Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD 270 Linden Lane AppealSAN RAFAEL THE CITY WITH A MISSION Agenda Item No: 3.b Meeting Date: November 7, 2016 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Steve Stafford City Manager Approval: Interim Senior Planner TOPIC: Appeal of an approved new two-story, single-family residence on a vacant lot. SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 26, 2016 decision denying an appeal (AP16-001) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052), allowing the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant 9,340 sq. ft. `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, located at 270 Linden Lane EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project proposes the development of a new, two story, single family home, on a vacant flag lot that was subdivided in 2003. The Design Review Permit for the new home was reviewed by the Design Review Board ("DRB") on two occasions, and recommended for approval. The Zoning Administrator then approved the project on May 11, 2016, with the inclusion of additional voluntary concessions to further reduce privacy impacts resulting from the project along the Grand Court frontage. A group of neighbors along Grand Ct. appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. The Planning Commission considered the appeal on July 26, 2016 and unanimously voted to deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator approval. During the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant agreed to additional voluntary concessions to further reduce privacy impacts resulting from the project along the Grand Ct. frontage, and these were also included as conditions of approval or modifications to the project plans. The appellants have since filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The main appeal points are the same as those made during the appeal to the Planning Commission, which include concerns with property boundary, bulk and mass of the building, privacy concerns, tree removal, and asserted misrepresentation by staff of DRB's recommendation. Overall, the Planning Commission considered many of the same issues and found them to have no merit. The project complies with all applicable General Plan land use policies, and development standards for both the Subdivision Map and the Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District. The DRB unanimously recommended approval of the project and determined that the project adequately complied with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. Furthermore, additional FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 273 Council Meeting: 11/07/2016 Disposition: Resolution 14232 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 concessions/modifications were voluntarily agreed to by the applicant during both the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings, to further reduce potential privacy impacts along Grand Ct. in response to requests by the appellants. Therefore, staff recommends denying the appeal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal, and thus upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. BACKGROUND: On April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262 Linden Ln. into a three -lot subdivision, which effectively separated an existing single- family home on a smaller lot and created two new vacant lots: a `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272 Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision approval required the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard (western property line) setback, where a minimum 6' is required in the R7.5 District. The subdivision approval also required that any new development on these two new lots apply for and obtain a Zoning Administrator -level Design Review Permit. In June 2014, applications for an Environmental Design Review Permit (ED14-051 and ED14-052) were submitted for development of two new single family homes on these two previously subdivided lots. On February 2, 2016, the DRB reviewed the two separate projects (ED14-051 and ED14-052) and continued the items to a future hearing with the following recommendations: • Prepare a comprehensive re -study of the proposed landscape plan for both project sites (270 and 272 Linden Ln.) to: 1) Increase native and more appropriate plant species selection, particularly for screening purposes; 2) Create more random, less linear, planting patterns; 3) Relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing and exiting the garages; 4) Eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.); 5) Relocate or reduce the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; 6) Provide details on the specific plant species proposed for bioswale areas; and 7) Provide irrigation details; and • Due to the proposed grade change on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Court frontage, the window glazing should be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area should be relocated from the north to the west elevation. In March 2016, revised plans were submitted to address the DRB's recommendations and on April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent; Robertson PC Liaison) both projects, with some further modifications to be included as conditions of approval. The modifications were: • The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas on both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not. Revise the Landscape Plans for each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional websites on bioswale plantings; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 • Prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review by staff and modification, if needed. On May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) conducted a public hearing on both projects and ultimately approved both projects. During the ZA hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to the concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct., and these were included as conditions of approval, including: • Constructing 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; • Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly; and • Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays On May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal with the Planning Commission (Attachment 5 — Exhibit 3) from the ZA's conditional approval of the new two-story, single- family residence on the vacant `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct. The appeal did not challenge the ZA's conditional approval for the new, two-story, single-family residence on the vacant lot in front of the `flag' lot (272 Linden Ln.). As noted on staff's report to the PC, the appeal letter cites points of appeal that included: 1) the loss of privacy along the Grand Ct. frontage resulting from both the two-story scale and patio doors along the north building elevation; 2) removal of mature Oak trees; 3) the need to reduce project impacts by installing 8' -tall rear fencing along the Grand Ct. frontag; 4) reducing allowable construction and grading hours; and 5) requiring a lighting review period, earthtone exterior colors and more plantings. The appeal letter also referenced and attached a letter previously provided at the ZA hearing by some of the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct., which generally stated that the project, as redesigned, would result in a loss of privacy and `intrinsic value' of the neighborhood. Specifically, these prior comments stated that it was the DRB's intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation. On July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, accepted public testimony and reviewed the project. Ultimately, the Commission found no merit with the appeal points and unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 16-09-A (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Lubamersky and Paul absent, Commissioner Schaefer abstaining), denying the appeal (AP16-001) and upholding the ZA's May 11, 2016 conditional approval of the project located at 270 Linden Ln. (ED14-052) A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution and the staff report, with selected exhibits are attached to this report as Attachments 4 and 5). Actual video proceedings of the two DRB meetings and the Planning Commission hearing can be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetings (click on hearing body under "archived videos" section and navigate to the date of the meeting). There is no video of ZA meetings, but the written minutes are included in the attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 5 — Exhibit 5) SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 ANALYSIS: On August 1, 2016, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Pat Bradshaw on behalf of seven (7) neighbors residing along Grand Ct., which shares the rear property line of the site. The appeal letter (Attachment 2) lists six (6) points of appeal which are paraphrased by staff below in bold/italics and followed by staff's response. In addition, the applicant has responded in writing to the appeal letter as well (Attachment 3): Appeal Point #1 - Site Survey with survey stakes to confirm property lines should be required. During the Planning Commission's review of the appeal, public comments were provided requesting a survey of the site to determine the precise location of the rear property line along the Grand Ct. frontage. The Grand Ct. neighbors are concerned that the new rear fencing may displace or require relocation of existing mailboxes along the Grand Ct. frontage. While three (3) freestanding mailboxes are located along the Grand Ct. frontage, only one (1) of these is located directly adjacent to the project site (3 Grand Ct.). This issue was not raised in the appeal to the Planning Commission, but was raised by one of the appellants during verbal comment at the hearing. The Planning Commission did not require a survey. However, since the Planning Commission appeal, at staff's recommendation, the applicant had the site surveyed (Boundary Diagram by Stephen Flatland Land Surveying, dated October 2016) and the rear property line staked to help the Grand Ct. neighbors visualize where the new rear fencing would be located in relation to the existing rear fencing. A copy of this survey was also provided to the appellants by staff. This survey indicates the location of the new rear fencing would be generally located where the rear existing fencing is located at the corners though it would be located up to two -feet (2') closer towards Grand Ct. at the top of the radius arc between the property corners. Based on this survey, one (1) existing freestanding mailbox may be affected by the location of the new rear fencing for the project, and may necessitate the relocation of this mailbox. This appeal point rather simply seeks greater clarity from the project plans and is not a valid argument to deny the approved project. Appeal Point #2 - Reduce the height of the new two-story single family home, which will artificially be built up five feet (5) above current grade, to single -story scale. Building scale appears to staff to be one of the two major disputes with the project in this appeal (see also Appeal Point #3), both of which involve the loss of privacy along Grand Ct. This comment was provided during both the DRB's meetings on the project and the Planning Commission's review of the appeal. The Planning Commission ultimately determined that the proposed two-story scale was both appropriate for the site and consistent with the existing mixture of single -story and multi- story scale within the surrounding neighborhood. Both the Subdivision Map and the project approvals document multiple efforts by the City and the project to reduce or mitigate the loss of privacy along Grand Ct. as a result of developing the lot: The Subdivision Map required increased setbacks along Grand Court, a minimum 15' rear yard setback where 10' is required in the R7.5 District. The approved Landscape Plan for the project further emphasizes the creation of a landscaped screening buffer between the residence and Grand Ct. • During the ZA hearing, the applicant additionally agreed to construct new, 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire rear (north) property line with Grand Ct. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 The DRB agreed that the proposed grade change on the site and raised building pad elevation creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage which should be better mitigated. At their initial review of the project on February 2, 2016, the DRB recommended that the window glazing be reduced along the north building elevation and that the outdoor patio area be relocated from the north to the west elevation. • The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seek to reduce the impacts of upper -story windows only on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. Between the two DRB reviews, the applicant revised the project to: • Reduce the upper -story window glazing along the north building elevation by reducing the previous 9' x 6' master bedroom window to a 2' x 3' high -sill window design, matching the other upper -story windows along the north elevation (The 9' x 6' master bedroom upper -story window was relocated to the west building elevation); and • Reduce the north patio by approximately 2/3 rd of its original area along the north building elevation; and the landscape area between the new residence and Grand Ct. was expanded and the landscape plantings were increased. • At their review of the resubmitted project design on April 5, 2016, the DRB determined that the revisions adequately responded to their previous comments, and unanimously recommended approval of the project design to the ZA. On May 11, 2016, the ZA conditionally approved the project, accepting the DRB's recommendation, and including the additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors (and future appellants) and voluntarily accepted by the applicant. These concessions further reduced perceived privacy concerns along the north building elevation between the residence and Grand Ct. and included: • Constructing 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly; and • Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. These additional concessions by the applicant were incorporated by the ZA as conditions of approval (see Conditions 4, 5 and 11). • On July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (AP16-001) and upheld the May 11, 2016 ZA's conditional approval of the project with the reduced window glazing and outdoor patio area along the north building elevation. The applicant has provided separate plan sheets (Attachment 9; Sheets CC -1 and CC -2) that show the design evolution of the north building elevation (upper -story window glazing and outdoor patio area) and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions and the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA and Planning Commission hearings. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have already been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans before the Council, and all civil engineering drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance or as conditions of approval. Appeal Point #3 - For privacy concerns, move location of the north patio area to west facing yard. Perceived loss of privacv resulting from the amount of window glazing and outdoor patio area along the Grand Ct. frontage appears to staff to be the second of the maior linaerina disputes with the project in this appeal. As stated on staff's response to Appeal Point #2 above, this comment was provided during both the DRB's review of the project and the Planning Commission's review of the appeal. The Planning Commission ultimately determined the small outdoor patio area along the north building elevation to be appropriate. At their initial review of the project on February 2, 2016, the DRB recommended that the window glazing be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area be relocated from north to the west elevation. In lieu of relocating the outdoor patio area, the applicant reduced the size of the patio along the north elevation by approximately 2/3 rd and increased the landscape area between the new residence and Grand Ct. and the landscape plantings. On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed these project revisions, along with specific modifications to the Landscape Plan, and determined that these site and building modifications adequately responded to their previous recommendations, and unanimously recommended approval of the project to the ZA. On May 11, 2016, the ZA approved the project after the applicant agreed to the additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors (and future appellants) as were noted above in appeal point #2, in order to further reduce perceived privacy concerns along the north building elevation between the residence and Grand Ct. These additional concessions by the applicant were incorporated by the ZA as conditions of approval • On July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission denied an appeal (AP16-001) and upheld the May 11, 2016 ZA's conditional approval of the project with the reduced window glazing and outdoor patio area along the north building elevation. As noted in Appeal point #2 above, the applicant has submitted separate plan sheets that show the design evolution of the north building elevation and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, and a condition of approval has been included to require the civil engineering sheet to be updated with the architectural sheets before building permit issuance. Appeal Point #4 - Reduce the amount of clear cutting of entire property. Reduce removal of most heritage Oaks since nothing has been built on this parcel for hundreds of years. There currently exist two (2) mature Oak trees on the site, both 48" in diameter and located in the middle of the proposed building envelope. The 2003 subdivision map approval creating the two new lots required greater setbacks than the zoning (R7.5 District) requires; the site is required to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard setback, along the west property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6' is required in the R7.5 District. These increased setback requirements effectively reduce the allowable development envelope on the site and make it challenging to revise the building footprint to preserve the two existing, 48:" - diameter Oak trees on the site. During their review, the DRB made specific recommendations on the proposed Landscape Plan, predominantly on the proposed planting palette. However, the DRB SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 specifically recommended removal of one (1) existing mature Eucalyptus tree, 36" in diameter. Ultimately, the DRB recommended approval of the revised Landscape Plan along with the project, including the proposed removal of all existing trees on the site and the replanting of two (2) specimen -size (24" -box size) Oak trees. The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines require 3:1 replacement of all `significant' Oak trees (Any Oak tree species which is in good health and form and is more than 6 inches or 6" in diameter as measured 4' 6" above the root crown), which are proposed for removal on hillside sites. However, this property is not subject to the hillside overlay district, as it is generally a flat lot, Nevertheless, through the Design Review process, it is generally always recommended that the proposed removal of `significant' Oak trees on non -hillside sites should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape improvements is determined during project review. So, in this particular case, the removal of the two (2) large oak trees was considered by the DRB and the replacement of 2 specimen -size oak trees was considered to be appropriate for this site and its surroundings, along with the other ornamental landscaping that is provided by the project. Appeal Point #5 - Document Location of Relocated Bioswale. The ZA-approved project design includes a 2' -wide landscaped bioswale along all property lines, which routes surface storm water runoff from the site and Grand Ct. to the existing City storm water drainage system along Linden Ln. Along the Grand Ct. frontage, the site design previously included the bioswale along the property line, and fencing between the bioswale and the residence. This fencing setback was an attempt by the project design to maintain the existing landscape character along the Grand Ct. frontage. During the Planning Commission review, the appellants expressed concern that maintenance of the bioswale along Grand Ct. would require trespass onto Grand Ct., since it is a private shared driveway and the fence design does not include a pedestrian gate. At the request of the appellants, the site design has since been revised to relocate the 8' -tall rear fencing to the property line and the 2' -wide bioswale planter is now located between the fencing and new residence. So, access to the bioswale would be through the 270 Linden Lane site only and not along Grand Ct. This appeal point simply seeks to document a concession previously agreed to by the applicant during the Planning Commission's review of the appeal and is not a valid argument to deny the approved project. Appeal Point #6 — Infractions of codes and DRB Guidelines. The appellants allege that staff misstated the DRB's recommendations from the first meeting, during both the second DRB review of the project revisions and the Planning Commission's appeal review. Specifically, the appellants purport that staff misrepresented the DRB's recommendations when presenting the project during the DRB's review of project revisions. Instead of verbally reminding the DRB that their recommendations included reducing. the window glazing on the north elevation and relocating the outdoor patio from the north to the west elevation, they allege that staff stated that the DRB requested a reduction in both the window glazing and outdoor patio area along the north elevation. Staff does not agree with this allegation. The DRB's recommendation during their initial review of the project was a request for fundamental revision of the Landscape Plan and to minimize, generally, privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage with better site and/or building design. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 In addition to requesting a comprehensive overhaul of the proposed Landscape Plan, the DRB recommended a more generalized approach to minimizing privacy impacts on Grand Ct. The project design has been revised to de-emphasize the north elevation, the area between the proposed new residence and Grand Ct., by: 1) Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly; 2) reducing the size of patio along the north elevation by approximately 2/3rd; 3) Increasing the landscape area, between the new residence and Grand Ct. and the landscape plantings; 4) Reducing upper -story window glazing by proposing high -sill windows (5' -sill height above the upper -story finish floor) only; and 5) Constructing an 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct. without a pedestrian access gate. Staff provided a summary of the DRB's recommendations both in the staff report when the item returned on the second hearing, as well as orally, during the presentation of the 2nd meeting. The DRB has purview and final say on their own thoughts and actions, so, if they believed that their previous recommendations were misrepresented, they had the opportunity to correct staff and they did not. The appellants further accuse staff of failing to report to them on the recommendations of the DRB in a timely manner. While the appellants represent seven (7) neighbors residing along Grand Ct., which shares the rear property line with 270 Linden Ln., at least three (3) of these neighbors have attended all of the meetings and hearings on the project, including the DRB meetings. Essentially, the appellants participated in every step of the way during the review of the project. Additionally, DRB meetings are video streamed live and actual video of the meetings can be viewed at any time afterwards on the City's web site. This information is provided in the City's public notice, as well as was provided to the neighbors of their ability to view the meetings afterwards. Given that the actual meeting proceedings are now stored on the City website, the City no longer transcribes and distributes detailed written minutes of DRB, Planning Commission or City Council meetings and hearings. The appellants also allege staff did not provide the Planning Commission with their rebuttal letter to staff's report before the Planning Commission hearing. On Monday, July 25'", the appellants did send an email to the project planner with a letter attached, both unsigned and not dated, with comments seeking to make corrections and clarifications to both the Background and Analysis sections in staff's report to the Planning Commission. However, since many City staff work a flex - schedule and the project planner specifically works a Tuesday — Friday work week, the appellants' rebuttal letter was not received by staff until Tuesday, July 26`", the day of the Planning Commission hearing. Like all comments received by staff on the day of a meeting or hearing, staff distributed a copy of the appellants' late comments to the Planning Commission, at the dais, before the hearing with a cover memo summarizing both the comments and staff's response. In addition, staff summarized the appellants' rebuttal letter and staff's responses during staff's oral presentation to the Planning Commission. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: The project review has included four (4) public meetings before the Planning Commission, DRB and Zoning Administrator. Actual video proceedings from all meetings, with the exception of the Zoning Administrator's hearing, may be reviewed at the City's website at htti)://www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetings/ by navigating to the hearing body and meeting date under the archived video section. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 Public comments on the project were received by staff prior to the ZA hearing and again prior to the Planning Commission appeal hearing, which are attached to this report as Attachments 5 (Exhibit 6) and 6. Additional comments were received by staff from the appellants on November 2, 2016, which are attached separately as Attachment 10. While these additional comments were submitted prior to the distribution of staff's report, they appear to restate the points of appeal identified above. Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this appeal to the City Council, has been conducted in accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 of the Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood group (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association) at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. In addition, notice of each meeting or hearing was posted at the site, along both the Linden Ln, and Grand Ct. frontages, at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. Copies of the public hearing notice and notification map for the City Council hearing is provided (Attachment 6). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Construction of one (1) single-family residence on a legal parcel, such as proposed by the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT: The review and processing of this project is a private development and would have no direct fiscal impact on the City budget, given that the review, including the appeal, is subject to cost recovery fees paid by the applicant. The project would generate four (4) new peak hour vehicle trips, which would be subject to the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $16,984 (4 x $4,246/new peak hour traffic trip) to assist in funding needed off-site transportation improvements. All utility connections (sewer, water, gas/electric) will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. Further, all public improvements along the site frontage (Linden Ln.) will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project (staff's recommendation) 2. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project with modifications or additions to the conditions of approval. 3. Continue the matter and direct staff to return with additional information to address any comments or concerns of the Council. 4. Direct staff to return with a Revised Resolution granting the appeal and denying the project, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. RECOMMENDED ACTION: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10 Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project; thus upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. ATTACHMENTS: Page No. 1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Zoning Administrator's Condition Approval 11 2. Letter of Appeal to City Council from Pat Bradshaw, dated August 1, 2016 29 3. Letter from applicant in response to appeal, dated October 26, 2016 34 4. Planning Commission Resolution 16-09-A, Denying the Appeal and Upholding the ZA's 36 Conditional Approval 5. Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Selected Exhibits, dated July 26, 2016 53 Exhibit 2 Vicinity/Location Map 63 Exhibit 3 Letter of Appeal, dated May 17, 2016 64 Exhibit 4 Applicant's response letter, dated July 20, 2016 68 Exhibit 5 ZA hearing minutes with findings and conditions of approval, dated May 11, 2016 70 Exhibit 6 Public Correspondence A. Receivedrip or to ZA hearing 84 B. Received after ZA hearing andrip or to the Planning Commission hearing 88 6. Appellants' Rebuttal Letter to PC Staff Report, received July 25, 2016, and cover memo 91 7. Public Hearing Notice and Notification Map 99 8. Project Plans approved by ZA 101 9. Plan sheets illustrating modifications made to the north elevation through project review 111 10. Additional written comments from appellant, received 11/2/16 113 RESOLUTION NO. 14232 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP16-002) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JULY 26, 2016 DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (AP16- 001) AND UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S MAY 11, 2016 CONDITONAL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED14-052) ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,754 SQ. FT., SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT 9,340 SQ. FT. `FLAG' LOT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING MINOR GRADING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING, LOCATED AT 270 LINDEN LN. AP N : 015-041-56 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262 Linden Ln. into a three -lot subdivision, which effectively created two new vacant lots; a `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272 Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision approval required the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Court, where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard (western property line) setback, where a minimum 6' is required in the R7.5 District; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, Daniel Stitzel (applicant), on behalf of the Raymond S. Bregante Trust (owner) submitted signed applications to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, requesting separate Environmental and Design Review Permits (ED14-051 and ED14-052) to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on each separate vacant lot; and WHEREAS, Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-051 proposed to construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a 7,507 sq. ft. vacant lot at 272 Linden Ln., while Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052 proposed to construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a 9,340 sq. ft. vacant `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. The architectural design, scale, size and configuration of each new residence was proposed to be identical; only the orientation of the structures and the exterior colors and materials were proposed to be distinct; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, Planning staff deemed each project application complete' and ready for hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the San Rafael Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly -noticed public meeting on each separate Environmental and Design Review Permit application, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff, and continued their review to a date uncertain, providing the following recommendations: 1) A comprehensive re -study of the proposed landscape design for both project sites (270 and 272 Linden Ln.) is needed that includes, but is not limited to: a) More native and more appropriate plant species selection, particularly for screening purposes; b) More random, less linear, planting patterns; c) Relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing and exiting the garages; Attachment 1-1 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 d) Eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.); e) Relocate or reduce the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; f) Add plant species to bioswale areas; and g) Provide irrigation details; and 2) Due to the proposed grade change on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the window glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently revised and resubmitted the site and building design in response to the DRB's recommendations to reduce privacy concerns along Grand Ct., including: 1) Reducing all north -facing upper -story rear yard windows to 2' x 3' high -sill windows; 2) Reducing outdoor patio area substantially along the north building elevation to allow for greater landscape screening; and 3) Modifying the proposed Landscape Plan, to include plant species and locations, and to improve the general appropriateness of the new plantings and vegetative screening between the new residence and Grand Ct; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the DRB held a duly -noticed public meeting to continue their review on each separate revised Environmental and Design Review Permit application, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff, and unanimously voted (4-0-2, with Members Lentini and Summers absent) to recommend approval of both projects, with the following modifications: 1) The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas on both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not; revise the Landscape Plans for each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional websites on bioswale plantings; 2) Substitute Podocarpus "Icee Blue" in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln.; 3) Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed "G" planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence though not included in the Plant List; 4) Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are proposed to be preserved on 272 Linden Ln. (mulch only is recommended); and 5) Prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review and modification, if necessary, by staff; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a duly -noticed public hearing, accepting all oral and written public testimony, and conditionally approved both projects separately (ED14-051 and ED14-052), finding each project consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District and Subdivision Map development standards, residential design guidelines, and review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. Prior to the hearing, the ZA confirmed that all DRB recommendations were either incorporated in revisions to the Landscape Plans for each project or were included as conditions of approval; and Attachment 1-2 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 WHEREAS, during the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence at 270 Linden Ln. and Grand Ct. These additional concessions by the applicant were incorporated by the ZA as conditions of approval (see Conditions 4, 5 and 11) and include: 1) Constructing 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; 2) Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building facade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly; and 3) Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal of the ZA's conditional approval of the new two-story, single-family residence on the vacant `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. (ED14-052), which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct. The appeal letter cites the following points of appeal: 1) The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand Ct., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area; 2) All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio 'in kind'; 3) The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.; 4) The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8' -tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading activities; 5) Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays; 6) The project should include a ninety (90) -day lighting review period to allow adjustments in exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.; and 7) Unmitigated privacy issues require a single -story scale for the new residence rather than a two-story scale; and WHEREAS, the appeal letter also references and attaches a letter previously provided at the ZA hearing by some of the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct. which generally states that the project, as redesigned, would result in a loss of privacy and `intrinsic value' of the neighborhood. Specifically, these prior comments state, that: it was the DRB's intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation should be re -oriented to the west elevation; and Attachment 1-3 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 WHEREAS, the appeal does not challenge the ZA conditional approval for the new, two- story, single-family residence on the vacant lot in front of the `flag' lot at 272 Linden Ln.(ED14- 051) and, therefore, that approval stands; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly -noticed appeal hearing to consider the Appeal (AP16-001), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-09- A (4-0-2-1; Commissioner's Lubamersky and Paul absent and Commissioner Schaefer abstaining) denying the appeal (AP16-001) and upholding the ZA's May 11, 2016 conditional approval of the project (ED14-052), located at 270 Linden Ln.; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Pat Bradshaw on behalf of seven (7) neighbors residing along Grand Ct., which share the rear property line with 270 Linden Ln. The appeal letter cites six (6) points of appeal which are paraphrased below by staff and followed by the findings; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2016, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP16-002), accepting and considering all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (16-002) and upholds the May 11, 2016 ZA's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot located at 270 Linden Ln. The City Council finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1: Site Survey with survey stakes to confirm property lines should be required. This issue was not raised in the appeal to the Planning Commission, but was raised by one of the appellants during verbal comment at the hearing. The Planning Commission did not require a survey. However, since the Planning Commission appeal, at staff's recommendation, the applicant had the site surveyed and the rear property line staked to help the Grand Ct. neighbors visualize where the new rear fencing would be located in relation to the existing rear fencing. A copy of this survey was also provided to the appellants by staff. Therefore, the Council finds that this appeal point has no merit. Appeal Point #2: Reduce the height of the new two-story single family home, which will artificially be built up five feet (5) above current grade, to single -story scale.. Building scale appears to staff to be one of the two linaerina disputes with the project that forms this appeal (the other involving the amount of window glazing and outdoor patio area along the Grand Ct. frontage), both of which involve the loss of privacy along Grand Ct. This comment was provided during both the DRB's meetings on the project and the Planning Commission's review of the appeal who, ultimately, determined the proposed two-story Attachment 1-4 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 scale to be both appropriate for the site and consistent with the existing mixture of single - story and multi -story scale within the surrounding neighborhood. The Subdivision Map required increased setbacks along Grand Court to mitigate or reduce the impacts of building scale. The approved Landscape Plan emphasizes the creation of a landscaped screening buffer between the residence and Grand Ct. to further break-up the visual massing of the building. Additionally, the applicant agreed to a concession requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors to construct new, 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire rear (north) property line with Grand Ct , which also helps to reduce the visual bulk of the project. Therefore, the Council finds that this appeal point has no merit. Appeal Point #3: For privacy concerns, move location of the north patio area to west facing yard. Perceived loss of privacv resulting from the amount of window glazing and outdoor patio area along the Grand Ct. frontage appears to be the second of the two linaerina disputes with the project that forms this appeal (the other involving building scale). This comment was provided during both the DRB's review of the project and the Planning Commission's review of the appeal who, ultimately, determined the small outdoor patio area along the north building elevation to be appropriately mitigated to reduce privacy impacts. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission found that the project was consistent with the Design Review criteria contained in 14.25.050 and Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant has submitted separate plan sheets which show the design evolution of the north building elevation over the course of the project review by the DRB, Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission that illustrates the modification that have been made to the project design to minimize privacy impacts and a condition of approval has been included to require the civil engineering sheets to be updated with the architectural sheets before building permit issuance. Therefore, the Council finds that this appeal point has no merit. . Appeal Point #4: Reduce the amount of clear cutting of entire property. Reduce removal of most heritage Oaks since nothing has been built on this parcel for hundreds of years. The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines require 3:1 replacement of all `significant' Oak trees which are proposed for removal on hillside sites. However, this property is not subject to the hillside overlay district, as it is generally a flat lot, However, through the Design Review process it is generally recommended that the proposed removal of significant' Oak trees on non -hillside sites should still be replaced, though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape improvements is determined during project review. Both the DRB and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed removal of two (2) large oak trees and the planting of two (2) specimen -size replacement Oak trees and determined it to be appropriate for this site and its surroundings, along with the other ornamental landscaping that is provided by the project. Furthermore, as part of the subdivision, the City established building envelopes in which any new development was to be situated and the oak tress proposed for removal are located within those building envelopes on this lot. Therefore, the City Council finds that this appeal point has no merit . Appeal Point #5: Document Location of Relocated Bioswale.. The Zoning Administrator -approved project design includes a 2' -wide landscaped bioswale along all property lines, which routes surface storm water runoff from the site and Grand Ct. to the existing City storm water drainage system along Linden Ln. Attachment 1-5 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 Along the Grand Ct. frontage, the site design previously included the bioswale along the property line and fencing between the bioswale and the residence. This fencing setback was an attempt by the project design to maintain the existing landscape character along the Grand Ct. frontage. During the Planning Commission appeal hearing, the appellants expressed concern that maintenance of the bioswale along Grand Ct. would require trespass onto Grand Ct., since it is a private shared driveway and the fence design does not include a pedestrian gate. At the request of the appellants, the site design has since been revised to relocate the 8' -tall rear fencing to the property line and the 2' -wide bioswale planter is now located between the fencing and new residence. So, access to the bioswale would be through the 270 Linden Lane site only and not along Grand Ct. Therefore, the Council finds that this appeal point has no merit... Appeal Point #6: Infractions of codes and DRB Guidelines. The appellants allege that staff misstated the DRB's recommendations from the first meeting, during both the second DRB review of the project revisions and the Planning Commission's appeal review. Specifically, the appellants purport that staff misrepresented the DRB's recommendations when presenting the project during the DRB's review of project revisions. Instead of verbally reminding the DRB that their recommendations included reducing. the window glazing on the north elevation and relocating_ the outdoor patio from the north to the west elevation, they allege that staff stated that the the requested a reduction in both the window glazing and outdoor patio area along the north elevation. The Council finds no merit to this assertion. Staff provided a summary of the DRB's recommendations in both the written and oral staff report when the item returned on the 2nd . The DRB has purview and final say on their own thoughts and actions, so, if they believed that their previous recommendations were misrepresented, they had the opportunity to correct staff and they did not. The appellants further accuse staff of failing to report to them on the recommendations of the DRB in a timely manner. While the appellants represent seven (7) neighbors residing along Grand Ct., which shares the rear property line with 270 Linden Ln., at least three (3) of these neighbors have attended all of the meetings and hearings on the project, including the DRB meetings. Essentially, the appellants participated in every step of the way during the review of the project. Additionally, DRB meetings are video streamed live and actual video of the meetings can be viewed at any time afterwards on the City's web site. This information is provided in the City's public notice, as well as was provided to the neighbors of their ability to view the meetings afterwards. Given that the actual meeting proceedings are now stored on the City website, the City no longer transcribes and distributes detailed written minutes of DRB, Planning Commission or City Council meetings and hearings. The appellants also allege staff did not provide the Planning Commission with their rebuttal letter to staff's report before the Planning Commission hearing. On Monday, July 25t", the appellants did send an email to the project planner with a letter attached, both unsigned and not dated, with comments seeking to make corrections and clarifications to both the Background and Analysis sections in of the Planning Commission Staff Report. However, The appellants' rebuttal letter was not received by staff until Tuesday, July 26t", the day of the Planning Commission hearing. Like all comments received by staff on the day of a meeting or hearing, staff distributed a copy of the appellants' late comments to the Planning Commission, at the dais, before the hearing with a cover memo summarizing both the comments and staff's response. In addition, staff summarized the appellants' rebuttal letter Attachment 1-6 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 and staff's responses during staff's oral presentation to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Council finds that this appeal point has not merit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council upholds the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052), which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot located at 270 Linden Ln., based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings (ED14-052) A. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that; The project will be consistent with Land Use Policies LU -2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Density of Residential Development), and LU -12 (Building Heights) of the General Plan, in that; a) All appropriate City departments and quasi -governmental agencies that would provide water, sewer and power services to the site have reviewed the proposed project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the new project, subject to the payment of impact fees which have been included as conditions of approval' b)The Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan land use designation allows single-family residential development on the site; and c) The proposed 21' 8" building height for the single-family residence (building height per 1997 UBC definition as adopted by the Zoning Ordinance) complies with the maximum allowable 30' building height for the R7.5 District in which the site is located; The project will be consistent with Housina Policy H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) of the General Plan, in that; the project proposes a new multi -story single-family residence in a neighborhood with a mixture of both single - and multi -story single-family residences; The project will be consistent with Neiahborhoods Policv NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) of the General Plan, in that; the proposed design of the project incorporates sensitive transitions in building height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect existing development character and privacy, particularly along the west and north building elevations, where the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017) which created the site and an adjacent parcel, increased the minimum required yard setbacks; The project will be consistent with Communitv Design Policies CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -5 (Views), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping) and CD -19 (Lighting) of the General Plan, in that; a) The proposed design of the project will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation Attachment 1-7 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 submitted with project (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); c) The design of the project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape character consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site as recommended for approval by the DRB; d) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; e) The proposed project has provided opportunities for public review and participation through the referral (including the appropriate neighborhood group or the D/BCNA) and the noticing and posting of two DRB meetings, the ZA hearing conditionally approving the project and the Planning Commission denying the appeal of the ZA conditional approval of the project (hard copy mailed to all owners and occupants within a 300' radius of the site and the D/BCNA and no less than 15 calendar days prior to each meeting and hearing), and the public hearings themselves; f) The DRB has reviewed the proposed Landscape Plans for the site on two occasions and has recommended approval of the project, including the Landscape Plan; and g) The project approval is conditioned (Condition 54) to required compliance with the City' adopted lighting standards (Section 14.16.227 of the Zoning Ordinance) to mitigate potential off-site light and glare; and 2. The project will be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance), in that: As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will implement, support and promote, generally, all applicable goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 that are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare; As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will be particularly consistent with all applicable Community Design Policies of the General Plan; The project will ensure adequate light, air space, fire safety and privacy between buildings, in that; a) The project will be consistent with the increased minimum yard setbacks as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created site and the adjacent parcel (272 Linden Ln.), along the west and north property lines; and b) The design of the project has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the Community Development Department, Building Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau, non -city agencies, the neighborhood group (D/BCNA) and the DRB, who have each recommended approval of the project subject to the condition listed below; The project will coordinate the service demands of the new development with the capacities of existing streets, utilities and public services, in that; the public utility agencies that currently provide, and will continue to provide access, water, sewer and other services to the site have reviewed the project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the site; and As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project have provided for effective citizen participation in the decision-making process. Attachment 1-8 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 3. The project will be consistent with the specific purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that: The project will maintain the proper balance between development and the natural environment, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies, the project will replace an overgrown thicket of primarily Acacia trees with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site which was reviewed twice by the DRB and recommended for approval; The project will ensure that the location, design and materials and colors of development blends with and enhances the natural setting, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies; a) The proposed design of the project will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with projects (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); and c) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; and The project will preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public property, in that; a) The Landscape Plan for the site increased landscape plantings in the increased minimum yard setbacks, as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created the site and the adjacent site (272 Linden Ln.), to help screen the new residence from public view along Grand Ct.; and b) The project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site and recommended for approval by the DRB. B. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the R7.5 District in which the site is located, in that; 1. The design of the project will be consistent with the development standards of the R7.5 District, including: a) Maximum density (one single-family residential unit allowed and proposed on the site); b) Minimum required yards (15' front setback required, 15' proposed; 6720' side setback required, 24' 4"/30' proposed; 10' rear setback required, 15' rear setback proposed); c) Maximum building height (30' allowed; approximately 21.8' proposed, above grade as measured per the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 method for non - hillside parcels); d) Maximum lot coverage (40% allowed; 30.2% or 2,268 sq. ft. proposed); e) Maximum upper -story (75% of max. lot coverage allowed, 1,486 sq. ft. or 49.5% proposed); and 2. The design of the project will be consistent with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, in that; a) The project will harmoniously relate in context Attachment 1-9 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 or scale to existing residences in the immediate vicinity of the sites, which are a varied mixture of single- and multi -story construction; b) The project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the sites which was reviewed twice and recommended for approval by the DRB; c) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; d) The shading impacts of the project have been evaluated by staff which indicate the project will not produce shadowing of existing solar collectors or primary, active recreation areas in the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties; e) The project will provide two covered (garage) parking spaces, which meet minimum 20'x 20' interior dimensions and the minimum 26' back-up; f) All new side- and rear -facing upper -story windows, are oriented so as to not create a direct line -of -sight into existing windows on immediately adjacent properties and will not look directly onto private patios or backyards on immediately adjacent properties; and g) The project has been conditioned to require a 90 -day lighting review period, commencing at Building Permit Final, requiring all new exterior light sources installed by the project to be shielded down or at appropriate illumination levels to provide an adequate level of safety while controlling off-site glare. C. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts, in that: 1) The design of the project includes bioswale areas along the perimeters of the site which helps mitigate both the quality and rate of stormwater drainage from the site into the City's and the neighborhood's stormwater drainage system; and 2) The design of the project include a Landscape Plan, which have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB to help mitigate the loss of existing vegetation on the site and to help screen the new residence when viewed off-site; and D. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: 1) The project have been previously reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, the appropriate neighborhood groups (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association), and conditions of approval have been included to minimize potential adverse impacts; 2) The project has been previously reviewed by the DRB at two separate, noticed meetings and, on April 5, 2016, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed project to the City's Zoning Administrator, finding the design of the projects adequately meet their previous recommendations, subject to additional minor changes primarily to the proposed landscape design, but, also, requiring mock-up or sample panels of the approved exterior earthtone/woodtone base stucco for field review and modification by staff, if necessary; and 3) The project will not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will approve a single-family residential land use on a vacant parcels in the Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District, which is permitted by right, pursuant to Section 14.04.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment 1-10 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Staff has determined that the construction of one (1) new single-family residence on the vacant legal lot, in an urbanized, single-family residential zone, such as the development proposed by the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. The site is an infill site adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan residential land use designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as all applicable zoning designation and regulations, residential design guidelines, review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and Subdivision requirements, as identified in the Findings above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council upholds the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot located at 270 Linden Ln, subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental and Design Review Permit Conditions of Approval (ED14-052) General and On -Going Communitv Development Department, Planninq Division 1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented on revised plans to the Zoning Administrator at the May 11, 2016 hearing and the Planning Commission at the July 26, 2016 appeal hearing and at the City Council at the November 7, 2016 appeal hearing, labeled "270 Linden Lane; Residential Single Family Detached Dwelling" and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all grading and building permits, subject to these conditions. All general and civil drawing sheets shall be updated, prior to building permit submittal, for consistency with the architectural and landscape drawing sheets in each plan set. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review Board. 2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette includes "La Habra X- 81584 Suffolk" beige base stucco color, "Benjamin Moore Dragon's Breath -1547" dark brown trim color, and "Custom -Built Metals Musket" dark brown standing seam metal roof with `cool; coating. Any future modification to the approved color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board. 3. Prior to applying integral color stucco finish to the exterior walls, a mock-up or sample color panel shall be created and presented for final review at the site by the City. This sample color panel shall be no smaller than 2'x 3' in size. The applicant shall provide the City with a Attachment 1-11 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 minimum of 48-hour notice to review the sample color panel and to require modifications to the exterior stucco color, if necessary. 4. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall require a continuous, 8' - tall, solid fence and no gates along the entire rear property line shared between the site and Grand Ct. 5. The design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., shall be modified to fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. 6. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) approval includes and approved Landscape Plan. All new landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion, in perpetuity. 7. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view at all times. 8. The site shall be kept free of litter and weeds at all times. Any litter and weeds that accumulate on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. 9. All pubic streets and sidewalks impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping 10. The site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the general contractor for the project in a location visible from the public street. 11. All construction and grading activities shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. These activities include, but are not limited to, the delivery of building materials, the arrival of construction workers, the use of power equipment or the start-up of generator engines, and the playing of radios on the site. 12. Grand Court shall not be used to access the site, or for parking, by construction or grading traffic. 13. All import or export of excavation shall occur during off-peak traffic trip hours — between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. — only. 14. In the event that artifacts or cultural soil deposits or features are unexpectedly encountered during grading or underground excavation for the project, all work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted until the discovery area can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the Planning Division shall be notified immediately. If warranted by the extent and cultural composition of the discovered materials, subsequent excavation shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to record, recover and /or protect significant cultural materials from further damage. 15. Native American artifacts typically found in the area of site include chipped stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, and fire -affected rock. Midden deposits typically mark habitation spots and are recognizable by the characteristics dark grey to almost black Attachment 1-12 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 colored soil, with traces of shellfish, animal bone, and charcoal intermixed. Human remains may also be found in midden deposits. Historic artifacts potentially include all byproducts of human land use greater than 50 years in age. 16. If human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere within the project site during grading or excavation, all work shall be immediately stop in the vicinity of the discovery and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the skeletal remains are found to be prehistoric/Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which will designate the "most likely descendant" of the remains. 17. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 18. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 19. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City. 20. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building permit is issued or a time extension request is submitted to the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of this approval or until November 7, 2018. Failure to obtain a grading or building permit, and encroachment permit, or a time extension by the specified date will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit. Attachment 1-13 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Public Works Department 21. Traffic mitigation fee of $16,984 is required for two (2) a.m. and two (2) p.m. trips (4 peak trips x $4,246/trip). 