HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2016-09-13 Agenda Packet AGENDA
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, September 13, 2016, 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 though 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 that 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 INTERPRETED
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.
Members of the public may speak on Agenda items.
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, August 23, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING
2. 51 Gold Hill Grade – Request(s) for Environmental and Design Review Permit, Tentative Map and Lot Line
Adjustment to allow the subdivision of the existing 3.193-acre hillside parcel into 3 lots with two existing single family
homes occupying Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, and a new single family home proposed for Parcel 3. The proposed Lot Line
Adjustment would entail a transfer of 1,200 sf of land from 51 Gold Hill Grade (APN# 015-091-03) to 31 Gold Hill
Grade (APN: 015-091-04).; R1-a (H) Single Family Residential (Hillside Overlay) Zoning District; Martin J. Coyne,
owner; Ray Cassidy, applicant; File No(s): ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001. Dominican/Black Canyon
Neighborhood. Project Planner: Caron Parker Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Avenue (Corner of Lincoln Ave. and Mission Ave.) – Request for Time Extensions for a
Vesting Tentative Condominium Map, Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit approvals for a 36-
unit residential condominium project, including height and state density bonus, on a 0.68-acre corner property in the
Downtown area. APN: 011-184-08 and 011-183-10; High Density Residential (HR1) District; Lafayette Capital Group,
Inc., owner/applicant; File No(s): TS16-003, ED16-083 and UP16-037 (Current File Numbers TS15-004, ED15-054 &
UP15-023). Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
I. Next Meeting: September 27, 2016. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, September 9, 2016, I posted a notice of the
September 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, August 23, 2016
Regular Meeting
San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes
For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings
CALL TO ORDER
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
Present: Larry Paul
Jack Robertson
Barrett Schaefer
Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Berenice Davidson
Gerald Belletto
Absent: None
Also Present: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
Paul Jensen, Community Development Director
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
URGENT COMMUNICATION
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes, August 9, 2016
Jack Robertson moved and Gerald Belletto seconded to approve minutes as presented. The vote is as
follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Chair, Berenice
Davidson, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
PUBLIC HEARING
2. San Rafael Fire Station 57- 3530 Civic Center Drive – Request for Environmental and
Design Review Permit and Variance to replace the existing Fire Station 57 with the
development of a new fire station (9,600 square feet), that will include the Medic 3
(paramedic) currently located at Fire Station 53. The project includes associated site and
landscaping improvements and an 800-square foot storage building for this County-
owned site. Project proposes a waiver from the minimum 50-foot wetland setback/buffer
requirement set forth in SRMC Section 14.13.040B.2. APN: 179-270-12 (ptn.);
Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) District; City of San Rafael, applicant; County of Marin,
property owner; Civic Center/Santa Venetia Neighborhoods. Project Planner: Paul
Jensen Recommended Environmental Review: Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration
Staff Report
Barrett Schaefer moved and Berenice Davidson seconded to adopt resolution approving an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. The vote is as
follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Chair, Berenice
Davidson, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Barrett Schaefer moved and Jack Robertson seconded to adopt resolution approving Environmental and
Design Review Permit and Variance. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Chair, Berenice
Davidson, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
3. General Plan 2020 10-Year Review Amendments – The City of San Rafael Planning
Commission will consider recommending amendments of the San Rafael General Plan
2020, affecting all 16 General Plan 2020 Elements and the General Plan Land Use Map to
update policies, programs, resources, and responsibility references in the document to: a)
keep the General Plan current; b) respond to actions and programs completed to
implement the General Plan; and c) respond to changing conditions or circumstances. No
significant changes to projected growth or development would result from these
amendments. Revisions to the General Plan 2020 Land Use Map are also proposed to
address mapping errors and current inconsistencies with the Zoning Districts map. Map
amendments include the establishment of a “Water” land use designation for San Rafael
Canal and San Rafael Bay/San Pablo Bay. File No.: GPA15-001. Project Planner: Kraig
Tambornini Recommended Environmental Review: Adopt EIR Addendum.
Staff Report
Reso Exhibit 2A
Reso Exhibit 2B
Jack Robertson moved and Berenice Davidson seconded to adopt resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt the EIR Addendum. The vote is as follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Chair, Berenice
Davidson, Gerald Belletto
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
___________________________________
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2016
_____________________________________
Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: September 13, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-
001/IS16-001
Project Planner:
Caron Parker (415) 485-3094
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 51 Gold Hill Grade – Request(s) for Environmental and Design Review Permit,
Tentative Map and Lot Line Adjustment to allow the subdivision of the existing 3.193-
acre hillside parcel into 3 lots with two existing single family homes occupying Parcel 1
and Parcel 2, and a new single family home proposed for Parcel 3. The proposed Lot
Line Adjustment would entail a transfer of 1,200 sf of land from 51 Gold Hill Grade
(APN# 015-091-03) to 31 Gold Hill Grade (APN: 015-091-04).; R1-a (H) Single Family
Residential (Hillside Overlay) Zoning District; Martin J. Coyne, owner; Ray Cassidy,
applicant; File No(s): ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001. Dominican/Black
Canyon Neighborhood.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 3.19 acre project site is currently developed with two detached single family homes on a single lot. The
project proposes to divide the existing 3.19 acres lot into 3 separate lots, each 1-acre or greater in size. Lot 1
and Lot 2 would be created, and each keep one of the existing single family homes, while Lot 3 would be
developed with a new single family home. Therefore, the project would result in the net increase of one new
single family home.
The project proposes to extend and widen the existing driveway to serve the new home and provide a
required Fire Department access road and hammerhead turnaround. The application also includes conceptual
plans for the design of a new 4,500 sq. ft. single family home on proposed the Lot 3. The conceptual design is
required in hillside areas to ensure that the subdivision design can accommodate a new home.
The project also proposes a concurrent Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) request to transfer a portion of the 3.19
acre parcel (APN 015-091-03) to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade (APN 015-091-04), in order to
reduce the overall slope of the subject parcel and therefore meet the density and lot width requirement for a
hillside subdivision, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Title 15.
The DRB reviewed the application once (April 19, 2016), reviewing the lot layout, conceptual design for the
new home and design of the proposed subdivision improvements. The Board ultimately recommended
approval of the project design, with the following conditions: 1) provide preliminary landscape plan details for
the road widening and the development on Lot 3; 2) provide information on recent tree removal on site; and 3)
revise the proposed 2 car-carport for Lot 1 and Lot 2 to two-car garages. After the DRB meeting and the
applicant revised the project plans and eliminated the carports and proposed only uncovered parking. This
was based on information provided by staff which has since been corrected. The applicant has revised the
plans to propose a 2-car carport design for both existing homes on Lot 1 and Lot 2, but does not want to
provide garages as recommended by the DRB, as carports are consistent with Chapter 18 requirement for
covered parking. Unfortunately, revised plans were not ready in time to e-mail to the Commissioners.
Revised plans showing the carport locations will be distributed at the hearing. The design of the carports will
be subject to staff level Administrative Design Review.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 2
The project site has sufficient lot area to accommodate 3 separate lots. The site has historically had 2
separate single family homes on a one lot, so this subdivision would rectify that inconsistency, as well as add
one new developable lot to the property. The design and placement of the new lots is logical and respectful of
the existing conditions and environmental constraints. Upgrades are proposed or required to improve site
access and safety, including widening the private driveway on the site, creating a Fire Department turn
around at the end and stabilizing the driveway with retaining walls. In addition, the conceptual design of the
new home on Lot 3 has been evaluated and found to demonstrate that Lot 3 as designed can accommodate a
new home. Based on the conceptual design, it appears the site would be able to accommodate a building
footprint and parking within the required development standards for the R1a-H Zoning District, as well as
meet the Hillside Development regulations. The existing houses would remain unchanged. The proposed
carports are considered “accessory structures” and would require staff level Administrative Design Review
approval pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.040.C.11
Consistent with CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts from this
project. The Initial Study analysis concluded that the project’s potential impacts to Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources and Geology and Soils could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with existing Municipal Code
requirements or City standards. The Draft Initial Study/Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was published and mailed on August 23, 2016 for a 20 day review and distributed to the
Commission at the start of the public review period. The public comment period ends on September 12,
2016.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the 51 Gold Hill Grade 3-lot subdivision (Exhibit 1); and
2. Resolution conditionally approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Tentative Map
and Lot Line Adjustment for the 3-lot subdivision (Exhibit 2)
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 51 Gold Hill Grade Parcel Number(s): 015-091-03, 015-091-04
Property Size: 3.19 acres Neighborhood: Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning
Designation
Existing Land-Use
Project Site: Hillside Residential (HR) R1a-H Residential
North: Open Space (PD-H) Open Space (City of San Rafael)
South: HR (PD-1884) Vacant (Dominican Univ. owned)
East: HRR (Hillside Residential
Resource)
R2a-H (Dominican Univ. owned) Vacant (Dominican
Univ. owned)
West: HR R20-H Vacant (Dominican Univ. owned)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 3
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is located at the end of a paved portion of Gold Hill Grade and is accessed via a private
driveway spur off the Gold Hill Grade public right-of -way, (see Exhibit 3). Part of the driveway is paved with
asphalt and the remainder is gravel. The existing access driveway terminates about 25’ from the second
existing single-family home on the project site. The site is an up-sloping hillside property with an average
cross slope of 30.46%. The site is not in a designated ridgeline area. There are two (2) existing single-family
homes (one-story and 2-story) and a small shed on the 3.19 acre parcel. The two existing single family
homes on the subject site are 1,200 sf and 2,350 sf in building area. Neither of the structures has covered
parking on site.
To the south, the property is adjacent to a natural, open ephemeral channel creek (Sisters Creek), which
parallels the road (Gold Hill Grade) flowing toward the west. Portions of the creek are located within the
subject property. There is one Oak tree and one Sycamore tree identified on the project site as well as
several stands of Eucalyptus trees along the perimeter of the project site. The site is surrounded by one and
two story, single family residential uses and an open space trail.
BACKGROUND
Site History
The project site has existed for many years as a 3.19 acres lot with 2 single family homes. A small
dilapidated out-building was demolished on the site earlier in 2016.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes a Lot Line Adjustment with the adjacent property at 31 Gold Hill Grade, and the
subdivision of the existing 3.19 acre parcel into 3 separate lots:
Lot 1: 43,800 square feet (34.68% slope)
Lot 2: 46,796 square feet (28.68% slope)
Lot 3: 47,297 square feet (28.88% slope)
Architecture:
Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 would each host one of the two existing single-family homes on the site. No
changes to these existing homes are proposed.
Conceptual site and building plans showing a new 4,500 sq. ft. single family home (with 2 car garage and 2
guest parking spaces) for Lot 3 has been provided (see Plan Sheet C-3 and schematic sketch, Exhibit 4).
However, a specific home design is not proposed nor considered as part of this project. The conceptual
design is a requirement of hillside subdivisions and require an applicant to submit enough conceptual design
information to demonstrate that a new subdivision can accommodate a reasonable new structure, without
requesting variances. No carport design has been provided at this time for the existing homes on Lot 1 and
Lot 2, and would be subject to staff level Administrative Design Review.
Vehicular access and parking
Vehicular access to the lots would be via the existing driveway used by the existing homes on the project site.
The project proposes to widen the existing driveway to 20 feet in width and extend the driveway
approximately 200 feet to provide access the proposed home on Lot 3. An existing deck and a concrete pad
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 4
area are located in the path of the new driveway and are therefore proposed for demolition to accommodate
the required 20 foot driveway.
The existing and new access driveway would be identified as a mutual driveway access and utility easement
for all three properties. A required fire truck turnaround would be created on Lot 3.
The project proposes that a two-car garage and 2 uncovered guest parking spaces would be provided on Lot
3, in order to comply with Zoning Ordinance parking requirements and Hillside Overlay district standards.
In terms of Lot 1 and 2, there are no existing covered spaces. The applicant had originally proposed to
construct a 2-car carport on each lot to bring the site into compliance with Chapter 18 parking requirements
for 2 covered spaces for single family dwellings. After the DRB meeting, the plans were revised to show
uncovered parking. This was based on staff direction that parking upgrades were not required. However,
staff has determined that this direction was in error, and the applicant is proposing carports again as originally
presented.
Utilities
The project would extend water, sewer and power lines to the new residential building pad on Lot 3 utilizing a
mutual driveway access utility easement running beneath the existing driveway. The project would not install
any improvements, nor require any work within or across the creek or in the creek bank. Sewer line access to
the lots via the existing shared driveway is proposed to avoid crossing the creek that parallels the Gold Hill
Grade roadway. The southeastern portion of the property abuts the Gold Hill Grade Fire Road. The applicant
has agreed to provide a maintenance access easement to the City of San Rafael for trail maintenance in this
area (See Plan Sheet C3).
Grading and Drainage
The proposed project has provided a Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The grading proposed is
primarily associated with the driveway widening and parking areas for the existing and proposed homes.
Retaining walls are proposed along the south side of the new driveway extension (proposed maximum height
4.5 feet), and at the end of a new fire-truck turnaround (ranging in height from 3.5 feet to 7 feet). The fire
truck turn-around is required for the creation of the additional buildable Lot 3. Smaller retaining walls may be
required for the proposed expanded guest parking areas on Lot 1 and Lot 2. The applicant is proposing to
post a bond to cover the future roadway improvements.
A total amount of 580 cu.yds of cut and 190 cu.yds of fill is proposed. A total of 390 cu.yds of off -haul is
proposed. Also, a 260 square foot bio-retention area is proposed for the southwest portion of the newly
created Lot 3. The stormwater would then be discharged through a drainage outlet structure. All storm water
on the driveway and the fire truck turnaround would be collected in the curb and gutter on the southern side of
the driveway before being captured in a catch basin and directed to a bio-retention area at the western end of
the creek. This second bio-retention area will outlet into the side of the existing roadway culvert on the Gold
Hill Grade roadway.
Landscaping:
The applicant has not proposed any tree removal as part of the subdivision or driveway extension. There is
one Oak tree and one Sycamore tree identified on the project site, as well as several stands of Eucalyptus
trees along the perimeter of the project site. The applicant has been working with the Fire Department to
comply with the Vegetation Management regulations by removing dead brush, and fallen and dead trees on
the project site (see Exhibit 4). No preliminary landscape plan has been proposed at this time, either for Lot 3
or for the future roadway widening.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 5
Lot Line Adjustment
The concurrent Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is proposed at the northwestern corner of the subject parcel (APN
#015-091-03), to transfer 1,200 square feet of property to the adjacent developed parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade
(APN #015-091-04). The adjustment is being pursued in order to reduce the overall slope of the subject
parcel (APN #015-091-03) from 30.46% slope to a 29.95% slope. This minor reduction in slope enables the
project to meet the density and lot width requirement for a hillside subdivision, pursuant to San Rafael
Municipal Code (SRMC) Title 15.
ANALYSIS
In addition to a Tentative Subdivision Map application, hillside subdivisions (i.e., properties with slopes over
25%, or General Plan Land Use Designation of Hillside Residential) also require an Environmental and
Design Review Permit approval pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.25.040.3 (a) and
SRMC Section 15.07.020 (d) (Standards for Hillside Subdivisions).
The following represents a summary of staff’s analysis for the project:
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Hillside Residential (0.5-2 units per acre). The
proposed project is generally consistent with the following applicable General Plan Policies:
Land Use Policy LU-8 (Density): The proposed project is consistent with the maximum density
allowed in the Hillside Residential Land Use Category (0.5-2 units/acre).
Land Use Policy LU-12 (Building Height): The existing homes and proposed new home on Lot 3 are
consistent with the 30’ height limit.
Land Use Policy LU-23 (Hillside Residential Land Use Designation): The proposed 3-lot subdivision
would not change the existing use on the project site, which is single family residential development.
The proposed new home on Lot 3 would be in keeping with the surrounding residential uses.
Housing Policy H-2 (Neighborhood Improvement): Recognize that the construction of new housing
can enhance a community. The addition of one single family home to the new Lot 3 would add to
the housing stock in San Rafael, and provide an appropriate use for the currently vacant portion of the
parcel. The conceptual design presents a home that is compatible with existing development, and
would be screened from the adjacent open space trail.
Housing Policy H-3 (Designs that fit into Neighborhoods): Design new housing, remodels and
additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed new single
family home will be subject to Hillside Development Guidelines, and the applicant has presented a
conceptual home design showing that a new home can be constructed on the newly created Lot 3 and
meet the required development standards for setback, lot coverage, natural state and building height.
Neighborhood Element NH-95 (Barbier Park/Gold Hill Grade): Maintain public access to Barbier
Park /Gold Hill. The proposed project would not impact access to the open space trail. The project
proposes an access easement at southeast corner of the property to improve access to the trail for
maintenance.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 6
Community Design CD-3 (Neighborhoods): Recognize, preserve and enhance the qualities that
give neighborhoods their unique design. The proposed 3-lot subdivision is proposing 1 new home,
which would be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 25 Design Guidelines and also be subject to
Hillside Design Guidelines, which seeks to preserve the natural environment as part of the
development. The existing homes would remain the same.
Community Design Policy CD-18 (Landscaping): Recognize the unique contribution provided by
landscaping and make it a significant component of all site design. The applicant has not
proposed any tree removal on site, although the site was recently cleared of dead trees and brush per
the San Rafael Fire Department’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Guidelines. A 3:1 tree replacement
ratio is required for removal of “significant trees” per Hillside Guidelines. A preliminary landscape plan
would be required as part of the future development on Lot 3.
Open Space Policy OS-4 (Access to Open Space): Encourage provision of access to open space
in the design of adjacent development. The project is adjacent to the Barbier Park/Gold Hill Grade
Fire Road trail. The proposed project would not impact existing access to the trail, which runs along
the eastern edge of the project site. The existing Gold Hill Grade fire road crosses the southeast
portion of the project site, and the project proposes to grant a maintenance access easement across
this portion of the property.
Conservation Policy CON-6 (Drainageway Setbacks): Require development-free setbacks from
existing creeks and drainageways that will maintain the functions and resulting values of this
habitat. The proposed conceptual design for Lot 3 (including the driveway extension) meets the
required setbacks for drainageways and creek on the property. No changes are proposed for the
existing homes.
Sustainability Policy SU-5 (Reduce Use of non-renewable Resources): Require new construction
and remodel projects to comply with adopted Green Building regulations. In 2011, the City of
San Rafael adopted a new Sustainability Element for General Plan 2020 that supports its Climate
Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP includes goals to achieve Greenhouse Gas (GHG) level
reduction by 2025 and 2050 that exceed the State’s goals under AB 32. The City of San Rafael
Zoning Ordinance identifies the project site as single family residential, and the three lot subdivision
complies with the minimum lot size requirement and hillside subdivision ordinance regulations for
slope. The proposed Project would not directly result in any significant population growth.
Consequently, the proposed Project would not exceed the level of population or housing foreseen in
City or regional planning efforts and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing,
employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2010 Bay Area
Clean Air Plan projections. Because the proposed development project would be consistent with the
General Plan land use designation, no analysis of GHG emissions is required under the provisions of
the CCAP, provided that the project is consistent with the City’s “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Compliance Checklist”, which lists all the individual City Ordinances that help implement the City’s
Sustainability Element goals. In June 2016, the applicant submitted responses to the Checklist that
indicate the project would comply with all the Checklist required elements that are applicable to the
project (e.g., Green Building Ordinance, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Wood-Burning
Appliance Ordinance, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance). Additional analysis
is provided in the Air Quality Section (Page 18) of the in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which determined that the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the
environment.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 7
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 - Base District Regulations
The proposed 3-lot subdivision and new home development on Lot 3 is subject to development standards
pursuant to Section 14.04.030 - the R1a-H (Single Family Dwelling –Hillside Overlay) Zoning District. The
project is in substantial compliance with the R1a-H zoning regulations including density, minimum lot size,
setback requirements and height limit.
Chapter 14.12 – Hillside Overlay District
The proposed project is limited to a 3-lot subdivision and would not change the conditions for the homes on
site. The existing homes on proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 would comply with the hillside guidelines natural state
requirement (as shown on Plan Sheet C-3), and also comply with the maximum gross building square footage
requirements and guest parking. The proposed conceptual home design for Lot 3 is designed to comply with
the hillside guidelines with respect to natural state, maximum gross building square footage, building stepback
and guest parking.
Chapter 18 – Parking
The existing parcel has 2 single family homes with uncovered parking. The proposed project would add a 2-
car carport to each single family home on Lot 1 and Lot 2, bringing both lots into compliance with Chapter 18
(Section 14.18.040) requirements for 2 covered spaces for single family homes. In addition, both lots would
also be provided with 2 uncovered guest spaces, which complies with the Hillside Guidelines regulations for
guest parking. The proposed new home on Lot 3 is proposing a 2-car garage and 2 uncovered guest parking
spaces.
Chapter 16 – Creek Setback
The southern portion of the project site is located within the boundaries of Sister’s Creek, an ephemeral
USGS blue-line stream (see Plan Sheet C-5). The stream crosses the very southern portion of the project
area from east to west. All existing structures are located outside the 25’ creek setback as required per San
Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.080.A. This creek has been identified in a Biological Assessment Report
prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants as an “ephemeral creek”, and is also identified in Exhibit 37 of
the General Plan (Watersheds and Creeks). The existing homes and the proposed new home are located to
the north of the creek and are all outside of the 25 foot creek setback requirement (see Plan Sheet C-4), per
Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.080. However, parts of the existing driveway currently encroach into the
required 25 foot creek setback. The project proposes to widen the existing 12-15 foot wide driveway to 20
feet wide, to meet Fire Department regulations, but the driveway will be widened to the north (see Plan Sheet
C-5) and would therefore not further encroach into the 25 foot creek setback area. The required curb and
gutter along the driveway would also be located outside the required creek setback. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with the creek setback requirements.
Plan Sheet C-2 identifies a natural drainageway towards the north of the project site, r unning east to west.
The proposed new home on Lot 3 is approximately 30 feet away from the drainageway (See Plan Sheet C-4).
However, the final location of the home on Lot 3 would be evaluated for impacts to the drainageway and
compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.080.C and 14.16.080.D.
Chapter 25 – Environmental and Design Review Permit
Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not limited to the following:
Creation of interest in the building elevation
Materials and colors should be consistent with the surrounding area
Landscape design
Provision of a sense of entry
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 8
Exterior lighting
Drainage
The project is generally consistent with the design criteria of Section 14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Hillside Design Guidelines in that: 1) the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with
the architectural design of the adjacent buildings near the project site; 2) the new home would not be visible
from the public street (Gold Hill Grade); and 3) the conceptual design of the proposed new home on Lot 3
appears to be compliant with the Hillside Design Guidelines with respect to maximum gross building square
footage, height and general design.
In addition, the project was reviewed by other City Departments (Building Department, Fire Prevention
Division, San Rafael Sanitation District and Public Works) and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and
comments and conditions have been provided. All deemed the plans to be complete and adequate for
subdivision analysis. The proposed new home on Lot 3 will be reviewed in more detail again when a formal
design review application is submitted with a specific home design.
The future construction of a new home would be subject to Zoning Administrator Design Review Permit. New
hillside homes also require Design Review Board (DRB) review and recommendation. As part of the design
review, staff would evaluate the design of the pro9posed new home with respect to the Chapter 25 Design
Guidelines, the Hillside Design Guidelines and the San Rafael Design Guidelines. In addition, pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.040.C.12, retaining walls over 3 feet in height require administrative design
review. The proposed retaining walls along the driveway (maximum height proposed = 4.5 feet) and at the
end of the turnaround (maximum height proposed = 7 feet) require design review approval with a
recommendation by the DRB. None of the proposed retaining walls are located in a required setback area,
and would likely be screened by existing vegetation. Staff is recommending the retaining walls be subject to
follow-up review. The proposed new carports on Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be subject to staff level Administrative
Design Review.
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency
Although the proposed 3-lot subdivision would create 3 new hillside lots from the one 3.19 acre site, it would
effectively only create one additional new developable lot. This is due to the fact that there are currently two,
legal single family homes on a single parcel. As proposed, Lots 1 and 2 would each accommodate one of the
two existing single family homes, while Lot 3 would be developed with a new single family home. The
proposed 3-lot subdivision complies with the Hillside Subdivision standards with respect to slope (minimum lot
size (30,000 square feet), density (1.25 du/acre), and average lot width (100 feet).
The newly created lots are consistent with the regulations for Minor Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments
(LLA), pursuant to SRMC Section Chapter 15.03 (Minor Subdivision), Chapter 15.05 (Lot Line Adjustments),
Chapter 15.06 (Subdivision Design Standards), and Chapter 15.07 (Standards for Hillside Subdivisions). The
proposed subdivision of the hillside lot meets the requirements for lot width and minimum lot size, pursuant to
SRMC Section 15.07.020 and lot access pursuant to SRMC Section 15.06.040(a). The newly created lots do
front on a public street (Gold Hill Grade), but access to the street would have to be designed across the
existing creek that runs parallel to Gold Hill Grade. In order to avoid potential impacts from constructing a
new road across the creek and having to drill under the creek for utilities lines, staff is supporting t he
applicant’s proposal to access Lot 3 via an extension of the existing driveway running along the north side of
the creek, parallel to the Gold Hill Grade right-of-way. This driveway is proposed to be identified and a mutual
driveway access and utility access easement. Per Section SRMC Section 15.06.040(b), such a proposal
requires approval by the Planning Commission.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 9
The project is also proposing a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) between the subject site and an adjacent vacant
site at 31 Gold Hill Grade. The proposed LLA would not impact the ability of the proposed new Lot 1 to meet
the Chapter 15 Subdivision requirements. Furthermore, the LLA is located at the rear of the lot at 51 Gold Hill
Grade, and the additional 1,200 sf added to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade would not impact the
recent design review approval conditions for the new home on the site at 31 Gold Hill Grade.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff has provided a summary of the DRB meeting for this project. 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 video link
for each of the desired hearing dates.
The project went before the Board on April 19, 2016 (Commissioner Robertson as Planning Commission
Liaison). The Board generally supported all elements of the project, and voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the project design, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit landscaping details as part of the proposed development of Lot 3
2. Submit a preliminary landscape plan as part of the proposed driveway widening details
3. Provide information about tree removal done on site
4. The proposed carport design for the existing homes be replaced with garages
Since the meeting, the applicant has expressed concern with the Board’s recommendations regarding
landscaping. The applicant indicated that he did not believe a preliminary landscape plan for the roadway or
Lot 3 is necessary at this time, since the home design for Lot 3 is conceptual only, with the intent to
demonstrate buildability of the lot. The applicant is only pursuing subdivision entitlement at this time, and does
not propose to construct the single family home proposed on Lot 3. The applicant indicated that it is not
productive to propose landscaping at this time, as the Lot 3 has yet to be sold and the landscaping plan may
change with new ownership. Staff has determined that the Board’s recommendation for a preliminary
landscape plan for Lot 3 would be addressed as part of the future development of Lot 3, and the Board will
have the opportunity at that time to review whether the future landscaping on Lot 3 would be adequate to
screen the new development from the trail. In terms of the landscaping along the roadway and along the
frontage for Lot 1 and Lot 2, staff has determined that the r oadway widening would not entail the loss of
existing trees, and that site constraints limit the area suitable for additional landscaping. The perimeter of the
project site is already heavily vegetated, and additional landscaping may potentially impede maneuverability
in and out of the parking areas.
Several trees were removed from the project site prior to application submittal. In response to DRB
recommendation #3 listed above, the applicant has submitted a map (see Exhibit 5) showing the location of
trees removed per coordination with the City’s Fire Department to comply with the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI) requirements.
With respect to the DRB’s recommendation #4 to replace proposed carports for the two existing homes with
garages, the applicant contends that carports meet the covered parking requirements, and garages may have
too much mass, especially on Lot 1.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is subject to environmental review and does not qualify for an exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) because the average cross -slope of
the project site is greater than 20% slope. As such, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document
has been prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
As a 3-lot subdivision, the proposed project would result in very little physical change on the site. At some
time in the future, the proposed Lot 3 would be developed with a new single family home, in keeping with the
existing surrounding residential development and R1a-H zoning regulations. Required upgrades to the site
would include extension and widening to the existing driveway, as well as extensions to water, sewer and
electrical lines. Standard technical reports for hillside properties submitted included a Hydrology Study and
Geology Investigation. Due to the project’s proximity to the adjacent Open Space area, and the fact that a
large portion of the site has existed as vacant property, staff required that the applicant also prepare a
Biological Assessment for the site.
The Biological Assessment was prepared and submitted by WRA Environmental Consultants. The report
noted that the project area “provides only limited wildlife habitat, but that it does include trees, shrubs and out
buildings that could be used as nesting habitat by many bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).” The WRA Report concluded that “the construction
of the project will not result in impacts to special-status plants and wildlife species or any sensitive habitats.
However, given the hillside nature of the site, mitigation measures are recommended as standard practice to
address potential impacts to protected migratory birds and potential for Pallid Bats to be on the site or in the
area.”
Recommendations from the WRA Biological Assessment, as well as recommendations from the Geotechnical
Report and the City’s standard conditions of approval to protect potential cultural resources are included as
required mitigation measures. Recommended measures are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which were distributed for Planning
Commission review on August 23, 2016. Based on Initial Study review, with the addition of mitigation
measures, or through compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements or City standards, the project’s
potential impacts were determined to have a less-than-significant impact. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration will serve as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for any subsequent
phases of the project and for permits/approvals required. The draft Resolution adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached (Exhibit 1).
All mitigation measures have also been included as conditions of the project approval in the Resolution
approving the planning entitlements (Exhibit 2).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was published on August 23, 2016 and distributed to the Dominican/Black
Canyon Neighborhood Association, the Gold Hill Grade Neighborhood Association, the project applicant, San
Rafael Sanitation District, and Marin Municipal Water District. Copies were made available at the San Rafael
Public Library and at the Planning Counter. Copies were distributed directly to the planning Commissioners
as well. The closing date for the 20-day comment period on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
Monday September 12, 2016. Staff has received no comments on the document to date.
CORRESPONDENCE
A Notice of Hearing for the project (Exhibit 6) was mailed to both property owners and occupants within 300
feet of the project site 20 days prior to this Planning Commission meeting as required by noticing
requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 11
In addition, a notice was sent out to the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association. The site was
also posted with a Notice of Public Hearing. No comments were received from the Neighborhood
Associations. Staff received one comment from a resident (see Exhibit 7) who expressed concern about the
potential impact to the open space area from proposed future single family home on Lot 3. Staff responded
and informed the resident that any future development on Lot 3 would be subject to Design Review Board
review.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project has been reviewed by staff and also been subject to review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Staff supports the proposed project as designed, and recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions approving the project.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the applications as presented and adopt the Draft Resolutions (staff recommendation);
2. Approve the applications with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any Commission’s comments or
concerns; or
4. Deny the project and direct staff to return with revised Resolution for denial
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
2. Draft Resolution conditionally approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Tentative Map and
Lot Line Adjustment.
3. Vicinity Map
4. Schematic Sketch - Proposed home on Lot 3
5. WUI tree removal map
6. Notice of hearing
7. Public Correspondence
Project Plans (11” x 17”), distributed to the Planning Commission only, CEQA document (previously
distributed to Planning Commission via separate cover memo at start of notice period)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED16-016/TS16-001/LLA16-001/IS16-001 Page 12
.
Exhibit 1
Draft Neg Dec Reso
1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP (TS16-001), AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED16-016), AND LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT (LLA16-001) IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 3.19 ACRE
PARCEL LOT (WITH TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES) INTO 3 SEPARATE
PARCELS, AND CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE
NEW PARCEL 3
(APNs: 015-091-03 and 015-091-04)
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2016, Ray Cassidy filed applications for a Tentative Map
(TS16-016), Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED16-001), Lot Line Adjustment
(LLA16-001) and an Initial Study (IS16-001) with the Community Development Department, and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2016, the applications were deemed complete for processing;
and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Section 15302 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared to determine potential environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study is supported by numerous technical studies and reports,
including, a biological assessment, a geotechnical investigation, and a hydrology report. As a
result, potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Geology
and Soils were identified. The project impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels
through implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with
recommended conditions of project approval; and
WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, consistent with Public Resources Code
Sections 21080.3 and 20180.3.2 (AB52), an offer of tribal consultation was made to the local
Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria). No comments were received by
staff within the required 30-day response period. According to both the City of San Rafael’s
adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and “PastFinder”, a citywide database of parcel -specific
archaeological sensitivity reports for development proposals that involve excavation or grading,
the project site has a sensitivity rating of “low”. An archaeological evaluation of the parcel has
produced no indications of an archaeological site within the parcel, and no further archaeological
evaluation was recommended. Standard mitigation measures to protect potential cultural
resources were incorporated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of the Mitigation and
Monitoring Reporting Program (Mitigation Measure CULT-1); and
WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of the Initial Study, the proposed project
would result in a number of significant environmental impacts for which mitigation measures are
recommended to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore,
consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, the Initial Study supports and recommends the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) be prepared to identify how the mitigation measures
recommended in the Initial Study will be implemented if the project is approved. The MMRP
must identify how the mitigation measures are met/implemented, the entity responsible for
Exhibit 1
Draft Neg Dec Reso
2
carrying out the mitigation and the timing for completion of the mitigation. The MMRP must be
prepared and approved prior to or concurrent with action on the project applications. An MMRP
has been prepared addressing these requirements and is presented herein in attached Exhibit A to
this resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, on August 23, 2016, the City
published a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for a 20-day public review period,
closing on September 12, 2016. A notice of document availability and the Planning Commission
hearing date was mailed to property owners and residents/occupants within 300 feet of the project
site. No comments on the CEQA document have been received to date. Any comments received
would be placed in the planning project file with the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to review and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 51
Gold Hill Grade Hillside Subdivision and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). The Planning Commission considered all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department; 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 adopts the
City of San Rafael 51 Gold Hill Grade Hillside Subdivision Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, dated August 23, 2016 based on the following findings:
1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael
Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, in preparing the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City followed the steps and procedures
required by Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) by offering
and completing tribal consultation with the local Native American Tribe (Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria). No comments were received. According to both the City
of San Rafael’s adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and “PastFinder”, a citywide
database of parcel-specific archaeological sensitivity reports for development proposals
that involve excavation or grading, the project site has a sensitivity rating of “low”. An
archaeological evaluation of the parcel has produced no indications of an archaeological
site within the parcel, and no further archaeological evaluation was recommended.
However, standard mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigated
Negative Declaration to protect any potential impacts on cultural resources.
2. As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a public review period of a minimum
of 20 days was observed for public comment (commencing on August 23, 2016 and
closing on September 12, 2016). No comments have been received as of preparation of
this Resolution. Any comments received prior to the Planning Commission meeting
would be presented to the Planning Commission on the day of the hearing.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been presented to the Planning Commission who
has reviewed and considered the information in the Initial Study, which includes
technical studies and assessments supporting the findings and conclusions for adopting a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further, the Planning Commission finds that the studies
Exhibit 1
Draft Neg Dec Reso
3
and assessments prepared for the Initial Study are adequate and complete to support the
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. The Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the
Initial Study and has considered the comments received during the public review period
and public hearing. Based on this review, the Planning Commission has determined that
the project will: a) result in potentially significant impacts related to biological resources,
cultural resources, and geology and soils, for which mitigation measures are required; and
b) result in either no environmental impacts or impacts that are deemed to be less -than-
significant in other topic areas listed in the Initial Study Checklist.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached herein as Exhibit A:
1. The MMPR has been prepared consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15097 in that it: a) incorporates all mitigation measures recommended in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b) includes the appropriate steps and requirements
to ensure that these mitigation measures are implemented and t hat impacts are reduced to
levels of less-than-significant.
2. The MMRP meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and
21080.3.2 (AB 52) in that it acknowledges completion of required consultation with the
local Native American Tribe. Though no comments were received, the Mitigated
Negative Declaration includes Mitigation Measure CULT-1 to ensure that the potential
for encountering cultural resources are addressed during construction.
The foregoing resolution was at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 13th day of September 2016.
Moved by ________________and seconded by _________________
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: _______________________________ ______________________________
Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chairman
1
RESOLUTION NO. 16___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP (TS16-001) TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF
THE EXISTING 3.19 ACRE PARCEL AT 51 GOLD HILL GRADE (CURRENTLY
DEVELOPED WITH TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES) INTO THREE
PARCELS, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED16-016)
FOR THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME ON THE NEWLY CREATED LOT 3, AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(LLA16-001) TO TRANSFER 1,200 SQ. FT. OF LAND FROM 51 GOLD HILL GRADE
(APN #015-091-03) TO 31 GOLD HILL GRADE (APN #015-091-04)
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2016, Ray Cassidy, applicant, submitted applications for a
Tentative Map (TS16-001), Design Review Permit (ED16-016), and an Initial Study (IS16-001)
in order to subdivide the existing 3.19 acres parcel at 51 Gold Hill Grade into 3 lots (with a new
single family home proposed on the future Lot 3). In addition, the applicant submitted an
application for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA16-001), to transfer of 1,200 sq. ft. of land from the
existing parcel (APN #015-091-03) to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade (APN #015-091-
04). The property is zoned R1a-H (Single Family Residential, Hillside Overlay District); and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2016, the applications were deemed complete for processing;
and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board
(Commissioner Robertson as Liaison) reviewed the project and generally supported most
elements of the project and on a unanimous vote (6-0), recommended approval of the project
with the following conditions: 1) the proposed carport design for the existing homes be replaced
with garages; 2) submit a preliminary landscape plan as part of the proposed driveway widening
details; 3) submit landscaping details as part of the proposed development of Lot 3; and 4)
provide information about tree removal done on site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Map, Environmental and Design Review
application and Lot Line Adjustment were reviewed by the City’s Building Division/Fire
Prevention Bureau, Department of Public Works, the Marin Municipal Water District, and the
San Rafael Sanitation District and were recommended for conditional approval; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of a separate Resolution, the Planning Commission has
adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2016, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the proposed Tentative Map, 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
2
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 approves the Tentative map (TS16-001), Environmental Design Review
Permit (ED16-016), and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA16-001) for the proposed project, based on
the following findings and conditions of approval:
Tentative Map Findings
(TS16-001)
1. The proposed Tentative Map would be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020
based on the following:
a) Land Use Policy LU-8 (Density): The proposed project is consistent with the maximum
density allowed in the Hillside Residential Land Use Category (0.5-2units/acre).
b) Land Use Policy LU-12 (Building Height): The existing homes and proposed new home
on Lot 3 are consistent with the 30’ height limit.
c) Land Use Policy LU-23: (Hillside Residential Land Use Designation): The proposed 3-
lot subdivision would not change the existing use on the project site, which is single
family residential development. The proposed new home on Lot 3 would be in keeping
with the surrounding residential uses.
d) Housing Policy H-2: (Neighborhood Improvement): The addition of one single family
home to the new Lot 3 would add to the housing stock in San Rafael, and provide an
appropriate use for the currently vacant portion of the parcel, and the conceptual design
presents a home that is compatible with existing development, and would be screened
from the adjacent open space trail.
e) Housing Policy H-3: (Designs that fit into Neighborhoods): The proposed new single
family home will be subject to Hillside Development Guidelines, and the applicant has
presented a conceptual home design showing that a new home can be constructed on the
newly created Lot 3 and meet the required development standards for setback, lot
coverage, natural state and building height.
f) Neighborhood Element NH-95: (Barbier Park/Gold Hill Grade): The proposed project
would not impact access to the open space trail. The project proposes an access easement
at southeast corner of the property to improve access to the trail for maintenance.
g) Community Design CD-3 (Neighborhoods): The proposed 3-lot subdivision is proposing
one new home, which would be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 25 Design
Guidelines and also be subject to Hillside Design Guidelines, which seeks to preserve the
3
natural environment as part of the development. The existing homes would remain the
same.
h) Community Design Policy CD-18 (Landscaping): The applicant has not proposed any tree
removal on site, although the site was recently cleared of dead trees and brush per the San
Rafael Fire Department’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Guidelines. A 3:1 tree
replacement ratio is required for removal of “significant trees” per Hillside Guidelines. A
preliminary landscape plan would be requires as part of the future development on Lot 3.
i) Open Space Policy OS-4 (Access to Open Space): The project is adjacent to the Barbier
Park/Gold Hill Grade Fire Road trail. The proposed project would not impact existing
access to the trail, which runs along the eastern edge of the project site. The existing
Gold Hill Grade fire road crosses the southeast portion of the project site, and the project
proposes to grant a maintenance access easement across this portion of the property.
j) Conservation Policy CON-6 (Drainageway Setbacks): The proposed conceptual design
for Lot 3 (including the driveway extension) meets the required setbacks for
drainageways and creek on the property. No changes are proposed for the existing homes
k) Sustainability Policy SU-5 (Reduce Use of Non-renewable Resources): The City of San
Rafael Zoning Ordinance identifies the project site as single family residential, and the
three lot subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement and hillside
subdivision ordinance regulations for slope. The proposed Project would not directly
result in any significant population growth. Consequently, the proposed Project would
not exceed the level of population or housing foreseen in City or regional planning efforts
and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and
population projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2010 Bay Area Clean
Air Plan projections. In 2011, the City of San Rafael adopted a new Sustainability
Element for General Plan 2020 that supports its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP).
The CCAP includes goals to achieve Greenhouse Gas (GHG) level reduction by 2025 and
2050 that exceed the State’s goals under AB 32. Because the proposed development
project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, no analysis of
GHG emissions is required under the provisions of the CCAP, provided that the project is
consistent with the City’s “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist”,
which lists all the individual City Ordinances that help implement the City’s
Sustainability Element goals. In June 2016, the applicant submitted responses to the
Checklist that indicate the project would comply with all the Checklist required elements
that are applicable to the project (e.g., Green Building Ordinance, Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, Wood-Burning Appliance Ordinance, Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance).
2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that: a) the project would be consistent with the
policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 as identified above in Finding #1; and b) the
subdivision would create three parcels that would meet the minimum lot area and spatial
4
standards pursuant to the Hillside Subdivision development standards and the R1a-H Zoning
Ordinance development regulations. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision would subdivide
a lot with two existing single family residential structures that have existed on one lot for
many years, and bring the lot into compliance with R1a-H standards with one home on each
of the three lots. The subdivision would not result in any new privacy or health and safety
concerns on adjacent properties based on the location of the existing structures. The proposed
new development on Lot 3 would be subject to additional Design Review at the time of
development.
3. The project site at 51 Gold Hill Grade is physically suitable for the proposed type and
intensity of development based on the fact that: a) the existing lot is 3.19 acres and larger
than the minimum I acre required for the R1a zoning district; b) the subject property is
located in a neighborhood with similar residential densities and intensity of development; c)
there are adequate services and utility systems to serve the existing two residential units, and
a new sewer connection and new water line would be required for the newly created parcel;
and d) the project would provide covered parking (carports) for the existing homes,
complying with current Chapter 18 parking regulations.
4. The 3.19 acre property proposed for subdivision is physically suitable for the density of
development that is proposed in that: a) each lot would accommodate one single family
dwelling; b) the proposed density (1 dwelling unit per lot) is within the permitted density
range of 0.25-2 units/acre allowed under the General Plan for the Hillside Residential Land
Use classification; and c) the proposed lots would be similar in density to those in the
surrounding area.
5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements have been reviewed and an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared, consistent with requirements under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study analysis concluded that the
project’s potential impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Geology and
Soils could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of
recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with existing Municipal Code
requirements or City standards.
6. The design of the subdivision and the type of proposed improvements is not likely to cause
serious health problems in that: a) the proposal to subdivide the property would comply with
the City’s General Plan as identified in Finding #1 above; b) the proposed subdivision would
not change the existing structures on the lot and is proposing to add only one single family
home one Lot 3 and new carports on Lot 1 and Lot 2; c) the design of the lot would comply
with the spatial standards required by the Subdivision Ordinance; d) the density of the
proposed subdivision would be within the allowable density for the Hillside Residential
General Plan Land Use designation; e) with utility extensions to Lot 3, there will be adequate
services for site development; and f) the proposed subdivision has been reviewed by all
appropriate departments and conditioned accordingly to avoid any detrimental effects.
5
7. As proposed and conditioned, the subdivision would not conflict with any existing or
required easements in that an existing improved private driveway exists that would provide
adequate and safe access through the site and utility connections would be provided in this
private roadway, and extended to the newly created Lot 3.
Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings
(ED16-016)
1) The proposed project to subdivide the existing 3.19 acre parcel into 3 lots, with existing
single family homes and proposed new 2-car carports and 2 guest spaces on the newly created
Lot 1 and Lot 2, a new single family home with 2-car garage and 2 guest spaces proposed for
Lot 3, and widening and extension to the existing private driveway access is in accord with
the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of this Chapter
given that:
a. As discussed on Pages 5-6 of the September 13, 2016 Planning Commission staff report,
the proposed project (as conditioned) is consistent with general Plan Policies Land Use
Policy LU-8 (Density), Policy LU-12 (Building Height), Policy LU-23 (Hillside Residential
Land Use Designation), Policy H-2 (Neighborhood Improvement), Policy H-3 (Designs that fit
into Neighborhoods), Policy NH-95 (Barbier Park/Gold Hill Grade), Policy CD-3
(Neighborhoods), Policy CD-18 (Landscaping), Policy OS-4 (Access to Open Space), Policy
CON-6 (Drainageway Setbacks), and Policy SU-5 (Reduce Use of Non-renewable Resources;
and
b. As discussed on Pages 7-8 of the September 13, 2016 Planning Commission staff report,
the proposed project (as conditioned) conforms to the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 14.04 (Base District Regulations), Chapter14.12 (Hillside Overlay District),
Chapter 16 (Creek Setback), Chapter 18 (Parking), and Chapter 25 (Environmental
Design Review Permits). The proposed conceptual design for the home on Lot 3 complies
with development standards for the HR1a-H Zoning District and the Hillside
development standards, and has been recommended for approval by the Design Review
Board, with conditions. The proposed carports for Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be subject to
Administrative Design Review at the time of construction.
2) The project design, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and
landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Single Family Residential, Hillside Overlay
Zoning District (R1a-H) in which the site is located given that:
a. No changes are proposed to the existing two single family homes on the project site. The
proposed carports would bring the site into compliance with current parking standards of
2 covered spaces and 2 guest spaces. The conceptual design for the proposed new home
on Lot 3 complies with development standards and would be required to submit a formal
design review application at the time of development, as discussed on Page 8 of the .
Planning Commission staff report dated September 13, 2016; and
3) The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts given that:
6
a. The existing homes would not be expanded as part of the 3-lot subdivision; and
b. The proposed conceptual design for the new home on Lot 3 complies with all applicable
development standards and would be subject to additional design review; and
c. The project was reviewed by applicable City departments and no adverse environmental
impacts were identified; and
d. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable local, State
and Federal building codes; and
e. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and concluded that with
mitigation measures as detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and reporting program
(MMRP), the project’s impact would be less-than-significant.
4) That the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that:
a. The conceptual design for Lot 3 shows a home plan that can be built and that complies
with R1a-H Zoning and Hillside regulation requirements. The proposed new carports
would be subject to Administrative Design review at staff level prior to construction; and
b. The site improvements to the driveway will upgrade the existing driveway access to a
proper Fire Department access, including a fire truck turnaround on Lot 3. In addition,
bio-retention areas would be incorporated into the project design that will improve
drainage on the site. The site has also been cleared of trees and shrubs to comply with
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) regulations, thereby reducing fire risks in the area.
c. Staff received only one comment letter expressing concerns about the project’s impact on
the adjacent Open Space trail. Staff determined that the proposed new home would be of
a similar scale to existing residents in the area, and the project is not proposing to remove
any existing screening along the property perimeter. As such, the addition of a new home
is not expected to impact the adjacent trail.
Lot Line Adjustment Findings
(LLA16-001)
1. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) would be consistent with the General Plan 2020
given that the propose use of the project site would remain residential and the proposed LLA
would bring the site more into compliance by reducing the overall slope of the parcel, and
allowing the creating 3 lots with 3 separate residential buildings, as opposed to the existing
site, which has 2 residences on one lot.
2. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment would be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
given that the transfer of 1,200 sq. ft. of land from 51 Gold Hill Grade (APN #015-091-03) to
the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade (APN #015-091-04) would not impact the ability of
the proposed new Lot 1 to meet the Chapter 15 Subdivision requirements. Furthermore, the
LLA is located at the rear of the lot at 51 Gold Hill Grade, and the additional 1,200 sq. ft.
7
added to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade would not impact the recent design review
approval conditions for the new home on the site at 31 Gold Hill Grade.
3. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment has been reviewed by the City’s Building Division, the
San Rafael Sanitation District and the Public Works Department, and conditions of approval
have been required to ensure that the proposal conforms to all regulations.
4. The Lot Line Adjustment application itself is technically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305
(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). However, the larger project was required to
undergo CEQA review and based on the analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment has been determined to have a less-than-
significant impact.
Tentative Map (TS16-001)
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department - Planning Division
1. This Tentative Map approval grants the subdivision of a 3.19 acre parcel with two existing
residences into three Parcels as illustrated on the Lot Line Adjustment and Tentative Parcel
Map – prepared by Oberkamper and Associates, Civil Engineers, Inc. This approval shall be
valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval, or until September 13, 2018,
unless a Parcel Map has been recorded or a time extension is requested.
2. Any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid prior to
recording of the Parcel Map.
3. Within 5 day of the Planning Commission approval, the applicant shall submit a check in
the amount of $2,210.25 made payable to the County of Marin, for recordation of the Notice
of Determination (NOD) with the County recorder’s office. The fee is required by the State of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to recordation of the CEQA determination.
4. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, or as allowed through subdivision improvement
bonding, the existing driveway shall be widened to 20 feet in width, extended to serve Lot 3,
and include a Fire Department approved turnaround on Lot 3. These improvements shall be
as shown on the approved plans, or as modified by conditions required as part of the
Tentative Map review process.
5. The applicant shall be required to disclose the required future access driveway widening and
extension to the prospective new buyers of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3.
6. Prior to installation of the road widening and extension, the application shall obtain all
required grading and building permits and/ or improvement plans.
8
7. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a Final Map,
whichever occurs first, the developer shall pay to the City an in lieu Parkland Dedication
fees for 3 new lots in accordance with the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 1558.
Parkland Dedication in lieu fees are, at this time, based on 1989 dollars. Adjustments of this
figure may be necessary at the time of fee payment if the fair market value for parkland and
associated improvements is adjusted in accordance with Section 15.38.045 of the Ordinance.
The fees for 3 lots shall be $5,903.93.
8. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map, the applicant shall construct two new carports-
one on Lot #1 and one on Lot #2 to satisfy the parking requirements for each new separate
lot. The carports shall be designed to accommodate two covered parking spaces. Each lot
shall also provide an area for two uncovered guest parking spaces.
9. Prior to the construction of the new structure, the applicant shall apply for and receive
approval of a staff level design review permit and subsequently apply for and obtain a
building permit for the construction of each carport. The building permits for the carports
shall be finaled before recordation of the map.
10. Any future development on Lot 3 shall be subject to obtaining an Environmental and Design
Review Permit through the Zoning Administrator with review and recommendation by the
Design Review Board.
11. A Final Parcel Map must be processed consistent with the Major Subdivision procedures of
San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 15.02. The final parcel map filed for the project shall
substantially conform to the approved Tentative Map called Lot Line Adjustment and
Tentative Parcel Map – prepared by Oberkamper and Associates, Civil Engineers, Inc,
except as conditioned herein.
12. These project conditions of approval shall be included on a plan sheet to be submitted with
any plans submitted to the City for building or grading permits, or subdivision
improvements.
13. Hours of construction, including deliveries, arrival of workers to the site, warming-up
vehicles and any noise generating activities, shall be limited to occur between the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m on Saturdays. No
work shall be permitted on Sundays or City observed Holidays.
14. The developers Civil Engineer must prepare the Final Parcel Map pursuant to procedures for
Major Subdivision (Chapter 15.02) and submit 3 sets directly to the Department of Public
Works for review. A copy of the Final Parcel Map and Improvement Plans shall be
transmitted to the Planning Division and Building and Fire Division for review prior to
being scheduled for action by the City Council (no public hearing is required).
15. Grading and Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Department
of Public Works prior to recordation of a final parcel map for the project, subject to the
following requirements:
9
a. Peer review of the Level B geotechnical investigation prepared for the minor
subdivision may be required prior to issuance of permits, to confirm final design
details.
b. Grading plan check and inspection fees will be required based on the earthwork
quantities.
c. DPW shall notify the Planning and Building Division when the Parcel Map has
been recorded.
d. The applicant shall be responsible for fees and costs associated with review and
recordation of the Parcel Map, including the County Recorders fees.
e. The developer’s engineer shall submit a detailed drainage plan to DPW for review
showing the proposed drainage system including layout, dimensions and details,
construction details for detention box, outlet dissipater and detention pipe,
SWPPP and MCSTOPP details.
f. A recent Preliminary Title Report less than 6 months old will be required.
Department of Public Works – Land Development Division
Prior to approval of the tentative map:
16. Grading and Drainage
a) The proposed setback from the top of bank is less that the recommended 25 feet.
Driveway improvements this close to the creek shall require additional review. Provide a
biological assessment to show that the area may be altered with improvements. Conduct a
soil stability investigation and calculations to show the ability to construct a driveway in
close proximity to the creek with the steep banks.
b) Investigate the condition of the full length of the drainage course from above the fire road
to below the culvert under the existing driveway. Provide consideration for stream bank
restoration and drainage system improvements. Stabilization of the fire road at the
drainage crossing shall also be reviewed.
c) Provide a revised statement on the drainage characteristics that indicates how the
additional runoff from the site will be retained, detained, or infiltrated in order to
maintain the existing conditions.
d) Provide curb, and gutter to catch and treat driveway runoff prior to draining to the creek.
Show the details on the site plans.
17. Access
a) The existing fire road is shown within the property boundary. Provide an easement for the
existing fire road or propose realignment of the fire road during site improvements for
continued fire road access.
10
b) The driveway width appears to be less than 20’ in some areas. The 20’ width is generally
required for fire access. Driveway width shall be confirmed by the Fire Prevention
Bureau.
18. Subdivision
a) Provide an engineer’s estimate for the improvements proposed for the site. A subdivision
improvement agreement may be required for this work which shall be addressed at the
time of Map approval.
b) Submit details on proposed landscaping. Landscaping will need to be installed in such a
way to preserve adequate sight distance from driveways. Landscaping in the vicinity of
the wetlands and watercourse should be done in a manner to prevent creek bank erosion.
c) Provide a maintenance agreement for the length of the drainage course along the property
line and within the road Right-of-Way of Gold Hill Grade, as the watercourse lies mainly
within the property but meanders into and has banks within the Right-of-Way.
d) The northwestern drainageway follows the proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 for
approximately 40’. This may cause confusion as to the maintenance of the drainage way.
We recommend adjusting the lot line or including this with the maintenance agreement of
the drainage course along Gold Hill Grade.
Prior to recordation of a Final Map:
19. General- Provide the plat and legal description, including closure calculations for review by
the City Surveyor.
20. Grading and Drainage
a) A detailed grading plan showing the proposed grading for the site shall be required. A
Grading Permit shall be obtained from the City of San Rafael, Department of Public
Works, 111 Morphew Street.
b) Provide a detailed erosion control plan for this site to be submitted with the grading plan.
Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of
the Plan".
21. Driveway and Parking
a) Show the dimensions of the guest parking spaces and show turning movements of the
vehicles on the plan to exit the property.
b) Uphill sight distance for vehicles exiting Lots 1 and 2 may be limited based on
preliminary grading and landscaping. Include a sight analysis to show that adequate sight
is provided.
c) An Encroachment Permit must be obtained for work within the right-of-way from the
City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works, 111 Morphew Street.
11
Lot Line Adjustment Conditions of Approval
(LLA16-001)
Department of Public Works – Land Development Division
1. It is unclear if the Lot Line Adjustment will be separate from the Subdivision or if they will
be recorded on one map. Prior to approval of a final map provide the plats, legal descriptions
and closure calculations for review by the City Surveyor.
2. Revise the easement at the northeast corner to include both access and maintenance. Include
the language for the easement for review prior to approval of a final map.
3. Previous submittals showed an existing structure (shed) within the previous setback. If the
shed exists, please show it on the plan. If the shed is to remain provide information on how it
will be accessed, or if the shed is to be removed, please indicate this on the plan.
4. Include a maintenance agreement for the mutual driveway. We recommend that this include
the privately maintained mutual utilities.
5. As per Municipal Code Section 14.12.030, streets and driveways with slopes over fifteen
percent (15%) shall be a permanent, durable, non-asphalt hardscape surface.
Environmental and Design Review Permit
Conditions of Approval
(ED16-016)
Community Development - Planning Division
1. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED16-016) approval is for the proposed
hillside subdivision design consisting of the conceptual house design, access and retaining
walls as indicated on approved plans submitted for project by Oberkamper and Associates,
except as modified by all conditions of approval. The Design Review Permit approves the
demonstration that a new home can be feasibility built on the new lot.
2. A separate Environmental and Design Review Permit (Zoning Administrator level with
Design Review Board Review and Recommendation) is required for the new residential
structure and any accessory structures on Lot 3 and is subject to compliance with the
approved Tentative Map (TS16-001), Master Design Review Permit (ED16-016) and the
R1a-H zoning standards.
3. Suitable all-weather driveway improvements shall be constructed before house foundation
and framing work, to provide parking and staging area for construction of the house.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of the required Traffic Mitigation Fees
related to the development of Lot 3. The fee will be imposed as a condition of approval of
the Environmental and Design Review Permit approval for the new residence and shall be
required to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the new residential structure on
12
Lot 3. This condition shall inform the applicant that the Traffic Mitigation Fee is based on
the number of dwelling units approved for the site, including the size of the new residence.
The total traffic mitigation fee will be the total number of AM and PM peak hour trips
generated by the proposed development on the site times the traffic mitigation fee in effect at
the time of payment (Currently, the fee is $4,246 in March 2012). For the new single family
home on Lot 3, 2 am and 2 pm trips (total 4 trips) will be required at the time of building
permit issuance in the amount of (4 x 4,246) = $16,984 for the proposed home on Lot 3.
5. This Design Review Permit (ED16-016) shall be valid for two years from approval or
until September 13, 2018, and shall be null and void if a building permit is not issued
or a time extension granted prior to the expiration date.
6. The City’s Building Department reviewed the conceptual plans for the new home on Lot 3
and had no comments at this time. The applicant shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the City of San Rafael Building Department and Fire Prevention Division.
A separate building permit application is required for the proposed project construction.
The Fire Division shall determine if sprinklers are required as part of the building permit
application review.
7. Construction hours and activity (including any and all deliveries) are limited to the
applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
8. Proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed in an attractive manner, which
blend with exterior building materials of proposed or future homes on the lot, and/or
appropriately stepped and finished to blend with the hillside setting. Where masonry walls
are necessary for grading purposes, they shall be softened with landscaping.
9. Landscape plans shall be submitted to MMWD for review and approval prior to issuance of
construction permits, and shall be designed to adhere to the water allocation issued for the
site.
10. No building permit shall be issued (except for the required carport construction on Lot 1 and
Lot 2, per TS16-001 Condition of Approval #7) until the Parcel Map has been recorded and
required improvements have been completed or appropriate security obtained to the
satisfaction of all departments and agencies (i.e., Building, Fire, Planning, Public Works,
San Rafael Sanitation District and MMWD).
11. The applicant shall be required to disclose the required future access driveway widening and
extension to the prospective new buyers of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3.
12. The applicant shall apply for a new site addresses for the site from the Community
Development Department - Building Division. The new addresses shall be sequential and
logical, following the existing street numbering pattern. The tentative address for the new
single family structure shall be determined by the Chief Building Official.
13. Address markers shall be provided during construction as required by the Building and Fire
Division to assure that emergency personnel are able to identify the site.
13
14. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and
visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not
satisfy this requirement. If new construction and substantial remodel, the address must be
internally or externally illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4
inches with ½ inch stroke for residential occupancies. The address must be contrasting in
color to their background.
15. The applicant shall pay all applicable school impact fees prior to issuance of building.
Contact San Rafael City Schools for calculation and payment of fees.
16. Building permits shall be obtained for onsite improvements for the private road, including
retaining walls, street lights, and private sewer systems.
17. Cultural Resources (Per Mitigation Monitoring Program CULT-1):
a) If, during grading or construction activities, any archaeological artifacts or human
remains are encountered, the following measures shall be implemented: Construction
shall cease immediately within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria, and Planning staff.
Planning staff and the qualified archaeologist shall promptly visit the site. The qualified
archaeologist shall conduct independent evaluation of the “find” to determine the extent
and significance of the resource, and to develop a course of action to be adopted that is
acceptable to all concerned parties. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be
avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible, an alternative
archaeological management plan shall be prepared that may include excavation. If human
remains are unearthed, the Marin County Medical Examiner’s office also shall be
notified. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in
accordance with prevailing professional standards, as outlined in Appendix K of the State
CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native
American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program.
18. Biological Resources (Per Mitigation Monitoring Program BIO-1 and BIO-2):
a) In order to avoid potential impacts on the Pallid Bats, any out buildings within Lot 3
should be demolished between September 1 and October 15, which is outside bat
maternity roosting season.
b) Breeding Season: March 1 through August 1. If ground disturbance or removal of
vegetation occurs between March 1 and July 31, pre-construction surveys will be
performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to commencement of such
activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If active nests
are present, establishment of temporary protection breeding season buffers will avoid
direct mortality of these birds, nests or young. The appropriate buffer distance is
dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation, and topography and should be
determined by a qualified biologist as appropriate to prevent nest abandonment and direct
mortality during construction.
14
c) Non-Breeding Season: August 1 through February 28: Ground disturbance and removal
of vegetation within the Study Area does not require pre-construction surveys if
performed between August 1 and February 28.
19. Geology and Soils (Per Mitigation Monitoring Program GEO-1 and GEO-2):
a) Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall incorporate the recommendations of the
JCH Geotechnical Investigation into the Project to address seismic design, site
preparation and grading, and foundation design. The geotechnical report recommended
drilled reinforced concrete piers (connected with grade beams or at least 18-inches in
diameter, extending at least 15 feet deep and 8 feet into bedrock, whichever is greater.
b) Prior to approval of the project, the City shall incorporate the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation into the Project to address seismic design, site preparation and
grading, and foundation design.
San Rafael Fire Prevention Bureau
20. The Fire Department reviewed and approved the project’s “Alternate Means and Methods”
proposed for the new 4,500 square foot home on Lot 3, as described in a letter dated
September 28, 2015, and including a Vegetation Management Plan Area as follows:
a) Sprinkler the building attic area
b) Use non-combustible siding such as stucco, Hardie Siding, Shingles, brick or other non-
combustible product
c) Use non-combustible roofing material such as metal, slate, tile or other non-combustible
products. Eaves and roof joist overhang areas will likewise be clad with non-combustible
material.
d) Establish a vegetation management plan within the boundaries of the property, thereby
providing all lands within the property boundaries as “Defensible Space”
San Rafael Sanitation District
21. The proposed sewer lateral serving lot 3 encroaches on the 25 feet creek setback between Stations
0+50 and station 2+00 shown on sheet C5. Applicant shall show the proposed new sewer line on the
cross section profiles and demonstrate that the proposed sewer line will have sufficient cover and
that the proposed location of the pipe will not cause future erosion of the creek bank. Please provide
also a sewer line longitudinal profile with information on the pipe type being proposed and slope for
the District review.
22. The proposed sewer lateral serving lot 3 seems to be located right at the edge and/or under the
proposed bio swale area. Applicant shall provide a cross section of the sewer at this location and
demonstrate that proposed sewer line will have proper cover.
23. Proposed utility easements and maintenance agreements shall be submitted for the District review.
24. The proposed sewer facilities for Lot 3 shall adhere to the San Rafael Sanitation District Standard
Specifications for Side Sewers and Laterals.
Cleanouts shall be spaced within ninety (90) feet or when changing direction.
15
The District does not approve new taps into an existing manhole. The connection to the sewer
main shall be with a new “Y” either before or after the manhole.
Include the following note on sheet C3: “All side sewers shall be tested in accordance to the San
Rafael Sanitation District Standards and in the presence of the District Inspector. The contractor
shall notify the District inspector, Rolando Calvo, at (415) 485-3194, 48 hours prior to starting
sewer work. ”
25. Please be advised, after the plans have been reviewed and approved, the District will require the
payment of a new sewer connection fee of $8,980.18 prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.
This sewer fee connection is effective from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the special meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning
Commission held on the 13th day of September 2016.
Moved by _________Commissioner _________ seconded by Commissioner __________
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ______________________ BY:_______________________
Paul Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chairman
,
51 Gold Hill Grade Hillside Subdivision
51 Gold Hill Grade, San Rafael, CA
Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 015-091-03 (51 Gold Hill Grade)
015-091-04 (31 Gold Hill Grade)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:
Community Development Department
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Contact: Caron Parker, Associate Planner
August 23, 2016
Notice of Intent 2 51 Gold Hill Grade – Hillside Subdivision
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT .................................................................................................................. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................... 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................. 8
EXHIBITS ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................................ 13
DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................................... 13
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................. 14
I. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................... 14
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .................................................................. 16
III. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 18
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 20
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 23
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................... 25
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS .................................................................................. 28
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................. 29
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................... 32
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................. 35
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 36
XII. NOISE ................................................................................................................................... 37
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................... 38
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 39
XV. RECREATION ...................................................................................................................... 41
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .......................................................................................... 42
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 44
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................... 46
SOURCE REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 48
PROJECT SPONSOR’S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................... 50
DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 50
REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................................................... 50
Notice of Intent 3 51 Gold Hill Grade – Hillside Subdivision
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
DATE: August 23, 2016
TO: Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties
FROM: Caron Parker, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Gui delines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department
of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following
project:
Project Name: Gold Hill Grade Subdivision
Location:
51 Gold Hill Grade, San Rafael, Marin County, California, APN: 015-091-03.
Property Description:
The subject property is a gently up-sloping hillside with an average cross slope of 30.46%. The site is not in a
designated ridgeline area. There are two (2) existing single-family homes and a small shed on the project site.
The site is accessed by a private driveway off the Gold Hill Grade public right-of-way. Part of the driveway is
paved with asphalt and the remainder is gravel. The existing access driveway terminates about 25’ from the
second existing single-family home on the project site. To the south, the property is adjacent to a natural, open
ephemeral channel creek (Sisters Creek), which parallels the road (Gold Hill Grade) flowing toward the west.
Portions of the creek are located within the property line of the 51 Gold Hill Grade project site. There is one
Oak tree and one Sycamore tree identified on the project site as well as several stands of Eucalyptus trees
along the perimeter of the project site.
Project Description:
The project proposes to divide the existing 3.19 acres lot into 3 lots, each 1-acre or greater in size. Lot 1 and
Lot 2 would each remain developed with the existing single-family homes on the project site. Conceptual
plans for construction of a new 4,500 square foot single family is indicated for the new Lot 3. The applicant is
only pursuing subdivision entitlement at this time, and does not propose to construct the single family home.
Retaining walls are proposed along the south side of the new driveway extension (maximum height 4.5 feet),
and at the end of a new fire-truck turn around that has been required for Lot 3 (ranging in height from 3.5 feet
to 7 feet).
Notice of Intent 4 51 Gold Hill Grade – Hillside Subdivision
In addition, the project includes a concurrent Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) request to transfer a portion of the
3.19 acre parcel (APN 015-091-03) to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade (APN 015-091-04).
Specifically, 1,200 square feet of the northwestern corner of the subject parcel, would be transferred to the
adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade. This is being pursued in order to reduce the overall slope of the subject
parcel (APN 015-091-03) from 30.46% slope to a 29.95% slope. This minor reduction in slope enables the
project to meet the density and lot width requirement for a hillside subdivision, pursuant to San Rafael
Municipal Code (SRMC) Title 15.
Environmental Issues:
The project is subject to environmental review and does not qualify for an exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) because the average cross-slope of
the project site is greater than 20% slope. The project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level through implementation of recommended mitigation measures or through compliance with
existing Municipal Code requirements or City standards. Recommended measures are summarized in the
attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document has been prepared in consultation
with local, and state responsible and trustee agencies and in accordance with Section 15063 of the Californi a
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will serve
as the environmental compliance document required under CEQA for any subsequent phases of the project and
for permits/approvals required by a responsible agency.
A minimum required twenty-day (20-day) public review period shall commence on Tuesday, August 23,
2016. Written comments must be sent to the City of San Rafael, Community Development Department,
Planning Division, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901 by 5:00 PM on Monday, September 12, 2016.
The City of San Rafael Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration and project merits on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:00PM in the San Rafael City
Council Chambers at City Hall (address listed above) and will accept oral comments on the Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and project merits. Correspondence and comments can also be
delivered to the Planning Division, Attn: Caron Parker, Project Planner, phone: (415) 485-3094, email:
caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
51 Gold Hill Grade, Minor Hillside Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring / Reporting
Action & Schedule Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of building permits for construction
or utility improvements, the City shall ensure that the
Project complies with with the following condition of
the Project in order to address impacts on Special-
Status Wildlife Species and Breeding Birds:
BIO-1: In order to to avoid potential impacts on Pallid
Bats, any out buildings within Lot 3 shall be
demolished between September 1 and October 15,
which is outside bat maternity roosting season.
