HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2015-09-09 #394--0
W/ d
Community Development Department - Planning Division
Meeting Date: September 9, 2015
Case Numbers: ED14-062 �;
Project Planner: Kraig Tamborni �15) 485-3092
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 10 E Crescent (Silva Apartments) —Environmental and Design Review Permit for anew
four -unit apartment building on a vacant 10,394 square foot rectangular hillside parcel with an
approximate 37 -percent upslope from the street; APN: 10-291-67; HR1.8 Zone; Dan Silva,
Applicant/Owner; West End Neighborhood.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location General Elan Designation
Project Site: High Density Residential
North:
Medium Density Residential
South:
Fourth Street
East:
Retail Office
West:
Medium Density
Lot Size
15'
Required:
6,000
Proposed:
10,398 (existing)
Height R
Allowed: 30' (Hillside)
Proposed: 28.5'
Larking
Required: 8, (4 covered, 4 uncovered)
Proposed: 8 covered (no guest parking req'd)
Min. Lot Width (New lots)
Required: NA
Proposed:
Outdoor Area AND Landscape Area
Required: 150sf yard area per unit/min. 6' dim.
50% front yard landscaping
Min 3' side yard landscaping by
driveway
Proposed: 150 sf per unit/6'**
>50% front yard
5' side yard
Zoning Designation
HR1.8
MR3
NA
C/O
MR3
Existing Land -Use
Vacant
Multi -Family
Public Street
Multi -tenant commercial
Two -unit building
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Standard: 60% Lot Coverage
Proposed: 50%
Residential Density
Allowed: Min. 3 Max. 5 (1 unit per 1800sf site area)
Proposed: 4 units
Upper Floor Area (Non -hillside residential)
Allowed: NA
Proposed: NA
Setbacks
Required
Existing
Proposed
Front:
15'
n/a
15'
Side(s):
5'
n/a
5710'
Ext. side:
n/a
n/a
n/a
Ped. side:
20'
n/a
n/a
Bldg. sep:
8'
n/a
n/a
Rear:
5'
n/a
33'
Grading Tree Removal
Total: Cut 460cy, Fill 260cy Total(No./species): None
* Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/structure at all points of the structure.
Standard building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to mid -point of a sloped
roof.
**Currently measured to outside of railing vs the interior dimension, which is considered the intent of the code.
Unit A does not meet the dimension for secondary deck. Unit D references 30sf patio not clearly shown on plan.
SUMMARY
Design Review Board review and recommendation of the project site planning and building design for
residential multi -family development on a hillside site is required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal
Zoning Code Chapter 25.050.040. Conceptual review of a proposed five -unit complex in two buildings
was conducted in July 2013. The applicant has worked considerably to respond to the physical site
constraints, technical requirements, and design criteria of the City. The Board's recommendation will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission.
The development implements the HR1.8 zoning district and General Plan 2020 land use designation
which allows up to 5 units on the property, and is responsive to the site constraints including its location
on E Crescent close to the Fourth Street arterial roadway, the steeply upsloping characteristics and lot
shape, situation between parcels with significant differences in grade elevation, and need for protection
of an adjacent Redwood tree on the neighboring parcel to the west. Several design related items have
been noted for the DRB to consider, as well as a few zoning issues, as follows:
Design comments are requested regarding selection and placement of building colors and
materials, recommendations for consolidation of anticipated roof vents and hardscape
treatments, and whether the entry and street elevation is consistent with the neighborhood and
results in a defined entry.
Zoning code issues exist with respect to size and dimensions of outdoor deck areas, and height
of the street facing elevation which appears to exceed the 20 foot stepback limit that applies to
wall planes facing the downhill and side elevations.
Staff requests that the DRB provide its recommendation on final revisions recommended to satisfy the
pertinent design criteria and zoning standards, which have been discussed in this report. Specifically,
staff asks the Board to consider the following:
Architecture
® That the building location on the site and its resulting bulk, mass and articulation adequately
respond to site conditions, reflect a good design approach and respond to prior conceptual design
comments for construction of a project that meets the high density residential density and zoning
standards.
Recommendations for consolidating additional roof penetrations anticipated for plumbing vents.
® Whether the front elevation entry and orientation toward the street are appropriate and consistent
with the design character of the neighborhood.
Any further recommendations on details for deck railings, doors, stairway, window, downspout,
fascia, trim and similar accents.
• Recommended changes to satisfy the 150 square foot and six-foot dimension requirement for
outdoor yard areas at each unit; which may be satisfied by extension of deck overhangs into
required setbacks.