22. A Grading Permit is required from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew St., for each site. 23. A temporary encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Department for any work within the Right -of -Way (ROW). 24. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance for each project, which is calculated at 1 % of the valuation with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. 25. The drop inlet structures that collect flow from the top of the east retaining wall on Sheet C1, are called out as a 6" dia. inlet and a 6" inlet as shown on the plans. Provide a detail to clarify the proposed structure. 26. The SD inlet and cobble drainage are still shown at the eastern side of the driveway on Sheet Al but not on Sheet C1. Clarify that this is no longer proposed. 27. The drainage shown on Sheet Al does not match Sheet C3. The revisions to the northwestern corner were made and the inlet at the southwest corner is outside of the flowline for the western swale. Confirm the drainage inlet location. 28. The drain inlet protection at the southeast corner, near the driveway apron, appears to be extraneous after the drainage modifications. 29. The grading callouts at on Sheets C1 and Al, do not match, specifically, the top -of -wall (TOW) elevations. Confirm the proposed elevation throughout the site. 30. A significant portion of the existing 30" culvert along the Linden Ln. frontage is proposed to be covered be the driveway apron. Investigate the condition of the existing culvert and provide the results to the Public Works Department. If conditions warrant, replacement of the culvert may be required. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) 31. The applicant or property owner shall submit copies of the easement deed for the sewer lateral from 270 Linden Ln. through 272 Linden Ln. 32. A new sewer connection fee of $8,980.18 is required for each site (Effective for the July 1, 2015 — June 30, 2016 fiscal year). 33. The applicant has stated that sewer laterals have already been installed for both sites. SRSD has no record of sewer permits for either of these new laterals. The applicant shall provide SRSD with signed copies of the permits for these new laterals or provide video of the laterals to assess the potential deficiencies that may need to be corrected before building permit issuance. Attachment 1-14 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 34. If not already installed, backwater prevention devices are required for each site, in accordance with SRSD specifications for side sewers and laterals. San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau 35. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 36. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications hall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include (larger projects require 4 sets or construction drawings): a) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau). 37. A Knox Switch is required for the driveway access gate to the site. 38. These properties are located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) area. Provide a written Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire Department. This VMP must be completed and verified prior to final approval. Refer to City of San Rafael Ordinance1856 that may be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.ora/fireveaetation, or you may contact the Fire Department at (415) 485-3309 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt for any questions or comments. Requirement of continued compliance with the approved VMP must be placed within CC&R's. 39. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide adequate water supply service to each site for the required fire protection system. Communitv Development Department, Building Division 40. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Building Code, 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2013 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 41. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Truss calculations i) Structural calculations j) Soils reports k) CalGreen documentation 1) Title 24 energy documentation m) Green Building documentation Attachment 1-15 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 42. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with '/2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with '/2 inch stroke for commercial applications. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 43. School fees will be required for both project approvals. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.97 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 44. If any portion of the new fencing exceeds 7' in height, a building permit is required 45. All fireplaces shall meet EPA Phase 2 emission standards or shall be gas burning only. Communitv Development Department, Planninq Division 46. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 47. Prior to building permit issuance, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. Immediately After Building Permit Issuance Marin Municipal Water District (District) 48. The site is not currently being serviced and no water has been allocated to this parcel. The parcel also does not currently meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District, which state in part: "...the property must be fronted be a water main; the structure must be within 125 feet of the water main." Under these conditions, water service to this property will require a pipeline extension from the end of the District's existing facilities. The applicant shall enter into a pipeline extension agreement with the District for the installation of the necessary facilities and said agreement must be approved by the District's Board of Directors. The applicant may apply for a variance to these requirements. This variance must be submitted to the District's Board of Directors for their review and action. All costs associated with a pipeline extension are borne by the applicant. Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, or approval of the variance request, both parcels will be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below: a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application; b) Submit a copy of the building permit; c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges; d) Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of the application; e) Comply with MMWD's rule and regulations in effect at the time service is requested; f) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following submittals to MMWD are required: Attachment 1-16 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 • Verification of indoor fixtures compliance. • Landscaping plan. • Irrigation plan. • Grading plan. g) Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation shall be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415.945.1497. You may also find information on the MMWD's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.orq; and h) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the MMWD's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements shall be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at 415.945.1558. Pacific Gas & Electric 49. Electric and gas service to the project site will be provided in accordance with the applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E's website at http://www.pge.com/mvhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE - 5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 50. The cost of undergrounding service facilities shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. 51. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Prior to Occupancy Communitv Development Department, Planninq Division 52. Prior to occupancy, the applicant or property owner shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 53. All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. After Occupancy 54. Following building permit `final' sign -off, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned off during daylight. Attachment 1-17 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, 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 Monday, the 7t" day of November, 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk Attachment 1-18 File Nos. AP16-002 & ED14-052 2 NO)' London foo lip 0 /(c iauos g"s ads na ppea� to �jhe San FWlfae� cr os auracH re�evwqt to the, 61h d�C- r -9com foof �ihe, Coo, munw-'ss �a n an 'LAY 2 Hhbdpan L;anz- Prokect. Be ore �wam make a cJeckflabn avii Thk project T/Ire neg"g. h1 orhood a mues needw be adequate #y Wcalressed as foHmolp7se- - PvoppsvIrV Une hV a (surweV of Evand Coot %nAM smmueV Na kes. - Reduce the heo'gg ht of oe propos, ed 3,7M square lawi�, do woefflons"'s voun d floov ujAkh ud'fl, vshen constructed, Coo up i,',m E,,ibowe cuvrent grade an both the M and a doWent ovano Tzmn- Fov Flrfowackv coo ncems, mawe �OcaUuon 09 patoo Coons Pd. - med"Imre tche amo M -M of Caen,, v canon of e fltu're p)mPMU. Reduce Vem 00UM of rnvoo st heultase oaks 2d'ace, ROANHE has been bmflt on WS a, vcM f a [ip hunidpeds of Ve a vs. - Ca nV'H pm 00 btAMOU n -6, th e B'D mAja � e b00H0 be-, �AWthon the pvaject Vence. - Wracto,ons, Of C cr)"d es and IONNI sm'Od eflnes. 270 Un c` an LE"Ine PROPERTY LOAF CONCMMATQ ON BY SURVEV W\WTH SURVEY STAKES OF GRMWD p�� r�� pr�opQ ,� L'una os aeon o eido n o fends accovdono to the 0 naqulw sarue v mfteh mpiftTi s mush hem a,:, co] a a Oansa a vi@ndo Coat �awe dhj the actaM prroper1v HmQ, 9V one has aWaccIV been done, X needs W be dflWmed �o HR. 9 2000 suvvey shams one ffleW fflmv c v an bop nosh east covnev oar par CeL rofa[p ofd %GA hbo oph o od shouus the HMO aha pavcM Oban the 01-IMUOno Veznee - Sea Co an Niap of P,4eoobborrhood. REDUCE THE HEMHT OF HOUSE AS PROPOSED WHA CH �5 5° ABOVE GRAND COURT. DESM N A ONE S U ORV HOUSE VY -I DCH NTS ffi,l tAOTH THE rk0GH a ORHOODa drrade Onto flog � u eft o base bao o ht of house onstaad of Msnw , 33 �FucWoads of Vofo tea VaosQ QaweQ of I, goorra Geduce the he6gh,t o�` th �,754jdomfflon ggs, around Roorr as pPopzed t,ashkh uAN9 %shan construdi ed,, bi a anffokoaoo�/ u to 5° a o mm cuvveM o rads a on both the M andi adjaman Grand Comi. Cannot Cor f� aM first NOW- DCuee ©V a 2 sRoVIV h8as0 oir 3,754 Scq-Ft- uIuoth neogh bov of a al stcav\j house oV 2,9 298 Sq o Fto FOR pfflVACY CONCERNS, MOVE L OCAT ON OF PAT�G TO art#EST FACS NG A cC I(VA 3Do Grr'Wdna� O R 0 Faconim �,andad placement ©' p a V a �co be a-aoeu t® "Od est fa n ba��acrdo The paVo and ondo%vis as apprr omed, hum3ada �Ieoie pAva, cV of sc verra0 veAdenc aso The Second floor ueool 100. k down oW T"ha r ecFeWom avea and pooh of x7200 avand aweoo vc sodeMs for 43 yearns. REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CLEAR, C UTTHIG OF EN` ME PROPERTY. WWNATE REMOVAL L OF MOST HE 0` AGE OAKS SWCE N®TMNM HAS BEEUN BWL7 ON PROPERTY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. -T Qoffiaanon o a proper bMance betwsa-?en dew(Mapfant and the natara0 enworonmant k note beono Maio a C�aav c,-mUft of parcM and deA g non o 2 allact Grouses Qmc e- pfr Vora co0or and roof chokes, does not fo6Qoy o aode0onas of ORE. Catf un do�� n G �r�ot�a o oak �� e f� �n C� ago o n coWd be a0tavad to save seuera0 oHhem. "Iqo oaks aria 20 be saved as appraved on thi e 270 parceL 9 obtaon an arbodsst �o odentof-V vara �r deo and hw gaga o@ kso CON!HRM 0H Wlffl fil�IG THE Q0SWALE ADCC BEV OTHW PROJECT FENCE. At p0annong meeting, the a� choked stMi-�d the 0pand Court rode of, the C000be u&'R M pvoDea pa rceQ fence Onsf dad of an Grand Coo sode4 ft <<,1fromOd hwe cooujded propenvv flna an col the rra2pansobo0fty vor the ance of the Womosa- W. OOH RACT0®0IS OF CODES AND DOS GUMELMES osvepresent4,aVon of 11 di2sogn reuWfls bowd mcor5mri endatoon bq swri to 2-112 DD K o and pflannon Ca -,i -fjm Won wnsNccij odd to appvova 0 ba2ad on oa o rr�god r�� or��CmOono r, Lack of due dodo oanca b. 2nd BE 01 to odanto fU and re or ce, the a�` ORE vecomrn�ir endaUonsa 0 Faoaura of staff to report to appa00ams for, vuwoaaj) anay do acosoons b�� 0 R o on a �'DM 0V Lmtanncr. oo&M ap['leM had to he mn'de Move saeon , otaff Fepan. GafluvQ of NannM o ComffioWan to read the ffl Marla0T P0 AM v to heavon c o sil�aff prasen2ed them and app eMFRS ud'Kh Wao ado and onaccmw@U at 7 pry not Wbre fflc�"eVn o o -F ty tc)v-aers" roper Sian Rgav � syr-�� -J�� (71 o t :1 1 � � L-lV- L C. t '' taFstr a SAY �PAY3CdiT Cf1YZDM BMW= i tPllallt'0 FoaTm f \ F.R.CCUTEXI'tupraFaulm WE MAC ORENTATIM t0 E--PHDSD 4�N' p f1Sk'0. %f aZ�. pilpiDiiAP}Ilii� c6'3Ir? {SQ1�i}� _ L APS Al 2-sTMEFR 24 ORaPH9c LC c EMB G ZONE � MRS ORMC BOME Plop a, aRmcZONE --- RIO o u R�2D0 LD A� ��- a�ots°'� t 'Ir ��'S tttt � S•: r t� �s lett set P �ntar 351 Nil 2VMtg D E � t9 io 4V � C O�1Gs RRMC ZONE RIO � October 26, 2016 Daniel Stitzel 2275 Broadway Street, #520 San Francisco, CA 94115 San Rafael City Council 14005 th Avenue PO Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94951 RE: 270 Linden Lane Appeal To the Members of the San Rafael City Council, In 1989 1 was four years old and my family moved into a home on Mountain View Avenue, one street away from the 270 Linden Lane project that is the subject of this appeal. I played little league baseball for the San Rafael Diamondbacks sponsored by Rafael Jewelers if anyone can remember that far back. My family is a San Rafael family. What we are hoping to build at 270 Linden Lane is a family home where my father can retire and be a San Rafael resident once again. Our project is a simple one: we would like to build a two story home on an infill -lot zoned for two stories, in a neighborhood full of two story homes. Our project has been thoughtfully designed and requests no variances. Over the course of nearly three years and four public meetings our project was unanimously recommended for approval by City Staff, the Design Review Board, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. The appeal before you raises no new points from those presented to prior approving bodies, but I will do my best to briefly respond to them below: 1) Property Line & Bioswale. Anew survey completed this summer has confirmed our property line location. Using this property line, we revised our plans to show the bioswale inside the proposed new fence on our property per the appellant's request. 2) Grading & Privacy Concerns. During the design process our civil engineer determined that the poor drainage of the site necessitates the building of a raised pad. Privacy concerns have been an important component of this project. Through the refinements borne of our public meetings, we believe we have created a plan that ensures privacy for both our home and our Grand Court neighbors. To start, the project's setbacks are significantly larger and more densely tree -planted than similarly zoned parcels. Additionally, we made several major refinements to the original design in order to increase privacy: a. Eliminated North facing second story glazing b. Eliminated nearly all of the North facing patio, replacing it with additional planted trees c. Converted North facing doors into windows d. Increased the Grand Court adjacent fence height from 6 -feet to 8 -feet. The final project before you has an identical finished floor height to our nearest neighbor directly across Grand Court and includes a 15+ foot tree -planted setback, a 3 — 7 foot tree -planted curb space and an eight foot high fence. We believe the fence and the planned —20 feet of tree planted buffer will more than adequately protect the privacy of our home and that of our neighbors. Finally, we know this has traditionally been a tree -covered site, so we worked hard with the landscape architect, the Design Review Board's landscape architects and the community to select appropriate trees and design a planting plan that would add positive character to the neighborhood while reducing fire risk. We believe the record of this project shows that we went about the public approval process the right way and we think it resulted in a great project. We are grateful to City Staff for their continued good work through a long approval process. The last three years of refinements and public meetings have given us a project that we think adds to the character of the neighborhood while protecting both the privacy of our home and that of the residents along Grand Court. Lastly, the project conforms to all planning code requirements and design guidelines, requests no variances, and embraces working hour restrictions. We respectfully request the City Council ratify the unanimous recommendations of City Staff, the Design Review Board, Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission to approve the 270 Linden Lane Project. We're excited to be a part of the community in San Rafael again. Sincerely, Danie: Stitzel The Stitzel Family and Bregante Family RESOLUTION NO. 16-09-A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP16-001) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S MAY 11, 2016 APPROVAL OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED14- 052) CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,754 SQ. FT., SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT 9,340 SQ. FT. `FLAG' LOT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING MINOR GRADING; DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING, LOCATED AT 270 LINDEN LN.' APN: 015-041-56 WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262 Linden Ln into a three -lot subdivision, which effectively created two new vacant Lots; a `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272 Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision approval required the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Court, where- a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard (western property` line) setback, where a minimum 6' is required in the R7.5 District; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, -Daniel Stitzel (applicant), on behalf of the Raymond S. Bregante Trust (owner) submitted signed applications to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, requesting separate Environmental and Design. Review Permits (ED14-051 and ED14-052) to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on each separate vacant lot. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-051) proposed to construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a 7,507 sq. ft. vacant lot at 272 Linden Ln. while Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) proposed to construct a 'new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft.', single-family residence on a 9,340 sq. ft. vacant `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. The architectural design, scale, size and configuration of .each new - residence was proposed to be identical; only the orientation of the structures and the exterior colors and materials were proposed to be distinct; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, Planning staff deemed each project application 'complete' and ready for hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the San Rafael Design Review Board (DRB) held a duly -noticed public hearing on each separate Environmental and Design ReviewPermit application, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of� "Planning staff, and continued their review to a date uncertain, providing the following recommendations: 1) A comprehensive re -study of the proposed landscape design for both project sites (270 and 272 Linden Ln.) is needed that includes, but is not limited to: a) more native and more appropriate plant species selection, particularly for screening purposes; b) more random, less linear, planting patterns; c) relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing and exiting the garages; d) eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln:); e) relocate or reduce the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; f) plant species proposed for bioswale areas; and g) irrigation details; and 2) Due to the proposed grade change on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the EXhibii. 1 Re Nos. f P 16-00 ; & ED 14-052 window glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation; and VVHEREAS, the applicant subsequently revised the site and building design in response to the DRB's recommendations to reduce privacy concerns along Grand Ct., including: 1) Reducing all north -facing upper -story rear yard windows to 2' x 3' high -sill windows; -2) Reducing outdoor patio area substantially along the north building elevation to allow for greater landscape screening; and 3) Specific modifications to the proposed Landscape Plan, include plant species and locations, to improve the general appropriateness of the new plantings and vegetative screening between the new residence and Grand Ct; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, the DRB held a duly -noticed public hearing to continue their review. on each separate revised Environmental and Design Review Permit application, acceptir_,,g all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff, and unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent; Robertson PC Liaison) recommended approval of both projects, with the following recommendations: 1) The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas on both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not; revise the Landscape Plans for each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional websites on bioswale plantings; 2) Substitute Podocarpus "Icee Blue" in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln.; 3) Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed "G" planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence though not included in the Plant List; 4) Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are proposed to be preserved on 272 Linden Ln. (mulch only is recommended); and 5) Prior ro installing the integral -color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review -and modification, if necessary, by staff; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a duly -noticed public hearing, accepting all oral and written public testimony, and conditionally approved both projects separately (ED14-051 and ED14-052), finding each project consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District and Subdivision Map development standards, residential design guidelines, and review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. Prior to the hearing, the ZA confirmed that all DRB recommendations were either incorporated in revisions to the Landscape Plans for each project or were included as conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct., including: 1) Constructing 8' - tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; 2) Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the .top portion of the assembly; and 3) Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. These additional concessions by the applicant were incorporated by the ZA as conditions of approval (see Conditions 4, 5 and 11) and 2 E3(hebit 1 File Nos. 16-001 & ED14-052 WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal of the ZA's conditionally approval of the new two-story, single-family residence on the vacant `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. (ED14-052), which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct. The appeal letter cites the following points of appeal: 1) The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand Ct., should be replaced by windows to .discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area; 2) All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio `in kind'; 3) The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included along the north property. boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.; 4) The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8' - tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading activities; 5) Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays; 6) The project should include a ninety (90) -day lighting review period to allow adjustments in exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.; and 7) Unmitigated privacy issues require a single -story scale for the new residence rather than a rwo-story scale; and WHEREAS, the appeal letter also references and attaches a letter previously provided at the ZA hearing by some of the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct. which generally states that the project, as redesigned, would result in a loss of privacy and `intrinsic value' of the neighborhood. Specifically, these prior comments state, that: it was the DRB's intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation should be re -oriented to the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the appeal does not ,challenge the ZA conditional approval for the new, two- story, single-family residence on the vacant lot in front of the `flag' lot at 272 Linden Ln.(ED14- 051) and, therefore, that approval stands; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly noticed appeal hearing to consider the Appeal (AP16-001), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, HE 0T RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby denies the Appeal (16-001) and upholds the May 11, 2016 ZA's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot located at 270 Linden Ln, The Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: - Exhibit Fie Nos. A` 16-00 3 & ED14-652 Appeal Point 81: The patio dooms proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand U., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the new residence and Grand Ct., including; modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly, and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. This agreement was incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see Condition 5). The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval. Appeal Point #2: All removed Oaff trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio In f nd7 The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines require 3:1 replacement of all `significant' Oak trees (Any Oak tree species which is in good health and form and is more than 6 inches or 6" in diameter as measured 4' 6" above the root crown), which are proposed for removal on hillside sites. Generally, it is recommended that the proposed removal of significant' Oak trees on non -hillside sites should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape improvements is determined during project review. There exists two (2) mature Oak trees currently on the site, both 48" in diameter and located in the middle of the proposed building envelope (see Sheet G3 of the project plans to review the existing tree removal/preservation . details). The subdivision map approval, which approved the creation of the site, requires greater setbacks than the zoning (R7.5 District) requires; the site is required to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard setback, along the west property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6' is required in the R7.5 District. These increased setback requirements, effectively, reduce the allowable development envelope on the site and make it challenging to revise the building footprint to preserve the two existing, 48:" -diameter Oak trees on the site. During their review, the DRB made specific recommendations on the proposed Landscape Plan and, ultimately, recommended approval the revised Landscape Plan along with the project, including the proposed removal of all existing trees on the site. Appeal Point #3: The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct. The project proposed, and was approved with, earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials ("La Habra X-81584 Suffolk" beige base stucco color with "Benjamin Moore 4 Exhibit I i=iic Nos. APIS-00 E & ED 14-052 Dragon's Breath_1547" dark brown trim color, and "Custom -Built Metals Musket" dark brown standing seam metal roof with `cool; coating exterior). On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed revisions to the project and recommended approval to the ZA, subject to specific modifications to the Landscape Plan. While finding the proposed earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials acceptable, the DRB additionally recommended that, prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior finish to the residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color should be presented for final field review and approval by staff. These approved earthtone/woodtone exterior colors and materials, and the requirement that staff field review and approve a mock-up samples of the base stucco color prior to installation, were incorporated as conditions of approval by the ZA (see Conditions 2 and 3). At the Commission hearing on the appeal, a colors and materials board will be presented for review. The new Landscape Plan for the project was reviewed by the DRB twice; as an original submittal on February 2, 2016 and again with revisions on April 5, 2016. The DRB initial recommendations included specific revisions to the proposed plant species and their location on the site and a request to relocate the patio area along the north building elevation which would allow for greater planting between the new residence and Grand Ct. Ultimately, the DRB recommended approval of the revised project, including a revised Landscape Plan, to the ZA, which incorporated changes to plant species and their location., as well as a substantial reduction in patio area along the north building elevation that allowed additional landscape plantings. Appeal Point #4e The existing rear fencing should be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8' -tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not he used as access to the site during construction and grading activities. After the ZA hearing, the applicant -had the existing rear fencing on the site, which abuts Grand Ct., repaired so that it is no longer slumps onto the existing mailboxes lining Grand Ct. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to an additional concession in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct.. Specifically, the applicant agreed to construct new, 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct. (see Condition 4). Grand Ct. is a private 'shared driveway, shared by nine (9) residences, which is located immediately adjacent to the site. While the project has no right to access the site from Grand Ct.., a condition of approval was included by the ZA specifically prohibiting all access to the site from Grand Ct. during all construction or grading activities (see Condition 12). The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance)' or as conditions of approval. Exhibit 1 r=ife Nos. AP16-00 1 & ED14--052 Appeal Point 45o Allowable hours of operation for all construction and gracing activities should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weefcdays and 9 &m. to 5 pam- on Saturdays, with no worl-t allowed on Sundays and holidays. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy impacts in the immediate neighborhood, including; reducing the allowable construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. This agreement has been incorporated as a condition of approval (see Condition 11). Appeal Point 96o The project should include a ninety (90) -day lighting review period to allow adjustments in eidetriorr lighting, parrdcularly for those which may impact Grana Ct. Section 14.16..227 (Light and Glare; Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires, -as part of project review, all new exterior lighting be subject to a ninety (90) -day post -construction review and inspection period to allow for adjustments in lighting intensity or fixture shielding to assure the project will not cast unreasonable off-site glare. Though currently unknown, it is likely the project includes some type of exterior lighting. As such, a standard condition of approval (see Condition 54) has been included, requiring a ninety (90) -day lighting review period beginning -at the time of building permit final. Appeall Point #7o Unmitigated privacy issues require a single -story scale for the new residence rather than a two-story scale. This appears to staff to be one of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this appeal. This comment was provided during the DRB's review of the project who, ultimateiy, determined the proposed two-story scale to be both appropriate for the site and consistent with the existing mixture of single -story and multi -story scale within the surrounding neighborhood. Both the increased setbacks required by the Subdivision Map approval and the approved Landscape Plan which emphasizes to create a landscaped screening buffer around the entire residence, help to mitigate privacy impacts resulting from the project. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper -story windows on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The impact of rear yard -facing upper -story windows along Grand Ct., the project proposes only high -sill (5' -sill height above the upper -story finish floor), rear yard - facing upper -story windows along Grand Ct., which helps to mitigate privacy impacts. Additionally, the rear -facing north building elevation is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a shared private driveway and 25 -wide access easement and not an active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residence. Appeal Point #88o It was the DRB s intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation should be reoriented to the gest elevation. This appears to staff to be the other of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this appeal. This comment was also provided during the DRB's review of the project. The DRB agreed that the proposed grade change on the siteand raised building pad elevation creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage which should be better mitigated. At their original review of the project - on February 2, 2016, the DRB Exhibi[ 1 File Nos. AP 6--00 3 & ED 1c-052 recommended that the window glazing be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation. As stated in staff's response to Appeal Point #7 above, the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper -story windows only on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The applicant revised the project to reduce the upper -story window glazing along the north building elevation by reducing the previous 9' x 6' master bedroom window to a 2' x 3' high -sill window design matching the other upper -story windows along the north elevation. The 9' x 6' master bedroom upper -story window was relocated to the west building elevation. Additionally, the `north patio was reduced by approximately 2/3 rd of its original area along the north building elevation and the landscape area, between the new residence and Grand Ct., was expanded and the landscape plantings were increased. On ,April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed these project revisions, along with specific modifications to the Landscape Plan, and determined that these site and building modifications adequately responded to their previous recommendations and unanimously recommended approval of the project to the ZA. The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval. BE if FURTHER- RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14- 052, which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot located at 270 Linden Ln., based on the following findings: Environmental and Design Review Permit Fihdings (ED14-052) A. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes, of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that; The project will be consistent with Land Use Policies LU -2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Density of Residential Development), and LU -12 (Building Heights) of the General Plan, in that; a) All appropriate City departments and quasi -governmental agencies that would provide water, sewer and power services to the site have reviewed the proposed project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the new project, subject to the payment of impact fees which have been included as conditions of approval' b)The Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan land use designation allows single-family residential development on the site; and c) The proposed 21' 8" building height for the single-family residence (building 7 Exhibit I File Nos. AP16--00-1 & ED14-052 height per 1997 UBC definition as adopted by the Zoning Ordinance) complies with the maximum allowable 30' building height for the R7.5 District in which the site is located; The project will be consistent with Housing Policv H-2 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) of the General Plan, in that; the project proposes a new multi -story single-family residence in a neighborhood with a mixture of both single - and multi -story single-family residences; The project will be consistent with Neighborhoods Policv IVH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) of .the General Plan, in that; the proposed design of the project incorporates sensitive transitions in building height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect existing development character and privacy, particularly along the west and north building elevations, where the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017) which created the site and an adjacent parcel, increased the. minimum required yard setbacks; The project will be consistent with Communitv Design Policies CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -4 (Historic Resources), CD -5 (Views), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping) and CD -19 (Lighting) of the General Plan, in that; a) The proposed design of the project will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with project (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); c) The design of the project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape character consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site as recommended for approval by the DRB; d) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; e) The proposed project has provided opportunities for public review and participation through the referral (including the appropriate neighborhood group or the D/BCNA) and the noticing and posting of two DRB meetings, the ZA hearing conditionally approving the project and the Planning Commission denying the appeal of the ZA conditional approval of the project (hard copy mailed to all owners and occupants within a 300' radius of the site and the D/BCNA and no less than 15 calendar days prior to each meeting and hearing), and the public hearings themselves; f) The DRB has reviewed the proposed Landscape Plans for the site on two occasions and has recommended approval of the project, including the Landscape Plan; and g) The project approval is conditioned (Condition 54) to required compliance with the City' adopted lighting standards (Section 14.16.227 of the Zoning Ordinance) to mitigate potential off-site light and glare; and 2. The project will be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance), in that. xhibit File Nos. AP16-00 € & ED 14--052 As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will implement, support and promote, generally, all applicable goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 that are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare; As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project will be particularly consistent with all applicable Community Design Policies of the General Plan; The project will ensure adequate light, air space, fire safety and privacy between buildings, in that; a) The project will be consistent with the increased minimum yard setbacks as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created site and the adjacent parcel (272 Linden Ln.), along the west and north property lines; and b) The design of the project has been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the Community Development Department, Building Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau, non -city agencies, the neighborhood group (D/BCNA) and the DRB, who have each recommended approval of the project subject to the condition listed below; The project will coordinate the service demands of the new development with the capacities of existing streets, utilities and public services, in that; the public utility agencies that currently provide, and will continue to provide access, water, sewer and other services to the site have reviewed the project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the site; and As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the project have provided for effective citizen participation in the decision-making process. 3. The project will be consistent with the specific purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that: The project will maintain the proper balance between development and the natural environment, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies, the project will replace an overgrown thicket of primarily Acacia trees with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site which was reviewed twice by the DRB and recommended for approval; The project will ensure that the location, design and materials and colors of development blends with and enhances the natural setting, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies; a) The proposed design of the project will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the project will respect and protect the adjacent historic resource (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with projects (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015); and c) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; and The project will preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public property, in that; a) The Landscape Plan for the site increased landscape plantings in the increased minimum yard setbacks, as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created the site and the adjacent site (272 Linden Ln:), to help screen the new residence from public view along Grand Ct.; and b) The project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Exhibit.1 He Nos. Al 116-001 & ED14-052 Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the site and recommended for approval by the DRB. B. The design of the 'project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the R7.5 District in which the site is located, in that; 1. The design of the project will be consistent with the development standards of the R7.5 District, including: a) Maximum density (one single-family residential unit allowed and proposed on the site); b) Minimum required yards (15' front setback required, 15' proposed; 6'/20' side setback required, 24' 4"/30' proposed; 10' rear setback required, 15' rear setback proposed); c) Maximum building height (30' allowed; approximately 21.8' proposed, above grade as measured per the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 method for non - hillside parcels); d) Maximum lot coverage (40% allowed; 30:2% or 2,268 sq. ft. proposed); e) Maximum upper -story (75% of max. lot coverage allowed, 1,486 sq. ft. or 49.5% proposed); and 2. The design of the project will be consistent with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, in that; a) The project will harmoniously relate in context or scale to existing residences in the immediate vicinity of the sites, which are a varied mixture of single- and multi -story construction; b) The project will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plan for the sites which was reviewed twice and recommended for approval by the DRB; c) The proposed building design incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a, varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; d) The shading impacts of the project have been evaluated by staff which indicate the project will not produce shadowing of existing solar collectors or primary, active recreation areas in the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties; e) The project will provide two covered (garage) parking spaces, which meet minimum 20'x 20' interior dimensions and the minimum 26' back-up; f) All new side- and rear -facing upper -story windows, are oriented so as to not create a direct line -of -sight into existing windows on immediately adjacent properties and will not look directly onto private patios or backyards on immediately adjacent properties; and g) The project has been conditioned to require a 90 -day lighting review period, commencing at Building Permit Final, requiring all new exterior light sources installed by the project to be shielded down or at appropriate illumination levels to provide an adequate level of safety while controlling off-site glare. C. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts, in that: 1) The design of the project includes bioswale areas 10 Exhibit File Nos. AP16-001 & ED 14-052 along the perimeters of the site which helps mitigate both the quality and rate of stormwater drainage from the site into the City's and the neighborhood's stormwater drainage system; and 2) The design of the project include a Landscape Plan, which have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB to help mitigate the loss of existing vegetation on the site and to help screen the new residence when viewed off-site; and D. The design of the project, as proposed, revised and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: 1) The project have been previously reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, the appropriate neighborhood groups (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association), and conditions of approval -have been included to minimize potential adverse impacts; 2) The project has been previously reviewed by the DRB at two separate, noticed meetings and, on April 5, 2016, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed project to the City's Zoning Administrator, finding the design of the projects adequately meet their previous recommendations, subject to additional minor changes primarily to the proposed landscape design, but, also, requiring mock-up or sample panels of the approved exterior earthtone/woodtone base stucco for field review and modification by staff, if necessary; and 3) The project will not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will approve a single-family residential land use on a vacant parcels in the Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District, which is permitted by right, pursuant to Section 14.04.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Staff has determined that the construction of one (1) new single-family residence on the vacant legal lot, in an urbanized, single-family residential zone, such as the development proposed by the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. The site is an infill site adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan residential land use designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as all applicable zoning designation and regulations, residential design guidelines, review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and Subdivision requirements, as identified in the Findings above. BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14- 052, which allows the construction of a new two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., 'flag' lot Located at 270 Linden Ln, subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental and Design Review Permit Conditions of Approval (ED`li 4-052) General and On -Going Communitv Development Department. Planning Division 1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented on revised plans to the Zoning Administrator at the May 11, 2016 hearing and the Planning Commission at the July 26, 2016 appeal hearing, labeled "270 Linden Lane; Residential Single Family Detached Dwelling" and on file with the Community Development 11 Exhibit 1 File Naos. AP X6-06 s & ED14-052. Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all grading and building permits, subject to these conditions. All general and civil drawing sheets shall be updated, prior to building permit submittal, for consistency with the architectural and landscape drawing sheets in each plan set. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review Board. 2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette includes "La Habra X- 81584 Suffolk" beige base stucco color, "Benjamin Moore Dragon's Breath -1547" dark brown trim color, and "Custom -Built Metals Musket dark brown standing seam metal roof with `cool; coating. Any future modification to the approved color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shaii be referred to the Design Review Board. 3. Prior to applying integral color stucco finish to the exterior walls, a mock-up or sample color panel shall be created and presented for final review at the site by the City. This sample color panel shall be no smaller than 2'x 3' in size. The applicant shall provide the City with a minimum of 48-hour notice to review the sample color panel and to require modifications to the exterior stucco color, if necessary. 4. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall require a continuous, 81 - tall, solid fence.and no gates along. the entire rear property line shared between the site and Grand Ct. 5. The design of the folding patio doors along the north building facade, facing Grand Ct., shall be modified to fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. 6. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) approval includes and approved Landscape Plan. All new landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion, in perpetuity. 7. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view at all times. 8. The site shall be kept free of litter and weeds at all times. Any litter and weeds that accumulate on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. 9. AI.I pubic streets and sidewalks impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping 10. The site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the general contractor for the project in a location visible from the public street. 11. All construction and grading activities shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays. Construction shall_ not be permitted on Sundays or 12 xhibit } i"i!ke Nos. AP16-00 € 8, ED14-052 City -observed holidays. These activities include, but are not limited to, the delivery of building materials, the arrival of construction workers, the use of power equipment or the start-up of generator engines, and the playing of radios on the site. 12. Grand Court shall not be used to access the site, or for parking, by construction or grading. traffic. 13. All import or export of excavation shall occur during off-peak traffic trip hours — between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. — only. 14. In the event that artifacts or cultural soil deposits or features are unexpectedly encountered during grading or underground excavation for the project, all work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted until the discovery area can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the Planning Division shall be notified immediately. If warranted by the extent and cultural composition of the discovered materials, subsequent excavation shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to record, recover and /or protect .significant cultural materials from further damage. 15. Native American artifacts typically found in the area of site include chipped stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, and fire -affected rock. Midden deposits typically mark habitation spots and are recognizable by the characteristics dark grey to almost black colored soil, with traces of shellfish, animal bone, and charcoal intermixed. Human remains may also be found in midden deposits. Historic artifacts potentially include all byproducts of human land use greater than 50 years in age. 16. If human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere within the project site during grading or excavation, all work shall be immediately stop in the vicinity of the discovery and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the skeletal remains are found to be prehistoric/Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which will designate the "most likely descendant" of the remains. 17. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification. shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 18. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in .the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, 13 Exhibit 1 File Nos. A §6-001 MLED14-052 action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 19. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City. 20. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building permit is issued or a time extension request is submitted to the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division, 'ithin two (2) yearns of this approval or until July 269 2016. Failure to obtain a grading or building permit, and encroachment permit, or a time extension by the specified date will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Public Works Department 21. Traffic mitigation fee of $16,984 is required for two (2) a.m. and two (2) p.m. trips (4 peak trips x $4,246/trip). 22. A Grading Permit is required from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew St., for each site. 23. A temporary encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Department for any work within the Right -of -Way (ROW). 24. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance for each project, which is calculated at 1 % of the valuation with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt. 25. The drop inlet structures that collects flow from the top of the east retaining wall on Sheet C1, are called out as a 6" dia. inlet and a 6" inlet as shown on the plans. Provide a detail to clarify the proposed structure. 26. The SD inlet and cobble drainage are still shown at the eastern side of the driveway on Sheet Al but not on Sheet C1. Clarify that this is no longer proposed. 27. The drainage shown on Sheet Al does not match Sheet C3. The revisions to the northwestern corner were made and the inlet at the southwest corner is outside of the flowline for the western swale. Confirm the drainage inlet location. 28. The drain inlet protection at the southeast corner, near the driveway apron, appears to be extraneous after the drainage modifications. 14 Exhibit I File Nos. AP 16-061 & ED14-052 29. The grading callouts at on Sheets C1 and Al, do not match, specifically, the top -of -wall (TOW) elevations. Confirm the proposed elevation throughout the site. 30. A significant portion of the existing 30" culvert along the Linden Ln. frontage is proposed to be .covered be the driveway apron. Investigate the condition of the existing culvert and provide the results to the Public Works Department. If conditions warrant, replacement of the culvert may be required. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) 31. The applicant or property owner shall submit copies of the easement deed for the sewer lateral from 270 Linden Ln. through 272 Linden Ln. 32. A new sewer connection fee of $8,980.18 is required for each site (Effective for the July 1, 2015 — June 30, 2016 fiscal year). 33. The applicant has stated that sewer laterals have already been installed for both sites. SRSD has no, record of sewer permits for either of these new laterals. The applicant shall provide SRSD with signed copies of the permits for these new laterals or provide video of the laterals to assess the potential deficiencies that may need to be corrected before building permit issuance. 34. If not already installed, backwater prevention devices are required for each site, in accordance with SRSD specifications for side sewers and laterals. San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau 35. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 36. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications hall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include (larger projects require 4 sets or construction drawings): a) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau). 37. A Knox Switch is required for the driveway access gate to the site. 38. These properties are located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) area. Provide a written Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire Department. This VMP must be completed and verified prior to final approval. Refer to City of San Rafael Ordinance1856 that may be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.org/firevegetation, or you may contact the Fire Department at (415) 485-3309 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt for any questions or comments. Requirement of continued compliance with the approved VMP must be placed wiithin CC&R'so 39. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide adequate water supply service to each site for the required fire protection system. Communitv Development Department, Buildino Division 40. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Building Code, 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical 15 Exhibit 1 File Nos. AP '16-001 & ED14-052 Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2013 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the -time of building permit submittal. 41. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Truss calculations i) Structural calculations j) Soils reports k) CalGreen documentation 1) Title 24 energy documentation m) Green Building documentation 42. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with Y2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for commercial applications.. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 43. School fees will be required for both project approvals. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.97 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 44. If any portion of the new fencing exceeds 7' in height, a building permit is required 45. All fireplaces shall meet EPA Phase 2 emission standards or shall be gas burning only. Communitv Development Department, Planninq Division 46. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, -which incorporates these conditions of approval. 47. Prior to building permit issuance, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. Immediately After Building Format Issuance Marin Municipal Water District (District) 48. The site is not. currently being serviced and no water has been allocated to this parcel. The parcel also does not currently meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District, 16 Exhibit I File Nos. AP16-001 & ED14-052 which state in part: "...the property must be fronted be a water main; the structure must be within 125 feet of the water main." Under these conditions, water service to this property will require a pipeline extension from the end of the District's existing facilities. The applicant shall enter into a pipeline extension agreement with the District for the installation of the necessary facilities and said agreement must be approved by the District's Board of Directors. The applicant may apply for a variance to these requirements. This variance must be submitted to the District's Board of Directors for their review and action. All costs associated with a pipeline extension are borne by the applicant. Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, or approval of the variance request, both parcels will be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below: a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application; b) Submit a copy of the building permit; c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges; d) Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of the application; e) Comply with MMWD's rule and regulations in effect at the time service is requested; f) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following submittals to MMWD are required: • Verification of indoor fixtures compliance. • Landscaping plan. • Irrigation plan. • Grading plan. g) Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation shall be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415.945.1497. You may also find information on the MMWD's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.ora; and h) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the MMWD's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements shall. be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at 415.945.1558. Pacific Gas & Electric 49. Electric and gas service to the project site will'be provided in accordance with the applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E's website at htto:/fwww.pge.com/mvhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction. or contact (800) PGE - 5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 50. The cost of undergrounding service facilities shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. 51. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. 17 Exhibit 1 File Nos. P10-001 & ED14-052 Prior to Occupancy Community Development Department, Planninq Division 52. Prior to occupancy, the applicant or property owner shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 53. All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. After Occupancy 54. Following building permit `final' sign -off, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned off during daylight. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 26th day of July, 2016. Moved by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by Commissioner Davidson AYES: Commissioners: Belletto, Davidson, Robertson, Wise NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Lubamersky, Paul ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Schaefer ATTEST" Paul A. Jens , Secretary SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION tto, Vice -Chair 18 Exhibit 1 File Nos. AP16-001 811 ED14 -052 04 SANK -r `9 CITY OF �9LIFOR��P Community Development Department — Planning Division P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Meeting Date: July 26, 2016 Agenda Rem: 5 Case Numbers: AP16-001, ED14-052 Project Manner: Steve Stafford/ (415) 458-5048 REPORT TO PLAHMM COMPUSSMA SUBJECT: 270 ►Londen n.— Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's May 11, 2016 Conditional Approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) allowing the construction of a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping; APRT: 015-041-56; Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District Zone; Daniel Stitzel, Applicant; Raymond S. Bergante TR, Owner; `Grand Ct. Neighborhood Homeowners', Appellants; Case Number(s): ED14-052, AP16-001 EXECUTWE SUMv, MARY The project proposes to construct a new, two-story, single-family residence on a vacant `flag' lot with associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. The vacant lot was created in 2003 by legal subdivision (S02-017) of the adjacent parcel, 262 Linden Ln. This subdivision, essentially, created one (1) new, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind a another new 7,507 sq. ft. lot (272 Linden Ln.) and required subsequent Environmental and Design Review Permits for each single-family residence through the Zoning Administrator (ZA) with the review and recommendation of the Design Review Board (DRB). This subdivision also required increased setbacks on the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.); a 15' rear yard setback was required, where the R7.5 District typically requires a minimum of 10', and a 20' side yard (western property line) was required, where the R7.5 District typically requires a minimum of 6'. The DRB reviewed the project twice (February 2, 2016 and April 5, 2016), as a design review permit application (ED14-052), along with separate design review permit application (ED14-051), which proposed to construct a new, two-story, single-family residence on the other vacant lot created by the 2003 subdivision approval. The architectural design, scale, size and configuration of each new residence was proposed to be identical; only the orientation of the structures and the exterior colors and materials were proposed to be distinct. On April 5, 2016, the DRB voted unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent; Robertson PC Liaison) to recommend approval of both projects with minor changes to the Landscape Plans for each lot and the condition that the exterior building colors be presented for final field review and modification (DRB staff reports for both meetings are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively). On May 11, 2016, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved both projects separately, based on the DRB's recommendation and included the DRB's specific recommendations as conditions of approval (Exhibit 5). On May 17, 2016, the `Grand Ct. Neighborhood Homeowners', representing six (6) households along Grand Court, which is a private shared driveway along the rear of 270 Linden Ln., filed an appeal of the ZA's conditional approval (ED14-052) of the new single-family residence on the `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. (Exhibit 3), citing, principally, privacy issues purportedly created by the two-story scale and requesting single -story scale for the new single-family residence. (The appeal letter lists other `requests', which were concessions agreed to by the applicant during the ZA meeting and incorporated into conditions of approval (Conditions 4, 11 and 54) of ED14-052 (see Exhibit 5).The ZA's conditional REPORT TO PLAWNG COMMMON - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 2 approval (ED14-051) of the other new single-family residence on the adjacent vacant lot (272 Linden Ln.) was not appealed. The project complies with the development standards for the R7.5 District and the subdivision map. The DRB unanimously recommended approval of the project and determined that the project adequately complied with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits. Additional concessions were agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing to further reduce potential privacy impacts along Grand Ct. in response to requests by the appellants. Therefore, staff recommends that the appeal has no merit. REG -Mil MJEHD„T M It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft Resolution denying the appeal (AP16-001) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's May 11, 2016 conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052) to allow the construction of a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, located at 270 Linden Ln. (Exhibit 1). PROPERTY FACTS AddJrress/LocaUorno 270 Linden Ln. Parcel Number(s): (Temporary Address) Property Size. 9,340 sq. ft. Neighborhood: Site Characteristics General Plan Desiigrnauorn Zoning Desugnafiorn Prro�ectt Sine: LDR R7.6 North: LDR R5 South: East- West: LDR LDR LDR R7.5 R7.5 is -HO] 015-041-56 Dominican/Black Canyon EiKlistii ng Lana -Use VacantLot Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Boas Description/Seating: The subject site is one of two adjacent vacant infill parcels, located 150' (approx.)