No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Perry Walk AppealCITY of G. Agenda Item No: 5 ° a n. Meeting Date: November 19, 2012 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen. AIC.,S,= City Manager Approvals, ij ' r Community Developmeint Director (SD) SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission action approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit to demolish an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct a new 2,597 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence above a basement with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway;, located on a 15,161+sq. ft. lot with a property slope of approximately 55.0%; APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; Joanne Brauman, appellant; Case File Nos.: Case File Nos.: AP12-005 / ED11-078. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2, page 7) denying the appeal (AP12-005) and upholding the Planning Commission conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED11-078) and a Hillside Parking Waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway. BACKGROUND: Setting: The subject property is located west of Perry Walk, approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of Perry Walk and Bungalow Avenue (Attachment 1, page 5). Perry Walk is a private access street with a non - delineated 15 -ft. wide right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site, which is developed with a 2 -story 892 -sq. ft. single family residence. The subject site is a hillside property and is therefore, subject to an Environmental and Design Review Permit and review for conformance with the City's Hillside Residential Design Guidelines. Proposed Proiect Review: On June 21, 2011, the Design Review Board reviewed a conceptual design for the expansion of the existing residence to 3,825 sq. ft. The Board recommended that the applicant consider rebuilding the house and reducing its size. Accordingly, the applicant applied for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED11-078) for demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised project and recommended that the project be moved further apart from the adjacent residence at 12 Perry Walk, that the bulk of the structure reduced, and that the driveway be widened to 27 feet in order to accommodate three (3) parking spaces in the driveway. On May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the additional revisions to the project that had responded to these issues and recommended approval of the project. Based on a review of the project by staff and the Board's recommendation, on June 7, 2012, the Acting Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved the project with conditions. On June 13, 2012, an appeal (Attachment 8, page 63) of the Acting ZA's decision was filed by an adjacent neighbor. Amy Koenig. The appeal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2012. The Commission generally agreed that the project applicant had complied with the directions provided by the Design Review Board. However, two Commissioners expressed several concerns about the project, whereas two Commissioners believed the appeal had no merit. With only four Commissioners present. the Commission was unable to pass a motion either way to grant or deny the appeal. As a result. the Commission provided some comments and decided to continue the project. Although FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: { Council Meeting: a 4 t Disposition: 4 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paae: 2 there was no clear consensus among the Commission over the concerns, issues expressed by individual Commissioners were that: • Upper floors of the structure could be further stepped -back in order to further reduce the building bulk; • While the structure was well articulated, the building step back was not ideal; and • The proposed setback variance and Exception from hillside parking requirement were a concern. Therefore, on a motion moved by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Robertson, the Commission continued this project to September 11, 2012 with a 4-0-2 vote (Commissioners Sonnet and Wise absent) and directed the applicant to come back with a design that addressed these concerns. Pursuant to the Planning Commission direction, on August 28, 2012, the applicant submitted revised plans addressing the Planning Commission concerns, with a request for one exception, a waiver from the hillside parking requirements. The revised project design proposed the following: • The project size reduced from 3,206 sq. ft. to 2,597 sq. ft. and from six bedrooms to three bedrooms thereby eliminating project size concerns. • The building bulk reduced from three floors above the garage to two floors above the garage. • The project was shifted onto the property and adjusted sideways, thus eliminating the need for front and side yard setback variances. • Building materials and colors were changed to match those on other existing residences on Perry Walk. • Additional landscaping was proposed with the revised design. On September 11, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project (Staff Report, Attachment 6, page 39). There was a general consensus among the Commission that the revised project was well designed, had responded to the Commission's concerns and had addressed the appeal points. Further, the Commission discussed if the revised project should be referred back to the Design Review Board. Except for one Commissioner (Commissioner Paul), the consensus among the Commission members was that, given that the Design Review Board had recommended approval of a larger project, it was appropriate for the revised project design to move forward without another review by the DRB. Therefore, with a 4-1 (Commissioner Colin absent; Commissioner Paul dissenting) vote, the Commission denied the appeal and approved the revised project as submitted. With the current system for video recording the public hearings/meetings, no written minutes are available for the two Planning Commission and two DRB meetings. However, the entire proceedings of the meetings can be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinas. ANALYSIS: On September 18, 2012, Joanne Brauman, a neighbor filed an appeal (Attachment 3, page 19) of the Planning Commission action denying the appeal and approving the revised project. The points of appeal are as follows: 1. The proposed design does not comply with the zoning ordinance as written. The rule presented and used as the basis of Planning Commission's approval of the plan is not found in the City's ordinance. 2. The proposed design is substantially different from the original design and some neighbors believe that this revision should be reviewed by DRB. The appeal letter raises issues not previously covered in the letter appealing the initial ZA approval. However, these appeal points were presented to the Planning Commission by the appellant. Copies of the previous appeal letter as well as other pieces of correspondence from the appellant are included as part of the Exhibits to the July 24, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 8, pages 63 and 75-99). A document submitted by the appellant to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012 is attached (Attachment 7, page 45-49) to this report. Below is a summary of the issues identified in the appeal letter followed by staff's response: Appeal Point #1. The proposed design does not comply with the zoning ordinance as written. The rule presented and used as the basis of Planning Commission's approval of the plan is not found in the ordinance. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /Pa2e;3 GtaffResoonae: The Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) for hillside development is reviewed for consistency with the development standards ofSRK8C Chapter 14.12 Hillside Development Overlay District plus separate Hillside Residential Design Guidelines (HROG). Compliance of the project with the applicable provisions nfthe SRK8C. the applicable General Plan 2O2Opolicies and the HRDG is discussed in detail in the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7, page 39). This appeal point focuses on the Planning Commission's review and interpretation of the building 'step back' design guidelines. The appellant does not ognao with the way the Planning Commission calculated the step book height for hillside structures. There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the Zoning Ordinance and HRDG. The height measurement method in question is not contained in the Zoning Ordinance but in the HROG Section |||.B.3. Building Sbepback (Attachment 4. page 21). The confusion is over the interpretation of subsection b. Downslope VVo|| Height of Section /|I.B.3., which states "Maximum allowed height of the downslope vva|| shall be 20 feet as measured from the lowest finish grade adjacent to the wall or directly beneath its outermost pnojeotion." A|though, it is not specified in the HRDG, this rule also applies tothe measurement ofupo|opewall height. The appellant believes this section does not apply to an upe|ope vva|| height, as in the case of the subject property and that the rule for an upo|ope wall height as applied by the Planning Commission is not included in the Zoning Ordinance. Appeal Point #2. The proposed design /s substantially ui7mnpn/ from the original design and some neighbors feel this (design change) should bereviewed byDRB. Staff Response: This issue was brought up at the Planning Commission hearing by the first appellant (Amy Koenig) who had appealed the action bythe ZA. The Commission discussed the value and necessity of referring the project back to the Design Review Board (DRB) particularly given that the ORB had recommended approval of bigger and more noaasiwa house on this site. The general consensus among the Commissioners was that the project had been significantly downsized and improved from that initially reviewed by the DRB and approved by the ZA. These revisions are described as follows: * The project hasbeandovvnsizedintornnaoftoha|squanofootngeoftheraoidenoe from 3,206 -sq. ft. to 2,597 -sq. ft. and reduced from three totwo stories above the garage; ° The project hos been moved away from the adjoining residence thereby minimizing its visual impact; * The revised project no longer needs or requests a front orside yard setback Variance, which had aarecommended bythe DRB and approved bythe ZA;and • In order to provide more step back, the residence would need to be shifted forward into the required front yard which would necessitate afront yard setback variance. Given the above discussion, the Planning Commission determined that referring the project back to the DRB was not warranted. Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEOA Guide|inen, which exempts construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. However, the Planning Commission determined that nuextensive environmental study should be required and that the exemption isappropriate. NQTICBCORRESPQNDENCE: Notice of this City Council public hearing, as well as the previous DRB and Planning Commission meeting, were mailed to neighboring property owners, businesses and residents within 300 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations and the site was posted with a public hearing notice board. In addition, public notice of the City Council hearing was published in the Marin Independent Journal. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list are attached (Attachment Q. page 101). Staff has not received any public correspondence about this project prior to this hearing. Public correspondence nsoeiwad prior to the previous DRB meetings and Planning Commission hearings has been attached to the July 24. 2012. Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 8.pages 75'S9). FISCAL IMPACT: Staff does not anticipate that the approval of the proposed demolition of the smaller residence to construct a SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pate: 4 larger residence will cause a change in City service costs because the amended project will not generate any more demand in city services or emergency response as well as street and drainage maintenance and other municipal services to these properties. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project (staff recommendation) 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with further modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval, and refer the revised project to the DRB for review and recommendation, if appropriate. 3. Continue the appeal hearing to allow the applicant/appellant to address any of the City Council's comments or concerns. 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution with findings for denial. ACTIONS REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit and Waiver application (Attachment 2, pages 7-17). ATTACHMENTS: PAGES NO. 1. Vicinity Map 5 2. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Approving the Environmental and Design Review 7 Permit and Hillside Parking Waiver 3. Appeal Letter to the City Council, dated September 18, 2012 19 4. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines (HRDG) Section III.B.3. Building Stepback 21 5. Planning Commission Resolution #12-14 for Denial of Appeal (AP12-003) and Approval of 23 Environmental and Design Review Permit and Waiver 6. Planning Commission Staff Report, September 11, 2012 without the Exhibits 39 7. Appellant's Project Analysis submitted to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2012 45 8. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 24, 2012 with selected Exhibits 51 • Exhibit 3: Appeal Letter dated June 13, 2012 63 • Exhibit 6: Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist 65 • Exhibit 8: Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Analysis Table 71 • Exhibit 9: Public Correspondence 75 9. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List 141 Following items distributed to the City Council only: • Reduced Project Plans (11"x17'1) SCALE 1 :2.130 1u^0 200 wvG FEET ATTACHMENT I Wednesday, Octc bf ar � 1. 2012 6:53 AM RESOLUTION NO. 13461 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP12-003) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED11-078) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 892 -SQ. FT. 2 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,597 -SQ. FT. 2 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ABOVE A BASEMENT; WITH A HILLSIDE PARKING WAIVER TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING SPACES IN THE DRIVEWAY; LOCATED AT 37 PERRY WALK; APN: 013-133-04 The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the applicant submitted a Conceptual Design Review application for expansion of an existing 892 -sq. ft., 2 -story single family residence to 3,825 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2011, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the conceptual design and recommended that rather than expanding the existing residence, it should be rebuilt, the proposed residence size be reduced and the project be in compliance with the parking requirements; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2011, the applicant submitted an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and a Variance to demolish the existing residence and build a 3,415 sq. ft. new single family residence; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2011 the Design Review Board reviewed the project plans and recommended that the design be amended to better integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials, nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk, shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact, provide good vehicular circulation and to widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the project plans amended in accordance with the Board's comments of February 7, 2012 and recommended approval with 3-1 vote (alternate Serge Fedorov dissenting); and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts construction of a single-family home in a residential district: and WHEREAS. on June 6, 2012. acting Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearing for the project, received input from the applicant and members of the public, closed the public hearing and continued the hearing to June 7. 2012 for making a determination on the project: and WHEREAS, on June 7. 2011 the acting Zoning .administrator approNed the project subject to conditions of approval: WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, within the statutory appeal period, an adjacent neighbor at 12 Perry Walk filed a timely appeal of the acting Zoning Administrator's decision, citing eight specific points of appeal; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the appeal (AP12-003) and accepted the written report of the Community Development Department staff and all oral and written public testimony; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission noted that the project was a large house that needed more stepback, should not require setback variances and should comply with the hillside parking requirements for two additional guest parking spaces with onsite circulation; and WHEREAS, at the end of the July 24, 2012, public hearing, on a motion moved by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Robertson, the Commission continued this project to September 11, 2012 with a 4-0-2 vote (Commissioners Sonnet and Wise absent) and directed the applicant to return with a revised project design addressing the Commission's concerns; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2012, the applicant submitted significantly revised project plans addressing the Commission's comments provided at the July 24, 2012, public hearing; and WHEREAS., on September 11. 2012, the San Rafael Planning Commission held the continued public hearing to consider the appeal (AP12-003) and the revisions to the project based on Commission's previous direction and accepted the written report of the Community Development Department staff and all oral and written public testimony. The Commission also discussed the appropriateness of referring the changed project design to the Design Review Board (DRB); and WHEREAS, at the end of the September 11, 2012, public hearing, on a motion moved by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer, the Commission denied the appeal and approved the project with a 4-1 (Commissioner Paul dissenting, wanting to refer the project back to the DRB) -1 vote (Commissioner Colin absent) denied the appeal and approved the project with conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department. WHEREAS, on September 18, 2012, within the statutory appeal period, an adjacent neighbor. Joanne Brauman filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (EDI 1-078). 8). together with the required filing fee, WHEREAS, on November 19. 2012. the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project. accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Dek elopinent Department staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP12-005) and upholds the September 11. 2012 decision of the Planning Commission 11 denying an appeal (AP12-003) upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-078) with revisions, to allow the demolition of an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family home and construction of a new, 2,597 -sq. ft. new single family home on a 15,161 sq. ft. hillside lot located at 37 Perry Walk because the City Council finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #l. The proposed design does not comply with the zoning ordinance as written. The rule presented and used as the basis of Planning Commission's approval of the plan is not found in the ordinance. Response and Findinia: The Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED) for hillside development is reviewed for consistency with the development standards of SRMC Chapter 14.12 Hillside Development Overlay District plus separate Hillside Residential Design Guidelines (HRDG). Compliance of the project with the applicable provisions of the SRMC, the applicable General Plan 2020 policies and the HRDG is discussed in detail in the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission staff report. This appeal point focuses on the Planning Commission's review and interpretation of the building `step back' design guidelines. The appellant does not agree with the way the Planning Commission calculated the step back height for hillside structures. There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the Zoning Ordinance and HRDG. The height measurement method in question is not contained in the 'Zoning Ordinance but in the HRDG Section IILB.3. Building Stepback. The confusion is over the interpretation of subsection b. Downslope Wall Height of Section II1.13.3., which states "Maximum allowed height of the downslope wall shall be 20 feet as measured from the lowest finish grade adjacent to the wall or directly beneath its outermost projection." Although, it is not specified in the HRDG, this rule also applies to the measurement of upslope wall height. The appellant believes this section does not apply to an upslope wall height, as in the case of the subject property and that the rule for an upslope wall height as applied by the Planning Commission is not included in the Zoning Ordinance. Appeal Point #2. The proposed design is substantially different from the original design and some neighbors feel this should be reviewed by DRB. Response and Findinp-: This issue was brought up at the Planning Commission hearing by the first appellant (Amy Koenig) who had appealed the action by the ZA. The Commission discussed the value and necessity of referring the project back to the Design Review Board (DRB) particularly given that the DRB had recommended approval of a bigger and more massive house on this site. The general consensus among the Commissioners was that the project had been significantly downsized and improved from that initially reviewed by the DRB and approved by the ZA. These revisions are described as follows: • The project has been downsized in terms of total square footage of the residence from 3.206 -sq. ft. to 2.597 -sq. ft. and reduced from three to two stories above the garage, • The project has been moved away from the adjoining residence thereby minimizing its visual impact: • The revised project no longer needs or requests a front or side vard setback Variance, which had as recommended by the DRB and approved by the ZA: and • In order to provide more step back, the residence would need to be shifted forward into the required front yard which would necessitate a front yard setback variance. Given the above discussion, the Planning Commission determined that referring the project back to the DRB was not warranted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby deny the Appeal (AP12-005)and upholds the September 11, 2012 decision of the Planning Commission denying an appeal (AP12-003) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (EDI 1-078) including Waiver with revisions, to allow the demolition of an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family home and construction of a new, 2,597 -sq. ft. new single family home on a 15,161 sq. ft. hillside lot located at 37 7 Perry Walk based on the following findings: FINDINGS — Environmental and Desien Review Permit (ED011-078) The project design for the proposed single family residence, as conditioned below, are in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: A) The project, as designed and conditioned, will be consistent with specific policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, including, but not limited to, Land Use Policies: LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), Housing Policies H-2 (Neighborhood Improvements) and H-8 (Housing Discrimination), Neighborhood Element Policies NH -2 (N", Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -3 (Housing Mix),Community Design Policies CD -3 (Neighborhoods), and CD -15 (Participation in Project Review) in that i. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement specified in Exhibit 7 of the General Plan (LU12); ii. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density and will stay in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 2-6.5 units per acre (LU -23). - iii. The reconstruction of the existing dwelling would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood (1-1-21): iv. The proposed 2,597 sq. ft. (including a 616 sq. ft. basement floor consisting of garage), 3 -bedroom house is consistent with a typical house design; V. The project enhances the neighborhood image and respects existing landforms and natural features (NH -2); vi. The proposed design contributes to a broad range of house size opportunities in the neighborhood (NNl-l-3 )): \ ii. The proposed two-story design is different than the single or two story designs of the neighboring houses but remains consistent xvith Policy CD -3 which allo,.Ns flexibility for innovative design. Further. the proposed larger house as compared to the neighboring residences is in keeping \Nlith the larger size (15.161 sq. ft.) of the subject property as compared to the neighboring lot sizes ranging from 4.396 sq. ft. to 7,5500 sq. ft.: and x iii. The project is consistent \\ ith Policy CD -15 in that public hearing notices were sent to the neighbors and other interested persons prior to the three Design Review 4 Board meetings, the acting Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission hearings for the project. B) The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development pursuant to chapter 14.01.030(I) Title 14 -Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance in that it would be constructed using high quality materials appropriate for the setting as follows: i. Medium warm gray integral stucco ii. Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit iii. Dark anodized aluminum clad wood doors and windows iv. 42" high painted metal guardrails; color to match window cladding V. Ogee gutters with leaf guards vi. Class A composition shingle roofing C) The proposed project design is consistent with the specific purposes of the Residential (R) districts pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the project provides a sensitive hillside design that minimizes grading, and bulk and mass by stepping the three level home into the hillside with the stepbacks provided to respect privacy and to provide open space between the adjacent smaller residential properties. D) The proposed residence complies with the development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height and parking under the R10 zoning district. It also complies with the stepback and natural state criteria for Hillside Overlay (-H) District. E) The project is consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria because: i. Given that the proposed structure would be appropriately stepback consistent with the hillside, the project would have minimal visual impact; ii. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.050.F.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires materials and colors to be consistent with the context of the surrounding area in that the proposed gray stucco, painted fiber cement fascia and soffit, dark anodized aluminum clad wood doors and windows, painted metal guardrails with color to match window cladding, Ogee gutters with leaf guards and Class A composition shingle roofing would blend with other similar features in the neighborhood; ii. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.050.F.6.g. of the Zoning Ordinance which requires shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. A shadow diagram submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird's eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow cast by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. F) The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback. Natural State. Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development. The project is not consistent xvith Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26') wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. However, pursuant to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be wai\ ed or reduced by the hearing body w hen the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. A \N aiver has been requested and approved based on the fact that the size or shape of the lot, or the need for 5 excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. The proposed design provides two covered parking spaces and two non-compliant parking spaces which is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one -bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R10-1-1 parking requirements. 