® Recommended changes to satisfy the building stepback requirement for the front building elevation,
which may be satisfied by providing further horizontal articulation, changes in roof forms, or
stepback of upper story levels.
Colors and Materials
Any recommended revisions to colors and/or materials.
Recommendations on treatment of retaining wall and understory/foundation walls to provide interest
in color or patterns.
Whether concrete driveway and walkways should include design enhancements, such as color or
distinct texture pattern (note: the driveway is anticipate to be concrete with rough finish for traction).
Parking
® Whether the project should be conditioned to require or encourage further evaluation to relocate the
inset wall designed to protect the neighbor's redwood tree, and provide the backup dimension of 26
feet, if this can be accomplished without significant harm to the tree.
Landscape and Lighting
® Recommendation landscaping, garage and exterior lighting concepts.
Staff recommends the DRB provide further direction on appropriate additional revisions that would
address concerns raised in this report and identified during the public meeting.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The site is a vacant, rectangular, hillside parcel that slopes upward from the street to the north and
west. The front of the property slopes more gradually, at approximately 13- to 18 -percent, and rises
more steeply in the rear. Overall slope has been estimated to be 37 -percent. The front boundary falls
about 20 feet from the edge of road pavement.
The properties uphill to the north and west are residentially developed. The parcel to the east is
developed as a multistory commercial office building. Setbacks to adjacent structures are over 40 feet
from the sides and 100 feet to the rear from the project building site. The site frontage faces south and
runs 72 feet along East Crescent Drive. East Crescent Drive intersects Fourth Street approximately 40
feet south of the nearest property line.
History:
In 1992, the City approved a five -unit residential development project for the site, which was not
pursued. In April 1994, the City approved a three -unit condominium proposal, which also expired in
1999. The most recent approval was granted in April 2001 for a three -unit apartment complex, which
was recommended by the Design Review Board and expired in April 2003. The three unit project
proposed a building in generally the same location as Units 1 through 3 of this project. During its prior
reviews of the project the Board required additional articulation and detailing along the east (rear)
building elevation, which is visible from Fourth Street, along with conditions to protect the existing
redwood tree on the adjacent property west of the site.
Traffic and density issues have historically been raised as neighborhood concerns. The originally
approved units were proposed along the west side property line. The subsequent approvals shifted the
building to the east side of the property, which provides better vehicular access. The location of the site
driveway was previously recommended by the City Engineer to provide adequate site visibility and
distance from the intersection of Fourth Street ("Miracle Mile") and along East Crescent Drive.
Conceptual Design Review Comments — July 16, 2013
In 2013 the applicant submitted preliminary and conceptual review requests which resulted in a letter to
the applicant dated July 17, 2013 enumerating several items that should be addressed with formal
submittal. At its July 16, 2013 meeting the DRB provided the following comments on a conceptual plan
for five units in two buildings on the site:
o The site is a challenging infill site. Vehicular access and pedestrian safety concerns need to be
considered (re: concerns from vehicles tending to speed up E Crescent).
o Adequate maneuvering needs to be provided in the driveway to provide compliant backup and
turnaround space so vehicles will not be required to back out of the driveway onto E Crescent.
o Support the provision of a dedicated sidewalk to the units.
o Redesign building scale and/or placement to respond to the concerns raised by staff to meet the
intent of the hillside guidelines and address parking and circulation requirements.
o Revise and better articulate the building design particularly from the street facing elevations. Look
at recent projects on Ida and G and on Mission Ave near Boyd Park for examples of good
articulation on street facing elevations.
o Hillside stability should be improved with development of the site.
o The project should meet parking standards and not include any parking exceptions
o Meet height limit, stepback requirement and intent of the hillside design guidelines to provide
articulated walls and stepped back building elevations to reduce mass.
o Provide required yard amenities and meet required 900 square feet of yard area per living unit.
o Provide landscape strips in required side yard areas.
o Consider native/native compatible species in landscape plan with more robust planting.
o Show how plans would relate to adjacent property grades.
o Provide texture on plans to render in roofing and wall material details.
o Deck understory bracing should be more substantial in nature.
o Painting palette submitted with four color schemes should be simplified to two schemes for the two
buildings. A uniform color scheme for the entire building may be preferable.
The applicant has substantially revised the project plans in response to staff and DRB comments.