� north of the intersection of Linden Lane and Grand Avenue, in the Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhood. The subject site is a 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot (temporary address of 270 Linden Ln.), with a 8.9% (approx.) cross -slope, which is northeast -to -southwest trending. While the site is accessed exclusively to/from Linden Ln. by a narrow (13.6' -wide) strip of land, Grand Court, a private shared driveway, is located along the entire rear property line. The other adjacent vacant infill lot (temporary address of 272 Linden Ln.) is located in front of the subject site and dominates the Linden Ln. frontage. A triangular -shape, 336 square -foot (approx.) access easement is located parallel to Linden Ln. and across the driveway of the subject site, providing secondary ingress and egress to the adjacent property at 262 Linden Ln. REPORT TO PLANNUG COMNSSM o Case No.- AP16-001 and EDD16-052 Page 3 The subject site is thickly wooded with predominately Acacia trees. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single- and multi -story single-family residences (R5, R7.5 and R10 Districts), 2,000 - 4,000 sq. ft. (approx.) in size. BAC KCS RU U M D On April 15, 2003, the Commission conditionally approved a Tentative Map (S02-017) to subdivide 262 Linden Ln into a three -lot subdivision, which effectively created two new vacant lots; a `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) behind an adjacent lot (272 Linden Ln.), both accessed from Linden Ln. This subdivision approval required the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Court, where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard (western property line) setback, where a minimum 6' is required in the R7.5 District. On February 2, 2016, the DRB reviewed the two separate project (ED14-051 and ED14-052) applications, proposing a new, two-story, single-family residence on each of the new lots. The DRB continued their review to a date uncertain, providing the following recommendations: A comprehensive re -study of the proposed landscape design for both project sites (270 and 272 Linden Ln.) is needed that includes, but is not limited to: 1) more native and more appropriate plant species selection,particularly for screening purposes; 2) more random, less linear, planting patterns; 3) relocate the proposed new Oak trees to avoid conflicts accessing and exiting the garages; 4) eliminate the Eucalyptus tree on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.); 5) relocate or reduce the patio areas to allow for greater freedom with the landscape designs; 6) plant species proposed for bioswale areas; and 7) irrigation details; and Due to the proposed grade change on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the window glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation The site and building design was subsequently revised in response to the DRB's recommendations to reduce privacy concerns along Grand Ct., including: • Reducing all north -facing upper -story rear yard windows to 2'x 3' high -sill windows; • Reducing outdoor patio area substantially along the north building elevation to allow for greater landscape screening; and • Specific modifications to the proposed Landscape Plan, include plant species and locations, to improve the general appropriateness of the new plantings and vegetative screening between the new residence and Grand Ct. On April 5, 2016, the DRB continued their review and unanimously (4-0-2, Lentini and Summers absent; Robertson PC Liaison) recommended approval of both projects, with the following recommendations: • The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas on both sites; however, the other proposed plant species are not. Revise the Landscape Plans for each project with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional websites on bioswale plantings; • Substitute Podocarpus "Icee Blue" in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln; • Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed "G" planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence though not included in the Plant List; • Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are proposed to be preserved on 272 Linden Ln. (mulch only is recommended); and REPORT TO PlyANNUG GOHIMM&ON - Case No: ApI0-001 and ED 4-052 page 4 o Prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior treatment for each new residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review by staff and modification, if needed. (Both DRB meetings are available for review on the City's website at httio://www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetinqs/) On May 11, 2016, the ZA held a hearing on both projects. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions requested by the Grand Ct. neighbors in attendance in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct., including. • Constructing 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct.; • Modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly; and • Reducing construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. During its review of the project, the ZA determined, based, in part, on the DRB recommendations: • The proposed two-story scale of the project is consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood, which is a mixture of single- and multi -story scale; o The subdivision approval, which created the `flag; lot, increased setback requirements on the site to help mitigate privacy impacts resulting from the project on adjacent neighbors. The site is required to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10' is typically required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard setback, along the west property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6' is typically required in the R7.5 District. These increased setback requirements, effectively, reduce the allowable development envelope on the site and make it extremely difficult to revise the building footprint to preserve the two existing, 48:" - diameter Oak trees on the site. • As a matter of past practices, the installation of story poles during project review has been required for new hillside residential projects only. The project site is non -hillside, with an average cross -slope of less than 10%. Additionally, the current condition of the vacant lot is a heavily vegetated thicket, which makes the installation of story poles difficult and significantly diminishes their effectiveness. The ZA conditionally approved both projects separately, finding each project are consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District and Subdivision Map development standards, residential design guidelines, and review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits (A copy of the ZA hearing minutes, findings and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit 5). On May 17, 2016, a group of residents along Grand Court filed an appeal (Exhibit 3) of the ZA's conditionally approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052, allowing a new two- story, single-family residence on the vacant `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct. The appeal does not challenge the ZA conditional approval for the new, two-story, single- family residence on the vacant lot in front of the `flag' lot (272 Linden Ln.). The appeal letter cites the following points of appeal: 1) The patio doors proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand Ct., should be replaced by windows to discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area; 2) All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio `in kind'; 3) The exterior colors and materials should be earthtones and plantings should be included along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Grand Ct.; 4) The existing rear fencing should. be repaired immediately, the project should include new, 8' -tall rear fencing along the entire Grand Ct. frontage, and Grand Ct. should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading REPORT TO PLANNUG CORMSSM - Case No: APIS-001 and ED 4-®52 Bags 5 activities; 5) Allowable hours of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays; 5) The project should include a ninety (90) -day lighting review period to allow adjustments in exterior lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Ct.; and 7) Unmitigated privacy issues require a single -story scale for the new residence rather than a two-story scale. The appeal letter also references and attaches a letter previously provided at the ZA hearing by some of the same appellants who reside along Grand Ct. which generally states that the project, as redesigned, would result in a loss of privacy and `intrinsic value' of the neighborhood. Specifically, these prior comments state, that: it was the DRB's intention to require: 1) All of the outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation to be re -oriented to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing area created by the patio doors along the north building elevation should be re -oriented to the west elevation. PROJECT DESCM iM use: The project proposes to construct a new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant `flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. Site Man: The `flag' lot configuration, approved by the subdivision map, creates a long, narrow driveway access from Linden Ln. and concentrates development on the rectangular portion of the site which is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a private shared driveway. The subdivision map requires increased rear (north property line) and side yard (west property line) setbacks. A 15' rear yard setback is required and proposed; a 24'4" side yard (west property line) is proposed where a minimum 20' is required. ArrchRectured The proposed architectural design, scale, size and configuration of the new residence on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) would be identical to the new residence on the adjacent vacant lot. Only the orientation of the structure and the exterior earthtonelwoodtone colors and materials would be distinct: • The new residence on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be oriented (garage and main entrances) east -west while the new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed to be oriented south -north. • The stucco texture on the new residence on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be `smooth' while that on new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed to be a more course stucco texture. o The earthtonelwoodtone color palette on the residence on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to.include a lighter tan base while new residence on the adjacent vacant lot is proposed to include a dark red base. • A standing -seam metal roof material is proposed on the residence on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) while `brown -blended' S-shaped concrete tile shingles are proposed on the residence on the adjacent vacant lot. The proposed architectural vernacular is `contemporary Spanish Colonial', highlighted by multi-level low - profile (`3-n-12' pitch) roof forms, stucco texture, wood -clad casement windows and double -doors, arched window transom fenestration, tapered chimneys, circular metal grill adornments and wood trellis projections over the garage door and select ground -floor windows. Ground -level outdoor patio areas are proposed along the entire south and west building elevations and partially along the north elevation. Landscapongo The project proposes to remove all existing vegetation on the vacant `flag' lot, including 25 existing trees, three (3) of which are mature Oak trees, 12-48" in diameter. The project proposes to install new landscaping, a consistent mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcovers, including 21 new trees REPORT TO PLANNING COMUMMON - Case No: AP16-001 and ED14-052 Page 6 two (2) of which are new Oak trees. All new trees are proposed to be a mixture of both 157gallon and 24" -box container size. Grrado ng/Drraunageo The project proposes a total of 996 CYDS of excavation on the vacant `flag' lot and the adjacent vacant lot; 336 CYDS of `cut' and 662 CYDS of `fill'. Portions of the existing grade on the `flag' lot (270 Linden are proposed to be raised up to 3.7'. Proposed storm water drainage improvements include 1.5 -- 2' -wide planted bioswale areas around the perimeter of the `flag' lot. All storm water runoff is proposed to drain to existing cobble -lined inlet ditches and 30" -diameter underground culvert, both located within the Linden Ln. ROW. ANALYSIS Appeal of the Zornung Adrrnurnustratorr's Deco ss on on May 11, 2016: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the new two-story residence on the vacant `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln.( Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED14-052,) was filed by a group of six (6) neighboring residents along Grand Ct., which shares the rear property line with the site. The appeal letter (Exhibit 3) mostly lists requested revisions or modifications to the project, many of which were recommendations by the DRB or were agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing and have been incorporated as conditions of approval. These appeal points are paraphrased below by staff and each appeal point is followed by staff's response (Please note, the applicant has also submitted a response to the appeal letter, which is attached as Exhibit 4): Appeal Pount pito The patio dooms proposed along the north building elevation, facing Grand M, should be replaced by windows oto discourage direct access and future creation of outdoor patio area. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the new residence and Grand Ct., including; modifying the design of the folding patio doors along the north building facade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. This agreement was incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see Condition 5). The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil -drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval. -Appeal Mnt 920 All removed Oak trees should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio `ori kind. The San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines reciuire 3:1 replacement of all `significant' Oak trees (Any Oak tree species which is in good health and form and is more than 6 inches or 6" in diameter as measured 4' 6" above the root crown), which are proposed for removal on hillside sites. Generally, it is recommended that the proposed removal of significant' Oak trees on non -hillside sites should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, though it is not required and the appropriateness of landscape improvements is determined during project review. REPORT TO PLAN, NNG OOh�liMMON - Case Mo. APIS-001 and ED14-052 Page 7 There exists two (2) mature Oak trees currently on the site, both 48" in diameter and located in the middle of the proposed building envelope (see Sheet G3 of the project plans to review the existing tree removal/preservation details). The subdivision map approval, which approved the creation of the site, requires greater setbacks than the zoning (R7.5 District) requires; the site is required to provide a 15' rear yard setback along Grand Ct., where a minimum 10' is required in the R7.5 District, and a 20' side yard setback, along the west property line shared with 276 Linden Ln., where a minimum of 6' is required in the R7.5 District. These increased setback requirements, effectively, reduce the allowable development envelope on the site and make it challenging to revise the building footprint to preserve the two existing, 48:" -diameter Oak trees on the site. During their review, the DRB made specific recommendations on the proposed Landscape Plan and, ultimately, recommended approval the revised Landscape Plan along with the project, including the proposed removal of all existing trees on the site. Appeal point #3o The e_zcgerroorr colons and materials should be earth tones and plantings should be included along the north property boundary, between the new residence and Guard C90 The project proposed, and was approved with, earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials ("La Habra X-81584 Suffolk" beige base stucco color with "Benjamin Moore Dragon's Breath -1547" dark brown trim color, and "Custom -Built Metals Musket" dark brown standing seam metal roof with `cool; coating exterior). On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed revisions to the project and recommended approval to the ZA, subject to specific modifications to the Landscape Plan. While finding the proposed earthtone/woodtine exterior colors and materials acceptable, the DRB additionally recommended that, prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior finish to the residence, sample stucco panels of the approved base color should be presented for final field review by staff and modification, if needed. These approved earthtone/woodtone exterior colors and materials, and the requirement that staff conduct final field review of a larger stucco sample of the base color prior to installation on the residence, were incorporated as conditions of approval by the ZA (see Conditions 2 and 3). At the Commission hearing on the appeal, a colors and materials board will be presented for review. The new Landscape Plan for the project was reviewed by the DRB twice; as an original submittal on February 2, 2016 and again with revisions on April 5, 2016. The DRB initial recommendations included specific revisions to the proposed plant species and their location on the site and a request to relocate the patio area along the north building elevation which would allow for greater planting between the new residence and Grand Ct. Ultimately, the DRB recommended approval of the revised project, including a revised Landscape Plan, to the ZA, which incorporated changes to plant species and their location, as well as a substantial reduction in patio area along the north building elevation that allowed additional landscape plantings. ppeaa Point 94. The existing rear fencing should be repaired omrr ediattely, the project should include anew., m gall rear fencing along the entire Grand C9e frontage, and Guard Otto should not be used as access to the site during construction and grading activities. After the ZA hearing, the applicant had the existing rear fencing on the site, which abuts Grand Ct., repaired so that it is no longer slumps onto the existing mailboxes lining Grand Ct. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to an additional concession in order to reduce privacy impacts along the north building elevation, between the residence and Grand Ct.. Specifically, the applicant agreed to construct new, 8' -tall, solid wood fencing along the entire north property line with Grand Ct. (see Condition 4). Grand Ct. is a private shared driveway, shared by nine (9) residences, which is located immediately adjacent to the site. While the project has no right to access the site from Grand Ct.., a condition of REPORT TO PLAN NUG COMMMON o Carie No: AP16-00 1 and ED 14-052 Page 8 approval was included by the ZA specifically prohibiting all access to the site from Grand Ct. during all construction or grading activities (see Condition 12). The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval. AppeaO Poont 5o Allowable hour of operation for all construction and grading activities should be limited go 8 aam- to 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. go 5 porno on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. During the ZA hearing, the applicant agreed to additional concessions in order to reduce privacy impacts in the immediate neighborhood, including; reducing the allowable construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays. This agreement was incorporated as a condition of approval by the ZA (see Condition 11). plpea0 poont 6o The project should include a ninety (90) -day lighting review period to allow adjustments in eirgerroorr lighting, particularly for those which may impact Grand Cf. Section 14.16.227 (Light and Glare; Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, requires, as part of project review, all new exterior lighting be subject to a ninety (90) -day post -construction review and inspection period to allow for adjustments in lighting intensity or fixture shielding to assure the project will not cast unreasonable off-site glare. Though currently unknown, it is likely the project includes some type of exterior lighting. As such, a standard condition of approval (see Condition 54) was included by the ZA, requiring a ninety (90) -day lighting review period beginning at the time of building permit final. AppeaO Point V. Unrrnottigatted privacy issues require a single-sttorry scale for the new residence e rrattlherr than a two-story scale. This appears to staff to be one of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this appeal. This comment was provided during the DRB's review of the project who, ultimately, determined the proposed two-story scale to be both appropriate for the site and consistent with the existing mixture of single -story and multi -story scale within the surrounding neighborhood. Both the increased setbacks required by the Subdivision Map approval and the approved Landscape Plan which emphasizes and creates a landscaped screening buffer around the entire residence, help to mitigate privacy impacts resulting from the project. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper -story windows on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The impact of rear yard -facing upper -story windows along Grand Ct., the project proposes only high -sill (5' -sill height above the upper -story finish floor), rear yard -facing upper -story windows along Grand Ct., which helps to mitigate privacy impacts. Additionally, the rear -facing north building elevation is immediately adjacent to Grand Ct., a shared private driveway and 25 -wide access easement and not an active, recreational area in the rear or side yards of any adjacent residence. Appea0 Pount N. l9 was the ®GCB's intention to require: 1) all of the outdoor patio areas along "he north building elevation to be re-orr§entted to the west elevation; and 2) The large glazing REPORT TO PLAMNG OOMMSSM - Case No: APIS-001 and ED 14-®52 Page 9 area crated by the patio dooms a§ong She north b0ding elevation shou§d be rre-orrientte©9 90 thG West eievatt§om This appears to staff to be the other of the two lingering disputes with the project that forms this appeal. This comment was also provided during the DRB's review of the project. The DRB agreed that the proposed grade change on the site and raised building pad elevation creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage which should be better mitigated. At their original review of the project on February 2, 2016, the DRB recommended that the window glazing be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation. As stated in staff's response to Appeal Point #7 above, the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seeks to reduce the impacts of upper -story windows only on active, recreational areas in the rear or side yards of adjacent residences. The applicant revised the project to reduce the upper -story window glazing along the north building elevation by reducing the previous 9' x 6' master bedroom window to a 2' x 3' high -sill window design matching the other upper -story windows along the north elevation. The 9' x 6' master bedroom upper -story window was relocated to the west building elevation. Additionally, the 'north patio was reduced by approximately 2/3'd of its original area along the north building elevation and the landscape area, between the new residence and Grand Ct., was expanded and the landscape plantings were increased. On April 5, 2016, the DRB reviewed these project revisions, along with specific modifications to the Landscape Plan, and determined that these site and building modifications adequately responded to their previous recommendations and unanimously recommended approval of the project to the ZA. The applicant has submitted a new, separate plan sheet which shows the design evolution of the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing over the course of the project review by the DRB and ZA, incorporating the DRB -recommended revisions or the additional concessions requested by the appellants and agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. These DRB recommendations and additional design concessions by the applicant have been incorporated either into the architectural and landscape drawing sheets of the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission (All civil drawing sheets will be updated for consistency with the revised architectural and landscape drawing sheets at the time of building permit issuance) or as conditions of approval. ENV I ;OM, MEHTA L DETC R6'u IN, ATION As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Construction of one (1) single-family residence on a legal parcel, such as proposed by the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Notice of two (2) DRB meetings, the ZA hearing and this Planning Commission hearing on the appeal of the ZA's conditional approval of the project were all conducted in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance (Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code). For all four (4) meetings and hearings, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants with a 300 -foot radius of the site, and the designated neighborhood group (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Assn.) at least 15 days prior to each meeting and hearing. In addition, notice of each meeting and hearing was posted at the site, along both the Linden Ln. and Grand Ct. frontages, at least 15 days prior to each meeting and hearing, in accordance with Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. During the DRB's review of the project, staff received comments from the applicable neighborhood groups, the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association (D/BCNA) and a Grand Ct. neighbor REPO PRT TO PLANNNIG C©NUMSSM - Case No: APIS-001 and ED14-052 page 10 (John Sarter; 3 Grand Ct.). The D/BCNA comments concerned, principally, the appropriateness of the Landscaping Plan; while comments were provided on the appropriateness of specific species of new proposed site landscaping, the D/BCNA requested appropriate vegetative screening between the new residence and Grand Ct. to maintain privacy. Mr. Sarter's comments also included privacy concerns along Grand Ct. resulting, primarily, from the increased grade of the building pad and large amount of glazing along the north building elevation. Mr. Salter requested story poles to better understand the scale of the project, though he also requested relocation of the building pad in order to preserve two existing, 46:" -diameter Oak trees. During the ZA hearing, comments were hand -delivered to the ZA stating that the DRB -required revisions to the building and site design were not adequately incorporated into the DRB -recommended revised plans (Copies of the all comments submitted prior to, the ZA's conditional approval of the project are attached as Exhibit 6a). After the ZA hearing, the applicant and the appellants, the Grand Ct. neighbors, continued to meet to try and work out a resolution and eliminate the appeal. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Staff has received one (1) additional comment from a Grand Ct. neighbor (Gloria Gutierrez; 5 Grand Ct.) stating that the project would raise the finish grade on the site up to 4.5' above the existing grade along Grand Ct., which would continue to create an unreasonable privacy impact to residents using Grand Ct. (A copy of the comments submitted after the ZA's conditional approval of the project are attached as Exhibit 6b). ®phi DOo GAS The Planning Commission has the following options.: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval (with DRB recommendations) of the project (staff recommendation); 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval (with DRB recommendations) of the project with modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Uphold the appeal and deny the project and the DRB recommendations, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution; or 4. Continue the matter to allow the applicant, appellant and/or staff to address any comments. or concerns of the Planning Commission. EMOR0 S 1. Draft Resolution, Denying the Appeal and Upholding the ZA's Conditional Approval 2. Vicinity/Location Map 3. Letter of Appeal, dated May 17, 2016 4. Applicant's Response to Appeal Letter, dated July 20, 2016 5. ZA Hearing Minutes with Findings and Conditions of Approval, dated May 11, 2016 6. public Correspondence a. Received Prior to ZA Hearing b. Received After ZA Hearing Reduced (1 i"x 97') project plans and separate plan sheet, showing the history of design revisions to the north building elevation, north patio area and rear fencing, have been provided to the PC only. ` Cf t i i t; �r^ '��.' .Q1:j� ♦'..,•t'+' d _• fie*'€• � t. , � ,`i�'� .z Fri . r �� I ��• 4r 1 rpt � � , 4y -� C ta ig, Blot \ I - t".9 �'• l rk 4 - - � u _ .`Y�j j Ln N _ ` % tDD t. 1 01 CD ' /,X�j CP 4 s` � iAKO 0 _ tt t �+ 77--! _ _ �1V �' __ 4, +rte_ __ � � _ ��" ��`G � ��,, •N + L�{E #{� Y�e,��,° 'T�- -. •{- .. _ { t�: k�� to 9 yi lr c� T --- EXHIBIT 2 nn � a (3) CP c N N - d L o M -F-, U E 0 99 m 4� LnLE t U '� • r'i-'-. U � I 'fie ru mr, onZ) u C: m 3� -C U 4� U 41�, m� 1 -a U O o an L � Q1 ` Cf t i i t; �r^ '��.' .Q1:j� ♦'..,•t'+' d _• fie*'€• � t. , � ,`i�'� .z Fri . r �� I ��• 4r 1 rpt � � , 4y -� C ta ig, Blot \ I - t".9 �'• l rk 4 - - � u _ .`Y�j j Ln N _ ` % tDD t. 1 01 CD ' /,X�j CP 4 s` � iAKO 0 _ tt t �+ 77--! _ _ �1V �' __ 4, +rte_ __ � � _ ��" ��`G � ��,, •N + L�{E #{� Y�e,��,° 'T�- -. •{- .. _ { t�: k�� to 9 yi lr c� T --- EXHIBIT 2 May 179 2OR6 Mr. Ste-�we Rodford, ?T®jecct Mi nmer FR2 nnIlmg DAVWo n Office CAty HaRR - 1400 IF ftlh Avenue San R aTM9 CCA 94901 Suuib�e(Kto 270 & 272 1`Lkd eAn Ilene San Rafke 19 c 2ff x nIln IIDear Iuro StEfforda MAY 18 2015 PLA NiNIG Puursuuzmt to the above Anemtt©nedl project, we suubmat an AppceaR of DecclsPon by the Zoning Adutmkastmtora Ilan r efercem e to our meefing on 1URY 119 2®169 WAtten c®nitllrmnflon of the meet lug agreements ents has not yet been rrec elved. for revkT'l by the co nc ernedl owners of Grand Court and Gmad Avenue prrmpenlesa The rlmeeflug pr®vMedl the MRowing mandates: 'II'lhce pllauns incRuud ng patAo doors An cRosce pr®xnmm'v to Grantd Court wM not be permAtted but rather flo©rr to ice liAng Window 'nst&ll flo ns erre permNsMe to dimmIlmll h the posO bfflty of ,%n ®untdl®orr pafio� a. The >I Rroject Manager, Steve Staffbrdl stated that the exAstiag ov-k trees must be rcennovem. in Order to comnpllete the necessary construeflon9 a 3 to R rraflo �,rr the repRacem e nt Of (Dak trees and ©tuners is rcegluu�redlo * 'll`Ihe sekrallimn of palet cell®rs urncckde tang s2 ndstoune glmdl brown trr1m9 sperdflcq ly Dearth tones 7dt1h proposed kndscnpe pknfings zdl�arent to Grand Court. The exff'sting fence Iln dl srrep2urr wzs requested to be sta bflked- prior t® the new construction. The pRnns were umtcerrpireted as reveaffug 2 c©nercete waH kv�tIh An® fence all®mg Grand Court- a d Ascenussn®n Mowed. 