2. The design and construction of the proposed project as conditioned below, minimizes potential project impacts because a) the grading is minimal as proposed; b) the project would not result in significant removal of existing vegetation or significant trees; and c) existing over -excavated areas would be restored to their natural state. 3. The design of the proposed project as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael because: a) The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties; and b) the proposed project does not propose any use or activity that is prohibited in the R10 Zoning District, but is permitted under Section 14.16.140 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby deny the appeal (AP12-005) and upholds the Planning Commission's decision denying the appeal (AP12-005) and approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED11-078), including Waiver from the Hillside parking requirement, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: General and on going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques. materials, elevations, landscaping and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Rud.: Residence -- 3" ferry Walk, San RalM, CA, prepared by Bradanini & Associates received on August 28, 2012 and stamped `approved' on September 11, 2012, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Zoning .Administrator and the Design Review Board. if necessary. 2. This Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception (ED11-078) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or November 19, 2014, and shall become null and Void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension not granted by :November 19, 2014. 3. As indicated on the approx ed plans, the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11- 078) shall allow the demolition of an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family home and construction of a new, 2,597 sq ft new single family home. 4. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted on-site, with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. 5. Construction Hours: Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A, construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site, start up of construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site. 6. On -Site Whtin4: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 7. Archeological Features: In the event that any archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant' can be designated. 8. Occupanev: Prior to the building permit final, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits Communitv DeNclopment Department - Planning Division 9. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporate these conditions of approval. 10. Building permit plans shall include a detailed landscape plan to identify all existing and proposed landscaping. The plan shall also include details of restoration of the disturbed areas to their natural state upgrades to anv previously approved landscape areas that have not been planted per the previously approved plan or are not in a healthy and thriving condition. 11. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the 7 neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 12. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 13. All roof vents shall be located on the rear pitch of the roof. Community Development Department — Buildinv, Division 14. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010 California Residential Code, 2010 California Building Code, 2010 Plumbing Code, 2010 Electrical Code, 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Fire Code, 2010 California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 15. A building permit is required for the proposed work. 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 plane and height of the building) h. Structural Calculations i. Truss Calculations j. Soils reports k. Green Building documentation 1. Title -24 energy documentation 16. 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 �Nith z,- inch stroke for residential occupancies. The address must be contrasting in color to their background SMC 12.12.20. 1?. If proposed fencing exceeds 6' in height. a building permit is required. 18. Anl demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also. application 6i must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. 19. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area, Commercial space is computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 20. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work. 21. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the total square footage of new single family and duplex dwelling projects. New dwellings must comply with the "Green Building Rating System" by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 75 and 200 points. Additionally the energy budget must also be below Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square footage). 22. All new construction, additions or remodels must comply with the Wood -Burning Appliance Ordinance. New wood burning fireplaces and non -EPA certified wood stoves are prohibited. Non -EPA Phase II -certified wood stoves must be removed in remodels and additions which exceed 50% of the existing floor area and include the room the stove is located in. 23. This new building is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Area. The building materials, systems and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction must comply with CBC Chapter 7A. 24. Fire sprinklers will be required for all three story residential units. Separate application by a C-16 contractor is required. 25. As the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building. "The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. 26. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26 -feet. 27. This property is located in a V4"ildland-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 Ordinance 1856 that may be viewed at N,,AN-NN.citvofsanrafael.orf) "fireve�,)etation. or you may contact the Fire Department at (415) 485-5067 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt for any questions or comments. 9 Public Works Department 28. The applicant shall provide an access easement and agreement related to the use of the access stairs located on the property line between the 12 and 37 Perry Walk. 29. The limits of excavation shall be clearly shown on the grading plans. 30. Provide a drainage plan for this development. Indicate where the roof drains are to connect to the existing system and show how the water is deposited in the existing swale located near the roadway. Provide drainage calculations showing that there is no change to the drainage characteristics from the existing configuration on this property. 31. Indicate the existing street utilities on the plans. 32. Building permit plans shall show the existing headwall located at the end of the paved portion of Perry Walk on the plans. 33. Include and make part of the building permit plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention — It"s Part of the Plan" San Rafael Sanitation District 34. The installation of a new lateral is required. Submit Civil/Utility plans that comply with the San Rafael Sanitation District Standard Design Requirements for the District's review and approval. If an existing lateral is proposed to be reused, please submit video tape of the lateral for the District's review and approval. The existing lateral shall be required to comply with the current San Rafael Sanitation District Standard. Marin Municipal Water District 35. Compliance with the District's Water Conservation Ordinance 421 is a condition of water service. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The ordinance requires a landscape plan, an irrigation plan and a grading plan. Any questions regarding this ordinance should be directed to the plan review program manager at (415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the ordinance online at wv�w.marinwatenorg. Prior to Occupancj, Communitv Development Department - Plannin4 Division 36. Prior to the building permit final, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 37. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning DiN ision to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. Communitv Development Department - Building Division 10 38. Prior to occupancy, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 1, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, the 19`" November, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Connolly, Helier, Levine, McCullough& Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ''VS"FHERC.BEIRNE,City Clerk September 1-8, 2012 City ofSan Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division �8|y��P '" �° b^ c7 =".�..°i�.n.'a� CITYOF-- I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission September 11, 2012 in regards to the property at 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael. ED11-078; V11-003. The appeal is made on the following grounds: 1, The proposed design does not comply with the zoning ordinance aswritten. The rule presented and used as the basis of Planning Commission's approval of the plan is not found in the ordinance. 2. The proposed design is substantially different from the original design and some neighbors feel this should bereviewed &yDRB. Listed below are the neighbors who support this appeal that will bepresent tospeak for themselves st the Planning Commission. I would also like to personally invite any and all members of the City Council to contact me if they would like a personal tour of the street and the proposed project site. JoauoeBraumam .` Appellant and aneighbor nf37Perry Walk 17Perry Walk San Rafael, CA949O1 Phone:415-455-�65O iobrauman4pyahonzom Nicighbors and other intere-sted parties -that wish. to be heard: Amy Koenig, l2Perry Walk KeUyCrotve, 7 Perry Walk Bram Druckmanand Monica Ennis, 1Perry Walk Gary and Kay Koyrus,278Bunge!ovv joseZanoom,p;eVousresident, 8Perry VVa!* ATTIA"CHTNIENT 3 3. Building Stepback Limitations on the maximum three dimensional building envelope (see Figures 1 and 2) arc required to avoid excessive building bulk viewed frorn downhill lots and front and street side elevations. a. A building stepback shall be required on the downhill elevation and, all walls facing the front, street side and interior side property lines. b. Downslope /all Height: Maximum allowed height of the downslope wall shall be 20 feet as measured from the. lowest finish grade adjacent to the wall or directly beneath its outermost projection. c. Front and Side Stepback. On walls facing front property lines, the Stepback Zone, includes all areasv;ithin 15 feet of the Maximum Building Envelope limit facing the, front property line. Along side property lines, the Stepback Zone includes all areas within I.' feet of the building envelope limit. I et. Within the Stepback Zone a 20 -foot height limit shall be observed, rricesured frona existing grade. c. Encroachments: To allow for Design flexibility, the following encroachments are: permitted in the Stepback Zone: 1. Street From and Street Side: Along front and street side property lines, an encroachment into the Stepback Zone is permitted along 25% of thebuilding length, 2. interior Si dc: Along interior side property lines, an encroachment into the Stepback Zone is along 25% of the building Jo-rigul. I.P. each of the aboV(; cases, a, partial height building element is permitted as an arclnitecturE r encroachment into t-hc Ste-Pback Zone. See Figures 1, 2 arld 3, following D o. ES M ELP, J P I G fit TE BACK U A ATTACHAMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 12-14 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP12-003) AND UPHOLDING THE ACTING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, AS REVISED, OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 11-078) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 892 -SQ. FT. 2 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,597 -SQ. FT. 2 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ABOVE A BASEMENT; WITH A HILLSIDE PARKING WAIVER TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING SPACES IN THE DRIVEWAY; LOCATED AT 37 PERRY WALK; APN: 013-133-04 WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the applicant submitted a Conceptual Design Review application for expansion of an existing 892 -sq. ft., 2 -story single family reside -nee to 3,825 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2011, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the conceptual design and recommended that rather than expanding the existing residence, it should be rebuilt, the proposed residence size be reduced and the project be in compliance with the parking requirements; and WHEREAS, September 28, 2011, the applicant submitted an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and a Variance to demolish the existing residence and build a 3,415 sq. ft. new single family residence; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the project plans and recommended that the design be amended to better integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials, nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk, shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact, , provide good vehicular circulation and to widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 ) cars, in the driveway; and WHEREAS. on May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the project plans amended in accordance with the Board's comments of February 7, 2012 and recommended approval with 3-1 vote (alternate Serge Fedorov dissenting); and N�J-IEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 153031 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts construction of a single-family home in a residential district: and WHERE -AS on June 6, 2012, acting Zoning Administrator held a duly noticed public hearino., for the project. received input from the applicant and members of the I public, closed the public hearing and continued the hearing to June 7. 2012 for making a Getcrrninati CF ? the project; and ATTACHMENT 5 1 WHEREAS, on June 7, 2012, the acting Zoning Administrator approved the project subject to conditions of approval; WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, within the statutorily appeal period, an adjacent neighbor at 12 Perry Walk filed a timely appeal of the acting Zoning Administrator's decision, citing eight specific points of appeal; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing to consider the appeal (AP12-003) and accepted the written report of the Community Development Department staff and all oral and written public testimony- and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission expressed that the project was a large house that needed more stepback, should not require setback variances and should comply with the hillside parking requirements for two additional guest parking spaces with onsite circulation; and WHEREAS, at the end of the July 24, 2012, public hearing, on a motion moved by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Robertson, the Commission continued this project to September 11, 2012 with a 4-0-2 vote (Commissioners Sonnet and Wise *absent) and directed the applicant to come back with a revised project addressing the Commission's concerns; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2012, the applicant submitted significantly revised project plans addressing the Commission's comments provided at the July 24, 2012, public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2012, the San Rafael Planning Commission held the continued public hearing to consider the appeal (AP12-003) and the revisions to the project based on Commission's previous direction and accepted the written report of the Community Development Department staff and all oral and written public testimony; and WHEREFAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED. that the Planning Commission hereby denies the Appeal (AP12-003) and upholds the June 7, 2012 decision of the acting Zoning Administrator, as modified by the project plans submitted on August 28, 2012, conditionally approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-078) to allow the demolition of an cxistin.,z single family I -Ionic and construction of a new, 2.597 sq ft neNN, single family borne on a 15,161 sq. ft. hillside lot located at 37 Perry Walk. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons; 2 Appeal Point #I: "Thefinding that the project enhances the neighborhood 1huage and respects existing laud forms and natural features (NH -2) is inaccurateee " * Response and Finding: The existing development on Perry Walk consists of generally older houses. The existing house on the subject property and the adjoining house have zero front yard setbacks and substandard side yard setbacks. The third house on the same side of the block also has substandard front and side yard setbacks. Two of the houses located on Perry Walk have no onsite parking. The other four houses (including the subject property) have only non -complaint parking in terms of number of parking spaces and driveway length. Staff believes the demolition of the existing old house, restoration of the illegally graded site and rebuilding of a new house would physically enhance the neighborhood. The proposed house would provide two onsite parking spaces in the garage and two non-compliant parking spaces in the driveway. Further, the proposed design respects the existing topography (landform) by following it uphill as it steps back. The proposed design also strives to save a maximum number of existing trees. Appeal Point # 2. The finding that the proposed larger size of the house as compared to neighboring houses is in keeping with the larger size of the lot is inaccurate. If the larger size of the lot is to be a deciding influence there would, not be a need for front and side setback variances. The entire space of the lot would be used to conform with front and side setback requirements. The meed for variances supports the argument that the house is simply too massive for the neighborhood and lot. The Variances are being requested to accommodate a huge house that is out of scale with immediate surrounding development. Response and Finding: A total of seven lots are located on Perry Walk. The subject property is approximately 15,161 sq. ft in size and proposes a house size of 2,597 sq. ft. The other six lots range in size from 4,396 to 7,500 sq. ft. and contain homes with an average size of 1,200 sq. ft. The subject property being a larger lot is capable of accommodating proportionately larger development size. Furthermore, the proposed house size of 2,597 sq. ft. is below the 4,016 sq ft maximum gross building square footage limit established for a lot of this size by the Hillside Guidelines. The revised plans do not require front and side setback variances. The requirement for an Exception from the hillside parking standards for two onsite guest parking spaces is necessitated not by the size of the house but by the consideration to minimize grading as directed by Hillside Residential Design Guidelines (Section IV.A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage). ). Even if the project completely eliminated the upper floor that contains all the (three) bedrooms, it would still need an Exception either from the hillside parking standards for two onsite guest parking spaces. or an Exception from the Natural State requirement which would be the result of too much grading, into the hillside, The Hillside Design Guidelines encourage grading to be minimized. Rebuilding of any of the other houses on Perry Walk would need similar 3 The proposed project has been reduced from 3 storys above the basement to 2 storys and from 3,206 to 2,597 sq. footage. The design modification has resulted in the proposed house being smaller than the one discussed, reviewed and recommended by the DRB for approval. Appeal Point # 3. The proposed project is detrimental to my property (12 Percy Walk) due to the looming presence and impact of light. The shadow diagram clearly shows the impact the building would have on light on my property. The staff finding that this would not impact my horde is inaccurate as it compares the blockage of sunlight from a building within feet of my property to shading from the trees over 1,000feel'away with space betweeid the bmaches allowingfillered light. Response and Finding: The proposed project has been revised to move the proposed house away from the existing house at 12 Perry Walk and to eliminate the top floor. According to Section 14,25.050.F.6.g. of the Zoning Ordinance, shading of active recreational areas in the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties should generally not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area or increase existing shading by more than ten percent (10%) between the hours of noon and three p.m. (3:00 p.m.) on December 21 due to the proposed upper story construction. Applications which cannot meet this design criterion shall demonstrate that every feasible effort has been made to reduce the shading impacts of the proposed structure and that a reasonable upper -story addition which complies with this 'design criterion is not feasible. The project plans contain a shadow diagram depicting the shadow cast by the existing house at 37 Perry Walk (Sheet C4 of the plans reviewed by the Commission on July 24, 2012) and a shadow diagram depicting shading by the proposed new structure (Sheet A3). Diagram on the Sheet C4 demonstrates that most of the building at 12 Perry Walk is currently shaded by the existing house. The proposed house (Sheet A3) would result in generally more shading of the rear yard of the house at 12 Perry Walk. However, as demonstrated by the shadow picture attached to the staff report,- the subject property, the appellant's property at 12 Perry Walk and some other properties located on Perry Walk are already in shade due to the high hill to the west of the property and due to the trees located on the subject property and further uphill. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shading any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. The existing dwelling proposed to be demolished and the adjoining residence at 12 Perry Walk are located side by side with approximately 5 feet between them. The proposed residence has been moved at an angle with the closest point of the upper story portion being approximately 14 feet from the residence at 12 Perry, Walk, would be set back toward the rear approximately 35 5 feet from the front of the 12 Perry Walk structure and stepped back reducing the bulk impact. The new building side facing the side of the residence at 12 Perry Walk would have a stepback height of 19 ft. thereby reducing the bulk impact. E-1-cito the steep uphill slope'. of tl=e prooz-ftv and termination of Perry Wa11,.'s pat'; I portion here. the only vvay to locate the new residence away from the existim-, 4 residence at 12 Perry Walk would be to push it back and to the south requiring excessive grading into the hillside. These issues were discussed and reviewed by the DRB and the project as designed, and recommended for approval has now been amended to move away from the appellant's property and to eliminate the top floor. Based on the above discussion, the proposed building would not have a looming presence on the property at 12 Perry Walk. Appeal Point # 4. The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of parking requirements. Perry Walk is a substandard street with extremely limited parking. It is unlike any street I have ever seen- hence its name — Perry "Walk". To allow a 3,400 sq. ft. (actually 3,206 sq. ft) home with six bedrooms without meeting the parking requirement again suggests that the home is too large for the neighborhood and grants this homeowner a privilege that would not and could not (because of lot size and hillside) be allowed others in the vicinity of the project. Response and Findim4: The proposed project has been downsized from the approved from 3 -story to 2 -story above the basement and from 3,206 sq. ft. to 2,597 sq. ft. size. Additionally, the project has been revised so as to comply with the setback requirements. However, the project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. Pursuant to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. The shape of the lot and the need for excessive grading and tree removal make the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. The proposed project would provide a natural state of 12,981 sq. ft. where 12,128 sq. ft. is required. The difference between the required and proposed natural state being only 853 sq. ft., even a house without the currently proposed upper floor which contains all the three bedrooms only, would need an exception from the hillside parking requirements (or an Exception from the Natural State requirement, which is discouraged to minimize grading). The proposed design provides two covered and two non-compliant parking spaces which is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one -bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R1 0 -H parking requirements. Both the DRB and ZA found that alloNving the 2 guest parking spaces to be counted within the driveway was appropriate given the additional grading and cutting of the property that would be required to push the structure back further. The provision of the proposed parking would be a great improvement over the existing situation of no onsite parking of Ji-Iadequate parldiag, on all otLher propeftics on Perr-y VV 5 Clearly, future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need a similar exception from the hillside parking requirements. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a similar parking reduction. Until there is project application for any of the other properties, it cannot be known whether such a parking exception would be approved or not for those properties. Those applications would be evaluated based on the facts in place for that property and whether the required findings can be made for such a reduction. Appeal Point # 5. The finding that the variances will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which such property is located is inaccurate. Other homes on Perly Malk have existing since the 1960's and would not be allowed to rebuild to the extent of the subject property as they would never he able to ineet City requirements for stepbacks, side and fi-ont setbacks or parking requires. Unless this project is to establish the rules for this nei,-hborhood gj��Lns forward. If this is to be the case then there will be as meed for significant street and parkin changes to Perly Walk as it exists today. Response and Finding: The revised project design eliminates the need for any setback variances. Future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need similar exceptions. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a similar parking exception. For approval of a parking exception, the property needs to meet certain criteria of hardship or infeasibility. Whether parking exceptions for future projects on other properties would be approved or not, would depend on an actual project application and demonstration of compliance with the required criteria, and demonstration that the required findings can be made to grant such an exception. Appeal Point # 6. Traffic and safety concerns are a serious issue on Perry Walk. The iircreased traffic caused by a six bedroom home is a real concern to all residents of the street. One needs only to visit Perry Walk in person to understand the validity of this iters. Response and Finding: Perry Walk is a substandard street. In addition to the vehicles entering or leaving the street, Perry Walk is mainly used for parking by most of the c -V .