HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2021-12-07 Agenda Packet
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2021-12-07
Telephone: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 814-0483-9089#
One Tap Mobile: US: +16699009128,,81404839089#
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Executive Order N-29-20, the City of San Rafael will no longer offer an
in-person meeting location for the public to attend. This meeting will be held virtually
using Zoom.
How to participate in the meeting:
• Submit public comments in writing. Correspondence received by 5:00 p.m. the
Wednesday before this public hearing will be provided with the agenda materials
provided to the Board. Correspondence received after this deadline but by 5:00
p.m. the day of the hearing will be conveyed to the Board as a supplement. Send
correspondence to the project planner and to
planningpubliccomment@cityofsanrafael.org
• Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public
comment.
• Dial-in to Zoom's telephone number using the meeting ID and provide verbal
public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk
(email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or phone at 415-485-3066) who will use their best
efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
Members of the public may speak on Agenda items.
CALL TO ORDER
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Remarks are limited to three minutes per person and may be on anything within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard first, remarks on
agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar allows the Board to take action, without discussion, on Agenda items
for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no Board members who wish
to discuss.
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2021
Recommended Action – Approve minutes as submitted
ACTION CALENDAR
2. 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community) - Request for
Environmental and Design Review for a phased redevelopment of the Aldersly
Retirement Community, including demolition and renovation of existing buildings and
construction of new buildings; APN: 014-054-31 and -32; Planned Development (PD-
1775) Zoning District; Peter Schakow, Owner; Peter Lin, Greenbriar Development,
Applicant; File No(s).: ED 20-051, ZC20-001 and UP20-022.
Project Planner: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner jayni@allsep-planning.com
Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building
design
3. 88 Vivian Street (70-unit Residential Development) – ED21-042; UP21-017; TS21-
004; for demolition of the existing Country Club Bowl and construction of 70 for-sale
residential units including six available to low income households, in 14 separate
buildings.; APN: 008-092-02; Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone; Matt Ashton of
Ashton 3, LLC Applicant; Charlie Kinstler, Owner; Canal Neighborhood.
Project Planner: Krystle Rizzi, Contract Planner Krystle.Rizzi@cityofsanrafael.org
Recommended Action – Review and recommend approval of site and building
design
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
BOARD COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission
less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language
interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing
city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by
dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available
in accessible formats upon request.
Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of December 7, 2021
Design Review Board
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 16, 2021, 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
Virtual Meeting
Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/drb-2021-11-16
Telephone: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 835-3174-3214#
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Executive Order N-29-20, the City of San Rafael will no longer offer an
in-person meeting location for the public to attend. This meeting will be held virtually
using Zoom.
How to participate in the meeting:
• Submit public comments in writing. Correspondence received by 5:00 p.m. the
Wednesday before this public hearing will be provided with the agenda materials
provided to the Board. Correspondence received after this deadline but by 5:00
p.m. the day of the hearing will be conveyed to the Board as a supplement. Send
correspondence to the project planner and to
planningpubliccomment@cityofsanrafael.org
• Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public
comment.
• Dial-in to Zoom's telephone number using the meeting ID and provide verbal
public comment.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk
(email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or phone at 415-485-3066) who will use their best
efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as
possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for
resolving reasonable accommodation requests.
Present: Chair Paul
Board Member Blayney
Board Member Kent
Board Member Kovalsky
Board Member Summers
Absent: Vice Chair Rege
Also Present: Leslie Mendez, Planning Manager
Steve Stafford, Senior Planner
David Hogan, Contract Planner
Alicia Giudice, Community Development Director
Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Lisa Goldfien, Assistant City Attorney
Aldo Mercado, Planning Commissioner
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Paul called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. He then invited Planning Manager Leslie
Mendez to call the roll. All board members were present, except for Vice Chair Rege.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
Chair Paul invited Planning Manager Leslie Mendez who informed the community that
members of the public would provide public comment either on the telephone or through
Zoom. She explained the process for community participation on the telephone and Zoom.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
• Victoria DeWitt addressed the Board regarding a recusal petition for Member
Stewart Summers for 52/54 Fremont/Marquard Agenda Item.
City Attorney Robert Epstein announced he will defer his comments on the recusal petition
until that item is called tonight, as well as, provided comments on the Design Review Board
having open time from the public on the Agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC (CONTINUED)
• Robert Chatham addressed the Board regarding concern about light color paint on
a hillside home.
• Vicky Fernandez addressed the Board regarding the noticing of public meetings.
• Steve Thomson addressed the Board regarding an organizational chart of staff.
Chair Paul reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Paul invited public comment; however, there was none.
Member Kent moved and Member Kovalsky seconded to approve the Minutes as submitted.
1. Approval of the Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2021
Approved minutes as submitted
AYES: Members: Kent, Kovalsky, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Rege
ABSTAIN: Members: Blayney
Motion carried 4-0
2. 800 Mission Ave. (“Aegis Living San Rafael”) – Review final details on the upper-
story stepback along the Mission Avenue elevation, the landscaping of all outdoor
common areas (patios and terraces), and the articulation to the north elevation of an
approved 103-room/105-bed residential care facility with memory care services located
on two vacant parcels at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Mission Ave. A Use
Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit were approved for the project,
subject to conditions, on October 12, 2021 APNS: 011-184-08 & -09; T4N 40/50 zone;
ASC San Rafael, LLC, owner; Geoff Forner, applicant; File No.: UP21-006 and ED21-
022
Project Planner: Steve Stafford Steve.Stafford@cityofsanrafael.org
Chair Paul invited public comment; however, there was none.
Discussion about removing from Consent Calendar.
Item pulled from Consent Calendar.
Steve Stafford, Senior Planner presented the Staff Report.
Staff and Applicant responded to questions from the Members.
Chair Paul invited public comment; however, there was none.
Members provided comments.
Discussion between Staff and Members regarding what action needs to be taken at this
time.
Member Kent moved and Member Summers seconded to approve the project as
discussed tonight.