Although the project has been revised considerably from the last conceptual design reviewed by the
DRB, a copy of the prior conceptual plan has been provided for reference. The revised project
eliminates a second building that was proposed, and is reduced from five to four units that area
consolidated in a single structure. Additionally, driveway access and maneuvering areas have been
further studied and revised in response to guidance provided by Public Works staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Building Components
The project proposes a two level building with a 4,996 square foot building footprint (50% coverage),
containing four units over parking, with the following unit type and mix:
Unit A - 926 square foot 2 -bedroom unit with 100 square feet deck and 53 square foot porch
Unit B - 1,030 square foot 1 -bedroom accessible unit with 192 square foot deck area
Unit C - 880 square foot 2 -bedroom unit with 242 square feet deck/ area
Unit D - 1,646 square foot 3 -bedroom unit with 120 square feet deck and 30 square foot patio
The site would include 2,500 square foot of front yard landscaping and 8 parking spaces as required by
code. A series of "brow" roof vents and ridge are indicted on the roof elevations. No other roof
penetrations or equipment are indicated. Deck, wall and path lighting are also indicated on details plan
sheets (Sheet 11). The front landscaping includes two stepped retaining walls with bio -filtration
treatment included in the upper planter area.
Colors and Materials
The colors and materials include a mix of stucco and hardiplank along the building walls with double
pane vinyl or fiberglass sash windows, hipped and gable end roof forms, open balcony/deck areas,
conventional garage opening, typical gutter and downspouts and composition shingle roofing. A mix of
color schemes remains proposed for the four unit types with medium -dark body colors and lighted
accents for units A through C and medium -light body with darker accents for unit D which is to the rear.
The color board will be presented at the meeting.
Zoning Entitlements
As noted the project is subject to major Environmental and Design Review, subject to Planning
Commission approval with the recommendation of the DRB . However as currently proposed, the
4
project also appears to require further review, and approval of modification, exception, variance or plan
changes for the following components:
• The minimum 6 foot outdoor yard area dimension required is not fully met for all of the units.
The dimension is currently measured to the exterior railing. This would require a Variance to the
HR1.8 District Development Standards, if the plan is not revised to meet the dimension or provide
an alternate suitable common area (recommended).
■ The minimum 6 foot outdoor yard area dimension for secondary Unit A porch is not met and
would require a Variance, if not revised as recommended by staff.
• The minimum 26' backup space dimension for Unit C parking area is only provided at 24' which
was reviewed conditionally acceptable by Public Works given design changes made to the area and
as necessary to protect the Redwood tree root system on the adjacent lot. This would require grant
of an Exception pursuant to Chapter 14.24.
® The 20' building stepback for the front (downslope) elevation is not met. Approx. 27 feet of the
building elevation exceeds the 20 foot wall height limit. This would require a major exception to
Hillside standards of Ch. 14.12, or a recommended adjustment to plan details is required (i.e., the
49' building width * .25 = 12.25' max wall height that may exceed the 20' unbroken wall height limit.
Currently approx. 22' of the overall building width meets the 20' stepback requirement).
• The east side elevation includes 19' of wall area over 20 feet in height within the stepback zone
which is allowed for design flexibility (i.e., 112' overall building length *.25 = 28' max of wall height
exceeding the allowable).
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan 2020 high density residential land use
designation, and compatible with the surrounding medium density land use designation. The density
range for the site is 3 to 5 units (without grant of a density increase per the State Density Bonus law).
Analysis of conceptual review is limited to applicable design criteria, which are addressed through
review of the project conformance with the zoning standards and design criteria discussed below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 — HR1.8 District Development Standards
The project is consistent with the density, height, lot coverage and setback standards of the district.
The front yard 50% landscape requirement would be satisfied. However, as noted in the Project
Description above, the revision to the proposed outdoor yard areas are needed to meet the minimum
150 square feet and 6 foot depth standard. Staff requests DRB comment on the following:
® Recommended plan modifications to comply fully with the 150 square foot and six foot
dimension requirement for outdoor yard areas for each unit, which may be accomplished by
overhanging the four eastside and front decks up to an additional 1 -foot, inset and/or overhang
of west facing porch approximately 3 -feet (subject to building code compliance) and identifying
additional patio area to the rear of unit D.
Chapter 14.12 — Hillside Overlay District
The multi -family project is subject to the Hillside Step back (SRMC 14.12.030.A) and maximum 30 -foot
height limit measured from existing (natural) grade to top of building measured vertical from grade at
any point. The intent of the step back and height limit is to minimize unnecessary grading outside of the
building footprint and bunker development within hillside grade and follow site contours. This
requirement is as follows:
"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 20 -foot height limit measured from
existing grade shall be observed within all areas within fifteen feet (95) of the maximum building envelope
limit. To allow for design flexibility, an encroachment into the street front, street side and interior side
stepback is permitted along twenty-five percent (259,6) of the building length."
