HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2017-08-22 #3SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Project Planner: Caron Parker— (415) 485-3094
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: Vacant lots on Clayton (Tentative address 41 Clayton (Lot 59) and 33 Clayton (Lot 60) -
Conceptual Design Review for construction of two new single family homes on two existing
legal lots on Clayton Street and a new access roadway off Ross Street. Also proposed is an
adjustment to the parcel boundaries between Lots 59 and Lot 60. APNs: 012-141-59, 012-
141-60; Single Family Residential (R7.5) Zoning District; Francisco Matos, Applicant; Coby
Freidman, Owner; Gerstle Park Neighborhood.
PROPERTYFACTS
Location General Plan Designation
Project Site: Low Density Residential (LDR)
North: LDR
South: LDR
East: LDR
West: LDR
Lot Size
Required: 7,500 sf
Proposed: Lot 59: 5,851 sf
Lot 60: 5,028 sf
Height
Allowed: 30' (from natural grade to roof peak)
Proposed: Lot 59: 27' max/ Lot 60: 27' max
Parking
Required:
4 covered spaces; 4 uncovered guest
spaces (combined)
Proposed:
4 covered spaces; 4 guest spaces (not
on project site)
Min. Lot Width
(New lots)
Required:
N/A
Proposed:
Grading (cu.yds)
Total: 2,1,40 cu.yds/off-haul =1,550 cu.yds
Cut: 2,140 cu.yds / Fill: 590 cu.yds
Tree Removal
Total(No./species): 25 (TBD if any are "significant")
Requirement: 3:1 replacement for significant trees
Proposed: 5
Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use
Single Family R7.5 Vacant
R7.5 Vacant
R7.5 Residential
(Duplex Residential) DR Residential
R5 Residential
Natural State Requirement (Min.)
Standard: Lot 59 = 57.7% (slope 32.7%) =3,376 sf must
remain natural - 5,851 sf - 3,376 = 2,475 sf
max disturbed area
Lot 60 = 70.1% (slope 45.1%) = 3,524 sf must
remain natural -5,028 — 3,524 = 1,504 sf max
disturbed area
Proposed: Lot 59 = 2,406 sf natural area
Lot 60 = not provided
Gross Building Square Footage
Allowed: Lot 59 = 3,085 sf/Lot 60 =3,002 sf
Proposed: Lot 59 = 2,808 sf/Lot 60 =2,627 sf
Lot Coverage
Allowed:
40%
Proposed:
Lot 59 (flag only/4,158 sf) = 34%
Lot 59 (with panhandle/5,851 sf)
= 24%
Lot 60 = 26%
Setbacks
Required Existing
Proposed
Front:
15 n/a
15
Side(s):
6 n/a
6
Ext. side:
n/a
Ped. side:
n/a
Bldg. sep:
n/a
Rear:
10 nla
10
SUMMARY
The subject project is being referred to the Board for conceptual review of site design and development
improvements for two (2) new vacant homes on two (2) adjacent legal lots of record (see Plan Sheet
G000) at 41 Clayton Street (APN #012-141-59) and 33 Clayton Street (APN #012-141-60). Lot 59 is a
5,851 sf "flag lot" proposed to be developed with a new 2,808 sf two-story single family home with
covered parking. Lot 60 is a 5,028 sf lot proposed to be developed with a new 2,267 sf two-story single
family home with a two -car garage. Access to the parcels would not be via Clayton Street. The Fire
Department has established that the existing hair -pin turn on Clayton Street is too narrow for fire truck
access to the project site. As such, the applicant has proposed to access the project site from the north
side of Ross Street, via a new 20' wide privately -maintained public street (Ross Street Terrace),
terminating at the end of Lot 60 (see Plan Sheet 3 of 6: Ross Street Access/Profile). The applicant has
installed stakes to identify the proposed length of the new roadway, as well as the property boundaries.
There would be no through access to Clayton Street north of the project site. None of the four (4)
required guest parking spaces are proposed to be located on Lot 59 or Lot 60; instead, the project
proposes to locate the guest spaces directly in front of the project site along the new Ross Street
Terrace roadway (see Plan Sheet 2 of 2: Site Plan). The City's Public Works Department (DPW) has
indicated that a boundary survey will be required to identify the exact location of the right-of-way along
Ross Street Terrace.
The new Ross Street Terrace roadway would require retaining walls of heights varying from 1 foot to 8
feet along the middle length of the roadway to a maximum of 12 feet near Ross Street and 11 feet at
the terminus at the end of Lot 60 (see Plan Sheet 3 of 6).
The project also proposes a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to re -locate the panhandle portion of Lot 59
from the north to the south side of Lot 59. The LLA is proposed in order to locate the panhandle access
driveway in an area of the lot that is less steep. There would be no change in the lot size for Lot 59 or
Lot 60. However, the LLA would change the parcel lines for Lot 60 from essentially square to a shape
that creates a narrow strip (12' x 62' ) along the rear (north western) portion of the lot.
The proposed project would require an estimated 2,140 cu.yds of cut, which is considered a "major
physical improvement", and as such, triggers the requirement for a Conceptual Design Review,
pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 14.25.030.B.
Based on the County Assessor information, Lot 59 has a slope of 31.8% and Lot 60 has a slope of
36.31 %. Both would be considered "hillside parcels" because the slope exceeds 25%, and as such,
both lots are subject to the Hillside Development Standards.. In April 2016, the applicant submitted
plans (based on a site survey) showing the slope of Lot 59 as 32.7% and the slope of Lot 60 as 45.1 %.
Revised plans were later submitted in October 2016, presenting two slope calculations, with and
without the panhandle.
Lot 59 (with panhandle) = 32.7%
Lot 59 (without panhandle) = 21.9%
Lot 60 (with panhandle) = 46.1 %
Lot 60 (without panhandle) = 34.9%
The current plans being reviewed, dated May 31, 2017, presented the slope of both lots without the
panhandle portion (see Plan Sheet 1 of 6: Lot Line Adjustment Map), with Lot 59 = slope 21.9% and Lot
60 slope = 34.9%. Staff has discussed this discrepancy with the applicant; however, the applicant has
indicated that their calculations are in keeping with the hillside slope calculation formula. Staff
disagrees with the information, and has presented the Property Fact Sheet on Page 1 based on the
slope of the entire parcel (including the panhandle) for Lot 59 (32.7%) and Lot 60 (45.1 %), including the
narrow strip.
2
Staff would also like to clarify the following points:
Staff recognizes Lot 59 is a flag lot, with a narrow "panhandle" portion used as the sole driveway
access to the proposed new house. This area is also considered "disturbed" area. The
applicant is required to calculate the total amount of disturbed area on Lot 59 to determine if the
project meets the Hillside requirement for "natural state". For flag lots, a large amount of
disturbed area is located in the panhandle by necessity, as this serves as a driveway. As such,
this creates a large amount of disturbed area on the lot (which must be included with the
building footprint and any other hardscape on the lot) and most times makes it impossible for a
flag lot to meet the natural state requirement.
Staff had directed the applicant to calculate the "disturbed area" on Lot 59 by using only the
area disturbed in the flak portion and not the panhandle, portion. However, upon further
research, staff discovered that the Design Review Board had already weighed in on a similar
flag lot project on 20 Jewell Street back in 2010. At 20 Jewell, the panhandle (driveway)
accounted for a disproportionate amount the disturbed area on the lot, and the Board directed
the applicant to include the panhandle as part of the disturbed area with the flag portion of the
site when calculating the total disturbed area on site. The project at 20 Jewell did not meet the
natural state requirement, but the Board was willing to support an Exception to the natural state
requirement. Staff asks the Board to confirm that this is the -approach recommended for the
current project.
2. The parcel lines for Lot 60 were reconfigured as a result of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment,
which created a long narrow strip at the northwest rear portion of Lot 60. This is not truly a
"panhandle" as it is not used for driveway access. As such, the applicant's calculation of the
slope of Lot 60 "without the panhandle" is in error. Staff does not consider Lot 60 a "flag lot",
and as such, the development standards (both Hillside and R7.5) should be based on the entire
lot area and a slope of 45.1 %.