AYES: Members: Blayney, Kent, Kovalsky, Summers & Chair Paul
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: Rege
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 5-0
ACTION CALENDAR
3. 52/54 Fremont/Marquard – Final Design Review on the practicability of planting Coast
Redwoods on the project site as part of a request for a Lot Line Adjustment for property
line adjustment, Exception and Environmental and Design Review for: a change in the
existing lot configuration, a new 2,492 square-foot, single-family residence on the newly
created vacant lot; the conversion of an existing residence which would result in a new
1,554 square foot residence with a 1,104 square foot internal accessory dwelling unit,
and an exception for minimum natural state and front and side yard setbacks on the
proposed Fremont Road lot; APN: 012-043-11 and 12-043-12; Single-family
Residential (R10) District; Applicants: Private Money Management Group LLC, Orange
Beacon Mkt., owners; File No(s). LLA18-005/ED18-066/ED20-044/EX19-010
Project Planner: Dave Hogan Dave.Hogan@cityofsanrafael.org
Discussion regarding item being removed from Consent Calendar.
Item pulled from Consent Calendar.
Dave Hogan, Project Planner presented the Staff Report.
Staff responded to questions from the Members.
City Attorney Rob Epstein provided comments regarding the recusal petition for
Member Stewart Summers for this item. He is comfortable with Member Summers’
participation in the item based on the information that he gained from Member
Summers.
City Attorney Rob Epstein responded to questions from the Members.
Member Summers provided comments.
Applicant Team gave a presentation.
Chair Paul invited public comment.
Speakers: Hayley Ballard, Bill Carney, Sustainable San Rafael, Maren De Graff, Davis
Perkins, Victoria DeWitt, DFaulkner, Judy Schriebman, Sierra Club Marin group, Brian
Walsh, West End Neighborhood Association, Paula Spencer, Steve Thomson, Susan
Bradford, Caroline Fawley
Applicant Team continued with their presentation.
Staff responded to questions from the Members.
Members provided comments.
Member Blayney moved and Member Kent seconded to recommend that the applicant
add two or three redwoods.
Discussion regarding motion.
Staff provided comments.
AYES: Members: Blayney, Kent, Kovalsky, & Summers
NOES: Members: Chair Paul
ABSENT: Members: Rege
ABSTAIN: Members: None
Motion carried 4-0
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Planning Manager reported on the following items:
• City Council adopted an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance on November 15 with
no restrictions based on certain streets, no discretionary option
• Staff is restarting Objective Design Standards adoption
• Next Design Review Board meeting will be on December 7 – Member Summers noted that
he will not be in attendance
Alicia Giudice, Community Development Director gave an update on the Housing Element.
BOARD COMMUNICATION
• Discussion regarding needing clarification on moving projects forward
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Paul adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
___________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2021
_____________________________________
LARRY PAUL, Chair
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: December 7, 2021
Case Number: ED20-051
Project Planner: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner
Agenda Item: 2
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community) - Request
for Environmental and Design Review for a phased redevelopment of the Aldersly Retirement
Community, including demolition and renovation of existing buildings and construction of new
buildings; APN: 014-054-31 and -32; Planned Development (PD-1775) Zoning District; Peter
Schakow, Owner; Peter Lin, Greenbriar Development, Applicant; File No(s).: ED 20-051,
ZC20-001 and UP20-022.
____________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2021, the Design Review Board (Board) reviewed the Aldersly project. After
discussion, the Board reached consensus on the following items:
• Find ways to reduce imposing façade of building along Mission Avenue through
architectural stepbacks, other features, or an increased setback.
• Make an effort to reduce bioswales along mission to allow increased tree screening
of buildings and parking.
The Board voted 4-0 to continue the item to a future meeting to allow the Applicant an
opportunity to address the consensus items noted above.
ANALYSIS
The following is a description of how the Applicant addressed each consensus item.
Mission Avenue Independent Living (IL) Building Facade
Board Recommendation: Find ways to reduce imposing façade of building along Mission
Avenue through architectural stepbacks, other features, or an increased setback.
Staff’s Comments: The applicant has submitted revised drawings that show changes made
to the south elevation of the proposed Mission Avenue Independent Living (IL) building.
Revisions made include:
• Utilizing more vertical elements to break up the south façade
• Changing the form and material to break the roof line; and
• Changing the color and material (Stucco Color 4 - Scanda Blue) in center portion to
provide more of a separate the building into east and west parts.
Below are the iterations of the Mission Avenue IL Building South Elevation, as it has evolved
from the May 2020 Conceptual Design Review (Plan A), the October 2021 Design Review
Board meeting (Plan B), and to the current proposal showing revisions in response to the
Board’s consensus comments (Plan C).
2
Figure 1: Revisions to South Elevation of Mission Avenue IL Building
A. Conceptual Design Submittal – May 2020: (submitted for August 2020 review by DRB Sub-
Committee Review)
B. Formal Design Review Submittal - Oct 2020 (Reviewed by DRB Meeting October 2021)
Utilize existing material and color from the existing campus to maintain consistency
Utilize window design to match existing
Recess the 3rd floor and lighten color to reduce height visually
C. DRB Resubmittal - November 2021 (for review DRB Meeting December 2021)
Utilize vertical elements to break the south façade
Change of form and material to break the roof line
Change of color and material in center portion to separate the building into east and west parts
In addition, the revised plan set includes revised building elevations with proposed
landscaping (Sheet 5.1A-R), revised colors and materials (Sheet A5.3-R) and additional
perspective views from different points along Mission Avenue (Sheet A5.4-R).
3
Bioswales and Landscape Screening
Board Recommendation: Make an effort to reduce bioswales along mission to allow
increased tree screening of buildings and parking.
Staff’s Comments: The applicant has submitted revised drawings that depict a proposed
redistribution of bioretention areas on the site (Sheet C2.0-R). This redistribution of
bioretention areas would allow for additional trees to be planted between the Mission Avenue
IL building and Mission Avenue Right of way (ROW) as illustrated below, and as shown on
Sheet L6.1-R:
Summary
Staff believes that the revisions made to the south elevation of the proposed Mission Avenue
IL building, including changes to roof forms, colors, and materials; and the redistribution of
bioretention areas on the site respond to the Board’s consensus comments and help to
reduce the perceived mass of building. The revised landscape plan will provide more
screening with additional trees in locations that will improve the streetscape along Mission
Avenue. Staff notes that the number, size, location, and species of planting in the public ROW
is subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department.