1t w.s agreed that 2n 0 ft. fence Oolmg Grand (Court w®u Rdl provAdle greater prWacy and estalbflsih m® velhkllce ®r pedlcestdan access to Grand (Ccuurto As agreced9 no c®uIlstrruuC" 10n Cgltnllpmncernt9 bl-UCRU ®r Ve hk-Iles are allowed On Grand Court during cmrmstrruuctiom cC®mstrrauctAom hours are as Mows.- 3 z. mo t® 5 p.m. Monday tihru IFrzday° 9 a.m. t® 5 p.m. on Saturdays. The stmfl ag hour was ®riffinallllyr i a. mo on weekdays nada 3 a.m. on Sataurrda: ys9 the timeJas revisedas rreq uestedlo x Upon c®unstruuetlon co mpReflom9 there is a 90 day perm©dl to evaluate the effect of the proposed Ughtm' g on the cemMug resAdlences of Grand CCourt andl Gramdl Avenue. 1n adtdli OM to the above, theme �s concern about a tw, 0 st®rcy� dlwenAng at the site adjacent to Grand Court rrelevamt to prIlvacy bsuuces that have not exWed prevIlwoRya EXHIBIT 3 The me'west C®msttrruefl®nn nm 2007 on the X600 blJock ®f Grand Avenue Tpu.e,-air TtTzi nIltty CCNU Ch R's not ftlo stores nor obstrructs the Mt. Tzm -,Aew of the exIlsfimg Lresademts on the ®pp®SIlte Side of the street,, ObWo SRR, purr concern Rs p°®pezly mvrn.errs residing on grand (Cour zndl Grmud Avenue is the p��va.cy issue effe Ping seven°zll rcesAdlc�r�ces An the As a. comsidenti®m, the suggested s®auta®nn Wound be i®rr the Constrrueflonn of 2 one Stony dlweHlag zdjacennt t® ®mrr Private GreaIlndl Court rco2dway with no vehlcc Re or ped est Edd n access to Grranndi CCourrtto Due to the hack ®i a Written response to our May H, 2016 meeting Zgrreemnemts9 we rrespectTuny submit t znn appeal nnncorp®li acing our request thlvt a. one stony structure is constructed e%djl assn it to Gira.md Comyt, Rim zddlAtap n9 2 Retterr copy SIlgmedi by ffucharrd Blrnd shz, VY, WaBlace Jennings zadl (c2ssae Jennings noting John Snmter's concerrms �%s discussed at the suhh ect meeting is P-ttto-Chedl TOE.- reference. Respecff Hy submitted, Sam I1 afheR PR-opcerray Owners.- 31 wnnerrso1' ---. / -FIZI pc/,7, /�� a From; Grand Ct. -Neighborhood Homeowners To; San Rafael Zoning Administrator Dear Sir, We all are very concerned over the loss of Privacy and value of our neighborhood that will occur if the current design plan is approved, especially for the two homes most affected; the Jennings Residence at 1 Grand Ct., and the Sarter Residence at B Grand Ct. in particular. In the first design review meeting held on Feb. 22, 2016, the San Rafael Design Review Board unanimously recommended that the applicant for the home at 272 Linden move the bulk of the window mass and the entire outdoor living area from the North facing side ycyrd of the home to the !blest facing back yard, which would provide more privacy for everyone, the existing residents of surrounding properties and the eventual new residents alike. In the plan that as re -submitted and is now before you was not redesigned whatsoever. The only change that was made was to move the 2"a floor Master Bedroom "Juliet Balcony" to the West side of the home. The outdoor living area on the North facing side yard of the property was not reoriented whatsoever. The finished floor of the outdoor patio area there will be 5 feet above the adjacent roadway grade and therefore anyone on that patio will be looking down into the Jenning's patio and living room sliding doors. The proposed outdoor space and patio goes4w��he side yard setbacks, rather than more logically to the much larger back yard area. Additionally, the 12 foot wide patio doors from the Living / Dining room areas remained on the North facing side yard of the current plan. One would have to be quite naive not to assume that since those large patio doors remain, the intention of the developer and owner is to eventually pave over the outdoor space same as in the virtually identical first plan, thereby infringing even more on the adjacent homes on Grand Ct. and the neighborhood as a whole. We respectfully ask you the Zoning Administrator to deny the current plan and direct the applicant to follow the original and common sense recommendations of the Design Review Committee. Those recommendations were clear, specific and in the best interest of everyone's privacy, those of the new structure included. They are; Re-oflant the outdoor living areas for the new h- orae ftem the forth fac9ng side yard of the propossed structure, to the West facie rear yard of the proposed, strr"dureo He orient the large rinass of glazing from the Noah fackii g side yard of the proposed strucure, to the West acing rear Va. v ! of the proposed structure. � ;;;P- John J. Sarter, _2 io July 20, 2016 Daniel Stitzel 2103 Vallejo Street San Francisco, CA 9412: San Rafael Planning Commission 14005 th Avenue P® Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 949511 GSE: 270 Linden Lane Appeal To the Members of the San Rafael Planning Commission, In 19891 was four years old and my family moved into a home on Mountain View Avenue, one street away from the 270 Linden Lane project that is the subject of this appeal. My little sister and I grew up in San Rafael. I played little league baseball for the San Rafael Diamondbacks if anyone can remember that far back. My family is a San Rafael family and what we are hoping to build at 270 Linden Lane is a family home where my retired dad will be the primary resident. Over the course of about a year we had three public hearings for this project. The poor drainage of the site necessitates the building of a raised pad in order to build a home, so it makes sense that in those meetings the consistent concern we heard from our neighbors was the desire for privacy. It's an important topic to us as well. At each meeting we received project feedback and used it to enhanced the project to increase privacy. Major refinements include: ® Eliminating North facing second story glazing ® Eliminating nearly all of the North facing patio, replacing it with additional planted trees Converting North facing doors into windows Increasing tree planting in the 15 -foot setback ® Increasing the Grand Court fence height to 8 -feet. The final project before you has an identical finished floor height as our nearest neighbor directly across Grand Court and includes a 15+ foot tree -planted setback, a 3 ® 7 foot tree - planted curb space and an eight foot high fence. We believe the fence, the distance from curb to the house and the planned 18 m 22 feet of tree planted buffer will more than adequately protect the privacy of our home and the privacy of our neighbors. In response to the May 17, 2016 appeal letter, we do not believe redesigning the project to be a single story is a reasonable request, but we have agreed to retain 100% of the project changes from the Zoning Administration hearing referenced and have incorporated those changes into the plans before the Planning Commission. EXHIBIT 4 We believe the record of this project shows that we went about the public approval process the right way and we think it resulted in a great project. The last two years of refinements and public meetings have given us a project that adds to the character of the neighborhood while protecting both the privacy of our home and that of the residents along Grand Court. Lastly, the project conforms to all planning code requirements and design guidelines, requests no variances and embraces working hour restrictions. We respectfully request the Planning Commission ratify the unanimous recommendations of City Staff, the Design Review Board and Zoning Administrator to approve the 270 Linden Lane Project. We're very excited to be a part of the community in San Rafael again. Best Regards, a tzel, the Stitze Family and Bregante Family. REGULAR MEETING, SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY 11, 2016 10:00 am -11:30 am 270 & 272 Linden Ln. — Request for Environmental and Design Review Permits to allow the construction of two new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residences on separate vacant lots and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. The new parcels were created in 2003 through the legal subdivision of the adjacent parcel (262 Linden Ln.), Which created a new, 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot behind a new 7,507 sq. ft. lot along Linden Ln.; APNS: 015-041-55 (272 Linden Ln.) & -56 (270 Linden Ln.); Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District; Raymond S. Bergante TR, property owner; Daniel Stitzel, applicant; File Nos.: ED 14- 051 & ED14-052. These design applications will be reviewed as separate items Project Planner: Steve Stafford BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting The subject sites are two adjacent vacant infill parcels, located 150' (approx.) north of the intersection.of Linden Lane and Grand Avenue, in the Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhood. The larger site is a 9,340 sq. ft., `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), with a 8.9% (approx.) cross -slope, which is northeast -to -southwest trending. While this larger parcel is accessed exclusively to/from Linden Ln. by a narrow (13.6' -wide) .strip of land, Grand Court; a private shared driveway, is located along the entire rear'property line. The smaller site is a 7,507 sq. fl. lot (272 Linden Ln.) has a 6.2% (approx.) average cross -slope, also northeast -to -southwest trending. This smaller parcel is located in front of the larger site and dominates the Linden Ln. frontage. A 6' -wide storm drain and sanitary sewer easement is located parallel to the side (west) property boundary of the smaller site (272 Linden Ln.), providing utility connection access for the larger site (270 Linden Ln.). Additionally, a triangular -shape, 336 square -foot (approx.), access easement is located parallel to Linden Ln. and across both sites, providing secondary ingress and egress to the adjacent property, 262 Linden Ln. The subject sites are thickly wooded with predominately Acacia trees and stumps and understory shrubs. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single- and multi -story single-family residences (R5, R7.5 and R10 Districts), 2,000 — 4,000 sq. ft. (approx.) in size. History The subject sites were created in 2003 by legal subdivision (S02-017) of the adjacent parcel, 262 Linden Ln. This subdivision also requires rear and side yard (western property line) setbacks on the new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) greater than those required by the zoning (R7.5 District) on the sites; a 15' rear yard setback and 20' side yard (western property line) is required on the new `flag' lot. (270 Linden Ln.). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes to construct a of two new, two-story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residences on separate vacant lots and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping. EXHIBIT 5 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED14-051 & ]ED141-052 Site flan: The,project proposes to meet all applicable development standards, including required yard setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and covered parking, The new `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be consistent with the increased rear and side yard (western property line) setbacks, as required by conditions to the approved subdivision. A 15' rear yard setback is required and proposed; a 24' 4" side yard (western property line) is proposed where a minimum 20' is required. Architecture: The proposed architectural design, scale, size and configuration of each of the two new residences are proposed to be identical. Only the orientation of the structures and the exterior colors and materials are proposed to be distinct. The proposed architectural vernacular for both new residences is `contemporary Spanish Colonial', highlighted by multi-level low -profile (`3-n-12' pitch) roof forms, stucco texture, wood -clad casement windows and double -doors, arched window transom fenestration, tapered chimneys, circular metal grill adornments 'and -wood trellis projections over the garage door and select ground -floor windows. Ground - level outdoor patio areas are proposed to surround each new residence. The proposed residences are proposed to be distinct as follows: The new residence on the larger `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to be oriented (garage and main entrances) east -west while the new residence at 272 Linden Ln. is proposed to be oriented south -north. ® The stucco texture on the new residence on the larger `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to . be `smooth' while.that at 272 Linden Ln. is proposed to be a more course stucco texture. a The earthtone color palette. on the residence on the larger `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) is proposed to include a lighter tan base while 272 Linden Ln. is proposed to include a dark red base. ® A standing -seam metal roof material is proposed on the residence on the larger `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) while `brown -blended' S-shaped concrete tile shingles are proposed on the residence at 272 Linden Ln. Landscaping: The project proposes to remove all existing vegetation on the subject sites (49 existing trees, including 9 oak trees) with the exception of three, (3) mature Oak trees, 12-24" in diameter. The project proposes to install new landscaping, a'consistent mixture of trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcovers, on both sites. Twenty-three (23) new trees are proposed to be planted on the. larger `flag' lot -(270 Linden Ln.) while seventeen (17) new trees are proposed to be planted on 272 Linden Ln. All new trees are proposed to be a mixture of both 15 -gallon and 24" -box container size. Grading/Drainage: The project proposes a total of 996 CYDS of excavation; 336 CYDS of `cut' and 662 CYDS of `fill'. Proposed storm water drainage improvements include 1.5 = 2' -wide planted bioswale areas around the perimeter of the larger `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.) and along the western side property line of 272 Linden Ln. All storm water runoff is proposed to dfain to existing cobble -lined inlet ditches and 30" -diameter underground culvert, both located within the Linden Ln. ROW. PUBLIC HEARINGS Design review Board The proposed site and building design of the projects were reviewed twice by the City's Design Review Board .(DRB) at duly -noticed public meetings, in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance (Title -14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code or the 2 SRZZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED14-051 & IED14-052 SRMC). On. April 5, 2016, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed projects to the City's Zoning Administrator, finding the design of the projects adequately meet their previous recommendations, subject to the following additional minor changes primarily to the proposed landscape design: The Berkeley Sedge (Carex tumulicola) is an appropriate plant species for the bioswale areas; however, the other proposed plant species are not. Revise the Landscape Plans with plants species more appropriate for bioswale areas after consulting professional websites on bioswale plantings; Substitute Podo'carpus "Icee Blue" in lieu of Podocarpus gracilior plantings on the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln;. ® Revise the Plant List in the Landscape Plan for 272 Linden Ln. to identify the proposed "G" planting species, which is shown at the entry to the residence.though not included in the Plant List; ® Eliminate all proposed new understory plantings under the existing Oak trees which are proposed to be preserved (mulch only is recommended); and Prior to installing the integral -color stucco exterior treatment, sample stucco panels of the approved base color shall be presented for final field review and modification, if necessary, by staff. Revised Landscape Plans were submitted to Planning; incorporating the DRB's recommendations. Staff's final field review of stucco samples will occur during project construction. Zoning Administrator On May, 11, 2016, the proposed projects were reviewed by the City's Acting Zoning Administrator (ZA) at duly -noticed public hearing, in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the SRMC. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed for both projects to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject sites, the appropriate neighborhood group (the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association or D/BCNA)), and all other interested parties, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of the ZA hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the sites, along both the Linden Ln. and Grand Ct. frontages a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the date of the ZA hearing. Staff received no public comments as a result of the noticing of the ZA hearings. In addition to the Acting Zoning Administrator, Steve Stafford, attendees of the hearing included the applicant, Daniel Stitzel, the project architect, Ricky Mason, and neighbors residing along Grand Ct.. including John Sarter (3 Grand Ct.), Cassie and Wallace Jennings (1 Grand Ct.) and Richard and Patricia Bradshaw (1720 Grand Ave. at the corner of Grand Ct.). The Acting Zoning Administrator called the public hearing to order and proceeded to open the public comment portion of the hearing. Public comments made during the ZA hearing were, generally, the same as those made during the DRB meeting and are focused on the site and building design on the `flag' lot at 270 Linden Ln. Generally, the Grand Ct. neighbors believe, unlike the DRB's findings, the project design does not adequately respond to the DRB's original recommendations to reduce window glazing along the north building facade, facing Grand Ct., and refocus the outdoor patio area from the north building elevation to the west building elevation. The Grand Ct. neighbors requested, and the applicant agreed, to revise the project design to . include a solid, 8' -tall, wood fencing along -the entire north property line to prevent trespass onto Grand Ct. (Condition #4). The Grand Ct. neighbors requested, and the applicant agreed, to modify the design of the folding patio doors along the north building fagade, facing Grand Ct., to provide fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly (Condition #5). The Grand Ct. neighbors requested, and the applicant agreed, to reduce construction and grading hours from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. to 8 a.m.-5 p.m. during weekdays and from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. to 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturdays (Condition #11). Other public comments included a request to preserving more or all of the existing Oak trees on the site and to reduce the scale of the single-family residence to single -story. SRZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden ]Ln. 1ED14-051 & IED14-052 The applicant responded that the DRB reviewed and recommended approval of both the Landscape Plan and the two-story scale of the new residence. The Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public comment portion of the hearing and stated that the DRB reviewed and recommended approval of both proposed building and site designs at 270 and 272 Linden Ln., which has been improved by design modifications agreed to by the applicant during the ZA hearing. The Acting Zoning Administrator subsequently stated that both projects are consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, the Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District development standards, the residential design guidelines, the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, and the increased minimum yard setbacks required by the recently approved Subdivision of 262 Linden Ln which created both new parcels, 270 and 272 Linden Ln. The Acting Zoning Administrator further stated that it was his intention to approve .both proposed project, subject to draft conditions, which were selectively discussed and modified where necessary. The Acting.Zoning Administrator approved both projects, based on the following findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed below. The Acting Zoning Administrator stated that these approvals are subject to a five (5) -working day appeal period, which expires on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 5 p.m. The Acting Zoning Administrator subsequently closed the public hearing and sent both a hard copy and/or an electronic copy of these public hearing minutes (which also includes both the findings and the conditions of approval) to all parties in attendance. ACTION TAKEN: Conditional Approval FINDINGS — Environmental and Design Review Permit Nos.: ED14-051 and ED14-052: A. The design of the projects, as proposed and conditioned, is in accordance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, the. objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: 1. The projects will be consistent with Land Use Polic ies LU -2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Density of Residential Development), and LU -12 (Building Heights) of the General Plan, in that; a) All appropriate City departments and quasi -governmental agencies that would provide water, sewer and power services to the sites have reviewed the proposed projects and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the new projects, subject to the payment of impact fees which have been included as conditions of approval' b)The Low Density Residential (LDR) General Plan land use designation allows single-family residential development on the sites; and c) The proposed 21' 8" building height for both single-family residences (building height per 1997 UBC defintion as adopted by the Zoning Ordinance) complies witht the maximum allowable building height for the R7.5 District in which the sites are located; The projects will be consistent with Housinlz Policv H-2 (Design That pits into the Neighborhood Context) ) of the General Plan, in that; the project proposes new, multi -story single-family residences in a neighborhood with a mixture of both single- and multi -story single-family residences; The projects will be consistent with Neighborhoods Policv NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) of the General Plan, in that; the proposed design of the projects incorporate sensitive transitions in building height and setbacks from adjacent properties to SRZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED14 -051 & ]E1D14 -052 respect existing development character and privacy, particualary along the west and north building elevations on 270 Linden Ln. where the recent Subdivision approval (502-017) which created both sites increased the minimum required yard setbacks; The projects will be consistent with Communitv Design Policies CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -4 (Historic Resouces), CD -5 (Views), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -1S (Landscaping) and CD -19 (Lighting) of the General Plan, in that; a) The proposed design of the projects will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the projects will respect and protect the adjacent historic resouce (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with projects (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015) , in addition to the increased landscape screening between the new residences and the historic resource as provided by the Landscape Plans for the sites; c) The design of the projects will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape character consistent with the Landscape Plans for the sites recommended for approval by the DRB; d) The proposed building designs incorporates the character -defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; e) The proposed projects have provided opportunities for public review and participation through the referral (including the appropriate neighborhood group or the D/BCNA) and the noticing and posting of two DRB meetings and the ZA hearing for the projects (hard copy mailed to all owners and occupants within a 300' radius of the site and the DBCNA and no less than 15 calendar days prior to the the ZA hearing), and the public hearing itself; f) The DRB has reviewed the proposed Landscape Plans for the site on two occasions and has recommended approval of the projects, including the landscape Plans by the ZA; and g) The project approvals are conditioned (Condition 454) to required compliance with the City' adopted lighting standards (Section 14.16.227 of the Zoning Ordinance) to mitigate potential off-site light and glare; and 2. The projects arewill be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance), in that: As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the projects will implement, support and promote, generally, all applicable goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 that are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare; As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the projects will be particularly consistent with all applicable Community Design Policies of the General Plan; The projects will ensure adequate light, air space, fire safety and privacy between buildings, in that; a) The projects will be consistent wit the increased minimum yard setbacks as required by the recent Subdivision approval (502-017), which created both sites, particualary along the west and north property lines on 270 Linden Ln.; and b) The design of the projects have been reviewed by all appropriate City departments, including the Community Development Department, Building Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau, non -city SRZA. Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. ED114-051 & IED14-052 agencies, the neighborhood group (DBCNA) and the DRB, who have each recommended approval of the project subject to the condition listed below; The project will coordinate the service demands of the new development with the capacities. of existing streets, utilities and public services, in that; the public utility agencies that currently provide, and will continue to provide circulation, water, sewer and other services to the sites have reviewed the project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the sites; and As discussed in Finding #A1 above, the projects have provided for effective citzen participation in the decision-making process. 3. The projects will be consistent with the specific purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance, in that: The projects will maintain the proper balance between development and the natural environment, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community -Design Policies,the projects will replace an overgrown thicket of primarliy Acacia trees with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plans for the sites which were reviewed twice by the DRB and recommended for approval; The projects will ensure that the location, design and materials and colors of development blends with and enhances'the natural setting, in that; as discussed in Finding #A1 above, Community Design Policies; a) The proposed design of the projects will be in character with the existing single- and multi -story scale of the neighborhood as identified in the Housing Policy discussion above; b) The proposed design of the projects will respect and protect the adjacent historic resouce (262 Linden Ln.), as determined by the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with projects, (Page & Turnbull, dated October 15, 2015) , in addition to the increased landscape screening between the new residences and the historic resource as provided by the Landscape Plans for the sites; and c) The proposed building designs both incorporate the character -defining elements of the neighborhood; including `low -profile' (3"- in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior.colors and materials; and The projects will preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public property, in that; a) The Landscape Plans for the sites increased landscape plantings in the increased minimum yard setbacks, as required by the recent Subdivision approval (S02-017), which created the sites, to help screen the new residences from public view, particularly from the adjacent existing residence at 276 Linden Ln. and along Grand Ct.; and b) The projects will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage, by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plans for the sites and recommended for approval by the DRB. B. The design of the projects, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the R20 District in which the 'site is located, in that: SRZA Minutes .5/11/16 270 &.272 Linen Ln. IED14-051 & IED14-052 1. The design of the projects will be consistent with the development standards of the R7.5 District, including: a. Maximum density (one single-family residential unit allowed and proposed on the site); b. Minimum required yards (15' front setback required, 15' proposed for 270 Linden Ln. site and 21.5' proposed for 272 Linden Ln.; 6'/20' side setback required for 270 Linden Ln, 24' 4"/30' proposed; 6' side setback required for 272 Linden Ln., 17' 3"/8' 6" proposed; 10' rear setback required, 15' rear setback proposed for*270 Linden Ln and 10' proposed for 272 Linden Ln.); c. Maximum building height (30' allowed; approximately 21.8' proposed, above grade as measured per the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 method for non -hillside parcels); d. Maximum lot coverage (40% allowed; 30.2% or 2,268 sq. ft. proposed for 270 Linden Ln. and 28.1% or 2,268 sq. ft. for 272 Linden Ln.; e. Maximum upper -story (75% of max. lot coverage allowed, 1,486 sq. ft. or 49.5% proposed for 270 Linden Ln. and 1,486 sq. ft. or 46% proposed for 272 Linden Ln); and 2. The design of the projects will be consistent with the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, in that; a) The projects will harmoniously relate in context or scale to existing residences in the immediate vicinity of the sites, which are a varied mixture of single- and multi -story construction; b). The projects will actually increase public views of the surrounding hillsides, as viewed along the Linden Ln. frontage,'by removing the existing overgrown thicket of vegetation on the sites, which currently impairs all public view along the Linden Ln. frontage, and replace with a more open, managed landscape design consistent with the Landscape Plans for the sites which were .reviewed twice and recommended for approval by the DRB; c) The proposed building designs both incorporate the character - defining elements of the neighborhood, including `low -profile' (3" -in -12" pitch) gable roof forms and a varied mixture of exterior colors and materials; d) The shading impacts of the projects have been evaluated by staff which indicate the project will not produce shadowing of existing solar collectors or primary, active recreation areas in. the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties; e) The projects provide two covered (garage) parking spaces, which meet minimum 20' x 20' interior dimensions and the minimum 20' driveway or garage setback; f) All new side- and rear -facing upper -story windows, are oriented so as to not create a direct line -of -sight into existing windows on immediately adjacent properties and will not look directly onto private patios or backyards on immediately adjacent properties; and g) The projects have been conditioned to require a 90 -day lighting review period, commencing at Building Permit Final, requiring all new light sources installed by the project to be shielded down or at appropriate illumination level to provide an adequate level of safety while controlling off-site glare. C. The design of the projects, as proposed and conditioned, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts, in that: 1) The design of the projects include bioswale areas alogn the perimeters of the sites which help mitigate both the quality and rate of stormwater drainage from the sites into the City's and the neighborhood's stormwater drainage system; and 2) The design of the projects include Landscape Plans, which have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB to help mitigate the loss of existing vegetation on the sites and to help screen the new residences when viewed off-site. 7 - SRZA. Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. ED14-051 & ED14-052 D. The design of the projects, as proposed and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the pubilc health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurous to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: 1) The projects have been previously reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, the appropriate neighborhood groups (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association), and conditions of approval have been included to minimize potential adverse impacts; 2) The projects have been previously reviewed by the DRB at two separate, noticed meetings and, on April 5, 2016, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed projects to the City's Zoning Administrator, finding the design of the projects adequately meet their previous recommendations, subject to additional minor changes primarily to the proposed landscape design, but, also, requiring mock-up panels of the approved base stucco for each project for field review and approval by staff; and 3) The projects will not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will approve single-family residential land uses on two separate parcels in the Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District, which is permitted by right, pursuant to Section 14.04.020 of the SRMC. Staff -fids that the construction of one (1) new single-family residence on separate adjacent legal lots, in an urbanized, residential zone, such as the development proposed by the project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. The site is an infill site adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan residential land use designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as all applicable zoning designation and regulations, residential design guidelines, review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits and Subdivision requirements, as identified in the Findings above. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — Environmental and Design Review Permit loos.: IED14-051 and ED 14-052: General and On -Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the projects, as presented on revised plans to the Zoning Administrator at the May 11, 2016 hearing, labeled "270 Linden Lane; Residential Single Family Detached Dwelling" and "272 Linden Lane; Residential Single Family Detached Dwelling" and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all grading and building permits, subject to these conditions. Minor modifications or revisions to either of the projects shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the Zoning Administrator, and may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review Board. 2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette for the new building at 270 Linden Ln. includes "La Habra X-81584 Suffolk" beige base stucco color, "Benjamin Moore Dragon's Breath - 1547" dark brown trim color, and "Custom -Built Metals Musket" dark brown standing seam metal roof with `cool; coating. Generally, the approved color palette for the new building at 272 Linden Ln. includes "La Habra X-63149 Hattaras" red clay base stucco color, `Benjamin Moore Gargoyle -1546" dark brown trim color, and "Boral Roofing Barcelona 900" brown blend S -tile concrete roof SIZA Minutes 5111116 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IE1D14-051 & IED14-052 shingles. Any future modification to either approved color palettes shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board. 3. Prior to applying integral color stucco finish to the exterior walls, a mock-up sample color panel shall be created and presented for final review by the City. This sample color panel shall be no smaller than 2' x 3' in size. The applicant shall provide the City with a minimum of 48-hour notice to review the sample color panel and require modifications to the exterior stucco color. 4. These Environmental and Design Review Permit shall require a continuous, W -tall, solid fence and no gates along the entire rear property line of 270 Linden Ln., adjacent to Grand Ct. 5. The design of the folding patio doors along the north building facade of 270 Linden Ln, facing Grand Ct., shall be modified to fixed windows along the bottom portion of the assembly and operable windows along the top portion of the assembly. 6. These Environmental and. Design Review Permit approvals include approved Landscape Plans for each site. All new landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion, in perpetuity. 7. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view at all times. 8. The sites shall be kept free of litter and weeds at all times. Any litter and weeds that accumulate on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner. 9. All pubic streets and sidewalks impacted bythe grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping 10. The sites shall be posted with the name and contact number of the general contractor for the project in a location visible from the public street. 11. All construction and grading activities shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. These activities include, but are not limited to, the delivery of building materials, the arrival of construction workers,'the use of power equipment or the start-up of generator engines, and the playing of radios on the site. 12. Grand Court shall not be used to access the site, or for parking, by construction or grading traffic. 13. All import or export of excavation shall occur during off-peak traffic trip hours — between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. —.only. 14. In the event that artifacts or cultural soil deposits or features are unexpectedly encountered during grading or underground excavation for the project, all work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted until the discovery area can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the Planning Division shall SRZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. E D14-051 & IED14-052 be notified immediately. If warranted by the extent and cultural composition of the discovered materials, subsequent excavation shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist to record, recover and /or protect significant cultural materials from further damage. 15. Native .American- artifacts typically found in the area of site include chipped stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, and fire -affected rock. Midden deposits typically mark habitation spots and are recognizable by the characteristics dark grey to almost black colored soil, with traces of shellfish, animal bone, and charcoal intermixed. Human remains may also be found in midden deposits. Historic artifacts potentially include all byproducts of human land use greater than 50 years in age. 16. If human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere within the project site during grading or excavation, all work shall be immediately stop in the vicinity of the discovery and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the skeletal remains are found to be prehistoric/Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which will designate the "most likely descendant" of the remains. 17. Applicant agrees to defend, -indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including the applicant, third parties -and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 18. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. 19. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City . Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants. retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City. 10 S1ZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. ED14 -051 & ED14-052 20. These Environmental and Design Review Permits (ED 14-051 and ED 14-052) shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building permit is issued or a time extension request is; submitted to the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of these approvals or until May 11, 2018. Failure to obtain a grading or building permit, and encroachment permit, or a time extension by the specified date will result in the expiration of one or both of these Environmental and Design Review Permits. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Public Works Department 21. Traffic mitigation fee of $16,984 is required for two (2) a.m. and two (2) p.m. trips (4 peak trips x $4,246/trip) for each of the two sites and approvals. 22. A Grading Permit is required from the Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew St., for each site. 23: A temporary encroachment permit is required from the Public Works Department for any work within the Right -of -Way (ROW). 24. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance for each project, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation with the first $10;000 of valuation exempt. 25. The drop inlet structures at 270 Linden Ln., that collect flow from the top of the east retaining wall on Sheet C 1, are called out as a 6" dia, inlet and a 6" inlet as shown on the plans. Provide a detail to clarify the proposed structure. 26. The SD inlet and cobble drainage at .270 Linden Ln. are still shown at the eastern side of the driveway on Sheet Al but not on Sheet C1. Clarify that this is no longer proposed. 27. The drainage at 270 Linden Ln shown on Sheet Al does not match Sheet C3. The revisions to the northwestern corner were made and the inlet at the southwest corner is outside of the flowline for the western swale. Confirm. the drainage inlet location. 28. The drain inlet protection at 270 Linden Ln., at the southeast corner, near the driveway apron, appears to be extraneous after the drainage modifications. 29. The grading callouts at both 270 and 272 Linden Ln., on Sheets C 1 and Al., do not match, specifically, the top -of -wall (TOW) elevations. Confirm the proposed elevation throughout the site. 30. A significant portion of the existing 30" culvert at -272 Linden Ln. is proposed to be covered be the driveway apron. Investigate the condition of the existing culvert and provide the results to the Public Works Department. If conditions warrant, replacement of the culvert may be required. San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) 31. The applicant or property owner shall submit copies of the easement deed for the sewer lateral from 270 Linden Ln. through 272 Linden Ln. 11 SRZA. Afinutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED14 -051 & IED14-052 32. A neve sewer connection fee of $8,980.18 is required for each site (Effective for the July 1, 2015 — June 3 0, 2016 fiscal year). 33. The applicant has stated that sewer laterals have already been installed for both sites. SRSD has no record of sewer permits for either of these new laterals. The applicant shall provide SRSD with signed copies of the permits for these new laterals or provide video of the laterals to assess the potential deficiencies that may need to be corrected before building permit issuance. 34. If not already installed, backwater prevention devices are required for each site, in accordance with SRSD specifications for side sewers and laterals. San Rafael Fire Department. Fire Prevention Bureau 35. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 36. Building permits are required for the proposed work on each site. Applications hall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include (larger projects require 4 sets or construction drawings): a) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau). 37. A Knox Switch is required for the driveway access gate at 270 Linden Ln. 38. These properties are located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WI I) area. Provide a written Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire Department. This VMP must be completed and verified prior to final approval. Refer to City of San Rafael Ordinancel856 that may be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.org-/fireveizetation. or you may contact the Fire Department at (415) 485--3309 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt for any questions or comments. Requirement of continued compliance with the approved VMP must be placed within CC&R's. 39. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MNIWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide adequate water supply service to each site for the required fire protection system. Communitv Development Department. Building Division 40. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Building Code; 2013 Plumbing Code, 2013 Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Fire Code, 2013 California Energy Code, 2013 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 41. Building permits are required for the -proposed work on each site. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans - c) Electrical plans 12 SRZA Minutes. 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED114-051 & ]ED14-052 d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Truss calculations i) Structural calculations j) Soils reports k). CalGreen documentation 1) Title 24 energy documentation m) Green Building documentation 42. Each building must have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers painted on the curb do not satisfy this requirement. In new construction and substantial remodels, the address must be internally or externally illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Numbers must be a minimum 4 inches in height with 1/2 inch stroke for residential occupancies and a minimum 6 inches in height with V2 inch stroke for commercial applications.. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 43. School fees will be required for both project approvals. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.97 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 44. If any portion of the new fencing exceeds 7' in height, a building permit is required 45. All fireplaces shall meet EPA Phase 2 emission standards or shall be gas burning only. Communitv Development Department, Planniniz Division 46. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 47. Prior to building permit issuance, any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid. Immediately After Building Permit Issuance Marin Municipal Water District (District) 48. Both sites are not currently being serviced and no water has been allocated to this parcel. The 270 Linden Ln. parcel does not currently meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District, which state in part: "...the property must be fronted be a water. main; the structure must be within 125 feet of the water main." Under these conditions, water service to this property will require a pipeline extension from the end of the District's existing facilities. The applicant shall enter into.a. pipeline extension agreement with the District for the installation of the necessary facilities and said agreement must be approved by the District's Board of Directors. The applicant may apply for a variance to these requirements. This variance must be submitted to the District's Board of Directors for their review and action. All costs associated with a pipeline extension are borne by the applicant. Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, or approval of the variance request, both parcels will be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below: 13 SRZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Linden Ln. IED14 -051 & 1ED14-052 a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application; b) Submit a copy of the building permit; c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges; d) Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of the application; e) Comply with MIVIWD's rule and regulations in effect at the time service is requested; f) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following submittals to MMWD are required: ® Verification of indoor fixtures compliance. ® Landscaping plan. ® Irrigation plan. Grading plan. g) Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation shall be directed to the Water Conservation Department at 415.945.1497. You may also find information on the M 4WD's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.ora; and h) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the MMWD's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements shall be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at 415.945.1558. Pacific Gas & Electric 49. Electric and gas service to the project site -will be provided in accordance with the applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E's website at http://www.-oae.com/mvhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE -5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 50. The cost of undergrounding service facilities shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. 51. Trior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Prior to Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 52. Prior to occupancy of either single-family residence, the applicant or property owner shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 53. All approved landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. After Occupancy 54. Following building permit `final' sign -off, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent 14 SIZA Minutes 5/11/16 270 & 272 Minden Ln.. ED14-051 & ED14-052 residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned off during daylight. Any aggrieved party may appeal either of these approvals (Environmental and Design Review Permit Nos: ED14-051 ED 14-052) -by submitting a letter of appeal, identifying the specific points of appeal, and the appr i to f s to he Community Development Department within five (5) working days of the' date of apprr �, W nesday, May 18, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. 15 SRZA Minutes 5/11/16 P.O. Box 151702 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-1702 26 January 2016 Steve Stafford Planning Department City of San Rafael, CA Dear Steve, After reviewing the proposed plans for 270 and 272 Linden Lane, the following observations reflect some expressed concerns of neighbors. Adequate Screening is imperative. These new lots were created by subdividing a much larger property, 262 Linden Lane. The most impacted house is on the west at 276 Linden. It was built on a much smaller lot (just 40' wide), and when it was built, the existing house on the adjacent lot immediately to the east at 262 Linden was 120 feet away. The newly created were taken out of the western side of this 262 Linden property. Landscaping—We appreciate the efforts to screen views into neighboring properties. The landscaping needs to be dense to help preserve any privacy for the house located at 276 Linden, both inside and out. Finished floor elevation on the new houses is 6+/- feet higher than at 276 Linden. Without screening, residents of 272 Linden would look directly into Bedroom, Living Room and Kitchen windows from their Living Room and Dining Room, and their outdoor living space is as close as +/-13'. 276 Linden Driveway Fence, will it be replaced?—on our drawings, it is unclear whether the 30+ feet of (E) fence proposed for removal along the shared property line with #272 will be replaced. Plant selection: Bambusa is indicated for the entire length of the western property lines for both 270 & 272. However, according to SR Municipal Code, Bambusa may not be used for hedges within 100 feet of a structure on this site. Bambusa should be replaced with a different dense vegetative screen, preferably with some staggering. Ligustrum 'Texanum' is shown in abundance on both plans. I would note two things: it is invasive in Marin County (and likely to self -sow freely in the adjacent garden of 276 Linden), and is a highly allergenic plant (rated at 9 out of 10, especially if allowed to flower). Thank you for listening to neighborhood concerns. Sincerely, Cheryl Douglas Member of the Board EXHI SRT 6 Hi Steve, After looking at the Linden Lane AP# 015-041-55 and 015-041-56 plans and sites, I have a few preliminary observations on behalf of the Dominican Black Canyon Neighborhood Association. With a flag lot, there is a lot of paving on these properties. There also seems to be an unnecessary amount of hardscape adjacent to all sides of the houses, significantly reducing the opportunity for screening between them and their neighbors, as well as simply between each other. Among other things, that means that there is little area left for screening between the Lot #3 two story house and the street edge at Grand Court, both Grand Court residents and the new home will need the screen. They might consider permeable paving for some hardscape locations and the driveways. © Concern for interior and exterior privacy of home at 276 Linden Lane, immediately west of subject properties. This single story 1600 sf, home sits close to the shared lot line, and has its outdoor patio and lawn against the property line. The home at 276 Linden appears to sit 5-6 feet below the new patios and FFE of the new two story homes on Lots 42 and 3. Screening must be provided between ground level spaces and upper story windows as well. o Screening space and planting is also needed between the two new homes and their respective main patios, we will be curious to see a fully developed landscape plan. Both lots are heavily overgrown with French broom, ivy and small acacia trees, making it difficult to assess the value of any individual shrub or tree under those conditions. Given the narrow setback on all sides, suggest slow and selective vegetation removal around all property edges to give opportunity to recognize any screening opportunities. Toyons ( as with specimen in front of fence on Linden) have significant long term superiority when compared to weedy plants such as Eucalyptus and Acacia. ® Question the screening or garden value of the five young Acacia trees at southwest corner of Lot #3. Evaluate any remaining Eucs for structural integrity, for example resprouted tree #52 at NW corner of Lot #3. In at least some sections, the new CMU wall and wooden fence on northern edge of Lot #3 appear to be moved to the back of curb ori Grand Court. Need at least 3' set back to allow for softening of new six foot fence/wall and to permit continued use of that street edge for existing Grand Court mailboxes. From: John Sarter [ Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 11:45 AM To: Steve Stafford Subject: Re: 272 Linden Ln I am most concerned about the large North facing second and first story folding doors and patios off the Master bedroom, living room and Kitchen.. This patio will face directly toward my and my neighbors on each side, homes. This alone would negatively impact all of our privacy. They also plan on using up to 5 feet of compacted fill on the lot to create a flat building pad. It appears in fact that the majority of the glazing in thi plan faces North toward Grand Ct. It is difficult for me to see what the setback of the proposed home is, but the combination of adding fill and orienting the outdoor patio space facing our Grand Ct. homes will create a very large and high structure with primary glazing and outdoor entertainment areas looming over and looking into our homes. Even the lower story windows would be well above a 6' fence on the property line due to the fill. As such, I'd like to request that the outdoor space and primary glazing for this home be oriented to its rear yard, (West), rather than it's side yard. I'd also like to suggest and request that the home plan be designed to fit to the contours of the existing land rather than adding fill to create a flat pad on a gently sloping lot. It also appears that two very large 48" Heritage Oaks would be removed from the lot. These trees are hundreds of years old and are an integral part of the beauty and ecosystem of this lot and the entire neighborhood. In my opinion, a home that utilizes these beautiful trees, perhaps by leaving them as the focal point of courtyard and structure that surrounds them and works with them, would create a highly desirable home that integrates with and recognizes the value of these ancient giants and the ecosystem they are part of. These are exceptionally beautiful trees on a gently sloping lot and it would be a shame to cut them down and fill/level the land just to make it less expensive to build a very large home on this lot. One other request I would make is that before any final decision is made, that there be story poles erected so we can fully seethe extents of the project. -John Sarter San Rafael, Ca. 94901 Frrorn Mari Johnson < Sen- : Monday, April 04, 2016 10:03 AM To: Steve Stafford Subject Comments and concerns regarding 270 & 272 Linden Lane proposed construction Design Review Board, I am a resident on Linden Lane, just a few doors east of the proposed construction at 270 & 272 Linden Lane. I attended the last meeting. It gave me concern that while there was much discussion of how Grand Court would be impacted there was very little discussion of how Linden Lane would be affected by this proposed construction. Here are some of the concerns I have: 1. The houses seem too large in scale for the building lots. It appears from the drawings that the garage of the front house is only 12 feet from the front property line. To have a 2 story house that close to the street will give it too much dominance on the street. 2. 1 have a concern that the color the has been chosen for the front house is much too light bringing even more prominence to the very large stucco building. It should be a darker tone of tan or beige in order to make the building recede as much as possible. 3. The landscaping should be tall enough to reduce the mass of the building on the street side. It needs to create some dimension to make the building less dominate and give a softness to counter the hard lines of this overly large house. I have a real concern that the builder is attempting to cram as much house as possible onto these two lots without consideration for the character of the neighborhood. The proposed house sits between an historically registered house and a small one story classic ranch house. It doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood at all. It is just another mcmansion. I would like to see every effort be made by the Design Review Board to mitigate that as much as possible. Thank you, Mari Johnson 1 From; Grand Ct. Neighborhood Homeowners To; San Rafael Zoning Administrator Dear Sir, We all are very concerned over the loss of Privacy and value of our neighborhood that will occur if the current design plan is approved, especially forthe two homes most affected; the Jennings Residence at 1 Grand Ct., and the Sarter Residence at 3 Grand Ct. in particular. In the first design review meeting held on Feb. 22, 2616, the San Rafael Design Review Board unanimously recommended that the applicant for the home at 272 Linden move the bulk of the window mass and the entire outdoor living area from the North facing side yard of the home to the Vilest facing bads yard, which would provide more privacy for everyone, the existing residents of surrounding properties and the eventual new residents alike. In the plan that as re -submitted and is now before you was not redesigned whatsoever. The only change that was made was to move the 2"d floor Master Bedroom "Juliet Balcony" to the West side of the home. The outdoor living area on the North facing side yard of the property was not reoriented whatsoever_ The finished floor of the outdoor patio area there will be 5 feet above the adjacent roadway grade, and therefore anyone on that patio will be looking down into the Jenning's patio and living room sliding doors. The proposed outdoor space and patio goe s -he slide yard setbvcit, rather than more logically to the much larger back yard area. Additionally, the 12 foot wide patio doors from the Living / Dining room areas remained on the North facing side yard of the current plan. One would have to be quite naive not to assume that since those large patio doors remain, the intention of the developer and owner is to eventually pave over the outdoor space same as in the virtually identical first plan, thereby infringing even more on the adjacent homes on Grand Ct. and the neighborhood as a whole. We respectfully ask you the Zoning Administrator to deny the current plan and direct the applicant to follow the original and common sense recommendations of the Design Review Committee. Those recommendations were clear, specific and in the best interest of everyone's privacy, those of the new structure included. They are; - Re -orient Vie outdoor living areas for the new hovine from the North facing side Vavd of the proposed straaureD to the West facIng rear yard of ha proposed structure. - Re-orlewr the large mass of glazing fdom the North Viachig sfide VaPd of he proposed strudure, to the Wast facing year yard of the proposed structure. Rk,L H`.rEE? VEED) ell W, U11 'i Y Or R E C E I V -`.- m m Aly �i A NNG NI Steve Stafford From: Gloria Lopez Gutierrez < Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:33 AM To: Steve Stafford Subject: Re: Grand Ct. neighbors This to inform you that several neighbors met with and that we could not reach an agreement. We will continue with the appeal of the Linden Ln project. Our concerns remain the intrusion that we feel will result from grade being raised four to five feet above Grand Ct. street level with a two story building above that. Although the architect and developer did make some changes to windows and patio location, large windows and a patio facing north remain in the plan, and even an eight -foot fence will not screen more than three feet when the grade behind it has been raised five feet. The Jennings at and the backyard of the Bradshaws on Grand Ave will be particularly impacted, but the rest of us agree that raising the grade will affect our privacy on our street. We urge all involved to reconsider how this project may proceed without being so intrusive to the residents of Grand Ct. . On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Steve Stafford < wrote: OK. See you then. Steve Steve Stafford COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Associate Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 415.458.5048 (o) 415.485.3184 (f) 1 EXHIBffT 6b "Ty OF Community Development Department �CLA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Vice Chair Bellett nd Planning Commissioners 0 FROM: Steve Stafford, Associate Planner SUBJECT: [AP16-001, ED14-052] Appellants Rebuttal to Staff's Report; 270 Linden Ln. APN: 015-041-56 Staff has received the attached rebuttal comments to the staff report to the Planning Commission (Commission) on the appeal of the project listed above. The comments were submitted after the printing and distribution of the report. These comments were received via email from John Sarter, one of the appellants and a resident of Grand Ct. The comments seek to make corrections and clarifications to both the `Background' and `Analysis' sections in the staff report to the Commission: Reduce or Relocate The comments allege that staff incorrectly represented one of the two consensus recommendations by the Design Review Board (DRB) at their continued review of the project revisions on April 5, 2016. Mr. Sarter alleges the DRB recommended that the window glazing along the north building elevation should be reduced and the outdoor patio area should be relocated from the north elevation to the west elevation. Staff's Comment The staff report to the DRB, for their April 5, 2016 continued review of the project revisions, stated one of the consensus recommendations as follows: "Due to the proposed grade change on the `flag' lot (270 Linden Ln.), which increases the building pad elevation and creates potential privacy impacts along the Grand Ct. frontage, the window glazing shall be reduced along the north building elevation and the outdoor patio area shall be relocated from north to the west elevation." The DRB reviewed the project revisions -and determined them to adequately respond to their previous concerns on the original project design prior to unanimously recommending approval of the revised project design to the Zoning Administrator. Tree Removal The comments allege that the project's tree removal tree is not compliant with one of the Specific Purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits, which is to balance site development with the existing natural conditions of a site. Mr. Sarter further alleges that the project should be redesigned to preserve two (2) existing mature Oak trees and more of the natural conditions, and any tree removed should be replaced on a 3:1 ratio. Staff's Comment Project review is a balance of review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, with not one having more weight than the others. Project design on the existing natural conditions of the site is one of the review criteria for the design review permit for the project. `m OF Community Development Department MEMORANDUM Again, the DRB reviewed the project revisions and determined them to adequately meet the applicable review criteria for the Environmental and Design Review Permit for the project prior to unanimously recommending approval of the revised project to the Zoning Administrator As stated in the staff report to the Commission, 3:1 tree replacement is required in hillside development/redevelopment projects for "significant" trees. The project site, at 270 Linden Ln., is a non -hillside lot where the appropriate level of tree replacement is determined on a case -by case basis during project review. The project proposes to remove 20 existing trees on the site and replace with 23 new trees, most of which are large sized (24" -box container size) to help create an more `instant' mature landscape character on the site. Story Poles The comments allege that, due to the change in grade proposed by the project, the installation of story poles are necessary to adequately determined what the impacts of the project will be on existing privacy of the Grand Ct. neighborhood. Staff's Comment As stated in the staff report to the Commission, story poles are typically only required for the development on hillside lots, which the project site .is not. Staff further questions the ability to carry out the installation of story poles and their usefulness due to the existing thicket of dense vegetation which creates significant difficulties. Story poles depict the scale of a structure; the appellants are more concerned about privacy impacts resulting from window glazing and outdoor patio areas along the north building elevation. Single -Story Scale The comments allege that single -story scale is more appropriate for the site and in better context with the existing predominant scale of the neighborhood. As stated in the staff report to the Commission, the existing scale of Grand Ct. is a mixture of single- and multi -story residences. As Section 14.25.050 (F) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance clearly states: "Upper -Story Additions and Modifications Which Result in More Than One Floor. Design review of new two-story homes, upper -story additions and lift -and -fill construction is not intended to preclude such development, but rather required to assure better design of such additions and to limit impacts on adjacent properties." The DRB reviewed the project revisions and determined that the two-story scale was appropriate and that the impacts on adjacent residences were adequately mitigated prior to unanimously recommending approval of the revised project to the Zoning Administrator. Community Response to San Rafael Planning Staff Report to Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, The timing of our required notifications from Planning Staff has been problematic and not timely whatsoever in order for us to respond in a timely manner. - We were never given copy of the Staff Report after the DRB meeting of 2/2/16. We did not even know of the existence of this report, including the recommendations to the developers appurtenant to the DRB recommendations, until the Developers met with us themselves on July 7 t The developer told us that Planning Staff told them that simply reducing the North Patio and reducing ONE second story window would be enough. - We were not sent the Zoning Administrator's meeting report until AFTER the appeal period was expired. We had no choice but to appeal, and in any case the direction of the 1St DRB instructions to the applicant were not and still have not been followed. - There is no Date on the "Report to Planning Commission" Report by Steve Stafford, but No one in our neighborhood received this until Saturday 7/23/16. This is only effectively one working day prior to the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday 7/26/16, allowing very little time for a professionally composed response. The above facts alone merit the need for a more thorough review and reasonable time for the Neighborhood and Planning Commission to view and assess the issues and recommendations by the Planning Department Staff, and the lack of timely_reporting warrants granting of our appeal. Response to SR Planning Staff "Report to Planning Commission", 1.) In the RECOMMENDATION section by the planning staff, staff states that "Additional concessions were agreed to by the applicant to further reduce privacy impacts along Grand Ct.in response to the appellants. The community member present told the developers and the ZA at that meeting that building a high fence and making patio doors into windows with the same intruding glazing DOES NOT make it a better or acceptable plan, and we would appeal. The appeal was subsequently made in the time period required and is valid, under the same criteria that the 1St DRB recommended in the 1St DRB meeting were and are still not followed. 