BIO-2: Breeding Season: March 1 through August 1.
If ground disturbance or removal of vegetation occurs
between March 1 and July 31, pre-construction surveys
shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more
than 14 days prior to commencement of such activities
to determine the presence and location of nesting bird
species. If active nests are present, establishment of
temporary protection breeding season buffers shall be
installed, which will avoid direct mortality of these
birds, nests or young. The appropriate buffer distance
shall be established dependent on the species,
surrounding vegetation, and topography, as determined
by a qualified biologist as appropriate to prevent nest
abandonment and direct mortality during construction.
Non-Breeding Season: August 1 through February 28:
Ground disturbance and removal of vegetation within
the Study Area does not require pre-construction
surveys if performed between August 1 through
February 28.
Require as
condition of
approval
Planning
Division
Incorporate as condition
of project approval
Issue stop-work order /
Halt demolition or
construction activities
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
51 Gold Hill Grade, Minor Hillside Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring / Reporting
Action & Schedule Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULT-1: If, during grading or construction activities,
any archaeological artifacts or human remains are
encountered, the following measures shall be
implemented:
Construction shall cease immediately within
150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated
by a qualified archaeologist, the Federated
Indians of the Graton Rancheria, and Planning
staff. Planning staff and the qualified
archaeologist shall promptly visit the site. The
qualified archaeologist shall conduct
independent evaluation of the “find” to
determine the extent and significance of the
resource, and to develop a course of action to
be adopted that is acceptable to all concerned
parties. If mitigation is required, the first
priority shall be avoidance and preservation of
the resource. If avoidance is not feasible, an
alternative archaeological management plan
shall be prepared that may include excavation.
If human remains are unearthed, the Marin
County Medical Examiner’s office also shall
be notified. All archaeological excavation and
monitoring activities shall be conducted in
accordance with prevailing professional
standards, as outlined in Appendix K of the
State CEQA Guidelines and by the California
Office of Historic Preservation. The Native
American community shall be consulted on all
aspects of the mitigation program.
Require as a condition of approval
Construction
contractor to
complete
documentation
prior to initiation
of demolition
activities
Planning Division
Building
Division
Incorporate as condition of project approval Building Division verifies appropriate approvals obtained prior to issuance of building permit
Issue stop-work order / Halt demolition or construction activities
Issue stop-work order /
Halt demolition or
construction activities
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
51 Gold Hill Grade, Minor Hillside Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring / Reporting
Action & Schedule Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity Monitoring
Compliance
Record
(Name/Date)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall
incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation into the Project to address seismic design,
site preparation and grading, and foundation design.
The current proposal does not include construction of
the new home on Lot 3. As such, the future property
owner would have the option of submitting a new
Geotechnical Report upon project submittal. Further, a
updated geotechnical report is required after 5 years of
the date of the current report.
GEO-2: Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall
incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation into the Project to address seismic design,
site preparation and grading, and foundation design.
Require as a
condition of
approval
Construction
contractor to
include
recommendations
in project designs.
Planning
Division
Building
Division
Incorporate as condition
of project approval
Review construction
specifications and
materials, and retain for
administrative record.
Deny issuance of
building or grading
permits
Deny issuance of
building or grading
permits
Environmental Checklist Form 8 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title 51 Gold Hill Grade Hillside Subdivision
2. Lead Agency Name & Address City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
3. Contact Person & Phone Number Caron Parker, Associate Planner
Phone number: (415) 485-3094
Email: caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org
4. Project Location The site is located in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, 51
Gold Hill Grade, Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-091-03 (Refer to
Exhibit A, “Vicinity Map”).
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address
Project Sponsor
Mr. Ray Cassidy
P.O. Box 150173
San Rafael, CA 94915
Project Engineer
Oberkamper & Associates
Civil Engineers, Inc.
7200 Redwood Blvd, Suite 308
Novato, CA 94945
6. General Plan Designation Hillside Residential
7. Zoning HR1a –H (Single Family Residential, Hillside Overlay)
8. Description of Project Three-lot hillside Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment
Setting and Background
The subject property is a gently up-sloping hillside with an average cross slope of 30.46%. The site is not in a
designated ridgeline area. There are two (2) existing single-family homes and a small shed on the project site.
The site is accessed by a private driveway off the Gold Hill Grade public right-of-way. Part of the driveway is
paved with asphalt and the remainder gravel. The existing access driveway terminates about 25’ from the second
existing single-family home on the project site. To the south, the property is adjacent to a natural, open
ephemeral channel creek (Sisters Creek), which parallels the road (Gold Hill Grade) flowing toward the west.
Portions of the creek are located within the property line of the 51 Gold Hill Grade project site. There is one Oak
tree and one Sycamore tree identified on the project site as well as several stands of Eucalyptus trees along the
perimeter of the project site.
Environmental Checklist Form 9 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Project Description
The project proposes a Lot Line Adjustment and three (3) lot subdivision of an existing 3.19 acre parcel. Each lot
would be 1-acre or greater in size. Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 would each remain developed with existing single-
family homes on the site. No changes to these existing homes are proposed, which consist of 1,200 sf and 2,350
sf homes. The existing homes do not have covered parking on site. The applicant is proposing to delineate an
uncovered area on each lot for 2 guest spaces along with two additional uncovered parking spaces; which is in
keeping with hillside residential parking requirements. Conceptual site and building plans showing a new 4,500
square foot single family home (with 2 car garage and 2 guest parking spaces) for Lot 3 has been provided.
However, the project proposes subdivision only, and formal approval for construction of a residence is not
proposed at this time. Retaining walls are proposed along the south side of the new driveway extension (proposed
maximum height 4.5 feet), and at the end of a new fire-truck turnaround (ranging in height from 3.5 feet to 7
feet). The fire truck turn-around is required for the creation of the additional buildable Lot 3. Smaller retaining
walls may be required for the proposed expanded guest parking areas on Lot 1 and Lot 2.
The concurrent Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is proposed at the northwestern corner of the subject parcel (APN
015-091-03), to transfer 1,200 square feet of property to the adjacent developed parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade
(015-091-04). The adjustment is being pursued in order to reduce the overall slope of the subject parcel (APN
015-091-03) from 30.46% slope to a 29.95% slope. This minor reduction in slope enables the project to meet the
density and lot width requirement for a hillside subdivision, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Title
15.
Access, Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access to the lots would be via the existing driveway used by the existing homes on the project site.
The project proposes to widen the existing driveway to 20 feet in width and extend the driveway approximately
200 feet to provide access the proposed home on Lot 3. A fire truck turnaround would be created on Lot 3. An
existing deck and a concrete pad area are proposed for demolition to accommodate the required 20 foot driveway.
The project identifies development on Lot 3 with a two-car garage and 2 uncovered parking spaces, to address
Hillside Overlay district standards. The subdivision would have no impact on access to the existing two homes.
The southeastern portion of the property abuts the Gold Hill Grade Fire Road and barbier Park. The applicant has
agreed to provide an access easement for the City of San Rafael to access the trail in this area. Access to the lots
via the existing shared driveway is proposed to avoid crossing the creek that parallels the Gold Hill Grade
roadway.
The southeastern portion of the property abuts the Gold Hill Grade Fire Road. The applicant has agreed to provide
an access easement to the City of San Rafael in this area (See Plan Sheet C3).
Grading and Drainage
The proposed project has provided a Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The grading proposed is primarily
associated with the driveway widening and parking areas for the existing and proposed homes. A total amount of
580 cu.yds of cut and 190 cu.yds of fill is proposed. A total of 390 cu.yds of off-haul is proposed. Also, a 260
square foot bio-retention area is proposed for the southwest portion of the newly created Lot 3. The storrmwater
would then be discharged through a drainage outlet structure. All storm water on the driveway and the fire truck
turnaround would be collected in the curb and gutter on the southern side of the driveway before being captured in
a catch basin and directed to a bio-retention area at the western end of the creek. This second bio-retention area
will outlet into the side of the existing roadway culvert on the Gold Hill Grade roadway.
Environmental Checklist Form 10 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Proposed Landscaping and Associated Improvements
The applicant has not proposed any tree removal as part of the subdivision or driveway extension. There is one
Oak tree and one Sycamore tree identified on the project site, as well as several stands of Eucalyptus trees along
the perimeter of the project site. The applicant has been working with the Fire Department to comply with the
Vegetation Management regulations by removing dead brush, fallen and dead trees on the project site. No
preliminary landscape plan has been proposed at this time.
Utilities
The project would extend water, sewer and power lines to the new residential building pad utilizing a mutual
driveway access ytility easement running beneath the existing driveway. The project would not install any
improveents, nor require any work within or across the creek or in the creekbank.
Planning Applications
Lot Line Adjustment (LLA16-001)
The project proposes a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) at the northwestern corner of the subject parcel APN #015-
091-03 to transfer 1,200 square feet to the adjacent parcel at 31 Gold Hill Grade (015-091-04). The LLA is
proposed in order to reduce the overall slope on the subject parcel (APN 015-091-03) from 30.46% slope to a
29.95% slope. The applicant has indicated that the location of the new parcel lot lines were determined by the
need to adhere to natural state standards for each lot, average lot width and to accommodate the location of
existing homes on the 3.19 acre site. The resulting lot size would be 3.162 acres for the subject lot at 51 Gold Hill
Grade.
Tentative Map (TS16-001)
The project proposes to subdivide the adjusted 3.162 acre parcel into 3 lots:
Lot 1: 43,800 square feet
Lot2: 46,796 square feet
Lot 3: 47,297 square feet
Lot 1 and Lot 2 would each retain the existing single family homes already on the parcel. Lot 3 is proposed to be
developed with a new 4,500 square foot single family home. Access to all three lots would be via a mutual
private driveway, which would also serve as a utility easement. San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 15.03 and
Chapter 15.07 require Planning Commission review and approval of a Minor Parcel Map for a Hillside
Subdivision. This includes review for compliance with the hillside subdivision lot standards and the Hillside
Design Guidelines Manual.
Environmental Design Review (ED16-016)
Hillside subdivisions (i.e., properties with slopes over 25%, or General Plan Land Use Designation of Hillside
Residential) require an Environmental and Design Review Permit approval pursuant to San Rafael Municipal
Code (SRMC) Section 14.25.040.3 (a) and SRMC Section 15.07.020 (d) (Standards for Hillside Subdivisions).
In addition, pursuant to SRMC section 14.25.040.b.1.a, design review is required for new residential development
over 500 square feet on hillside lots. The Environmental and Design Review Permit requires review by the
Design Review Board. The proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at a public hearing on
April 19, 2016. The Board recommended conditional approval of the proposed project, subject to providing a
preliminary landscape plan for the proposed Lot 3 and upgrading carports that were being proposed for Lot 1 and
Lot 2. The proposed project plans are discussed further in this report.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
[E.G., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement.]
None
Environmental Checklist Form 11 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
EXHIBITS
Project Vicinity Map – 51 Gold Hill Grade
Environmental Checklist Form 12 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Project Parcel Map/Site Plan – 51 Gold Hill Grade
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 14 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Evaluation of the Project environmental impacts is prepared as follows:
A brief explanation is provided for all answers except for “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question below. Answers take into account the
whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative, project-level, direct and indirect, construction and
operational impacts. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported by referenced information sources that show
the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone; the project involves a minor zoning text amendments that would not lead to or allow new construction,
grading or other physical alterations to the environment). A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on
project-specific factor as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).
A “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate where there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. A final determination of one or more Potentially Significant Impacts shall require preparation of an
EIR.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project if it results in a less
than significant impact determination based on the analysis, discussion, source reference materials and/or
mitigation measures identified herein (to minimize impacts or reduce impacts from a “Potentially Significant”
level). Any mitigation measures shall be described and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation measures or discussion from earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR or
other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental document. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, the Initial Study below includes a brief discussion of the earlier analysis used,
impacts that were previously addressed, and mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined. Supporting
information sources are attached and cited in the discussion below.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Discussion:
A scenic vista is generally characterized as a panoramic view of attractive or impressive scenery. The scenic
quality, sensitivity level and view access are important considerations when evaluating potential impacts on a
scenic vista. For the purposes of CEQA review, and the City General Plan 2020 policies, impacts to public views
are considered important protected resources. The following General Plan policy identifies important public
views in the City:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 15 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Community Design Policy CD-5 (Views). Respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of
the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphaels church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt.
Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible
pathways. Protect the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay by controlling development within the
hillsides areas, providing setbacks from the Bay, and providing public access along the Bay edge.
Community Design Policy CD-6 (Hillsides and Bay). Protect the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay
by controlling development within the hillsides areas, providing setbacks from the Bay, and providing
public access along the Bay edge.
The project site is located adjacent to a popular public access trail (Gold Hill Fire Road). The existing two homes
on the project site would not change. However, the project would construct a new home on the newly created Lot
3, which is located closest to the public access trail, on the northeast side of the project site. The perimeter of the
site is heavily vegetated, providing existing screening between the project site and the public trail. Future
development on Lot 3 would be subject to design review permit review, and also require submittal of a
preliminary landscape plan as part of the development review process. Further, the Community Design Map
(Exhibit 17) in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 does not identify the project area as a “scenic vista.” Impacts
from development of a new hillside lot meeting the City’s requirements for hillside subdivision, as enforced
through application of Chapter 15.07 of the Subdivision Ordinace, and the Hillside Design Guidelines Manual
would result in less-than-significant impacts.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Discussion:
The project site is not visible from a state scenic highway. Based on maps from the California Department of
Transportation, there are no officially designated state scenic highways currently in Marin County. The project
site is developed with two single family homes on the 3.19 acre site, and there are no historic buildings or rock
outcroppings within the project area. The project site is accessed via a driveway spur off Gold Hill Grade, a San
Rafael city street. As noted in item a above, potential impacts to the hillside character of the site would be less-
than-significant through the application of City zoning and design standards.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 16 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
The project site is currently developed with two single family homes on a 3.19 acre lot, with an existing slope of
30.46%. The proposed 3-lot subdivision would create three new lots, one for each of the existing dwellings and a
vacant lot. Proposed slopes would be : Lot 1 = 34.68%, Lot 2 = 28.68%, and Lot 3 = 28.88%). A new two-story
single family home would be constructed on the newly created Lot 3, including covered parking for 2 cars and
two uncovered guest spaces. The new home would be subject to the Hillside Design Guidelines and Hillside
Overlay District regulations which includes regulations requiring a maximum natural state (51.88% of Lot 3 to
remain undeveloped/undisturbed) as well as a maximum gross building square footage (6,500 square feet). In
addition, the project would be subject to the property development standards for the R1-a zoning district, with
respect to lot coverage, and property line setbacks (20’ front, 15’ side and 25’ rear setbacks required). The project
shows that it would be capable of meeting all required setbacks and –H district standards. The plans show that the
lot could readily accomodate a new home on Lot 3 with a gross building square footage of 4,500 sf. The achieved
natural state would be 74%, well above the minimum required. Further, the project would be subject to the
hillside guidelines tree replacement requirement, which requires a 3:1 ratio for any “significant” trees removed.
While the project meets all the required development standards, the project would introduce a new structure in an
area that has previously been vacant. However, as stated above and reflected in items I.a and I.b, the parcel is
developed with 2 existing single family homes, and the proposed new structure would be in keeping with the
hillside standards, as well as the design and scale that currently exists in the greater residential neighborhood area.
Additionally, the site would retain significant screening from existing perimeter trees that would remain. As such,
the impact of the project will be less than significant.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
There are other single family homes in the area, on the project site and along Gold Hill Grade. As such, the
addition of one more single family home to the area would not represent a substantial addition of light to the area
in the day or night. Residential lighting in an residential neighborhood would not result in substantial light or
glare, nor affect day or nighttime views in the area. Such lighting is typically sparse, very low footcandle (Fc)
intensity and low wattage. The project does not include any large outdoor lighted facilities such as a tennis court
or other similar recreation use. The City does not have a “dark skies” Ordinance, however, pursuant to SRMC
Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare) and Chapter 14.25, exterior lighting would be required to undergo planning
review in order to evaluate and minimize potential negative impacts from new lighting on a project site. Exterior
lighting would be considered by the Design Review Board (DRB) and all exterior lighting is be required to be
shielded downward and away from adjacent properties, as well as to conceal light sources from view to reduce
potential for glare impacts. Based on this discussion, no impact in this category would result.
(Sources: 2, 3, 4)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project: {In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 17 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland.} In determining whether impacts
to a forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource
Board.
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion:
The Project site is designated by the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 for residential use and is zoned R1a-H.
Zoning of the Project site would not change as a result of the proposed project. The site is not prime farmland and
is classified as Non-Williamson Act, Urban and Built-Up land by the California Department of Conservation.
Therefore, the Project would result in no impact in this respect.
(Sources: 1, 2, 7)
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Discussion:
See discussion in II.a. above.
(Sources:1, 2, 7, 8)
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511104(g))
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 18 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Discussion:
The project site is not zoned as forest land and is not a site with timber resources as defined by the California
Public Resources Code.
(Sources:1, 2, 7, 8, 9)
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion:
See discussion in II.c. above.
(Sources: 1, 2, 7, 8, 9)
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion:
See discussion in II.c. above.
(Sources:1, 2, 4, 9)
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Discussion:
In 2011, the City of San Rafael adopted a new Sustainability Element for General Plan 2020 that supports its
Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP includes goals to achieve Greenhouse Gas (GHG) level
reduction by 2025 and 2050 that exceed the State’s goals under AB 32. The City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance
identifies the project site as single family residential, and the three lot subdivision complies with the minium lot
size requirement and hillside subdivision ordinance regulations for slope. The proposed Project would not
directly result in any significant population growth. Consequently, the proposed Project would not exceed the
level of population or housing foreseen in City or regional planning efforts and it would not have the potential to
substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan projections. Because the proposed development project would be consistent with
the General Plan land use designation, no analysis of GHG emissions is required under the provisions of the
CCAP, provided that the project is consistent with the City’s “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance
Checklist”, which lists all the individual City Ordinances that help implement the City’s Sustainability Element
goals. In June 2016, the applicant submitted responses to the Checklist that indicate the project would comply
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 19 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
with all the Checklist required elements that are applicable to the project (e.g., Green Building Ordinance, Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Wood-Burning Appliance Ordinance, Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Ordinance). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the San Rafael CCAP and potential
impacts to air quality would be a less-than-significant impact. SEE ALSO SECTION VII BELOW.
(Sources: 1, 10, 11)
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Discussion:
See discussion III.a. above.
(Sources 1, 10,11)
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non – attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Discussion:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for California
and National ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for ozone (O3) and for PM2.5, and a nonattainment area under
the California AAQS for PM10. Any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the BAAQMD
significance levels, used as the threshold for determining major projects, does not add significantly to a
cumulative impact.
The proposed Project, a three lot subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment would have no impact on air quality at this
time, as no construction is proposed. In the event that the existing driveway is improved and utility lines are
constructed in advance of the proposed future development for Lot 3, construction related impacts would be less
than significant and further reduced through incorporation of standard conditions and regulations for control of
fugitive dust and construction-related off-site community risk and hazards. Consequently, the proposed Project’s
overall contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less-than-significant.
(Sources: 11, 12)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 20 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
The proposed project would create three new lots, with no changes to the two existing single-family homes or
private driveway used to access the site. Future construction of a new single-family home would generate up to 2
new AM and 2 new PM peak hour trips, which is a minimal increase in vehicle trips in the project area.
Regardless, there are no facilities near the project site that would be occupied by sensitive receptor populations.
Sensitive receptors are defined as youths under 18, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments..
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District initiated the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program in
2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor toxic air contaminants (TACs) in
the Bay Area. Through its emissions modeling of criteria pollutants from stationary and mobile sources as well as
geographic analysis of sensitive populations, the District identified areas that have disproportionally higher
emissions and concentrations of TACs within the Bay Area. The CARE program identified six impacted
communities in the Bay Area including Concord, eastern San Francisco, western Alameda County, Redwood
City/East Palo Alto, Richmond/San Pablo, and San Jose.
The project site is in a residential area, and not near a freeway or industrial area. As such, the site would not be
identified as an impacted community. Further, potential impacts to project residents from exposure to outdoor
toxic air contaminants would be reduced through project design compliance with the City Building Code and
Green Building Ordinance. The project would result in no impact in this category.
(Sources: 3, 12)
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion:
The proposed residential use, consistent with surrounding uses in the R1a-H Single Family Hillside Overlay
Zoning District would not create objectionable odors. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 4)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion:
A biological assessment was prepared and submitted by WRA Environmental Consultants on August 18, 2015.
The WRA report describes the results of a site visit and assesses: 1) presence of special-status species; 2) potential
to support special status species; and 3) the presence of other biological resources protected by local, state, and
federal laws and regulations. The WRA report also evaluates the project’s potential impact on species and
resources identified. The project is an urban infill development that would subdivide an existing 3.19 acre lot
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 21 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
with two existing residential structures into 3 lots. Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 would each retain one existing single
family home. No expansion to the existing homes is proposed. The proposed Lot 3 is located in the eastern
portion of the project area and is currently vacant. A small outbuilding was demolished on the site, prior to
project submittal. The project is proposing to construct a new single family home on Lot 3, but is not seeking a
design review permit entitlement for the home at this time. Development would be initiated in the future by the
new owner. The plans submitted show a preliminary location for the new home on Lot 3, and it is located well
outside the 25 foot creek setback for the bank of Sister’s Creek, per San Rafael Municipal Code Section
14.16.080.A.
Special-Staus Plant Species
The WRA Report identified twenty-two Special-Status Plant species within 5 miles of the Project site. However,
these 22 species were determined to be not present or unlikely to occur in the Project area due to a lack of one or
more of the following: 1) hydrologic conditions (e.g. vernal pools or salt marsh) to support the species; 2) soil
conditions necessary to support the species; and 3) associated vegetation communities (e.g., chaparral, coastal
scrub) necessary to support the species. Further, the previously disturbed conditons, prevalence of non-native
invasive species and adjacent development further reduce the likelihood that special-status plant species are
present.
Special Status Wildlife Species
The WRA Report identified 15 Special-Status Wildlife species known to occur within 5-miles of the Project
Area. A total of 14 species were determined to have no potential to occur within the Project Area, due to the
absence of required habitat elements such as water, host plants, or vegetative communities. Further, even in areas
with some suitable habitat present, the high disturbance levels, and long distance from known ranges with
documented occurences also factor into reducing the potential for these species to occur.
However, one special status species, the Pallid Bat, was determined to have a moderate potential to occur within
the Project Area. The report indicated that outbuildings provide suitable roosting habitat for this species, and
pallid bats forage for insects over the ephemeral creek, drainage way, and vegetated portions of the Project Area.
Based on data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the neareast documented occurrence of this
species is within 1-mile of the Project Area.
Breeding Birds
The WRA Report noted that the Project Area provides only limited wildlife habitat, but that it does include trees,
shrubs and out buildings that could be used as nesting habitat by many bird species protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).
The WRA Report concluded that the construction of the project will not result in impacts to special-status plants
and wildlife species or any sensitive habitats. However, given the hillside nature of the site, mitigation measures
are recommended as standard practice to address potential impacts to protected migratory birds and potential for
Pallid Bats to be on the site or in the area.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources 1:
In order to avoid potential impacts on the Pallid Bats, any out buildings within Lot 3 should be demolished
between September 1 and October 15, which is outside bat maternity roosting season.
Biological Resources 2:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 22 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Breeding Season: March 1 through August 1. If ground disturbance or removal of vegetation occurs between
March 1 and July 31, pre-construction surveys will be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days
prior to commencement of such activities to determine the presence and location of nesting bird species. If active
nests are present, establishment of temporary protection breeding season buffers will avoid direct mortality of
these birds, nests or young. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the species, surrounding vegetation,
and topography and should be determined by a qualified biologist as appropriate to prevent nest abandonment and
direct mortality during construction.
Non-Breeding Season: August 1 through February 28: Ground disturbance and removal of vegetation within the
Study Area does not require pre-construction surveys if performed between August 1 and February 28.
(Sources: 3, 4, 13)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion:
No riparian habitat identified in Study Area. See discussion IV.a. above.
(Sources: 3, 4, 13)
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Discussion:
No wetlands identified in the Study Area. See discussion IV.a. above.
(Sources: 3, 4, 13)
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 23 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Discussion:
No migratory fish species identified in the Study Area. See discussion IV.a above.
(Sources: 3, 4, 13)
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Discussion:
The project plans identify a 42” Oak, 12” Sycamore and 9 Eucalyptus trees in the area along the north and east
property line. There are also 8 bay trees identified along the south property line and in the northeast corner of the
property. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project scope. Future development on Lot 3 would
be subject to review and approval of a Design Review Permit. As part of this review, a preliminary landscape
plan would be required. Future development, as well as any trees removed to comply with the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI) would be subject to Hillside Design Guidelines requiring a 3:1 tree replacement ratio for
“significant trees” as defined in the City of San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines.
(3, 4, 5, 14)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion:
The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan. No such plans have been adopted encompassing the
project vicinity, and no impacts are anticipated.
(Sources: 1)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 24 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
The project site is developed with 2 existing single family homes. These homes are not identified on the 1986
San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey, and are not considered to have historical significance per CEQA
guidelines. In any event, no changes to these structures are proposed as part of the proposed 3-lot subdivision.
As such, no impact to a historic resource is expected.
(Sources: 3, 4, 15)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Discussion:
According to both the City of San Rafael’s adopted Archaeological Sensitivity Map and “PastFinder”, a citywide
database of parcel-specific archaeological sensitivity reports for development proposals that involve excavation or
grading, the project site has a sensitivity rating of “low”. An archaeological evaluation of the parcel has produced
no indications of an archaeological site within the parcel, and no further archaeological evaluation was
recommended.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City has sent a letter to the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria on May 3, 2016, formally notifying them of the proposed project and requesting comments. The City
received no response to this letter within the 30 day period specified. Further, the City has yet to receive
comments on the proposed project, as of the publication of this CEQA document. However, the proposed Project
would have the potential to impact unknown archaeological resources on the portion of the site (Lot 3) that is
proposed for development of a single family home because grading activities associated with the construction
level may result in the discovery of unknown cultural resources that are buried beneath the ground surface.
Based upon this preliminary cultural resource investigation, and the fact that the site has been developed in the
past, the associated ground disturbing activities are likely to have already disturbed or resulted in the discovery of
any archeological resources that may exist on the site. As such, the chance of unknown archaeological resources
being uncovered during excavation, grading or construction is remote. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the
following mitigation measure, which is standard procedure for archaeological resources that are uncovered during
construction, be implemented to ensure that disturbance of unknown cultural resources during project excavation,
grading and construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Recommended Mitigation Measure
Cultural Resources- 1:
If, during grading or construction activities, any archaeological artifacts or human remains are encountered, the
following measures shall be implemented:
Construction shall cease immediately within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria, and Planning staff. Planning staff and the
qualified archaeologist shall promptly visit the site. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct independent
evaluation of the “find” to determine the extent and significance of the resource, and to develop a course
of action to be adopted that is acceptable to all concerned parties. If mitigation is required, the first
priority shall be avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible, an alternative
archaeological management plan shall be prepared that may include excavation. If human remains are
unearthed, the Marin County Medical Examiner’s office also shall be notified. All archaeological
excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 25 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
standards, as outlined in Appendix K of the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of
Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation
program.
(Sources: 3, 4, 16, 17, 18)
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Discussion:
See discussion V.b above.
(Sources: 3, 4, 16, 17, 18)
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
See discussion V.b above.
(Sources: 3, 4, 16, 17, 18)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
Discussion:
A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared and submitted by John C. Hom & Associates (JCH) on February 9,
2015. Based on information in the 4 test borings done as part of the JCH report, the project site consists of
primarily colluvial soils over sheared shale bedrock of the Franciscan Formation. The project site is located
within a seismically active region, and will therefore experience the effects of future earthquakes anticipated to
occur in the region. There are no active faults within the project area. Active earthquake fault zones within close
proximity include the Hayward fault, located about 9 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault, located
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 26 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
about 9 miles to the southwest of the project site. In the event of a major earthquake in the Bay Area, the site may
be susceptible to seismic shaking and related ground failure. As such, the JCH report recommended that the
proposed structure on Lot 3 should be designed in accordance with current standards for earthquake resistance
construction. Specifically, the report specifies that the minimum requirement is that the latest edition of the
California Building Code be followed. This is a standard requirement that applies to all new construction projects
in the City. The Geotechnical report concluded that surface rupture (surface faulting) is highly unlikely at this site
since: 1) no active faults are known to cross the project site; 2) the project site is not located within the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Maps; and 3) no evidence of active fault traces or creep zones were observed.
Regardless, the following mitigation measures are recommended, which apply to the project as a standard
requirement of the Building Division:
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Geology and Soils 1: Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall incorporate the recommendations of the JCH
Geotechnical Investigation into the Project to address seismic design, site preparation and grading, and foundation
design. The geotechnical report recommended drilled reinforced concrete piers (connected with grade beams or at
least 18-inches in diameter, extending at least 15 feet deep and 8 feet into bedrock, whichever is greater.
(Sources: 20)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion:
See discussion V1.ai above.
(Sources: 20)
iii) Seismic related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Discussion:
Based on the JCH Geotechnical Investigation, ground failure (such as landslides, differential settlement,
liquefaction, lurch cracking and lateral spreading that is seismically induced) are related to groundwater, soil and
bedrock conditions. The report concluded that the potential for these failures are considered negligible.
(Sources: 20, 21, 22)
iv) Landslides?
Discussion:
See discussion VI.iii above.
(Sources: 20, 21, 22)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 27 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
of topsoil?
Discussion:
The proposed 3-lot subdivision would not, in itself, change the existing soil conditions on the site. However,
future development on Lot 3 would involve minimal grading for new utilities, driveway extension, and the
proposed single family home/driveway and two-car garage. The remaining site would be required to have
appropriate landscaping (as reviewed by City staff and Marin Municipal Water District). As proposed, the future
Lot 3 will include a bio-retention area, and the existing driveway would also be improved to include upgraded site
drainage. As such, additional surface water runoff generated from existing and future development will be
adequately controlled and directed into the City storm drainage system. Erosion control measures during and after
construction that conform to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards are also required as a standard
condition of approval. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 27)
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion:
As discussed in the project JCH Geotechnical Investigation, site soils consist of primarily colluvial soils over
sheared shale bedrock of the Franciscan Formation for about the first 4 feet of test bore. No free groundwater was
encountered, (up to 6 foot depth tested) but the report indicated that the groundwater table probably varies with
seasonal rainfall. The JCH report recommended drilled reinforced concrete piers connected with grade beams or
at least 18-inches in diameter, extending at least 15 feet deep and 8 feet into bedrock, whichever is greater. The
report also addressed the need for grading protocols and retaining wall design and drainage. Incorporation of
standard requirements as noted in V1.a detailed above and mitigation measure belowwould result in less-than-
significant impacts.
Recommended Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils 2: Prior to approval of the Project, the City shall incorporate the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation into the Project to address seismic design, site preparation and grading, and foundation
design.
(Source: 20, 21)
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 28 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
The JCH Group Geotechnical Investigation did not identify expansive soils as part of their investigation of the
project site and indicated that with proper design, the potential for structural damage due to expansive soils is low.
There would be no impact.
(Source: 20, 22)
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Discussion:
The Project would be serviced by the existing sanitary sewer system and the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems would not be necessary. Therefore, construction of the proposed project
development would result in no impact.
(Sources: 3, 22, 25)
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Discussion:
As discussed in Section III above, in 2011, the City of San Rafael adopted a new Sustainability Element for
General Plan 2020 that supports its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP includes goals to achieve
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) level reduction by 2025 and 2050 that exceed the State’s goals under AB 32. Because the
proposed development project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, no analysis of
GHG emissions is required under the provisions of the CCAP, provided the project is consistent with the City’s
“Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist”, which lists all the individual City Ordinances that
help implement the City’s Sustainability Element goals.
In July 2016, the applicant submitted responses to the Checklist that indicated that none of the required checklist
items (e.g., Green Building Ordinance, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Wood-Burning Appliance
Ordinance, Commercial/Multi-Family Recycling Regulations, Bicycle Parking Regulations and Affordable
Housing Ordinance), would apply to the proposed project, as the 3-lot subdivision will not cause any immediate
changes to the site. However, future improvements to the site would require new utility lines, extension to the
existing private driveway (including retaining walls) as part of the tentative map entitlement. These
developments would be subject to design review, and reviewed for compliance with the following required
elements (Green Building Ordinance, Water Efficient Landscaping, and Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Ordinance) and would be required to meet these requirements prior to issuance of construction permits.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 29 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the San Rafael CCAP and GHG emissions would be less-than-
significant through compliance with the implementing Ordinances.
(Source: 1, 10, 11)
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion:
See discussion VII.a above.
(Sources: 1, 10, 11)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion:
The proposed project to subdivide the 3.19 acre parcel into 3 lots and in the future, develop Lot 3 with a new
single family home would not involve routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and would not
create a significant hazard to the public. The project plans have been reviewed by City Departments, including
Public Works and Fire. Construction activities on the site would not involve materials hazardous to the public.
Project construction would be subject to inspection by the City. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 4)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Discussion:
See discussion VIII.a above.
(Sources: 3, 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 30 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion:
The project site is not located within a quarter mile of a school or university. Also, see discussion VIII.a above.
(Sources: 3, 4)
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion:
The project site is located in a residential area in the City of San Rafael and is not included on a list of hazardous
material sites. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 23)
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
Discussion:
The project site is located in a residential area and is not within two miles of a public airport nor located within an
airport land use plan. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 1, 3)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Discussion:
See discussion VIII.e above.
(Sources: 1,3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 31 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Discussion:
The proposed project is a 3-lot subdivision on a parcel already developed with two single family homes, and
would be consistent with the General Plan 2020 and Zoning Ordinance in terms of the type of land use allowed.
The project has been reviewed by City Departments, including Building, Public Works, and Fire and responsible
agencies. No concerns have been raised about the City’s ability to provide services the project site nor that it
would interfere with and adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
The project site is identified as being located within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone and is subject to all
regulation pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 4.12 “WUI – Vegetation Management Standards”
(Ordinance 1856), as adopted by City Council, July 16, 2007. The City’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Map
indicates the project site would be in a potential wildland high fire zone. As such, property owners are required to
establish a vegetation buffer or 100 feet of “defensible space around the residence, in which all flammable
vegetation is cleared and maintained.
The existing project site has very few mature trees except along the property perimeter, and the proposed new
home on the newly created Lot 3 is not being constructed as part of the Tentative Map entitlement. However, a
vegetation management plan map was submitted and approved by the City’s Fire Department. Further, a
preliminary landscape plan will be required as part of the future development on Lot 3, and the City Fire
Department will review the project plans for compliance with Chapter 4.12 regulations.
The San Rafael Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed the proposed development plan and agreed to the applicant’s
proposed “Alternatives Means and Methods” for Fire Protection as follows:
1. Sprinkler the building attic area.
2. Use non-combustible siding such as stucco, Hardie Siding, Shingles, brick or other non-combustible products.
3. Use non-combustible roofing material such as metal, slate, tile or other non-combustible products. Eaves and
roof joist overhang areas will likewise be clad with non-combustible material.
4. Establish a vegetation management plan within the boundaries of the property, thereby providing all lands
within the property boundaries as “Defensible Space”.
Potential impacts would be less than significant because the future new residence must be built to comply with
more rigorous construction standards intended to reduce threats from fires.
(Sources: 3, 14, 24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 32 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Discussion:
The proposed project is an urban infill development that would subdivide the existing 3.19 acre parcel, retaining
the existing structures consisting of two single family residences (on the newly created Lot 1 and Lot 2) and also
construct a new single family home on Lot 3. The current structures are connected to the City’s existing sewer
system. The new single family home is not proposed to be built as part of this subdivision entitlement. However,
the Tentative map application plan included a proposed location for a new 4” sewer lateral located beneath the
existing private driveway. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) has accepted the preliminary design for the
proposed sewer line, which would be reviewed again as part of a future design review permit submittal required
for the proposed single family home on Lot 3. Thus, the project, as proposed would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 25)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
Discussion:
The project site is a 3.19 acre site located adjacent to existing residential uses and the Gold Hill Grade Open
Space area. The current and proposed uses would receive water service from Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD). MMWD has reviewed the project plans and provided their comments in a letter to the City with the
finding that the proposed 3 lot subdivision and future new residential home on Lot 3 would not impair the
District’s ability to continue service to this property. However, the proposed new home on Lot 3 will require a
pipeline extension from MMWD’s existing facility. Specifics of the pipeline design will be reviewed by MMWD
as part of the building permit application submittal process. A Hydrology Report submitted by Oberkamper &
Associates on July 30, 2014 indentified no active wells on the project site. In addition, no weels were identified
in the JCH Geotechnical Investigation. The proposed project would have no impact upon groundwater recharge
given the fact that a majority of the site is developed, and there would be minimal grading for the proposed new
home.
(Sources: 3, 20, 28, 29)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 33 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Discussion:
There is a natural drainage way along the northern portion of the project site, and it runs east to west. The
proposed new residential development on Lot 3 would be located at least 50 feet from the drainage way and
therefore would not impact the existing drainage way. The Hydrology Report by Oberkamper & Associates
indicated that the proposed improvements would increase runoff from the watershed by 0.63%, which the report
determined to be insignificant given the volume of water running through the property. The report also indicated
that the “depth of increase” of water surface elevation would be only one sixteenth (1/16th ) of an inch due to
drainage improvements that would be incorporated into the site development design. The proposed project would
include a bio-retention pond on Lot 3 and also a bio-retention pond on the southwest corner of the property near
the driveway entrance. As such, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the vicinity.
The southern portion of the project site is located within the boundaries of Sister’s Creek, an ephemeral USGS
blue-line stream. The stream crosses the very southern portion of the project area from east to west. All existing
structures are located outside the 25’ creek setback as required per San Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.080.A. A
small portion of the existing access driveway is located within the 25’ creek setback. Access to the proposed Lot
3 is proposed via the existing shared driveway access and would not introduce any new encroachment into the 25’
creek setback. The proposed location of the new sewer lateral beneath the existing driveway was designed so as
to avoid directional drilling under the creekbed. The directional drilling would have been necessary if the sewer
was designed to connect to the existing sewer line in the Gold Hill Grade roadway across the creek to the south.
Designing the proposed project with the new sewer lateral in the existing driveway would have a less-than-
significant impact.
(Sources: 2, 3, 29)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off- site?
Discussion:
As discussed in the IX.c. above, redevelopment of the urbanized project site would not alter existing drainage
patterns. It is required by Marin County and the City of San Rafael that the proposed development not increase
the discharged storm drain peak flow and volume. Urban services to the proposed development on Lot 3 would be
upgraded to accommodate the increased demand for service. The Hydrology Report by Oberkamper &
Associates indicated that the proposed improvements would increase runoff from the watershed by 0.63%, which
was determined to be insignificant given the volume of water running through the property. As such, the
proposed improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the vicinity.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 34 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Any future development proposed would require an updated hydrology report and drainage analysis to confirm
that the proposed project design would be sufficient to handle storm runoff from the building roof during a 100-
year storm event. Therefore, there would be no increased risk of flooding on or off-site.
(Sources: 2, 3, 29)
e. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Discussion:
See discussion IX.d above.
(Sources: 3, 29)
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Discussion:
See discussion IX.d above.
(Sources: 3, 29)
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Discussion:
As indicated in General Plan 2020 Exhibit 29, Flood Hazard Areas, the project site is located outside the area of
the 100-year flood on the 2016 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The proposed future development of a single
family home on Lot 3 would include drainage improvements sufficient to handle project runoff in a 100-year
storm event, as discussed in IX.d. above. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 1, 3, 31)
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Discussion:
See discussion IX.g above.
(Sources: 1, 3, 31)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 35 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Discussion:
The project site is not susceptible to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam as no such structures are
located within the vicinity of San Rafael. This is a relatively gently sloping sight with existing urban storm
drainage facilities in place within adjacent streets. Drainage facilities for the site will be upgraded as part of the
development plan to manage runoff from a 100-year storm event, as discussed above in IX.d. There would be no
impact.
(Sources: 3, 31)
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion:
There would be no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow at the project site, which is located well
inland from San Francisco Bay. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 4)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion:
The project site has a General Plan 2020 Land Use Designation of Hillside Residential, and has a zoning
classification of Single Family Residential (HR1a-H) Hillside Overlay. The current site is developed with 2
single family homes. The proposed development would create 3 new lots, with each existing single family home
its own parcel and a single family home proposed for future development on Lot 3. The project would involve
redevelopment of the site with a new residential structure, which would not physically divide an established
residential community. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 2, 3, 4)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 36 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion:
As discussed above in X.a., the proposed 3-lot subdivision and future residential development would be consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning designations. The preliminary review of the proposed new
single-family home indicates that is designed to be consistent with other development standards regulating
building height, setbacks, parking, and hillside regulations.
As discussed above in Section VII. the proposed project would also be consistent with policies in the General Plan
2020 Sustainability Element and Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which seek to limit GHG emissions and
implement regional air quality goals. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There would be
no impact.
(Sources:1, 3, 10)
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Discussion:
The project site is not located in an area with an adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans for this area. There would no impact.
(Sources: 1)
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Discussion:
There are no known mineral resources on the project site, which is in an area designated for residential land use
and hillside preservation. The nearest quarry, San Rafael Rock Quarry, is located to the South on Point San Pedro
Road. No impacts would result.
(Sources: 1, 4)
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 37 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
See discussion XI.a above. No impact would result.
(Sources: 1)
XII. NOISE
Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Discussion:
The site is in a residential setting, not located near a freeway or major arterial or any significant or potential noise
sources. No impacts would result.
(Sources: 3, 4)
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
Discussion:
See discussion XII.a above. Further, the project construction does not require pile driving which would otherwise
generate excessive noise or ground vibration. No Impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 4)
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Discussion:
Future development of a new single-family residence on Lot 3 would not result in a significant new noise source,
and is consistent with the adjacent residential uses in the area. No impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 4, 30)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 38 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Discussion:
See discussion XII.b above. No unusual noise impacts would result from temporary construction activities
associated with construction of a single family residence on Lot 3. Further, the City Noise Ordinance as stipulated
in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, establishes limits on construction activities to assure such work
would not occur during periods when noise sensitivity is greatest (i.e., prohibiting work on holidays, Sundays, and
during nighttime hours). No impact would result.
(Sources: 1, 30)
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
The project is not located in an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, no
impact in this category would result.
(Sources: 1, 3)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
The project site is not located near the San Rafael Airport which lies to the north, and is separated by significant
topography including China Camp and Barbier Park hillside open space area. No impact would result.
(Sources: 1, 3)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 39 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
roads or other infrastructure)?
Discussion:
The project is in an area designated for residential development at the proposed densities. Construction of one
new residence would not have any impacts in this category.
(Sources: 1, 2)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
The project does not remove housing. No Impact would result.
(Sources: 3)
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
See discussion XIII.b above. No impact.
(Sources: 1, 3)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a. Fire protection?
Discussion:
The proposed project is a 3-lot subdivision of 3.19 acres and would not be of a scale to require new or physically
altered government facilities nor would it impact the quality of service, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services. The two existing homes are already served by public services and the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 40 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
new home (proposed square footage 4,500 square feet on a lot size of 47,297 square feet) would not significantly
increase the demand for services. Upgrades to the existing driveway access and new bio-retention ponds will
improve the existing site conditions. No impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 24)
b. Police protection?
Discussion:
The proposed creation of one new single family home is not anticipated to have an impact on Police Services,
which are already serving existing properties in the project vicinity. Development of the vacant area would also
help deter use of the site as a homeless encampment, which is a prevalent concern in the City and its open space
areas and vacant hillside lots.
(Sources: 3, 4)
c. Schools?
Discussion:
The project site is located in an area served by the San Rafael Unified School District. School district needs and
capacities have been planned considering the General Plan 2020 land use density for the area. The new single
family home may cause a small increase in student enrollment in local schools, but there is no indication that it
would exceed the capacity of the City’s school districts.
New development is required to pay school impact fees based on the amount of new habitable floor area. The
school fees for residential construction are currently computed at $3.36 per square foot of residential
development. These fees are charged during the building permit application process and collected by the San
Rafael City Schools. Fees are paid directly to the district. Based on this discussion, no impact would result.
(Sources: 1)
d. Parks?
Discussion:
The proposed 3-lot subdivision involves the possible addition of one new single family residential unit to the
housing market. The City has adequate parks to serve its current and future population anticipated under General
Plan 2020. One new residence would have no material impact on park facilities. Additional funding for parkland
is also required for subdivision development. The project applicant would be required to pay Parkland Dedication
Fees at the time of Final Map recordation, which would fund acquisition, expansion and improvement of needed
park facilities. Pursuant to the formula in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 15.09, the proposed project would
be required to pay a Parkland Dedication Fee of $5,903.93. With the collection of the Parkland Dedication Fee to
fund needed parkland improvements, the impacts from the proposed project would be less-tha- significant. With
the collection of the Parkland Dedication Fee to fund needed parkland improvements, the impacts from the
proposed project would be less-than-significant.
(Sources: 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 41 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
e. Other public facilities?
There are no public facilities near the project site, which is located in a residential area. The proposed 3-lot
subdivision and creation of one new single family home would not cause adverse impacts on existing public
facilities in San Rafael, which are primarily funded through property tax revenues and user fees. There would be
no impact.
In addition, the southeastern portion of the property abuts the Gold Hill Grade Fire Road and the applicant has
agreed to provide an access easement to the City of San Rafael in this area in order to ensure access for
maintenance. The applicant will record an easement as a condition of the project approval and at time of
recordation of the Final Parcel Map.
(Sources: 3)
XV. RECREATION
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Discussion:
See discussion in XIV.d above. Given the size of the development (3-lot subdivision with 2 existing homes and
one new single family home proposed), it is not anticipated that the project would significantly increase the use
of existing parks in the area. Therefore a less than significant impact would result.
(Sources: 1, 3)
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion:
The project does not propose recreational facilities on site, nor would the project necessitate the need for
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore no impact would occur.
(Sources: 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 42 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant component of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?
