including Density of Residential Development (Land Use Element Policy LU-8), Building Height (Land Use Element Policy LU-12), Land Use Designation, (Land Use Element Policy LU-23), and Landscaping (Community Design Element Policy CD-18), there are a few key policies which the project cannot be found to be consistent with at this time, including:  Neighborhood Policy NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods): Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live. The proposed development introduces two new homes and new roadway/retaining walls along the rear of 11 adjacent properties, which would necessitate a significant amount of grading and environmental impact. A shorter, more direct approach to accessing the site should be explored and achieved. Therefore, based on the information that is presented at this time, the project would not be consistent with this policy. Staff and the DRB have recommended more analysis to find a less impactful access road.  Housing Policy H-2 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood Context): Design new housing, remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood. Incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy. Further analysis is required on the proposed design of the new homes, and adjustment to the bulk and mass may be required to reduce impacts to surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to adjust the existing lot lines to create a non-logical configuration that will leave confusion in property boundaries, given the unconventional configuration. Based on the lack of information and the design of the lot line adjustment, the project is not consistent with this policy.  Community Design Policy CD-6 (Hillsides and Bays): Protect the visual identity of hillsides by controlling development within hillside areas. Both lots have slopes over 25% and would be subject to Hillside Design Guidelines. The proposed access road to the site is proposed to be through a 425’ new roadway along Ross Street Terrace and associated retaining walls would completely alter the existing environment, necessitate significant grading, and abut 11 existing properties with a new roadway. A shorter access approach to the site is available, but may require additional work by the applicant to seeks solutions, work with neighbors to widen the hairpin turn pinch point. At this point, the applicant has not demonstrated that all superior solutions and feasible options have been explored, and instead proposes an alternate roadway, which could have significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this policy. Further analysis of the project design is required.  Circulation Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Designs): Design of roadways should be safe and convenient for motor vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed new Ross Street Terrace access roadway would be a privately maintained public street. Additional review is required to ensure that the road design meets all City design standards. As currently presented, the plans do not provide all the required information on the components of the new roadway that would be required to be REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 10 installed, including sidewalks and lighting, which are required for all streets. Also, see CD-6 above. Based on this, the project is not consistent with this policy To summarize, a complete analysis of the project has not yet been completed, given that the application is still incomplete and there is a fundamental issue/question about access, which would affect the analysis. So, a very brief explanation of the project’s consistency with the General Plan has been provided above and the key is that findings for consistency cannot be made at this time. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 14.04 - Base District Regulations: The proposed development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section 14.04.030 - the Single Family Dwelling (R7.5) Zoning District. Staff Analysis: Preliminary analysis shows that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the R7.5 zoning regulation, including density, minimum lot size (the lots are below the 7,500 minimum lot size but are legal lots of record established through a Certificate of Compliance in 1963), minimum setback requirements, lot coverage, building height and covered off-street parking. . Chapter 12- Hillside Development Overlay: The new single-family residences are both subject to review under the Hillside Design Guidelines, which were established to ensure proper hillside design of homes on lots with an average slope greater than 25%. In general, the development must calculate the slope of the lots in order for staff to analyze whether the project meets hillside design standards related to natural state, building stepback, maximum gross building square footage, guest parking, and 3:1 tree replacement ratio for significant trees. Staff Analysis: In terms of the slopes, the main issue is that the applicant is calculating the slope after the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and not including the panhandle. During the recent Conceptual Design Review on August 22, 2017, the Board reiterated their policy and directed the applicant to include the flag pole (panhandle) portion of the lot when calculating natural state. Based on past practice and common sense, staff determined that whether a site is subject to hillside standards is based on existing slope and conditions. The applicant has not followed this standard and as such, staff is unable to review the project for consistency with Chapter 12, including the natural state requirement. If the project cannot be re-designed to meet the natural state, the applicant would need to request an Exception to the natural state requirement. Such an Exception request would require City Council approval, with recommendations of the Board and the Planning Commission. The Board has supported this type of Exception request in the past for flag lots. Chapter 18 - Parking The Zoning Ordinance requires two covered parking spaces for each single family home (20’ x 20’ interior dimensions). Staff Analysis: Both lots comply with this standard. Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit Staff Analysis: The conceptual design of the project (the two new homes) is generally consistent with the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. Overall, staff supports the conceptual design of the proposed homes on Lot 59 and Lot 60. However, there are outstanding issues of access that are problematic to moving forward. The Design Review Board recommendations from the Conceptual Design Review Board hearing on August 22, 2017 are summarized below. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION No written minutes are taken at the City’s public meetings. However, actual video recordings of the meetings are available through a video link on the City of San Rafael website, www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. Click on the Design Review Board (DRB) video link for the desired hearing dates. The project was reviewed as a conceptual review item at the August 22, 2017 meeting of the DRB. There was no Planning Commissioner present to serve as Planning Commission Liaison this meeting. Generally, the Board acknowledged that providing access to the vacant lots is extraordinarily challenging and encouraged staff to meet with all stakeholders, including SRFD, neighbors and the applicant’s team, to help find a solution. Other comments provided included: 1. Due to the necessity of overwhelmingly tall retaining walls, the Ross Street Terrace access option should be discouraged and access to the site should be from Clayton Street. 2. If project continues to propose access along Ross Street Terrace, ownership issues surrounding the roadway right-of-way (ROW) need to be resolved. If owned by the City, abandonment should be considered and allow the project to meet private driveway standards rather than public roadway standards. 3. All guest parking should be on each parcel and not located off-site, within the new roadway ROW. 4. If meeting the required Natural State standard is difficult, a shared access driveway should be considered and/or an Exception. 5. The ‘flag pole’ portion of the flag lot should be included in the Natural State calculation. 6. The Lot Line Adjustment should not create the proposed rear ‘dog leg’ area on the lower lot. 7. Contemporary design of residences may be OK though it needs refinement such as lower ceiling heights and better stepbacks. 8. The removal of ‘significant’ trees should be replaced on a 3:1 ratio, if possible. Better landscape plans needed with additional details. 9. Cross-sections should be added to plans showing the sites, the proposed residences and the new roadway. 10. Provide story poles for the proposed new structures and staking the location and height of the new roadway retaining walls. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Given that the recommended action is for denial, the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as identified in Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further CEQA review is required. This section exempts projects which a public agency denies. Although the proposed CEQA determination for this project is based on staff’s recommended action for denial, staff has also included the preliminary CEQA detemination that was being considered for this project before the applicant requested to bypass the development review projcess and request to appear before the Commission. Determination on level of CEQA required is not performed until an application is deemed completed. Although no determination was ever made on the envoironmental status, since the project involves development of two homes, including significant amounts of grading and land alterations on lots that are over 20% in slope, staff does not believe that a exemption to CEQA is appropaite for this project. Therefore, an Initial Study would have been required to be prepared to determine the level of impacts. Based on the outcome of the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would have been required. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 12 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE No neighborhood meeting was held. The applicant indicated he met with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association; however, staff was not present at this meeting. 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 500-foot radius of the subject site, the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing as well as prior to the Design Review Board meeting. There were 11 residents who spoke at the August 22, 2017 DRB hearing. They represented adjacent property owners and neighborhood residents. All expressed concerns about the proposed project, including but not limited to, excessive height of the retaining walls and the practicality of who would be responsible for future maintenance/repair of the retaining walls, loss of historic access to the existing Ross Street Terrace pathway, lack of information on the Clayton Street access option, loss of trees, impacts to wildlife, and possible light pollution. In addition, a petition was presented to the Board with 33 signatures in opposition to the proposed project. Copies of all comments submitted for the DRB hearing is attached (Exhibit 8). In response to the Planning Commission hearing notice, staff has received three (3) letters of opposition, also included in Exhibit 8. CONCLUSION This is an unfortunate situation where a property owner has requested to bypass the regular development review process and bring a premature application to the Commission for consideration. This has been against the advice of staff to continue working through the process. Hillside development in San Rafael is not an easy initiative and there are many complexities related to developing a plan that is appropriate for the hillside site and complies with the myriad of local, regional and federal regulatory authorities. The City has never contested the fact that these are legal lots or that the applicant has a legal right to develop these lots. What is at issue is that the City lacks the appropriate amount of information from the project plans and materials to review the project and evaluate conformance with City codes in regards to vehicular access, design and development on Lot 59 and Lot 60. In addition, adequate information is needed for staff to inform decision makers, so they can make informed decisions on the project. Lastly, review of roadway access to the site is critical to provide safe access for future residents, emergency responders and service utility providers. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Commission deny the project without prejudice. Denying without prejudice would allow the applicant to resubmit an application for a revised project within one year. Otherwise, if the project is denied, an application for a revised project could not be submitted until after one year has passed. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the project, without prejudice (staff recommendation); 2. Continue the project to a future Commission meeting with recommendations and/or modifications or direction to staff or the applicant; 3. Refer the project back to the DRB with parameters and direction; REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-088/ED15-089/LLA15-002 Page 13 4. Approve the project as presented, or with modifications and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution and appropriate findings; or 5. Deny the project (with prejudice). EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Original Subdivision approval, 1963 4. Conditional Certificate of Compliance, 2004 5. Staff summary of August 22, DRB comments 5.1 Property owner’s (Coby Friedman) response to staff DRB summary comments 6. E-mail from property owner requesting the project be moved to a Planning Commisison hearing 7. Contextual Map 8. Public Comments 9. Reduced project plan set 1 RESOLUTION NO. 17___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED15-088/ED15-089) AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA15-002) FOR THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON TWO EXISTING LEGAL LOTS ON CLAYTON STREET (LOT 59: APN #012-141- 59 AND LOT 60: 012-141-60) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED NEW ACCESS ROADWAY ON ROSS STREET TERRACE. WHEREAS, on November 15, 2015, Francisco Matos, applicant, submitted applications for a Design Review Permit (ED15-088 and ED15-089) in order to construct two new homes on two vacant lots on Clayton Street (APN #012-141-59 and APN #012-141-60) and in addition, the applicant submitted an application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA15-002), to reconfigure the panhandle on Lot 59 from the north to south side of the lot. The property is zoned R7.5 (Single Family Residential); and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2015, the applications were deemed incomplete for processing; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016, the applicant and project engineer attended the City’s Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting to present the project and receive comments from Planning, Building, Fire and Public Works; and WHEREAS, subsequent submittals on April 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, October 17, 2016 and May 31, 2017 were each deemed incomplete after a 30-day staff review period; and WHEREAS, based on additional information submitted on plans dated May 31, 2017 related to the new roadway along Ross Street Terrace, specifically the amount of grading proposed by the project, staff determined the project was subject to Conceptual Design Review. This determination was based on the fact that the amount of grading elevated the level of review for the project from a Minor Environmental Design Review to a Major Environmental and Design Review Permit pursuant to SRMC Section 14.25.040.A.3 and therefore required Conceptual Design Review pursuant to SRMC Section 14.25.030.B; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the project and generally supported the proposed contemporary design of the proposed homes (recommending additional refinement to ceiling heights and better stepbacks). However, due to concerns about the height of retaining walls along the proposed Ross Street Terrace roadway and potential impacts on surrounding property owners, the Board recommended that staff work with the applicant and stakeholders on adjoining properties to pursue access to the site from Clayton Street; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017 staff e-mailed the property owner, Coby Friedman, a summary of the DRB comments with details on steps to move forward; and 2 WHEREAS, on September 28, 2017, the property owner indicated that he did not agree with staff’s interpretation of the DRB recommendation and wished to move directly to the Planning Commission for a decision; and WHEREAS, the application is still not complete for processing, yet the applicant has requested to bypass the prescribed development review process and appear before the Commission for a decision; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2017, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit and Lot Line Adjustment, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael hereby denies, without prejudice, the Environmental Design Review Permits (ED15-088 and ED15-089), and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA15-002) for the proposed project, based on the following findings of fact: Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings (ED15-088/ED15-089) 1. The design of the proposed project is not completely in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permit. a) Although the proposed project is consistent with several of the General Plan policies, as discussed on Page 9 of the Planning Commission staff report, the applicant has still not yet provided the necessary submittal information necessary to analyze the project’s consistency with General Plan Neighborhood Policy NH-2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), Housing Policy H-2 (Designs that Fit Into the Neighborhood Context), Community Design Policy CD-6 (Hillsides and Bays) and Circulation Policy C-4 (Safe Roadway Designs). Staff’s basic concerns are that:  The proposed development introduces two new homes and new roadway/retaining walls along the rear of 11 adjacent properties along Ross Street Terrace, which would necessitate a significant amount of grading and have potential negative environmental impacts. A shorter, more direct approach to accessing the site should be achieved and explored.  Further analysis is required on the proposed design of the new homes, and adjustment to the bulk and mass may be required to reduce impacts to 3 surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to adjust the existing lot lines to a non-logical configuration that will leave confusion in property boundaries, given the unconventional configuration on Lot 60.  The applicant has not demonstrated that all superior solutions and feasible options have been explored before proposing this alternate roadway (Ross Street Terrace), which could have significant environmental impacts.  The proposed new Ross Street Terrace access roadway would be a privately maintained public street. Additional review and information is still required to ensure that the road design meets all City design standards. b) The conceptual design for the homes appears to meet the development standards for the R7.5 Zoning District. The Design Review Board did support the contemporary design of the buildings but indicated there would need to be further refinement of the design. However, the proposed roadway access from Ross Street Terrace would require extensive grading and high retaining walls, the impact of which has not been fully analyzed. The property owner, Coby Friedman, has chosen to disregard the DRB’s recommendations for considering access from Clayton Street and requested to continue with access to the project site from Ross Street Terrace, which would result in an unnecessarily lengthy new roadway, excessive grading the retaining walls. Furthermore, all the required information on the proposed new roadway has not been submitted, therefore a complete analysis cannot be prepared. c) Staff also received several letters of opposition to the proposed Ross Street Terrace access option. At this point in time, staff does not have sufficient information to make findings that the project will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties. d) The applicant has not submitted the necessary plan information to allow the City to review and render decisions on the project. Therefore, the project is still incomplete. However, the applicant has declined to provide additional information and requested to appear before the Commission for a decision. Staff has been working with the property owner and applicant to move the project forward. Staff has reviewed four (4) project re-submittals but the application remains incomplete, as discussed on Pages 6-9 of the Planning Commission staff report. Specifically, the project is missing information/clarity about lot slope, natural state, and the proposed roadway access from Ross Street Terrace (which is not supported by the Design Review Board). Due to application incompleteness as discussed above, staff does not have the information necessary to make findings to support the proposed project at this time. In addition, staff has received several letters of opposition to the proposed project. Many adjacent properties owners attended the August 22, 2017 Design Review Board public hearing and 11 residents gave public testimony. In addition, a petition was submitted to the Board with 33 signatures opposing the project. Three (3) additional letters of opposition were received in response to the Planning Commission public hearing notice. 4 2. That the project design is not completely consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Single Family Residential (R7.5) and Hillside Overlay Zoning District in which the site is located in that: a) The lack of a complete application does not allow the city to review and make informed decisions on the project, specifically as it relates to the slope of the site, natural state requirements and design of the proposed new roadway. b) The proposed home designs, with the exception of natural state, do appear to meet the R7.5 Zoning District development standards and the hillside overlay standards. A definitive natural state calculation cannot be determined given the property owner’s refusal to provide the required information. Therefore, consistency findings that the natural state complies with the hillside overlay district cannot be made at this time. 3. The project as designed does not minimize adverse environmental impacts. a) As designed, the proposed project would entail a significant amount of grading, through the proposed access along Ross Street Terrace. The Clayton Street access would provide a more direct access point to the site, not necessitating a 425 ft. roadway, with significant grading and earth movement and large retaining walls. In addition, the application materials have still not been completed to document project compliance with drainage and bio retention standards, or demonstration that the new road would comply with San Rafael Municipal Code Standards for a new extension of roadway improvements. b) As discussed on Page 11 of the staff report, no determination was ever made on the environmental status. Given that the applicant has requested a decision at this time, even though the applications are not yet complete, the staff recommendation for the project is for denial. Therefore, as a project that is being denied, the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as identified in Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further CEQA review is required. This section exempts projects which a public agency denies. c) However, if this project were deemed complete and being considered for approval, CEQA review would be required. Since the project involves development of two homes, including significant amounts of grading and land alterations on lots that are over 20% in slope, a categorical exemption to CEQA would not likeley be appropriate for this project and therefore, an Initial Study would have been required to be prepared to determine the level of impacts. Based on the outcome of the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would have been required. 4. That the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. a) Sufficient information to support this finding is not provided, given that the application is still incomplete. The existing vacant lots have no vehicular access at this time. The proposed Ross Street Terrace roadway, as currently designed does not provide the sidewalks and lighting required for a public street. The roadway does not appear to comply with all City of San Rafael roadway standards. It is also not clear 5 how the properties abutting Ross Street Terrace would be impacted by the proposed extensive retaining walls, and several residents have opposed the project due to concerns about retaining wall height, future maintenance and loss of the natural environment at the rear of their properties. The Clayton Street roadway is the preferred option per the DRB recommendation, but the applicant has not explored securing the necessary easements to widen the street to meet Fire Department standards. Lot Line Adjustment Findings (LLA16-001) 1. The Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is consistent with the General Plan 2020. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan 2020, given the fact that that the propose use of the project site would remain residential and the proposed LLA would not reduce the existing legal non-conforming lot area of either lot 59 or Lot 60. 2. The Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the specific provisions of the Zoning District in which the property is located. The proposed project site is consistent with the R7.5 Zoning District, given that the reconfiguration of the panhandle portion of Lot 59 would not reduce the existing lot area. However, the LLA changes the configuration of Lot 60, creating a narrow strip along the rear (northwest) portion of the lot. It is unclear whether this change to Lot 60 maximizes or constrains the development options on Lot 60 and as such, staff cannot makes findings of support for the proposed LLA. 3. The LLA is consistent with all other applicable City Code provisions and in conformance with the Unified Building Code (UBC). Department of Public Works has reviewed the LLA and expressed concern that the proposed configuration may result in difficulties with site access, parking, compliance with setbacks and possible access issues on Lot 60. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) indicated that Lot 59 may require a sewer easement across Lot 60. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 14th day of November 2017. Moved by _________Commissioner _________ seconded by Commissioner __________ AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 6 SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ______________________ BY:_______________________ Paul Jensen, Secretary Berenice Davidson, Chairperson