As noted in the Project Description it appears the front elevation does not meet this standard. Revision
to the plan is recommended. Otherwise, the project would require City Council approval of an exception
to the Hillside Standard.
The East elevation appears to comply with the permitted encroachment into the side stepback, with 19
feet of the building length exceeding 20 feet whereas 28 feet of wall length could be allowed to
encroach above the stepback height limit.
Staff request DRB comment on the following:
Recommended plan modifications to comply fully with the building stepback requirement for the
front building elevation.
Chapter 14.16 —Affordable Housinq
Rental projects that fall within the allowable density range (i.e. not requesting a density bonus increase
or incentive) cannot be made subject to the municipal code affordable housing requirements (due to
legal protections afforded to rental housing projects). No issues are noted.
Chapter 14.18 — Parking Standards
The project complies with the parking supply for the proposed housing mix as follows:
Unit A — 2 Bedrooms
2 spaces required including 1 covered
Unit B — 1 Bedroom
1.5 spaces required including 1 covered
Unit C — 2 Bedrooms
2 spaces required including 1 covered
Unit D — 3 Bedroom
2 spaces required including 1 covered
Total demand is 8 spaces, with rounding of the 0.5 fraction. The project proposes a 20 by 20 foot
dimension garage for each unit, which meets the standard. No guest parking is required. Further, all
required maneuvering and parking areas are required to be located outside of the setbacks. Driveway
profiles and access design has been reviewed and conditionally recommended by Public Works, and
included in the packet. Concerns with the driveway access location at the street and the driveway
profiles (particularly grade changes at the mouth of each garage) were evaluated. The project has been
revised to meet the above standards and design recommendations of Public Works.
However, as noted above the design does not comply with the minimum 26 -foot backup space
requirement for Unit C. Public Works has conditionally accepted the reduced backup space provided for
this unit, in order to provide greater protection of the adjacent redwood tree, and given changes made
to the plans to remove grade and other impediments (such as trash can locations). An arborist
assessment was made of the tree (Exhibit 2). It may be feasible to push the wall further back toward
the property line. Staff requests DRB comments on the following:
® Whether the project should be conditioned to require or encourage further evaluation to relocate
the wall and provide the backup dimension of 26 feet, if this can be accomplished without
significant harm to the tree.
0
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
The following review criteria are pertinent to this project (partial, abridged criteria of Section 14.25.050),
and are applicable at the sole discretion of the recommending and reviewing bodies:
Site Design
➢ There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and
between the structures and the site; and accordant to existing development in the vicinity.
➢ There must be a consistent organization of materials and balanced relationship of major elements.
➢ Respect site features and constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural
vegetation. Sensitive areas should be respected.
➢ Provide good vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian circulation and access.
➢ Parking facilities should detract as little as possible from the design.
➢ Site design shall give due consideration to orientation to streets and climatic conditions.
➢ Give attention to proper and adequate site drainage.
➢ Utility connections shall be underground.
➢ Refuse collection areas shall be provided, with adequate ingress and egress for service vehicle
access and screening provided.
Architecture
➢ Architecture should harmoniously integrate in relation to architecture in the vicinity in terms of
colors, materials, scale and design.
➢ Provide sense of entry, variation in building articulation, equal attention to all facades, convenient
recreation areas, private yards oriented away from high noise sources and take advantage of view
and solar opportunities
➢ Materials and colors should be consistent with surrounding area, minimize contrast with
predominant colors and values of the surrounding environment, with high quality materials used.
➢ Use earth tone colors and materials in hillside areas.
➢ Materials that can be finished with or will develop an attractive natural patina are encouraged.
Bright, reflective colors or materials are discouraged.
➢ Identify site lighting which shall be appropriate in design and intensity for the project, and shielded
to prevent creating glare impacts offsite.
Landscape Design
➢ Maintain/enhance natural landscape features to the extent practicable.
➢ Outdoor areas should minimize noise impacts on neighbors.
➢ Landscaping shall be compliant with MMWD water efficiency requirements, per SRMC Chapter
14.18.
➢ Landscape the area between the front property line and right of way, and consider providing
appropriate street trees.
In addition, the following San Rafael Design Guideline criteria are pertinent:
Building Design
➢ Attention should be given to maintain a consistent streetscape if an existing patter exists.
➢ Building facades should be varied and articulated, and pay attention to the street facades.