-isting properties that do not currently have off-street parking. The subject project has been downsized from a 6 -bedroom house to a 3 -bedroom house and would not impact the existing street parking because the subject property would have two parking, spaces in the garage and the ability to park two vehicles in the driveway, Appezi Point # 7. Tile pi-oposedproject is htcoinpatibL- yvith the nekhborhood. The 4,pical house size h,- h`te AaeIgZ:bor.wcd is less Man 1.200 sq. A The erected stoly poles confirin that the proposed building will he i;-iassive in size compared to the rest of the neighborhood and sigizifl licanth'­, after the i1eighborhood feel of small Z:oil�.2s, halLe p4reviovShp fai- vara fio­� 1-0:7-ef duarhow clarl y, days of th-- q1-:ahn, 1121 zPi Orb 6 Ga?. 6 Response and Finding: The lot sizes of the other six properties on Perry Walk range from 4,396 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. As stated by the appellant, typical house size on these lots is 1,200 sq. ft. Both staff and the DRB found that the proposed 3,206 sq. ft. house -which has now been to 2,597 sq. &, located on a 15,161 sq. ft. hillside lot is compatible with the lot size and the neighborhood. The proposed structure was also found to be adequately stepped up the hillside to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk as viewed from downhill (Perry Walk). The revised plans propose better stepback and smaller bulk. The house would have a modest size living/dining/kitchen area and would not contain any office or media rooms. Appeal Point # S. Demolition of the existing house allows for a "blank slate` where anything can be built. A new home allows for compatibility with the neighborhood and a home that can be built without requiring vaiiances or requiring privileges that would not he given to other properties in the vicinity. Response and Findim4: The City encourages maintenance of, and improvements to, private properties. This is a rebuilding project. Over the last few decades the house sizes have evolved to larger sizes due to the changing family needs, e.g. one bedroom for every child. The proposed house with three bedrooms reflects that change. However, the revised plans identify a house with modest size living/dining room, two bedrooms with 132 sq. ft. and 143 sq. ft. each and the master bedroom with 192 sq. ft. There is no 'media' room or offices -which are generally used to justify a larger size house. The revised design for the house would comply with the required setbacks, requiring no variances. The granting of the Exception is necessitated by the requirement for minimizing grading. Even if the proposed house eliminated the entire upper floor thereby eliminating all the three bedrooms, the proposed project on this property and other properties on Perry Walk would need parking Exception in order to minimize grading. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission denies the appeal (AP12-003) upholding the acting Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental C) and Design Review Permit (ED 11-078), based on the Commission review and comments on July 24 and revisions to address the Commission's comments in the revised plans and the following findings: FINDINGS — Environmental and npQiu n Review -Permit (ED011-0781 The proposed design of the roof modification, as conditioned below. are in accordance with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of Title 14 of the San Rafael Munieipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance (Enviromnewal andDesign Revieiv Perinits), in that: yk) The project, as designed and conditioned, will be consistent with specific policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, including, but not limited to,Land Use Policies: LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (land Use ltlap and Categories), U Housing -Policies 1,1-2` (Neighbol-h-00d Iiilpl'ovelnef-71s) all' 1-1-0 (PIO;Isiii,, Diserhiiination), Neighborhood Element Policies INH -2 (New Developinent i1i 7 Residential Neighborhoods), NH -3 (Housing Mix),Community Design Policies CCP -3 (Neighborhoods), and CD -15 (Participation in Project Review) in that i. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement specified in Exhibit 7 of the General Plan (LU 12); ii. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density and will stay in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 2-6.5 units per acre (LU -23); iii. The reconstruction of the existing, dwelling would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood (H-2); iv. The proposed 2,597 sq. ft. (including a 616 sq. ft. basement floor consisting of garage), 3 -bedroom house is consistent with a typical house design; V. The project enhances the neighborhood image and respects existing landforms and natural features (NH -2); vi. The proposed design contributes to a broad range of house size opportunities in the neighborhood (NH -3); vii. The proposed two-story design is different than the single or two story designs of the neighboring houses but remains consistent with Policy CD -3 which allows flexibility for innovative design. Further, the proposed larger house as compared to the neighboring residences is in keeping with the larger size (15,161 sq. ft.) of the subject property as compared to the neighboring lot sizes ranging from 4,396 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft.; and viii. The project is consistent with Policy CD -15 in that public bearing notices were sent to the neighbors and other interested persons prior to the three Design Review Board meetings, the acting Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission hearings for the project. B) The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development pursuant to chapter 14.01.030(1) Title 14 - Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance in that it would be constructed using high quality materials appropriate for the setting as follows: i. Medium warm gray integral stucco ii. Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit iii. Dark anodized aluminum clad wood doors and windows iv. 42" high painted metal guardrails, color to match window cladding V. Ogee gutters with leaf guards vi, Class A composition shingle roofing Q The proposed project design is consistent with the specific purposes of the Residential (R) districts pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the project provides a sensitive hillside design that minimizes grading, and bulk and mass by stepping the three level home into the hillside with the stepbacks provided to respect privacy and to provide open space bet',veen the adjacent smaller residential properties. M D) The proposed residence complies with the development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height and parking tinder the RIO zoning district. It also complies with the stepback and natural state criteria for Hillside Overlay (-H.) District. E) The project is consistent with Chapter 25 - Design Review Criteria because: i. Given that the proposed structure would be appropriately stepback consistent with the hillside, the project would have minimal visual impact; ii. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.050.F.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires materials and colors to be consistent with the context of the surrounding area in thattheproposed -ray stucco, painted fiber cement fascia and soffit, dark anodized aluminum clad wood doors and windows, painted metal guardrails with color to match window cladding, Ogee gutters with leaf guards and Class A composition shingle roofing would blend with other similar features in the neighborhood; ii. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.050.F.6,g, of the Zoning Ordinance which requires shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. A shadow diagrarn submitted for this project identifies the proposed project would shade a portion of the northerly adjoining property at 3:00 p.m. on December 21. However, checking the bird's eye view of the area on the GIS reveals that almost the entire adjoining property would be in shadow ca ' st by numerous uphill trees. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. F) The project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development, The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms, of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26) wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. However, pursuant to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. A waiver has been requested and approved based on the fact that the size or shape of the lot, or the need excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. The proposed design provides two covered parking spaces and two non-compliant parking spaces Nx-hich is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one -bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R10-11 parking requirements. The design and construction of the proposed project as conditioned below. minimizes potential project impacts because a) the grading is minimal as proposed; b) the project wo-Ulld not. icsult In sigIiii-Fica-nt remowd of cxiistiii;,� veaetom-ln Or si,ynificai-it fii-ces: and c) existing over -excavated areas would be restored to their natural state. 9 J. The design of the proposed project as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety; or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael because: a) The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties; and b) the proposed project does not propose any use or activity that is prohibited in the RIO Zoning District, but is permitted under Section 14.16.140 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael reaffirms the acting Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit with the revised plans and subject to the following conditions of approval: Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques, materials, elevations, landscaping and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Ruiz Residence — 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA, prepared by Bradanini & Associates received on August 28, 2012 and stamped 'approved' on September 11, 2012, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. 2. This Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception (ED 11-078) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or September 1.1, 20141, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension not granted by September 11, 2014. I As indicated on the approved plans, the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 11-070') shall allow a 616 sq. ft. basement floor (including a, 2 -car garage), 1,000 sq. ft. first floor and 981 sq. ft. second floor. J. -in i Contractor Contact Information Postina.: Prior to the issuance of building permits. ei ts. the 1 project site shall be posted on-site, VY11011 the nannc and 04 contact number ' t It I the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. Construction Hours: Consistept vait-h the City oj-'Stn Rafael_ -Alunicip--n! Code Scctic)n 8.13.050A construction hours s.hall he 11-1-n-ited to 7:00 a.-_rn. to 6:00 p.m. -TWond-ty through Friday and 9:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m, on Saturdays. Construction shall not be 10 permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site, start up of construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site. 6. On -Site Light , On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties jM and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 7. Archeoloiaical Features: In the event that any archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or cult ' urally modified soil deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading, scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant" can be designated. 8. Occunancv: Prior to the building permit final, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. Prior to the iswsuance of Building Permits Community ommunity Development Dmartment - PlanninQ Division 9. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporate these conditions of approval. 10. Building permit plans shall include a detailed landscape plan to identify all existing and proposed landscaping. The plan shall also include details of restoration of the disturbed areas to their natural state upgrades to any previously approved landscape areas that have not been planted per the previously approved plan or are not in a healthy and thriving condition. 11 . To erasure odequate cin"u'lation. parlf;apd! P -c' , n kL acce_ss foir einCroene-y -%-h lez tie neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval before Building Permit submittal. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 12. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division. 13. All roof vents shall be located on the rear pitch of the roof. Communitv Development Department - BuildinLy Division 14. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2010 California Residential Code, 2010 California Building Code, 2010 Plumbing Code, 2010 Electrical Code, 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Fire Code, 2010 California Energy Code, 2008 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 15. A building permit is required for the proposed work. 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 plane and height of the building) It. Structural Calculations i. Truss Calculations j. Soils reports k. Green Building documentation 1. Title -24 energy documentation 16. 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. The address must be contrasting in color to their back�rouncl 2 S 1 , C 1 -1 2 U_ — - -A20. 12 17. If proposed fencing exceeds 6' in height, a building permit is required. IS. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. 19. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area, Commercial space is computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 20. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work. 21. This project is subject to the City of San Rafael Green Building Ordinance. A sliding scale is applied based on the total square footage of new single family and duplex dwelling projects. New dwellings must comply with the "Green Building Rating System" by showing a minimum compliance threshold between 75 and 200 points. Additionally the energy budget must also be below Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards a minimum 15% up to net zero energy (sliding scale based on square footage). 22. All new construction, additions or remodels must comply with the Wood -Burning Appliance Ordinance. New wood burning fireplaces and non -EPA certified wood stoves are prohibited. Non -EPA Phase II -certified wood stoves must be removed in remodels and additions which: exceed 50% of the existing floor area and include the room the stove is located in, 23. This new building is located in a Wildland-Urban interface Area. The building materials. systems and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction must comply Nvith CBC Chapter 7A. 24. Fire sprinklers will be required for all three store residential units. Separate application by a C-16 contractor is required. --I - D - 111 ii i n ae-ri-11 --paratuts access io - ay is 25. 2:'-s �ho building i.s: over 30 fleet 'n I- i '10pa- t� gblf. a- ad w, required parallel to one entire side of the building. The Aerial apparatus access 13 roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. I 26. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26 -feet. 217. This property is 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 Ordinance 1856 that may be viewed at w-",w.citvofsanrafael.ori/firevcQetatioji, or you may contact the Fire Department at (415) 485-5067 and talk to Deputy Fire Marshal John Lippitt for any questions of comments. Public Works De-oartment 28. The applicant shall provide an access easement and agreement related to .the use of the access stairs located on the property line between the 12 and 37 Perry Walk. 29. The limits of excavation shall be clearly shown on the grading plans. 30. Provide a drainage plan for this development. 'Indicate where the roof drains are to connect to the existing system and show how the water is deposited in the existing swale located near the roadway. Provide drainage calculations showing that there is no change to the drainage characteristics from the existing configuration on this property. 31. Indicate the existing street utilities on the plans. 32. Building permit plans shall show the existing headwall located at the end of the paved portion of Perry Walk on the plans. 33. and make part of the building permit plans, the sheet noted "Pollution Prevention — It's Part of the Plan" San Rafael Sanitation District 34. The installation of a new lateral is required. Submit Civil/Utility plans that comply with the San Rafael Sanitation District Standard Design Requirements for the District's review and approval, if an existing lateral is proposed to be reused, please submit video tape of the lateral for the Disfrict*s review and approval. The existing lateral shall be required to comply with the current San Rafael Sanitation District Standard. AX arI'V' nicioa' Water—istric- 35. Compliance �,vith the District's Water Conservation Ordinance 421 is a condition of -water service. Plans shall be submitted, and rcvlewed to confirm compliance. The ordinance ltrii resa i A an po I dsca--Aarii, a---- i—igation -pjai-, aind a gr,,A-inig pian. ques' A ti} 0 1 I—Lions res I �ard-hia this ordinance should b,2 L Lif� plait ievievv, program 14 manager at (415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the ordinance online at www.marinwatenm. Gmz�,� Community Development Department - Planning Division, 36. Prior to the building permit final, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 37. All exterior 'lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and Planning Division to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. 1 Community Development Department - Building Division, 38. Prior to occupancy, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on September 11, 2012. Moved by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Pick, Robertson, Schaefer, Chair Wise NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Paul ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Colin SAN RAFAEL PJ,ANNING COMMISSION Uri ATTEST: BY: Paul A. Jensen, Secretary Viktor iya Wi se-,-Chai-r 15 ""° K0eetm0Owte: September 11.2O12 Agenda Item: CnmmundyOovuupmantDepmrtment-P|enninQDiviaion Case Numbers: AP12-003 P.O.Box 151580.San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415)4O5-30858FAX:(415)485-3184 Project Planner: SojitDho|iwa|-(415)485-33Q7 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk - Appeal Of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to demolish an existing 892-oq. ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct m new 3.208-aq. ft. 3 -story single family residence above a basement; Exception to provide the required guest parking spaces inthe driveway; and Variance to encroach 20 feet into the required 204t. front yard setback and to encroach 10 feet into the n8qUi[8d 10 -ft. side ygnj setback and to construct 8 retaining vv8|| over 4 -ft. high for access eLepe. located on g 15.161+aq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.096 slope; APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz. owner; James Bradanini. applicant; appellants, Amy Koenig and Joanne Bnauman; Case File Nos.: E[)11-O78;V11-003(Continued from July 24.2O12\ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project proposes to replace an existing 884 sq ft single family home with @ new 2.597 Sq ft, 2 -story single family home. Additionally, the project requests an Exception to @UOw the required guest parking spaces to be located in the driveway. The project is subject to an Environmental and Design Review Permit 8tthe Zoning Administrator level as it proposes @ new multi story single family home in 8 hillside area. An appeal of the acting Zoning Administrator's 8pp[OVG| of the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission OOJuly 24.2O12.Although the Commission generally agreed that the project 8pD|iC@Dthad complied with the directions provided by the Design Review Board, some C000iSSi0DenS expressed concerns with the project nO@GSing' stepb8Ck8' setback variance (the variance request has since been dropped) and inadequate parking design for the hillside property. Therefore, the Commission continued this project tOSepte0b8[11'2O128Oddir8[tedthe@pp|iC8DttOcV08bGCkVVithadesignth8tGddreSSed those concerns. The applicant has since revised the project BOdneiOc@tedtheneSideOcefUrtherbgckOO to the property and gvv8y from the appellant's property thereby eliminating the Deed for setback V@riGnceS, reduced its Size from 3.208 sq. ft. LO 2'597 Sq. ft. and from the Six bednDO0S to three bedrooms, and reduced its bulk byremoving the top floor. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that with the significantly redesigned project, thepOiDtSOftheGppe@|C8ODOtbe supported. Most Ofthe concerns expressed bvthe CO00iGsiUO and igSUeS raised by the appeal have been addressed adequately. The revised project now CVD\p|ieS with all the development standards required for the R10 Zoning District. All setback variance requests have been eliminated through the redesign. The revised project also CoDlp|ieSwith the Hillside [)me[|@y OiStri[t, with the exception of the guest parking PequiDeD18O[ Findings to grant an Exception have been D08de. based on the topography and Size of the property. In order to minimize grading, even @ 2-b8dn3Orn house on the subject property vvOU|d need the granted Exception. If this Exception is not kTTAC N,T 6 REPORT TOPLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: EDI 1-078, V1 1-003 Page 2 granted, the projectVvou|dDeedb]b8pUGhedb3chfUrthe[iDtVtheateeohi|lskje'Lhe[ehvreqUihOgDOO[e grading and an Exception from the Natural State requirement to be reviewed by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt m Resolution denying the Appeal (AP12-003) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project with tho project revisions. BACKGROUND On June 21.2O11`the Design Review Board reviewed aconceptual design for the expansion ofthe existing residence to 3.825 aq. ft. The Board recommended that the applicant should consider rebuilding the houoe, reduce its size and provide the required parking. On February 7. 2012. the Design Review Board reviewed on Environmental and Design Review Permit for demolition of the existing residence and the COOSt[uCtiOD of 8 new 3'415 Sq. ft. single family residence. The Board [8c00nleOded that the project be moved 8vv8y from the adjacent residence at 12 Perry VV8|h' reduce its bulk iDDp@Ct' vvid9D the driveway to 27 feet in order to park 3 cars in the driveway. On May 8, 2012' the Design Review Board reviewed the revised project. The Board recommended approval of the project. Based on o review of the project by staff and the Board's recommendation, on June 7. 2012. the acting Zoning /\dnniDiS[r8tOr approved the project with cVDdiUODS. K8iOUt8S from this meeting outlining the pruoeedings, findings for mpprnva|, and conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit 4 to the attached July 24,2D12Planning Commission report. C)nJune 13m.8Dappeal nfthe acting ZA'Sdecision was filed by an adi8C8O[ neighbor which was reviewed by the P|8DDiOg CO0DliSGiVO OD July 24, 2012. The {}V0[DiSSiOD generally agreed that the project applicant had complied with the directions provided by the Design Review Board. However, two Commissioners expressed several concerns about the project, vVh8[e8s the other two CO00iSSiODe[S believed the appeal had no O0e[iL With only four CO000issiOOe[S present. the Commission was unable to pGeo a motion either way to grant the appeal ordeny the appeal. Therefore, the COmn1iGSiOO decided LO continue the project and provided some comments. Although there was no clear consensus 8OlOOg the COnnDliSSiOO over the COnc8[OS' issues expressed by individual Commissioners were that: * Upper floors of the structure could be slid back, thereby reducing the building bulk; w The structure was well articulated but stepping back not ideal; and • Setback variance and Exception from hillside parking requirement were a concern. The[efVre, OO 8 motion moved bvCommissioner Pick and seconded bvCommissioner Robertson, the Commission continued this project tO8eohs0ber11,2O12with84-O-2vUte(CVDlO0iSSione[S8ODnEt8Dd Wise absent) and directed the applicant to come back with a design that addressed those concerns. With the CU[neDt eveteO0 for video recording the public hearings/meetings, OO VV[hteO OliDUteS are available for this Planning {}OnnrOiSSiOO meeting. However, the entire proceedings of the meeting can be viewed at www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinqs. Updated Project Description Pursuant tOthe Planning COnoDli8SiOD direction, the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing the P|8DOiDg CoDlD1iSSiOO CQDDe[D5, except COnlp|i8ODe with the hillside parking requirements. The updated project description i6 GuDlOD8[iZed as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 • The project size has been reduced from 3,206 sq. ft. to 2,597 sq. ft. and from six bedrooms to three bedrooms thereby eliminating project size oonm3rna. • The building bulk has been reduced from three floors above the garage hztwo floors above the garage. ° The projecth@SbeBD00vedfUrthe[OntotheprOperiy8DdSidBVV8y5therebye|i0in@ting[heOeed for front and side setback variances. ^ Building materials and colors have been changed to match other residences on Perry Walk. * More landscaping has been proposed with the revised design. Appeal Issues: ' |ieeu��vveneaddn�ae�dinth�ath�chedJuk` /�4 2O12 Planning Cornrn�aionstaff naporLVVhhthe /�p��8 . ` deo�nrevsedinscope and eb��.the iouspoints addressing the �oueaaUUmpo�. At pthe roject JU� �- hearing, the Commission generally agreed that the project applicant had Complied with the directions provided by the Design Review Board. However, the ConorniaaiOn expressed several concerns about the project, although there was DO clear consensus @DloOg the C0nlDliSSiOD over the CODQenlS. The applicant has revised the proposed project to oddnaea the issues expressed by individual Commissioners. Foran easy comparison between the original and revised pl@no, staff had requested the applicant to compare the proposed changes alongside the plans reviewed by the Commission on July 24. The applicant could not provide the requested DoDlp@hsVOS. However, 8 copy of the pr8ViOUS p|@OS from July 24 meeting have been included in the CoD101is8iOO packet. The P|8OOiDg Co[ODliGsiOD comments from the July 24 meeting are provided below in bold and are followed by a staff response as Planning Commission comment #1: The proposed house is large- The structure is well articulated, but the step back can be improved and the upper floors slid back. Staff Response: The proposed house size has now been reduced from 3.206 eq. ft. (including 680 Sq. ft. basement) to 2'587 aq. ft. (including 616 Sq. ft. basement); and from a 3 -story above the basement to 8 2 -story above the basement. This change has resulted in reduction of the building bulk and a 19-t. Stepb8Chheight` m/hB[G204t. height is allowed. The current proposal provides 8 natural state of 12'881 Sq. ft, where 12.128 sq. ft. is required. Sliding the upper f|O0[ further back for GD increased Stepb8Ck vvOU\d result in further reduction of O8tUng| state. Staff believes 8|inliD8ti0D of the entire top f|OD[ and reduction in square footage respond to the C0nO[niSSi0n's COOce[D regarding the building size and StBpb8ck. Planning Commission comment #2: The proposed project needs to comply with the setback Staff Response: The proposed projecthas been revised to push the structure back and sideways OD b]the property and therefore, does not require any setback variances. Planning Commission comment #3: The new house mhmmbd comply with the hillside parking requirements where two onsite guest parking spaces are required. Staff Response: The proposed project has been pushed back On to the property Sn it does not require any setback variances. HDVYeve[, it still CGODOt comply with the hillside parking r8qUiPenlBDt DeC8VS8: � The current project provides a natural state of 12.981 sq. ft. vvheF8 12.128 Sq. ft. is required. In order to be able to comply with the hillside requirement for two additional parking Sp8C8s with REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDI 1-078, V11-003 Page 4 onsite circulation, the project would need to be significantly pushed back on to the property, resulting in significant reduction in the natural state. The City policy discourages significant hillside grading and therefore, an Exception to the natural state requirement needs to be reviewed by the City Council. Findings for the revised project have been updated by deleting the findings for the approval of front and side setback variances. Similarly, the conditions of approval have been revised to reflect the reduced project size and a condition requiring the relocation of access steps, located on the property line shared with 12 Perry Walk, on to the subject property has been deleted. n9=0 21 The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Srnafl Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. If the Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. Notices of all meetings and hearings for the project were conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. For the July 24, 2012, a Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to appellants, all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and the Picnic Valley Neighborhood Association, and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Since the project was continued to date specific (September 11, 2012), new public notice was not mailed. However, the posted notice on the subject site for the July 24 hearing was renewed to reflect the September 11, 2012 hearing. Since the July 24, 2012 Commission hearing, staff has not received any phone calls or written correspondence regarding this project. The revised plans have been provided to the appellants. The appellant's concerns are discussed in the Appeal Issues and Analysis section of the attached July 24, 2012, staff report. All letters received for this project from the conceptual design review stage through the July 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting have been included in the July 24 staff report. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project with modifications (staff recommendation). 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with further modifications. changes or additional conditions of approval. I Continue the appeal hearing to allow the applicant/appellant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution with findings for denial. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 5 2. Draft Resolutmon GIS Pisture of the Area Showing Shadowipg imam z LWI 2- LIJ cis n Cy LIJ K cp V A 1-4 -'ITT fllt- L Lwi LO CD 4" " ----j Z' ej) — 0 IV C LUA 00 00 A 1611 CIO 2 >- w < w Lb :E F- M -ro 0 co a 1-J- c 0 rx, U - 0 q L� <( LA co A > uw CO Z— 0 LAI 111 oi Z 60 `(p® X Qr) uj LL LL -1 W 0 A (D Ln <( V A 1-4 -'ITT fllt- L E: LO CD 4" " w Z' ej) — 0 IV C LUA 00 1611 CIO 10 Lb t X. F- -ro LL. co V A 1-4 -'ITT fllt- L E: (1-1 4" " w —71r- 81 -cj JJ LUA too 1611 CIO Lb t X. F- LL. 0 a 1-J- c 0 rx, U - q V A 1-4 -'ITT fllt- L (1-1 —71r- L JJ E'er- ' too 1611 V A 1-4 -'ITT fllt- L (1-1 L JJ Lb LL. CA!cr: a 1-J- c 0 rx, U - E 7xt .i 1 :1 `t ,!t i a-�G' S `' �-` ' , i tel`}'~aYy \• '-.,..-_ {t .�'k.,. _ j / 1,` i I " Y-� GC/ LL Lur"^. '"lei e�* + U ,! 'y" J....— ..-`-^�-- -�\. \ "\ '•. ```�.. ED lij l l 1\ 03 Ry,-'+���-y VJ ul I �' O./ C� \' J .. ti i € '�' `: e�rY _ .: �;.•� \„ �i �J - y _ Lam'/'r, �k_ F_;44 Udv LL elf CL Ll Lu W CD Co el IV— a i (ip,F �>-' •? ,_ _ q e u~` 4 f t_ - r _ z 0 1 I L fY `r Lij �) NV c� ',`\}�\ E �I ,%"•ft \ S\.S\� � � ' � �=ax"� rte:.';' @� A .r L_- al LUrte{ .F Ll �r �-_H dry r..a, r� „ CO 0 _ I IV r W -) r CO o 0- co 0 X: -a 0- .2 0cn F3 -0 L5 c 0 co Q 0 CL .0 Co-, (7 - in cn CO 0- E > Go 0 C -j C,- > -2 0) CD C, 0 177� C., CITY OF Meeting Date: Jul 24.2O13 Agenda Item: Community Development Department - Planning Division Case Numbers: AP12-003 P.O.Box 1515GO.San Rafael, CA 94915-1580 PHONE: (415)485-3085/FAX:(415)485-3184 Project Planner: SarjitDho|kma|-(416)495-33S7 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 37 Perry Walk -Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit to demolish an existing . ft. single family residence and construct a new 3.200-aq. ft. 3 -story single family residence above a basement; Exception to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway; and Variance to encroach 20 feet into the required 204f. front yard setback and to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 -ft. Side yard setback and to construct u retaining vva|| over 4-K. high for access steps, located on a 15.161+eq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0Y6 slope; APN: 013-138-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz. owner; James Bradan\ni, applicant; appellants, /\nny Koenig and Joanne Braurnan; Case File Noe.: E[}11 -078;V11-003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project proposes to replace an exiting 884 sq ft single family home with @ new 3.2O8 sq ft. three story single family home. /\dditionoUy, the project requests an Exception to allow the required guest parking spaces to be located in the driveway and Variances to allow 0 -foot setbacks at the front and side property lines, where 20 feat and 10 feet are required respectively. The project is subject to an EOVinDOnOeOt@| and Design Review Permit at the Zoning AdDliOiStF8tO[ |eV9| as it pnJpOSeS 8 new OlU(d story single family hU08 in a hillside area. This project vvaareviavvedonthreeoocaaionabytheDeeignRevievvBomnd(ORB).onceaeaConueotua| application and twice GS a fO[nl8| project. The DRB ultimately recommended approval of the project design OD May 8. 2012. On June 7' 2012. the Zoning Administrator conducted 8 public hearing, @CCe[tiDA the public testimony and DRB reC000eOd8tiOO and ultimately COndiU0D8||y approved the Environmental and Design Review Permit, Exception and Variances for the project. On June 13m' an appeal of the ZA`S decision was filed by an adi8C8Ot neighbor. Therefore, the appeal and the project hGvebeenfOnm@PdedtV[heCo00iSSiOnfo[CODSider@dDD8Od@[tiOD.The appeal cites 8 points Of appeal which primarily raise COOCe[O with the large size Of the home, shading impact, incompatibly with the Gu[[UUDdiOg homes, p8rhiOQ/i[affiC impacts, approval V8[i@DceS granting special privileges. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that the points Ofthe appeal cannot be supported. All the issues raised by the appeal were adequately and [hn[OUQh|y considered and reviewed by the [)RB and ZA. The project complies with nearly all the development standards required for the R10 Zoning District and the Hillside Overlay District, with the exception of the guest parking requirement and the front and Gide yard setback requirements. Findings to grant an Exception and Variance have been O18d8' based VO the topography and size of the property. In order to minimize grading, even 3 2-b8d[OOnn house OO the subject property VVOU|d need the granted Exception and ATTACHMENT 8 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDI 1-078, V1 1-003 Page 2 Variance. The DRB recommended approval of the project and determined that the project adequately complied with the review C[Ueh8 for Environmental and Design Review PennbS and Hillside Design It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt m Resolution denying the Appeal (AP12-003) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of the project. I Address/Location: 137 Perry Walk Property Size: |15.101+sq. ft. Project Site: Parcel Nmmmber(u): Neighborhood: Site Characteristics General Plan Designation | Zoning Designation LDR (Low Density Rmmidem0oQ LDR LDR LDR LDR R10 (Single Family Residential) R10 R5 R5 R1U | 013-133-04 Picnic Valley 1 Neighborhood Existing Land -Use Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Site Description/Setting: The subject parcel is located west Of Perry Walk, 8pp[0x0@Lek/ 100 fee[ SOUUl of the intersection Of Perry Walk and BUDga|OVV Avenue /Exhibit 1: Vicinity K48cA. Perry Walk is G phV8t8 acC8SS street with @ non -delineated 15 -ft. right-of-way. The roadway pavement terminates at the subject site. The right of way CODt8iOS some utility structure \mpnUV80eOtS' such as a power pole. It appears that Perry Walk roadway is partially located OO adjoining properties. An uphill portion of Perry VV@|k located south of the SUbieC[ property contains 8 drainage sN@|H. The drainage Svv8|e is uDd8[g[0uDded north of this point in Perry VVa|h. Adjoining USeS are single family residential with Qen8F8||y two story buildings. Out of three hOUSeS located on this Side /vveSU of the Perry VV@|k. the subject house and the 8cH0iDiOg house have zero front yard setbacks and substandard side yard SStb@CkS` the third house is also developed with SVbSt8DdgPd front and side yard setbacks. The property h9@Dup-sloping bt with a55.U%slope and iScurrently developed with aone-car garage VD the |OvV8[ |Bv8| with an Gpp[Oxnl8t8\y 598 Sq. ft. one -bedroom residential unit above the garage. Approximately seven 6^-20" oak trees and three 10"-22" bay trees have been identified in the rear and side Ofthe property. According to the County Assessor's [eCO[dS, the existing residence was constructed in 1921. Around 2006. in an attempt to expand the existing [eSidSOC8. previous OwOe[S of the property excavated 8 SigDiDC8Dt area of the property behind and OD the Side of the existing residence. No grading p8[[DitS were obtained for the grading. The UOpeF0itted grading did not come to the attention of the City UDb| the current OvvOer bought the property in 2010 and started discussing his p|8OS for expansion of the existing REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 3 residence with Planning staff. Review of aerials from 2004 indicates that 2 or 3 trees were removed as part of this work. On June 7, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, accepted the DRB's recommendation, accepted public comments, and ultimately approved the project with conditions. Minutes from this meeting outlining the proceedings, findings for approval, and conditions of approval are attached (Exhibit 4). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 892 sq. ft. single family dwelling and build a 3,206 sq. ft. new single family residence. The proposed residence would consist of a four -level; up to 28Y2 -ft. high structure with a 25 -ft. long and 27 -ft. wide driveway; a two -car (470 sq. ft.) garage at the first floor level; six bedrooms; and 4% bathrooms. Site Plan: The proposed structure would be located at the front property line with 10 -ft. and approximately 75 -ft. side setbacks and approximately 63 -ft. rear setback. A 9 -ft. high retaining wall located to the north of the driveway and supporting the access steps leading to the first floor of the residence and the adjoining residence would be located on the north side property line. The access to the proposed driveway would be directly off Perry Walk. A 2 -car garage would be located south of the driveway. The proposal also includes provision of space to park three cars in the driveway. A terrace and covered porch would be located on the roof of the garage. The parking spaces in the garage would have adequate backup and turnaround space on-site when vehicles are not parked in the driveway. An existing flight of steps straddling the property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north is used to access both properties. The steps would be demolished and rebuilt on the subject property. The applicant would grant an easement to the adjacent property for use of this structure for access to their property. Architecture: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: • Fire resistant treated sidewall cedar shingle siding • Milgard windows with Navajo white trim • Painted fiber cement fascia and soffit • Screened and louvered wall mounted attic vents rated to resist the intrusion of flame and embers • Navajo white metal guardrails • Bronze or painted metal column and wall caps • Forest green Class A composition shingles • Concrete driveway with black and charcoal grey pavers Landscaping: Three (3) 15 -gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) 15 -gallon Arbutus Undeo 'Marina' (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest corners of the structure. The proposed landscaping would be designed and planted with native trees and shrubs in a way to restore the 2,132+sq. ft, disturbed site areas to their natural state. One 8" oak tree would be removed, The number of trees that may have been removed during illegal grading of the site by previous owners is not known; review of aerial photographs suggests at least two additional trees of unknown size and species were removed, Lighting: No significant source of external lighting is proposed at this time REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 4 Grading/Drainage: This project proposes 107 cu. yds. cut and fill to be balanced on site, to construct the project and restore previously graded areas. The project would follow drainage recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project as follows: • Upslope exterior foundations should be provided with backdrains penetrating one foot below interior or subfloor grades; • Retaining walls should be back -drained and provided with separate surface drainage to avoid infiltration and related backdrain overcharging; • Ground surfaces should be sloped for rapid drainage away from building areas. Upslope drainage should be channeled around the structure or into a separate system; • Roof drainage should be channeled downslope away from the structure. If discharge to the swale is unacceptable, erosion protection could be achieved by discharging through multiple outlets over six-inch, rock rip -rap. Appeal Issues: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellant, Amy Koenig, neighbor at the adjacent 12 Perry Walk property, submitted a letter dated June 13, 2012, which is attached (Exhibit 3). The appeal letter cites numerous points of appeal. Below in bold italics are all of the appeal points presented in the June 13th letter followed by a staff response: Appeal Point # 1. The finding that the project enhances the neighborhood image and respects existing landforms and natural features (NH -2) is inaccurate. Staff Response: The existing development on Perry Walk consists of generally old houses. The existing house on the subject property and the adjoining house have zero front yard setbacks and substandard side yard setbacks. The third house on the same side of the block also has substandard front and side yard setbacks. Two of the houses located on Perry Walk have no onsite parking. The other four houses (including the subject property) have only non -complaint parking in terms of number of parking spaces and driveway length. Staff believes the demolition of the existing old house, restoration of the illegally graded site and rebuilding of a new house would physically enhance the neighborhood. It would provide two onsite parking spaces in the garage and three non-compliant parking spaces in the driveway. Further, the proposed design respects the existing topography (landform) by following it uphill as it steps back. The proposed design also strives to save a maximum number of existing trees. Appeal Point # 2. The finding that the proposed larger size of the house as compared to neighboring houses is in keeping with the larger size of the lot is inaccurate. if the larger size of the lot is to be a deciding influence there would not be a need for front and side setback variances. The entire space of the lot would be used to conform with front and side setback requirements. The need for variances supports the argument that the house is simply too massive for the neighborhood and lot. The Variances are being requested to accommodate a huge house that is out of scale with immediate surrounding development. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, Vll-003 Page 5 Staff Response: A total of seven lots are located on Perry Walk. The subject property is approximately 15,161 sq. ft in size and proposes a house size of 3,206 sq ft. The other six lots range in size from 4,396 to 7,500 sq. ft. and host homes with an average size of 1,200 sq. ft. The subject property being a larger lot is capable of accommodating proportionately larger development size. Furthermore, the proposed house size of 3,206 sq ft is below the 4,016 sq ft maximum gross building square footage limit established for a lot of this size by the Hillside Guidelines. The requirement for front and side setback variances is necessitated not by the size of the house but by the consideration to minimize grading as directed by Hillside Residential Design Guidelines (Section IV.A3. Hillside Grading and Drainage). Even a 2 -bedroom house on this property would need front and side yard setback variances and exception from the hillside parking standards for two onsite guest parking spaces. Rebuilding of any of the other houses on Perry Walk would need similar variances and exceptions. Design Review Board also received a comment from the Planning Commission liaison that the City cannot and will not discriminate against large families. The issue of the large size house was discussed and reviewed by the DRB and the project as designed, was ultimately recommended for approval. Appeal Point # 3. The proposed project is detrimental to my property (12 Perry Walk) due to the looming presence and impact of light. The shadow diagram clearly shows the impact the building would have on light on my property. The staff finding that this would not impact my home is inaccurate as it compares the blockage of sunlight from a building within feet of my property to shading from the trees over 1,000 feet away with space between the branches allowing filtered light. Staff Resr)onse: According to Section 14.25.050.F.6.g. of the Zoning Ordinance, shading of active recreational areas in the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties should generally not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area or increase existing shading by more than ten percent (10%) between the hours of noon and three p.m, (3:00 p.m.) on December 21 due to the proposed upper story construction. Applications which cannot meet this design criterion shall demonstrate that every feasible effort has been made to reduce the shading impacts of the proposed structure and that a reasonable upper -story addition which complies with this design criterion is not feasible. The project plans contain a shadow diagram depicting the shadow cast by the existing house at 37 Perry Walk (Sheet C4) and a shadow diagram depicting shading by the proposed new structure (Sheet 1-3). Diagram on Sheet C4 demonstrates that most of the building at 12 Perry Walk is currently shaded by the existing house. The proposed house (Sheet L3) would result in generally more shading of the rear yard of the house at 12 Perry Walk. However, as demonstrated by Exhibit 5, the subject property, the appellant's property at 12 Perry Walk and some other properties located on Perry Walk are already in shade due to the trees located on the subject property and further uphill. Therefore, the proposed structure would not actually result in shading any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. The existing dwelling proposed to be demolished and the adjoining residence at 12 Perry Walk are located side by side with approximately 5 feet between them. The proposed residence at 37 Perry Walk would be approximately 13 feet from the residence at 12 Perry Walk, would be set back toward the rear approximately 32 feet from the front of the 12 Perry Walk structure and stepped back reducing the bulk impact. The new building side facing the side of the residence at 12 Perry Walk would also have stepback thereby reducing the bulk impact. Therefore, the proposed building would not have a looming presence on the property at 12 Perry Walk. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, VII -003 Due to the steep uphill slope of the property and termination of Perry Walk's paved portion here, the only way to locate the new residence away from the existing residence at 12 Perry Walk would be to push it back and to the south requiring excessive grading into the hillside. These issues were discussed and reviewed by the DRB and the project as designed, was ultimately recommended for approval. Appeal Point # 4. The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of parking requirements. Perry Walk is a substandard street with extremely limited parking. It is unlike any street I have ever seen- hence its name — Perry "Walk". To allow a 3,400 sq. ft. (actually 3,206 sq. ft.) home with six bedrooms without meeting the parking requirement again suggests that the home is too large for the neighborhood and grants this homeowner a privilege that would not and could not (because of lot size and hillside) be allowed others in the vicinity of the project. Staff Response: The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements where on streets less than twenty-six (26') wide, a minimum of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required. However. . pursuant to SRMC 14.12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. The shape of the lot and the need for excessive grading and tree removal make the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. Even a 2 -bedroom house on this property would need an exception from the hillside parking requirements. The proposed design provides two covered and three non-compliant parking spaces which is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one -bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R10 -H parking requirements. Both the DRB and ZA found that allowing the 2 guest parking spaces to be counted within the driveway was appropriate given the additional grading and cutting of the property that would be required to push the structure back further. The provision of the proposed parking would be a great improvement over the existing situation of no onsite parking or inadequate parking on all other properties on Perry Walk. Clearly, future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need similar exception from the hillside parking requirements. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a similar parking reduction. Until there is project application for any of the other properties, it cannot be known whether such a parking exception would be approved or not for those properties. Those applications would be evaluated based on the facts in place for that property and whether the required findings can be made for such a reduction. Appeal Point # 5. The finding that the variances will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which such property is located is inaccurate. Other homes on Perry Walk have existing since the 1960's and would not be allowed to rebuild to the extent of the subject property as they would never be able to meet City requirements for stepbacks, side and front setbacks or parking requires. Unless this proiect is to establish the rules for this neighborhood aoina forward. If this is to be the case then there will be a need for significant street and parking changes to Perry Walk as it exists today. Staff Response: As stated above, future rebuilding of any properties on Perry Walk would need similar exceptions and variances. However, no other properties on Perry Walk have applied for a REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078, V11-003 Page 7 similar parking exception or setback variance. For approval of a parking exception or setback variance the property needs to meet certain criteria of hardship or infeasibility. Whether setback variances or parking exceptions for future projects on other properties would be approved or not would depend on an actual project application and demonstration of compliance with the required criteria, and demonstration that the required findings can be made to grant such a variance or exception. Appeal Point # 6. Traffic and safety concerns are a serious issue on Perry Walk. The increased traffic caused by a six bedroom home is a real concern to all residents of the street. One needs only to visit Perry Walk in person to understand the validity of this item. Staff Response: Perry Walk is a substandard street. In addition to the vehicles entering or leaving the street, Perry Walk is mainly used for parking by most of the existing properties that do not currently have off-street parking. The subject project would not impact the existing street parking because the subject property would have two parking spaces in the garage and the ability to park three vehicles in the driveway. Appeal Point # 7. The proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood. The typical house size in the neighborhood is less than 1,200 sq. ft. The erected story poles confirm that the proposed building will be massive in size compared to the rest of the neighborhood and significantly alter the neighborhood feel of small homes, built previously for vacation homes during the early days of this quaint small San Rafael neighborhood Staff Response: The lot sizes of the other six properties on Perry Walk range from 4,396 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. As stated by the appellant, typical house size on these lots is 1,200 sq, ft. Both staff and the DRB found that the proposed 3,206 sq. ft. house located on a 15,161 sq. ft. is compatible with the lot size and the neighborhood. The proposed structure was also found to be adequately stepped up the hillside to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk as viewed from downhill (Perry Walk). The property owner has six children. The proposed house would contain six bedrooms which are generally 100 sq. ft. in area. Although at 3,206 sq. ft. the house may seem to be large, it would be just enough to serve the needs of the family. The house would have a modest size living/dining/kitchen area and would not contain any office or media rooms. Further, as stated above, the City cannot discriminate large families. Appeal Point # 8. Demolition of the existing house allows for a "blank slate" where anything can be built. A new home allows for compatibility with the neighborhood and a home that can be built without requiring variances or requiring privileges that would not be given to other properties in the vicinity. Staff Response: The City encourages maintenance of, and improvements to, private properties. This is a rebuilding project. Over the last few decades the house sizes have evolved to larger sizes due to the changing family needs, e.g. one bedroom for every child. The proposed house with 6 bedrooms reflects that change in the family structure. However, the house has a modest size living/dining room, the children's bedrooms are approximately 100 sq. ft. each and there is no 'media' room or offices which are generally used to justify a larger size house. The proposed house on this property can be built without any variances, but it would require enormous grading into the hillside. The granting of the variances is necessitated by the requirement for minimizing grading. Even a 2 -bedroom house on this property and other properties on Perry Walk would need parking exception and setback variances in order to minimize grading. REPORT TOPLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED11-078,Vl1-003 Page San Rafael General Plan 202WConsistency There are @few and pertinent General Plan policies that are applicable tothis project. AspartofLhe[}RB and ZAreview and action, itwas determined that the project iaooneio[entvvkhtheeepV|ioies. The design of the proposed single family residence as recommended by the DRB, is in accordance with the City of 8oO Roh3e| General Plan 2020 because the project has been designed consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Lend Use Policies LU -12 (Building Heights) and LU -23 /Land Use Mao and Categories), Housing Policies H-2 (Neighborhood Improvements) and N-8 (Housing Discrimination), Neighborhood Element Policies NH -2 (yJ8m/ Development in Residential Neighborhoods) and NH -3 (HOU3/nQ8�X\'��[�~3(Nekxhb0rh00d8),and K���-15(PG���abOn/0Project Re�em) beC8U98: � a. The project jeCt0eOtaGOddOeSOUiexceedthe0Gxi0UmheightreqU([e0entSpecifiediDEXhibit70f the General Plan (LU12); b. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential /LOR\ ( U'28). The project will not change the existing residential density and will stay in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of2-0.5units per acre (LU -23); o. The reconstruction of the existing dwelling would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood (H-2); d, `The "proposed 3'2O0sq. ft. house size iSconsistent with the requirement Ofthe large family with six children (H-8); e. The project enhances the neighborhood image and respects existing |andfonna and natural features /NH -2\; [ The proposed design contributes to a broad range of house size opportunities in the neighborhood (NH -3); g. The propOsed� three-story design in different than the single or two story designs of the neighboring houses but FeDl8iOS consistent Policy C[)-3 vvh\Ch a||OVvs flexibility for innovative design. Further, the proposed larger house as compared to the neighboring residences is in keeping with the larger size (15.101 aq. ft.) of the subject property as compared to the neighboring lot sizes ranging from 4.3SGsq. ft. to7.5O0sq. ft.; and h. The project is consistent with Policy CD -15 in that public hearing notices were sent to the neighbors and other interested persons prior to the three Design Review Board meetings and the Zoning Administrator hearing for the project. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4—Residential Districts The proposed project design is consistent with the specific purposes Of the Residential /R\ districts pU[SU@Ot to Section 14.04.010 Of the Zoning C}rdiO8DDe in that the project provides 8 sensitive hillside design that minimizes Q[8diOg. and hU|h and mass by stepping the h}U[ level home into the hillside the stepbacks provided to respect privacy and provide open space between the adjacent smaller residential properties. The proposed residence complies with the development standards for lot coverage, maximum building height and parking under the R10 zoning district. It also complies with the St8pbgCk and natural State criteria for Hillside (]y8dGy (-H) District. HOvveVer, it does not CO0p|y with the deV8\Op08Dt standards regarding front and Side yard setbacks, which n8qUin9 20 feet front and 10 feet Side yard setbacks. A V@[i@OC8 vvOU|d be required for the proposed setbacks. According to GRK8C14.23.070. FiDdingS, approval Of8Variance from these development standards would require the following findings to be made: A. That b8C8U8e of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, /he Sbfc/ application of the requirements of this tit/8 deprives such property Of privileges enjoyed by other property in /he vicinity and under identical zoning classification: REPORT TO PANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDI 1-078, V11-003 Page 9 B. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in which such property is situated; C. That granting the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and D. That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety or general welfare. The Zoning Administrator approved the Variance based on the above findings as follows: • The site has a steep uphill slope and the lot is wider than deep with limited frontage on the paved portion of Perry Walk. Due to these special circumstances pertaining to topography and lot configuration, strict compliance with the required setbacks would require an excessive amount of grading into the hillside. The other two residences on the same side of Perry Walk have substandard setbacks while the adjoining property has zero front yard setback. • Given the topography of the site, the placement of the structure with a 0 ft front yard setback would minimize grading, while it would still provide the required covered off street parking. • The garage of the existing single family residence is located on the front property line and has no driveway. The proposed project would be an improvement over this condition in that it would have a 25 feet long and 27 feet wide driveway. • As stated above, other two properties located on the same side of Perry Walk have been developed with setbacks which range from zero front yard setback for the adjoining property to substandard setbacks for the two properties. Out of a total of six residences located on Perry Walk, only two residences (7 and 17 Perry Walk) comply with the required setbacks. Therefore, granting of the front and side yard setback variance for the subject property would not amount to special privileges not already enjoyed by most of the other properties on Perry Walk. • A proposed higher than 4 -ft. retaining wall supporting a flight of steps located on the north property line does not comply with the required 10 -ft. side setback. The proposed retaining wall is necessary due to the property slope and would improve upon the existing situation where currently, the flight of steps straddles the side property line. Further, the new flight of steps would continue to be shared between the two properties. Compliance with the required 10 -ft. side setback would require the proposed residence to be pushed to the west which in turn would require relocating some of the existing improvements in the right of way. • A single family residence is a permitted use in R10 zoning district. Granting of the variance does not authorize a change in the use. Chapter 12 — Hillside Overlav District Given that the site has a slope greater than 25%, the property is subject to the Hillside Overlay District overlay standards in addition to the base R10 Zoning standards, As designed, the project is consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of Building Stepback, Natural State, Gross Building Square Footage and Ridgeline Development. The project does not comply with Chapter 12 in terms of Parking Requirements for streets less than twenty-six (26') wide, where two (2) additional on-site parking spaces are required in addition to the two covered parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 12.030.F. this requirement may be waived or reduced by the hearing body when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal makes the requirement infeasible. A waiver has been requested, reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRB and approved by the ZA as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDI 1-078, V11-003 Page 10 The shape of the lot and the need for excessive grading or tree removal make the requirement infeasible in that in order to provide the required two additional parking spaces, the project would need to be significantly pushed back in to the hillside, and would result in significant grading and removal of existing trees. The proposed design provides two covered parking spaces and three non-compliant parking spaces which is a significant improvement over the current one covered parking space provided for the existing one -bedroom residence, and substantially complies with the R10 -H parking requirements. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Desian Review Permit The project is consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria in that the proposed structure would be stepped back avoiding any visual impact, the project would provide quality materials and colors and would not result in additional shadowing any active recreational areas on the adjoining property. San Rafael Design Guidelines: As discussed above, the project is generally consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria regarding building design, building scale, building height, roof shapes, windows, driveways and parking areas, and lighting. The project is not consistent with the San Rafael Residential Design Guidelines criteria that states 'vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street'. However, due to the necessity for projects not to require excessive grading, projects have been approved in the City where vehicles have adequate visibility to back out of garages onto the street. The Public Works Department has reviewed this and given the limited amount of traffic and the fact that this site is at the end of the Perry Walk, visibility would not be an issue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines: Given that the site has an average slope greater than 25%, any development on the site is subject to the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Hillside Design Guidelines, include both the development standards that have been incorporated into Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as design guidelines that are used to review project that are contained in the Hillside Guidelines manual. As discussed above, the project is consistent with all hillside standards contained in Chapter 12, except for the required guest parking, for which an Exception has been requested and granted (See discussion above in Zoning Ordinance analysis). The entire Hillside Design Guidelines Checklist prepared for this project is attached (Exhibit 6), A complete analysis of the project's consistency with the Hillside Guidelines is also provided as Exhibit 8. In summary, the project is consistent with the criteria for preservation of significant trees, hillside grading and drainage, driveway and parking design, reduction of building bulk, hillside architectural character, planting design and site lighting. The project was reviewed by the DRB on three occasions, once as a Conceptual Review and twice as a formal application. On June 21, 2011, the Design Review Board reviewed a Conceptual Design for the expansion of the existing residence to 3,825 sq. ft. The Board provided the following comments (Planning Commission liaison: Charlie Pick): • Consider rebuilding the entire structure rather that an expansion to the existing residence. • Reduce the proposed 3,825 sq. ft. size of the residence; and • Push the building back and comply with parking requirements. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDI 1-078, V11-003 Page 11 On February 7, 2012, the Design Review Board reviewed the formal application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit which proposed the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,415 sq. ft. single family residence. With a 5-0 vote (Planning Commission liaison, Charlie Pick), the Board continued the matter with the following recommendations: • Integrate the design with neighborhood character in terms of colors/materials; • Nestle the house into the hillside and shift it to the left (south) to move away from 12 Perry Walk; • Shift the upper story back to reduce the bulk impact; • Provide good vehicular circulation; and • Widen the driveway to 27 feet so as to be able to park 3 cars in the driveway. On May 8, 2012, the Design Review Board favorably reviewed project plans that were revised to address the February 7th comments, including the reduction of project size to 3,206 sq. ft. At the conclusion of this meeting, with a 3-1 vote (Alternate Serge Fedorov, dissenting) (Planning Commission liaison, Marybeth Lang) the Board recommended approval of the project design to the Zoning Administrator. There are no written minutes from this meeting, however the actual DRB proceedings can be viewed on- line at www.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinas and selecting the meeting date, and clicking on video. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. If the Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. Notices of all meetings and hearings for the project were conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to appellants, all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and the Picnic Valley Neighborhood Association, and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Public notice was also posted on the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Staff has not received any phone calls or written correspondence regarding this project, The appellant's concerns are discussed in the Appeal Issues and Analysis section above. Staff has received two letters regarding this project. Issues raised are generally the same as in the appeal letter. Additionally, one of the letters is accompanied by an analysis showing that the proposed design does not comply with stepback requirements. All letters received for this project from the conceptual design review stage to date are attached in Exhibit 9. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EO11-878'V11-003 Page 12 The Planning Commission has the following options: 1Deny the appeal and VmhO|d the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project (staff [8ConlDleDdadOn\. 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions Ofapproval. 3. COObOUe the appeal hearing to @UOw the applicant/appellant to address any Of the {}oDlnniSSioD'S c0DlDlBOb9 or concerns 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project and direct Staff to return with G revised Resolution with findings for denial. 1. Vicinity/Location Mao 2. Draft Resolution 3. Aopem|Let��rdated June 13.2U12: 4. ��'DiOgAdministrator Meeting Minutes, including findings and conditions . June 7.21O12 5. Bird's eye view picture ShOvviOg shading in the neighborhood & Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist 7. Vehicle Turnaround Templates O. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Analysis Table 8. Public Correspondence June 13, 2012 City ofSan Rafael Community Development Department Building Division �����'.^-�� °^����«�= ` t ]UK -' "UN .�4�Uw I am appealing the decision of the Acting Zoning Administrator on June 7, 2012 in regards to the property at 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael. ED11-078; V11-003. The appeal is made on the following grounds: 1. The finding that the project enhances the neighborhood ima8eand respects existinDbndfovms and natural features (NH -2) is inaccurate. 2. The finding that the proposed larger size of the house as compared to neighboring houses is in keeping with the larger size of the lot is inaccurate. If the larger size of the lot is to be a deciding influence there would not be a need for front and side setback variances. The entire space of the lot would be used to conform with front and side setback requirements. The need for variances supports the argument that the house |ssimply too massive for the neighborhood and lot. The variances are being requested to accommodate a huge house that is out of scale with immediate surrounding development, 3. The proposed p, `ectisdethmnentaitomyproAertyduatothe(oomingpresenceamdimpoctof light. The shadow diagram clearly shows -Che impact -dhebuilding would have ontight onmy property. The staff finding that this Would not impact my horne is inaccurate as it compares the blockage of sunlight from a building within feet of my property to shading from trees over 1,000 feet away with space between the branches allowing for filtered light. 4. The project is not consistent with Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of parking requirements. Perry Walk is a substandard street with extremely limited parking. It is unlike any street|haveeverseen-henceits'narne—Perry"VVa|k".Toa||om/a3,4OOsq.yoothonoevvith6 bedrooms without meeting the parking requirements again suggests that the home is too large ,or the neighborhood and grants this homeowner a privilege that would not and could not (bec2use of lot size and hillsides) be allowed othersin the vicinity of the project. 6. The finding that the variances will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitaiiGnS upon other properties in the vicinity in which Such property is located is inaccurate. Other homes on Perry Walk have existed since the 1960's and would not beai|owed to rebuild to the extent of the subject property as they would never be able to meet City r�uiremen�sfors1epbacks,sideandf�on�se�boc�sorpar�in�requ��en�en\s. Un(ess�bis e oroiectis1oes�ebiishthe ru|esfor this nei��borhood�oin�fora/srd.ifthisistobethe case then there`wi||beoaeedfoFoiQn0can1street and porkingcilao. estOPerryVValkesi1e:|Ste�od�y. EX� ����������� ^� 6. Traffic and safety concerns are a serious issue on Perry Walk. The increased traffic caused by a six bedroom home is a real concern to all residents of the street, One needs only to visit Perry Walk in person to understand the validity of this item. 7, The proposed project is incompatible with the neighborhood. The typical house size in the neighborhood is less than 1,200 square feet. The erected story poles confirm that tile proposed building will be massive in size compared to the rest of the neighborhood and significantly alter the neighborhood feel of small homes, built previously for vacation hornes during the early days ofthis quaint small San Rafael neighborhood. 8. Demolition of the existing house allows for a "blank slate" where anything can be built. A new home allows for compatibility with the neighborhood and a home that can be built WMIOUt requiring variances or requiring privileges that would not be given to other properties in the Listed below are the neighbors that support this appeal that will be present to speak for themselves a-, the Planning Commission. We are all very passionate about living in this neighborhood and have very serious concerns about the precedent of allowing a building of this size to be added to out, street. | would also like topersonally invite any and all members ofthe Planning Commission Cncontact nneif they would like a personal tour of the street and my outside space that would be significantly altered by the proposed project. Amy Koenig Appellant and adiacen�neighbor to37Perry Walk 12Perry Walk San Rafael, CA94901 Daytime Phone: 4I5 -927-5O18 Evening Phone: 415-464-074O srnybeth714@aoLconn Neighbors and other interested parties that wish to be heard: MakotoTokashinaandjoanne8naunnon,17Perry Walk Doug 8asham,7Perry Walk, 8rarnand ��VnicaDruckman,1Perry Walk Gary and KayKayrus,278Donga|ow Jose Zamora, previous resident, DPerryVVa|,[<, KeUy[ro��e,potentie|neiahbor KeUy /Rep[ese:�ir� Pat Rea|tor COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate section for a complete explanation of the item. A "yes" indicates the project ject complies with the recommendation, a "no" indicates it does not. N/A is the abbreviation for "not applicable." This checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and suggested guidelines to insure high quality projects. Standards are indicated with an asterisk and are mandatory. They are indicated in the text by the term "shall". Exceptions to standards can only be granted. by the City Council (indicated by a *) or the specific hearing body designated in the kfanual (indicated by a ). Guidelines are recommendations and are indicated in the text by the term "sliould." Staff and Design Review Board will be guided by compliance with these guidelines in making their recommendations on the project design. The project architect or engineer must justify any variations. Only projects with high quality designs will be approved. 0 quality Zoning Standards, (Chapter III, Hillside Residential Development Standards) - ----- ------------- --------- Y--; -A Natural State Requirement (25% + % of average slope) - Required 85% Proposed 83.7% Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6.500 sq. ft.) 1,016 max. gross sq. ft. 3&Z_5 proposed gross sq. ft, Building Height (30 feet measured from natural grade). L- Building stepback (20 foot height limitation on walls within 15 feet of the building envelope limit, encroachment allowed along 25% of building length). '''rcposed height 20-241/2 feet. i - Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more th.-In. 1/, of the required setback with DRB approval and special findings. requires compensating hicrease in setback on opposing_ setback). --- - ----- ----- Ridgeline prohibition of development. within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline. Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets. V Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinaricc- of Existing Natural Features: L\,[aintaiiis mature trees and preserves significant vegetation. -'N(;.-;rnizes n-adjnti and alterations of natural land forins Nvith balanced cuffs and fills. DrainaLe niiiiiinizes oft -site impacts Lind -,)reserves natural drainage courses. 4 and' 1--n0scapo- to Ro-,-ds a d vj '-1 U Access provided to open space areas. MA2. Preservation of Significant trees Y !N �STA [7 Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria of 3:1 with 15 gallon trees is met. Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the dripline. or change in grade or compaction. Arborist's recommendations are met. 1VA3. Hillside Grading and Drainage Y N INA Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1.. Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized inimized or similar to existing In adjacent slopes. Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a ininimura height and use stone or earth colored materials. Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and swimming pools are discouraged). Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage to on-site and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are Minimized and storm water from roofs is conveyed to a corn rehensive site drainage system Storm drainage p ZD improvements and drainage devices create a natural appearance. "�_bebris Collection and overflow routes are provided where needed and located- to minimize visual impacts. Erosion control plans and revegetation plan provided. Geotechnical review has been done and mitigation measures will not substantially modify the character of the existing landforin, expose slopes that cannot be re -vegetated or remove large areas or existing mature; vegetation. Existill'a geologic hazards have been corrected. Buildin-a Setbacks and Locfiwa (Clon-4-;I_et'v NA Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural -features and lot lines are places on the top, not the toe. of the slope. V Fla- lots with a common drive rare encoura-cd. -- -- I V i building setbacks are varied or staggered. 'Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgellines and existing -view H of residences are respected. front vard setbacks are mininlized on dov.iihill lots. Street ",avou-, T)i-ivewmv ai-AParkini� Design. N A. irce t s use n ar ro Nver street NN i Cl L 11S It it reduces z ra di n �. i s Li a J iinvacts are inlin i bv terraci.iw any retai i ir, L, wills. and split roadv, a,4 s are encourazed lut,� out follovvs th-C a-,Z�A In IC avoided. groper sight distancQs are ma, treet _,rades do not excceJ 1� <<o of liti ve rece*� ed, all exception. 2 IT V N NA e Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking has been designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets. Driveways over 18% have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%. Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side only and limited to 8 feet in width. 1VA6. Reduction of BuildinE Bulk on Hillsides Y N Nit 7 The building steps Lip the slope and/or has been cut into the hillside. Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the slope. The slope of the roof does not exceed the natural contour by 20%. Overhanging or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided. V Large expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations. Building materials blend with the setting. KVA'7. Hillside Architectural Character N NA Rooflines are oriented in consideration of views from adjacent areas and properties. . Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes in roof form accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with membranes or built up roofing materials are discouraged when visible. j Multi -Building Pro - iects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation and avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof forms are required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement and are screened with Dlantinq, Building Materials. texture and color meet criteria and color coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surroazzt(.iizlg l�zzzciscape. Building walls and roofs are of recommended materials. Walls, fences and accessory structures are conipatible, with adjacent buildings and are designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide a landscaped buffer. Walls and materials of. p�oprjciabe materials. Retaining walls meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upslopes and 3 feet on downslopes. Terraced retaining walls are separated by a minimum of three feet and landscaped. Retaining walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terrace conform to the natural contours as Much as possible and excessively high retaining walls are prohibited. Decks do not create excessively Iii -Ii distances [,etwk:en the structure, and Oradc. \4echanical equipment is screened front -,Jer_y.__ V =&a.- Flanilhia Desitw. lroi- Hillside RZcscidendfhal Gevelooment _ij i�,_s `_'.)id p, la lt i ii a tL, -j, i-, So t s an, e and rc-ained, Replacement trees arc, planted with havgularl�, orouvod trees N�111;cl- etain ,, sinlilarappeUrance Fl.oin a s-tanc- M-LT !Y New plantings have been selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, fire resistance and drought tolerance and consider neighbors' views. Native plants are used. Irrigation systems and mulching are provided. 1 V Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are revegetated. Special planting guidelines for 2:1 slopes are followed. ✓ Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees are ,-located -iii,-swale areas-.--,--, i v/ Public rights-of-way are landscaped. ✓ Transition zonesare planted in high tire hazard areas and building envelopes are located to minimize risk to structures. planting materials are fire retardant. Subdivisions have provided an arborist's report to analyze site fire hazards. MA9. Site LiLyhtina Y N NA Site lighting which isvisibleis indirect or incorporates full shield cut-offs. Adjacent properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. ✓ Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and does not interfere with bedroom windows. V Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does not exceed 8 feet in height and low-level i lighting is used along walkways. Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited acid not, shown. suba-Mvisions and !;_Pm'n"ed DeVOOTI"'iucn V N' NA V Requiretrients for preservation of existing natural features, street layout and design, hillside grading and drainage, and lot configuration, building setback and locations have been met and building envelopes established on all lots. V Cluster developments racet the following criteria: Flexible trout and side setbacks are provided, large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting- existim, vegetation is retainedl- and flag lots vvlii(,h encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fills are allovlcd. V Lou- continuous buildinc, masses are avoided and iroups of buildinc, are deli-ned z� il h visible diffei-ences drou,(.,111 materials, colors, tbrms and facade -variation. Facades are articulated and rool-lines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize xcrticalitx. Alignments of units are stag-ered horizontally ;_Wd N"erticattv tocneate unit identity. privacy ac BuRdingsi-naybe Lerraced C'Ind Inti k1111" , -it] "IC-rs arc sqoa, aticd EXHIBIT 6, .4 Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, and planting design are met. VAn exception is necessary to allow tandem parking on lots served by an access drive if it minimizes the impact of hillside development. V Common driveways are encouraged. The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage from the driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the driveway conforms to the finished grade of the lot. IV,B3 TIffuRti-fain-i1v Re-sideniNA _'Revelorsnient Y N NA Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting I -D design are met. Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance requirements. A children's play area is provided on developments with over 25 units. The site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces, bay windows, fiaming of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and walkways. Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided, buildings are sited with Units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation: buildings near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting-, existing vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fill's are allowed. song continuous building masses are, avoided and groups of building are designed with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and facade variation. Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facade ss ID are articulated and roo Rines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades hake, a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alig rents of units are, staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open -space. Buildings may be terraced and building clusters are separated. with expanses of open space. i Tuck under parking is encouraged. TOON of the parking lot area is landscaped or trccs planted a S V equircd by the zoning ordinance. oiine Areas iWe R V !V Develop-aient is located vvithin 100 feet of a si,_,nificant ridgelinc. -rd building pad'S. I-uurturcs and jteinccs i i -o-, proj c- J_,;.,.si,ans -nininlize gradinga C) f i C L riclges aa -id on slopes nr,� desig1jeci to gly"'de an( l cta slopes Zire C, f C. -r� 101"KNIBI -- it 6 MC2 Hillside Drainne Swales and Drainne Ravines Y N NA A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and of -site existing hillside storm drainage facilities will be replaced. Appropriate setbacks from drainages have been established to preserve natural drainage patterns and public safety. Slope stability hazards in watersheds have been studied and measures proposed to protect downslope properties (Subdivisions) General plan setbacks from drairiageways, creeks, and wetlands are met. (General Plan standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects have provided a biotic report to establish the a pr priate setback. o Debris basins, rip -rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when necessary to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Significant natural drainage courses are protected from grading activity and are integrated into project design. When crossing is required, a natural crossing and batik protection is provided. Any brow ditches are naturalized with plant materials and native rocks. Steam batik stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not throuli concrete channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting atilizes indigenous riparian vegetation. 1V.C3 I-Tillslope Habitat Areas i� Y N' 114A �"' i N 1 TMJ A Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on hillsides, architectural character, and site lighting are followed. Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen development from offsite views. Geotechnical Review Drainage Report Biological Survey Photo 'Montage and/or model Site }taking Oulillents on Ovcrall r1roieCt COMIlliance and desiLm qualitv Exception to the hillside parking standard is required and can be approved by the apl­,ro� it),) autillority Voiiiiia, :Utniiiistrator or Planning Coil] III ission) with tlic recoiniriencl, doftl 0 ReN iew Buard A— s 01 C) a Ek 1CULIUC, L! fi2CJUJLeC_'L 11 1i 211d -,JUC -V,11-0 Set' �JC-s til, L CL1,11 're 1-,provcd by !lie Zonino.Administrator by the Plaill-iill 4 �-,.)mnussjon upon reconnii,2ndation o'T! e 6 I TABLE ANALYZING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SAN RAFAEL HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Significant trees are Consistent important aesthetic and One 8" oak tree is proposed to be removed with the current project. ecological resources that Removal of this tree is necessitated by previous excavation of the site, contribute to San Rafael's Three (3) 15 -gallon Quercus Agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) and Seven (7) distinctive character. Site 15 -gallon Arbutus Undeo 'Marina' (Strawberry) trees, accent shrubs and development plans should groundcovers are proposed to be planted in the north and southwest demonstrate that a corners of the structure. Therefore, the project is consistent with this diligent effort has been Section. Staff notes that an unknown number of trees may have been made to retain as many removed by previous illegal grading of the site. significant trees as possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum and should be performed in a way that respects significant natural features and visually blends with adjacent properties. Factors to be considered in the development of a grading plan are: The natural features of the site. 0 Slope and soil characteristics, U Vegetative cover. w. Access to the site. Orientation and visibility of both site and the proposed development. On substandard Str,eet`s, _,;� guest, parking spaces shall Ruiz Residence 37 Perry Walk Consistent The project proposes a balanced cut and fill of 107 cy. As proposed, the project requires approximately 2 to 3 -ft. tall retaining walls in the rear yard to support the previously graded site. An approximately 5 -ft. tall retaining wall is proposed in the proposed kitchen/dining room area of the dwelling. The project would follow drainage recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project as follows: * Upslope exterior foundations should be provided with backdrains penetrating one foot below interior or subfloor grades; * Retaining walls should be back -drained and provided with separate surface drainage to avoid infiltration and related backdrain overcharging; Ground surfaces should be sloped for rapid drainage away from building areas. Upslope drainage should be channeled around the structure or into a separate system; Roof drainage should be channeled downslope away from the structure. If discharge to the swale is unacceptable, erosion protection could be achieved by discharging through multiple outlets over six-inch, rock rip -rap. Staff believes this project would rehabilitate the site by building on the exposed, excavated site. Not 111"Icnsistent Picr, ',j\JaR is a marrnuu, ni jblk; sfireei 1vvi[h a 154 righit of v,!av xvihicl-1. is more akin to an alley. A power pole located within the rig ht-of_vva. and in File ED11 OT33 N"'I I fj 3 Title: San Rafael Hillside Residential Lesion Guidelines Analvsis Table be provided (not on front Vfthe garage presents achallenge for access tOthe proposed three the driveway apn}A>. additional parking spaces. Staff believes the 15-ft.right ofway would not The spaces should be allow appropriate access for eDlergeOcVvehicles. The project 8pp|icatioO conveniently placed was referred to Public Works and Building/Fire for comments. The Public nG|8tiVe to the dwelling VVV[kS recommended 8 turn around at the end 0fPerry Walk, Given that unit which they serve. the Perry Walk has aright Dfway ofonly 15feet, 8turnaround would This requirement may need tObelocated DQprivate property, The applicants discussed this waived when the size issue with the Public Works which then agreed tVdrop the requirement Orshape ofthe lot o[ for Bturn around provided the plans include onsite vehicle turnaround need for excessive template (Exhibit 7). Exhibit 7.1 shows the movement ofavehicle into grading O[tree the garage and the backing out Vf@vehicle parked inthe driveway into removal make the the gDla|| hammer head in the Perry Walk. Exhibit 7.2 represents the requirement infeasible. backing out of vehicle from the garage OO to the driveway from Vvh8[e it Driveway and parking VxOU|d GD1eF Perry Walk. Exhibit 7.3 represents the backing out of designs that force vehicle from the driveway into the small hammer head iDthe Perry Walk. vehicles to"back out" However, with the driveway currently designed tobe@tleast 25feet long into substandard and 27feet wide (odrive aisle needs tobe 2Qfeet wide for vehicles tO roadway widths are back out Ofparking spaces iO8parking |ot)'the vehicles can turnaround prohibited. inthe driveway alone. Further, @tthe February 7'2012Design Review Board meeting, aneighbor pointed out that the hammerhead would not work for backing out, since the hammerhead would likely be used @S8D additional parking Space in Perry Walk. Project plans indicate that the existing garage is accessed off Perry Walk through 8 27 -ft. Vide dhVevxaV with an effective DliOiRlUDl depth of 25 feet. Parking on streets less than twenty-six feet (26') requires a [DiDiDlUDO of two (2) additional on-site parking spaces. The project would provide two covered parking spaces iDthe garage and three uncovered, parking spaces iOthe driveway. The three uncovered parking spaces located in the driveway would block access tOthe garage and therefore, vVOU/d not satisfy the requirement for additional p@dtiDg. The project would require waiver from the requirement of providing two additional parking spaces. The waiver can h8approved bythe hearing body when the size Orshape Ofthe lot o[the need for excessive gr8diQg0[tFee [eDlOV@l Dl@kBs the requirement infeasible. Strict enforcement of the guideline t8require two additional parking spaces would require additional excavation tO push the project b8CkOntO1hep[8perty. Staff believes the findiQQ1nsupport Gwaiver can bemade for the project. Additionally, driveways and parking designs that force vehicles to "back out" into substandard roadway widths are recommended aaprohibited, Perry Walk has asubstandard (less than 2Ofeet) road width. The project parking iDthe garage iSdesigned toallow vehicles tOback out into the 27 -ft. long driveway and turnaround before entering the street. Typically, reduced setbacks togarages have been allowed to reduce g[GdinO.VvhSne vehicles have adF_qU31ev!lsibi}tyhoback out VfqB[aye9. 9uizRas-Aonms File #': ED! 1-T78.V{1-003 37Pany 1;Valk TNe:SanRelie>HiUoideResidential DeaianGuidelines Anaivs�Table ����N-�H0��"=�� �� ����������� 0 �� The effective visual bulk ofhillside residential development should bH reduced SOthat structures dOnot "stand out" prominently when seen from 8distance Orfrom downhill properties. Building form should be designed hoconform tO the site topography. The form, Dl8SS, profile and architectural features Of the individual buildings should bedesigned tn blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile Df the slope. Visibility would not bBaDissue here since the vehicles would not back out into the street. Public Works has reviewed the Exhibit 7 and did not express any concerns with the parking and driveway solutions proposed for this dead end street. Consistent The proposed design with the building receding back 8Sitfollows the upsloping property results in minimizing its mass and impact above the road level. The project cOmp|iesth8DlaXinnUnlhUi|diDgheight3Dd Stepbeckheight. The building has articulation and massing. Although the site has been graded/excavated extensively iAthe past, the proposed project would [8qUineDD|y [niniUl8l grading of 107 Cy cut and fill. The proposed residence would consist Ofsix bedrooms with 4Y2 b8thn3O[D8. However, bedrooms are generally 10`X1O' in Size and all other areas such aSliving and dining room and kitchen for the residence are also of modest size. There are OO office or media [OUDls, which are generally used tojustify 8large house size. SE��T7��@A7^H!LL-�QE�\��C��� �T�TUR8L��H�\R��T��� ----------- � Building and FDOf Cons/stent forms should bS The building and roof forms are broken while being stepped back to "broken" into conform to the site topography, compositions of smaller components tO reflect the i[negU|8[ form Ofthe hillside setting. ' Building forms should be"0tepp8d'tO conform tothe site LOpOgnBphy.ExteOGiVe Use ofrooftop terraces at |oVVo[stVri;--s. verandas, and other Cu spaces are Ru�Re��enoe FU���EDi1�7D���1�O337 Perry Walk Title: San Rafael Hillside Residential Desiqn Guidelines Analvsis �-ab;e �����gD���=�" �� SEEM=$ Planting design should reflect the hillside character of the San Rafael landscape. Protect ridgelines, open hillsides, canyon and riparian areas. Plant selection should recognize the importance of water conservation, fire resistance and erosion control. Emphasize drought tolerant native plant species. Use hillside planting design to effectively buffer existing hillside residential neighborhoods from the impacts of new hillside development projects. `3 SECTION A9 - SITE 11 i Consistent The project as proposed would retain the existing trees except the one 8" oak tree that would need to be removed for safety reasons. Due to the existing topography, grading and location of the proposed development, the proposed landscaping is limited to restoring the disturbed area of approximately 2,132 sq. ft. to its natural state by planting three (3) native coast live oak, seven (7) strawberry trees and shrubs and ground covers. The selected plant materials are native, drought tolerant, deer resistant, shade tolerant, low maintenance, provide erosion control, and are compatible with existing plant materials. The landscape plan would need to be consistent with the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) landscape plan requirements. Site lighting which is Inconsistent visible in hillside The provided plans do not include external lighting details. However, residential development staff believes a single family residence can easily comply with the from adjacent properties, requirements for external lighting (e.g. shielded/low level). Compliance roadways anf from other would be verified at the time of building permit issuance. neighborhoods Must be indirect or incorporate full shield cut-offs. "quiz RegionceF:'--�: ED, _n; 8,zt.l1 -003 37 Perry Wall: litle: San Raael '-IiHs�de RpsidenVal Design Gu'deflines Anolvsis Fabile R Bram Druckman Monica Ennis RECEIVED I Perry Walk San Rafael, CA 94901 MAR 2 0 ZU lt' To: Design Review Board PLANNING Attn: Sarjit Dhaliwal Re: Design Review - 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Design Review Board Members: As long time residents of Perry Walk, my wife for 3 6 years and I for 29 years, we are writing- to express our concerns regarding the proposed construction on the 37 Perry Walk site. To begin, most of the neighboring homes are 1 or 2 stories high with 2 bedrooms and a floor area of less than 1000 sq. ft. The proposed development is for 6 bedrooms, 4 Y? baths with a floor area of almost 3500 sq. ft., which from the start doesn't fit the existing character of -the street. Another major concern regards the design's compatibility with San Raf-ael's Hillside Design Guidelines that require the project to be compatible with the neighborhood and harmonious with the hillside. As it stands the story poles presewC a large box -like structure that covers a major part of the hillside blocking the views and which tower uncomfortaNy over the neighboring house. F built as proposed, the owner G`;` the neighboring; houseii.fili 'ose OF, her view of the woods and the hill, which has been one of the more pleasant aspects of livi;ng on Perry Walk. In addition, over the years there have been hillside slides on the 37 Perry Wall,- site, most recently in January 2008 and June 2010 (see attached photos) which have occurred after heavy rains which means the hill itself is unstable and will require substantial shearing up to Prevent I'uture slides if any Malor construction is to be undertaken, Also, in December 2002", i , i ' the dry creek between 37 and 17 Perry Walk bec from the hill slidin-o arne a dam when trees the ravine during another heavy storm blocking it up which then burst in the rille of the night sending a °/Vave of rnud and debris down Perry Walk, Bungalow and Picnic Avenues. (see attached photos) L e ev, U1 il". Another nia*or concern is oarldng on, tiie szi�eet arnd he 'rici- 2sn ro i -0 - kse- H e a p -tecs) req either be ti e street 'to Par!( pack 0 ��_-he(J ph, di ivers to oz Da V r ;F41111 thie way to BUrigaiow 8,ve., to tu,.rn around. As `F -C _siclands Ferry '*Vv;aik i� I I lot and at times throughout the day drivers exiting the street cause traffic backups 2ckups in boti i -PYHYRIT fA directions on Bungalow Ave. The proposed development will , most certainly exacerbate an already strained traffic situation by introducing more cars and trucks into an already over -crowded street - temporarily during construction as well as permanently as a result of the proposed house being 3 times larger than the existing neighborhood homes. Finally, for the proposed structure to be built as presently designed, height, setback and off-street parking variances will have to be granted, especially the reduced number of off-street parking spots required by the City of San Rafael. As homeowners who will be directly impacted by the additional vehicles backing up and down in front of our houses, we question the legality and practicality of granting such variances on a small street the size of Perry Walk. Therefor ce we request the City to require the following changes to -the proposed house: Do not reduce the parking required for a new house by granting a variance to the off-street parking requirements. 2. - Mention an appropriately sized house design that fully complies with the City's hillside guidelines without variances. 3Reduce the size and bulk of the proposed house to more closely blend with the desigr of the neighborhood and avoid. its box like appearance as it is now proposed. 4. Require the builder to establish effective traffic control measures to accommcdat-a the existing residents of Perry Walk. 5. Require the builder to perfcrin an appropriate Geo-Li-edhOk-a! inivesi,gation oi' -"--he entire i property to not only protect the proposed house but also to repair the eXisting landslide so as to prevent future failures. Require the builder to obtain confirmation that they water and sanii'L-anj faculties have the capacity to support the future house and its infrastructure and if irnproverneents are required that impact the existing Perry Walk property owners the builder will be responsible ,or such related eXperses. q;ncerr, ii 7.1y Yours orarn Druckrinan Monica Ennis L j - Jf eootA, -T Nia eootA, -T IMM From: AnnyKoen' [ oro Sent: . Thursday, February 1S.2O121{lO1AM To: SoQQ Dho|kwa| Cc: Steve Stafford Subject: RE: 37Perry VVu|k Hi Sa ^it, Please see my email below to Mr. SoIdavini^ and his response. In response, I feel that his previous email should not be presented Review Boerd'PlanninQ [omission, and/or the City Council, as an from Picnic Valley Homeowners Association. As always- thank you for your help, Any Koenig 12 Perry Walk ---Original Message --'- From: Donald SoIdavinl < To: Amy Sent: Tue, Feb 14' 2012 10:32 am Subject: Re: 37 Perry Walk Amy Koenig, Page !o[2 light of his to the Design email of support It is a very loose association. We have not met in some time. People do not want to get involved unless it JhvuIves them directly. Z have tried to get people together for 28 yeaks concerning Bungalow Ave( large open Gutters)with little success- The only oposition i heard was one neighbor who was concerned about parking' I would be interested in hearing your, concerns over this project. In my letter i stated that it was my personal opinion and not that of the Neighborhood Assoc. From: Amy &It; To: Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 I2:57 PM Subject: 37 Perry Walk Dear Rr.SoIdavini/ Z am the new owner/resident of 12 Per/]/ Walk. Ry home is -,�djacent to 37 Perry Walk. Z attended the Design Review Board meeting last �eek concerning the ne� home that Mr' Ruiz desires at that address' There was a letter of support from the Picnic Homeowners Association/you on the table. Z ezoId like to speak to you about the letter and the associations' support of the project. Z feel that any letter of should have been nade after researching the effect the proiec� :ouId hava on the neig"htnrhood and include a discussion with adjacent home=e/s. Z xas oDc eYEn Euare that there is a HomeoAners Association, and have not been contacted by them to ask my opinion of the project. 5/l/901? Page 2oz'2 Could you provide me with information about the association and how to contact the board members. Thank you, Amy Koenig From: SarjitDha/kwa|[moiKo: Sent: Wednesday, February O8,2O1Z11:34AM To: Amy Koenig Subject. RE,, 37 Perry Walk Hi Amy, The message is affached. Last night 0Ke had it oMfhetable 04fside From: Amy Koenig [maUto/ Sent: Wednesday, February O8,2O131O:58AM To: Ba 'itDho}kwo| Subject. 37 Perry Walk HiSarjit I am wondering whom I could ask for a copy of the letter of support for 37 Perry Walk from the Picnic area homeowners association. | have search the web and am unable to find information aboutthem. Thank you for any help you can give noeand thank you for your past help. *my 1ZPerry Walk Amy Koenig Finance Director Makoto Takashina 17 Peri -y Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Send via email June 4, 2012 Paul A. Jensen, AICP Community Development Director City of San Rafael P.G. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 415.485.5064 Re: Request to refer to Planninil CommNsion - 37 Ferny Walk, San Ra-fael. CA 94901 Dear Mr. Jensen: This is to request to refer the subject Project application to the Planning :Commission in accordarce, with the San Rafael Municipal code section 14.20.070 which states: 14.20.070 - Referral to planning commission of zoning administrator items., - When, in the opinion of the planning diree'dor, any matter set forth in Section 14.20.0,10, Actions of the zoning administrator, is of a size, importance or unique nature such that it is I judged not to be a routine matter, it may be placed directly on the agenda of the planning commission for determination in lien ohaving it processed by the zoning administrator, I (Ord. 1625 § I (part), 1992). The subject project was approved at the DR13 hearing oii Nfay 8 and is scheduled to he heard at Zotiin, J 1=1 1 0 Administrator's hearin�- on June 6.., Wednesdav, not a in ad'dition to thc fact that I —evz.- I -he prc-essing of the subjecfappli�-q inn I q *-� n tile plc si2n 11 neighbors are opposvig, the proposed siz�,---tandni.ass' There are 1111311bor of Serious is_�Ues i U—i the application against ordinances, wrongful or questionable approval, errors identifying, or oversight of, the design aspects and misleading drawings, 0 - ZD TN/Iy analysis of the design in relation to ordinances and other aspects was discussed in detail in my letter to the DRB and Zoning Administrator for the DRB meeting. At the DRB meeting and in the staff report, these issues were not fully addressed, incorrectly addressed, or not addressed at all. The issues I discussed in the letter were: 1. TRAFFICAND SAFETY 2. ACCESS TO THE NEW DRIVEWAY I SETBACK AT FIRONT 4. STEPBACK J. SIZE AND COMPA17-F114MITY Please refer to the attached letter for detailed discussions. (Regarding itern 44 Stepback. I add that I. have analyzed plan sheets A-4 and A5 in addition to A- I and confirmed that ftont walls encroach into the stepback zone, measured from existing grades.) The project is highly controversial and deserves to be reviewed more thoroughly by the Planning Commission, Please let me know if you could refer this to the Planning Commission as soon as possible since the Zoning Administrator's hearing will be on Wednesday 6,16. 1 am in DC area, but can be reached at my cell 415-272-5742. Z� Sincerely, Makoto Takashina I J. r,s �- (- C � ."-N-5- 'c- 'r1 ". 3 � .-:;z C L .. f � -3-.F-'" --! --i� cLE5;-i{:' - iI -- -, -, This only refers to "not more than ane -half of the requiredyardor setback ", not 100% of the required yard. Furthermore, it states "the decrease ininindzes the inipact of hillside, development and grading". A keyword here is "and". Pushing the garage 10' to the rear as opposed to 20' would decrease excavation, but it 0 does not minimize the impact of the hillside development because the area under which the garage is pushed in I is already to be developed by the house placed above. Thus, the ordinance does not allow zero setback in general and do not allow even alialf-way reduction in the case of this subject project, , Since the ordinance permits no reduction in the setback in this case, and findings cannot be made to grant a variance, 20 feet front setback must be complied with. Concerning the issue of "excessive excavation": In the provided plans, pushing the garage 20' to the rear would increase excavation under the rear part of the house, essentially creating an additional basement of 20'x20'. This is not an unusual extent of excavation performed in steep hillside developments. Furthermore, this excavation is easily justified because the area will be under the house, thus resulting in no destabilization of the hillside if properly engineered and no decrease in the natural state of the hill. This excavation is not "excessive". Additional excavation would certainly increase the construction cost, but hardship in development and implied cost are presumably reflected in the low purchase price of the subject property ($170,000 public record). The city is not obligated to and should not relax its code requirements in order to increase project's financial benefit. In the Ordinance, 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H), it states: ,4, Building Siepback. A building stepback- is established to limit the height of structures to avoid excessive building bulk. On the downhill slope walls and on walls facing front and side property lines, a twenty -foot (20") heiO71 limit measured from existinz trade shall he observed within all areas, within fi0een feet (15') of the 177,aXi7?n17n, huildinL- eiivelone Ifinit. To allow for design flexibility, an encroachnient into the street font, street side and interior side stepback is permitted along twenty five percent (25%6) of the bUildi17g length. " The proposed plan does not comply with this requirement. The front building envelope is defined by the 20 foot setback line and is shown in the floor plans. In the building section -A, this line would run at the left side of the garage door opening and at the middle of the deck outside of the master bathroorn at the second floor. The 15 0 foot stepback line would run in the building section -A vertically at the rear/left wall of the master bathroom and noes through bedroom '4 above. Within this stepback zone, a portion of the master bathroom (thus, adjacent master bedroom, also) at the second floor, and bedroom 44 (thus, bedroom 43, bathroom, and staircase, also) at the third floor exceed 20 -feet height limit from the existing grade. A similar condition exists at the ri-ht (north) side of the house. ANY) COINIPAT-131LITY: Even these stepback and other issues are resolved. still a fundamental issue remains. Please note that nowhere in tl-,,- ordinances stater that compliance with a particular requirement, for example the maximum floor area height. etc., vould autoniatically grant a status ofcoinpatibility . The Hillside Design Standards emphasizes in-,portanco of coin pati bi lity with the aeiE.hborhood: J ­'i"'11V 10 natill-07 /71,11yide sWin�Z m7d compatibility 11"ith llcarOv hiliside 77e!