Discussion:
The proposed project consist of a 3-lot subdivision, creating two lots with existing single family homes and a new
single family home proposed for the newly created Lot 3. The existing lot is access by a private driveway off
Gold Hill Grade. The driveway terminates just a few feet east of the existing home. The driveway is proposed to
be extended to the new home on Lot 3. The project proposes to widen the north side of the existing driveway to
create a 20’ wide driveway, extending the driveway approximately 200 feet to provide access the proposed home
on Lot 3. Existing surface roads are adequate to serve the existing site and the one new lot. The project would not
require any public street improvements. No impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 4)
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Discussion:
See discussion under item XVI.a above. The project is not a significant source of new traffic and is not accessed
directly from a regional roadway. The proposed new home would add 2 AM and 2 PM trips, and the City Traffic
Engineer calculated a required traffic mitigation fee of $4,246. No impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 4, 32)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 43 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Discussion:
The residential project has no impact on air traffic.
(Sources: 3, 4)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion:
The existing surface streets accessing the site are capable of supporting the slight increase in residential traffic and
construction traffic to and from the site. The driveway to the new lot would be designed to comply with minimum
access standards for emergency vehicles. No off-site improvements are required. Therefore, no impacts would
result.
(Sources: 3, 4, 27)
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion:
As noted in item XVI.d above, the project proposes to extend and improve the existing driveway and provide a
fire truck turnaround area at Lot 3. Therefore, the project would not have any emergency access impacts.
(Sources: 3, 24)
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion:
The one lot residential development project does not affect any transportation plans adopted by the City and
would have no impact.
(Sources: 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 44 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Discussion:
The project site is within the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD), which provides sanitary sewer service to the
central San Rafael area. Wastewater is transmitted to the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) treatment
facility, located at 1301 Anderson Drive. The San Rafael Sanitation District has reviewed the project, provided
comments and will require that the development project pay sewer connection fees prior to issuance of a Building
Permit. The project would not conflict with the existing capacity of wastewater delivery to CMSA or the ability of
CMSA to treat the additional wastewater generated by the project. There would be no impact.
(Sources: 3, 25)
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion:
The current structures are connected to the City’s existing sewer system. A preliminary sanitary sewer plan was
reviewed by the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD). No changes to the existing sewer line are proposed or
required. The new sewer line for the future new home on Lot 3 is proposed to be a 4” sewer line which will be
located under the existing access driveway. The proposed new sewer line design and location would be subject to
additional review as part of the proposed design review permit for the future development of Lot 3. It is expected
that the new sewer line would be adequate to serve the additional residence. No impact would result.
(Sources: 1, 25)
c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Discussion:
The proposed new single family dwelling on Lot 3 would not result in a new source of drainage, as discussed in
the Hydrology Section IX. The Hydrology Report by Oberkamper & Associates indicated that the proposed
improvements would increase runoff from the watershed by 0.63 %, which was determined to be insignificant
given the volume of water running through the property. New development must direct a small portion of runoff
through landscaped bio-retention areas. Similar development projects have easily accommodated this requirement
on-site with small bio-retention facilities located in existing landscape areas required for the project. Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 45 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
would be less-than-significant based on anticipated inclusion of bio-retention facilities. The Department of Public
Works would review and require this improvement as a condition of future development of the site.
(Sources: 3, 27, 29)
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Discussion:
The Marin Municipal Water District has adequate capacity to serve the City through anticipated buildout under
General Plan 2020. The project was referred to MMWD for its review and comments. The existing homes are
already being served by MMWD. New water service requires a standard pipeline extension and water service
agreement to be pursued, as a condition of project approval. The one additional residential unit would have
negligible impacts on water supplies in the area and would not require any further water service planning.
(Sources: 1, 3, 28)
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Discussion:
See discussion about existing sewer capacity in XVII.b above. No impacts would result.
(Sources: 3, 25)
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion:
Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) is the current solid waste provider in the City. MSS operates under state permits
that require diversion and reduction of waste sent to the landfill. MSS has implemented a number of programs to
respond to state legislative mandates and its permits to operate as a solid waste hauler. Much of the materials
collected by MSS that cannot be recycled are sent to the Redwood Sanitary Landfill in Novato. The project was
referred to MSS for its review and comment. The one additional residence would not significantly contribute to
the waste generated by development within the City. No significant impact would result.
(Sources: 3, 33, 34)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 46 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
See discussion XVII.f above. No impacts.
(Sources: 3, 33, 34)
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Discussion:
As discussed in Section IV of this Initial Study (with listed mitigation measures), all biological resources impacts
were determined to be less than significant. No aspect of the Project not discussed in Section IV of this Initial
Study would result in the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal. As discussed in Section V of this Initial Study (with listed mitigation measures), the Project would not
substantially impact any examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-
significant impact would result in this respect.
(Sources: 1-34)
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 47 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
Discussion:
As summarized throughout this Initial Study, the project would have minor potential environmental impacts
which can be mitigated to less-than significant levels. Potential cumulative impacts would be limited due to the
small scale of the future development and site improvements. The addition of 1 single-family home would be
considered “in-fill” development and would not have a cumulative development impact.
(Sources: 1-34)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion:
As described throughout this environmental checklist, the proposed project would not result in substantial
environmental effects on human beings. Mitigation measures are identified in this Initial Study to reduce project
impacts related to biological resource, cultural resources, and geology and soils. With the implementation of these
mitigation measures, theses impacts would be less-than-significant.
(Sources: 1- 34)
Environmental Checklist Form 48 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, adopted November 2004; as amended through July 2011.
2. City of San Rafael General Zoning Ordinance, City of San Rafael, 2004, as amended check date.
3. Application Packet submitted by Ray Cassidy, including site plan, architectural plans, landscape plans, grading
plan, and additional materials and exhibits.
4. Site Inspections conducted June 2015 and April 2016.
5. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, City of San Rafael, October 1991.
6. California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Mapping System; http://www.dot.ca.gov/.
7. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, 2012, Marin County Important Farmland,
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/mar12.pdf, accessed July 25, 2016.
8. California Department of Conservation, Marin County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Map,
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/
wa/Marin_15_16_WA.pdf, accessed July 25, 2016.
9. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Accessed July 25, 2016.
10. City of San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist, prepared by Ray Cassidy,
project applicant, July 2016.
11. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised, California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines.
12. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014, Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, July 25, 2016.
13. WRA Environmental Consultants, Biological Assessment for Residential Home Construction at 51 Gold Hill
Grade, San Rafael, California, August 18, 2015.
14. San Rafael Municipal Code, Chapter 4.12 – Wildland Urban Interface – Vegetation Management Standard,
Ordinance 1856, adopted by San Rafael City Council, July 16, 2007
15. San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey Final Inventory List of Structures and Uses, Charles Hall Page and
Associates, Inc. and City of San Rafael Cultural Affairs Department, updated September 1986.
16. PastFinder Archaeological Database, Archaeological Sensitivity Report, adopted October 2001, generated
March 2016, citing a 1997 report by Greg Moore, “A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Gold Hill Grade
Property, APN 15-250-55 & 015-250-28, San Rafael, Marin County, California”.
17. City of San Rafael Archaeology Sensitivity Map, adopted October 2001.
Environmental Checklist Form 49 51 Gold Hill Grade - Hillside Subdivision
18. Tribal consultation: Notification of proposed project within geographical area of the Federated Indian of
Graton Rancheria, dated May 3, 2016 (per Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1)
19. State Division of Mines and Geology, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps
20. John C. Hom and Associates, Geotechnical Report for 51 Gold Hill Grade, San Rafael, CA, dated February 9,
2015.
21. John C. Hom and Associates, Response to Comments (re: driveway stability) , 51 Gold Hill Grade, August 3,
2015.
22. Personal communication, John C. Hom, Civil Engineer, John C. Hom & Associates, July 27, 2016
23. California Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List),
www.envirostar.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed July 27, 2016
24. Inter-departmental and Agency Referral Memoranda: Fire Prevention Bureau , February 9, 2016 approving
applicant’s proposal for an “Alterntives means and Method” for fire protection for the future proposed home on
Lot 3, dated September 28, 2015. Also, follow-up e-mail confirmation to applicant confirming that Fire Chief
Gray and Chief Sinnott both approve the proposed alternative means and methods.
25. Inter-departmental and Agency Memoranda: San Rafael Sanitation District referral comments for the 51 Gold
Hill Grade project, dated Februiary 23, 2016.
26. Inter-departmental and Agency Memoranda: Chief Building Official
27. Inter-departmental and Agency Memoranda: Department of Public Works Department, dated February 23,
2016
28. Comment letter from Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), dated March 7, 2016.
29. Hydrology Study, 51 Gold Hill Grade, prepared by Oberkamper and Associates, Civil Enginers, Inc., July 30,
2014.
30. City of San Rafael Municipal Code, Chapter 8.13 – Noise – Ordinance 1789, adopted by San Rafael City
Council, 2002.
31. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Community Panel No.
06041C0457E. Accessed July 27, 2016
32. Interdepartmental E-mail correspondence, Josh Minshall, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works
Department, dated August 8, 2016.
33. Planning project referral to Marin Sanitary Service, dated February 9, 2016
34. Redwood Landfill website: http://www.redwoodlandfill.wm.com/, Accessed August 9, 2016.
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: September 13, 2016
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
TS16-03, ED16-83, UP16-37
Project Planner:
Raffi Boloyan (415) 485-3095
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Avenue (Corner of Lincoln Ave. and Mission Ave.) –
Request for Time Extensions for a Vesting Tentative Condominium Map, Environmental
and Design Review Permit and Use Permit approvals for a 36-unit residential
condominium project, including height and state density bonus, on a 0.68-acre corner
property in the Downtown area. APN: 011-184-08 and 011-183-10; High Density
Residential (HR1) District; Lafayette Capital Group, Inc., owner/applicant; File No(s):
TS16-003, ED16-083 and UP16-037 (Current File Numbers TS15-004, ED15-054 &
UP15-023).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project consists of the second formal time extension request for the Lincoln-Mission Condominium
Project Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) and related entitlements. The City Subdivision Ordinance allows for
no more than three one-year extensions to be granted for the project following an initial two year
approval (five years total maximum time period allowed for a VTM approval). The project was granted in
initial two-year approval. During the economic downturn the State and City Council granted several
automatic extensions to the tentative map and zoning applications. These extensions applied to the
original two-year approval and did not count as formal time extensions to the original application. The
automatic extensions ended in 2015, and in August 2015 the applicant requested the first of the three
possible time extensions. At this time, the applicant is requesting that a two-year extension be granted,
which would become the final extension allowed for the project under the original approval.
For vesting maps, and extensions, the State Subdivision Map Act establishes that the City may only
apply the fees, ordinances and policies (including General Plan 2020 policies) that were in effect at the
time the original application had been accepted as complete. Changes can be required only to make
corrections or update to existing conditions, or to address state and federal regulations, or to address a
previously unknown or new health and safety issue.
There have been no substantial changes made to the site, or the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020,
or Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance, or other local codes that would require new conditions or
improvements to be imposed to address health or safety issues since the most recent extension granted
in October 13, 2015 (PC Resolution 15-14).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving an extension request for
the project Vesting Map, Use Permit and Design Review Permit approvals for two years (Exhibit 1).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: TS15-004; ED15-054; UP15-023 Page 2
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 1203-1211 Lincoln Ave Parcel Number(s): 011-184-09 & 011-183-
10
Property Size: 0.68 acres Neighborhood: Downtown (adjacent to
Lincoln/San Rafael Hill)
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: High Density Residential HR1 Vacant
North: High Density Residential HR1 Residential
South: Fifth and Mission
Residential/Office
5/M R/O Commercial
East: Fifth and Mission
Residential/Office and
Residential/Office
5/M R/O and R/O Residential and Office
West: High Density Residential HR1 Residential
Site Description/Setting:
The project site consists of two parcels, approximately 29,621 square feet in size, formerly developed
with a residence and a 24-unit apartment complex (originally built as a motor court motel in 1936 and a
single-family home constructed in 1907). The apartment structure was identified on the San Rafael
Historical/Architectural Survey.
The property is located on a primary vehicular entry into San Rafael (located at the northwest corner of
Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue) and is on the outskirts of the San Rafael downtown. The
surrounding development consists of a mixture of multi-family and commercial. Both Mission Avenue
and Lincoln Avenue are heavily traveled thoroughfares and are constrained by traffic during peak traffic
periods. Surrounding development consists of primarily single level and two story structures. The
residential condominium structure located to the west is four stories and steps up the grade toward
Laurel place.
BACKGROUND
On August 7, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 12016 certifying a final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for redevelopment of the project site with a 36-unit condominium project, which included
one significant unavoidable impact associated with demolition of structures on the property that were
eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Places. The City Council adopted findings with a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, by Resolution 12017, for removal of the historically significant
structures.
On August 7, 2006, the City Council also adopted Resolution 12018 to approve Environmental and
Design Review ED04-102, Use Permit UP05-032, and Vesting Tentative Map TS05-001 for the project,
consisting of a 36-unit residential condominium building with associated parking and landscaping,
including a height bonus up to 45 feet, a state density bonus with concession to allow tandem parking.
On July 11, 2007, the City issued a demolition permit B0705-085 for removal of existing residential and
multi-family units on the property consistent with the project approvals. The work to demolish the existing
buildings has been completed and the property has since remained vacant.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: TS15-004; ED15-054; UP15-023 Page 3
On August 6, 2008, Lafayette Capital Group filed a timely application requesting an extension of the
project approvals TS05-001/ED04-102/UP05-032. Extensions were granted as follows:
On July 15, 2008, Senate Bill 1185 was passed which had automatically extended TS05-001 for 1
year, until August 7, 2009.
On October 8, 2008 the Zoning Administrator granted a time extension request ED08-071 and
UP08-046 for the design review and height bonus zoning approvals granted under ED04-102 and
UP05-032, which are related to TS05-001 (automatically extended), with a new expiration date of
August 7, 2009.
On December 1, 2008, the Council adopted Ordinance 1869 that automatically extended the life
of entitlements related to any other unexpired maps in the City that were granted an automatic
extension by the State.
On July 15, 2009, the State legislature granted a 2-year automatic extension to unexpired maps, and the
City Council adopted Ordinance 1878 to apply to all related entitlements, extending the project approvals
TS05-01, ED08-071 and UP08-046 to August 7, 2011.
On July 13, 2011, the State granted another 2 year automatic extension to unexpired maps. San Rafael
Municipal Code 15.01.155, as amended by Ordinance 1878, automatically extended related zoning
entitlements, extending the project approvals to August 7, 2013.
On July 11, 2013, the State granted another 2 year automatic extension to unexpired maps. San Rafael
Municipal Code 15.01.155 automatically extended related zoning entitlements, extending the project
approvals to August 7, 2015.
On June 23, 2015, the property owner, Lafayette Capital Group filed the first regular time extension
request for TS05-01, and the related entitlements ED08-071 and UP08-046.
On July 8, 2015, the project was referred to Building, Fire, Public Works, and San Rafael Sanitation to
review, confirm and update its conditions of approval as necessary to address any updated codes
affecting health and safety requirements.
On October 13, 2015 the Planning Commission approved a one (1) year time-extension (PC Resolution
15-14) with the revisions to the conditions as recommended by Building, Fire, Public Works and San
Rafael Sanitation; extending project approvals to August 7, 2016.
On July 21, 2016, the applicant submitted a timely request for an additional, and final, two-year extension
of time, consistent with the local Subdivision Ordinance. The PC may grant the extension for up to two-
years which is the maximum permitted life of the original approval, with extensions (five years total
allowed).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project requests a second formal extension of time for the Vesting Tentative Condominium Map, Use
Permit and Design Review Permit approvals (originally approved by the City Council on August 7, 2006,
extended automatically by State action, and formally extended by the Planning Commission on October
13, 2015). Time extensions to Vesting Tentative Maps allows the project to proceed subject to the local
ordinances, fees and policies that were in effect when the project was accepted as complete for
processing. The Planning Commission is required to conduct a hearing on the extension request for a
Vesting Tentative Map. The applicant is requesting a two-year extension of time to record the final map
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: TS15-004; ED15-054; UP15-023 Page 4
and pursue the project, which, if approved, would be the final extension of time that can be applied to the
original project approvals. If the project is not pursued after all of the permitted time extensions have
been exhausted, then the project would require new zoning and subdivision applications and would be
subject to the current General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations in effect at that time.
The project consists of a 36 unit condominium development in 4 levels over parking, with a density bonus
to allow 36 units where the base density is 30 units (based on 15-31 units per gross acre). A two-foot
building height bonus is included to allow 38 feet as measured by the building code, where up to 48 feet
can be allowed for projects with affordable units. Six (6) affordable units are proposed; four (4) low
income and two (2) moderate income units. Fifty-two (52) parking spaces are included with 2 ADA
spaces and 30 tandem spaces as allowed by the state density bonus regulations. Units consist of 1
studio, 19 one-bedroom units and 16 two-bedroom units. Parking is required at 1 space each for the
studio and one bedroom units requires and 2 spaces each for the 2 bedroom units. No changes are
proposed to the project since the City’s original 2006 project approval.
ANALYSIS
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project proposes to extend approvals for a multi-family development which remains consistent with
the underlying High Density Residential land use designation. Given that the project includes a Vesting
Tentative Map, the extension cannot require changes or new conditions (including any deemed
warranted to address revised General Plan policies) except as necessary to correct conditions, comply
with state or federal regulations and health and safety issues. There have been no further changes to
state regulations related to public health and safety over and above the changes incorporated into the
2015 PC Resolution No 15-14.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Extension of the project includes Use Permit and Design Review Permit entitlements. The provisions for
extension of these related entitlements are as follows:
14.22.140 – Use Permit Extensions
A use permit may be extended (by the zoning administrator) if the findings required by Section 14.22.080
(Findings) remain valid and application is made prior to expiration.
14.25.150 – Environmental and Design Review Permit Extensions
An environmental and design review permit may be extended (by the zoning administrator), if the
findings required by Section 14.25.090 remain valid, there have been no substantial changes in the
factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design, and application is made prior to
expiration.
Given that the project includes a Vesting Tentative Map request, the same limitation on changes applies;
that changes may only be made to correct conditions, or address state and federal regulations, or health
and safety issues. In general, new requirements may not be imposed, even if the project is no longer
consistent with new policies or zoning regulations. Therefore, the conditions have been incorporated
from PC Resolution 15-14, except for UP condition 7 which is proposed for deletion because all of the
pertinent conditions have been incorporated into the recent extension granted in October 2015.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: TS15-004; ED15-054; UP15-023 Page 5
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency:
15.01.130 - Time limits for map approvals and extensions
As noted in this report and in the 2015 report, the City code allows three individual one (1) year time
extensions to be requested and granted, following an initial two-year approval, for a total life of five (5)
years from the initial map approval date. The original map was granted a life of two years, leaving the
potential for three subsequent one year extensions. (Automatic time extensions granted by the state
and City are not counted against the five year total life.)
Given that the project includes a Vesting Tentative Map, the extension cannot require changes or new
conditions (including any deemed warranted to address revised General Plan policies) except as
necessary to correct conditions, comply with state or federal regulations and health and safety issues.
There have been no further changes to state regulations related to public health and safety over and
above the changes incorporated into the 2015 PC Resolution No 15-14. Therefore, no new conditions
have been required or proposed.
Existing Condition 3, howeverm has been proposed for deletion based on the fact that all pertinent
conditions have been included and incorporated in the latest Time Extension approval. Furthermore,
Condition’s 4g & 4h are also proposed for deletion. These two conditions applied to activities that were
required at the time of demolition of the original structures, which was completed more than 7 years ago,
and these are no longer pertinent.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As noted in the Background Discussion above, the City Council certified a Final EIR for this project, and
adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with and Statement of Overriding Consideration
Findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and Section 15093 for unavoidable
environmental impacts that could not be reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation. The
unavoidable impact consisted of demolition of an historic structure at 1211 Lincoln Avenue and an
historic resource at 1203 Lincoln Avenue. The FEIR applies to the time extension request and would
remain applicable. No changes to the project are proposed. Changes to the physical site condition have
occurred consisting of removal of the original structures, through issuance of a City building permit
granted in substantial compliance with project approvals. No other physical changes have occurred in the
project area. The City baseline traffic model also currently remains unchanged at this time and will not be
updated until after operation of SMART. Thus, at the time of review of this extension request, no changes
in traffic conditions have been identified or anticipated. Traffic mitigation fees remain the appropriate
measure to fund the improvements identified as required to address increased traffic from the project,
consistent with the General Plan 2020 buildout assumptions.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of the hearing has been provided in compliance with Chapter 14.29, which included posting of a
notice on-site and mailing to residents and property owners within 300 feet, and Lincoln/San Rafael
Neighborhood Association at least 15 days before the meeting. No comments have been received as of
the time of publication of this staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the application as presented (staff recommendation)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: TS15-004; ED15-054; UP15-023 Page 6
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
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution Second Time Extension Approval
2. Vicinity Map
3. PC Resolution 15-14 (First Time Extension Approval)
4. Project Plans
EXHIBIT 1
PC Meeting September 13, 2016
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TIME
EXTENSION REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
(ED16-083), USE PERMIT (UP16-037) FOR A HEIGHT BONUS AND A VESTING
TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (TS16-003) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 36-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING LOCATED AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN AVENUE (CORNER OF
LINCOLN AVENUE AND MISSION AVENUE)
(APNs: 011-184-08 AND 09)
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2016, Lafayette Capital Group, owner, submitted the second of
three possible requests, for time extension of the original project approvals granted by the City to
construct a 36-unit residential condominium building at 1203 - 1211 Lincoln Avenue, in the HR1
Zone District; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact
Report for the project by adoption of Resolution 12016, adopted Statements of Overriding
Considerations for the project by adoption of Resolution 12017, and approved the original
project entitlements TS05-01, ED04-102, and UP05-032 for an initial period of two (2) years,
until August 7, 2008, by adoption of Resolution 12018; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, demolition permit B0705-085 was issued for removal of
the existing residential and multi-family units on the property, consistent with the project
approvals and mitigation measures, and work to demolish the existing buildings was completed
on 12/25/2008; and
WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Map and related entitlements were extended
automatically on four occasions, by the state legislature (i.e., on July 15, 2008, July 15, 2009,
July 13, 2011 and July 11, 2013) and by local ordinances 1869 and 1878, for one-year to two-
year periods, while the related use permit and design review zoning entitlements also obtained
one formal time extension by the Zoning Administrator on 10/8/08 (amended as ED08-071 and
UP08-046); and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015, Lafayette Capital Group, owner, had submitted the first
formal request for time extension of the project approvals, which were authorized by the
Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution PC15-14 on October 13, 2015 with a revised
expiration date of August 7, 2016 (File No.s ED15-054, UP15-023 and TS15-004); and
WHEREAS, an extension for a Vesting Tentative Map establishes that only fees,
ordinances and policies (including General Plan 2020) in effect at the time of the original
application submittal was deemed complete may be applied to the extension request, and that
only changes may be made to correct or update conditions, to address state and federal
regulations and health and safety issues; and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, staff has incorporated all of the findings, conditions and mitigation
measures that were reflected in the most recently adopted resolution for approval of the time
extension granted in October, Resolution No 15-14, which includes the updates to Planning, Fire
and Public Works conditions to address site conditions and codes that were identified to preserve
and address public health and safety requirements; and
WHEREAS, time extensions for a Tentative Map can be granted for twelve (12) months,
with additional extensions beyond the initial twelve (12) month extension possible, provided that
the life of the tentative map approval does not exceed a total of five (5) years from initial
approval date (which is tolled based on the automatic extensions granted by the State); whereby
the project may ask for no more than three formal extensions including this one in order to obtain
up to three years of additional time to file the final map, under the current vested rights granted
to the original project approval (i.e., extensions possible until August 7, 2018), after which time a
new application may be required if the project map has not been recorded and vested; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests that this extension for the Tentative Map be granted
for the balance of the remaining two years left in the total life of the tentative map approval; and
WHEREAS, notice of this public hearing has been provided in compliance with San
Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.29, including posting of the public hearing notice on the
property, mailing to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the property, and mailing to the
Lincoln-Fairhills neighborhood association at least 15 days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the
project by adoption of Resolution 12016, adoption of Statements of Overriding Considerations
for the project by adoption of Resolution 12017 which included at least one adverse unavoidable
impact (i.e., removal of historic structures at 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Avenue which were eligible
for the California Register of Historic Places), and findings for approval of the project
entitlements TS05-01, ED04-102, and UP05-032 by adoption of Resolution 12018, included
findings required pursuant to CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093 and these findings remain valid
and apply to this time extension request and are incorporated herein and by reference; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
the project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the
Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, Planning Division is the
custodian for all documents which constitute the record of proceedings for this project; and
WHEREAS, a current outstanding balance for unpaid Planning Department processing
fees has been documented in the amount of $5,328.67 and EIR preparation fees of $27,995.65
(An accounting detail of these charges was provided to the applicant on November 28, 2006),
which would be requested to be paid before filing of the vesting map in accordance with the
applicable City fee schedule.