Scale
➢ Use techniques to break up the volume of large buildings into smaller components (i.e.,
architectural features, setbacks and varied rooflines), where necessary to replicate existing street
patterns.
➢ Use transitional elements such as stepped facades, etc to merge larger buildings into an existing
neighborhood.
Building Height
➢ Consider adjacent buildings as transitional elements to minimize apparent height differences.
Roof Shapes
➢ Relate roof forms to those found in the area, where possible.
➢ Screen and integrate equipment into building architecture.
➢ Minimize impact of roof vents.
Building Entrances
➢ Provide a well-defined sense of entry to units.
➢ Entrances should orient to the street, where possible.
Windows
➢ Placement should be consistent with the overall design and neighborhood streetscape. Where not
possible, give greater attention to other elements to articulate the fagade.
➢ Proportions should be consistent with building.
➢ Placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of neighbors.
Driveways and Parking Areas
➢ Minimize curb cuts and large paved areas.
➢ Recess or place parking in rear where possible.
➢ Distribute parking to provide easy access to units.
Front Landscaping and Fences
➢ Landscaping in front should contribute to the overall quality of the neighborhoods
➢ Fences in front should be in character with the house.
➢ Landscape the areas adjacent to walkways.
Lighting
➢ Limit intensity to an amount needed for adequate security and safety.
➢ Shield light sources to prevent glare.
➢ Fixtures should complement the architecture.
Lastly, the following hillside design review criteria are pertinent to multi -family project, at the
discretion of the recommending and reviewing bodies:
➢ Preserve natural features to the extent feasible and minimize grading and drainage impacts.
➢ Articulate facades (through use of overhangs, step backs and projections) and rooflines to follow
slope contours, to avoid extended horizontal lines, large wall planes and to provide shadow and
articulation.
➢ Differentiate building floor elevations to achieve height variation.
➢ Group usable outdoor area and avoid large flat areas.
➢ Groups of buildings should be designed with visible differences in materials, colors, forms and
variation.
➢ Covered and "tuck under" parking are encouraged.
The front of the building seems to result in an awkward combination of projections, overhangs and roof
forms that are inconsistent with the rest of the building design. The entry does not appear to be well
defined. Further, the elevation facing the street appears more like a side building elevation and lacks
interest in scale, massing and articulation. Staff asks for the Boards input on the following:
• Recommended revisions to the front elevation that would highlight the entry orient the building
toward the street.
• Any recommended revisions to colors and/or materials.
• Recommended approaches to consolidate anticipated roof penetrations for plumbing vents.
• That the building location on the site and its resulting bulk, mass and articulation reflect a good
design approach for meeting the zoning standards and adequately responding to site
conditions.
• Recommendations on retaining wall and understory/foundation wall treatments to provide
interest in color or patterns.
• Recommendations on concrete driveway and walkway enhancements, such as color or distinct
texture pattern.
• Recommendation on landscaping concept and lighting details.
• Any recommendations on deck railings, doors, stairway, window, downspout, fascia, trim and
similar accent details.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the site, the West End
neighborhood association and posted on-site on July 1, 2013 (at least 15 days prior to the meeting).
The adjacent neighbor has contacted staff with questions and concerns regarding grade changes,
shading and view impacts and work proposed for walkway improvements in front of his lot.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board provide comments on the conceptual design, specifically the bulleted
items identified by staff in the Summary section above.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity map
2. Arborist letter
3. Prior conceptual plan set
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members and are available for review.
The Colors and Materials Board will be presented at the meeting.
s
s �
C
i a
v
'3aa,
L
s Q aJ
RS O
N y
N
j L O
I— -O
+J
' O C
7 C �
s L y
n � �
C
� L
L•J
on
c00 C
U
S O �
L
v
E n
i ^ o co
i N R
v
DSI N
o�
U CL A
fU0 onCU
=
C
4L 7 h
4
LLI
O
Rf
V
x
W
o
L .
z v
z 3
4—
2
N
LLIN
y
(D
T o
4)N
a
w v
� 3
o
L
a;
y
d
c
7 0
u CL
N
`�°
_12
N
N
Q fL6 � V1
Z
�
y
Q
^
a) �
v
�
Z
c
+J
C
C N
vim—
y
ro
N
N o �'
Z E E W y
O
L
'°
c y
a-+
0)
N JLU
E
J
=O
A N
Y
cT0
tL6 C
w
V O O 0 F=— V
O
7
O Q
C y
E
V41
r
V1 C
N i6
G7 y
d E
J m v1 N N O 0
m C=
O C
Y
N y
N
V1
U
Y-
3
O
''Cy',
ahi
h
N re
c
c
m
o
�
f c
v
i
Fs
MARIN TREE SERVICE RECOVER
Specializing in Tree Preservation JUN '15 2015
Landscape
nspection Report
10 East Crescent
.San Rafael, CA
Prepared for:
New Directions
Construction
Prepared on:
Flay 1, 2015
Prepared by:
,;67
Robert Morey
1SA Certified Arborist
WC -0167
Marin Tree Service, Inc.