Based on review of the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below, staff has identified
issues with the project as discussed below. Staff requests that the Board review this report and provide
a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria. Specifically, staff asks the Board to
consider the following:
Site Plan
• Whether the development should propose a shared driveway design to access garages on Lot 59
and Lot 60.
• Whether Clayton Street should be re-examined as an access roadway to the project site in order to
reduce grading and number/height of retaining walls.
• Whether some guest parking should be located on private property and not entirely in the new
roadway.
Architecture
• Whether the proposed contemporary style for the new homes is appropriate for the hillside location.
Whether more information is need on the proposed elevator feature for the home on Lot 60.
• Whether the proposed ceiling heights for the garage (9'-10') and the upper floors (10'-11') is
appropriate (see Plan Sheet A301 A).
• Whether the proposed new retaining walls along Ross Street Terrace should be terraced in order to
reduce the height and reduce bulk/mass.
• Clarify if the roof is proposed to be used as a deck for the home on Lot 60.
3
Materials and Colors
• Recommendation on acceptable color and materials, including the metal railings on exterior
terraces.
Landscaping
• Whether there are an adequate number of replacement trees. The project is proposing to remove a
total of 11 trees on Lot 59 and Lot 60, as well as six (6) other trees (2 Oaks) to the east of the
project site and one (1) Oak tree located in the proposed new roadway (see Plan Sheet L2). Five
(5) of the 11 trees proposed for removal on Lot 59 and 60 are Oak trees. The diameter of the Oak
trees is not identified, so it is unclear whether the trees proposed to be removed are "significant
trees" and subject to the 3:1 replacement ratio required per the Hillside Guidelines. A total of five (5)
trees are proposed to be replanted, two (2) on Lot 59 and three (3) on Lot 60.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project site (two adjacent vacant lots) is located on the upsloping west side of the Clayton Street
(see Exhibit 1: Project Vicinity Map). The existing access to the project site from Clayton Street is
initially paved but transitions into an unpaved, narrow and path, overgrown with vegetation. To the
south of the project site, Clayton Street continues as a narrow unpaved paper street (Ross Street
Terrace) and ends on the south side of Ross Street. The rear of several other properties abut the
project site and/or the Ross Street Terrace pathway (47 Clayton, 56 Clayton, 209 Marin Street, 211
Marin Street, 53 Woods, 62 Woods, 122 Ross Street, 124 Ross Street, and 140 Ross Street). However,
these properties do not use the Ross Street Terrace as access. Also, there is a vacant undeveloped lot
adjacent/north of the project site (APN #012-141-58) that may, if sold in the future, also require access
to the lot. The lot is currently owned by the same owner of the property at 47 Clayton. Some areas of
Ross Street Terrace are used as homeless encampments. There are also some areas of fencing (both
wire and wood) in several portions along Ross Street Terrace.
History:
The project site is part of a three -lot subdivision that was conditionally approved by the Planning
Commission in 1963 (see Exhibit 2). At the time, Lot 59 was identified as Parcel 1 and Lot 60 was
identified as Parcel 2. In 2004, the City also issued a Certificate of Compliance for all three lots (see
Exhibit 3). Parcel 3 (012-141-58) is currently vacant. In 2015, Planning reviewed a pre -application
(PA15-001) proposal to develop the upper lot (Lot 59) with a single family home. A driveway easement
was proposed to be created along the south side of Lot 60. No other development was proposed for
Lot 60 as part of the pre -application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use: Lot 59 and Lot 60 would each be developed with a two-story single family house with garage.
The home on Lot 59 (flag lot) is proposed as a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom house. The home on Lot 60 is
proposed as a 3 bedroom 2.5 bath home with a "future elevator".
Site Plan: The proposed homes, driveways and guest parking are shown on Plan Sheet 1 of 2 (Site
Plan). Access to the lots was originally proposed from Clayton Street. This was also the access
approved as part of the original subdivision approved by the Planning Commission in 1963. However,
Clayton Street is narrow with a sharp turn and the Fire Department has determined that it does not
meet required standards for fire truck access, based on the existing roadway design. As such, the
applicant is proposing an alternative access roadway, beginning south of the project site at Ross Street.
The new, 425' privately -maintained public street (Ross Street Terrace) is proposed to be 20' wide and
expand to between 28' to 36' wide in front of the subject property in order to accommodate the required
4 on -street guest parking spaces as well as a hammerhead at the end of the Lot 59 panhandle
4
driveway (to be used as fire truck turnaround). The applicant has presented information on Plan Sheet
5 of 6 (Driveway Profiles) regarding the Fire truck approach up the 25% slope driveway access from
Ross Street. Neither the Fire Department nor DPW has verified that the approach will work for the
large fire trucks without the end of the truck scrapping the ground.
The proposed new roadway would require the construction of new retaining walls along the entire
length of the new Ross Street Terrace roadway. Plan Sheet 3 of 6 shows the proposed retaining wall
heights, which range from one (1) foot to 12 feet in height. The new roadway would terminate at a new
guardrail at the northern boundary of Lot 60 and would not connect to Clayton Street.
The project also proposes a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to relocate the original panhandle on Lot 59
from the north side of the lot to the south side. It also changes the lot lines for Lot 60 and creates an.
un -usable narrow strip along the rear (northwest) portion of lot 60. It is unclear.whether this change to
Lot 60 maximizes or constrains the development options on Lot 60. The applicant indicated that the
adjustment to the lot lines was to minimize excavation and reduce the slope of the new driveway to the
house on Lot 59 (See Exhibit 4).
Architecture: Both houses are built in a contemporary style, with no bays or gable features. Windows
would be glass with steel trim, exterior material proposed is a combination of wood, painted Hardie
Board and stucco. The home on Lot 60 is proposing a "future elevator" feature. Balconies are
proposed for both homes, as well as a 2 foot high roof railing for the home on Lot 60. A Color and
Materials Board will be provided for both new homes.
Landscaping: The proposed tree/plant list is detailed on Plan Sheet L3. Plan Sheet L2 shows seven
(7) existing trees on Lot 59, with six (6) proposed to be removed and three (3) new trees to be planted
(Arbutus Marina, Crepe Myrtle and Flowering Cherry), in addition to a variety of one (1) -gallon and five
(5)- gallon shrubs (50 total plants). Lot 60 shows five (5) existing trees to be removed and replaced
with two (2) new trees (Smoke Bush and Hybrid Bottlebrush), with a variety of one (1) gallon and five (5.
and 10) gallon shrubs and groundcover to be planted (41 total plants). There are also bio -retention
areas proposed on both lots that would also be planted.
Plan Sheet 4 of 6 also shows an additional 14 existing trees in the area proposed for the new roadway.
These trees do not appear to have been identified for removal on Plan Sheet L2. They are located in
the area where the new roadway would be widened to accommodate the uncovered guest parking
spaces
Lighting: The project proposes exterior wall lights (15 watts/1000 lumens) along all building elevations,
as shown on the plan elevations. DPW has indicated that street lighting would be required on the
proposed new Ross Street Terrace roadway, but this is not shown on the plans.
Grading/Drainage: Plan Sheet 2 of 2 (Cut/Fill Plan) shows the cut/fill amounts for Lot 59, Lot 60 and
the new roadway. A total of 2,140 cu.yds of cut and 590 cu.yds of fill is proposed. Total off -haul
estimated is 1,550 cu.yds.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The Zoning Designation for the project site is R7.5 (Single Family Residential) and the General Plan
Land Use Designation is Low Density Residential (2-6.5 units per acre). The proposed project is
generally consistent with the General Plan policies with regard to Density of Residential Development
(Policy LU -8), Land Use Compatibility (Policy LU -14), Building Height (Policy LU -12), Land Use
5
Designation, (Policy LU -23), Landscaping (Policy CD -18). However, staff would like further discussion
about the following General Plan policies:
➢ Neighborhood Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods): Preserve, enhance
and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live.
➢ Housing Policy H-2 (Designs That Fit Into The Neighborhood Context): Design new housing,
remodels and additions to be compatible in form to the surrounding neighborhood. Incorporate
transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development
character and privacy.
➢ Circulation PolicyC-4 (Safe Roadway Designs): Design of roadways should be safe and convenient
for motor vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians.
The applicant has presented a conceptual home design showing that a new home can be constructed
on the existing lots and meet the required development standards for R7.5 setbacks, lot coverage, and
building height. With respect to Hillside Design Guidelines, it appears Lot 59 is not in compliance with
the 20' stepback requirement on the north elevation and east (downhill) elevation. Lot 60 appears to
meet the stepback requirement, except for the railing feature, which is above the 20' height limit. See
Chapter 12 discussion below for analysis of the project's compliance with the required "natural state".
No guest parking is provided on the property and it is unclear whether using street parking on the
proposed 28' wide Ross Street Terrace is a viable option. Further, access to the lots is challenging and
the impacts of the proposed new roadway on existing properties along the proposed Ross Street
Terrace roadway need to be better understood. Further staff analysis and questions for the Board are
presented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency discussion below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 - Base District Regulations
The proposed development is subject to development standards pursuant to Section 14.04,030 - the
Single Family Dwelling (R7.5) Zoning District. The project is in substantial compliance with the R7.5
zoning regulations (as summarized in Property Facts chart on Page 1 of this staff report), including
density, minimum lot size (the lots are below the 7,500 sf minimum lot size but are legal lots of record
established through a Certificate of Compliance in 1963), minimum setback requirements, lot coverage
and building height.
Chapter 12- Hillside Development Overlay
The new single-family residences are both subject to review under the Hillside Design Guidelines,
which were established to ensure proper hillside design of homes on lots with an average slope greater
than 25%. As discussed in the summary section of the staff report, the City's GIS information lists Lot
59 with a slope of 31.8% and Lot 60 with a slope of 36.31 %. However, the applicant has submitted
plans with different slope calculations. Staff has accepted the slope information presented by the
applicant on the Lot Line Adjustment Map (see Exhibit 5) dated April 8, 2016, because it represents the
slope of the parcel including the panhandle (Lot 59 = 32.7% slope and Lot 60 = 45.1 % slope).
Staff Analysis:
Based on staff's preliminary analysis of the project, both Lot 59 and Lot 60 meet the hillside
development standards for maximum gross building square footage. Staff was unable to determine
whether development on Lot 60 meets the natural state requirement because no information on the
proposed total disturbed area was provided on Sheet A100A for Lot 60. For Lot 59 (flag lot) Sheet
A100A shows approximately 2,406 sf of disturbed area (excluding the panhandle portion of the lot).
The natural state requirement is 2,475 sf (a difference of 69 sf). As such, Lot 59 appears to be in
compliance with the natural state requirement. However, Sheet A100A does not include the area
disturbed for the wood retaining wall at the rear of the lot or the disturbed area near the retaining wall
along the south side property line. As such, the calculation will need to be revised to determine if it still
complies. Also, the calculation for "disturbed area" shown is based the flag portion only. Further
discussion is needed to determine if the natural state should be calculated based on the disturbed area
in the flag portion of the lot only, or if the disturbed area in the panhandle portion should also be
included. As discussed in the Summary section, Page 4, the Board previously weighed in on this issue
and determined that the disturbed area in the panhandle portion should be included.
If the project cannot be re -designed to meet the natural state, the applicant would need to request an
Exception to the natural state requirement. Such an Exception request would require City Council
approval, with recommendations of the Board and the Planning Commission. The Board has supported
this type of Exception request in the past for flag lots.
Hillside Design Guidelines
In addition to the standard review criteria of the Zoning Ordinance, this project would also be evaluated
for its conformance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The applicable sections of the Hillside
Guidelines are identified below:
IV.A2 - Preservation of Significant Trees:
• Site development should demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to retain as many
significant trees as possible.
• "Significant tree" shall mean any tree in good health and form and is more than 12 inches in
diameter as measured 4 feet 6 inches above the root crown. Also, any Oak tree which is in
good health and form and is more than 6 inches in diameter as measured 4 feet 6 inches above
the root crown is considered a "significant tree."
• Significant trees shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio; minimum 15 -gallon size shall be required.
IV.A3- Hillside Grading and Drainage:
• Changes to the existing natural terrain through grading should be kept to a minimum in order to
preserve the inherent characteristics of hillside sites.
• Building pads should be kept to a minimum size.
IV.A4 - Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks, and Locations:
• Development plans should adapt to existing topography, avoiding unnecessary alterations of
landforms
• Allow flexibility in front and side setbacks to promote clustering of buildings; varied and
staggered setbacks are encouraged
• Buildings should not be located near visually prominent ridges
• New development should be located so as to minimize interference with views from adjacent
residences
IV.A5 - Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design:
• Street layout shall be aligned to conform to the natural grade as much as possible
• Common drives in single family hillside developments should be considered if grading is
reduced by their use
• Grooves for traction should be incorporated into the construction of driveways over 18% slope.
Asphalt driveways are not allowed on driveways over 15% slope
IV.A6 - Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides:
• The visual bulk on hillside development should be reduced so that the structures do not "stand
out" prominently when seen from a distance
• Cut buildings into hillside to reduce bulk
• Split pads to permit structure to step up the slope
Break roof lines into smaller components
Avoid large expanses of wall in a single plane on downhill elevations (comply with building
"stepback" requirements)
IV.A7 — Hillside Architectural Character:
• Avoid large unbroken expanses of wall; provide visual contrast to give buildings depth and
substance
• Gabled, hip and shed roof forms at low to moderate pitch are encouraged
• Articulate building facades
• Avoid long, continuous building masses
• Color selection should be coordinated with predominant colors of the existing topography and
colors
• Retaining walls upslope are not to exceed 4 feet in height, retaining walls downslope are not to
exceed 3 feet in height
• Site lighting should minimize glare off site and compliment architectural character
IV.A8 — Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development:
• Planting design should reinforce the dominant planting patterns that define the oak savannah,
oak woodland, canyon and riparian habitats of the hillside
• Plantings on undeveloped hillsides should be native California vegetation indigenous to the area
• Reference Plant Selection Guide (Appendix B) of the Hillside Guidelines
• Plant selection and irrigation design should recognize the importance of water conservation, fire
resistance and erosion control
Staff Analysis: As described in the Property Facts on Page 1 of this staff report, both Lot 59 and Lot
60 are in conformance with the development standards of the Hillside Design Guidelines with respect to
gross building square footage. The following section discusses the project's compliance with
applicable Hillside Design Guideline standards.
Preservation of significant trees: Significant trees (12" in diameter, 6" in diameter for Oaks)
proposed to be removed must be incorporated into a tree replacement plan per the Hillside
Development Design Guidelines at a 3:1 ratio. The applicant has indicated that five (5) Oak
trees will be removed; however their diameter is not identified. The number of trees proposed to
be re -planted (5) does not comply with a 3:1 tree replacement ratio if in fact all 11 of the trees
proposed for removal are identified as "significant trees".
Hillside grading and drainage
Total grading proposed for the project site (including the roadway) is 2,140 cu.yds. of cut and
590 cu.yds of fill. Lot 59 will require 580 cu.yds cut and 10 cu.yds of fill, and 250 cu.yd of cut for
the panhandle driveway (no fill). Lot 60 will require 400 cu.yds of cut (no fill). The 425' roadway
extension from Ross Street will require approximately 910 cu.yds of cut and 580 cu.yds. of fill.
The total estimated off -haul amount from the site would be 1,550 cu.yds. Bio -retention areas
have been proposed for both Lot 59 and Lot 60. The applicant has submitted a hydrology report
and a soils report.
Building Stepback
The Hillside Design Guidelines establishes a building "stepback" to limit the height of structures
in order to avoid excessive bulk. On downhill slope walls, a 20 foot height limitation is required
for all walls. On side -facing walls, a 20' height limit is enforced only if located within the
"stepback zone", which is within 15' of the side yard setback line. For Lot 59, the proposed
project appears to exceed the 20' stepback height limit and also the 25% allowable
encroachment limit on the north (interior side) and east (downhill front) elevation. Lot 60
appears to comply except for the rooftop railing feature.
Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Desiqn
The applicant submitted an analysis of alternative access approaches to the project site (see
Exhibit 6). The original project submittal in November 2015 proposed access to the site from
Clayton Street. However, the Fire Department indicated that the existing bend in the roadway
was too narrow for fire truck access. The applicant did explore changes to the Clayton Street
roadway radius (see Plan Sheet 2 of 6), but ultimately presented a revised access plan design
from Ross Street via Ross Street Terrace, with a fire truck turnaround proposed as part of the
Lot 59 driveway. However, DPW has asked for additional information on the history of
ownership for the Ross Street Terrace, currently identified by the County Assessor as a "paper
street, maintained by others." Also, DPW commented that the proposed new roadway would be
a public street but required to be privately maintained by the new property owners, and would
require an encroachment permit, a major licensing agreement and a maintenance agreement.
Also, as a public street, DPW commented that the new roadway would be required to have
sidewalks, lighting and drainage improvements.
Guest parking: For hillside lots on streets less than 26', Chapter 12 requires that "two additional
on-site parking spaces shall be provided (not in the driveway apron) per unit; placed
conveniently relative to the new dwelling unit. This requirement can 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 make the requirement infeasible." The applicant has proposed a 20' wide roadway for
the majority of the new Ross Street Terrace roadway, but would widen the roadway to 36'
starting at the end of the Lot 59 panhandle driveway (for the fire truck turnaround) and also
widen the road to 28 feet directly in front of Lot 60 up to the roadway terminus (see Plan Sheet 5
of 6). With the street wider than 26', the applicant is proposing to locate the four (4) required
guest parking spaces on the new public roadway and not on private property. DPW has
reviewed this proposal and expressed concern that the on -street guest parking would be
eliminated if Clayton road were ever extended as a through street. Also, the adjacent vacant lot
to the north (APN #012-141-58) would need to have access if the lot is ever sold. It is unclear
whether the location of the guest parking on the east side of the new roadway would hinder Fire
truck turnaround maneuvers.
Hillside Architectural Character
The project site is not visible from the street and is in an area that is heavily vegetated. Existing
homes along the proposed new Ross Street Terrace roadway all front on other streets and are a
mixture of architectural styles, including apartment buildings. The project site and/or the new
roadway and retaining walls will be visible from the rear of several homes along Ross Street
Terrace. Although the home designs are not particularly articulated with bays or gable roof
elements, the elevations do have terraces, a variety of materials and window placements that
break up the wall and provide a sense of interest. The proposed homes are both below the 30'
height limit. Lot 60 appears to comply with the stepback requirement (no wall height over 20'
within the stepback area), but Lot 59 has building walls over 20' within the stepback along the
downhill elevation (east) and the interior side (north) elevation.
Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development
The project site has several existing trees on the property and also along the unpaved
segments of Ross Street Terrace. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan for
both Lot 59 and Lot 60, which will need to be evaluated for compliance with the 3:1 tree
replacement ratio requirement. The current proposal does not replace trees at a 3:1
replacement ratio as required per the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Chapter 18 - Parking
The Zoning Ordinance requires two covered parking spaces for each single family home (20' x 20'
interior dimensions). Lot 60 complies with this regulation but Lot 59 does not. The proposed garage
width for Lot 59 measures 15' x 21' interior dimensions (see Plan Sheet Al 01A). It appears there is
some room to widen the garage space by eliminating a closet. See staff analysis above for discussion
regarding required guest parking spaces. It appears that the proposed access from Ross Street would
eliminate at least 2 existing on -street parking spaces on the north side of Ross Street.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit
Specific architectural design considerations include, but are not limited to the following:
➢ Creation of interest in the building elevation
➢ Materials and colors should be consistent with the surrounding area
➢ Landscape design
➢ Provision of a sense of entry
➢ Exterior lighting
➢ Drainage
The conceptual design of the project is generally consistent with the design criteria of Section
14.25.050 of the Zoning Ordinance in that: 1) the proposed home design has been designed to be
architecturally compatible with each other; 2) there are a variety of exterior material proposed that add
interest to the homes; 3) a preliminary landscape plan has been submitted; 4) bio -retention areas have
been included on Plan Sheet 1 of 2 (Site Plan Sheet); and 5) minimal exterior lighting is proposed.
Overall, staff supports the conceptual design of the proposed homes on Lot 59 and Lot 60. However,
when moving beyond the conceptual design, staff requests the Board's input and comment on the
following:
1. Overall architectural design of the homes with respect to building stepback, materials,
articulation, bulk and mass, interior floor plan.
2. The proposed location of the four (4) guest parking spaces in the public right-of-way.
3. Materials and design proposed for the retaining walls
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
A courtesy notice for the Design Review Board hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the Board's
meeting. In addition, a notice was sent to the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA). A public
notice sign was also posted on Clayton Street and Ross Street (at the proposed location of the new
access roadway). To date, staff has received several e-mails from the property owner at 211 Marin
(which abuts the east side of the proposed new roadway) with concerns about the project's impacts
with respect to privacy to existing tenants at 211 Marin Street, guest parking location, retaining wall
stability and maintenance, property rights along the Ross Street terrace roadway, reduction in street
parking on the north (and possibly south) side of Ross Street, roadway illumination, drainage and
construction noise. Staff also met with the property owners of 209 Marin, who were concerned about
the new retaining wall blocking their future access to Ross Street Terrace, possible loss of privacy, and
whether property owners along Ross Street Terrace may partly own a portion of the Ross Street
Terrace paper street. Another resident expressed interest in supporting undergrounding any future
utilities along Ross Street Terrace. Comments received from neighbors are attached in Exhibit 7.
The applicant met with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA). The GPNA president
informed Planning staff that "There was consensus on the part of all that since the project involves
10
variances, the owners should discuss it with neighbors. Board took no action." Also, staff has an e-
mail from GPNA stating that GPNA does not support the proposed off-site guest parking, has concerns
about parking congestion on Ross Street and also the size of the proposed building footprints.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests the Board's comments on the overall design of the proposed project and specifically the
following issues (also listed on Pages 3-4 of this report):
1. Whether the development should propose a shared driveway design to access garages on Lot
59 and Lot 60.
2. Whether Clayton Street should be re-examined as the potential access roadway in order to
reduce grading and number/height of retaining walls.
3. Whether some or part of the required guest parking should be located on private property and
not entirely in the new roadway.
4. Whether the proposed contemporary style for the new homes is appropriate for the hillside
location.
5. Whether more information is need on the proposed elevator feature for the home on Lot 60.
6. Whether the proposed ceiling heights for the garage (9'-10') and the upper floors (10'-11') is
appropriate (see Plan Sheet A301 A).
7. Clarify if the roof is intended to be used as a deck.
8. Recommendation on acceptable color and materials, including the metal railings on exterior
terraces.
9. Whether the proposed new retaining walls along Ross Street Terrace can be designed as
terraced walls in order to reduce the height.
10. Whether the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is the optimal design
11. Whether additional trees are need on site. The project is proposing to remove a total of 11 trees
on Lot 59 and Lot 60, as well as six (6) other trees (2 Oaks) to the east of the project site (see
Plan Sheet 1-2). There are several trees that appear to be in the new roadway but are not
included on Sheet L2. Also, the diameter of the Oak trees and other trees are not identified, so
it is unclear whether these trees slated for removal are "significant" and subject to the 3:1
replacement ratio required per the Hillside Guidelines. A total of five (5) trees are proposed to
be replanted, two (2) on Lot 59 and three (3) on Lot 60.
The GPNA informed staff that Staff has no detail about the meeting as yet. However, the GPNA
submitted an e-mail to Planning stating that the GPNA does not support the proposed off-site guest
parking; also the GPNA concerned about parking congestion on Ross Street and also the size of the
proposed building footprints.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests the Board's comments on the overall design of the proposed project and specifically the
following issues (also listed on Pages 3-4 of this report):
12. Whether the development should propose a shared driveway design to access garages on Lot
59 and Lot 60.
13. Whether Clayton Street should be re-examined as the potential access roadway in order to
reduce grading and number/height of retaining walls.
14. Whether the proposed new retaining walls along Ross Street Terrace can be designed as
terraced walls in order to reduce the height.
15. Whether the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is the optimal design
16. Whether some or part of the required guest parking should be located on private property and
not entirely in the new roadway.
11
17. Whether the proposed contemporary style for the new homes is appropriate for the hillside
location.
18. Recommendation on acceptable color and materials, including the metal railings on exterior
terraces.
19. Whether more information is need on the proposed elevator feature for the home on Lot 60.
20. Whether the proposed ceiling heights for the garage (9'-10') and the upper floors (10'-11') is
appropriate (see Plan Sheet A301A).
21. Whether additional trees are need on site. The project is proposing to remove a total of 11 trees
on Lot 59 and Lot 60, as well as six (6) other trees (2 Oaks) to the east of the project site (see
Plan Sheet L2). There are several trees that appearto be in the new roadway but are not
included on Sheet L2. Also, the diameter of the Oak trees and other trees are not identified, so
it is unclear whether these trees slated for removal are "significant" and subject to the 3:1
replacement ratio required per the Hillside Guidelines. A total of five (5) trees are proposed to
be replanted, two (2) on Lot 59 and three (3) on Lot 60.
EXHIBITS
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission approved 3 lot subdivision, 1963
3. Certificate of Compliance, 2004
4. Lot Line Adjustment narrative, dated June 8, 2017
5. Lot Access Alternative discussion, dated April 15, 2016
6. Slope Calculation Plan Sheet 1 of 6, dated April 8, 2017
7. Public Comment letters
Full-sized plans and I V x 97" reduced plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Coby Friedman, applicant; coby@cfcontraction.com
Francisco Mata, Architect; Francisco@architect-sf.com
Gina Silvestri, President, Gerstle Park NA; ginas(a)-bmcsf.com
Irving Schwartz, CE; ilschwartz@ilscels.com>
12
SanRafael
ROSSST-
Ov
L
161 -1
163 160
'
LOTS
I �'� /J-
http://gis.eityofsanrafael.org/sanrafael/fasion.php I
L --j
-NT 0.3
I- 1416,1494 I 1573.48 x 1087.91 (ft)
T'y OseA� Y\ew acc�5
�
Exhibit 1
91
i
FRANCES
1 of 1 8/14/17, 4:45 PM
WHEN R13C0RDED'MA1L TCC:
City of Si -n Rafael
DepartmeAt of Public Works
Land Development Division
III Morpnew Street
Sara Rikfsel, CA 94401
Rernrded F REC FEE
Official Records I
County Of.
NariJOW C. TPAVER_ €
Recarder I
11:1 13 -Apr -E@04
CE R.'1 9 FICATlE OF COMPLIANCE
(Division'-', Title 7, Section 66499.35, California Government Code) .
WL
Page 1 of .5
The Director of Public Works, pursuant to the. provisions of the Subdivision Map Aut, and based upon information
provided, has determined that the real pro,i?rty described below complies with the requirements of the San Rafael
Subdivisinr. Ordinance.
Propg!dy Qwner(s of Record
Record I ota for Sub ect Property:
Assessor 'Parcel Numbers:
Address/; treet Name -
John G. MacPhee Jr.
(as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll or Thic),
Approved recorded subdivision in Boole 1753 of
Official Records at Page 247, Marin County
Records.
012-141-58, =59, and -60
33, 37, and 41 Clayton Street
Number 6T Parcels for which Certificate is Issued: 3
Descrivtiron: See Exhibit "A" attached
r
Notes: '
The descriptions in Exhibit'.`A" attached has been taken from Official Marin County Records, and neither the City of San Rafael
nor any of its officers or employees assume responsibility for the accuracy of said description.
Prior to the issuance of building pemtit(s) the oti ar(s) must satisfy the conditions of the 1963 City of San Rafael Planning
Commission -recorded subdivision approvals as listed in Exhibit "B".
This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances
enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased or financed without further compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. 'Development of the parcel may require issuance of
permit or pirmits, or other grant or }rants of approval.
This Certif;sate of Compliance shall in no way affect the requirements of any outer County, 5tate,'Federal or local agency that
tagulates daveioprtat:nt of real property.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Dated: }} A Municipal Corporation
BY
-NL' DEW PREST
City Engineer 4 .
Exhibit 2
6
Immmily,j)
CERTMCATE OF COMFLMNCE
PARCEL I - ASSESSOR PARCEL MJMBER* _RIE1-41-60-
ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate in the City of San Rafael; County of Marin, State Of
California, descillbed as follows.
Being Aportion of the lands ny@user to john G. MacPhee, Jr. by Deed recorded March 16,
at page 582, Marin County Remrds and to Jack G.
1961 in B6ok IA44 of 0�lWwa Records, -
MacPhee b`j Dead recorded Septi T"r 21, 1962 in 0000 1613 of Official RecQrds at Page 396,
Marin County Records,* macre particularly descfl�d as follows:
Commencing at the Westerly corner of the lands conveyed to,J,ack G.. Mqcphee recorded
Septernber-21, 1962 in Book 1'613 of Cfficiai Records at Page 396, Marin County Records and
running along, the Southedy line South 68' *15' East 19.03 feet, thence leaving said Southerly line
South 790 39' 21" East 109 feet more or less to the Westerly line of Ross Street Terrace {formerly
Buena Vista) as described and dedicated to public use in the Deed from James J. McDon'ald to
Peter Williams, recorded in Book 3 of Deeds, at Page 360, Madn Cbunty Records, thence along
said Westerly line South 9115' East, 21 feel, to the True 'Point of Beginning thence leaving said.
Westerly fin -3 North 85 1 19,38' West 54 f6et; South 140 55' 26' VV4st 64 feet , more or less to the
Southerly Ii.,)e of the Deed to John G. MacPhee above referred to ( 1444 O,R, 682 ), thence
along said �outhedy line South X89 47' 00" Last' 92 feet to the Sa uftasterly. comer, thence
along the Westerly line of RQss Street Terrace, North 11945' 00' 81,98 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.
Being Parce . 11, as shown upon the proposed subdivision ap'roved and recorded November 26,
P
1063 in k 1753 of Official Records at Page 247, Marin County Records.
M
N
,�tgr7[3Frt114V*� of b 47
CER .tCAGtl.lCR1Lt1GD&y COMP CE
TE
PARCE1L Z - MsESSOR PARCEL SERs _ 012-141-59. . d
ALL THAT RT ll l Deal property situate in the City of Sart Rafael, County of Marin,"St�tt�•c�f
California, described below as follows.-
,Ig
ollows:;ig a porkm of ,lands c*avey+ed•to John G. MarPhee, Jr. by Dead recorded March 16,
1961 in 13ov1:14 4 of Official Records, at page 552, Madn Count] records andyto Jack G.
M1 McPhee by Deed recorded September 21, 1962 in Book 1643 of Official Records at Page 336,
Marin County Records, rrrora part ccr(ar1y. described as lbtlows;
Beginning at the Westerly corner of the lands conveyed W Jack G. MacPhee recorded
September 21, 1962 in Book 1613 of official Records at €gaga 596, Marin County Records and
running along the Southedy lire South 689 16' East 19.03 feet, thence leaving said Southerly fine
South 79" ST 21' last 909 feet more or less to the Westerly line of Ross Street Terrace (formerly
Buena Vista) as described and dedic*ted to public use in the Deed from James J. McDonald to
Peter Williams, recorded in Book 3 of ®reds, at Page 360, Marin County Records, thence along
said Westerly line South 9° 15' East, 21 feet., thence leaving said W41 steriy line North 35 " 19' 38'
West 54 feet, South 1411 55'26" West 64 feet , more, or less to the southerly Brae of the Deed to
John G. MacPhee above referred to (1444 O.R. 682), thence alotig said Southerly line North
68o 47' 00, Viest 581eet to the Sbuthwestedy Gamer; thence along the Westerly line of said Reed
North 11 1145'00' 72.15 fleet to the point of Beginning
Being Parml.:2 as shown upon the proposed subdivision approved and recorded November 26,
1963 in BDok 1753 of Official Records, at Page 247, Madh Couniy Records.
0. c
.a ,1si:nin. , ..
}PARCEL 3 - ASSESSOR PARICEL NUMER> 012-141-58.
ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate In the City of San Rafael, Courrty of Wtrin, State of
California, desoibed below as follows:
Beingp ay of 1 vey to Jack C. Ma ee by D d rewrdel. September 21,
1962 in i k 1613 of ficial Records at Page 396, Darin County Rewrds,more particularly
described as follows:
B inning at tete Westerly cmer of the lands cotiveyed to Jack G. MacPhee recorded
Septenber 21, 1962 in Book 1613 of MKM Reo6rds at Page $96, Marin County Records and
running along the Southerly line - uth ®15' East 19,03 ffeet, thenen leaping said Southerly line
SoLdh 790 39' 21' East 1iq ff t mom or less to the Wasterly lime of Ross Street Terrace (forrnedy
Buena Vista) as described and deffloeted to public use in the Deed tom James J. McDonald to .
Peter Williams, rewrdeo in Book 3 of Deeds, at Page 360, Marin County Records, then6a along
said Westedy lane, NoFth q5® 30, fest 45.38 feet north 35" 3g' West 400 feletto the NOrtttedy
lira of Vae deed above referrer tD (1613 OR 396) fence along said Northerly litre South 61" 15'
East 103.09 feet to the point of beVinnffig.
Being Parcel 3 as shown u the ptosed subdivision approved and recorded November 26,
1963 in Bwk.1763 of Officia,0 Rewrds, at Page 247, Madn County Rsoords.
CJL' R !lMCA E OF COMPLIANCE
V CSG
SASS ESSORIFARCEIL NDNO : .012-141-58.-59, and -60
1963 City of San Rafael Planning Commissioa?. Conditions of Approval.
1. A. -road shall be constructed with pavement 15 feet in width with curb and gutter along Clayton
street in front of the three Iots with the location to be deteiminud by the City Engineer.
2. A copy of the agreement to at�l ilia water amain shall be subna teed to the Planning Division
before any bLdIding pera-sits are issued for the development of'the three lots.
3. Connections to the sever system shall be provided for the dwclling(s) on the three lots.
4. Water line extensions shill be provided to the three hats,
5. A performance bond. shall be posted -vdth amount to be detemined by the City Engineer, and
(engineered) improvement plans for the Grater and sewer connection) street and drainage shall
N: reviewed and approved by tide City Engineer prior to issuance of building perrnits for the
development of the three lots.
V,
X.8(D o "-'-'b'-
+Ta o i O �+Tv'��-F�•F�
N •30 'f +vO (D•C 7 -C C
� O 3 0 O m M 0 ED 0.
40
p (< 0 tD 7 7 01 -+—.
-
B O �tpp + 1' 7 = N N 7
7 7 0 4 0 -Oi m m E !D+ to
O-
tG + 7m 1n 0 GI -n O
o •C n H = ot° m 01
maooi'DB9mp
N O. 0 1, (D O 0) 7
roi. 0 a 0 (D + + a te
o,0or(am�0 say
m+i a�mamX
'OG !'-0 C f O I+D m D C
c 010,m mo. o-
- 5 C m a d+ v O:tc
G�-i•a-* <
`< mm -nC
to a o ° ca n`D+-c
+ a -• + -
0 0011 m ID m a -s +
= m N.0 - 0
1 d N V
N O 7 O 0 (D
3•'A IV
-. c CL rn m . �• S
VN 3 Q
-+ ID
c -<m ,-• o cn
CL m
n c m 'a 6 ro'Of i
0 +C7 0 c U) •m n�
+ate 0- CL (D (D -
m'o.m o 0 0 �•fd
c d t0 N "� m m I G
m
Cr
W
June 8, 2017
Caron Parker
City of San Rafael.
RE. Clayton Lot No. 59 — Reasons for Lot Line adjustment
Dear Caron,
The reason for the lot line adjustment is to provide access to the upper lot (59) from a higher elevation
point at the street, so to minimize the excavation for and the slope of the new driveway to the upper
house.
The reason for the reverse flag pole configuration of the lot, is maintain the same lot area as it is prior to
the LLA.
I hope this explains it.
Thank you,
Coby nedman, Owner.
415-310-5442
Coby@cfcontracting.com
Exhibit 4
V/.
April 15, 2016
Coby Friedman
96 Forrest Avenue
Fairfax, CA 94930
1 LS ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
Re: Access Alternatives to 33 and 41 Clayton Street, San Rafael
Our bile No, 8922
Dear Mr. Friedman,
RECEIVED
APP, 2 2 2016
As requested I am providing you with the following information regarding access alternatives to
the properties at 33 and 41 Clayton Street in San Rafael.
The property is fronted by the Clayton Street public right-of-way also shown as Ross Street
Terrace. The Ross Street Terrace right-of-way extends from the subject site approximately 400
feet to its intersection with Ross Street. Ross Street is a fully developed City maintained street,
however, Ross Street Terrace is undeveloped.
Clayton Street extends approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Welch Street to the
subject site. The first approximately 150 feet extending from Welch Street is a fully developed
City maintained street. The next approximately 250 feet of Clayton Street is a City maintained
street, however, it has only approximately 9 to 10 feet of paved width with the City maintenance
ending at the driveway to 47 Clayton Street and the end of paving at the sharp turn in Clayton
Street. The remaining approximately 200 feet is a graded road approximately 8 to 9 feet wide,
the first approximately 150 feet of which is surfaced with base rock and the remaining 50 feet is
a graded earth bench.
Access Alternate 1-12' Wide Clayton Street
From the end of the curb, gutter and sidewalk on Clayton Street, it is proposed to widen the street
for approximately 150 feet to a minimum paved width of 12 feet. This will require installation of
a bulkhead approximately 180 feet long on the uphill side of the roadway with a height of
approximately 4 feet. The next segment of roadway would be widened to 20 feet and extend
around the sharp turn in Clayton Street. The inside radius of the widened section of the curve
would be increased to 20 feet and there would be approximately 40 feet of paved width at that
point due to the configuration of the turn. Roadway improvements would then continue by
grading the existing gravel road and earth bench to provide for a paved width of 12 feet requiring
the installation of a bulkhead approximately 200 feet long on the uphill side of the roadway to a
maximum height of 6 feet. This work will require the removal of possibly one oak tree and a
number of acacia trees.
Exhibit 6
79 GALLI DRIVE, SUITE A NOVATO, CA 94949-5717 (415) 883-9200 FAX(415)883-2763
Widening on the downhill or northerly side of Clayton Street from the end of the curb and gutter
to the sharp turn is impractical due to the location of an adjacent residence, existing retaining
walls, entry areas and other improvements that encroach into the right-of-way.
Access Alternate 2 — 20' Wide Clayton Street
Widening Clayton Street to a minimum paved width of 20 feet would require the installation of
higher and more extensive bulkheads along the uphill side of the roadway as compared to
Alternate 1. Approximately 180 feet of bulkhead to a height of 8 to 10 feet would be required
along the first section of roadway between the end of curb and gutter and the sharp turn.
Additionally approximately 200 feet of retaining wall to a maximum height of 10 feet would be
required on the uphill side of the roadway from the sharp turn to the subject site with also
approximately 90 feet of retaining wall up to a height of 4 feet required on the downhill side a
short distance beyond the sharp curve. This widening will require the removal of two cypress
trees and a number of acacia trees as well as the relocation of two utility poles.
Access Alternate 3 — 20' Wide Ross Street Terrace
If access were to be taken from Ross Street Terrace, a roadway 20 feet wide with a maximum
grade of 25% for a portion of the driveway would require retaining walls on both sides of the
roadway for a length of approximately 340 feet on the westerly side and approximately 340 feet
on the easterly side with the maximum height of wall on the westerly side at approximately 12
feet and the maximum height of the retaining wall on the easterly side with a height of
approximately 7 feet. Due to the topography, the driveway would appear as a slot cut into the
hillside. Relocation of an existing public sewer main and one or two utility poles, along with
some removal of acacia trees, would also be required.
Lot Frontase Improvements
It is proposed to improve the frontage of the subject site by constructing a 28 foot wide paved
roadway in order to provide for both fire department access and three on street parking spaces.
A fire department turnaround will be provided on the property frontage combined with the
driveway access to the proposed house at 41 Clayton Street. Construction of the driveway to this
width will require a retaining wall on the easterly side of the roadway approximately 170 feet
long to a maximum height of approximately 11 feet.
Recommendations
We recommend Alternate 1 for the following reasons:
1. Minimum environmental impact.
2. Minimum off hauling as most of the grading work will be balanced between the cut and
fill.
3. Lower retaining wails i.e. 4'-5' high.
4. Minimal disturbance to adjacent properties.
5. Widening and 20' wide turnout at sharp curve.
6. Minimal tree removal.
7. Improvement of existing resident access and emergency vehicle access.
ILS ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
We recommend against Alternate 2 for the following reasons:
1. Moderate impact on the adjoining properties.
2. Moderate off haul of excavated material.
3. Higher retaining walls i.e. 6'-10'.
4. Moderate tree removal.
We recommend ap-ainst Alternate 3 for the following reasons:
1. Moderate impact on adjoining properties.
2. Major off haul of excavated material.
3. Major impact on Ross Street Neighbors.
4. Major retaining walls 3' to 12' high.
S. Moderate tree removal.
6. No improvement to existing Clayton Street.
Sincerely,
hying chwartz, C.E.
I LS ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
Caron Parker
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Begin forwarded message:
Hugo & Cynthia Landecker <clandecker@saber.net>
Wednesday, June 14,2017 10:38 AM
Caron Parker
Lisa Gerick; Michele Killian; bod@gerstlepark.com Board; Victor Kunin;
Bob_Foehr@comcast.net; Valery Lels; Amy Likover
New Ross Terrace homes
From: Victor Kunin <kunivi@qmai1.com.>
®ate: June 13, 2017 12:47:59 PM PDT
To: "Hugo & Cynthia Landecker" <clandecker(absaber.net>
Cc: Maria Kunin <i.mash ka(aD-grmil.com>
Subject: e: GPNA new projects in town
Hugo,
Thank you for showing the Ross Terrance plans to me.
Here are some of my concerns with Ross Terrace plans. Would be great to know your opinion.
Parking. The plans include no dedicated parking. Instead street parking will be used. In a neighborhood
overwhelmed with limited parking availability this is a problem.
We kindly request appropriate allocation of dedicated parking before the plans are approved.
Retaining walls details. The plans specify the presence retaining walls supporting the access road. A portion
of these walls is planned to be just inches away from our property. We kindly request to.,know
1) if there are any setback provisions for retention walls. If yes, what should be the setback from our property
line.
2) how these retaining walls will look,
3) how they will be built (digging depth, potential intrusion of construction to our property),
4) what materials and finishes will be used.
Retaining galls maintenance and liability. The retaining walls are planned to be built on public right of way.
Their failure would directly endanger our property and our tenants. Prior to approving plans we kindly request
to let us know
Who will have the duty to maintain the retaining walls?
Who will be liable if those walls fail?
Road safety. The proposed road will run on a hill above our property. The road has a turn at the point directly
adjacent to our property. I also did not see plans to illuminate the newly constructed road. We kindly request to
see .y
Measures to physically prevent cars from falling into our property.
Lighting plan of the proposed street.
Exhibit 7
Privacy and noise. The proposed buildings and road will look down directly into our backyard, our tenant's
back yard, balconies and windows. This causes privacy and noise concerns for us. The current plans do not
contain measures to mitigate this decrease of privacy or/and shield from noise. We kindly request to show
Measures to prevent intrusions of privacy,
Measures to limit propagation of noise.
Construction noise and impacts on rents. We expect that noise generated by construction would impact
rents generated by the apartment building facing the construction site. We kindly request information on
Mitigation of lost rent during the construction.
Drainage. The projected development is located on the hill above our property. Currently water freely floats
from this hill into our property. We kindly request information on
Drainage /prevention of water run-off into our property.
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Hugo & Cynthia Landecker <clandeckernsaber.net> wrote:
Today I got the plans for the two new homes on Ross Terrace. Access will be by a new road coming off of
Ross Street and dead ending just past the new homes. .I have to check with planning as I am not sure if they
meet the parking requirements. Comments are due to the city by June 15, 2017.
There is a request for anception to the City Noise rdinance for an evening film shoot by Paramount on
Friday June 16. If we have y concerns, comme s must be submitted to City by June 14. I think GPNA
Board has already discussed thls,,and it is an ' sue.
703-723 LIncoln Ave. Proposal to co N two lots that have currently 15,000 square feet of commercial space
on the two lots with a combined 27,935 are feet of lot area. Proposed is a new 6 story multifamily
residential building with 138 units a ve 14 arking spaces, consisting of 39 studio units, 57 one bedroom
units, and 42 two bedroom units. ey are
re
ing a 12 foot height bonus for providing affordable
housing and in accordance wit the State Density us Law for 62 additional units and a waiver of the 5 foot
front setback requirement. ere will be a meeting on June 20, 2017 at 7 PM in the council Chambers.
Caron Parker
From:
Victor Kun'rn <kunivi@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 05, 2017 1:35 PM
To:
Caron Parker
Cc:
Maria Kunin
Subject:
Proposed development on 33 / 41 Clayton st
Caron,
We are owners of 211 Marin St in San Rafael.
Our neighbors told us about proposed development at 33 and 41 Clayton St.
This is undeveloped land, and I heard people referring to the street as Ross Terrace.
Hugo Landecker told me that you are the planner on this project.
The proposed development will directly face our back yard, the patio and balconies of our tenants. We are
concerned about privacy and wonder if we could learn more about the status of this project. Would you mind
sharing the status of this project with us?
Victor
I
Caron Parker
From: Victor Kunin <kunivi@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:31 PM
To: Caron Parker
Cc: Lisa Gerick; Michele Killian; bod@gerstlepark.com Board; Bob_Foehr@comcast.net;
Valery Leis; Amy Likover; Hugo & Cynthia Landecker
Subject: Re: New Ross Terrace homes
Caron,
To follow up on your 'privately maintained roadway' answer. I wonder if there is a way to ensure that we
wouldn't be on the hook to maintain it. I imagine a situation in which retaining walls fall to disrepair. This
would threaten properties under the retaining walls, such as us and our neighbors, and will not need or use this
road. It would not threaten same way the developed properties that will be the main users of the road, as they
are located above the retaining walls. We would need to ensure that there is some mechanism that ensures that
the retaining walls and the private roadway are properly maintained, and our complains do not fall on deaf ears.
I witnessed cases of multiple properties co -responsible for road maintenance and the difficulty to negotiate the
maintenance between all owners. It would be great to have a clear and simplified process for maintenance
before the constriction is agreed.
Victor
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Caron Parker <Caron.Parkergcityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Victor -
Thank you for sending in your comments. Staff has been to the site but will be going out again with the City
Engineer. The applicant had staked out the roadway and boundaries of the lot a few months ago, but with all the rains,
I'm not sure what remains on the site.
I will prepare a response to your comments after I have a chance to review them. I can tell you that the applicant has
submitted a Hydrology Report, Drainage Analysis and a Soils Investigation, and will be required to comply with current
requirements for drainage and storm water management regulations. All reports are under review by the City's Public
Works Department.
The roadway design is understandably dependent on engineering principles, however the City's goal is to push for
retaining walls as low as possible, or terraced if possible. The retaining wall height, design and materials will all be
reviewed as part of the public hearing at the Design Review Board. The new roadway will be required to be engineered
to meet City standards for a public street, but it will be a privately maintained roadway.
Caron Parker
From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker <clandecker@saber.net>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 9:49 AM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Re: Ross Terrace
Caron,
Yes, understand the problem. Another issue is that the immediate neighborhood is parking congested. This means that
people are desperate for long and short term parking. I can foresee either one of the new residents or nearby residents
parking in these new spaces and can do so legally, but not for over 72 hours. Nice parking area for that big RV! This is
not going to work.
Hugo
On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Caron Parker wrote:
> Hugo-
> Yes, that is correct, the guest parking is required to be on the private property when the roadway is less than 26' wide.
However, the City does look at site constraints and in some cases, if the street is widened to 26', then we will consider
street parking. Looking at the plans, I am not convinced that the applicant has demonstrated that he absolutely cannot
provide at least one guest space on his property. The Board will weigh in on this once we get to that point. I will look
into:any possible issues with the proposed street parking on the potential development on the vacant lot to the north.
> Caron Jo Parker
> Associate Planner
> City of San Rafael
> 415-485-3094
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker [mailto:clandecker@saber.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 9:01 PM
> To: Caron Parker
> Cc: bod@gerstlepark.com Board
> Subject: Re: Ross Terrace
> This is a public street and the vehicles will be subject to the 72 hour time limit, right? Looking into the future, there is
a vacant lot on the Ross Terrace. This parking scheme could affect development of that parcel.
> I thought the required uncovered spaces were supposed to be on the site, not on the public road.
> What are your thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Hugo
>
> On J.uh 8, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Caron Parker wrote:
i
>> Hugo-
>> The project proposes to provide 4 guest spaces on the new roadway. They are shown on the site plan and Sheet
A100A (attached). DPW is reviewing this and the 30 -day completeness deadline is June 30, 2017.
>> Caron Jo Parker
Associate Planner
>> City of San Rafael
>> 415-485-3094
>> -----Original Message-----
» From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker [mailto:clandecker@saber.net]
»Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 2:51 PM
>> To: Caron Parker
» Subject: Ross Terrace
>> Caron,
>> Do the new plans include the required uncovered parking spaces? Where?
>> Thanks,
>> Hugo
>> <clayton parking.pdf>
Caron Parker
-
From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker <clandecker@saber.net>
Seat: Friday, November 11, 2016 8:30 PM
To: Caron Parker
Subject: Ross Terrace project
Caron,
On Thursday evening, November 10, 2016, the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association Board of Directors discussed the
project and decided that the plans provided and lack of onsite survey markers leave us with not enough information to
make a decision to support the project or not.
As I indicated in a prior email the required guest parking being off site is not acceptable.
H ugo ' La ndecker
Caron Parker
From: Hugo & Cynthia Landecker <clandecker@saber.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 10:35 PM
To: Caron Parker
Cc: Amy & Joe Likover; Carrie Marmesh; Ross Parmenter; Gina Silvestri; Josselyn Robertson;
Nadia Silvershine
Subject: New street off of Ross Street, APN 012-141-59 & 60
Caron,
Was looking at the latest plans. The plans are extremely difficult to understand. It does appear that some of the
required parking is on the public right of way. This is precedent setting. Just exactly what justification allows this.
Details of the cut at Ross Street are not shown. The plan should show the full length of Ross Terrace as it extends to
Ross Street. The drawing shows an abbreviated sketch.
The shape of the two lots is such that the footprint of the homes uses most of the buildable portion of the lots.
Hugo Landecker
To: Caron Parker / caron.parker@cityofsanrafael.org / 415-485-3094
Project Planner, City of San Rafael
Re: Clayton Street Project
From: Peter Marks/ pmarks@Lynchmarks.com
My name is Peter Marks, and I will be the new owner of 60 Woods Street as of August 29th. My property
would border the newly proposed Ross Terrace road.
I am not opposed to the development of the two lots in discussion, however I believe that any new
development should attempt to minimize the impact to (a) the environment, (b) adjacent residents and
(c) the community.
In the case of these two lots, I understand that the proposed access via Ross Terrace is due to challenges
related to implementing a turning radius for fire trucks at the top of Clayton Street. Access via Ross
Terrace would be challenging fire trucks as well (25% grade) and it would be much worse for the
environment, it would impact many more residents, and it wouldn't benefit the community in any way.
If no other alternative exists, at the bottom of this document I've outlined a number of requests that I
believe will minimize the impact of building Ross Terrace road.
Respectfully,
Peter Marks
I OPPOSE the Ross Terrace access option (vs. access via Clayton St.) for the following reasons:
1. Environmental Impact
a. Substantially more grading of the hillside, replacing a small "greenbelt" that currently
exists. 100's if not 1,000's more cubic yards of material to be moved, involving retaining
walls of up to at least 12' that could be seen from around the neighborhood and across
town.
b. 4 to 5 times more asphalt, contributing to more street water runoff, global warming, an
other environmental issues. True, it's a small amount, but every little bit counts.
c. Loss of trees: There are at least 15 trees that would need to be removed. While most of
these trees are not "stately" by any means, they still provide environment benefits and
a nice buffer between properties to the west of Ross Terrace and those to the east.
d. Light pollution. There are currently no street lights on the hillside which is a benefit to
everyone. The street lights already exist on Clayton thus no new lights would need to be
added (assuming they would be required on Ross Terrace).
e. Impact on wildlife. Acknowledging that Ross Terrace is technically a street, it has not
ever been used, and as such it is an area that is used by all types of wildlife — deer, birds,
etc. We're lucky to have tons of open space in Marin County, but preserving what
remains within the urban boundary is a benefit to everyone.
2. Impact on Adjacent Residents (short term and long term environmental and social)
a. There are an estimated 20 to 25 residential units that abut the proposed new Ross
Terrace access road. None of these residents would benefit from this new road, and all
would be negatively impacted by the environmental issues listed above.
New traffic and noise to adjacent residents. The new Ross Terrace access will generate
new traffic and noise where there was previously none. While the traffic would be
expected to be minimal (assuming no parking is allowed on Ross Terrace), this is a huge
change to residents.
c. If parking were allowed on Ross Terrace, the overall impact would be substantial as
parking is at a premium in the neighborhood and Ross Terrace would not be a thru
street. Residents with properties adjoining Ross Terrace would have a substantial
increase in noise, traffic, car head -lamps, etc. should this street be made available for
parking. This would likely have a substantially negative impact the value of the
properties (sale and/or rental for the multi -tenant units).
d. Street Lights. Street lights impact the environment and residents too. The impact would
be most severe on residents to the east (downhill side) of Ross Terrace. These buildings
are below the grade of the proposed road and any street lights would shine directly into
the residences from above.
e. Access via Clayton would impact fewer residents (4 to 6?) and benefit residents by
providing upgraded roads and improved fire access, at the cost of only slightly increased
traffic. Street lights already exist on Clayton so there would be no change to this.
f. Building of a completely new road on Ross Terrace would obviously be very disruptive to
adjoining residents for some period given the extensive excavation and construction of
retaining walls. The impact on building access via Clayton Street would be substantially
less in terms of overall work, and it would impact fewer residents.
Impact on the Community.
a. Building a new road on Ross Terrace would only benefit the 2 new home owners at the
end of the proposed road, and would have no benefit for 20 to 25 other households; in
fact, such a road would negatively impact these residents both in the short-term and the
long-term. If no other alternative existed this would have to be accepted. A better
alternative exists: providing access from Clayton St.
b. The negative environmental impact of providing access from Ross Terrace St. is many
times worse than providing access from Clayton St. Minimizing the impact of new
development benefits the entire community.
Should it ultimately be determined that fire truck access via Clayton Street not be possible, as the
owner of a property adjoin Ross Terrace, I would request the following:
1. That the width of the Ross Terrace road be minimized as much as possible.
2. That the road be positioned to minimize excavation.
3. That no street lights be required on Ross Terrace, of if required, that they be placed low to the
ground (or in the proposed retaining walls) to minimize light pollution for everyone.
4. That side -walks not be required, discouraging people from walking up the dead-end street.
5. That Ross Terrace be designated a "No Parking" street either by signage, or minimizing the
width of the street.
6. That the entry to Ross Terrace be clearly marked "No Outlet" and "Privately Maintained Street."
7. That the current utilities, and new utilities in the Ross Terrace right-of-way be undergrounded
(these utilities service the two new lots).
8. That current access to any properties via Ross Terrace be maintained. For example, the lower
part of the property at 60 Woods can be accessed by car, via Clayton St and the unimproved
Ross Terrace road.
9. That the developer replaces the trees removed in cooperation with the impacted residents.
10. That the developer proactively minimize disruption (noise, dust, etc.) during the building of the
road, and during the construction of the homes.