HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-28_cityofsanrafael_a222a557cba7299d9d13ccbba68c845dExhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)Kraig Tambornini Senior Planner City of San Rafael 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94915 Epstein Properties LLC p.o. Box 2983 San Ansellllo, CA 94979 (415) 457-3071 (415) 520-1947 Fax October 2,2014 Re: 1700 4th Street, San Rafael Dear Kraig, RECIE JED OCT 06 2014 PLANNiNG We would like to take the opportunity to briefly address the concerns previously raised by some of our neighbors leading up to and following the first design review hearing in July. We have read and reviewed neighbor letters, had an E-mail exchange with another and believe there are three issues. These include: parking; height, bulk, and mass; and neighboring property uses. Parking As confirmed in the Fehr & Peers Memorandum we believe that we have designed sufficient parking for the mixed-use on the property in accordance with both state and local law. Government Code 65915(p)(1) clearly identifies the parking ratios for the different bedroom types. That section of state law states that, upon the request of a developer, no city shall require a parking ratio of a project meeting the affordable housing element in excess of the ratios provided by statute. This application complies with that code section by providing affordable housing, requesting that parking ratios under state law are applied, and then providing sufficient parking under those ratios. Furthermore, these state established parking ratios are incorporated into the City's zoning ordinances in section 14.16.030(H)(3)(a)(i). This section establishes "maximum parking standards," which the proposed project complies with. Additionally, the retail commercial component of the project complies with the requirements for parking under section 14.18.040 of the zoning code since it accommodates 1 space per 250 square feet of space. This project fully complies with the law. We remain sensitive to the neighbors' concerns regarding parking, however, some of these concerns appear to be directed at other previously approved projects, or based on assumptions that cannot be verified. In particular, it is commonly assumed that every unit will have at least two occupants and each occupant will have their own car.
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)There is nothing to support this overly broad generalization. Contrary to this assumption, we believe that the location and affordability of these units will attract occupants who work in the area, or want immediate access to public transit and other consumer resources that do not require car ownership. In fact, we support the Cities efforts in attracting new businesses to the Downtown area and expect "townhouse" type residential units, much like the ones in our plan, will be embraced by these new employees. Height, Bulk, and Mass Certain neighbors take issue with the scale of the proposed design, with particular concern over the supposed lack of "texture" and diversity of the design. A cursory review of nearby properties reveals that the proposed scale of this project is consistent with recent development in the neighborhood, and significantly lower than the tallest surrounding structures. The project is not 50 feet tall, as is referenced in a neighbor's letter. Regarding concerns over allegedly monolithic, boxy, and single-dimensional design, we believe the proposed project addresses these concerns in a variety of ways. Specifically, the utilization of mixed colors and materials breaks up the massing. The awnings above the retail space and the residential balconies articulate the wall plane and add human scaled elements to the fagade. The strategic window placement and parapet detailing add to the architectural vocabulary creating a high quality and sophisticated building design that enhances the beauty of the streetscape. The large storefront windows and the small corner shop create a pedestrian friendly and welcoming gesture at the street level. The tower design element gives the building an architectural sense of place. The design composition is respectful to the scale and style of the neighboring buildings and reinforces the unique character, scale and identity of the West End Village neighborhood. The concerns are simply not validated when the plans are objectively considered. Neighboring Property Use Jack Hunt has suggested that our project be deed-restricted to prevent complaints about potential future issues. We object to this premature request that the City anticipatorily quash future rights. It is clear to any future occupant that the property is adjacent to an auto body establishment, and so long as the use of Jack's property conforms to the zoning code and/or conditional use permit requirements, it is unforeseeable how an issue would arise. Furthermore, we respect the use of Jack's property and hope that future residents will utilize his services for their car repair needs. Conclusion The proposed mixed-use project enhances the economic vitality of the WEV by adding additional housing that will contribute to the local economy and by offering additional Page 2 of 3
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)ground floor retail space for a continuous street front shopping experience. The project provides a public benefit by adding affordable housing during a time when housing stock is at an all-time shortage. The design of the project addressed concerns previously raised by neighbors and the City through articulating the elevations and breaking up the massing utilizing a variety of techniques. Finally, the project meets the state and local development standards for parking requirements. The applicant is not seeking any concessions to meet the project's parking demand nor does the project require any exceptions, variances or other deviations from City zoning code standards. In sum, we ask that the Design Review Board recommend that the Planning Commission approve this project. Sincerely, Epstein Properties LLC, Ralph S. Epstein, Manager Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)AUTOMOTIVE SALES & SERVICE July 8,2014 Sirs: 1714 Fourth Street San Rafael, California 94901 This letter is intended to comment on the proposed project for building located at Hanna's restaurant: CDR 14-003 located at 1700 4th st I am writing this letter because we: Own the property located at 1714 4th street which is surrounding the proposed building site Our business JACK L. HUNT AUTOMOTIVE was established in in San Rafael in 1927, by Jack L. Hunt SR, our grandfather built the our building in 1950 and we are concerned about the impact from the project to our business. We have seen the plans, talked to the developer and are concerned: a) Parking: both for residents and retail workers at the development The developers provision is for one car per townhouse and one for a worker in the retail shop (total 11 spots), no parking for customers, guests or residents with more than one car (how many households only have one car?) or additional retail workers. Is this enough? There are currently two other projects that have been approved and or are under consideration in the WEV. Tel: 415.453.1611 Fax: 415.453.9212 Web: www.jackhuntauto.net "5elVillg 0111' Customers Since 1927"