34 DeLuca Place, Suite M
San Rafael, CA 94901
�f�/�' T 7
fMARIN TREE 5,- VICE
Specializing in Tree Preservation
}
Scope and Limitations
On April 30, 2015 1 inspected 2 Redwoods at the construction site at 10 East Crescent, San Rafael,
CA. The inspection of all trees was made from the ground and involved inspection of the external
features only. No invasive, diagnostic or laboratory testing was carried out. The identification of these
trees was based on broad features visible at the time of inspection.
I have also examined the existing site plan in order to assess the impact of the proposed
construction on the trees. Where recommendations are made in this report including those
recommendations contained in the Tree Protection Guidelines it is essential that these
recommendations be able to be implemented. Any additional drawings, details or redesign that impact
on the ability to do so may negate the conclusions made in this report.
Arborists are specialists who, use their education, knowledge, experience, and training to provide
proper care and professional evaluations and diagnosis of individual trees. Arborists attempt to
minimize the risk of living near trees while enhancing and maintaining the overall beauty and health
of the trees. Recommendations by the arborist may be accepted or disregarded by the client.
Trees inherently pose a certain degree of hazard and risk from breakage, failure, or other causes and
conditions. Marin Tree Service makes recommendations, to minimize or reduce these hazardous
conditions but cannot guarantee to eliminate them, especially in the event of a storm or other act of
nature. While a detailed inspection normally results in the detection of hazardous conditions, there
can be no guarantee or certainty that all hazardous conditions will be detected.
There always will be some risk involved with all trees. With proper monitoring and care, trees can be
managed. The only way to eliminate all risks is to remove the trees.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marin Tree Service for assistance.
Observations
I examined a Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) with two co -dominant leaders of 26" and 22"
DBH (Diameter at breast height) of normal vitality and structural integrity. The tree is located on
the neighboring property to the west on the property line shared with 10 Crescent Ave and uphill
from the planned construction.
The current plans include a retaining wall to be built beneath the Redwood tree. At 7' from the trunk
of the tree, the wall will jut out to 9' from the trunk to protect the tree. At this distance there will be
little or no root loss. A few lower limbs on the Redwood tree will require length reduction for vertical
clearance. The Tree Protection Guidelines in Appendix A should be followed during construction to
protect the Redwood.
10 East Crescent, San Rafael, CA Page 2
r MARIN TREE 5,..UICE
Specializing in Tree Preservation
IL
Appendix A Tree Protection Guidelines
Before development, avoid tree damage during construction by protecting the root zone. The following
should be considered:
A) Physical protection of the trees can be accomplished in stages during the progression of work:
• Installing an inexpensive chain link, wire mesh, or wood fence around the drip line of trees is the
most effective way to protect trees and help with tree preservation. This fence should be
installed at the drip line during the initial stages of development.
• As development progresses, the fence can be moved to within 6 feet of the trunks.
• If continued progress requires access closer than 6 feet to the trunk, other precautions can be
taken, such as placing hay bales around the trunks so the bark is not struck with equipment.
B) Signage: all sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs that the area within is a tree
protection zone and no one is allowed to disturb the area.
C) Root Pruning: Whenever roots over 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter must be severed, they should be cut flush
to eliminate jagged edges. There are three methods of root pruning:
• Soil excavation using supersonic air tools, pressurized water or hand tools, followed by selective
root cutting.
• Cutting through the soil along a determined line on the surface using a tool specifically designed
to cut roots.
• Mechanically excavating (with trenching machine or backhoe) the soil and pruning what is left of
the exposed roots.
D) Irrigate the root zone with a soaker hose allowing water to penetrate the soil to the depth of the tree
roots, generally the upper 6-18" (15-45 cm) of soil.
E) Aerate the root zone: improve aeration and reduce compaction. Spread organic mulch or wood chips (2-4
inches) over the surface to reduce evaporation and conserve soil moisture and temperature.
F) Fertilization of the preserved trees before construction is recommended if nutrient deficiencies exist to
boost the trees vigor and tolerance.