Lot Coverage
Though not raised as a consensus item by the Board, there was discussion about the
proposed lot coverage. At staff’s request, the applicant provided a breakdown of how the lot
coverage was calculated, and staff believes that the proposed lot coverage of 52.8% includes
all areas that are to be included in lot coverage calculations as defined in the City’s Zoning
4
Ordinance. The proposed 52.6% lot coverage is below the 60% maximum lot coverage
standard established in both the approved and proposed PD Development Standards. The
applicant has provided information showing existing and proposed lot coverage areas on
Sheet A1.2R.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
As with the previous meeting held on October 5th, notice of the Boards review of this project was
conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning
Ordinance. A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a
300-foot radius of the project site, the appropriate neighborhood groups, and all other interested
parties, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of this continued Board meeting. In
addition, a notice was posted on the site along Mission Avenue a minimum of 15 calendar days
prior to the date of this Board meeting.
The City has received no public comment as of the printing and distribution of this staff report.
Any correspondence received will be included in Exhibit 4.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the revised drawings and information submitted by the applicant responds to
the Board’s consensus comments and is consistent with applicable general plan policies, zoning
regulations, and Design Review Criteria, as presented in the October 5, 2021 staff report.
RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommend approval of site and building design.
EXHIBITS
1. Site and Architectural Plans prepared by Perkins-Eastman, revised, 11/10/2021
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/11/21-1110-
ALDERSLY_DRB-RESUBMITTAL__sm.pdf
2. October 5, 2021, DRB Staff Report
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/design-review-board-october-5-2021/
3. Minutes of October 5, 2021, DRB Meeting
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/design-review-board-october-5-2021/
4. Correspondence
cc:
Peter Lin, Greenbriar Development
3232 McKinney, Ste. 1160
Dallas, TX 75204
plin@greenbrierdevelopment.com
Soo Im, Associate Principal
Perkins Eastman
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Gilbert Carrasco, Executive Director
Aldersly Retirement Community
326 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
GilbertCarrasco@Aldersly.org
Public Comment for Design Review Board Meeting 12/7/21 Page 3
PROJECT - 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community)
5. The impact studies and certainly the Project Design Plan should be clear how the
majority of service vehicle traffic and activities will be accommodated and what
mitigations or aspects of Plan will ensure safety and access for Belle Avenue
pedestrians, residents, vehicles and bikes.
6. Currently Aldersly has a backup generator that is very loud. Noise and Emissions
negatively impact our tenants on Belle (and likely other neighbors). It is our
understanding that there is to be a second such generator installed. Where is this
going to be located and will it meet a higher noise limit/emission requirement?
Construction Activities
This is an enormous project for a developed residential neighborhood with full bustling
streets, an established throughway, and presumably continued operations for the
Aldersly Community itself. Aldersly wants to max out the income potential of their
property with a wall-to-wall build-out that will negatively impact everyone else in the
community not for a few months or even a year, but FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. We
provide 3 high quality housing units directly behind Aldersly and the impact on our long-
term tenants is going to be unrelenting and it may prove impossible for them to stay
under these conditions. It is absolutely unreasonable to subject a residential community
to ten years of construction. There are no timeframes attached to the Phasing Plan but
the scope of each Phase is considerable. In our opinion the scope of the project is too big
and the timeline too long.
Of particular concern to us is the proposed West Campus Independent Living building (IL)
which is at the northwest corner of the property and abuts Belle Avenue. This building is
part of phase 4 of the project which means all the construction to the south (Mission
Street) side of the building will already be completed and the only access for construction
staging, equipment and activities will be from Belle Avenue. There is simply no room to
do this without dramatically exacerbating the aforementioned problems on Belle to an
Figure 3 ref Project Plans A3.5
Public Comment for Design Review Board Meeting 12/7/21 Page 4
PROJECT - 326 and 308 Mission Avenue (Aldersly Retirement Community)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
unsafe and unacceptable degree and will most likely require a number of road
closures. If this IL building is a “must have” for Aldersly then they should build it at an
earlier phase of the project when access from Mission is possible.
There is no way to prevent many aspects of a project this huge from leaking off the
project site into the neighborhood and surrounding roads. This will include noise, dirt,
extra trips by trucks and equipment, and certainly parking of workers, staging and heavy
equipment and materials. . .
Belle Avenue, at the rear of the property, is not of sufficient size to take the hit.
The project design and phasing should need to contain and absorb a high percentage of the
construction impacts ON THE PROJECT SITE and specifically limit inappropriate impacts
toward Belle Avenue that decrease safety and accessibility to that area.
Sincerely,
Derek and Tymber Cavasian
415-455-0575t
tymber@ cavasian.com
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: December 7, 2021
Case Numbers: ED21-042; UP21-017; TS21-004;
Project Planner: Krystle Rizzi, Consulting Planner
Agenda Item: 3
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 88 Vivian Street (70-unit Residential Development) – ED21-042; UP21-017; TS21-004;
for demolition of the existing Country Club Bowl and construction of 70 for-sale residential
units including six available to low income households, in 14 separate buildings.; APN:
008-092-02; Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone; Matt Ashton of Ashton 3, LLC
Applicant; Charlie Kinstler, Owner; Canal Neighborhood.