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)One is a health club on 1800 2nd street with 8 full time and 45 part time employees, another a Townhouse complex between G and Ida. I have no idea how much parking will be required by both of these projects but in conjunction with this proposal it may be dramatically more than what currently exists. It seems so obvious to me after spending 2 years on the San Rafael BID and BIC, that when downtown San Rafael businesses compete with the local Malls one of the key issues is free and adequate parking. I believe that if retail shopping is to survive in the WEV the Merchants in the area need ample parking to attract customers, so in my opinion it is safe to say that if this is not enforced and there is nowhere to park the WEV will no longer be viable for downtown retail. b) Size: proposal is for no setbacks and approx. 50' in height This tall square building will really change the visual nature of neighborhood and possibly open Pandora's Box for similar projects. It will change the ambiance, light and weather patterns (wind) on our site. Should we decide several years from now to do the same type of development on a scale that would be appropriate to our lot size, the impact to our neighbors would be more dramatic and thus more adjacent properties would be affected by another taller building blocking their light and view. This could quite easily change the feeling of the neighborhood that so many cherish and think of as "old San Rafael". I wonder if that is progress that the majority will appreciate.
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)c) Affect our ability to do business. We run an auto repair shop and by definition our business can be noisy. I can foresee noise disputes with new neighbors when you house residents expecting peace and quite in a commercial neighborhood. d) Parking at Yardbirds/Home Depot site. Right now many from West End and Sun Valley neighborhoods park at the old Yardbirds site because they are closed and all day parking is not enforced. People park there to catch the bus, because they work in local shops and because they do not have off street parking with their existing residential units. The lot is full every day, it has many parking spaces, I wonder where those people will park when that site is finally rented again? Proposal We propose that you protect the neighborhood with a construction management plan for all of the projects that will be approved for the West End Village. We ask that you moderate construction times, crew's transportation vehicles, parking of equipment so that it does not impact local businesses and constrict neighborhood parking. Bussing construction workers from sites where parking is available is not too much to ask. We ask that no more than one of these projects is in construction at the same time and that the
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)developers have adequate funds to complete the project so that something similar to the retail complex near red hill that has been off and on for several years does not happen here. We ask that a permanent deed restriction is placed on the property if development is allowed so that our business in not forced to close because of complaints from noise generated by what we do and have done here for three generations on a daily basis. We want the restriction to protect our company that has been a established for 87 years in San Rafael and ask that it is permanent so that future owners will be required to advise tenants of the local environment prior to moving in. This is a watershed issue for us regarding the current proposal and we plan to be steadfast in its requirement. We ask that any plan to develop the property have adequate parking to accommodate all needs of the residential tenants housed within and retail workers employed there and take into account the amount of traffic and parking requirements that the proposed retail space will require. Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to your comments. Sincerely yours, Jack L Hunt, III ~
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)income unit out of 10 narrow, inefficient 2 story loft like units. Wouldn't our community be better served by adding two small studio or 1 bedroom low income units (whether or not they are "required") and five more gracious apartments with outdoor space (wherein we could maintain some of the mature trees). This smaller footprint could create the ability for setbacks, more perceived space, and fewer parking requirements. Could the developer not achieve terrific market rents for fewer, slightly more spacious units so that the building could maintain proportions more consistent with this very special, unique and sought after neighborhood? If we have no choice but to accept more density and height in our neighborhoods then I would like to challenge the planners, architects and community to reach for more innovative structures that will layer in more texture and diversity to the landscape. A couple of pictures demonstrating what I mean by that are attached. Balconies, space for mature trees, color and material changes, scaled glass at street level giving an overall lighter feel to the building ... let's at least have our new, taller buildings, as they sprout, reflect the creativity and architectural depth of this West End neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. l/ fi ,iJ j~A~ / ~ . Robin 4arn ~~ 15 year G Street resident and homeowner.
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)June 30, 2014 Carol Angel 48 El Camino Ave., B San Rafael, CA 94901 Community Development Dept., Planning Division City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Re: 1700 Fourth Street Proposed Project Design Review Board Hearing, July 8 Dear Review Board Members: I am a resident of San Rafael and live within a few blocks of Hannah's Restaurant, whose owners seek its demolition and replacement with a 3-story apartment building and street level retail. I understand that they are ready to move on, after 20 years of hard work to make this a successful neighborhood dining place. My concern is for the 15 or more large trees I've counted on the property, and a fear that the design of the apartment building will be just another brick, stone or frame box, as the newer buildings in San Rafael tend to be. I have lived in 26 cities in seven states, so perhaps that makes me a lay expert on cities. And in my "expert" view, San Rafael is a jewel. It is near the top of the list of cities where I have resided, in terms of walk ability, architectural interest, promotion of independent small businesses, community events, and visual attractiveness. A lot of the latter trait is due to the beautiful trees lining the streets of Downtown San Rafael. Hannah's, on the western edge of Downtown, is unusual in the number and size of its trees. It's a very pleasant place to walk past Clnd in which to dine, in large part because of the shade and beauty of these trees. I hope most, if not all, can be preserved. I also hope the new building's design will show some creativity and sensitivity. to .titting in with the special attributes of the city's older buildings. No more boxes! . Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, RECEIVED JUL 01 2014 PLANNING
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)July 2,2014 Re: Proposed Project: 1700 Fourth Street (4th & G) Attn: Kraig Tambornini Community Development Department, Planning Division City of San Rafael Dear Kraig Tambornini and members of the Design Review Board, I am Susan Zelinsky, a 23 year resident of 16 G Street and supporter of revitalizing Fourth Street in the West End Village. My husband, two daughters and I will be away for the ORB meeting on July 8, regarding the "4th and G Street Project", so I'm writing to you with my comments and concerns. I'd like to address the parking, traffic safety, neighborhood compatibility, substantial conformance, and bulk and mass of the proposed building, in order for current residents and businesses not to severely suffer fortuitous repercussions. One concern is the very limited parking that exists on G Street/4th Street/Ida Street. We currently accumulate allover flow parking from 4th Street businesses (Red Dragon Yoga, The Pint Size Lounge, Johnny Doughnuts, Whipper Snapper and more) as well as all parking for Cafe Arrivedercci Restaurant at 3rd and G, which has no parking lot. The new proposal only provides ONE parking space per apartment, and one extra, for what I assume is for the manager of the retail space. In this currently cramped neighborhood, I don't see how this is remotely possible. On the north side of 4th Street, there are currently 5 parking spaces within two blocks: two between Hand G, and three between G and F. Not only will there be 11 new cars, but the inevitable second car of the family or couple that moves into each unit, as well as customer's cars. If they come at 10am, Noon, 4pm and 6pm, they will be met with a barrage of cars from the customers at Red Dragon Yoga studio. If they come between the hours of 11 am-3pm, and 5pm-7pm, again they will be met by a loyal legion of Cafe Arrivedercci customers. Of course, once the new residents do find parking, they can walk to all these great venues, which is something I currently enjoy, living in the West End Village. But the parking situation has become calamitous. At the last City Council meeting regarding the 21 G St. project, we received great support regarding parking issues and traffic safety, from Mayor Phillips, and present council members Andrew McCullough and Kate Colin. They asked Public Works Director, Nader Mansourian, if a new parking and traffic study could be done, which he has agreed to do. Suggestions were made for a 4 way stop at 4th and G, speed bumps on G between 3rd and 4th, and even a possible new intersection at Ida and 3rd to relieve traffic from G, which is 4 feet narrower than Ida. Before any new development
Exhibit 7August 28, 2014 PC Meeting Exhibit 7 (Public Comments)proceeds in the WEV, I believe it is crucial to receive results from the new study. Please don't put the cart before the horse! Regarding sUbstantial conformance, my home was built before 1908, and all of the other homes on my block were built about the same time or earlier. Currently, a lovely historic WEV home (21 G St.), is scheduled to be demolished and replaced with two massive, 3-story town-homes. My neighbors and I wrote letters and came to ORB, city planning and city council meetings to make sure there would be enough parking to accommodate 4 cars, using only the current curb cut, and to express our desire for a building that would be structurally compatible with the other homes here.The same architect is building 6 apartments on Ida Street, which will literally wipe out the street parking on the west side of the street. Loss of parking is troublesome to all residents and businesses here, but I must also say, the lack of regard for the lovely historic home, which has sadly been neglected by the owner and could easily have been fixed, is disturbing. Needless to say, I hope the architecture of the proposed project at 4th and G, will reflect and compliment our historic neighborhood. In conclusion, I'd like to ask the members of the ORB to please make every suggestion possible to the architect/designer, for substantial conformance, neighborhood compatibility, limit the bulk and mass of the building, and to provide a substantial amount of parking for units and retail space. Thank you for your consideration, and I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting. Unfortunately our family vacation coincides with the meeting. I look forward to meeting with you at a future date. Sincerely, 1'0 ' S~d~~ Susan Zelinsky ''-~ (415)516-6932 U 16 G St. San Rafael, CA 94901 susan.zelinsky@comcast.net