G) Preventive pesticide applications to reduce pest attacks should be initiated prior to construction and
continued until trees have recovered from construction related stress.
H) Alternative trenching methods are available to avoid unnecessary root damage. Boring machines that
tunnel under root systems and allow the installation of pipes and wires without root severance are a good
alternative to trenching. If digging trenches is unavoidable, dig trenches and tunnels by hand to avoid
unnecessary root damage.
1) Avoid adding backfill over the root zones of existing trees to avoid root suffocation and die back.
J) Avoid compacting soil over the root zones. Do not traffic with heavy equipment, pile debris or materials
or leave equipment standing over the root zones of the trees.
K) Crown cleaning before construction is recommended to reduce the risk of branch failures in areas where
people, structures, and equipment are within striking distance. When removing large limbs, the final cut
should not be flush with the trunk of the tree. This removes the branch collar that contains a chemical
barrier zone that controls rotting organisms. Traditional surgery paint should not be used. It is of no
value and may promote rot.
Roots absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through the soil and in return release carbon dioxide (gas
exchanges). Therefore, adding backfill, compressing soil, paving, etc. retards gas exchanges and limits
water percolation through the soil to the roots, promoting root die back. This form of chronic stress may
cause trees to die prematurely within five to twenty years after development, depending on the degree of
impact. Compensation can be attempted through fertilizing, soil mulching and aerating the soil using
high-pressure equipment.
10 East Crescent, San Rafael, CA Page 3
Jayce 18 1/2" High Bronze LED Landscape Path Light - #2C500 I L---sPlus.cwm
LAM
r iE H"xiO?T ARGE`FT Gn `°`" REV,1cp Sale Shop by Room(rrends Store Locations Rate Us 800-782-1967
Similar Designs Hide Similar Designs
.d
$29.99 $39.99 $39.99 $39.99 $34.99
LAMPS PLUS I Landscape Lighting I Jayce 181/2" High Bronze LED Landscape Path Light ViElw nil !aryls .ape Liuhlmg
Jayce 181/211 High Bronze LED Landscape
Path Light Style#2C500
Write a Review
This landscape light easily illuminates path -ways, gardens, and backyards
with bright LED light.
Other Options;
$39.9S'+ FREE SHIPPING & FREE RETURNS`
Compare $59.99
Low Price Guarantee
QTY: 1
In Stock - Ships in 1 to 2 Days I Check Store /
Need Help?' 4ive Ghat '[Personal Callback 1
Made of solid brass, this LED landscape path light is sturdy yet
stylish. Finished in a distinguished bronze for a classic and
unobtrusive look in front or backyards, this design is perfect along a
pathway, in a garden, or a bright accent among foliage. Plus, this light
includes an energy efficient LED for convenience and savings. Works
with existing low voltage landscape systems.
• Bronze finish path light.
. Solid brass construction.
ri
• Includes 3 watt LED.
• 3000K color temperature.
• Light output is 200 lumens.
• Comparable to a 25 watt incandescent bulb.
• Includes Thigh stake.
• 181/2" high.
`�_ ...
• 4 3/4" wide.
r
t
g
2/9/15 10:26 AM
http://www.lampsplus.com/products/Jayce-18-and-one-half-inch-high-bronze-led-landscap...ht_2c500.htmi?sourceld=eTellAFriend&cm-mmc=TRA-EM-= 1p eTellAFriend--mvlewdetalls Page 1 of 3
�fhr�/T
Scottsdale 11 7` High Outdoor Wall Light - #174091 LampsPIus.com
UUM •
THE rK-r:ON S LARGEST i IGtillriG RE `!LER Sale Shop by Room/Trends Store Locations Rate Us 800-7824967
Similar Designs Hide Similar Designs
i..
$169.90 $119.90 $135.50 $211,90 $73.90
LAMPS PLUS I Outdoor Lighting I Country Cottage I Minka Lavery I Scottsdale 117" High Outdoor Wali Light Vr ew Ali Outdoor U,jh1ting
Scottsdale 11711 High Outdoor Wali Light
Style # 17409
w iu
Read 4 Reviews Write a Review
Classic Mission style influences a breathtaking design in this outdoor wall
light.
$89.90 + FREE SHIPPING & FREE RETURNS'
Low Price Guarantee
QTY: 1
In Stock - Ships in 1 to 2 Days I Check Store Availa ilii
Need Help?j Live Chat ;I Personal Callback`j
Delight and impress with this Mission style outdoor wall light by
Minka-Lavery. With a textured French Bronze finish and Honey Opal
art glass, this lovely fixture is sure to leave onlookers speechless.