- 3 -
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
Findings (UP16-037)
Use Permit (Height Bonus)
A. A timely extension request was filed by Lafayette Capital Group on July 21, 2016, prior to
the expiration date of August 7, 2016.
B. The Findings under Planning Commission Resolution 15-14 adopted for the Project on
October 13, 2015 remain valid given that no change in circumstances have occurred, as
follows:
1) The property remains regulated under the same zoning and general plan land use policies
and regulations and given that the project includes a vesting tentative map, the project is
subject only to those fees, ordinances and policies in effect at the time of the original
application submittal.
2) The environmental characteristics of the site have not changed.
3) The mitigation measures adopted for the project remain valid and are being implemented
consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
4) No revisions have been identified as necessary to address any health and safety
regulations or any state or federal requirements.
C. The findings for approval of the UP15-023 Time Extension, and related design review and
subdivision entitlements granting approval for a 36 unit condominium project and associated
parking with a height bonus for affordable units are hereby reaffirmed as follows:
1) The proposed residential use, as conditioned, is in accord and consistent with the San
Rafael General Plan 2020, the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 14 of the San
Rafael Municipal Code), and the purposes of the High Density Residential HR1 District
(Chapter 14.04 of the San Rafael Municipal Code) in that:
a) The proposed development would result in a gross density of 30 units per acre,
excluding the density bonus units, which would be within the density range permitted
under the General Plan 2020, High Density Residential land use designation (15 to 32
dwelling units per gross acre);
b) The maximum height of the proposed building is 38 feet as measured under
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and California Uniform Building Code, which is
consistent with Land Use Element Exhibit 7 (Building Height Limits) and Land Use
Policy LU-13 (Height Bonuses) allowing a maximum height of 48 feet since the project
qualifies for up to a 12-foot height bonus for inclusion of affordable housing units;
c) The proposed high density residential project is located at the intersection of two
major arterial streets, both of which allow and are developed with other high density
housing projects, including the four-story condominium development immediately west
of the project site (as shown on original application plan Exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a and 2b to
CC Resolution 12018), with available traffic capacity within adopted level-of-service
standards in the General Plan and adequate existing infrastructure to provide utilities,
consistent with Policy LU-8 Density of Residential Development;
- 4 -
d) The proposed project was considered under the City’s Traffic Allocation Model and
qualified for an exemption from the Project Selection Process under the provisions of
City Council Resolution 11666 since the project would generate less than 10 peak hour
trips, and was therefore deemed consistent with the applicable Land Use Policy LU-3 and
LU-3a (Project Selection Process); which has subsequently been rescinded and no longer
applies to development.
e) The high-density design, setbacks and height of the proposed project are consistent
with those of other properties in the Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue corridors
which includes several residential structures of 3 to 5 stories including the adjacent
structures at 820 Mission (45 feet tall) and 1215 Lincoln (30 feet tall) (see original
applicant plan Exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, to CC Resolution 12018), and the proposed project
incorporates numerous transitions in setbacks and heights through the staggering of
balconies, building stepbacks (see original application plan Exhibits 2a and 2b to CC
Resolution 12018), recessing the fifth floor by setbacks of 59 feet from the Lincoln
Avenue property line and 56 feet from the Mission Avenue property line, inclusion of a
rear landscaped courtyard which sets the building face back 30 feet from the northern
property line adjacent to other residential properties, and incorporation of landscaped
setbacks of between 15 and 23 feet on Lincoln and between 19 and 28 feet on Mission
which exceed the minimum required setbacks (see original application plan Exhibit 3a to
CC Resolution 12018) and exceed existing street setbacks on numerous existing high
density developments along these streets (see original application plan Exhibit 3b to CC
Resolution 12018) and is therefore consistent with Housing Policy H-3 (Design That Fits
into the Neighborhood Context);
f) The application process included numerous meetings with neighborhood groups and
the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods consistent with Housing Policy H-4 (Public
Information and Participation);
g) The proposed redevelopment is the result of City housing inspections by the Building
and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division and Fire Department in 2002 which
identified numerous violations of housing, building and fire codes and would remove
substandard housing units consistent with Housing Policy H-11 (Housing Conditions and
Maintenance), Program H-11(a) (Apartment Inspection Program) and Neighborhood
Policy NH-4 (Improve Property Maintenance);
h) The proposed project would develop a site within an area identified for appropriate
increases in housing included in Appendix B (Housing Element Background) Summary
of Potential Housing Sites, Exhibit BB – Example Downtown Development Sites and is
therefore consistent with Housing Program H-18a (Affordable Housing Sites);
i) The proposed project would be developed at the maximum of the density range for
the High Density Residential land use category and is therefore consistent with Housing
Program 18b (Efficient Use of Housing Sites);
j) The proposed project would provide six (6) deed-restricted affordable housing units
including four (4) priced for-sale to low-income households and two (2) priced for-sale to
moderate-income households which exceeds the minimum requirements of Housing
Policy H-19 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements);
- 5 -
k) The proposed project, by including 6 affordable housing units, proposes to utilize
provisions of the State Density Bonus Law resulting in 7 bonus units, and proposes to
utilize the height bonus allowed in Land Use Policy LU-13, and is therefore consistent
with Housing Program H-21 (Density Bonuses and Other Regulatory Incentives for
Affordable Housing);
l) The proposed project would locate high density residential along bus corridor on
Lincoln Avenue (GGT Routes 57 and 59) and within one-fifth mile of the Downtown
Bettini Transportation Center (with 19 GGT bus routes) and a potential SMART light rail
station, consistent with Housing Policy H-22 (Infill Near Transit);
m) The proposed project would enhance neighborhood image by replacing two
dilapidated structures in a very visible location at the intersection of Lincoln and Mission
Avenues, would incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks with 8 different
roof heights along Mission and 7 along Lincoln (see Exhibits 2a and 2b to CC Resolution
12018), projecting and recessed balconies along both frontages, recessing the fifth floor
by setbacks of 59 feet from the Lincoln Avenue property line and 56 feet from the
Mission Avenue property line, inclusion of a rear landscaped courtyard which sets the
building face back 30 feet from the northern property line adjacent to other residential
properties, and incorporation of landscaped setbacks of between 15 and 23 feet on
Lincoln and between 19 and 28 feet on Mission which exceed the minimum required
setbacks (see Exhibit 3a to CC Resolution 12018) and existing street setbacks on
numerous existing high density developments along these streets (see Exhibit 3b to CC
Resolution 12018), would respect privacy and adjacent development by careful
placement of windows along common property lines as considered by the Design Review
Board, by recessing the fifth floor substantially from both Lincoln and Mission Avenues,
by providing greater building setbacks than many other high density residential
developments along both street corridors and by incorporating a rear landscaped
courtyard which sets the building face back 30 feet from the northern property line
adjacent to other residential properties, would maintain infrastructure service levels by
not exceeding the traffic levels-of-service as documented in the Final EIR and would
provide adequate parking by meeting the state-mandated parking requirements of the
Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915-65918) and is
therefore consistent with Neighborhood Policy NH-2. The project would not preserve
existing structures which have been found in the Final EIR to be historic resources;
n) The project would include a parking area within the landscaped setback for service
vehicles which is not required by the Zoning Ordinance but which was requested by the
neighborhood and required by the Planning Commission, and is therefore consistent with
Neighborhood Program NH-8b (Additional On-Site Parking);
o) Neighborhood Policy NH-116 specifically addresses the Lincoln Avenue corridor
and states, “allow higher density residential development along Lincoln Avenue between
Hammondale Court and Mission Avenue given its good access to public transit. Promote
lot consolidations to achieve higher densities and minimizing ingress/egress to Lincoln
Avenue; maintain 15-foot setbacks and street trees as corridor amenities to provide a
landscaped streetscape. Promote high-density residential development along Lincoln
Avenue, consistent with its existing character and good access to public transit.
- 6 -
Encourage redevelopment of these sites for residential use, consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood. Encourage lot consolidations to achieve more efficient
redevelopment project designs. Encourage underground parking for any new or
substantial redevelopment project along Lincoln Avenue. Design all new projects and
substantial remodels in accordance with Noise Element policies. Require setbacks and
other project design features that visually reduce the wall effect along Lincoln Avenue.
Encourage underground parking in new development to reduce building mass and
height.” The project meets these criteria by being a high-density redevelopment project
at the intersection of Lincoln and Mission Avenues, by consolidating two parcels to
increase frontage along Lincoln, by including an underground parking garage and two
access points along Lincoln and Mission Avenues, by reducing access points along
Mission Avenue by eliminating six existing driveway curb cuts, by providing
construction methods that will comply with City and State noise standards for
condominium housing, by providing a minimum 15-foot setback along Lincoln Avenue
including landscaping and street trees, and by incorporating various roof levels, balcony
projections and varied setbacks to reduce building bulk and a “wall effect” along Lincoln
Avenue;
p) The project would not preserve two structures determined to be historic resources, but
would preserve and enhance the scale and landscaped character of the City‘s residential
neighborhoods by eliminating buildings which are presently largely vacant and
dilapidated, by increasing landscaping along both the Lincoln and Mission Avenue
frontages compared to the extremely minimal existing landscaping and by designing the
structure to appear as a four-story building consistent with the heights of other multi-
family residential buildings in the vicinity by recessing the fifth floor substantially, and is
therefore partially inconsistent and partially consistent with Community Design Policy
CD-3 (Neighborhoods);
q) The project would not be consistent with Community Design Policy CD-4 (Historic
Resources) since it would remove structures which have been determined to be historic
resources;
r) The project was determined in the Final EIR to not block views of San Rafael Hill
from the Lincoln or Mission Avenue approaches and surrounding sidewalks and is
therefore consistent with Community Design Policy CD-5 (Views);
s) The project would include a landscaped courtyard and community room at the rear of
the site as well as private balconies for all units, complying with size requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and is therefore consistent with Community Design Policy CD-14
(Recreational Areas);
t) The project would include six units of affordable housing with priority for occupancy
by public agency employees near Downtown and public buildings and is therefore
consistent with Economic Vitality Policy EV-12 (Workforce Housing);
u) Net traffic generation from the project would not change level of service (LOS) at any
of 17 studies intersections, increasing delay during peak hours by between 0.1 and 0.5
seconds and adding 40 daily trips to Lincoln Avenue which currently carries
approximately 19,000 daily vehicles (a 0.2% increase) and is therefore consistent with
Circulation Policy C-5 (Traffic Level of Service Standards);
- 7 -
v) The project would be required to contribute approximately $ 25,476 in traffic
mitigation fees to be used towards future traffic improvements contained in General Plan
2020 and is therefore in compliance with Circulation Policy C-7 (Circulation
Improvements Funding);
w) The project, with inclusion of a Mission Avenue entrance, would add minimal traffic
to Laurel Place and Nye Street (5 additional trips – a 0.6% increase) and is therefore
consistent with Circulation Policy C-21 (Residential Traffic Calming);
x) The project will provide new street trees along both Lincoln and Mission Avenues
and is therefore consistent with Infrastructure Policy I-8 (Street Trees);
y) The San Rafael Sanitation District has adequate sewer capacity for the proposed
project, consistent with Infrastructure Policy I-10 (Sewer Facilities);
z) The project would demolish two structures, both of which were determined by the
Final EIR to be historic resources for purposes of CEQA and one of which is included on
the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey with a rating of “good”, and would
therefore not be in compliance with Culture and Arts Policy CA-13 (Historic Buildings
and Areas);
aa) The project would not be able to incorporate or reuse the existing historic buildings
which are in poor condition and do not lend themselves for use for multi-family housing
as determined by analysis of rehabilitation costs and a financial return analysis included
in Attachment 2, Exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c, and is therefore not consistent with Culture and
Arts Policy CA-14 (Reuse of Historic Buildings);
bb) The project site was evaluated for archaeological resources and found unlikely to
contain such resources, consistent with Culture and Arts Policy CA-15 (Protection of
Archeological Resources);
cc) The project provides an interior landscaped courtyard and community room and is
therefore consistent with Parks and Recreation Policy PR-10 (Onsite Recreation
Facilities);
dd) The project would be required to contribute to future park facilities by payment of
park impact fees of approximately $21,647, consistent with Parks and Recreation Policy
PR-25 (Contributions by Ownership Residential Development);
ee) The project would be consistent with Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future
Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard Maps in Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical
Review), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control
Board Requirements) and S-32 (Safety Review) by being proposed on a site not subject
to flooding or landslides and located in an area currently served by emergency personnel.
The project would be required to comply with provisions of the California Building
Code, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and would be reviewed by
City Police and Fire personnel. A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project
and determined that the site is suitable for the proposed project, and is subject to
conditions of approval;
ff) The project would be consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated
in Section 14.01.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, by providing a high-density multi-family
- 8 -
development within the density range of the High Density Residential (HR1) District in
an area of similar zoning, by complying with the City’s traffic level-of-service standards,
by being located in an area with existing and adequate infrastructure including roads,
utilities, emergency services, and transit, by complying with provisions of the California
Building Code, by complying with the policies of General Plan 2020 as documented
above, by locating high-density housing in close proximity to high-density jobs in the
Downtown, by providing additional ownership and affordable housing in close proximity
to jobs, by providing an underground parking garage with only two entrance points which
were found to provide adequate site distance and minimal traffic impacts, by providing
off-street parking for service vehicles, by providing varied and greater landscaped
setbacks along the Lincoln and Mission Avenue corridors than required by the HR1
District (see Exhibit 3a to CC Resolution 12018), by incorporating varied roof heights
and building stepbacks to reduce the appearance of building bulk (see Exhibits 2a and 2b
to CC Resolution 12018), and by its review which included numerous neighborhood
meetings and public hearings before the Design Review Board, Planning Commission
and City Council. The project would not be consistent with the purpose of preserving
historic resources; and
gg) The project would be consistent with the purposes of the High Density Residential
(HR1) District, as stated in Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance by being in
compliance with the density and other development regulations of this District, by
providing high-density housing in a neighborhood of higher but varied densities, by
contributing to existing development patterns and varied design character in the area, by
being located on a site with no environmental constraints such as flooding, landslides, or
geotechnical problems and with adequate infrastructure, and by including a landscaped
courtyard and community room for residents.
2) The proposed project, as conditioned, would 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 Final Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared and adopted for the project pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act which found only one significant unavoidable impact for
which the City Council has found acceptable through adoption of findings of overriding
consideration, through its consistency with the policies and programs of General Plan
2020 as documented above, due to its incorporation of design features to minimize the
impacts of building mass as documented in Findings C.1)(e), 1(m), 1(n), 1(o) and 1(s)
above and since the project design was reviewed by the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission and recommended for approval, and Building, Fire, Public Works,
San Rafael Sanitation District, Marin Municipal Water District have reviewed the project
and incorporated conditions required to assure the site would be adequately served and
protected in accordance with health and safety regulations.
3) The proposed project complies with all regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance
including maximum height, building setbacks, landscaping, recreational space, affordable
housing, and complies with mandatory parking maximums of California Government
Code Sections 65915-65918.
- 9 -
Findings (ED16-083)
Design Review
A. The findings for approval of ED16-083 Time Extension, granting approval for a 36 unit
condominium project and associated parking height increase and affordable units are hereby
affirmed as follows:
1) The proposed project is in accord with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 as documented
in Use Permit Finding C.1 above.
2) The proposed project is consistent with the objectives and criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance as documented in Use Permit Finding C.1 above.
B. The proposed project remains consistent with the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review) in that:
1) The project maintains a proper balance between development and the natural
environment by redeveloping two sites which have been fully developed for decades and
in an urbanized setting;
2) The project maintains and improves the quality of, and relationship between,
development and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the city,
preserves balance and harmony within neighborhoods, promotes design excellence and
minimizes impacts on adjacent residences, and is designed to be compatible with the
existing neighborhood by locating a high-density residential development in an area with
existing high-density development as shown on Exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c to CC Resolution
12018, by providing landscaped setbacks along Lincoln and Mission Avenues which
equal or exceed those of other high-density residential projects in the vicinity as shown
on Exhibits 3a and 3b to CC Resolution 12018, by replacing dilapidated existing
structures, by incorporating varied roof heights and building stepbacks to reduce the
appearance of building mass as shown on Exhibits 2a and 2b to CC Resolution 12018, by
incorporating a Mission design style of which there are numerous examples in the
surrounding area, and by incorporating substantial detailing to provide quality
architecture; and
3) The project, by incorporation of building stepbacks would preserve views of San Rafael
Hill from surrounding streets and sidewalks as documented in the Final EIR.
C. The project design is consistent with the San Rafael Design Guidelines (November, 2004) in
that the building design incorporates extensive façade articulation, varied setbacks (see
Exhibit 3a to CC Resolution 12018), and building stepbacks to help transition the building
into the existing neighborhood and minimize apparent height differences (see Exhibits 2a and
2b to CC Resolution 12018); roof equipment is screened and roof vents are minimized; the
building entry is highlighted with an entry feature, corner plaza and tower element; window
proportions and placement were analyzed by the Design Review Board and found
appropriate; garage entries are limited and parking is not visible in the subterranean garage;
the garage layout was found to be appropriate by the City Traffic Engineer; the street yards
are well landscaped with building setbacks that exceed the minimum requirements and will
enhance the quality of the site compared with the existing site character; lighting will be
minimal and shielded; long wall lengths are minimized by frequent building articulation and
varied setbacks and rooflines; retaining walls are landscaped; street trees will be provided;
- 10 -
and the building is oriented towards the street with ground floor units and a prominent entry
plaza and entry feature at the focal corner of Mission and Lincoln Avenues.
D. The project design, as conditioned, minimizes environmental impacts as documented in the
Final EIR, which determined that significant environmental impacts either did not exist or
could be minimized through conditions of approval to a level of insignificance, with the
exception of the loss of historic structures.
E. 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 documented in Use
Permit Finding C.2 above.
Findings (TS16-003)
Vesting Tentative Condominium Map
A. There have been no changes in circumstances associated with the site, including
environmental or site constraints, and no health or safety issues that would warrant any
revised conditions or project modifications or otherwise alter the findings upon which the
original approval was based, as discussed in Use Permit Findings A and B above.
B. As proposed and conditioned, the time extension for Vesting Tentative Map, along with the
accompanying improvements would remain compliant with the applicable requirements of
the San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance (Title 15 of the San Rafael Municipal Code), including
minimum lot size, and the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the map and
improvements would satisfy the required findings cited below.
C. As proposed and conditioned, the subdivision, together with its design and improvements
remains consistent with the applicable objectives, goals and policies of the San Rafael
General Plan 2020 as documented in Use Permit Finding C.1 above.
D. The subject property remains physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of
development and is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious
health problems in that a Final EIR has been prepared and adopted by the City Council which
contains information supporting the suitability of the site for the proposed development with
the exception of the proposed demolition of structures found to be historic resources,
adequate services, infrastructure and utility systems are available to serve the proposed
development, adequate provisions are included for required parking, landscape
improvements and recreational facilities for residents, and the project design was reviewed
by local agencies and the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission and
recommended for approval, as discussed in Use Permit finding C.2 above.
E. As proposed and conditioned, the proposed subdivision would not conflict with any existing
or required easements.
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:
- 11 -
Conditions of Approval (TS16-003)
Vesting Tentative Condominium Map Time Extension
1. This second allowable time extension for Vesting Tentative Map TS15-004 shall be valid for
a period of two (2) year as provided by San Rafael Municipal Code Title 15, until August 7,
2018, during which time the applicant shall implement the project by filing for and recording
the final map. If the project has not recorded a Final Map for the project before the expiration
date, the project may only proceed upon filing of an entirely new subdivision and zoning
request which will be subject to compliance with then applicable local codes and ordinances..
2. This time extension approval shall run concurrently with related zoning entitlements (ED16-
083 & UP16-037), and all conditions of the related zoning entitlements shall be incorporated
by reference.
3. All conditions of original approval TS05-001 and the related zoning entitlements that remain
valid and not completed shall be incorporated herein by reference. The Community
Development Director shall determine the extent that any condition which has been removed,
omitted or modified by this extension request may remain applicable to implement the
project entitlements.
Mitigation Measures
4. The following project Mitigation Measures are required and incorporated into the project
approvals:
a. The following controls shall be implemented during demolition:
• Water during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement to control dust
generation;
• Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site; and
• Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
b. The following controls shall be implemented at all construction sites:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy
periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or
shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers to control dust;
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites;
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid
runoff-related impacts to water quality;
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets;
• Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
- 12 -
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Install base rock at entryways for all exiting trucks, and wash off the tires or tracks of
all trucks and equipment in designated areas before leaving the site; and
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25
mph.
c. Forced-air mechanical ventilation systems shall be included in the design so that a
habitable indoor environment can be maintained if windows must be closed to meet the
indoor standard be provided for units 1-8, 13-22 and 27-36.
d. The project applicant shall obtain a permit, if needed, to exceed the City’s maximum
allowable construction noise level of 90 dBA. The on-site complaint and enforcement
manager shall have and be trained in the use of a sound meter and shall monitor
construction noise to assure that levels do not exceed 90 dBA in the method prescribed
by the San Rafael Noise Ordinance.
e. All construction and grading activities shall conform to the hours listed in section
8.13.050 part A of the City’s Noise Ordinance, with the exception of work not being
allowed on Saturdays. Therefore, all noise generating construction activities shall be
limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Construction shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays.
f. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the
City shall require the applicant to develop a site-specific noise reduction program, subject
to City review and approval, which includes the following measures:
• Signs shall be posted describing the permitted hours of construction in a conspicuous
location near the property entrance legible from the edge of the roadway. The exact
wording of the sign is prescribed by the City’s Noise Ordinance.