SUMMARY
The project is being referred to the Design Review Board as it proposes demolition of an existing bowling
alley and construction of 70 residential condominiums, which is defined as a major physical improvement
under San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.25.040. As provided therein, major physical
improvements require Board recommendation to the Planning Commission, who is the ultimate decision-
making body for the project. Staff is seeking feedback from the Board regarding applicable design
guidelines and regulations and requests that the Board review this report, make a determination on the
project’s compliance with applicable design-related guidelines and regulations, and take one of the
following actions based on the project consistency determination:
• Provide recommendations to the applicant and direct that the project return to the Board for
additional review prior to scheduling the project for consideration by the Planning Commission; or
• Forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission, with conditions of approval
as applicable
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
The proposed project is subject to review and approval of the following entitlements:
• Environmental and Design Review (ED21-042). Chapter 14.25 (Environmental and Design
Review Permits) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) sets forth regulations for types of
development activities subject to environmental and design review within the City of San Rafael.
As specified in Section 14.25.040, new construction is classified as a Major Physical
Improvement, which is subject to review and approval by the City’s Planning Commission. As
detailed in Section 14.25.070, the Design Review Board (DRB) is responsible for reviewing and
providing recommendations to the Planning Commission on all major physical improvements. The
project proposes new construction and as such is defined as a major physical improvement
subject to review by the DRB and approval by the Planning Commission.
• Use Permit (UP21-017). Section 14.05.020 of the SRMC sets forth land use regulations for the
City’s commercial and office zoning districts, including the NC district in which the site is located.
As shown in Table 14.05.020, multi-family residential uses are listed as “A”, which indicates the
requirement for an administrative conditional use permit. Though the use is listed as requiring an
administrative use permit, as noted previously, where a single development project seeks multiple
approvals, the highest decision-making body is responsible for review and approval, conditional
approval, or denial of all requested entitlements. The project proposes construction of 70 multi-
family residences and as such requires approval of a conditional use permit.
• Tentative Subdivision (TS21-004). The project proposes development of 70 for-sale residential
units and as such will result in condominium development. Pursuant to Section 15.12.030
(Subdivision map) of the SRMC, all condominiums of two or more units are subject to Planning
Commission approval of a tentative map.
WAIVERS PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
As provided for in Government Code Section 65915(e), the project is requesting waivers of development
standards 1, as identified below. The requested waivers of development standards would not result in an
adverse impact on public health, safety, or the physical environment and complies with applicable state
law. As such, there are no findings for denial that can be made for the requested waivers.2
• Increase in maximum height from 30-feet to 35-feet 6-inches
• Eliminate requirement for community/recreational building as set forth in Section 15.12.060 of the
SRMC.
In considering the proposed project, the Design Review Board (DRB) should focus on providing design-
related comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission, and in particular should provide
recommendations on the requested Environmental and Design Review Permit as it relates to the
proposed colors, materials, articulating features, and proposed landscaping. . Consistent with Section
14.02.020(J), where a single development project seeks multiple approvals, the highest decision-making
body, in this case the Planning Commission, shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the requested entitlements.
PROPERTY FACTS
The following tables provide an overview of General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and immediately surrounding area as well as existing developed land uses. In addition, this section
provides an overview of the project’s compliance with applicable development standards set forth in Table
14.04.050 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
Table 1: Designations and Existing Uses
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: NC NC Country Club Bowl
North: HDR HR1/HR1.5 Multi-family developments
South: CC GC 76 Gas/service station; SureStay
Hotel
East: LI/O CCI/O Automobile Services
West: NC NC Mixed retail/commercial
NC = Neighborhood Commercial; HDR = High Density Residential; HR1/HR1.5 = Multifamily Residential Districts: CC = Community Commercial;
GC = General Commercial; LI/O = Light Industrial/Office; CCI/O = Core Canal Industrial/Office
Table 2: Development Standards Summary
Development Standard Required/Permitted Proposed Consistent
Lot Requirements
Minimum lot area 6,000 s.f. 104,980 s.f. (no change) Yes
Minimum lot width 60 feet 160 feet (no change) Yes
Max Residential Intensity 1800 sf/unit
(104,980/1800 = 58 units)
1500 sf/unit
(104,980/1500 = 70 units)
Yes1
Minimum Yards
1 “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a
floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance,
general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
2 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d)(4), the city shall bear the burden of proof for denial of a requested concession or incentive.
Table 2: Development Standards Summary
Development Standard Required/Permitted Proposed Consistent
Front NR 4 feet Yes
Side NR 5 feet Yes
Side (Street) NR 4 feet Yes
Rear NR 4 feet 6 inches Yes
Maximum Height 30 feet (if residential only) Bldg 100/400/500: 34’ 6 “
Bldg 200/300: 35’ 6”
Yes2
Maximum Lot Coverage NR 46,494 s.f. (44%) Yes3
Minimum Landscaping 10% 13,103 s.f. (12.5%) Yes
Parking (Vehicular) 105 144 (140 cov.; 4 uncov.) Yes4
Parking (Bicycle) 5 8 Yes
1Consistent with State Density Bonus, the applicant is seeking a 20% density bonus, allowing an increase in the maximum
residential density
2As defined in SRMC Section 14.03.030 height is measured to the average height of the highest pitched roof. As a project
providing onsite affordable housing units, provisions of State Density Bonus apply. As provided in subdivision (e) of Section
65915 of the California Government Code, projects requesting density bonus may request a waiver or reduction of development
standards, including height limitations. As such, increased height beyond the 30-foot maximum for residential only developments
in the NC zone is permitted.
3No lot coverage maximums apply, calculation provided for information only
4As provided in subdivision (p) of Section 65915 of the California Government Code, projects requesting density bonus are
subject to the following parking ratios: 0-1 bedroom = 1 parking space; 2-3 bedrooms = 1.5 parking spaces; 4+ bedrooms = 2.5
parking spaces.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The project site is located between Highway
101 to the south and Canal Street/San Rafael
Creek to the north, at 88 Vivian Street on an
approximately 2.4-acre site with frontage on
Vivian Street to the west and Belvedere Street
to the north (Figure 1). The site features
generally flat topography and is located within
an area designated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) as Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) AE, which corresponds to the 1-
percent annual chance flood, also referred to
as the base or 100-year flood. The site is
currently developed with an approximately
38,400-square-foot bowling alley, known as
Country Club Bowl, which is no longer
operational and will be demolished as part of
the project. The site also contains ancillary
improvements including a small outdoor soccer
area and large surface parking lot, both of
which will be removed to accommodate the
proposed project. The project site is identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element as an opportunity site.
Surrounding uses include multifamily residences to the north, and a mix of retail, commercial, and light
industrial uses to the east, west, and south. In addition, there is a small four-unit multi-family development
adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan
BELVEDERE STREET
FRANCISCO BLVD E MEDWAY RD VIVIAN ST LOUISE ST Figure 1: Project Location
The project proposes to demolish the existing, approximately 38,400 square foot bowling alley and
associated site improvements and will construct 70 residential units in 14 three-story buildings ranging in
size from approximately 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. The residential buildings are setback a minimum of
4-feet from the front property line (Belvedere St), 4.5-feet from the rear, 5-feet from the interior side, and
4-feet from the street side property line (Vivian St). As proposed, the project includes five building types,
including Building 100 (Buildings 6, 7, and 8), Building 200 (Building 9), Building 300 (Buildings 10, 11,
12, and 13), Building 400 (Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4), and Building 500 (Buildings 5 and 14). As shown in
Table 2 above, Buildings 100, 400, and 500 have an approximate height of 34-feet 6-inches, and Building
200 and 300 have an approximate height of 35-feet 6-inches as measured from grade to the midpoint of
the pitched roof.
Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan
Floor Plans
The project proposes five plan types, details of which are summarized below. All plan types include three
levels with two-car garages on the first level, kitchen, dining, living, half bath, and decks on the second
level, and bedrooms and bathrooms on the third level. In addition, Plan 5 includes an accessible restroom
on the first level.
Plan 1
18 units
1,415 s.f.
2 bed, 2.5 bath
Plan 2
10 units
1,450 s.f.
3 bed, 2.5 bath
Plan 3
6 units
1,600 s.f.
3 bed, 2.5 bath
Plan 4
17 units
1,496 s.f.
2 bed, 2.5 bath
Plan 5
19 units
1,588 s.f.
3 bed, 2.5 bath
ADA bath
Architecture, Colors, and Materials
The project features a contemporary architectural style with concrete tile roofs, lap siding, vinyl windows,
and metal roll-up garage doors. As proposed, the project includes two color palettes, utilizing primarily
natural colors as shown in in the table below. Staff is requesting that the Board provide feedback to the
applicant regarding application of colors and materials. As indicated in Table 3, Building type 200, 400,
and 500, which are primarily located adjacent to the public right-of-way will be comprised of colors and
materials from palette 1 and Building type 100 and 300 which are located in the interior portion of the
property will be comprised of colors and materials from palette 2.
Table 3: Colors and Materials
Roof
Fascia
Body
Color 1
Body
Color 2
Body
Color 3
Accent
Colors Siding Railings
Eagel Slate
Range
SW Extra
White
SW Gossamer
Veil SW Tin Lizzie SW Still Water
SW Oak Moss SW Web Gray SW Caviar
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 BLDG 6 BLDG 7 BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10 BLDG 11 BLDG 12 BLDG 13 BLDG 14
Body
Color 2
Palette 1
(Bldg
200, 400,
500)
Palette 2
(Bldg
100, 300)
Eagel Tacoma
Blend SW Extra
White SW Oyster
Bar SW Zeus
SW Sea
Serpent
SW
Rookwood
Dark Red
SW Burnished
Brandy SW Black Fox
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the site will be provided through installation of a new driveway on Vivian Street
located between Buildings 4 and 5, and approximately 80 feet north of the site’s southwestern corner as
well as a new driveway located on Belvedere Street between Buildings 1 and 14, and approximately 65
feet from the centerline of the Vivian Street/Belvedere Street intersection. Vehicular access throughout
the site is primarily provided by a north-south oriented two-way drive aisle measuring approximately 26-
feet in width and spanning the entire length of the site. In addition to the main north-south drive aisle, the
project also includes seven motor courts with 20-foot drive aisles. These motor courts provide access to
covered parking for Buildings 6-14 and measure 26-feet wide from opposing garage doors.
Landscaping, Lighting, and Fencing
As discussed above, the project proposes landscaped areas along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to
residential buildings, and in the common open space area between Buildings 6 and 7. Proposed plantings
include a mix of trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and vines with low to moderate water use requirements.
As proposed, the project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan requires revisions to ensure compliance
with the requirements for a regulated project as detailed in the BASMAA post-construction manual.
Lighting is proposed throughout the site and includes fixtures for downlighting in the common open space
area (Figure 5), pole lights (Figure 6), wall mounted light fixtures (Figure 7), and down- and up-lighting
fixtures (Figure 8).
Figure 3: Downlight
Fixture
Figure 4: Pole Lights Figure 5: Wall-
mounted Fixtures
Figure 6: Down- and
Up-light Fixtures
Proposed fencing is minimal and includes installation of a 6-foot stucco, concrete masonry unit (CMU)
with 6-inch stucco cap along the entire length of the south and east property lines as well as between the
proposed Vivian Street driveway and Building 3, between Buildings 2 and 3, and Buildings 1 and 2 (see
Figure 9).
Figure 7: Proposed Fence/Wall
Grading/Drainage
As proposed, the project includes grading throughout the site and is estimated to result in a net export of
2,810 cubic yards.
Density Bonus
Based on the proposal to provide 10% of the residential units (6 units) as below market rate affordable
to low-income households, the project is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code
Section 65915. Based on the size of the lot (104,980 square feet) and the maximum density permitted
under the NC Zoning District (1,800 square feet per unit), the project site has a base density of 58 units
(140,980/1,800 = 58.32). By providing 10% of the units as below market rate affordable to low-income
households, the project qualifies for a 20% density bonus, or 12 units, for a total of 70 units (58 base
units + 12 density bonus units = 70 units). To accommodate the density bonus units, the project proposes
to increase the height of the buildings from 30-feet to 35-feet 6-inches (Buildings 200/300) and 34-feet 6-
inches (Buildings 100/400/500) and proposes to eliminate the community/recreation building that would
otherwise be required for a condominium project. As stated previously, these waivers in development
standards are permissible through Government Code Section 65915(e).
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Conceptual Design Review
The project previously received Conceptual Design Review (CDR19-001) by the Board on February 20,
2019, consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.030(B) which requires conceptual review for developments
subject to Major Environmental and Design Review. The Board provided the comments listed below at
the February 2019 meeting. Each Board recommendation is shown in bold, followed by a brief discussion
of the project as it relates to the recommendation. Though the overall development is similar to that
presented in 2019 with regard to use and the number of proposed residential units, the applicant is no
longer the same and the project proposes a differing site layout and building design as compared to the
project reviewed by the Board in 2019. Where available, side-by-side graphic comparisons of the
Conceptual Review proposal and the proposed project are provided to assist the Board in providing
comments relative to what was previously discussed.
1. The site design is too busy, too tight. Provide greater landscaped setbacks, widen driveway
widths, comply with sight distance triangle where driveways meet.
As shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the project’s site plan is similar to the site plan presented for
Conceptual Design Review including building coverage, drive aisles, and driveways. Components of
each site plan are provided in a bulleted list below. As proposed, setbacks along Vivian Street and
Belvedere Street are less than what was previously proposed and, correspondingly, landscaping
appears to be reduced along the project site’s frontage. The two proposed driveways are 26-feet
wide, which is greater than the 20-foot driveway widths previously proposed, however, a sight
distance exhibit has not been proposed and it is unclear whether the project complies with the sight
distance requirement. Based on prior comments provided by the Board, staff will be requesting
feedback with regard to the proposed site plan. Where feasible, staff requests that the Board provide
targeted feedback and recommendations to the applicant on how to address changes to the site plan,
if being recommended by the Board. Note that comments provided on the site plan should address
practical modifications that would not result in a decrease in the proposed density.
Conceptual Design Review Site Plan:
• Number of Buildings: 12
• Lot Coverage: 49,900 s.f. (47.5%)
• Usable Outdoor Area: 23,300 s.f.
• Drive Aisle Width: 20-feet
Formal Design Review Site Plan:
• Number of Buildings: 14
• Lot Coverage: 46,494 s.f. (44%)
• Usable Outdoor Area: 3,000 s.f.
• Drive Aisle Width: 26-feet
Figure 8: Conceptual Design Review Site Plan
Figure 9: Proposed Project Site Plan
2. Consider dividing the common outdoor area more evenly by reducing the size of the ‘square’
and increasing the size of the two paseos.
As proposed, the size of the common outdoor area is substantially reduced from that presented during
Conceptual Design Review, where approximately 23,300 square feet was previously proposed and
the project is proposing approximately 3,000 square feet. In addition, the Conceptual Design Review
proposed common outdoor areas distributed across three locations of the site including one larger
common area and two smaller paseos centrally located, whereas the proposed project provides
common outdoor area in one location, between Buildings 7 and 8 near the southeast portion of the
site. Staff is requesting that the Board provide feedback on the appropriateness of the proposed size,
location, and design of the common outdoor area.
3. Elevate entrances to units along street fronts by adding entrance stoops or stairs.
As proposed, entrances to residential units along Vivian Street and Belvedere Street are flush or
minimally elevated above the adjacent sidewalks. Staff is requesting that the Board provide feedback
and recommendations on the proposed entrances along the two public rights-of-way.
4. Need well-developed landscape plan with bioswales, if required. Consider permeable pavers
to meet drainage requirements.
Plans submitted for Conceptual Design Review did not include calculations of the total landscaping
provided, however, plans showed landscaping areas adjacent to public rights-of-way, along interior
property lines, between interior units, and in the proposed common open space area.
As proposed, the project provides a similar approach to landscaping, where landscaped areas are
provided along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to residential buildings, and in the common open
space area between Buildings 6 and 7. Proposed plantings include a mix of trees, shrubs,
groundcovers, and vines (see page L-4 of Exhibit 1). The project is considered a regulated project
pursuant to the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post
Construction Manual and as such the applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan for
the project. The Plan shows one, approximately 117-square-foot bio-filtration area at the northwest
portion of the site. Staff would like to note that the City’s Department of Public Works has requested
revisions to the stormwater control plan to ensure compliance with the BASMAA post-construction
manual. In addition, the Stormwater Control Plan Exhibit included on page 12 of the Preliminary
Stormwater Control Plan will need to be revised to include the adjusted site layout. Staff requests that
the Board provide feedback on the overall landscape plan as well as specific recommendations on
the proposed post-construction stormwater control measures.
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site has a General Plan Land Use of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) which corresponds to
neighborhood-serving retail and services uses, with residential and ancillary office uses permitted subject
to established conditions. The corresponding Zoning Designation for the site is Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), which provides for convenient retail and personal service uses to serve residents in
the vicinity and conditionally permits residential uses, such as the proposed 70-unit residential project.
ANALYSIS
Staff is seeking feedback and recommendations from the DRB on the following design-related standards
of review. A complete analysis of both design and non-design related standards of review will be included
in staff’s report to the Planning Commission:
• San Rafael General Plan 2040
• San Rafael Design Guidelines
• San Rafael Municipal Code
o Title 14 – Zoning
o Title 15 – Subdivisions
General Plan 2040 Consistency:
The following design-related General Plan policies are applicable to the proposed project. Following each
General Plan policy is a brief consistency analysis. An analysis of the project’s consistency with all
applicable General Plan policies will be included in staff’s report to the Planning Commission, which will
be scheduled for a later date pending the Board issuing a recommendation on the project
Policy NH-3.20: Improve the physical appearance of the Canal neighborhood, including the addition
of greenery and green space, street trees and landscaping, maintenance of buildings and property,
enforcement of illegal dumping regulations, abatement of code violations, and more regular street
cleaning.
The site is currently developed with a bowling alley, and large surface parking lot. The project would
redevelop the site with 14 three-story buildings, containing a total 70 residential units. The project
would improve the physical appearance of the site by de-emphasizing parking areas and introducing
landscaping along the Vivian and Belvedere public rights-of-way. As such, the project is consistent
with General Plan Policy NH-3-20.
Policy CDP-4.1: Use design guidelines and standards to strengthen the visual and functional
qualities of San Rafael’s neighborhoods, districts, and centers. Guidelines and standards should
ensure that new construction, additions, and alterations are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods while still allowing for innovative, affordable design.
The project’s consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines for Residential Development are
discussed below. In general, staff finds the project to be consistent with applicable design guidelines.
In addition, staff is seeking targeted feedback and recommendations from the Board related to the
proposed design.
Policy CDP-4.3: Encourage creative architecture while respecting the context of each site.
The site’s context has driven the proposed architectural design, in that, buildings have been designed
to reach a maximum of 30-feet, as defined under the fire code, to eliminate the need for aerial
apparatus fire access, which if required, would reduce the site’s residential development potential. In
addition, due to the site’s location within the 100-year floodplain, the project has been designed to
elevate habitable space above the base flood elevation to ensure protection of future residents during
a 100-year flood event. The site’s design de-emphasizes the automobile by orienting internal parking
and circulation areas inward, and residential entrances, and private outdoor areas toward the street,
creating an active pedestrian environment. As such, the architectural and site design are reflective of
the site context, consistent with General Plan Policy CDP-4.3.
Policy CDP-4.7: Design larger scale buildings to reduce their perceived mass. Encourage the
incorporation of architectural elements such as towers, arcades, courtyards, and awnings to create
visual interest, provide protection from the elements, and enhance orientation.
Policy CDP-4.8: Require sensitive scale and height transitions between larger and smaller
structures. In areas where taller buildings are allowed, they should be designed to minimize shadows,
loss of privacy, and dramatic contrasts with adjacent low-scale structures. Exceptions may be made
where taller buildings are also permitted on the adjoining site.
Overall, the project has been designed to break up the massing of residential structures and appears
to be compatible with surrounding development. The architectural design of the proposed buildings
is fairly minimal, with greater articulation of buildings along Vivian Street and Belvedere Street.
Buildings feature gable roof forms, with smaller articulating gables and projecting building facades
which serve to break up the overall massing. Adjacent structures are smaller in scale than the
proposed project, however, the shading study prepared for the project indicates shading of adjacent
structures would be minimal. In addition, the project will provide a six-foot wall and landscaping along
the eastern property line, which will provide screening to reduce the impact of the proposed project
to adjacent developments. As such, the project design generally appears to be consistent with
General Plan Policies CDP-4.7 and CDP-4.8.
Policy CDP-4.11: Encourage lighting for safety and security while preventing excessive light spillover
and glare. Lighting should complement building and landscape design.
In general, proposed lighting is consistent with the City’s regulations which specify that lighting shall
be shielded to conceal light sources from view off-site, avoid spillover onto adjacent properties, and
shall be of minimum intensity to provide a sense of security. Section 14.16.227 of the SRMC specifies
that the foot-candle intensity should fall below one at the property lines. Though lighting along the
Vivian Street frontage will exceed the lighting intensity identified in the SRMC, this portion of the
project is along a public right-of-way with commercial and retail uses across the street. As such,
though the lighting intensity exceeds one foot-candle along the property line, the intensity will not
result in impacts to sensitive uses. Furthermore, proposed lighting is complementary to the building
and landscape design, and will provide a sense of security for residence with frontage along Vivian
Street. In addition, conditions of approval would be imposed on the project, providing for a 90-day
post installation inspection to allow for adjustment and assure compliance with the standards set forth
in the SRMC. As such, the project is consistent with General Plan policy CDP-4.11.
San Rafael Design Guidelines for Residential Development:
In general, the project appears to be consistent with and incorporates design recommendations and
guidelines contained in the City’s Design Guidelines for residential development. A bulleted list of
applicable design guidelines is included under each subheading below, followed by a brief analysis of
the project’s consistency with each design area (e.g. building design, scale, etc.).
Building Design
• Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a
consistent streetscape. The area surrounding the project site is predominately built up. Though
many sites include expansive parking areas, nearby multi-family developments employ a similar
layout to the proposed project, where units are oriented toward the street, with parking and
circulation located internally. As such, the project is consistent with this guideline.
• All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous walls should be
avoided. Buildings located along Vivian Street and Belvedere Street provide articulation through
projecting building facades, windows, second floor decks with metal railings, and varied
applications of siding colors and materials. In general, the project avoids long monotonous walls,
however, staff is seeking recommendations from the Board on how to further articulate building
facades, particularly for buildings facing the public rights-of-way.
Scale
• Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design
techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units.
For example, a building can be articulated through architectural features, setbacks and
varying rooflines to appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components.
• Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that
help merge larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used.
The project incorporates projecting wall features, stepped facades, and second floor decks with
metal railings that serve to break up the overall building mass and provide articulation that assists
in identifying individual residential units in the overall buildings. As such, the project incorporates
elements that break up the volume of large building into smaller units as well as transitional
elements that blend the new development with existing development in the neighborhood,
consistent with these guidelines.
Building Height
• Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize
apparent height differences. The project provides screening along the eastern property line in
the form of a six-foot wall and landscaping along the interior property line, which serves as a
transition between the proposed project and adjacent developments. However, staff is seeking
feedback and recommendations from the Board on additional elements that could be incorporated
to further minimize height differences between the project and adjacent structures.
Roof Shapes
• Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. Predominate roof forms in
the surrounding area include flat, gable, and hip roofs. The project proposes gable roofs,
consistent with surrounding development and this guideline.
• Roof top equipment should be screened from view and integrated into the building
architecture. As proposed, the project does not include information on roof top equipment. Upon
recommendation of project approval, conditions would be imposed on the project requiring
screening of mechanical equipment, consistent with the City’s guidelines and regulations.
Building Entrances
• There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. The
project incorporates clearly defined pedestrian paths from Vivian Street and Belvedere Street to
residential entrances along these right-of-way. As such, the project is consistent with this
guideline.
• Where possible, the entrances of street front units should be oriented towards the street
rather than to the interior of the lot or to the parking lot. Entrances are oriented toward Vivian
Street and Belvedere Street, consistent with this guideline.
• Examples of elements that can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define
the street facade are a usable front porch or verandas, an overhead trellis canopy, or other
similar feature. During conceptual review of the project, the Board recommended incorporating elevated entrances to units along street fronts, suggesting the addition of entrance stoops or
stairs. As proposed, the project does not include such elements. However, the project does
include second floor decks facing Vivian Street and Belvedere Street, which helps to define
primary entrances by orienting activity toward the street. Staff is seeking feedback and
recommendations from the Board on the appropriateness of the design of entrances along Vivian
Street and Belvedere Street, including additional design elements that could further assist in
defining the primary entrances.
Windows
• The placement and size of windows in the building should be consistent with the overall
building design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an
existing pattern, greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony
overhangs, porches, materials, colors, etc. of articulating the façade.; Window proportions
should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other windows on the
building. Windows are evenly sized and spaces across building facades, except where the
number of windows has been reduced to account for privacy along shared property lines. The
project incorporates horizontal- and vertical-format windows which complement the various
building facades consistent with these guidelines.
• Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and
increased safety. Windows provided in Buildings 1 through 5 along Vivian Street are oriented
toward the street along the front, and the parking area along the rear. Similarly, interior buildings
(6 through 14) include windows facing the primary north-south drive aisle as well as motor courts.
As such, the project appears to be consistent with this guideline.
• Window placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of
adjacent neighbors. As proposed, Building 6 through 14, along the eastern property line
incorporate minimal windows facing existing developments. Where windows are provided, they
are primarily located on the second floor. As such, the project appears to be consistent with this
guideline.
Driveways and Parking Areas
• Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized, in compliance with zoning.
• Where possible, ground level parking areas should be recessed or placed to the rear of
buildings. Parking is provided at the rear of Buildings 1 through 5, de-emphasizing parking and
reducing visibility from the public right-of-way. In addition, parking for Buildings 6 through 14 are
generally oriented toward motor courts, also de-emphasizing parking when traveling through the
interior portions of the project. Three units including one unit in Building 6, 7, and 8 provide parking
adjacent to the main north-south project drive aisle. However, garages are recessed to further de-
emphasize there presence. As such, the project is consistent with this guideline.
• Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles should not back
out from a parking space onto the street. The design of proposed parking has been reviewed
by the City’s Department of Public Works and is consistent with established regulations.
Furthermore, vehicles are not required to back out onto the street and as such the project is
consistent with this guideline.
• Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block,
stamped concrete or pavers). The project utilizes minimal stamped concrete or decorative
pavers. Staff requests that the Board provide feedback and guidance related to alternative paving
materials, as deemed appropriate.
Front Landscaping and Fences
• Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood
and to create a strong landscaped character for the site.; Landscaped areas adjacent to
sidewalks are encouraged. The project includes minimal landscaping along the street frontage.
Staff is seeking targeted feedback and recommendations from the Board on the proposed
landscape design, including recommendations on increasing landscaping along Vivian Street and
Belvedere Street, if deemed appropriate.
Lighting
• Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and
vehicular safety.; Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the
boundaries of the property.; Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the
project. With the exception of increased lighting intensity along Vivian Street, the project is
generally consistent with the lighting standards set forth in the City’s municipal code. The project
incorporates screening along the eastern property line, which shields light sources and prevents
glare and light spillover onto adjacent properties. In addition, proposed light fixtures are
complementary to the proposed architectural design. As such, the project is consistent with design
guidelines related to lighting.
San Rafael Municipal Code
Title 14 – Zoning
In general, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards of the NC Zoning District
in which the site is located. Due to the applicability of State Density Bonus to the project, certain
development standards that would apply to residential project’s in the NC Zoning District, including
parking and building height have been modified to accommodate the proposed project, consistent with
state law. A full consistency analysis and discussion of the project’s compliance with Title 14 will be
provided in Staff’s report to the Planning Commission, including a discussion of the applicable
Environmental and Design Review Findings contained in Section 14.25.090 of the SRMC.
Title 15 – Subdivisions
As discussed previously in the staff report, the project is requesting a waiver, consistent with state density
bonus law, from the provisions of the Title 15, which requires all residential condominium developments
to provide recreational facilities including a community/recreational center building, bicycle and
pedestrian paths through the open, common areas of the development, and common outdoor areas for
active and passive recreation in central locations throughout the development. The project does not
include a community/recreation center building and as such is requesting a waiver from the requirements
of the SRMC. As stated previously, the waiver would not result in adverse impacts on public health,
safety, or the physical environment and complies with applicable state law. As such, there are no findings
for denial that can be made for the requested waivers.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days
prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site
15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing.
No public comments have been received as of the publishing of this staff report.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, staff recommends that the Board review the project and determine whether the comments
provided at the Conceptual Design Review meeting on February 20, 2019, have been adequately
addressed to ensure the project design is appropriate given the proposed use and setting and should
determine if there are any additional recommendations that should be incorporated into the project
design. If the Board determines that recommendations and revisions to the proposed project are minimal,
the Board should provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the project. If revisions to
the project would require additional review prior to Planning Commission review of the project, the Board
should provide detailed and targeted recommendations to the applicant, and direct staff to return to the
Board for review of the project. Staff requests that the Board provide recommendations, and conditions,
if deemed appropriate related to the following:
• Site layout
• Distribution and size of common open space area
• Proposed landscaping, including post-construction stormwater management
• Design of entrances along Vivian Street and Belvedere Street
• Application and distribution of proposed color palettes
• Building massing and façade articulation
EXHIBITS
1. Project Plans available electronically at cityofsanrafael.org/88-vivian/
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/uploads/2021/11/88-Vivian-Architectural-
Plans-Nov-2021.pdf
Other project documents including technical studies and the applicant project narrative are available on
the project website at: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/88-vivian/
cc: Matt Ashton, Ashton 3, LLC, 20 Pamela Way, Coto De Caza, CA 92679
Charlie Kinstler, 923 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach, CA 92651