�O",J', t, 2C I _765CS Although these wordings are used in a particular part (14.12.04 0 -Exceptions to property development standards, 4� p (Ord. 1663 § I (part), 1994). (Ord. No, 1882, Exh. A, § 39, 6-21-10)), obviously these should be applicable to those projects that do not ecessarily seek exceptions. As I stated in my previous letter, most of the houses on Perry Walk are 2 bedroom/1000 sq.ft. homes. The idea of inserting into this neighborhood a house with over 3000 sq.ft. of floor area and 6 bedrooms should immediately alert reviewers as it strongly suggests incompatibility with the neighborhood. The erected story poles confirm this. The site, in spite of its relatively large site area, is a very difficult one to design a, project primarily due to its topography. Even designing a 2 bedroom/1000 sq.ft house, a typical size in this neighborhood, may not be easy to be compatible and harmonious with the environment. The site simply does not have the capacity for a large house. Besides introducing increased traffic, an attempt to design a larger house to be compatible and harmonious in the site may never be successful. What would be the maximum size that can be designed to be compatible in the site is an issue that may never be agreed on by all. I tbr myself would suggest that the size to be no more than 1500 sq.ft. (for compatibility) with no more than 3 bedrooms (for limiting increased traffic generation), both of which set conditions about 50% above the typical homes in the neighborhood. This increased size above the average is reasonable coiisidering7 the fact that this is a new construction and would not deprive the owner of the right to develop the land. Pushing back the house and breaking up the building elevations do not alter the fundamental incompatibility inherent in the attempt to build a large structure of the size proposed in this setting. Approving a project with these issues discussed above would erode the basic foundation and missions of city's ordinances. In addition a project approval with questionable justifications and without sufficient considerations on the neighborhoods, safety and compatibility in particular, may expose the city to a legal liability. Therefore, I request to DRB that the application is either denied, or requested to be revised to substantially reduce the size as suggested, complying with all zoning requirements including those discussed above. I also request to the Zoning Administrator to refer this application to the Planning Commission for its further review. Should you have any questions on this rnatter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, " Ir Makoto Takashina 4 P'VITakoto Takashiria 17 Perry Walk, San Rafaei, CA 941901 Send via email June 5, 2012 Sarjit Dhaliwal, Zoning Administrator Associate Planner Community Development City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Phone: (415) 485-3397 Fax: (415) 485-3184 E mail: sari it.dhaliwal(&,cit-vofsaiirafael.or� Re: Request to note this letter at the, Public Hearin- of Zoalnz Administrator o' --,l June 6, 21012 re. 37 Per vv Walk Bear Mr. Dhaliwal: This is to request to record and file this letter with its attachnicatat the subject hearing. All issues aro discussed in the attached letter. Sincercly, M-skclo TakQshina A,rtchm- �,nt: Loiler to DIU al?d Z, -k fi-o-m _'O,Rozn Tak-ashirm, dl"�tcd May S. 21) 12. Makoto Tak-ashina 17 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Send via einail May 8, 2012 To: Zoning Administrator To: Design Review Board Attn: Sarjit Dhaliwal Re: Design Review 5/8/2012 - 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Zoning Administrator: Dear Design Review Board Members: I am writing as I am out of town and cannot attend the hearing on this date for the subject design review. I have reviewed the drawings and the staff report for the project forwarded by Mr. Dhaliwal. As I indicated I my previous letter, I live with my family at 17 Perry Walk, am an architect by profession and served DRB years ago when the Hillside Design Guidelines were being developed and adopted by the city. Neighbors' concerns about the increased traffic are genuine and their impressions expressed on the proposed size in such words as "Too big!" are intuitive, but accurate. This is not another NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard). TRATFIFIC AND SAFF'STY: Perry Walk is a very narrow street and all neighbors are very concerned about introduction of increased traffic, 'The previous resident of the house was a couple with two young children. The proposed 06 bedroom house would allow 7 people to reside, resulting in increased traffic generation by both the residents and visitors. Those bedrooms being small do not prevent increased traffic generation from taking place. The city's zoning ordinance states in 14.01.030 — Purposes: a lj'af* clrculatif-,71 anc-I table Ic/ca sl;stel- (01--CI. Ii525 0' 1 1992). rhcre have been incidences of accidents on this sti-cot. They have been vehicle -to -vehicle collisions and luck ly so far bodily injuries have not been repented to my k-uov, ledge. Still, safety relating to increased traffic in this cro%dcd street is an issue that should be taken seriously. -Nothing is discussed in the staff report on the klt',ranent to the neighborhood in this respect that can be caused by the introduction of the proposed house. pzge I ACCESS TO THE NEW DRI WAY. Relating to, but separate from, the issue discussed above, Exhibit 3 of the staff report indicates vehicle movement patterns, This study appears to assume two cars for 7 Perry Walk will be parked along the existing stone wall in front of 7 Perry Walk. The area in front of the PG&E pole and the wood steps leading to our property at 17 Perry Walk, shown empty in the drawing, has been used for parking by residents of 7 Perry Walk for many years. A legal issue relating to the owner's right, prescriptive casement, is likely to arise. This issue is further complicated by the fact that the city is taking a position that it does not own the land of Perry Walk, because a true owner is the only entity with the right with which possibly to void such an easement. Until this issue is resolved, the study may not have a legitimate basis and therefore an approval based on the study may not be made, SETBACK AT FRONT: Granting a variance for the encroachment of proposed garage into the front setback is not consistent with the required findings specified in the Ordinance: "A., That beeause of special Ch-ClOnStances applicable to the property, inchuding site, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements oj'this title deprives such property qf privileges eqfoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical Zoning classification; " All houses on Perry Walk have some front setback, except existing houses at the subject property and its northerly neighbor. Thus, the strict application of the requirement does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by others. "Phis is particularly important because of the narrow street width. "B. That the variance 14411 not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent ivith the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning district in ivhich si(ch property is Sitllated,' " The setback limitations are applicable to all houses when they are rebuilt, Therefore, granting a variance to the subject project would give a special privilege. Again this is critically important because of the narrow street width. Improvement over the existing zero setback by -providing a driveway to the new garage does not justify another violation of the code. "D. That granting the application 1i,111 not be cletr7;77erral or irJztriolls to or I . ilqrroveinents in the vicinity of the development site, or to thepublic health, sqle'ly or general ivelj'are, " Having a garage wall right on the front property line in this setting is, riolufally in my opinion, considered detrimental to the neighborhood. Therefore, findings are not made to justify a variance. Without a variance, nowhere in the ordinances indicates that the front setback can be zero if excessive excavation can be avoided, To fully comply with the front setback requirement, the garage needs to be pushed back toward the rear about 210 feet with sonic portion under the kitchen area, assurnine, the rest of the general plan layout remains thy; sanne. Ordinance 14. 12 .030 - Property development standards (-H) states: 7, - _' of ; -4 --w-'re Ma 7 B. h 7 .. !'Calli !Va 1,7111)'d -(77- b�y ;171-e heoi-ii;g 'r-_4, of s-"ji ' - e e r, 1) 1 � 7 �"?,; a I all. cw 0 4� T ic YCV, . �',V loa;-J ihat 117C f/CCrCf`7V2 M7 !U1MLCS 1h,, 11,7e ; �', 1 L and _Crodif- i ,,. 1f such a redicrio:7 is ""i'aalrecl, a S,crbaclzl- is r,!qa1'VCd 'bi ikll' This only refers to "not more thane one-ha�of the requh-ed yarcloi- setback", not 100% of the required yard. Furthermore, it states "the decrease nn . in . nn zes the impact o1rhillside development and grading". A keyword here is "and". Pushing the garage 10' to the rear as opposed to 20' would decrease excavation, but it does not minimize the impact of the hillside development because the area under which the garage is pushed in is already to be developed by the house placed above. Thus, the ordinance does not allow zero setback in general and do not allow even a half -way reduction in the case of this subject project. Since the ordinance permits no reduction in the setback in this case, and findings cannot be made to grant a variance, 20 feet front setback must be complied with. Concerning the issue of "excessive excavation": In the provided plans, pushing the garage 20' to the rear would increase excavation under the rear part of the house, essentially creating an additional basement of 20'x20'. This is not an unusual extent of excavation performed in steep hillside developments. Furthermore, this excavation is easily justified because the area will be under the house, thus resulting in no destabilization of the hillside if properly engineered and no decrease in the natural state of the hill. This excavation is not "excessive". Additional excavation Would certainly increase the construction cost, but hardship in development and implied cost are presumably reflected in the low purchase price of the subject property ($170,000 public record). The city is not obligated to and should not relax its code requirements in order to increase project's financial benefit. STEPBACK: In the Ordinance, 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H), it states: "A, Ba. ilcling Stephack. A building stepback is established to li7nit the height cf switaiwes to avoid excessive bzdlding bulk. On the downhill slope IV4711S and on walls - facingfirOnt and side property lines, a twenh-loot (20") Me,ht Ihnit measuredfionz cocistin,�, gra(le shall be observed ivifhin all areas ivithin fifteen feet (15") of the 7110,yinnnn hidl(line envelope Ihnit. To allow, Jb7- design flexibility, an encroachment into the street fi-ont, street side and interior side stepback ii' permitted along, tiventy-fivepercent (250%) Qfthe building- length, " The proposed plan does not comply with this requireirient.The front building envelope is defined by tho 20 foot setback line and is shown in the floor plans. In the building section -A, this line would run at the left side of the garage door opening andat the middle of the deck outside of the inaster bathroom at the second floor. The 15 foot stepback line would run in the building section -A vertically at the rear/left wall of the master bathroom and goes through bedroom #4 above, Within this stepback zone, a portion of the master bathroom (thus, adjacent master bedroom, also) at the second floor, and bedroom -4 (thus, bedrooui:U, bathroom, and staircase, also), at the third floor exceed M -feet height limit from the existing grade. A similar condition exists at the right (11ord-) side of the house.. Co -TD A -;-Y- -- �� -./. 1?. 9 A i Y I Evcii these stc-,,4llacrk and other issuies are rcselved, still a flindamental isstic reiu;lins. Please rote 11hat novfiere in ih,c ordino�rccs slaics that CC11-pliance with a pailieuLl:- requircinent, .Cr example u -,e inaixi-own floo, a The flills'dic Desir-,n Sf?nxhirds eirphasizes iinl-or,anct Mc.. �,volllldautoina�, cally gra;lt a stat: ofconipatibility. of coinnati'Mility vlith the neighborhood: 7 �-11 M 0, fit Although these wordings are used in a particular part (14.12.0,10 - Exceptions to property development standards, (Ord. 1663 § I (part), 1994). (Ord. No. 1882, Exh. A, § 39, 6-21-10)), obviously these should be applicable to those projects that do not ecessarily seek exceptions. As I stated in my previous letter, most of the houses on Perry Walk are 2 bedrooni/1000 sq.ft. homes. The idea of inserting into this neighborhood a house with over 3000 sq.ft. of floor area and 6 bedrooms should immediately alert reviewers as it strongly suggests incompatibility with the neighborhood. The erected story poles confirm this. The site, in spite of its relatively large site area, is a very difficult one to design a project primarily due to its topography. Even designing a 2 bedroom/1000 sq.ft house, a typical size in this neighborhood, may not be easy to be compatible and harmonious with the environnient. The site simply does not have the capacity for a large house. Besides introducing increased traffic, an attempt to design a larger house to be compatible and harmonious in the site may never be successful. What would be the niaxii-nuin size that can be designed to be compatible in the site is an issue that may never be agreed on by all. I far myself would suggest that the size to be no more than 1500 sq.ft, (for compatibility) with no more than 3 bedrooms (for limiting increased traffic generation), both of which set conditions about 50% above the typical homes in the neighborhood. This increased size above the average is reasonable considering the tact that this is a new construction and would not deprive the owner of the right to develop the land. Pushing back the house and breaking up the building elevations do not alter the fundamental incompatibility inherent in the attempt to build a large structure of the size proposed in this setting. Approving a project with these issues discussed above would erode the basic foundation and missions of city's ordinances. In addition a project approval with questionable justifications and without sufficient considerations on the neighborhoods, safety and compatibility in particular, inay expose the city to a legal liability. Therefore, I request to DRB that the application is either denied, or requested to be revised to substantially reduce the size as suggested, complying with all zoning requirements including those discussed above. I also request to the Zoning Administrator to refer this application to the Plaruning Commission for its further review. Should you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, -N-lakoto Takashina Jose Zamora PO Box 2756 San RafaeI7 CA 94912 May 30, 2012 To: City Council Members To: Planning Commissioners To: Zoning Administrator Of the City of San Rafael Attn: Sarjit Dhali%vai, ProJect 'I lanner &- Zoning Administrator Re: Development at 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Sirs and Madams: I used to live at 8 Perry Walk, 2 houses down from 37 Perry Walk. Although 1 myself do not live there anymore Estela, my ex-wife and Javier, our son still live there and I drop by often to do some work around the house. I run a landscape dusign/construction business. I heard of the proposed development and saw the story poles. I was overwhelmed by its size, a huge mass hidinc, the hillside. It looks much, much bigger than other houses on Perry Walk, I heard that the house would have three times more floor area than typical houses here. The planned garage is located.right on the property line with no setback. Then, I was told that the house would have 6 bedroonis. This was quite upsetting because driving in/out and parking is a very difficult task- at Perry Walk, which is narrow and crowded with parked cars. �� This exper'euce is shared by all neighbors, i believe, Estella leas I -tad c,-,racc;dents here, P4a -bedmf�rn hot =v actually built, ii would generate r3iore iratfic, by the residents and visitors. Thf- Sjfiti-jtj(�a is ba -d already no°xThi: proposed ho -use would make t ev,, n worse, It viould be ani4lhtnlare. las the city ncafly lookd at ihis issue", Twas shocked when, I heard that the Design Review 12oard had approvrd the design. Did the Bcard seriously consider viliat kind of bad impact this house would have to this neighborhood? I heard that at the Design Review Board hearing, the wvner/appl; cant said the neighbors opposing this dessi411 were racists discriminatingagainstthe Latino owner, Estella, Javier ad I myself are Latinos. Nono of, the neighbors herc are racists. [ resent that such a ta-c-Lic is used by the. owner/applienrit. I would liketo request that the city v,.-culd deny this house design and ask the oss,ncr/applicant to redcsi-n with 0 r,-duced size compatible with other homes, perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 square feet -Nith no irio"-e 3 bedrooms -nd with proper setback. Thank you forgiving rife an oppermn'ry to state my ccrit-en). skncerely. -1 c s c Ir" t'(- 0,-a Mn"'Ai0to Takashirkn Send via email Julyl9, 2012 Planahng Commissioners Atte: Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner and Zoning Administrator Community Development City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Re: PlanninLz Commission Public Hearina on JuIv 24, 2012 - 37 Peri -v Walk, San Rafael, Dear Commissioners: This is to express my concern about the subject project approved by the DIW and the Zoning Administrator on May 8 and on June 6 respectively. I live at 17 Perry Walk with my family. t am all architect by prol*.ssion and served. the DRB some years ago when the Hillside Design Guidelines were adopted by the city. The subject property at 37 Perry Walk Nvas foreclosed during the housing crisis and subsequently purchased by the present owner at a price of $170.000 (public record), who then proceeded to apply for an approval submitting a design three times larger in floor area, three times more bedrooms and twice as high as typical hones in this neighborhood, and with zero front setback. fa addition to the fact ihata-11 neighbors are opposing the proposcd size and niass, there are number of serious issues in the design and N ay s the application lias been processed. These m.-aly rise to such a level as negligence in CV,'IILI,-Itirl(' the application against ordinances, wrongful or questionable approval, errors identifying or ()�draw int of the design aspects and misleading drings. n X,ly analysis of the design in relation to ordinances and other aspects is discussed in detail * in my letter to A , 41— 1 -)TI D —ld Z�,� � !,, and i*n the DR6 and 2-onima Admillisil-OW" (ZA" I'or thic DIR" mec staff reports for these cecasions, these issue,, were igynored. or addressed insufficiently or incorrectly. Fc -..7 2,� 7" �-3 V - The issues I discussed in the letter are: 1. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY 2. ACCESS TO THE NEW DRIVEWAY 3. SETBACK AT FRONT 4. STEPBACK S. SIZE AND COMPATIBILITY Please refer to the attached letter for detailed discussions. I also attach additional materials on the analysis of stepback compliance for your review. This issue too was never rigorously examined by any of the reviewers. All three sides, front and both sides, of the proposed design are examined based on applicant's drawings. With considerations of these, I request that the corninission should deny the subject application. Sincerelv, Makoto Takashina Malioto ToRaslihm 17 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Send via email May 8, 2012 To: Zoning Administrator To: Design Review Board Attn: SarjitDhaliwal Re: Design Review 5/8/2012 - 37 Perry Walk, San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Zoning Administrator: Dear Design Review Board Members: I am writing as I am out of town and cannot attend the hearing on this date for the subject design review. t have reviewed the drawings and the staff report for the project forwarded by Mr. Dhaliwal. As I indicated f my previous letter, I live with my,family at 17 Perry Walk, am an architect by profession and served DRI.3 years ago when the Hillside Design Guidelines were being developed and adopted by the city. Neighbors' concerns about the increased traffic are genuine and their impressions expressed on the proposed size in such words as "Too big!" are intuitive, but accurate. This is not another NIMBI` (Not in My Back Yard). S'A FE'yy. TRAFFIC AND I Perry Walk is a very narrow street and all neighbors are very concerned about introduction of increased traffic. The previous resident of the house Nvas a couple with two young children, 'The proposed 6 bedroom house would allow 7 people to reside, resulting in increased traffic generation by both the residents and visitors. Those bedrooms being small do not prevent -increased traffic generation froin taking place. The city's zoning ordinance states in 14.01.030 — Purposes: TO -rolnoie el"eclive lra,'fic ciWah-'Won sysWm. C117d i;i,'H-'i7hIiI7 IOCGI Cil -C711(11`011 SIW&7;I OPCIUthW C07011i(IMS,- (01-61. 1625 1�'�./ tl)artl;, 1992). ]'here have been incidences of accidenis on Ihis strc,•I. They haz-e been vehicle-to-vchicic collisioi:s and luckily so far bodi Iy injuries have not been reported to mN kno�N -IeCige. Still, sallety relating to iiacrcascd f rai'lic 1;I this crowded street is an issue that should be taken seriously. is discussed hi the staff report on the de"r-MICIA o , i neighborhood in this respect that can caused b-,,,, the introductio-11 of the proposed hoose., "tile ne, -a be - . MANSION Relating to, but separate from, the issue discussed above, Exhibit 3 of the staff report indicates vehicle movement patterns. This study appears to assume two cars for 7 Perry Walk will be parked along the existing stone wall in front of 7 Perry Walk. The area in front of the PG&E pole and the wood steps leading to our property at 17 Perry Walk, shown empty in the drawing, has been used for parking by residents of 7 Perry Walk for many years. A legal issue relating to the owner's right, prescriptive easement, is likely to arise. This issue is further complicated by the fact that the city is taking a position that it does not own the land of Perry Walk, because a true owner is the only entity with the right with which possibly to void such an casement. Until this issue is resolved, the study may not have a legitimate basis and therefore an approval based on the study may not be made. SETBACK AT FRONT: Granting a variance for the encroachment of proposed garage into the front setback is not consistent with the required findings specified in the Ordinance: Z� ",4. That because OJ'SPC'ChIl Ch-CIMISIUMeS applicable to the property, including sLe, shape, topography, location or surroun(lbigs, the strict application of the requireinents of this title deprives such property of privileges ei�o.ved by other property in the vicinity and under identical Zoning classification; " All houses on Perry Walk have some front setback, except existing houses at the subject property and its northerly neighbor. Thus, the strict application of the requirement does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by others. This is particularly important because of the narrow street width. "R That the variance ivill 77of constitute a grant oj'Spee ial privileges 717CO17Sistent with the li7nitations upon otherproperlies in the vicinityond zoning district in which such pr'oper'ty issintated; J — The setback limitations are applicable to all houses when they are rebuilt. Therefore, granting a variance to the subject project would give a special privilege. Again this is critically important because of the narrow street width. Improvement over the existing zero setback by providing a driveway to the new garage does not jLlSfit' another violation of the code. "D. That le,rantijl,,- the application will not be detrimental or iil orioiis to Property or iniproveinei its in the vicinity of the clevelopinew site, or to thcpublic health, safety or general welfare. " Having a garage wall right on the front property line in this setting is, rightfully in my opinion, considered detrimental to the neighborhood. Therefore, findings aro not made to justify a variance. Without a variance, nowhere in the ordinances indicates that the front setback can be zero if excessive excavation can be avoided. To fully comply with the front setback require relit. the garage needs to be pushed back toward the rear about 20 feet with some portion under the kitchen area. assuming the rest o; the general plan layout remains the same. Ordinaticc 14,12.0330 - Property Z� development standards (41) sfates: B. SethuCks. si-ruct7Wes Rh%:` Cicroaeh into a rcqllfrel.yar�i Or fi>r c-fr (Iistan-v I-V'not ;71 -ore than oi;e-haffoi- the realdrea, 0", SeMIc'k. Siib,CCI to by the hocl` <. "an CI;vh-OI1I'-'iei;Ia1' al;ci'-/"sign perinit, wit"I the I*ectil17771c:e1!,.Icit'i,,?iI q/ rth'? tie -sign review b, "n-tithat the,lccrease ininitniZes of lhfllshle L& 11 (, , -vivasc in is requireo"'N th-l-, !��Iowylcilt cl"O Craciii Il"such 0 re� IC!i7 is " crald,:64 a coinpensaiiiig : o 0 --i wk 17 -rposhig s I. afivc-/i�i-I (5') 1v4IicIJ'(i;I )t This only refers to "not n7o7-e than one-half of the i-eqiiii-edj,ai-cioi-setbctck", not 100% of the required yard. Furthermore, it states "the decrease inini7nizes the inilmet oj'hillside developinent aid gi-ading -. A keyword here is "and". Pushing the garage 10' to the rear as opposed to 20' would decrease excavation, but it does not minimize the impact of the hillside development because the area under which the garage is pushed in is already to be developed by the house placed above. Thus, the ordinance does not allow zero setback in general and do not allow even half -way reduction in the case of this subject project. Since the ordinance permits no reduction in the setback in this case, and findings cannot be made to grant a variance, 20 feet front setback must be complied with. Concerning the issue of "excessive excavation": In the provided plans, pushing the garage 20' to the rear would increase excavation under the rear part of the house, essentially creating an additional basement of 20'x20'. This is not an unusual extent of excavation performed in steep hillside developments. Furthermore, this excavation is easily justified because the area will be tinder the house, thus resulting in no destabilization of the hillside if properly engineered and no decrease in the natural state of the hill. This excavation is not "excessive". Additional excavation would certainly increase the construction cost, but hardship in development and implied cost are presumably reflected in the low purchase price of the subject property 0170,000 public record). The city is not obligated to and should not relax its code requirements in order to increase project's financial benefit. STE MUCK: In the Ordinance, 14.12.030 - Property development standards (-H), it states: "A, Building Stepback. A building stepback is established to litnit the height of structures to avoid excessive huilding hulk. On the dou,nhillslole ivalls and on gulls facing fi-ont and side property lines, a twenty -foot (20") hei(zhi Ihnit ineosurcd fi-oin existin.� Grade shall be obsei-ved ivithin all areas within fiftet.?n ket (15") of the maxinnan buildinu envelow lin t. To alloit, for des4gnflex7bilhy, an encroachinent 771tO the street fi-ont, str-eet side and interio;, side stepback is perinitted along hwntyfive percent (25%) of the building length. " The proposed plan does not comply with this requirement. The front building envelope is defined by the 20 foot setback line and is shown in the floor plans. In the building section -A, this line -would run at the left side of the garage door opening and at the middle of the deck outside of the master bathroom at the second floor. The 15 foot stepback line would run in the building section -A vertically at the rear/ eft wall of the master bathroom and goes through bedroom,44 above. Within this stepback zone,, a portion of the master bathroom (thus, adjacent master bedroom, also) at the second floor, and bedroom !,4 (thus, bedroort) *`), bathroom, and staircase, also) at the third floor exceed 2104cet height limit from the existing grade. A similar condition exists at the right (north) side of the house. SIZE AND CO NIPATIIII TI, "I. Even thlese stepback and wher issues are resolved. still a fundaruental issue 1`CM,1iT`.S. PlensL note that nowhere in the ordinanccs states that coinplianec xvith a part;CUIir requircinent, for,2xaniple the rnaxinium Iloor area Afrohl etc., ,vculd automatically grant status of compatibility. The Hilllsidc Desitin Standardsemphasizesin,.pottarce ofecr-noalitiJiw with 'Llhe ncihborhocd: disl-laysensitiVity to the naairal hiiisi,1e swinc, and coinpatibility ii1th n-carby hillside ueighborhools, il , -'-- I , ,ilio. , r, --o d cc mpatibilhir 11' 111" aull S,277S1*1 ,I "A. tO -11-Vila") .tet:._ -K� 1�7S - -- Y Vlark-Cs.!32-'121-1,'3,9 Fite 3 Although these wordings are used in a particular part (14.12.0410 - Exceptions to property development standards, (Ord. 1663 § I (part), 1994). (Ord. No. 1882, Exh. A, § 39, 6-21-10)), obviously these should be applicable to those projects that do not ecessarily seek exceptions. As I stated in my,previous letter, most of the houses on Perry Walk are 2 bedroom/1000 sq.ft. homes. The idea of inserting into this neighborhood a house with over 3000 sq.ft. of floor area and 6 bedrooms should immediately alert reviewers as it strongly suggests incompatibility with the neighborhood. The erected story poles confirm this. The site, in spite of its relatively large site area, is a very difficult one to design a project primarily due to its topography. Even designing a 2 bedroom/] 000 sq.ft house, a typical size in this Z� 0 neighborhood, may not be easy to be compatible and harmonious with the enviromnent. The site simply does not have the capacity for a large house. Besides introducing increased traffic, an attempt to design a larger house to be compatible and harmonious in the site may never be successful. What would be the maximum size that can be designed to be compatible in the site is an issue that may never be agreed on by all. I for myself would suggest that the size to be no more than 1500 sq.ft. (for compatibility) with no more than 3 bedrooms (for limiting increased traffic generation), both of which set conditions about 50% above the typical homes in the neighborhood. This increased size above the average is reasonable considering the fact that this is a new construction and would not deprive the owner of the right to develop the land. Pushing back the house and breaking up the building elevations do not alter the fundamental incompatibility inherent in the attempt to build a large structure of the size proposed in this setting. Approving a project with these issues discussed above would erode the basic foundation and missions of city's ordinances. In addition a project approval with questionable justifications and without sufficient considerations on the neighborhoods, safety and compatibility in particular, may expose the city to a legal liability. Therefore, I request to DRB that the application is either denied, or requested to be revised to substantially reduce the size as suggested, complying with all zoning requirements including those discussed above. I also request to the Zoning Administrator to refer this application to the Planning Commission for its further review. Should you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Makoto Takashii)a -'7 (D z ct I I 0 W T_ 0 0 (D 0 LWL 0 Luji jQ- M Z c/) M (D co 0 U)L. 111 LWI zy CC) 111 0 > z Uj w A Ll LwJ w cj,- < >- W w 0� 0 W X (D > Ll LLJ Z _53 LA CA < F1C _ < X Z 0 0 rx) K IFYA CC) LIJ z z < << X 0 LLI CO 0 C) LU U CIO z fl" rn 0 0 Y. v 00 1 CO OU) T_ 00 -77 < CD N W W LWL (D 0 W LW1 Z X, 1 ccl IM LU � 041-1 LWL U-1 LWI L! LLJ w 0 M CC) 17 Z2 quo IET :yj < r U.1 (U) 0 LM 3D Cl) w w LL w w (D n - w o U) U) w 2 w (D w (D U) Z C) w Q z n W w z W 0 0 w (D w Cl) z < Cf) Ln w < z w x F- W 0 w 0 0 w LL W 0 CO () -j < — l< w z w C\l Q _ i cn 3: (D w I r'C\J w z z S LL 0— -j 0 W < 0 - Li jai ipT IT Eo UL Nr— T�l � ;� A 0 U) 0 < Cl) -7 1, CO Cj) Lli < U) < 0� or_ w en Fu uj < > LL > Lli U—) LLJ CL LL. sm" M, 910j, FAN MA CY5 44: co 0 ry- 0-) LU I I I w z 0 W a I U) U) U) w w w 0 'Al C\j (D CY) LL (D LL -VA C14 z –i z F < < UL U) > �> co U) — x R X Iii < W w U) C) 1-ji LU C) X w X 1,9 'Al -VA C14 13 �41 UL 0 uj z t 12! U -1 EA- UL LL q C\j U) C) 1-ji LU C) X w X 1,9 ut um Ej J D E� W F— z W IM LL 0 LL I W U— ® CO 5 x P c) i® Ewa W 0— w G W Pty �� � r, -a' 0 0 L w }} ��P LIJg ,--y UJ lid �r dLjj < O _ 1 I W U— ® CO 5 x P c) i® Ewa W 0— w G W Pty �� � r, -a' 0 0 L w }} ��P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 37 Perry Walk —Appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying an appeal (API 2-003) and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED1 1-078) with revisions, to allow to demolish an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct a new 2,597 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence above a basement; with a Hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway, on a 15,161 +sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope; located at 37 Perry Walk; APN: 013-133-04; Single Family Residential District (R10); Rafael Ruiz, owner; James Bradanini, applicant; appellants, Joanne Brauman; File No.: AP12-005. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends 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 Section 15301.e.2 (Additions to existing structures provided the expansion will not result in an increase of more than 10, 000 sq. ft. if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, November 19, 2012, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA 94901 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dholikival@cititof--,anrafael.org. You can 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 can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at httD://wwvv.citvofsanrafael.ora/meetinas WHAT WILL HAPPEN: YCLI can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can 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 90" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation aid 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 WhLtlesfop Wheels at (415) 454-0964, To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting1hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wecirirg scented products. ATTACHMENT 9 O r r r r r r r r W r rI-- r r r r r r r r r Ln r (,. r r r r e- r r r r r (`- t� O O O O O O O O w O O Cl) O O O O O O O O O i` O Ln a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ln ei �i d d d d std d NrT'I d'd d CL d rtd'd'If'd Od'd 14, tT Iq'T d'I't'TI-T "'d � 67 C33 67 07 Cn 67 67 67 � O CS; t� 67 6? O CS) O 67 C37 67 O O C� 67 (� 07 c3� O O 6) (� t3? 07 � C37 07 a W f-' fd- d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d cnUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUC�UUUUUUUUUUUUU Z U U d WJ J J J J J J J m J J J _J J J J J J _I J J J J J J J J J J J J m W W W W W W W W W W w W W W w W W W w W W w W w w w W W W W d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d z LL LL LL LL LL LL L.L 11 LL LL. j3� 11 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J LL LL LL " LL LL LL LL LL Lt_. LL O d d d d d d d d O d d d d d <C d d d d d d W d <<<<<<<<<< 0 ry re, LL' D� a_ W rya. W a:l— a! ry W r�aa'ryD� Lys cy a_0�ryry0� a! ry W a:Q � >-zzzzzzzzzi�zzzzzzzzzzzzmzmzzzzzzzzzzw E= 1- d d d d d d d d W d d O d d d d d d d d d O d O d d d d d d d d d d O Ucncnu�cncncncncnu�zu�cn�cncn�ncnu�cncncnca�tn�cn�nv3v�cncncnu�cnu�� r N CO > > >> ry a! > rr IL D- dd dd=zd�� Z Z W W W W c� w LUWLUWwW<>CQNQdLnOOW WOOJ�O-a,Oz< dd<ry W W Wry �Ndddddd0UNUU�C`)U<�<�C�C�n'-�U��c���U? dddd W 000 W �W W W W W WUUDUU0D=W w550C�=C?�Or,(,ry w 0 W J W0o D C° 0 0 0 0 0 0 aCO � m M a m m m CD 0 G) m, co 00 00 w Ln W m aa_ 0- 73 CD m CD CD CD 'T m oommm mm� m nO" 'IT 0)0orcl)c0o0OOr rD-ONr r rOrnrnLn0O d a L.� W F - z U O W a' U) W Z) 05 06 Q! i- dS J a ry [� 0� IH Uw Wz h t -i- > z z > ULZLi_ W �`6 w(n� `r JmaW1(!?}p_ W Z Z<WJ W�~oryd z Qm -!7- mCK�zW I- iI3ry w W zdory>- Jz� W L � WI- Wr)r-)< - -z ry z W ©(Sj W d d� oQ OU}m SCC ted ALL ZE DO--rYLL W W LLI W M M M WT} �aW<r') 0 QW 0ZP��lwF- W W m2� �LL30- WrLo0w W <Cv- c�> � �z W v Ute- T -W d<Z c�> J c�iULZL! �N�,Uz�zzdd dW CJ c; C)O 0!11dt� 0 o:DoCl)dWrKZd 0 0d 0-J0 v5xwwoon2o z000000a>22oOF aZ�>-(DF-x0o�0a�Orr>Jzmmu<o CO C') zr CX', M O G - C ! (D f`- 00 N r r — r C11 Com! } (-nM � CO +� O - N n 9 C O tD'I CD CD O O O r r r r r r r r CJ C'I7 O 0 CD 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O -� C-0 Cc (D ({3 CO CO Cr} CO 0 CO Cy ID Co C.3 CJ CO CO CO CO r r CO Cf? CO C{} CO CO CO CO M CO M CO n 0') 'T 1` N N N N N N N Cl! IN N N N ti ti J N N 111 N N C} CID C? C} C r n CO n C',+ co cr} i'7 C7 co C,-) C} CO r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 co co n co m C-) m n m c'> m co c') co m m to co I,-) co n m 0 m co c') m n cn m n C-) c� a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Lr? r r M r r r N r r r r r O r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O O r 0 0 0 CO O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t N ISr 6) �M 67 � C33 C77 C3) t� 6? CS) i� 67 67 tet' d'"T w�J' d' 07 07 O O O O O 67 O O (A (37 � (� 61 O O (57 O O O O7 67 O 67 (i7 O 47 O Lid G7 67 O 6) Ci? t3) O d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d `t d d d d d d d d d d d d d d UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU�UUUUUUUUUUUUUU O U wWwwW Www Wwwwwww WwUWwW WLuwWwnlwwwWwWww �iQLLu If U -L 11 tli t¢U-Ii¢LLLLoil Ldi..dtli 1LL " " LLL U-U-tli_-U-tditditlitli_LL, d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d tz d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d U- rya,ry �wwtzwwryryry zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>zzzzzzazzzzzwzzzzzzzz d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d O d d d d d d W d d d d d d d d d d d d d d r N M m m m <<< > WF -F- W W W W W 111 W w w w w w w l w W W Z Z Z WW w W Q Q Q d Q d Q> d d d d >d Q Q Q d Q w w w d Q Q >d WZZZ<2'�e v�5���� >>0000000�000>0000zoo0ry»zzzodd-too-too d d J J J J J J J— J J J d J�- J J w J J J Z d d Of or- [i l > d J _J d J J U U d d d d d d d z d d d O dr(- d d p d d d 0 U _U � zzzzzzzzzNZZZZZMZZOZZZWZzF-F-F'ww�>-ZZLzz U Z w�� D zz D nmmmmmmmmdmmmmmdmm0mmmmmm000EwWDfmm�mm Lo M O O N M d' O c9 �` N N N O O M (0 00 CO �t M O M O M O �" �' Ln Ln r r O O (f) O co ;T LO Ci CO r j' � CO (3) CO 00 t`•- 00 �i T Ln N r N '' "T (0 N fl- r- LC) Lf) LO LD r r r r N N N N N CO r r r r N CO N N N r' r r r r r 0') O O LO r r ti N N r N N LG W O d w J F- W d w 0> W d U U)` n, F Z z W 06d o6 d ��F'� �� CI_ � m J =H J F- wv) 00 = Zt-Z d-'= `� WO W �m <05 �F-I- 0 tt? CJZ W crrU Jw �-� Z0 0 Z rL'��-7�LLry'>'Ea mm�`� �� dx O��J� w� zdwdJOd-_Z OJ�U <� -3 J� Zd U�Lt ©WSJ cC�z �� ="C��� �_�z_�U� <U) �Z O(?Ww c � c m -��0 c ��F- =W0 c0ZZW c� r (U< �dryzQ � o m o m mw-Wz (� r� F M O c OU)C/) o o0 ° ry FF- W LLi m ctW M O 0 0 0 0 3: FW- W Z O o°� o 7> m o o a F- Id- O M O Q 7- o N C N t51 CJ ice- ti G? C V` uo L-`% Lo i Ci r r Y- 0) N N M r c- r N 0 `, 'u^s CG M G O 0 O r r r r r r N (:,4 RI N C,i N N N CJ M M CO C) v d v 0 O O C? O O O O O 0- 4 r r i i I i t t i i t i i i f i i i I t i I I t 1 i 4 4 4 �3' 4 4 4- 4 4 4 t - � 4 �' 4 4 tet' �f d (.6 6 CJ F~ � E` t t` � (` C~ t� C, M co Ct3 co C�' co C) 0") 0') 0 M<? M co M M M M M co M M } M C 7 M n M cn ^0 M (Y; M Cl) C'') 1 1 I i 1 i i I i t 1 1 t t 1 i I I t t t i ! 1 E I i i t t 1 t t i A M M co c') M M M M M C*- M C,� A M M M c� M M M M M M M M M M M (''} M M M M M M M r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO (D CD 0 (D (1) 0 0 (D (D a d a (D --,T 00 3- ---4- 't �t "T q- y y O 07 67 m m m m m m m m 0) 0') cl m (Y) 'IT 0') -i -j-i -i -j -j -j -i -i ww Wr�WWWLIJ ww < < < �5 < < < < 75 < < 11 LL z It n 11 11 LL 11 �q LJ- 11 <<W< <<<<Ml6"<< U) -0 w Cif C) rK v ry ry O� ry W gory ry ZZZZWZZZZC=(')Zz >- <<<<P<< CO Lli w > > > < < < < < w r(- >- >- >- m E < - CD (D co 0 w 0 0 0 O"r LO >- z z < fy -(D '0 �x 0 ui MMWOEOOC)Oim-r-zm r- r- :E (D 2 :�E 2 25; - F 00 0 CL erg CD LO N M M C) �T M C) I- " " CO � LO r " - " Lo M " M w 06 0 (3 U CO < 06 06 0 z < � — w U) w w n 0 U) o n w 7- F- -, ry < U) C-) U) z C) < -E < ry rr 0 w r W < 0 - C: CD ry 0 M W 76 mCD\e < U) M — m M C m EL , U) < n z i , 0- c 0 T, b L -j 0 < w n, 0 C) N () w T o E w (1) :t -- (D 0 -1 1 c) 0 a: n (D 0 ,0C) 0 0 0 U) o < Cl� CO CO0 i- (D C\l - t f Fj I-- C\j �T dr > " , :E, A C� A C) C,-) A A C) 03 -D C)E D C, 0 (D 0 0 C) Cl) INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL /AGENCY. SRRA/ SRCC AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.a DATE OF MEETING: November 19, 2012 FROM: Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director DEPARTMENT: Community Development DATE: November 8, 2012 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Ruiz Residence (37 Perry Walk) — Appeal of Planning Commission action approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit to demolish an existing 892 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct a new 2,597 -sq. ft. 2 -story single family residence above a basement with a hillside parking waiver to provide the required guest parking spaces in the driveway, located on a 15,161 +sq. ft. lot with an approximately 55.0% slope Department Head (signature) im III IIIi APPROVED AS COUNCIL / AGENCY AGENDA ITEM: Z V City Manager (signature) REMARKS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney (signature) Marin Independent Journal Legal No. 0004673074 150 Alameda del Prado CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PO Box 6150 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Novato, California 94948 1535 You are in ited to attend the City Council hearing on the following prolect: (415) 382-7335 PROJECT: PROJECT: Ruiz Residence (31 Perry legals@marinij.com Welk) - Appeal of Planning Commission apKo- val o an Environmental and Design Review er- mft to demolish an existing 892 -sq, ft. 2 -story single family residence and construct a neve 2,597 -sq- ft. 2 -story single en family residce above a basement with a hillside parking waiv- SAN RAFAEL,CITY OF er to provide the required guest parking spaces PO BOX 151560/CITY CLERK, DEPT OF PUBLIC in the driveway. located on a 15,161+/- sq, ft, lot with an approximately 55,04• slope; APN: 013- WORKS,1400 FIFTH AVE 133-04: Single Family Residential District (R10): Rafael Ruiz. owner: lames Bradanini, applicant: Joanne SAN RAFAEL CA 94915-1560 88vu o0a appellant'. case File Nos.: As required by state law. the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends i finding that this have PROOF OF PUBLICATION project will not a significant effect the is environment and t f Categorically Exempt from w1 t (2015.5 5.5 C.C.P.) the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA1 under 14 CCR Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structuresi of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts construction of one single-family resi- dence'ut a residential zone. If the City Council STATE OF CALIFORNIA determines that this project is t an s sensitive area, further studies may be may be required, County of Marin HEARtNODATE: Monday, November 19,2012 at 700 P.M. LOCATION: San Rafael City H,allCity Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at `D" Street San Rafael, California FILE NO. 0004673074 WHAT WILLHAPPEN: The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the appeal, IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Office of the City Clerk, Room 209, City of I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Count Y San Rafael, P -o. Box 151560, San Rafael. CA 94915.1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the meeting. or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the FOR MORE INFORMATION: FOR MORE INFOR- MATION: Contact Sarjd Dhpliwal, Prollect Plan- of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of Panratael.or0• ner oar at (el.g 43S-3397or alssaro come tahhe Plan- You can also came to tfte Plan - general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of ni tg Division office. located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue. to look at the file for the Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of proposed project. The office is open from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 circulation b the Superior Court of the Count of Marin, 9 Y P Y p.mgeneral 12:4 p, , on T and Thursday and Sand a -m, y, 12:45 p.m. an Tuesday. Wednesday and Friday. You the State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE can also vie.v staff report after 5:00 NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed p.m. on the Fnday before the meeting at http:// .%wvw.cityofsanrafaci.org meetings copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any Esther C. Beirne CITY CLERK supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: At the above time and piste. all letters received • lIl be noted and all interested parties will be 1112/2012 heard. If you challenge in court the matter de- scribed 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 vwritten correspondence delivered it, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Gov- Code Section 654n91b)Q)). ernment Judicial re- view of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court r.ot later than the aOth da; follow .ixj the date A the Council's dee sion. (Ccdle of Civil Prcce_fure Sertion 1094.61 Public transportation to City Hall is available thr,,wih GcIden nate Transit. Line 20 of 23. Para -transit is a,ailable by -ailing Whistiestcp Wheels at =415) 454-i?984. To allow indhiduals :, ith enc ircnmt-ntal illness cr muitiple chemical sensitivity to attend the ineeting,hearing. indi- viduals arc requested t,) refrain fr,,m ;hearing scented products. nc,1b; 2 No,- 2.20L2 i certify =or declare; under the penalty cf cer?ury that the foregoing :s true and correct. Dated this 2nd day of November, 2012 A✓✓1� c.Ux �Y1ilvZ Signature Jeannie Courteau From: Lazarus, Donna [dlazarus@marinij.com] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 9:52 AM To: Jeannie Courteau Cc: LEGALS@MARINIJ.COM Subject: 4673074 Attachments: OrderConf.pdf OrderConf.pdf. (105 KB) PROOF OF PUBLICATION COST $164.40 LOG 1672 where volare readine. garagractJo` ave -to'? d this all smoothie and reasonawfast,Total 4 pqges, are tnoilty1j, y to -be rqad._ This js only for the pTe to handed out to CC mem erg.. j L§ LUEEISdEF NjjjAi ITII jQ2 QQ5 fPQ E fE-KC FHf Good evening 1 anwmk. i ir e x i Peal AM i0 ---z Cairai--"� 1 air, all architect by pro fes:iien ag-ad scroed Design Relieve tf 1u'Fhlisidh� Dcsiynidie-Kinvs ,,as studied and adopted by the I arn ,h -is the Cara- nej�7ihhor. � s 111 a!n out of town and c,-ano-,utatiend this, hsearing, The core ofanN, cla-irn is , !)The iriterprou-16 on of steph,,16, Dz-sp��, 10 ��he P'I at] rj ing Commission is ncr, cod"u edit aridl -q,� o� ,.-vith Ci�, -s "Ounicipall We; 2) the .`r. A3 &,sign munt cmnph, sidi the gmpbmk rupiranun as whoun W dw C od--:-� gra'de riu-'re'- �ha-, I ftiarri -5n-,S!h,od un'10,e Or pro,� cc don& and 3) The preeposed dc"c-i nnx -h.-, sopback rvquhvin,�ent T"hi: 10 conlpjv. the to flo,->i- hc--ose -- -gip aus-;_f Z': -et- Piease pai , i�� , On the W& Oil-, ;i -re aid 1 Wide Design CNARes fin Se tigbi side in red is ike hougevation pleseived on the PIUM, My uc, fln--- 13 nod GovyAw on Av lot '10 naj� mMa---, �i-c Anshad %xv vAlWanx-, 1b, 'only H -_! ca, i ! Ihc "M shad h, A Am; w� javown Y Am Ac V.&M A-c(.1tv Cc appeyousych page I This subsecdon 1huhs apjkcablli� oftbigim-le to F)cwLnslo;re, Wall Fleigh_ Nox.vhere in the Cruidefires it indicates that this also applies ILO , UPSI 0pe situ; lieell; '"Ahicin would OVC[Tide m1sm6on K xylich reqihes nwamement made firom -e-xisting wade in Rent anti Side Stepback Zones. `This imerpreation deviates Nom- is at odds with, and ci ntj-adici-s the Suandards an he Guidelines or! the left side. The int erp-etation is not siFted any-,,Oiere in the Guidelines or Standards. The discrepaancN betvveen Che in-'erp-e-tanior. on 1 -he righ[ s-ide aind the Standards and Guidelines or, the left side is irrecon6lable. andc"it -jNjgvj 2: FiRtires I a!,k[ Duringni- ix# on thismatter, Plaming Deq. iplcmrd Ut Agmvs 1 and 2 in Ae (Adddhes autheraicate this inteigmation. 1-Ihese figures ai � --,hovvn on the smovd sheei, of nny lihandout. Please note that the Fmnlose of these Musualons is to asist a reader t -c-, umclersmnd, t1he written. guidel13 s by sup- I , pleinneiltir,�-_-' 'khe text: the, are im. meant to gentmae an i�nterprctoiior, and let it ovenide the vwituoi pails. Any imeTpreration of the pkmai%v� mcust ihc cotns­stent with, and assisti-,.-e ot, the anum pail aboNathem in mot-hLeruord. unneu tem u.ikes preceddence over the Mustrations The staff report lh-a"' t'he interp1m6m is 1101 stated any -.3 in, 4Tm--, but Claim's it appHes toupko'!)t �Mhoo 's sm fifisY Civ, do n -cm dhe z.!,tj1or1tYto create or rneodif`,- fl t_� "'-,v. In addidom Be Mddhms Hind the b0ding deign by hs frmi 0,_- evsthlg gn'ade. This makes sense becaus�_­xisn-r;,g in V, form Ofthe I0. In Colaram HIC inimprela6m no i -i.; easier manipudmion odics--g-D lFo- -z"ample if dus Herpimmul is tis,scJ., o",�: a --friound, 110' high in 'Ohe t'�-orn and ond Ohtlin bt',dhd F, ieiti Vafl on a yon yould, b`" a" a -,bafl fain" the street 30- hylh-e,,J:itmLg c mbere > cc zmnid. _t ihis is cle-ark _:F_nd 2 ;a_-oudd siy Also, sirici�-� N is imme reVIC&C md Armes hc-r mpmements than the interprerahom it prowks or he iftz"-c-"Pmahon as mote"pretation was detend ned Q YL TAK,-' n 1 Cum Ozew 1, ummm he cam--,- -t-n-U num ot Me (Ado Why lh_-- SomdWA And Vii, pm, or and call On widi the GuidtOws he Aso if you sksl Uns Vuleirmakin v- Te Colo ayj sm TV k nl� mimpamhow of theidy.116un-s and my Nerpsevahm mc _u:;zi This imer-pretation did not exist whoi tics Nside Design Guidelines were first reviewed and subsequaidy approved in 1991 - it niustbe inn-ented later by sonleone f -or some reason. ,ard!cs,-, of hot, many prJects have been subjected to this inteTpretation. the fact is: it is not written in the Code. This interprelatim has not been re%cieltd or zWpra%and by be Plan-ningg Co-mmission or City Council, nor has it gone through public hearings. -kit of these steps are mandated to coffy a regulatim, Therefore. this interpretation cannot be used tic) regulate the stoack, in fact using this interpretadom ncn cohned 1Nmq,,,h a process, is at violatim ofthe lak,,- it �iolates both the Muni ci pal C(l&and -2he. Sty :e Lav- A! ieveL We is su-,f -. �e4 a sulbjecli-,.e one about what is fir ami hat. is not ft'air to ulich party, but a legal one. since the dedsion bj the Plaming Chnunhion, §,, ,tin rj�-spcct t4 s-z�-,pback- was --nadc based on the assumedvalidity of the Wicypretalitm prescnte-d b-,- the Nanning Dept. As decision must 17e nowV voided, If you agree v,,ith me, then, rhe designnlust coniply V-Jith, the Tui defines. mea:swing the wall height from existing grade. ■ Cln the tea rd pzig,,�, of m,, h.,r, cao=_�tk is uh1 erkd Dant wall at upper two levels i-s'oJ"hin the Srcpback Zone. The Waing giade uncle "_'it ,kafl is in blue dashed lin,;, near the botii,)m of the she v If you ccpy Ohs line aind paste 20 -abo%=e- it deffines the upper Urnit c0he W! hmigim, -k-, can, the ali about 4to5 feet- inarmher noK it -'J",jtates thts-,ej,,,b.A,,-J- R;0,Uirement, So, the Vvs< ! at tilt! J:r" t"' 1 -hu, -�c'-ra 114andouit ge 44 0n the 'Vh page. of n -a -t, ihcandjuiw i s rho WS q! Womint .,.-Lib d , flh.e map Pro-, ided ib'%+e m nef A mvevo, is tho W&U!, 'I j' -'-a'--4 v;ami` clears `tepback m-� "Zllopc- 6,ii Ot Uke amns 25'o jIm naP leagdo m be rugher Own the bin ejope- ThIS XNOU'k-11, pi.--ish the Feav of dhc- to A to We W, 1"il,-i�;-in-'-t� a ol'� nnluroi �Siate' by 6' x 4W - 240 T-'hi!� mcors GO inw -�d-Lln h��;��' mor'f than 850 sqrt zlli� --it-u-�a! C C <;Ppea!-'.Pepch page 3 On the nth pauc of my handout is the buildin!a section. The area surrounded bw the red dashed line is the excavation already proposed by the CUrrent design. The area in blue dashed line indican ; a U1 u on -al excava fi 91"Ce-died fort he 6' stepback, S j OU - -an he nev" cxcavati on is quite small compared to alread-y proposed excavation. At the Plannim, Comnaission one conn-Mssroritr stated theINJI coot be stepped J G, - could n back into the hitl because of the vindows on the rear -vvell. I disagree. Tht�re are two small ' bathroom windo-,ti-s ort the rear -wall v.11.1i h;zc:,h sili heights, There j,-, a way to pror"ide sn -1all retained areas for natural light and N entillation, a Ifnequently used solution in similar situations, ZrI I Alternativel, owper can MIN operable skv"hains for jl�dh 41- and ventilafion. None of these methods are e- Mandout -1),age 6 -Street elevationj On the 6th page of rny I-andow, is the street ellevatio-ri, cotnpw-i ng the eleN aiuori of the proposed design with the e-Mstin- honles on v e Same of 11 e :sir of "rile domineering w" ' , 0- " Z; 11 $1 -,:, "31 Lhi- Uld n(A: harnion... - itb the- 1-3;1 and th--- rx,--i,-7!i:Ic,,-ri-1t--,-"j. The vertical continuoustront vcali at ripper levels kxnntrlbutes --ritsxkual don-lifflance, I Handout zpLaje 7 U, 1:2 U --i the proposed On the last j -)ape c" -,n% hmn is lht 'Q-jCIIVdU-0n- e e'e-,aI`n-n c" design but with �- steptbxack wk- thc top ks:% el- '4,1131 [hc honliz:s CM Zfie Sallie S'de of the street. Althou-OA it Us sm'! coimpa-cd to oilher housels�t ,s `u t(' cica, this st��pback helps h n f � uy, to make the dt-,s!V< To conclude 17!�,- rj----eT U S dif ied, s inconsistent with i6e Code and ti -T-efCfe c anunoz be use& I theii ask you jo eii -- e the stepback t Cycc C , - I This is important ncr onll -rrwr lb;: 1,C10flhorho"d, ht"t afs-,- fc"r �' - --ftuiark- those in tile ou - — I hers, -pdmh hillside TIe Co C le and r,, e L-, at, c r 10 T'flafll-, vi --,U C C appe2d-speech page 4 Community Development Department ✓ MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Mayor Phillips and City Council Members FROM: Paul Jensen, Community Development Department Director; 415.485.5064 or r)aul.iensen(a-)citvofsanrafael.orci SUBJECT: City Council Meeting- November 19, 2012; supportive plans and materials for two agenda items (appeals) On November 19, the City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings on two appeals of recent Planning Commission actions. The first is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Design Review Permit for the development of a new single-family residence at 37 Perry Walk. The second is an appeal of the Commission approval of a new wireless antenna proposed on top of an existing utility pole fronting 714 Penny Royal Lane in Terra Linda (applicant is Extenet Systems, communication carrier). The staff report for both appeals will be included in the City Council meeting packet. The supportive plans and materials for these projects are attached. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or feel free to contact the project planners. Kraig Tambornini is the project planner for the Extenet appeal (415.485.3092 or kraict.tambornini(cDcitvofsanrafael.orq) and Sarjit Dhaliwal is the project planner for the 37 Perry Walk project (415.485.3397 or sari it. d haliwal(d)citvofsanrafael. ora). 41 > <V CL U; c CL us u M Fw C., ta�c 4:: CL V-3> t Q-2 0 0 CL Sr w yw 41 0 0 4� -6r. o14- uj z LV 'Z to z tt CL uj 00 i u CL c- CL E LA in 0 W UA QJJ i CL 0 (D 0 U.1 0 CL 0CL N N c in z(D E -Y. 4 uj W c - .0 co(D — " 4A -0— a) ui a) > c E 0 cc C: Vil 0 m 0 0 4- LLJ C: Z > cn Q) c > m .2 4- C C:(n > Q) -0 E (1) 0 0 — r� .0 0) ch -0 o — m w -C (D Z 0) -0 CD ui �o > CD a) a) > Co CL A) c E ao �c U-) 0) 0 C14 r- 0-0) o LA. 2 j= =a) .2 :3 a) 3: a) C: 0 :3 : z -0 U)1:6 o E C13 cell o E n�o Cc m — Cl "a z w (D E E 2 a) 0) , 0 0 Q) 0) CL c 0 0 m yS KCSE (n 0 o X 0, 0- -C cn - 0 a) C: cn E c cr, Z E (D 0 0 4- C: C: 0 r_ c ui — Lo 0 0 L) C; 0 0 W — (D S-- (n N 0 co 0 0 -0 .= -E 3; L) cm — 0 C: jo 0 cc w"0 - rj) a) — 0. U. - > (n E Lo o C: LU 0 c: E0 a0 0) Fn E Z '- -�e ;'�' —:: a 44 o o E m E o o 0 0 -0 0 6 D- LO — �q? UJ in a) S- > CY L) U) U) a) a, (D M aw -C T) o cr) i Ki O QJ e 0 uj CM0 b c: W 0 . 0 71 (D co 0 0 C m — > a Q (n :t-_ Cf) M -0 to (f) 0 Co C > 0 LU 00 c E r cz a) w -91 Y) US z Q5 ccG) 4) CL 0 c CT o �5 o E tL 0 > C: S� �2 LU Q) 0 0 L) 0 (3) a) (f) 0 LL K7S KU -r' - L) ui C) > 0 CL V- 0 QS . co — 0 o W 14 . > V- < co m C. CN 0 0 .a M 0 0 C13 -�d cu a_ o LL C) cy) m U) z w 75 w 0 w ry C) C.L 45; 0 C) —j —j 0 3: CL < L 0 <w 1-1 > F— Z Z 2 W F- -j U) F - x < w m � 6j- r, 0 w CO CO LL CN 17 s 64 H I'f LO I —j U) < 0 w w D LL m z J w 0 r) r) Of c 0 < C ( Dl) z 0 c LU < Z ry W Z C Co U) oc z = 2 -2 < >� CU *t Co z z = a) CU 0- �o < 2 Z w 0 *a 3: C) asay < r> 55 W U) 0 CL O w az a) a) U) -a' 0 a>) 0 U- LL .2 _0 a)�5 U) c = Ute` U -a = w cn a), z 0 W co ::t_ r M.E 0 F– �c o — z -0 V) ZUJ C/) 0 :o ry C13 asC) 0 H o, ,- 0) C < z CL CL "0 0 z 0 a) C) w (n M E LU E a) =5 CO .�: F- 70 m z E 0 Elf LL —j —j 0 3: CL < L 0 <w 1-1 > F— Z Z 2 W F- -j U) F - x < w m � 6j- r, 0 w CO CO LL CN 17 s 64 H I'f OD CD CO I —j U) < 0 w w D LL m z J w 0 r) r) Of U) 0 < o H z 0 LU (D Z ry W Z r) oc w W f7, 1 LY z z W X < < Z w 0 3: C) asay < r> r> W U) 0 0 w U) U- LL < OD CD %..# Z I —j U) w < 0 D LL m z J w 0 z _j <Z Of U) U— x H UJI < 0 LU Z ry r) oc f7, 1 U) z < 4 LU C) asay < w U) tg H Z W 0 H z 0 W r H 0 W F - z ZUJ C/) :o 0 C. ry z L) 0 z C) w CD 0000 CD CD tin (COT) -- co 77— CD `lis`-- ------- z 0 L) x ui er m t-4 N z 0 C) x Lij 0 ui U) 0 CL 0 0� CL z ui ry ry D z - 0 0 U) 0 (.) z Z 0 UJ ry U) 0 0 > z q- <• - 0 C) ry X LLI > Z LLJ 0 UJ ry U) 0 L -H COO 0 0 -IS E C) 'a > CL cD 0 - cD E cc 0 0 ct 0 IL r. 'C' 0 Q- (,0 con Q W ' a cn •� L) E 0 r C E E LLJ 4— M o a a 0 CL 0) 0 c o- o 0 .U5 (D cuN c C 0) O Cj) 0 c c E (D *§ -0 0 L -H COO 0 0 -IS E 'a CL cD 0 - cD E cc 0 0 X 0 IL 0 Q- (,0 .2 -- + L) E 0 r C E E LLJ 4— M o a a 0 CL 0) 0 c o- o 0 .U5 (D cuN c C 0) O Cj) 0 c c E (D *§ -0 0 CL 0 p 0 cr, 0 a) O Cl) > (D ui (D CL 0 a) a) CL E 0 C-) a) (1) 0 n m YL E 0 M N cu > 4— m M (D E m CY) 75 0 X 0 0 4- 0 0 0 00 0 co L6 4— CD m -4c— co O Z 1, - H (D th 0 0 16 N E CO c 0 CL Cl - ld CL V) s = o o CD ct 0 CL CL 0 Gi mP E :G S zn Of r - UJ cu 0 0 CL 00 cz C 0 o 0- o v) E V5 0 ;1. ct O Z 1, - H (D th 0 0 16 N E CO c 0 CL Cl - ld CL co 0 CL -C CD (D 0 CL CL 0 Gi mP E :G S Of r - UJ cu L CL 00 CD C 0 o 0- o v) E V5 cc rm- E >1 ss CL < CL 46 QX% cu CL cr_ (D cn cc ECL co > cu a. cu 00 E C (D (n 5, ry m > CZ M 0) UJ co (,D L—L cu m 0 X 0 rL to 0 .0 C cu 0 Co DATE: November 13, 2012 Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Phillips and City Council Members FROM: Paul Jensen, Community Development Department Director; 415.485.5064 or r)aul.iensen(a,citvofsanrafael.ora SUBJECT: City Council Meeting- November 19, 2012; supportive plans and materials for two agenda items (appeals) On November 19, the City Council is scheduled to hold public hearings on two appeals of recent Planning Commission actions. The first is an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Design Review Permit for the development of a new single-family residence at 37 Perry Walk. The second is an appeal of the Commission approval of a new wireless antenna proposed on top of an existing utility pole fronting 714 Penny Royal Lane in Terra Linda (applicant is Extenet Systems, communication carrier). The staff report for both appeals will be included in the City Council meeting packet. The supportive plans and materials for these projects are attached. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or feel free to contact the project planners. Kraig Tambornini is the project planner for the Extenet appeal (415.485.3092 or kraiq.tambornini(a?,citvofsanrafael.ora.) and Sarjit Dhaliwal is the project planner for the 37 Perry Walk project (415.485.3397 or sari it. d hal iwal(a-)citvofsan rafael. ora.).