From Minka-Lavery's Scottsdale II lighting collection. y� ��/
• Textured French Bronze finish. NUNKA
KA
• Honey Opal art glass. T Al � ERY
• Includes one 13 watt fluorescent bulb. A�1 lY 1\
• T' high. ^�
• T wide.
• Extends 5".
• California Title 24 Compliant
Check size & position before you buy! Printable Lffe-Size Image
2/9/15 10:26 AM
http://www.lampsplus.com/products/scottsdale-11-7-inch-high-outdoor-wall-light_17409.html?sourceld=eTeIIAFriend&cm-mmc=TRA-EM-- ip-= eTel]AFriend-_ mviewdetalls Page 1 of 2
Fe261ron R■Ibp "O'Detling- POWids8Mme I Fortress MH,g
2/12/Z 2:27 M
Warranty I Installation t Gallery
Fortress Fee- Iron Railing is a pre -welded, easily customized and enhanced version of traditional iron
railing that brings unparalleled quality to any patio, deck or balcony. It provides aclean, classic
appearance that is versatile for a variety of applications and surfaces. Pre -galvanized steel, z!nce
Phosphate, DuPont D a -coat and DuPont@ premium powder coating make it the most elegant and
durable Iron railing system on the market.
:._ Sens,'t_
® ' V & 8' pre -welded sections (1" rail, 5/8" pickets)
Pre-galvanized,zlnce phosphate, DuPont@ a -coat
and DuPont@ powder coated iron
• Strongest and most attractive iron railing system on
the market
■ Beautiful and unique customizing options with a wide
selection of accessories right at your fingertips
`#•' • Available in standard Gloss Black and some products
are also available in premium textured finishes:
Antique Bronze & Black Sand
w • Peace of mind with a 15 year manufacturer warranty
■ fortress Fe- Iron Railing is tested in accordance with AC 273 & OBC/NBCC
Fortress FeE- Iron Railing is virtually maintenance free, which translates
Into more time enjoying your fortress and less time maintaining !t! With
the ab!lityto resist effects ofweathering, Fortress Fee- Iron Railing is
coated with FortressShleld which is a specialized mixture that
encompasses a premium powder coating loaded with UV inhibitors and
a heavy zinc galvanization treatment.
In addition to standard Gloss Black, two premium textured
finishes are available for a number of fortress FW1 Iron Railing
Products. Antique Bronze as well as Black Sand are stocking
items for specific products. Please contact your local retailer for
textured finishes. more Information on product availability in these premium
VISIbIIftY S lima ran gulkV t; oav BuIkY, $I:mYlArtlfxial Ap
an .rttk profile Obstrunilh<v:ev Cbittbus Ne n<v Cengrab too nncTatl<ntlon
mzmglea cosc is 9 snsr p
us
Wbatherin0l NrtualNMamte<an«ke< tmr Mainlanana< OHegl: Mpintenanee Virtually 11ml enre Fr«
'MaM[enenee Reilsuntto aunmg: fb <ontfiu,l Un be Yaln Amted: Hold ran pe an eulnz«gubrHarxny, DUnnng, 1e 11. 1h. dl n. P01 U11 in
pwnlln'a<cexzarvbm,iRtaln +�eMx'meesez. A99inywnaum an sealing to mantain.....rano crp4in9; Semegmex n«Sx
. SaretY ono Dei ling
V<N strong 4siso- ng Aron
Srprpe,t re:az<rru 1'leek<r anaaur< �pl:nterin9 and zPlinN4 ivdV Lnfi �angDarts foe nrenµn
FeE-haaltlonal Panels IRCEeyfuRlry Daeging ;:�. V•ry....
. Fe262•Poits IRC:LE-Fame r , r
N Dvelgny
FaEs-•Posts uelL_-FamlN Oxening r ' ,
W, Colla BraU<eeF IR<IE2-FlmlV Dxelling +
Fat -Universal BraWeh IR<EL2-Flm:ry Dwelling ! v J
Fe282•Fascte Mount &ackatz I.xC IL2ibmily Dvurny a �
Color has a profound effect that increases style and design and is an
important part of expression. Color is an essential element that
enhances everyday life, which is why Fortress offers an exceptional
Custom Powder Coating Program to bring an amazing variety of premium
finishes to meet any distinct needs. , iiia out a ire Intcrmation alum
'ortress Custom Color Program
/waw.rOrtnarallln g.com/nlling/re26/