• An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated to respond to and
track complaints.
• A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are
completed prior to the issuance of a building permit (including construction hours,
neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds,
wherever feasible).
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid
noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
- 13 -
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed-air exhaust shall be used. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills
rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from the adjacent residences as possible,
and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers
or other measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.
g. The buildings at 1203 Lincoln Avenue shall be documented to Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 3 standards, according to the Outline Format described
in the Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical
Descriptive Data. Photographic documentation shall follow the Photographic
Specifications – Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to 20 archival quality
large-format photographs of the exterior and interior of the building and its architectural
elements. Construction techniques and architectural details shall be documented,
especially noting the measurements of structural members, hardware, and other features
that tie the architectural elements to a specific date. A copy of the documentation, with
original photo negatives and prints, shall be placed in a historical archive or history
collection accessible to the general public. Additionally, the developer shall fund an
exhibit of the historical survey at the Marin Historical Society, the Anne T. Kent
California Room at the Marin County Library Civic Center Branch. Five copies of the
documentation with archival photographs shall be produced for distribution to local and
regional repositories. One copy shall be provided to the Northwest Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park, California.
h. The home at 1211 Lincoln Avenue shall be documented to Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS) Level 3 standards, according to the Outline Format described in the
Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical
Descriptive Data. Photographic documentation shall follow the Photographic
Specifications – Historic American Building Survey, including 15-20 archival quality
large-format photographs of the exterior and interior of the building and its architectural
elements. Construction techniques and architectural details shall be documented,
especially noting the measurements of structural members, hardware, and other features
that tie the architectural elements to a specific date. A copy of the documentation, with
original photo negatives and prints, shall be placed in a historical archive or history
collection accessible to the general public.
i. If prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project
construction, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified
archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. Disturbance to
resource should be avoided to minimize adverse effects. If such deposits cannot be
avoided, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register
(i.e., it shall be determined whether they qualify as historical or unique archaeological
resources under CEQA). If the deposits are not eligible, further avoidance is not
necessary. If the deposits are eligible, and avoidance is not feasible, the adverse effects
shall be mitigated. Upon completion of an archaeological assessment, a report shall be
prepared documenting the methods, results and recommendations. Findings of the report
- 14 -
shall be submitted to TWM Architects and Planners, the City of San Rafael and the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC).
j. Should human remains be encountered by project activities, work within 25 feet of the
discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. If the County
Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall
notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this
identification, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation.
The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely
descended (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper
treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of such analysis
and/or recovery, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and
results of the investigation and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human
remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the
recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
This report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the NWIC.
k. If paleontological resources are encountered during project activities, all work within 25
feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the
discoveries, prepared a fossil locality form documenting the discovery, and made
recommendations regarding the treatment of the resources. If the paleontological
resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be avoided
by project activities. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, adverse effects shall
be mitigated. At a minimum, mitigation shall include data recovery and analysis,
preparation of a data recovery report or other reports as appropriate, and donating the
fossil material recovered to a paleontological repository, such as the University of
California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Mitigation may also include monitoring of
project-related ground-disturbance. Upon completion of project activities, a report that
documents the methods and findings of the mitigation shall be prepared and copies shall
be submitted to the appropriate city agencies, and to the repository to which fossils were
accessioned.
l. Specific lighting proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
installation. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30-day lighting level
review by Planning Division staff to minimize lighting and glare off-site and ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area.
Public Works Department
5. All improvement plans must be on paper size 24”X36”.
6. The site plan shall include grading and drainage plans, contours and existing conditions 30
feet beyond the project boundaries.
7. Delineate and describe all existing easements mentioned in the preliminary title report.
8. No structures are permitted over any dedicated public utility, storm and sanitary sewer
easements.
9. Submit improvement plans for frontage improvements to include the following:
- 15 -
Replace all curb and gutter and sidewalk fronting Mission and Lincoln Avenue. Remove
all driveways not in use.
Sidewalk on Mission Avenue shall be at least 6’ from behind back of curb and a clear 4’
minimum sidewalk around any obstruction such as utility pole, fire hydrant, etc.
Sidewalk on Lincoln Avenue shall consist of a 4’ planter behind curb with a minimum 6’
wide sidewalk.
All improvements must be in compliance with the most recent editions of Title 2 of the
American Disability Act and Title 24 of the California Code Regulations. Relocation of
existing street facilities may be required.
Extend existing storm drain on Lincoln Avenue by installing a new storm drain from the
existing catch basin near Mission Avenue to the north side of the proposed driveway on
Lincoln Avenue.
Replacement of existing corrugated metal pipes from catch basins at the northwest corner
of Mission and Lincoln to the manhole in the middle of the intersection may be required.
Replacement of existing catch basins on and near Mission Avenue may be required.
Check invert grade of existing catch basins on Lincoln and Mission Avenues with garage
grade. Design storm drainage system to prevent flooding inside the garage during any
storm drain flow condition in existing City storm drainage system.
Design drainage system to ensure no public water from the City storm drain enters
private property or private storm drainage system. This preventive facility (if any) shall
be maintained by the Homeowner Association and shall be addressed in the Conditions
Conveyances and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
All utilities must be underground from existing utility pole in streets adjacent to the
development.
10. An encroachment permit is required for improvement works in the public right of way.
11. Show on plan and final map all existing and new easements within the subdivision.
12. Submit final map and required fees, in accordance and conformance with the Subdivision
Map Act and San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance, for review and approval by the City
Engineer and City Council.
Plans and Agreement and Securities
13. Project CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s office prior to
submittal of final map.
14. A Subdivision Agreement will be entered into with the City, prior to acceptance of final map.
15. Submit Engineer estimate for site and frontage improvements for bond purpose. Estimate to
be approved by City Engineer.
16. The required bonds or other approved security will be furnished to the City in accordance
with the Subdivision Agreement to ensure completion of improvements for both public and
common area.
- 16 -
17. Prior to acceptance of final map, plan checking and inspection fee shall be paid based on
approved engineer estimate for both the public and common areas in accordance with the
City’s master fee schedule.
18. Submit improvement and grading plans, conforming to the approved tentative improvement
plans, conditions of approval, design review, Mitigated Negative Declaration, geotechnical
report and response, etc.
19. A geotechnical report must be submitted with the final map application and is subject to
review and approval by Geotechnical Review Board. The applicant shall make a deposit with
the City Engineer to cover the cost to make this review.
20. Submit as-built improvement plans on 24”X36” mylar with final soil report and certifications
upon completion of the subdivision agreement.
Storm Drainage
21. The improvement plans shall show existing and proposed drainage facilities. The proposed
drainage facilities shall meet current MCSTOPP requirements in compliance with the State
Water Resources Control Board.
22. Do not block existing drainage from adjacent properties. Re-route drainage as required.
23. A hydrology and hydraulics analysis on the project site, based on 25 years storm frequency
shall be submitted as part of the final map application.
24. All downspouts shall be directed to landscaping area for treatment before discharge into City
storm drainage system.
25. Refuse area must be covered, bermed and plumbed into the sanitary sewer.
Sanitary Sewers
Please note the conditions on sanitary sewers are to be administered by the San Rafael
Sanitation District
26. The improvement drawing shall show the location of existing and proposed sanitary sewers
facilities.
27. All sewers shall be PVC, type C900, designed with flexible, water-tight joints to
accommodate predicted settlement.
28. The sanitary sewer shall be designed, installed and tested in accordance with the San Rafael
Sanitation District specifications and drawing.
Streets and Traffic
29. Street and traffic design shall conform to the Cities and County of Marin standard
specifications and uniform construction standards, unless otherwise noted or approved by
appropriate departments of the City of San Rafael.
30. The improvement plans shall show vertical and horizontal alignments of roadway.
31. Typical street sections shall be as shown as per approved tentative map and plans.
- 17 -
32. The onsite traffic circulation and parking plan shall be subjected to the approval of the
Traffic Engineer and by the Fire Marshal.
33. The parking and on site pavement shall be designed to a traffic index of 5 or a traffic index
determined by the Traffic Engineer. It shall be designed by the soil engineer/civil engineer
and will be submitted to the Traffic Engineer for approval.
34. Full width repaving is required for moratorium streets. Repaving shall be at least from curb
to curb and 10’ from either side of the subsurface disturbance, as determined by Public
Works. Moratorium streets are determined based on the condition of the roadway and are
subject to change. Please note that Mission Ave. and the portion of Lincoln Ave. south of
Mission Ave are currently moratorium streets.
35. Show signs, striping, legends and other traffic control devices.
36. Wheel chair ramp, sidewalk and footpath shall be in compliance with the most current
editions of Title 2 of the American Disability Act and Title 24 of the California Code
Regulations. Improvement plans shall provide details and sufficient elevations to ensure
feasibility of the design.
37. Provide a detail plan (Scale ¼” to a foot) with grades and elevations for the ADA ramp in the
corner of Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue. Show ramp design in conjunction with the
proposed corner landscaping improvements.
Utilities
38. The improvement plans shall show all proposed and existing utilities, including locations of
fire hydrant, street light, utility boxes and services, etc.
39. All utilities shall be underground.
40. The improvements plans shall be reviewed and signed by each of the respective utility
companies.
41. Prior to recordation of the final map, written verification shall be submitted from each of the
respective utility companies indicating that they have reviewed the utility plan and the soil
report.
42. Fire hydrants shall be installed in public utility easements (P.U.E.) as required by the Fire
Department.
Community Development Department, Planning Division
43. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall pay to the City in lieu parkland
dedication fees in the amount of $21,647.73 in accordance with the provisions of City
Ordinance 1558. The fee is based upon the increase in number of units of the proposed
project vs. the existing units.
44. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Conditions, Conveyances, and Restrictions (CC&R’s)
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office. The CC&R’s shall include a
condition not allowing storage on exterior decks, patios, or balconies.
- 18 -
45. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall enter into a below market rate (BMR)
agreement approved by the City Council. Consistent with the General Plan 2020 Policy, the
BMR units shall be constructed on site and shall consist of the following units and
affordability requirements: six (6) below market rate units composed of four (4) units
affordable to low-income households and two (2) units affordable to moderate-income
households.
46. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the final map shall be recorded.
47. Development impact and processing fees are required. See the Development Impact Fee
schedule for estimates of costs for construction permits. Additional impact fees are required
as noted in the conditions of approval above. The applicant is reminded of the following fees
that will be due before project implementation (this is not a comprehensive list):
Unpaid Planning entitlement fees: $5,328.67
Unpaid EIR fees: $27,995.65
Building permit fees: TBD
Final Map application submittal: $1,800.00
Parkland Dedication Fee: $21,647.73
Traffic Mitigation for 6 net new peak trips: $25,476
Sewer Connection for 11 net new units: $17,545
School Fees, contact San Rafael City Schools at (415) 492-3200: TBD
Water Connection Fee, Contact MMWD at (415) 945-1455: TBD
Conditions of Approval (ED15-054)
Environmental and Design Review
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. This Environmental and Design Review Permit extension shall be valid for two (2) years,
until August 7, 2018, and shall expire unless the Vesting Tentative Map TS16-003 has been
filed and pursued to recordation.
2. All conditions of related Use Permit and Tentative Map time extensions are incorporated
herein by reference.
3. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented for
approval on plans prepared by TWM, Architects, dated June 21, 2005 and including the
Mission Avenue Entry Option dated December 15, 2005, shall be the same as required for
issuance of a building permit. Note that details shall be as indicated on plans and reflected
in the photo-simulations contained in the original project file. Minor modifications or
revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division.
Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require
review and approval of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit written verification from
Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) indicating that the project’s trash service meets MSS
requirements.
- 19 -
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit written verification from the
Marin Municipal Water District indicating that the District’s requirements have been met.
6. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30-day lighting level review by Planning
Division staff to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the roof venting, lighting, service vehicle parking,
and plaza plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
8. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the occupancy of the building or the
property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping/irrigation cost
with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for
landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning
Division prior to occupancy.
9. The landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Planning Division, certifying that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape
plans, that the irrigation has been installed and been tested for timing and function, and all
plants including street trees are healthy.
10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and
debris.
11. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a building height survey from a licensed
land surveyor indicating that the building has been built less than the 48-foot height limit as
defined by the California Building Code. The applicant shall take appropriate measures
during the construction process to insure building height compliance.
12. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit an acoustical report to the Planning
Division indicating that the internal noise levels of the residential units are consistent with
the City noise standards.
13. Prior to final inspection, the applicants shall request an inspection from the Planning Division
and submit a two-year maintenance contract for landscaping or post a two-year maintenance
bond.
14. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these
conditions of approval.
Fire Department
15. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire
Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments.
16. Based on Uniform Building or Fire Code requirements, a regular sprinkler and standpipe
system shall be installed throughout the building.
17. The alarms from fire detection systems and commercial fire sprinkler systems shall be
monitored by a UL Central Station Company approved by the San Rafael Fire Department
and be issued a UL serially numbered certificate for Central Station Fire Alarms.
- 20 -
18. A Fire Department approved Knox Keyway System is required to be installed conforming to
Fire Prevention Standard 202.
19. Deferred submittals shall be submitted for the following systems:
Automatic fire sprinkler system (C-16 to submit plans)
Standpipe system
Fire alarm system.
Private fire service main
20. Show the location of address numbers on the building elevation. Each building must have
address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or
road fronting the property. Refer to the attached Fire Prevention Bureau Premises
Identification Standard 09-1001, Table 1.
21. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for the water
supply serving the fire protection system
22. As the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required
parallel to one entire side of the building. The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be
located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building.
Public Works Department
23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a traffic mitigation fee of $25,476.00 (adjusted
annually on the Lee Saylor Construction Cost Index) shall be paid to the Building Division.
The fee is based upon the 6-peak hour trips generated by the project.
24. Grading plan shall show all proposed and existing contours.
25. Final grading, drainage and foundation plan shall be prepared in accordance with the
recommendation of the geotechnical report and review.
26. No mass grading is to be done between from October 15 through April 15 without the
approval of the City Engineer.
27. The Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPP) shall meet current MCSTOPP
requirements in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
28. An erosion control plan, in compliance with the Best Management Practice, must be
implemented, prior to October 15 and shall be maintained to at least through April 15.
Contractor shall be responsible for any silt and/or debris deposition in the existing
downstream drainage facilities. Contractor shall be required to clean all debris in the
downstream facilities if so directed by the Department of Public Works Department.
29. All earth and foundation work shall be performed under the direction of the project soil
engineer in accordance with the soil report and supplements for the project site. A final soil
report, including certification shall be submitted, prior to the construction of the foundation.
- 21 -
30. All construction staging must be on project site.
31. No lane closure on Lincoln Avenue and on Mission Avenue is permitted without an approved
traffic control plan.
32. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive staging and
traffic control plan for review and approval. The plan shall include agreements to pay for
any City’s staff’s, including police department’s overtime incurred for traffic control during
the duration of the project construction.
33. No sidewalk closure on Lincoln Avenue and on Mission Avenue shall be allowed without an
approved sidewalk closure plan.
34. Provide calculation for sewer flow and check sufficiency of existing sewer main on Lincoln
Avenue/Mission Avenue. Note: this condition is administered by the San Rafael Sanitation
District.
35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, televise existing storm and sanitary sewer facilities
fronting development and agree to repair/replace facilities as required by the City or SRSD.
See item 20 (f) and 20 (g) above, present findings of condition of storm drain pipelines to the
Public Works Department and sanitary sewer lines to SRSD.
36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the driveway designs from Lincoln and Mission
Avenues shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer,
San Rafael Sanitation District
37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a sewer connection fee of $17,545.00 shall be paid to
the Building Division. The fee is based upon the difference in the existing 25 units versus
the proposed 36 units. (36-25 = 11) (11 X $1,595.00 = $17,545.00).
38. The project shall be responsible for installation of new sewer laterals.
39. Include the existing sewer lateral on Sheet C2 “Existing Conditions,” when application is
submitted for Construction Permit.
Building Division
40. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with all applicable codes and
regulations in effect at the time of plan submittal and building permit issuance. (e.g., 2001
California Building Code, 2001 Plumbing Code, 2001 Electrical Code, and 2001 California
Mechanical Code as amended, updated and superseded).
41. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by
four (4) complete sets of construction drawings to include:
a) Architectural plans
b) Structural plans
c) Electrical plans
d) Plumbing plans
e) Mechanical plans
f) Fire sprinkler plans
g) Landscape/irrigation plans
- 22 -
h) Site/civil plans
i) Structural Calculations
j) Truss Calculations
k) Soils reports
l) Title-24 energy documentation
42. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be
specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of each
building.
43. The building shall have address numbers posted in a conspicuous place, clearly visible from
the street. Numbers should be minimum 4" in height, contrasting in color to their
background, and either internally or externally illuminated.
44. Fire sprinklers will be required throughout the building. Separate application by a C-16
contractor is required.
45. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction at time
of original approval were computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area, Commercial
space is computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area, and have since been
increased. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid
directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit.
46. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a
detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In
particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at
future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This
information should be provided to Building and Engineering Division for review and
comments prior to any such activities taking place.
47. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work.
48. Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil
pad certifications are to be submitted.
49. The site development of such items as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps,
common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility standards contained in
Title-24, California Code of Regulations. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall
address these requirements to the extent possible.
50. All areas within the site must be accessible for persons with disabilities. All newly
constructed buildings on a site shall have, but are not limited to, the following accessible
features:
a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival
b. Routes of travel between buildings
c. Accessible parking
d. Ramps
e. Primary entrances
f. Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided)
h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements
- 23 -
51. Pedestrian access provisions should provide a minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface
to and along all accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash
receptacles, etc., shall not encroach on this 4' minimum width. Also, note that sidewalk
slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2.
52. All dwelling units within a building with elevator access to all floors shall have some level of
disabled accessibility or adaptability.
53. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) is 68” wide and 51” deep, with a clear door
width of 36”.
54. Maximum travel distance from any point within the building to an exit shall be 250’ unless
rated corridors are used.
55. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8
feet wide off- load area.
Police Department
56. The street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the
property in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency
vehicles. The numbers shall be no less than 24 inches in height and shall be of a contrasting
color to the background to which they are attached. The address numbers shall be
illuminated during darkness.
57. Exposed roof vents and ducts shall be grated or constructed of an impact-resistant material to
the satisfaction of the Police Department.
58. Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to limit if not in fact prevent
access to the roof or balconies.
59. All exterior man doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one
and three-fourths inches (1-3/4") or with panels not less than nine-sixteenths inches (9/16")
thick.
60. Metal-framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs and have a dead-bolt lock with a
cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw that is a minimum of one inch (1") long.
61. Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected to prevent violation of the
function of the strike plate from outside. The strike plate shall be secured to the jamb by a
minimum of two screws which must penetrate into the solid backing beyond the jamb.
62. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non-removable hinge pins.
63. In-swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs.
64. Glass on exterior doors or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be break-resistant or
glass-like materials to the satisfaction of the Police Department.
65. All windows within 12 feet of the ground level shall have a secondary lock mounted to the
frame of the window. The secondary lock shall be a bolt lock and shall be no less than one-
eighth inch (1/8") in thickness. The lock shall have a hardened steel throw of one-half inch
- 24 -
(1/2") minimum length. Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be
stationary and non-removable.
66. Landscaping shall not block or obstruct the view of any door, window, or lighting fixture.
67. Any alternative materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the Crime
Prevention Officer before installation.
68. The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the construction prior
to occupancy.
69. Permanently fixed ladders leading to roof areas shall be fully enclosed with sheet metal to a
height of ten (10) feet. This covering shall be locked against the ladder with casehardened
hasp secured with non-removable screws or bolts. If a padlock is used, it shall have a
hardened steel shackle, locking at both heel and toe, and have a minimum of 5-pin tumbler
operation.
70. Signs shall be posted and driveways/curbs/parking areas shall be painted red which have
emergency access lanes.
71. All exterior lighting shall be sufficient to establish a sense of well-being to the pedestrian and
one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a reasonable distance. Type and
placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the Police Department.
72. All exterior lighting shall be vandal-resistant.
73. All exterior lighting shall be on a master photoelectric cell set to operate during hours of
darkness.
74. A minimum of one-foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided in all exterior
doorways, walkways, and vehicle parking areas.
75. An illuminated diagram (scaled schematic drawing of the floor plan) shall be positioned at
each entrance of the condominium building. The illuminated diagram shall indicate the
location of the viewer and each individual unit within the condominium building.
Conditions of Approval (UP15-023)
Conditional Use Permit
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. This extension of the 36-unit condominium project is granted for two (2) years, until August 7,
2018, during which time the applicant shall pursue project implementation.
2. This time extension shall apply to the project as originally approved under City Council
Resolution 12018, which shall be based on the fees, policies and ordinances in effect at the time
the original application was deemed completed, as updated herein in compliance with the
provisions and limitations of the Subdivision Ordinance and State Subdivision Map Act.
3. This Use Permit extension grants a height bonus to exceed 36 feet pursuant to General Plan
Policy LU-15 (Height Bonuses) and is subject to all conditions outlined for the Environmental
and Design Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map concurrent time extensions.
- 25 -
4. The owner(s) of the property shall be responsible for weed abatement, trash, litter and graffiti
control on the property.
5. Permanent security fencing may be required to be installed and be maintained around the project
until such time as a building permit is issued, as deemed necessary to secure the site from illegal
dumping, parking and any other nuisance related issues. If required, fencing shall be installed
within 90 days of written notice by the Community Development Department, and shall be
maintained in good repair and condition, and shall not create a hazard to pedestrians. Fencing
should be setback 1 to 2 feet from the back of sidewalk with mulch or groundcover and debris
catchments installed to control runoff and weeds. Fencing type shall be reviewed and approved
by the Community Development Department. A dark colored open fencing should be used.
6. Any Historic American Buildings Survey HABS documentation shall be included in escrow
transactions to transfer the property and any available copies of the HABS documentation shall
be provided to the City in a timely fashion.
7. All conditions of approval for original approvals Design Review Permit (ED04-102) and Use
Permit (UP05-032) for the subject 36-unit condominium project are affirmed and incorporated
herein.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 13th day of September, 2016.
Moved by Commissioner ________________ and seconded by Commissioner ___________.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A Jensen, Secretary Mark Lubamersky, Chair
Legend
Mar in County
Marin County
San R afael Spher e of
Influence
San Rafael Sphere of
Influence
San R afael
San Rafael
Bay Water s
Ba y Wa ters
Parcels
Pa rcels
Easements
LICENSE AGREEMENT
PUE
Storm D rainage
Storm/Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
OTHER
Boat Docks
Boat Docks
ROW
ROW
OneWa yAr rows
One Way Arrows
Street Center line
Street Centerline
Street Names
Street Names
Street Names
SITUS
SITUS
City Limit Line
City Limit Line
While we strive to produce maps with good accurac y and with current accompany ing data,
the accuracy of the information herein c annot be guaranteed. This map was prepared
using programetric c omputer aided drafting techniques, and it does not represent legal
boundary survey data.
Exhibit 2 ‐ Vicinity Map (1203 Lincoln)
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4PC Meeting September 13, 2016 Exhibit 4