HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 10010 (35 Francis Ln Appeal Grant)RESOLUTION NO. 10 010
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
PARTIALLY GRANTING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF A SMALL SUBDIVISION s96-13) AND AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED97-61) FOR A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; 35 St. Francis Lane;
AP No. 15-211-14
(Richard and Dorothy Breiner and David and Rose Stadtner, Appellants)
WHEREAS, on June 27, 1997, applications requesting a Small Subdivision to subdivide one parcel into
two and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for one single family residence at 35 St. Francis
Lane was found by the Community Development Department to be complete for processing; and,
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1997 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing
on the proposed Small Subdivision and Design Review Permit applications, accepting public testimony and
the written report of the Community Development Department staff and approved the applications; and,
WHEREAS, Richard and Dorothy Breiner and David and Rose Stadtner appealed the Planning
Commission's approval of the Small Subdivision and Environmental and Design Review Permit in a letter
dated November 4, 1997. The letter requests the approval be denied based on Points 1 through 30 listed
below:
Point 1: The potential hazards identified by Stan Bala, civil engineer, were ignored and inadequately
mitigated.
Point 2: Cracks in and subsidence of the downhill side of Highland Avenue along the frontage of the
proposed parcel "B" and potential slope failure when the tree stump is removed.
Point 3: The geotechnical feasibility review is preliminary and overly vague for a slope of almost 30%.
Responsible subdivision processing needs more investigative detail to ensure that all required
improvements that should be made by the applicant are identified before the subdivision map is recorded,
after which no more exaction's can be imposed.
Point 4: The geotechnical review was limited to Parcel "B" only. At least one retaining wall has
collapsed on Parcel "A" in the past and the existing wooden fence/retaining wall fronting on St. Francis
Lane is near collapse.
Point 5: The recommended asphalt concrete overlay and extension of the berm along the subject site
on Highland Avenue to eliminate the possibility of water flowing from Highland Avenue in a westerly
direction towards St. Francis Lane should be extended along the Breiner's frontage on Highland Avenue to
ensure that drainage does not flow onto the Breiner property towards St. Francis Lane. However, this
recommendation is only a Band-Aid solution to remedy the street subsidence on Highland Avenue.
Point 6: Proposed grading is not fully shown on the drawings.
Point 7: Surface drainage will be altered and drainage water will be diverted onto the Breiner property.
A swale should be constructed along the southerly property line to prevent water discharge onto the
Breiner property.
Point 8: Surface drainage on Lot "A", along the southerly property line is undefined. The above
mentioned swale should be continued on Lot "A".
Point 9: The proposed concrete lined ditch between lots "A" and "B" should be a City standard type "A".
Point 10: The proposed 8" culvert along the southerly property line and the proposed 12" x 12" inlets are
inadequate and should be changed to 24" x 24" inlets.
Point 11: The backfill of the trenches, including erosion prevention should be specified.
Point 12: The 8" culvert alignment through Lot "A" is not shown, a precise design should be provided.
Point 13: The proposed discharge of water from the 8" pipe into the existing catch basin in St. Francis
Lane will result in blocking the catch basin water intake from the street gutter. An energy dissipater and a
new catch basin should be added to the St. Francis Lane gutter.
Point 14: The downhill side of Highland Avenue along the frontage of lot "B" has subsided and it should
be repaired so that the road sloped toward the drainage ditch on the opposite side of the road.
Point 15: The ditch on the opposite side of Highland Avenue is silted and it should be enlarged and
paved.
Point 16: The geotechnical feasibility review is strictly preliminary. It appears that subdrainage will be
necessary and a thorough soil investigation should be made.
Point 17: Prior to the recordation of the subdivision map, the subdivision improvements should be finally
designed and constructed or a bond posted securing construction within one year from the date of
recordation.
Point 18: Subdivision improvements should include: (a) a final geotechnical report and repair of all slides
within both lots; (b) construction of the 8" culvert including inlets, dissipater and new catch basin at St.
-2-
Francis Lane and correcting the drainage system in St. Francis Lane if required; (c) construct a Type "A"
concrete ditch between the proposed lots and a swale along the Breiner's property line; (d) repair
pavement subsidence/slide along the Highland Avenue frontage and corrective work of the existing
drainage ditch across the street; and (e) erosion control.
Point 19: The existing Highland Avenue drainage improvements should be checked to ensure that they
can accept the additional water from the roof and driveway of the new house.
Point 20: The topographical map is incomplete and does not contain the following: (a) Highland Avenue
topo including subsidence of the pavement; (b) St. Francis Lane topo and drainage improvements; (c)
parcel "A" improvements are not shown accurately.
Point 21: The Geotechnical Feasibility Review is for Parcel "B" only and does not include the division of
the land.
Point 22: The Geotechnical Feasibility Report does not address the soil failure on Parcel "B" along
Highland Avenue frontage.
Point 23: The plans submitted for the project do not provide any slopes or elevations, including the
pavement failure, of Highland Avenue.
Point 24: The proposed repair of the embankment failure by asphalt concrete overlay on the downhill
edge is unacceptable.
Point 25: The cross slope of the pavement on Highland Avenue towards the east side of the gutter
should be a minimum of 2%.
Point 26: Water currently drains toward the Breiner property and will continue to drain onto the Breiner
property in a concentrated form after construction.
Point 27: The proposed concrete lined Type "A" v -ditch cannot drain into a 12" x 12" structure, a 24" x
24" structure should be used.
Point 28: The existing 12" x 12" structure located on St. Francis Lane is only 12" deep, not 36" as stated
on the drainage plans.
Point 29: Approval of the project should include the following: (a) full topographic survey of both parcels
and frontages of both streets; (b) complete geotechnical investigation report for both parcels, including
recommendations of Highland Avenue frontage failure repair; (c) a swale along the southern property line
to prevent drainage of water from the changed topography onto the Breiner property; (d) repair all
-3-
subsidence failure on Highland Avenue frontage, drain all water from pavement to easterly ditch (2% slope
minimum) and pave the ditch to prevent silting.
Point 30: An independent review of the geotechnical and drainage of the site and proposed development
should be done by the City's Geotechnical Review Board; and,
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the appeal of the
Planning Commission's approval of the Small Subdivision and Environmental and Design Review Permit,
accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff, closed the public
hearing and determined that the appeal was partially with merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council does hereby makes the
following determination and findings relating to the Points of the appeal:
Point 1: The potential hazards identified by Stan Bala, civil engineer, were ignored and
inadequately mitigated.
The Grading and Drainage Plan has been revised as shown on the plans prepared by I. L. Schwartz
Associated dated 12/1/97, the geotechnical report has been reviewed by Miller Pacific Engineering Group,
and Conditions 7 through 21 have been added to the subdivision map to insure that they will apply to any
development on the new parcel. Condition 70 has been added to address drainage.
Point 2: Cracks in and subsidence of the downhill side of Highland Avenue along the frontage of
the proposed parcel "B" and potential slope failure when the tree stump is removed.
The Grading and Drainage Plan has been revised and Conditions 7 through 21 have been added to the
subdivision map to insure that they will apply to any development on the new parcel.
Point 3: The geotechnical feasibility review is preliminary and overly vague for a slope of almost
30%. Responsible subdivision processing needs more investigative detail to ensure that all
required improvements that should be made by the applicant are identified before the subdivision
map is recorded, after which no more exaction's can be imposed.
The geotechnical feasibility review has been reviewed by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG).
MPEG recommends a Level "B" soils report be prepared with the final development plans, this is reflected
in Condition 9.
-4-
Point 4: The geotechnical review was limited to Parcel "B" only. At least one retaining wall has
collapsed on Parcel "A" in the past and the existing wooden fence/retaining wall fronting on St.
Francis Lane is near collapse.
The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance require Geotechnical review for new development. No new
development is proposed for Parcel "A". Parcel "A" is fully developed with a single family house. The
Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance do not require maintenance of existing
developed parcels.
Point 5: The recommended asphalt concrete overlay and extension of the berm along the
subject site on Highland Avenue to eliminate the possibility of water flowing from Highland
Avenue in a westerly direction towards St. Francis Lane should be extended along the Breiner's
frontage on Highland Avenue to ensure that drainage does not flow onto the Breiner property
towards St. Francis Lane. However, this recommendation is only a bandaid solution to remedy the
street subsidence on Highland Avenue.
The grading and drainage plan has been revised to address this concern. A Type "D" v -ditch is proposed
along the south property line.
Point 6: Proposed grading is not fully shown on the drawings.
The grading and drainage plan has been revised.
Point 7: Surface drainage will be altered and drainage water will be diverted onto the Breiner
property. A swale should be constructed along the southerly property line to prevent water
discharge onto the Breiner property.
The grading and drainage plan has been revised to address this concern. A Type "D" v -ditch is proposed
along the south property line.
Point 8: Surface drainage on Lot "A", along the southerly property line is undefined. The above
mentioned swale should be continued on Lot "A".
The grading and drainage plan has been revised to address this concern. A Type "D" v -ditch is proposed
along the south property line.
Point 9: The proposed concrete lined ditch between lots "A" and "B" should be a City standard
type "A„
This ditch is specified as a Type "A" ditch on the revised grading and drainage plan.
-5-
Point 10: The proposed 8" culvert along the southerly property line and the proposed 12" x 12"
inlets are inadequate and should be changed to 24" x 24" inlets.
The 12" x 12" inlets have been revised to 16" x 16" x 18" inlets.
Point 11: The backfill of the trenches, including erosion prevention should be specified.
Condition 13 requires all earth work to be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer.
Point 12: The 8" culvert alignment through Lot "A" is not shown, a precise design should be
provided.
A precise design is shown on the revised grading and drainage plan.
Point 13: The proposed discharge of water from the 8" pipe into the existing catch basin in St.
Francis Lane will result in blocking the catch basin water intake from the street gutter. An energy
dissipater and a new catch basin should be added to the St. Francis Lane gutter.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan specifies a new drop inlet to be located in St. Francis Lane.
Point 14: The downhill side of Highland Avenue along the frontage of lot "B" has subsided and it
should be repaired so that the road sloped toward the drainage ditch on the opposite side of the
road.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan indicates a new asphalt concrete berm to stop drainage downhill
and the drainage ditch on the opposite side of the road is to be lined with asphalt concrete.
Point 15: The ditch on the opposite side of Highland Avenue is silted and it should be enlarged
and paved.
The revised grading and drainage plan show that the drainage ditch on the opposite side of the Highland
Avenue is to be lined with asphalt concrete.
Point 16: The geotechnical feasibility review is strictly preliminary. It appears that subdrainage
will be necessary and a thorough soil investigation should be made.
The geotechnical feasibility review has been reviewed by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG).
MPEG recommends a Level "B" soils report be prepared with the final development plans, this is reflected
in Condition 9.
-6-
Point 17: Prior to the recordation of the subdivision map, the subdivision improvements should
be finally designed and constructed or a bond posted securing construction within one year from
the date of recordation.
Revised Conditions of Approval Nos. 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19 specify subdivision improvements required
prior to recordation of the final subdivision map.
Point 18: Subdivision improvements should include: (a) a final geotechnical report and repair of
all slides within both lots; (b) construction of the 8" culvert including inlets, dissipater and new
catch basin at St. Francis Lane and correcting the drainage system in St. Francis Lane if required;
(c) construct a Type "A" concrete ditch between the proposed lots and a swale along the Breiner's
property line; (d) repair pavement subsidence/slide along the Highland Avenue frontage and
corrective work of the existing drainage ditch across the street; and (e) erosion control.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan and proposed revised conditions of approval address these
improvements.
Point 19: The existing Highland Avenue drainage improvements should be checked to ensure
that they can accept the additional water from the roof and driveway of the new house.
The Public Works Department has verified that the Highland Avenue drainage system can accommodate
drainage from the proposed new residence.
Point 20: The topographical map is incomplete and does not contain the following: (a) Highland
Avenue topo including subsidence of the pavement; (b) St. Francis Lane topo and drainage
improvements; (c) parcel "A" improvements are not shown accurately.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan indicates Highland Avenue elevations and a new drainage detail
for St. Francis Lane. Parcel "A" does not indicate a 60 sq. ft. garden storage accessory structure.
Point 21: The Geotechnical Feasibility Review is for Parcel "B" only and does not include the
division of the land.
The geotechnical feasibility review has been reviewed by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG).
MPEG recommends a Level "B" soils report be prepared with the final development plans, this is reflected
in Condition 9. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance require Geotechnical review for new
development. No new development is proposed for Parcel "A". Parcel "A" is fully developed with a single
family house. The Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance do not require maintenance
of existing developed parcels.
-7-
Point 22: The Geotechnical Feasibility Report does not address the soil failure on Parcel "B"
along Highland Avenue frontage.
The geotechnical feasibility review has been reviewed by Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPEG).
MPEG recommends a Level "B" soils report be prepared with the final development plans, this is reflected
in Condition 9.
Point 23: The plans submitted for the project do not provide any slopes or elevations, including
the pavement failure, of Highland Avenue.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan indicated Highland Avenue elevations.
Point 24: The proposed repair of the embankment failure by asphalt concrete overlay on the
downhill edge is unacceptable.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan has been reviewed by the Breiners and the Highland Avenue
improvements proposed are acceptable.
Point 25: The cross slope of the pavement on Highland Avenue towards the east side of the
gutter should be a minimum of 2%.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan has been reviewed by the Breiners and the Highland Avenue
improvements proposed are acceptable.
Point 26: Water currently drains toward the Breiner property and will continue to drain onto the
Breiner property in a concentrated form after construction.
The grading and drainage plans have been revised to incorporate extension of the asphalt concrete berm
on Highland Avenue and a Type "D" v -ditch has been added along the Breiners property line.
Point 27: The proposed concrete lined Type "A" v -ditch cannot drain into a 12" x 12" structure, a
24" x 24" structure should be used.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan has changed the 12" x 12" structure to a 16" x 16" x 18" structure.
Point 28: The existing 12" x 12" structure located on St. Francis Lane is only 12" deep, not 36" as
stated on the drainage plans.
The revised Grading and Drainage Plan has changed the 12" x 12" structure located on St. Francis Lane
to a 24" x 24" structure which is approximately 2.75' deep.
Point 29: Approval of the project should include the following: (a) full topographic survey of
both parcels and frontages of both streets; (b) complete geotechnical investigation report for both
parcels, including recommendations of Highland Avenue frontage failure repair; (c) a swale along
the southern property line to prevent drainage of water from the changed topography onto the
Breiner property; (d) repair all subsidence failure on Highland Avenue frontage, drain all water
from pavement to easterly ditch (2% slope minimum) and pave the ditch to prevent silting.
The Grading and Drainage Plan has been revised and revisions to conditions of approval have been
requested by the appellants which address this point.
Point 30: An independent review of the geotechnical and drainage of the site and proposed
development should be done by the City's Geotechnical Review Board.
Miller Pacific Engineering Group, a member of the City's Geotechnical Review Board, has reviewed the
geotechnical and drainage proposed for the site and provided comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council partially grants the appeal by
approving revised conditions of approval and a revised grading and drainage plan prepared by I. L.
Schwartz Associates, dated 12/1/97, attached as Exhibits "A" and "B", for the Small Subdivision and
Environmental and Design Review Permit.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, California, HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a Regular meeting of the City
Council of said City held on the Second day of February, 1998, by the following to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers COHEN, HELLER, MILLER & VICE -MAYOR PHILLIPS
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAINED: MAYOR BORO ABSTAINED DUE TO ABSENCE FROM
PREVIOUS MEETING'. v
• JEANi E M. LE NCINI, City Clerk
-9-
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (as approved by City Council 1/20/98)
Small Subdivision Map (s96-13)
Community Development Department
1. An easement for storm drainage purposes shall be created across the existing developed lot to
benefit the proposed upper lot to carry the remaining stormwater to the existing storm drain in St.
Francis Lane.
2. An easement for sanitary sewer purposes shall be created across the existing developed lot to benefit
the proposed upper lot.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a final subdivision map, whichever
occurs first, the developer shall pay to the City in lieu parkland dedication fees in accordance with the
provisions of City Ordinance 1558. Parkland dedication in lieu fees are at this time $1,810.54 based
on 1989 dollars. Adjustment 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.
4. The parcel map must include a building envelope within which all structures must be located. The
building envelope shall show a 16 foot rear yard setback.
5. Any single family home constructed on the lot requires an Environmental and Design Review permit
and is subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines.
6. Any single family house proposed for the new lot shall be designed to direct enough drainage from the
site into the Highland Avenue drainage system so that there will be no increase (from present
conditions) of runoff from the new lot into the St. Francis Lane drainage system. Approved drainage
for the new residence may only be altered based on the following: (a) the St. Francis Lane drainage
system has been improved and it has been verified by the City Engineer that the system can handle
additional drainage; or, (b) a superior drainage system has been designed for the new single family
residence which has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and results in no net increase
in drainage to the St. Francis Lane drainage system. The City Engineer shall notify the property
owners of 31, 40, and 43 St. Francis Lane if a request to modify the drainage system is submitted to
the City. If, as a result of that notification, there is a dispute with respect to the adequacy of the
proposed alteration, a public hearing shall be scheduled at the Planning Commission to resolve the
dispute. A deed restriction shall be recorded reflecting this condition so that all future owners shall be
aware of the requirements.
7. The olive tree located on the southeast corner of new Parcel "B" shall be shown on the map and shall
be retained. Plans submitted for a grading permit shall indicate tree protection measures during
construction, consistent with the arborist report.
8. An engineered site improvement plan showing all existing and proposed conditions shall be submitted
with the application for a building permit.
9. A Level "B" soils report must be submitted with the application for building permits.
10. A Grading Permit is required.
11. Grading plans shall show all existing contours and proposed improvements.
12. Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer
for conformance with the project soils report prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. All earth and foundation work shall be accomplished under the direction of the project soils engineer
and a final construction report shall be required prior to occupancy.
14. An erosion control plan shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. The plan shall
utilize Best Management Practices.
15. No mass grading shall occur from October 15t through April 15`h without the approval of the City
Engineer.
16. The site shall be winterized and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to the first day of
October.
17. Erosion control plans shall show methods of controlling erosion and siltation during and after final
grading.
18. The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed drainage facilities.
19. The improvement plans shall show the location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer facilities.
20. An encroachment permit will be required for the construction of all frontage improvements.
- 1 -
EXHIBIT "A"
21. The improvement plans shall show the location of all utilities.
22. This subdivision is approved for two years or until January 20, 2000 and shall become null and void
unless the parcel map is recorded or a time extension is granted. Prior to expiration, the applicant
may apply for an additional one year time extension.
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-61)
Police Department
23. 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 4" 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.
24. The address shall be in a sequence with the numerical order of the rest of the street/building.
25. 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.
26. All garden and exterior lighting shall be vandal resistant.
27. All exterior lighting shall be on a master photoelectric cell set to operate during hours of darkness.
28. The minimum of one foot-candle at ground level overlap shall be provided in all exterior doorways and
vehicle parking areas.
29. A minimum of one-half foot-candle at ground level overlap shall be provided on outdoor pedestrian
walkways.
30. Exposed roof vents and ducts of sufficient size to permit adult, human entry shall be grated or
constructed of an impact -resistant material to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Skylights
shall be secured and hatch openings shall be burglary -resistant. Glazing shall be of a burglary -
resistant glass or glass -like material.
31. Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to limit if not in fact prevent access to
the roof or balconies.
32. All exterior doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of one and three-
fourths (1-3/4") inches or with panels not less than nine -sixteenths (9/16") inches thick. Side garage
doors and doors leading from garage areas to private residences or multiple family dwelling
residences are included in this requirement.
33. Metal -framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs.
34. Glass sliding doors shall have a secondary type locking device to the satisfaction of the Police
Department. The secondary lock shall be a dead -bolt lock and shall be no less than one-eighth (1/8")
inch in thickness and shall have a minimum hardened steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch.
35. Exterior man doors and doors leading from garage area into the private residence shall have dead-
locking latch device with a minimum throw of one-half (1/2") inch. A secondary lock is required and
shall be a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw a minimum of one (1 ") inch
long. Both locking mechanisms shall be keyed the same.
36. Metal -framed glass doors shall have a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw
that is a minimum of one (1 ") inch long.
37. Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected so as 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.
38. Front doors shall have a front door viewer that provides a minimum of 180 degrees peripheral vision.
39. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non -removable pins.
40. In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs.
41. 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.
42. 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 (1/8") inch in
thickness. The lock shall have a hardened steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch minimum length.
43. Louvered windows shall not be installed within 8 feet of the ground level.
44. Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and non -removable.
- 2 -
EXHIBIT "A"
45. If desired, a list of barrier plants is available from the SRPD Crime Prevention Office at (415) 485-
3114.
46. Landscaping shall not block or obstruct the view of any door, window, or lighting fixture.
47. Any alternative materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the Crime Prevention
Officer before installation.
48. The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the construction prior to
occupancy.
49. Though not required, it is recommended that any new construction be pre -wired for an intrusion alarm
system.
Fire Department
50. Addresses shall be posted conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 205.
51. Based on the required fire flow, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed
throughout conforming to NFPA Std. 13D as modified by the Fire Marshal.
52. A permit application shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau with two sets of plans for review
prior to installation of all automatic and fixed fire extinguishing and detection systems. Specification
sheets for each type of device shall also be submitted for review.
53. Due to the wildland fire interface area fire retardant roof covering is required with a minimum Class "A"
listing.
54. A minimum 30 ft. wide, or to the property line when the structure is within 30 feet of the property line,
break (brush clearing) shall be maintained around the structure.
55. Spark arrestors shall be installed conforming to the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
56. UL/SFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed conforming to the UBC.
Community Development Department
Land Development Division
57. An engineered site improvement plan showing all existing and proposed conditions shall be submitted
with the application for a building permit.
58. A Level "B" soils report must be submitted with the application for building permits.
59. A Grading Permit is required.
60. Grading plans shall show all existing contours and proposed improvements.
61. Grading, drainage and foundation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the project soils engineer
for conformance with the project soils report prior to issuance of a building permit.
62. All earth and foundation work shall be accomplished under the direction of the project soils engineer
and a final construction report shall be required prior to occupancy.
63. An erosion control plan shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. The plan shall
utilize Best Management Practices.
64. No mass grading shall occur from October iso through April 15�h without the approval of the City
Engineer.
65. The site shall be winterized and all erosion control measures shall be installed prior to the first day of
October.
66. Erosion control plans shall show methods of controlling erosion and siltation during and after final
grading.
67. The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed drainage facilities.
68. Drainage from 65% of the roof area and the car deck area of the new home shall drain to Highland
Avenue. The car deck area shall be raised a few inches to insure that the drainage will flow to
Highland Avenue.
69. The portion of Highland Avenue, indicated per Drainage Plan prepared by I. L. Schwartz Associates,
dated 12/1/97, shall be improved with conform paving, curbing or drain piping to prevent drainage
from flowing across the subject property to St. Francis Lane or adjacent property.
70. A Type "D" v -ditch shown on the south property line of Parcel B shall be changed to a Type "B" v -ditch
or a modified Type "D" v -ditch with a minimum 9" depth.
71. The improvement plans shall show the location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer facilities.
72. An encroachment permit will be required for the construction of all frontage improvements.
73. The improvement plans shall show the location of all utilities.
74. Any damage to a water line which crosses the subject property shall be repaired by the
applicant/developer.
-3-
EXHIBIT "A"
Planning Division
75. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves the design of a two lot subdivision as shown
on the plans prepared by William Schroeder & Associates dated September 1996, a single-family
residence and associated site development, grading and landscaping as shown on the plans prepared
by: Neeley/Lofrano Incorporated Architects, sheets A1.0, dated 7/28/97; A1.1, dated 7/31/97; A1.3,
dated 7/31/97; A2.1, dated 5/28/97; A3.1, dated 3/20/97; A3.2, dated 5/28/97; and L1.0, dated
4/02/97; and the revised Grading and Drainage and Erosion Control plans prepared by I. L. Schwartz
Associates dated 12/1/97. These plans shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building
permit. Any future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to review by the Design
Review Board and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
76. Prior to issuance of a building permit traffic mitigation fees totaling $764.00, adjusted according to the
Lee Saylor Construction Index to take into account changes in construction costs, shall be paid. This
is based on a fee of $764.00 times 1 P.M. peak hour trip.
77. A 16 ft. rear setback is required. This setback shall be indicated on the site plan submitted for a
building permit. Should the location of the new house need to be modified to meet this 16 ft. rear
setback, it shall be shifted to the south and shall be limited to the minimum amount required to meet
the 16 ft. setback.
78. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to comply with conditions of the Marin Municipal
Water District to obtain water service to the new building.
79. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a revised landscape plan showing trees and layered shrubs with
an evergreen palette on the downslope and on the north, 31 St. Francis, side to protect the adjacent
properties' privacy shall be submitted to staff for review and approval.
80. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances
not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public
view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and
approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
81. The tree protection plan prepared by Jeffrey H. Smith, Certified Arborist, contained in the Arborist
Report dated May 30, 1997, shall be followed to preserve the trees on the site that may be impacted
by construction.
82. All landscape plans shall meet the requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). The
plans shall be submitted to MMWD for review and approval.
83. A two year landscaping bond shall be posted, or other agreeable method, to insure that all
landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris for a
period of two years.
84. All landscaping shall be installed prior to the occupancy of the building.
85. Construction of the new residence shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday
through Friday.
86. After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 day
lighting level review by the Planning Department staff to insure compatibility with the surrounding area.
87. This design review approval is valid for a period of two years or until January 20, 2000, and shall be
null and void unless a building permit has been issued or a time extension has been applied for.
-4-
og?
1 1 ` E_
X.
tilt
lei
feel
01
01
1Z
All-
EXHIBIT 44B'9