2.) In the "BACKGROUND" section of the Staff report, the second bullet point states accurately that the DRB recommended; "the window glazing shall be reduced along the North Building elevation, and the outdoor patio areas shall be relocated from the North to the West elevation." During the opening remarks of the 2nd DRB Meeting, Planning Staff incorrectly quoted and changed this extremely important recommendation as "reduce or relocate" the outdoor patio area. This gave the second DRB members the false impression that the first DRB recommendations were followed, when they were not. Only ONE window on the North elevation was reduced, and the highest and closest to property line portion of patio that creates the most privacy intrusion remained. The first DRB in fact recommended a re -design of the plan to one that was more site specific, rather than a "cookie cutter" plan that did not RECLINED JUL 25 2016 PLANNING respect neighborhood privacy. As you see in the report notes, Board members Lentinin and Summers were absent, creating a disconnect of the intentions and recommendations by them even further. 3.) In the ZA meeting notes, (5t" bullet point), the ZA states; "These increased setback requirements effectively reduce the allowable development envelope on the the site, and make it extremely difficult to revise the building footprint to preserve the 2 existing 48"diameter Oak Trees in the site." We take strong issue with this statement. True, it would be impossible to build the "duplicate" floor plan on the site, but is a developer entitled to use cookie cutter plans at the expense of ancient Oak trees which are a community and City asset? What is required here is creative design work, and in fact use of "Creative Design" and balance with the Natural environment is mandated by the San Rafael Municipal Code. The SRMC Chapter 14.25.10 lists in it's "Specific Purposes" in part to; "E. Encourage design excellence by encouraging creative design" and also "A. First and Foremost maintain a proper balance between development and the natural environment." We fail to see how approval of the cookie cutter design at the expense of not only the ancient oaks, but every single tree on the lot! Is there a guarantee to developers that they can develop a lot to it's maximum and least expensive square footage potential at the expense of the neighborhood and the natural environment? It should be noted also that we've recently discovered that the proposed plan includes the import of over 320 Cu.Yds. (32 semi truck loads) of imported and compacted fill. This fill artificially raises the grade of the sloping lot, exacerbating the neighborhood privacy problems and necessitating complete defoliation of the lot. We, the neighbors on Grand Ct. have repeatedly requested story poles so we can see the true impact of the elevated lot and home, and have been repeatedly. denied. We have also requested a survey and staking so we can see the true property lines, and have been denied. The Report also misstates the full extent of the appeal by the residents of Grand Ct. The letter to the ZA also asked for redesign of the home to one more suitable to the lot and respecting neighboring privacy, as recommended by the 1St DRB in the meeting on Feb 2nd. The following quotes are the exact words of the DRB members as recorded in the DRB video on the SR City website; (Stewart Summers)- "The one on Linden Lane I think is sited appropriately, I'm struggling with the uphill lot. Because it does look to me like, "ok we got the house to work below and we're going to take that same house and stick it on the site up here and flip it and it pretty much fits and we can make it work"... but it doesn't seem as site specific in terms of how it was designed. I hear loud and clear the concerns of some neighbors and they are the same as ones I was already formulating. It seems like a lost opportunity to not focus the outdoor living space toward the Linden Lane house rather than facing toward Grand Ct, not only because it seems more appropriate for privacy concerns, but there's just a lot more space there... It seems to me like that house is spun around a little, in my mind not in an ideal way to not only address the concerns of the neighbors, but perhaps the occupants". (Don Blaney)- "My gut feeling is I feel as though they're kind of wedged into these lots. I don't know what we can do about that but that's my gut feeling". (Eric Spellman) "I do agree with Stewart, that the uphill home is ... 270 s not site specific and should be looked at a bit more closely and I share the concern of the neighbors with respect to the windows and potentially looking in. If that's part of the design guidelines that should be addressed more clearly. If that means the homes aren't exactly identical, maybe they shouldn't be." (Jeff Kent) "I agree with the comments so far, and the one thing about removing the patio on the North side at 270 Linden is it also gives more screening opportunities there. Summmary by Stewart Summers; "Our concerns are what we've actually heard from the public. I think we do have a privacy concern with the way the upper house is oriented. I think the materials and the direction you've gone from a design standpoint are great. They're well designed, I'm just thinking that the upper level house might need to be redesigned in order to address those concerns, though I don't have any trouble with that plan on the lower lot." "You might be a lot closer than you think. When I look at the floor plan, and how you oriented things and maybe spinning t make the other yard which seems like it wants to be the back yard. Just looking at your floor plan and cross referencing with the site, it may be really simple for you to just redesign this kitchen... The footprint may not need to change that much. You could perhaps redesign this kitchen Family rooms you get your big multi slide doors off that angle so it's not focused on that Grand Ct side, and conversely same with upstairs... With a few short moves this may actually work quite well... Take that focus off of Grand Ct and look at ways to shuffle the floor plan around a little bit, and you might be right there." Recap of DRB comments by SR Planning Staff; "First what I'm hearing is that fundamentally the design and placement of the home on Linden Lane is not an issue... It sounds like that home is more or less supportable... With respect to the flag lot, there are concerns that the orientation and/or placement of the home on that lot creates concerns with respect to how landscape screening is provided and what kind of privacy impacts it may have on Grand Ct., and so the direction I'm hearing is that the applicant should take another look at that and see if they might modify the house and/or the floorplan of the existing house plan to allow better orientation of that home to an interior yard that would minimize the need for a lot of screening between them and Grand Ct., and as well as minimize privacy impacts on Grand Ct. That's what I'm hearing. So those are more recommendations for a re -study of that home design to mitigate the potential impacts on Grand Ct." Back to the Staff report to Planning Commission ANALYSIS section; Appeal Point #1 The first DRB and the residents of Grand Ct have and still do request relocation of the bulk of glazing to the West side, not simply making very large patio doors into the same sized very large side yard windows facing our properties. The North patio area as referenced and as stated in this report was requested by the first DRB and by residents to be RELOCATED to the West side, not "reduced". The patio area that remains is 5 feet above adjacent grade on Grand Ct, and only 5 feet from property line, creating a 1:1 slope and patio looking into our homes and neighborhood. Appeal Point #2 Not only should trees be replaced 3:1, but creative design should be and could be utilized to create a plan that is in harmony with these Heritage Oaks and the Natural Landscape. This is a San Rafael Municipal Code and Design Review imperative. Appeal point #7 Despite repeated requests by the first DRB and residents for reduction of imposing glazing and relocation of the North side yard patio that infringes on neighborhood privacy for both existing residents and the future residents of the new home, we have been refused and contradicted by both the developers and Planning Staff. Our requests for story poles and property line marking have been refused. This leads us to believe that the impact of the 320 plus yds of fill, raised lot and subsequent 2 story home is understood by the developers to be a HUGE imposition on privacy and environment of our neighborhood. Thus their refusal to help us fully understand the mass and extent of the proposed project. We therefore respectfully ask that is be reduced to a single story, such as is the bulk of the homes in our neighborhood. There is only one 2 story home on our street, on Grand Ct. ENVIRNMENTAL DETERMINATION; We have recently discovered the SRMC "Chapter 14.25.10, Environmental and Design Review Permits" "Specific Purposes. We are not planning professionals, but we would assume that SR Planning Staff would have access to these highest of standards and Design Review imperatives. We are wondering how on Earth this plan as it stands was not subject to these imperatives and guide lines?.Specifically; First and foremost, maintain a proper balance between development and the natural environment; All existing trees on the 270 Linden Lane lot are planned to be removed, (including Heritage Oaks up to 48" in diameter). Additionally, over 32 dump trucks of imported fill is planned to artificially raise and create a flat lot, simply to make more money for the developer. Ensure that the location, design and materials and colors of development blends with and enhances the natural setting; Again, All existing trees on the 270 Linden Lane lot are planned to be removed, (including Heritage Oaks up to 48" in diameter), and imported fill is planned to artificially raise and create a flat lot. THERE WILL BE NO "NATURAL SETTING" LEFT! C. B E. F. Maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the city; Cookie cutter "McMansions" that do not respect neighborhood privacy nor the existing natural landscape do NOT maintain and contribute to attractiveness of the city. Preserve balance and harmony within Neighborhoods. This plan is not in balance wit, nor does it preserve harmony within, the neighborhood. It as very large and imposing vertical mass with a first floor and patio which is 5 feet above natural and adjacent grade, and well over 400 sq ft of side yard glazing and patio that invades neighboring and neighborhood privacy. Promote design excellence by encouraging creative design and the innovative use of materials and methods and techniques; This plan is a duplicate "cookie cutter" of the same plan on the front lot. This does not represent "creative design" nor innovative methods and techniques in our opinion. Preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public property; This project creates views into each other's homes, for both the existing and the future new home's residents. Due to the reversal of the first DRB recommendations, and especially due to the apparent disregard for the SR Municipal Code Environmental and Design Review Guidelines as a whole, we. feel that we as a neighborhood, community, and even as a City are not being fairly represented by Planning Staff on these serious and warranted concerns and issues regarding responsible development for the 270 Linden Lane project. Development that denudes property of all natural features including over 20 trees, several Heritage Oaks, and reshapes existing contours to reduce cost and increase height for the benefit of developer profits simply should not be allowed to occur. Signed by residents of the Grand Ct. and Dominican Neighborhood; NAME; ADDRESS; `"y°`` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL ` You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 270 Linder Ln. —Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 26, 2016 decision denying an appeal (API6-001)and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED14-052), allowing the construction of a new two- story, 3,754 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant 9,340 sq. ft. 'flag' lot and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping; APN: 015-041-56; Single -Family Residential (R7.5) District; Pat Bradshaw for'The Grand Ct. Neighbors', appellants; Raymond S. Bregante/TR/, owner; Daniel Stitzel applicant; File Nos.: ED14-052; AP16-001; AP16-002. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends a finding that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 14 CCR Section 15303(x) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. MEETING DATE/TIMEILOCATION: Monday, November 7, 2016, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Steve Stafford, Project Planner at (415) 458-5048 or steve.staffordl@cityofsanrafael.org. You may also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You may also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at htto://www.citvofsanrafael.orci/meetincis. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You may comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to grant or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You may send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You may also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistiestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. RECEIVED 270 Linden Lane K0U 0 12016 Appeal to the City Council on November 7, 2016 PLANNING This is an appeal to the San Rafael City Council relevant to the decision of the Planning Commission on July 26 th for the 270 Linden Lane Project. Before you make a decision on this project, the 5 neighborhood issues .# i• adequately addressed as follows: 1 Response to Planning Staff's Resolution of NO. 16-9-A (Attached) 2 Infractions of codes and DRB Guidelines. Requests for story poles, rewording of statements from the DRB board meetings, allowing approval for the size and design of the project which does not meet the standards set forth by the San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.25.010 "Specific Purposes". (Attached) 3 Reduce the height and grade of the proposed 3,754 square foot dwelling's ground floor which will, when constructed, be artificially up to 5' above current grade on both the lot and adjacent Grand Court. 4 For Privacy concerns, move location of patio to West facing backyard which was approved by the original Design Review. The patio as designed, is 5 ft. closer to Property Line and 5 ft. higher due to grading. Glazing/Windows on North side by the patio also increases the lack of privacy for the neighbors. 5 Reduce the amount of clear cutting of entire property. Reduce removal of most heritage oaks since nothing has been built on this parcel for hundreds of years. REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF HOUSE AS PROPOSED WHICH IS 5' ABOVE GRAND COURT. DESIGN A ONE STORY HOUSE WHICH FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Grade into lot lowering base height of house instead of using 33 truckloads of fill to raise level of 1St floor. This is not "minor grading". Reduce the height of the 3,754 dwelling's ground floor as proposed which will, when constructed, be artificially up to 5' above current grade on both the lot and adjacent Grand Court. Cannot compare first floor level of a 2 story house of 3,754 Sq.Ft. with neighbor of a 1 story house of 2, 298 Sq.Ft. New survey of property line puts the house, fence, 5 feet of fill and patio two feet closer to Grand Court. This results in further loss of privacy and greater potential for drainage problems. FOR PRIVACY CONCERNS, MOVE LOCATION OF PATIO TO WEST FACING BACKYARD. Original DRB recommended placement of patio to be moved to West facing backyard. The patio and windows as approved, invade the privacy of several residences. The patio will be about level with the top of the 8' fence and 5' closer to property line. The second floor will look down on the recreation area and pool of 1720 Grand Ave., residents for 43 years. The first floor and patio and windows will be in view to the neighbors. REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CLEAR CUTTING OF ENTIRE PROPERTY. Maintaining a proper balance between development and the natural environment is not being met. Clear cutting of parcel and designing 2 exact houses except for color and roof choices, does not follow guidelines of DRB. Cutting down heritage oak trees when design could be altered to save several of them. No oaks are to be saved as approved on the 270 parcel. Response to San Rafael Planning Staff's draft of RESOLUTION NO. 16-9-A 1st "Whereas"; Staff refers to property line along Grand Ct frontage as "rear yard". It is not the rear of the home as designed. The garage faces East, the rear faces West. Grand Ct. is the North and side yard. Grand Ct is a private street. It is a sub -standard width for a city street, and that's part of why this very large and artificially high home is so imposing on the neighborhood. This is one of the major problems with the home, and they have not addressed or mitigated it per the original DRB recommendations. Staff and applicant state the height of the home to be to be 23' 8", however that is over and above the 328 cu. Yds. of imported fill which raise the lot up to 5 feet above natural grade Additionally, the developers first planned no fence between their North side yard and Grand Ct. They have more than twice the glazing on that side than any other, Clearly the intent was to make the Grand Ct side appear as if it is the frontage for the home, so it doesn't feel like a flag lot. Unfortunately that imposes on our small street and homes. Grand Ct. is privately owned and maintained by Grand Ct residents. 2nd "Whereas"; Staff states in the current report to City Council that "Minor Grading" is involved. The total grading on the lot is listed on applicants plans as 662 Cu. Yds. of fill and 336 Cu. Yds. of cut. The cumulative total is 998 Cu. Yds of earth movement (100 truck loads). This is not minor grading on this small .18 acre lot. The entire lot is planned to be denuded of all trees, artificially raised up to 5 feet with 326 cu. Yds. (33 truck loads) of imported fill. We don't see how this represents "maintain a proper balance between development and the natural environment", as stated "First and Foremost" in the San Rafael Municipal Code Primary Design Review Guidelines. 4th "Whereas" Staff Clearly States that North Window glazing was directed to be reduced and patio relocated to West side (back yard). The 1st DRB also recommended that the floorplan be re -worked and that it should not be a duplicate plan. Staff fails to mention this recommendation in any reports to future DRB or Planning Commission hearings. This DRB recommendation was never addressed. (Please review video of 1" DRB meeting) 5th "Whereas"; Applicant only reduced ONE North window, and the remaining glazing on Grand Ct. side is still more than twice that of the other sides. The patio was not relocated, only reduced. The patio that remains is the highest, closest, and most obtrusive to the privacy of Grand Ct. and it's homes. It is 5 feet above the road at a distance of only 5 feet from property line (1:1 slope to Grand Ct). The "Increased landscape screening" by applicant is not necessarily permanent, but windows and doors are. The floor plan was not reworked as directed by 1St DRB. 6th "Whereas"; The April 5th DRB was different members and they were given misstatements of fact and recommendations of 1St DRB meeting, leading members to believe that 1St DRB recommendations were followed, when they were not. 7th "Whereas"; May 11th ZA meeting. ZA is the same person as the Staff Planner that gave the miss - statements of fact to 2nd DRB. The Grand Ct. Community feels that Staff (also ZA) appears to have a bias in favor of the developer. - 8th "Whereas"; The only additional concession by applicant was an 8 ft fence on Grand Ct side, later working hours and changing patio doors to windows. These do not address Privacy concerns to the degree that 15t DRB recommended. The Grand Ct community did not even realize until this meeting that applicant had NO fence whatsoever on Grand Ct. side. The plan still has more than twice the glazing on that side than any other. Staff incorrectly states that "All DRB recommendations were incorporated" when in fact they were not. (See paragraph 4 where staff states that DRB recommended relocating patio to West side. This recommendation was not incorporated. And again, only 1 North window was reduced and the patio was not relocated to the West at all. 10th "Whereas"; Staff left out the additional reasons in supplemental appeal letter that addresses all of the above issues as part of the appeal of ZA approval. 12th, 13th Whereas, and resolution of Planning Commission; Our appeal to Planning Commission was not heard until after 11:00 p.m., after a grueling 3 hr. review of the S.R. Downtown Fire Department. Planning Commissioners did not even read the documentation provided by the appellants, stating they did not have time at the late hour. Instead, the Planning Commission relied on Staff's synopsis, which the Grand Ct. community again feels is biased. Staff miss -stated facts to the Planning Commission in a manner against the appellants concerns, and in favor of the developer. Planning Staff stated to Planning Commission that the appellants in attendance at the ZA meeting "seemed to be ok with the changes", when in fact the ZA (also staff planner) and the applicant were told by appellants at the ZA meeting that the changes were not adequate to address the communities original privacy concerns. In his Synopsis to planning commission, Staff claimed that he "reminded the 2nd DRB that the first DRB instructed applicant to "relocate" outdoor patio", when in fact what Staff said to the 2nd DRB was "relocate or reduce". This lead to a Planning commission denial of appeal based on miss -statement of facts by Staff. (Again we urge the Council members to review the video of the DRB meetings of Feb 2nd and April 5th, and Planning Commission hearing of July 26th.) The entire Grand Ct. community, and also adjacent neighbors on Linden Lane, object to the many miss - statements of fact that led the DRB and Planning Commission to uphold an approval of the project, against the original DRB recommendations, and in violation of San Rafael Municipal Code as outlined below. Infractions of Codes and DRB Guidelines F-nvironmental and Design Review; The design and grading plan of the 270 Linde Lane project are in direct violation and / or contradiction to all 7 of the "Specific Purposes" listed in the following; San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.25.010 - Specific purposes. San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28.D10 - Specific purposes. "Environmental and design review implements general plan policies concerning the environment and design by guiding the location, functions and appearance of development. The key environmental and design goal of the city is to respect and protect the natural environment and assure that development is harmoniously integrated with the existing qualities of the city. The purposes of environmental and design review are to: A. First and forarnost.maintain aproper balance, L)etmeendewelopnmeotand �bv natural environment; ALL of the existing trees and vegetation on the 270 Linden Lane lot are planned to be removed, (including Hor|toQa Oaks upho48" in diameter). Over 32 dump trucks of imported and compacted fill are p|annod, and almost 1000 cu. Yds. of total grading. This artificially no|000 and onaatoa af|ot |ot, simply to create on easier build out. There is no"balance with the Natural environment" when you completely remove it. B. Ensure that the location, de-s-,ign,materials, and un|onsofrdmv�|opnnont vvRIP"mn"I enhancefi the natural setting; Again, all existing trees and foliage are planned to be removed, including 48^Heritage Oaks. 898yds. oftotal grading and 82Dcubic yards ofimported fill ioplanned to create an artificially flat raised lot simply for the developer to make more money by building a dup|iootep|on.Aaaresu|t.thorewiUbeno"Netuna|8otting"|eft.ThoDomin1canNe|ghborhood|or|oh with heritage ooha and mature trees on a sloping landscape. That is our "Natural settinQ^, and this plan violates it entirely. C. Maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development and thr�',,, surrounding area to crwntribute to the attractiveness of the city; Removal of all natural features and Duplicate 3754oqft floor plans ona.18acre lot and smaller lot donot respect neighborhood priwaoy, nor the existing natural |and000pe, and do not contribute to attractiveness of the city, D. Pre etv . ? i °. anM hannony Within NeIK0-0)nrhooc!-.. This plan is not in balance with, and certainly is not in harmony with the neighborhood. It has a very large and imposing vertical mass, with a first floor and patio that is artificially 5 feet above natural and adjacent grade. It also has over 400 sq ft of side yard glazing and patio that invades neighboring and neighborhood privacy. Our homes range from 1200 sq ft. to a maximum under 3000 sq ft, all on larger lots than .18 acres. The only home approaching 3000 sq ft is at the front on 1/2 acre on Grand Ave. E. 'C'ronn'tote rjesij nx ealer(,e by enc,z,..;" I£ging, creative desiqn and the innovative uFo� <. } a n'wtfiods, and tec.,hnigkiea, This plan is a duplicate of the same plan on the front lot. This does not represent "creative design", and is simply being used to make more money for the developer at the expense of our neighborhood and community privacy. Pres-erve anci viewF; frown 001her buildings anuV is {-)ro�e r:: ;This project completely decimates a forested landscape including Heritage Oak trees, and creates views into each other's homes, for both the existing neighborhood and the future new home's residents. G. Ensure the ri�jhi to inalke residential addi iori,� and rinodifications �,o.,ihic=i`i ininirnize the ifnpact on adjacent residences and %lhich ars: designer) to be cornpatibie with the existing s idence and neighborhood. This project does not minimize impact on adjacent residences. • The entire lot is being denuded of all vegetation and trees including two 48" heritage oaks and completely restructured contrary to existing natural grades with almost 1000 cu yds. of cut and fill. • The lot would be artificially raised by up to 5 feet to create a flat building pad for this duplicate home of the front lot plan simply to make more money for the developer. • The resulting raised lot and home as planned has extensive North glazing (twice that of other elevations) and a patio that will be 5 feet above adjacent grade and 5 feet away from Grand Ct. • The planned home is not of a scale relative to our neighborhood, especially for the small .18 acre lot it is on. It will tower over our street and infringe on our privacies with side yard glazing in excess of 200% of the other avg. of elevations on the planned home. • Front (East) Glazing = approx. 142 sq. ft. • Rear (West) glazing = approx. 119 sq. ft. • Side facing other new Linden Ln. home (South) glazing = approx. 114 sq. ft. • Side facing Grand Ct, (North) glazing = approx. 274 sq. ft. In closing, We the community feel this project as approved is not an affront only to the Grand Ct. and Dominican Neighborhood area, but to the integrity of the San Rafael Municipal Code itself. Why even bother having "Design Review Guidelines" if they are so easily set aside? We request that our joint community appeal be upheld and the project be referred back to the Design Review Board and/or Planning Commission for a new review that considers the City of San Rafael Design Review Guidelines more carefully. Picture of side yard of house with patio and Windows facing Grand Court with Street Grade and Fence on 5 ft. of fill included. 2 rx KAI 9 OE�4CV L I 44-tr 171 KAI 9 OE�4CV L I 44-tr 171 ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) --> CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT - AGENDA TOPIC] Agenda Item # Date of Meeting: 11/7/2016 From: Steve Stafford, Interim Senior Planner Department: Community Development Date: 10/28/2016 Topic: Appeal of new, two-story, single-family residence Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 26, 2016 decision denying an appeal (AP 16- 001) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 14-052), allowing the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence on a vacant `flag' lot, and associated site improvements, located at 270 Linden Ln. Type: ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Professional Services Agreement ® Other: Staff Report APPROVALS ® Finance Director Remarks: approved - MM 10/31 ® City Attorney Remarks: LG -Approved 10/31 with revisions. ® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes Remarks: Comments addressed and revised and cleaned up for final review by CM - SS 11/1 ® City Manager Remarks: