Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2019-11-19 #2SAN RAFAE L THE CITY WITH A MISSION Meeting Data: November 19, 2019 Case Numbers: LLA18-005/ED18-066/EX19-010 Project Planner: Ali C3iudica- (415) 485-3092 Agenda Item: Z REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT= 52/64 Fremont - Raq user for a Lot Line Adjustment for property line adjustment and Exception and Environmental and Design Review for a naw 3,531 square -foot, single-family residence on the newly created vacant lot and reversion of portions of hardscapa on the developed lot to natural state; APN: 012-043-11 and -12; Single-family Residential (R1 O) District; CKD Enterprises, applicanVPrivate Money Management Group LLC -Orange Beacon Mkt., owners; File No(s).: LLA18-005/ED18-066/EX19-010. PROPERTY FACTS Location Ganaral Plan Desl nation onin Desi nation xlstin Land -Use 52 Fremont Low Dansf Residential R10 Zonin District Vacant 54 Fremont Low Densi Residential R10 Zonin District Sin le-tamll Residence North: Low Densit Residential R5 Sin la-famil Residence South: Low Densit Residential R1 O/R20 VacanVSin le-famil Residence East: Low Densit Residential RS Sin le-famil Residence Wast: Low Densit Residential R5 Sin la-famil Residence SUMMARY The proposed project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of an Environmental and Design Review and Exception permit for construction of a new single-family residence on a hillside lot with a request for exception to the Natural States requirement. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission who will make a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision on an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Lot Line Adjustment and Exception request. Staff is seeking the Boards evaluation of the project based the applicable design criteria, which is discussed in detail below. In general, staff has concerns about Natural State Exception and staff is looking for the Board's concurrence on the following items: • Sita P/an: Whether the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and resulting site plans demonstrate the best solution for a boundary adjustment and the most efficient use of the site given the development standards that apply to this property. Specifically, staff is seeking input on the following: • Nature/ States Exception -Pursuant to Section 14. ! 2.030 of the Zoning Coda, projects on Hi//side /ors Head to reserve a minimum area of twenty-five paroent (25%) of the /ot area p/us the percentage figure of average s/ops, not to exceed a maximum of o/ghty--five peroant(85%), as nature/ state_ Nature/ state inc/udes a// portions of /ors that remain undava/opad and undisturbed. Grading, excavating, fi//ing and/or the construction roadways, driveways, parKing areas and structures are prohibited. P/anting and landscaping which enhances the nature/ environment are permiKed when approved through an environmental and design review permit. Tha app/icant is requesting an exception to the Natures/ States which allows for the fo//owing: o Marquard Lot -The minimum nature/- state required for this lot is 5,086 square feat The app/icant's data sheat (sheat AS100) proposes a rota/nature/ state of 4, 503 square feet, which is /ass than the minimum required, and therefore a nature/ state exception is requested. However; basad on staff's ca/cu/ations of nature/ state which axc/odes manicured /andscaping, retaining wa//s and driveways, the tote/ nature/ state is approximate/y 2, 974 square feat. 0 54 Fremont- Tha minimum nature/ state requirement for the /ot at 54 Fremont is 5,321. The app//cant proposes fo reduce the size of the /ot associated with 54 Fremont by 543 square feat. Oue to reconf/guretion of the /ot /!ne and reduction in tote/ /ot area this wl// naso/t in an additions/ reduction in nature/ state by 22fsquare feet. Tha app/icant is proposing to rap/ace soma of the gredatl and fi//ad area to nature/ /andscaping. Tha app/icant has provided a p/ant pa//at for review by the Board. Staff request input from the board as to whether this is considered adequate reversion of nature/ state on this /ot. Architecture: Whether the design of the new residence proposed to access on Marquand is an appropriate design solution and one that contributes to the mix of architectural styles of the neighborhood and whether this style adequately incorporates transitional elements such as stepped facades, balconies, and/br other architectural details to minimize height differences. Materia/s antl Co/ors: Whether the colors and materials era appropriate for this site. BACKGROUND Sita Description 8 Setting: The project site consists of two single family lots located in the West End Neighborhood within the R1 O zoning district. Because both lots have a slope of greater than 25 % they era also classified as hillside lots subject to hillside development standards. In 2006 the City issued a Certificate of Compliance which confirmed that these lots ware deemed to exist as separate legal lots of record since they were created as Lots 8 and 9 of the Map of Wast End Addition, recorded in '19'13. Tha current lots era side by side, with each lot having frontage on Fremont St and Marquand. The following tablas describe existing development conditions along with changes with the proposed Lot Lina Adjustment and development of the vacant lot. �P/ane aubm/Matl her Bv/aw /aflacr a Natuna/ Srab of 4,503 square teat HOWBVar, Mat area /x/odes an area of t, 629 spuara lae[W /nrmducad /andacep/n9 /n rna vda and rronr rero ares. 52 Fremont Road (Marquand Avenue) Minimum Required or Maximum Allowed EXlating Proposed Compliant Lot 31za 10 900 s .H. 5 597 s . ft. 7 130 s . ft. No but Increaaad. Lot Slo a 39.42% Max Gross Building Area• 2 soo s care feat . � o� lox area 3,213 aq_ h. 231 sq. ft 3,581 sq. ft. N Natural Sfata (25% � 39.42 % (lot slope)) 64.42 % 8,066 9B.5 % 6,355 sq. R. 41.5% 2,974• N Lot Covera a 40% 3.5% 30.2% Y Hal ht 30 feat 1 O <30 faai Y Ste back 20 -foot max wall hat ht n/a 15 feat Y Parkin 2 1 2 Y Guest Parkin 2 n/a 2 Y 3atbacks Front 20 29 feat Pertlall Rear 10 10 Y Sides -East 10 10 Y Sides -Wast 10 >10 Y �P/ane aubm/Matl her Bv/aw /aflacr a Natuna/ Srab of 4,503 square teat HOWBVar, Mat area /x/odes an area of t, 629 spuara lae[W /nrmducad /andacep/n9 /n rna vda and rronr rero ares. Tha lot Identified as 54 Fremont is currently developed with asingle-family residence. Thera is no parking associated with this property and in 2006, the property owners conFirmed that the parking structure located at 52 Fremont was solely for the use of that property and not to be used by 54 Fremont owners or tenants Tha lot identified as 52 Fremont (Marquard Avenue) is currently developed with a parKing structure. Thera aro a number of trees on the property, approximately 16 trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed development (sae sheet T-7). Adjacent to the property on the northwest side is an access path with stairs installed at the lower and upper most portion of the path. An existing paved narrow roadway provides access to the property. Existing development in the surrounding area consists of one-story and two-story homes with varied architectural styles. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8 ANALYSIS Sita Plan: The proposed site plan includes a lot line adjustment the separates the two lots into an upper lot (54 Fremont) with access from Fremont Road and a lower lot (vacant lot on Marquard) with access from Marquard Avenue. The proposed naw single family residence and most of the site work associated with this naw residence is on the lower lot (Marquard Ava). Tha lot line adjustment proposed creates an irregular shaped lot. Nature/ States -Nature/ state int/udes on/y those poKions of /ots that remain undava/opad and undisturbed. Grading, excavating, fi//ing and/or the construction roadways, driveways, parKing areas and structures era prohibited. P/anting and landscaping which enhances the nature/ environment are 54 Fremont Road Minimum Required or Maximum Allowed Existing Proposed Compliant Y/N Lot Size f 0 000 s . R. B 043 s . ft 8 f 00 s . ft Lot Slo a 40.09% n/a Maz Grose Bulidin9 Area` (zsoo ayuare teat . to% lot area) 3,3f0 sq. Tt. 2,370 aq. H 2,00f sq. R. (Includea are a Y Minimum Natural State (25% � 40.69 % (lot slope)) 05.69 % 5,32f sq. ft. 57% 4,875 sq. ft. 57.45 % 4,654 sq. ft N Lot Covera a 40% 27.4% 32.f% Y Hal ht 30 feat 30.9 Taat 30.9 f®at Y StapbacM 20 Toot max wall height with 5 -Toot sta back 27 feat n/a n/a Parking f O (sea discussion below 1 Saa tllscussion below Guest Parkin 2 O O Setbacks Front 20 1f TaaL 1f feat No than a Rear f0 +�T2 Taat f0 feat Y Sides 10 O fast E 9.9 Taat N Sides 70 .B fast W .5 feat No than e Tha lot Identified as 54 Fremont is currently developed with asingle-family residence. Thera is no parking associated with this property and in 2006, the property owners conFirmed that the parking structure located at 52 Fremont was solely for the use of that property and not to be used by 54 Fremont owners or tenants Tha lot identified as 52 Fremont (Marquard Avenue) is currently developed with a parKing structure. Thera aro a number of trees on the property, approximately 16 trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed development (sae sheet T-7). Adjacent to the property on the northwest side is an access path with stairs installed at the lower and upper most portion of the path. An existing paved narrow roadway provides access to the property. Existing development in the surrounding area consists of one-story and two-story homes with varied architectural styles. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8 ANALYSIS Sita Plan: The proposed site plan includes a lot line adjustment the separates the two lots into an upper lot (54 Fremont) with access from Fremont Road and a lower lot (vacant lot on Marquard) with access from Marquard Avenue. The proposed naw single family residence and most of the site work associated with this naw residence is on the lower lot (Marquard Ava). Tha lot line adjustment proposed creates an irregular shaped lot. Nature/ States -Nature/ state int/udes on/y those poKions of /ots that remain undava/opad and undisturbed. Grading, excavating, fi//ing and/or the construction roadways, driveways, parKing areas and structures era prohibited. P/anting and landscaping which enhances the nature/ environment are permitted when approved through an environments/ and design review permit. Staff has advised the app/icant that a nature/ state exception wou/d not be supported.: Marouard Ave Lot. Aa shown In the Tablas above, the proposed lot line adjustment and resulting development on the Marquard lot would result in a natural state that is below the minimum required. The applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum natural state requirement for the property that will be accessed from Marquard Avenue. Plans submitted for review reflect a Natural States of 4,503 square feet which is 90 square feet below the required natural state of 64.42 % . However, that area includes an area of 1 ,529 square feat of introduced landscaping in the side and front yard area. This type of improvement is not typically counted as natural, undisturbed area. Staff seeks input from the Design Review Board on the request for Natural State Exception. As follows: Is the proposed landscaped area considered landscaping that enhances the natural environment and therefore part of Natural State? If so, is the requested exception of 90 square feet supported by the Boartl. If not can the overall reduction of 1,529 square feet of natural state ba supported by the Board? 54 Fremont Road Lot: This lot is currently developed with asingle-family residence. The proposed lot line adjustment would create a lot that is entirely fronting on Fremont Road. The garage structure that is currently part of 52 Fremont will ba combined with 54 Fremont as part of the lot line adjustment. Portions of this reconfigured upper lot era graded and terraced and therefore no longer contribute to natural state. Plans submitted identify a natural state of 4,654 square feat where 5,321 square feat is the minimum required. This represents an overall reduction of 667 square feat of the required natural state. Tha applicant has been advised that a natural state exception will not ba supported. Tha applicant has eluded to an intended reversion of some disturbed portions of this lot however, a detailed landscape plan that would demonstrate how this will be accomplished has not been submitted. Staff is seeking the Board's guidance on this proposed reduction in natural state. If the res -landscaping to revert portions of the lot to natural state is supported, staff will require this to be completed before building permits for the lower lot era issued. Architecture: Thera is no naw construction proposed for the upper lot C54 Fremont Road). The project proposes development of the lower lot (Marquard Ave) with a 30 -foot high structure designed with 20 -foot high walls on the downslope (measured from natural grade). The structure provides articulation in the following ways: Roof lines include a combination of hips and gables at different heights. • The garage is pushed bacK beyond the bulk of the building The retaining wall that forms the bacK wall of the guest parking and provides a landscape terrace in front of the residence on the right side of the building. • The entry stairs provide exterior access to the building, but also contribute to breaking up the mass on the left side of the building. - • The upper floor is stepped back by 5 feat. This area also functions as an upper story deck. Trellis features are located over the entry steps at the left side of building as well as on the right side of the building. Gross Building Square Footage: Thera is no naw construction proposed for the upper lot (54 Fremont Road). The building proposed on the lower lot (Marquard) is proposed to be developed with a gross building area of 3,581 which is 368 square feet larger than what is allowed by the Hillside Development Standards. Staff does not support this increase in area given that the design does not demonstrate a sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and does not result in retention of more natural state, protection of trees, or a reduction in visual impacts. Staff would like the Board's recommendations on this topic area. Landscaping: The project plans demonstrate a landscape plan that may contribute to an overall reduction in natural state for the lower lot (Marquard Avenue). Staff would like the boards rawmmendation about the appropriateness of the landscaping proposed and whether it can ba deemed landscaping that enhances the natural environment and therefore is part of the natural state. In addition, staff would like the Boards input on whether the proposed tree replacement is an appropriate tree replacement ratio. In the past, the board has directed applicants to focus on quality and not necessarily quantity. Given the natural setting of this site, has the applicant provided appropriate replacement trees and container sizes. General Plan 2020 Consistency: The property is located within the Low Density Residential (LOR) Land Usa Designation. The following General Plan policies are relevant to the project site: Land Use Policy — LU12 (Building Heights): General Plan Land Usa Policy LU'12 establishes a maximum building height of 30 feet for this property. Tha applicant proposes a structure with a maximum height of 30 feet. Hillsides — CO -6a: General Plan Policy CD -6a seeks to protect the visual identity of the hillsides by controlling development through the use of Hillside Design Guidelines. Tha following Hillside Design Guidelines are relevant to the projad. Significant existing natural features should be integrated into naw hillside residential development proposals to retain the desirable qualities of San Rafael's hillside setting. • Site development plans should demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to retain as many significant trees as possible. • Grading should be kept to a minimum and should be performed in a way that respects significant natural features and visually blends with adjacent properties. The visual prominence of hillside residential development should be minimized by taking advantage of existing site features. • Development should avoid large expanses of a wall in a single plane on downhill elevations. Use horizontal and vertical building components to effectively reduce the bulk of hillside residential development • New Hillside Residential Architecture in San Rafael should continue the dominant pattern of one and two-story buildings with tree canopied spaces around them. Color selection should show evidence of coordination with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Site lighting should ba used efficiently to aid safety, security and compliment architectural character. Lighting should minimize intrusion into adjacent properties, roadways, the hillside silhouette and the night sky. In general, the project demonstrates compliance with hillside design standards. However, as mentioned above, the applicant is proposing exception to the natural state and an increase in the overall gross building square footage. Staff does not support a lot line adjustment that will require deviations from the development standards. Staff is seeking the Boards concurrence on these two areas. Zoning Ordinanoa Conststancy: - Tha following development and partormance standards are applicable io the project. As noted in the development summary table, the project proposes to comply with the Rt O zoning district development standards as well as the development standards of the Hillside Development Overlay including building heights, stepbacks, parking. The project would not comply with the following standards: Natures/ States Tha applicant requests an exception to the natural state requirement of the Hillside Development Overlay District. • Gross Bui/ding Square footage Tha applicant proposes construction of a new single-family residence on the lower lot that will exceed the maximum gross building square footage. These above requests for exception require Planning Commission recommendation with a Final decision by the City Council. Findings for approval of these exceptions include the following: A. The project design alternative meets the stated objectives of the hillside design guidelines to preserve the inherent characteristics of hillside sites, display sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with nearby hillside neighborhoods, and maintain a strong relationship to the natural setting; and B. Alternative design solutions which minimize grading, retain mora of the project site in its natural state, minimize visual impacts, protect significant trees, or protect natural resources result in a demonstrably superior project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with and sensitivity to nearby structures. Staff does not support the requested exceptions and is seeking Board concurrence. San Rafael Design Gutdalines: Tha San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development. The project is a single-family residential project. Tha project complies with the following criteria: Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units. For example, a building can be articulated through architectural features, setbacks and varying rooflines to appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components. Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that help merge larger building into an existing neighborhood should be used. Adjacent buildinga should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. There should ba a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. . Tha placement and size of windows in the building should ba consistent with the overall building design and the neighborhood streetscape. Where windows do not reflect an existing pattern, greater attention should be paid to other means such as balcony overhangs, porches, materials, colors, etc. of articulating the farrade. Window proportions should be consistent with the proportions of the building and with other windows on the building. Windows should overlook the street, parking and public areas to permit surveillance and increased safety. Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and vehicular safety. Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the property. Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project. Ther project incorporates terraces, varied rooflina and bui/ding stapbacKs that braaK up the vo/uma of the bui/ding into sma//err units. There are a variety of bui/ding sty/as with varying setbacKs in the Wast End neighborhood and throughout San Rafae% Excerpt as noted above, the proposed bui/ding comp/ias with the currant hi//side lava/opmant standards. The entry to the bui/ding is provided by we/%defined stair access. Windows and dacKs proyida visibi/ity to the street on a// sides of the street frontage. Light fixtures wou/d ba required to comp/y with the C/ty's lighting requirements. Staff seeks the Boards guidance regarding the following: . Whether the proposed landscaped area on the lower lot (Marquard Avenue) is considered landscaping that enhances the natural environment and therefore part of Natural State? • If so, is the requested exception of 90 square feet supported by the Board. • If not can the overall reduction of 1,529 square feat of natural state be supported by the Board? Whether the proposed increase in gross building square footage demonstrates a sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and does not result in retention of more natural state, protection of trees, or a reduction in visual impacts. Whether the proposed design adequately respects and compliments the neighborhood's existing architectural styles; Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site; NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site within � 5 days of the board meeting. Notice was also posted on the site a minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting. Correspondence that has been received to date era attached to this report. CONCLUSION As mentioned above, the applicant has submitted a Lot Lina Adjustment with an Exception request and Environmental and Design Review application seeking input from the Board regarding architectural design approach, site plan and site design along with the mentioned exceptions. Staff does not support the reduction in natural state nor the increase in gross building square footage given that the design does not demonstrate a sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and does not result in retention of more natural state, protection of trees, or a reduction in visual impacts. Staff is seeking the Boards concurrence on these issues. The Board's recommendations will help with a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council EXHIBITS 1. Correspondence 2. Reduced Project Plans Fu// -sized p/ens have been provided to the ORB members on/y. TONI MACINTYRE 27 MIDWAY AVENUE MILL VALLEY CA 94941 November 7, 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1400 5TH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 ATTN: REcE/VFp ALI GIUDICE SENIOR PLANNER NOV / ;; 20/9 RE: PROJECT 52-54 PENN/Nv` APN-O 12-043-1 1 Dear Ms. Giudice: I am writing to you AS AN OWNER OF #11 MARQUARD DRIVE, the properly right adjacent to the proposed project_ I was very surprised to see some story poles erected at the proposed site and a sign Brom the City when I stopped by a few days ago_ I was never given ANY notification_ Ager checking with my neighbors I learned that there is a hearing scheduled for November 19, 2019 and that comments had to be submitted by August 19, 2019!? I have been an owner of the property located on # 1 1 Marquand since November 1997, for 22 years_ I strongly object to the proposed project for the Following reasons, to name a few, on the basis that it will: • Affect the privacy of my property • Block the light of my property as my windows face immediately to the project • Block the view from mY ProPertY • Affect the value and rentability of this house from the noise, dust etc. It has been vacant since August after my tenants moved out after 1 1 years of tenancy_ Have been doing cleaning and painting and repairs. It is currently listed for rent. • By having to remove about 1 O redwood trees is totally adverse to environmentally sound situation and lose the benefits Brom redwood trees. • Pose a safety issue- will create a ha A+-�1ous and dangerous situation because there is a narrow and blind spot at the curve on Marquand where visibility is limited and there have been near head on collisions- • The proposed lots do not comply with the zoning ordinance minimum size requirements as described at length in the letter dated September 1 O, 2019 from Greg Reel and Victoria DeWitt sent to your department. Since I will not be able to attend the hearing on November 19, 2019 at 7 p.m. due to my medical conditions please consider this letter in lieu of my presence - I called you a few times this morning November 7th 2019 at 8:30 a -m. on, le8 messages- I was hoping to make an appointment to meet with you in the day time before the hearing- I am still waiting anxiously to hear from you Please call me at 415 383 1138. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Respectfully subasstted, Antoin eta �I `` Intyre � W C t"7 A it Wast End Natgbbc,Fnotl AasaclaLon September 10, 2019 Alicia Giudice, Senior Planner City of San Rafael Community Development Dept 1400 Fifth Ave. ' San Rafael, CA. 94901 REc Fffe No. ED 18-066/LLA18-005, Parcel Nos. 012-043-11 and OY2-043-12, ' Revised Plans for 52-64 Fremont Rd_ Note_ These comments are in response to tlae set of pions date-stamped August 19, 2019, by the Planning Department_ This is the Fi f[h (S"9 set of plans we have reviewed and commented on for this opp[ica[ion. This formal application for 52-54 Fremont Road, includes the revised plans for a lot line adjustment to change the property line between two contiguous lots from a nordt/south direcrion to an east west direction, creating one lot Haat fronxs Fremont Road and one lot that fronts Marquazd Avenue,. In addition, The applicant is submitting plazas for a new home to be built on the lot facing Marquazd, with no modifications to the existing house and 1 -car gazage on the lot fronting Fremont Rd_ We have The following comments about this application 1. L t Ad' tm t (LLAT' The City can impose conditions on it's approval'of a lot line adjustment if the resulting parcels do not conform to the general plan, zoning and/or building ordinances. (per California Government Code, Sect. 66412(d)). The City has the right and responsibility to do what is best far the neighborhood and the City. So the question is, where to redraw the lot line. These lots were created in 1913 and do not comply with current zonirxg regulations which requires a m;.»mum of LO,000 squaze feet per lot for R10 zoning. Since the existing lots do not comply with the zoning ordinance minimum size requirement and the proposed lots will not comply eiffier, should ffie new lots have more equal square footage or similar squaze footage to their original size? Do you take into consideration the new slope calculation of each lot before de�e*.*+t.,:.,gwhere the new lot line will be located? Or do you le[ ffie natural state requirement drive yom decision? Wkaat criteria do you use to calculate the division and provide equal development opportunities to both lots? The applicator needs to explain their reasoning for how the location and allocation of land was decided for the proposed lot line adjustment. 2. Proposed new home on Mazpuazd The applicant has created a grid on page AS -100 comparing the existing lots to the proposed lots after the LLA. One calculation missing from this grid is the maximum lot coverage allowed which includes the building footprint, driveways, parking areas, patios, and anthing that was disturbed by grading, excavating, or filling. -Taking the natural state requirement of 4,593 sq' (64.42 x 7130) and subtracting it from the lot size, we get the maximum lox coverage of 2,537 sq'(7,130 — 4,593). Applicant shows a proposed natural state of 4,503 which translates into 2,627 squaze feet of coverage or 90 square feet more than allowed. On page C-1, under Ldt Calculations, it says the disturbed azea is equal to 3,518 sq'. Using this calculation, the proposed plans exceed. the allowed disturbed azea by 981 sq' (3,518 — 2,537). As Ali Giudice stated in her letter to the applicant, dated August 31, 2017, "In addition, because the lots were historically developed as one development which appears to currently comply with the natural state requirement, the proposed lot line adjustment can only be approved if you can demonstrate that both lots will meet the natural state requiremenx." As proposed, the house on Marquazd does not currently meet the natural state requirement. Driveway and pazking design must show how vehicles will safely enter and exit the property on ibis curved street with compromised visibility. Drawings appeaz to show vehicles entering from the east side. Realistically, most vehicles will probably enter/exit from the west side, driving up Mazquard from the West End Ave2nd Street intersection. Driveway and guest pazhirag spaces should be designed with this in mind. Per San Rafael Municipal Code 14.12.030 (P.), vehicles should not be allowed to back out into a street that is less than 26' wide. The traffic engineer should review the safety of this blind curve on Marquand and recommend safety improvements given the addition of cazs maneuvering at this curve, where visibility is limited and there have been near head-on collisions. As part of this development, the road should be widened where possible. We question wheffier the proposed guest parking spaces aze encroaching onto the driveway apron. The height of The concrete wall in front of the guest pazking spaces is difficult to detemtine frpm the plans but may be around twelve (12) feet high and requires removal of a mature redwood tree (#11). The view driving up Marquazd will change from a grove of redwood trees to a large cement wall. Has the applicant considered working with Public Works [o widen the road and design guest parking spaces that aze parallel to the road, reducing the bulk of the concrete retaining walls and saving the large redwood tree which has a 35" diameter? The drawings should comply with the 20' stepback in order to reduce bulk. All setbacks, stepbacks and height limitations shpuld be complied with_ The plans propose removing fifteen (15) trees witkt only 5 new trees being planted. Hillside Guidelines require 3 trees planted for each tree removed: Nine (9) of the trees proposed to be removed are Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwoods) with eight (3) of those being significant trees (over 12" in diameter) and one significant tree having a diameter over 37". Only one (1) mature redwood tree is being saved. The five (5) replacement trees aze all California Buckeye which lose their leaves in the winter and will provide no screening for neighbors adjacent to the site: The applicant describes the proposed landscape plan as a traditional suburban design which is totally inappropriate for this area. In fact, the plans describe this area as an old redwood forest (page VMP-1). How do you equate a Redwood forest to a modern subnrbaia landscape? Even the drawing of the proposed house on the first page (G-000) shows what appeazs to be Redwood trees surrounding the house. The plans also describe the Sequoia sempervirons (Coast Redwood) as an undesirable tree on page GOOl under Tree Protection Notes, #3. I am unaware of San Rafael having a tree ordinance or a list of undesirable trees. The architecx must have copied that information from another jurisdiction (ie. Sausalito). In fact, the Sequoia Sempervfrons (Coast Redwood) is listed in Appendix B, Plant Selection Guide, in the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Coast Redwood is described as providing screening, slope/erosion control, deer resistance and good for drainage/ravines. Redwood trees can absorb water mnoff on this site and provide a natural drainage solution. This site receives an inordinate amount of water during the winter months, being on'the receiving end of a spring that runs yeaz-round. Redwood trees are also fue and pest resistant This neighborhood is not a traditional suburban neighborhood and the propdsed ornamental landscape is not compatible with the surrounding area. Redwood trees removed should be replaced with redwood trees. The upper/back yard needs to be landscaped to control erosion. The back windows appear very close to rhe dirt and soil. Mud in the winter months could easily move downhill and pile up against these windows. On dais steep slope, rocks can easily become dislodged and come rolling down the hill smashing through the windows; cleazly a safety hazazd. Water also needs to be diverted in order to prevent water pooling against the uphill side of this house and possibly leaking through the windows. Don't forget, this site is the recipient of part of a larger system of water flowing down the hillside and during heavy rains in the winter, a lot of water comes down this hill. No door is drown on the plans for bathroom #2. We have reconsidered the extended roof overhang from previous drawings and realize that this design is a more current design and may provide greater privacy from the properties uphill and protection from falling debris; we think it can provide an attractive design element to the home so the applicant may reconsider this design. 3. E - L H / ¢ aft i LA The applicant must show how both lots conform with the current general plan, zoning and building ordinances, per California Government Code Sect. 66412(d). Ali Giudice has stated that the existing house and garage must comply with the natural state requirement after the LLA. The applicant has not shown how the existing property fronting Fremont Road is in compliance or how it will be brought into compliance except far removing the concrete slab in front of the house and reverting it to a natural state. Applicant needs io provide a detailed calculation of lot coverage/disturbed azea Eor this lot It is unclear whether the existing driveway and garage were included in the calculation for lot coverage; uncertain if removing the concrete slab in front of the house is enough to bring the house into compliance with the natural state. A landscape plan needs to be included for the azea where the concrete slab is removed, pox just allowed to revert to dirt. Perhaps some trees would add some needed greenery at the end of the street The applicant may need to improve drainage along the front of the house since removing the concrete slab will allow rainwater to soak into the soil and could create pressure on the foundation. There is a discrepancy between what the applicant states as the gross square footage of the existing house, 2,370 sq' (page AS -100), and what Ali Giudice states as the gross square footage, 2,904 sq', iti her letter to the applicant dated August 31, 2017. The applicant also states that the proposed squaze footage for the Fremont property is 2,601 (page AS -100) but it is written very cleazly on the plans that "NO WORK" is being done on the existing house. These discrepancies need to be resolved. On page AS -100, the applicant erroneously describes the existing garage for 52 Fremont as having 2 covered parking spaces. This is incorrect. The existing garage is a one -car gazage, per visual inspection and 220 sq' per County Assessor records. F'n>Yhermore, the driveway is primarily dirt, with some broken concrete and asphalt. This property has a history of cars sliding off the broken edge of the driveway or gating stack "in the mud" �in winter months. As a condition of approval, the pazlring for the existing house should be required to comply with current codes and provide functional and safe off- street pazking, adequate for this size home (especially given there is NO street `parking on Fremont RdJ. The existing home and garage on this property have not been maintained and are in a state of disrepair, being unsafe and, we believe, +�++++�1•�l+itable. The Report of Residential Building Record (RBR) issued on Febmary 22. 2012, clxed multlple violations, including substandard electrical circuits- There have been no permanent residents living there for at least 10 years, only a caretaker. The house is stmcturally unsound from past slides and earth movement The Sanitation Distad has received odor complaints from neighbors, has issued two "Notices of Deficiencies" and requires the sewer lateral be repaired/replaced BEFORE approval of the LLA. There was a fire in this house the last time it was tenant occupied. We think this house is in poor.cond£tion and needs extensive repairs or should be demolished and replaced. Poor plans have been submitted to repair this property, including removal of the western portion that is located within the setback. In it's current condition, it poses a serious fire and health hazard to the neighborhood.' Absent a new home application for this site by the applicant, this house needs to be thoroughly inspected and brought into comp]iance with all building and zoning ordinances BEFORE the LLA is approved_ We assume the existing house and gazage will be replaced at some point because of their dilapidated condition. We want some reassurance that a new home could be built on the upper lot that would meet .current zoning and hillside guidelines and that the proposed LLA doesn't make it more difficult to develop this lot. 4. Natural State/slope calenlation: The current plans show the corrected slope and the resulting calculation of [he natural state for both lots after the proposed Z.I.A. We believe this change was a result of the comment we made in our previous letter concerning the accurocy of the slope calculation. The appkicant has increased the slope for each property shown on the grid at the top of page AS -100 to agree with the slope calculations prepazed by 1vIichael Ford Land Surveyors for the applicant in 2017. S- Avdr 1 fl /G -t hnical Reports: A previous geotechnical survey indicates deep drilling is' necessary to reach bedrock on [his property because of all the uphill soil slough off that has settled in flus gully. We think the City should require a hydrology and hydraulic analysis report prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer who can identify natural drainage courses, below ground springs and areas of debris. This report would identify the hazardous and unstable parts of the site and include an analysis of how development will affect auy underground waterways. 6. C tru ti M t PI ! MPl d St e A - Applicants need to meet with residents to create a Construc[ion Management Plan (CMP) BEFORE a building penxrit is issued. This plan would include hours of construction, staging plan, parking plan for workers,, delivery notification, emergency access during construction, contact numbers, resident notifications, etc. The CMP cannot be finalized until the applicant holds a meeting with the residents and addresses concerns raised during the meeting. The condfrion of city s[reets used during construction should be documented and repaired. for damage caused by construction. Along with the Fire Department and Public Works, the applicant should outline a Staging Plan intended to reduce the negative fmpact of construction activities on the surrounding neighborhood by reducing, noise, dust, traffic, and other health hazards. Require a traffic circulation plan for dump trucks, ' deliveries, pazldng for construction workers, etc.. _ ' 7. Mi is/" ist - a. There are different owners of record for each lot. Both owners are lenders that acquired these properties through the foreclosure process and aze subject to significant tax liens and a defaulted deed of trust (per Title company report dated July 30, 2018). Mark Hanf, Pacific Private Money Fund, is listed as the owner on the plans. However, Orange Beacon Marketing is the owner of lot #012-043- 11 where the house is situated and Mark Hanf is the owner of lot #012-043-12 where the garage is. Don't both owners need to apply for the lot line adjustment? 8. Hit f Tkr 't In 1924, a house and garage were built on the combined parcels with the house occupying mostly one parcel and the garage on the other. These parcels were created in 1913, over 100 years ago, when the roads were dirt and San Francisco residents built summer cabins in.the area. In 1982, a general contractor acquired The property and began pressing the city to build 2 homes. His requests were continually denied because the size of the individual lots did not comply with the slope ordinance in effect at that tune. By -today's standards, both lots are substandard under current zoning regulations and would not be approved today. However, in 2006, with an attorney's help, he again pressured the City to allow development fora 2^tl house and the City issued a Certificate of Compliance (COC) for the lot with the garage with the ' "promise" that the owner would demolish the decrepit house and gazage at that time. Had the City realized he was not going to demolish the house, they may have required that parking be added to the lot with the house before approving the COC since the gazage/driveway was now considered a separate lox and under sepazate ownership (an LLC formed by the owner). That was thirteen yeazs ago. The house and garage remain on the prpperty. For the past 10 years, both lots have cycled thru various LLC ownerMps and foreclosures. The current owners are bath lenders that acquired the properties through foreclosures. In addition, this property has a history of slide activity originating from the 400 foot Swale upslope. In 1967, the house filled with mud from a landslide that resulted in a lawsuit. More recently, in 2017, the street filled with mud (1'deep) from an uphill slide and the resulting waterfall was diverted with sand bags placed in front of 54 Fremont and directed down the public stairs. The existing culvert located on Fremont Road directly above 54 Fremont is failing to handle the volume of water from winter storms in recent years resulting in water and mud flowing onto the street and neighboring properties, including 54 Fremont Tlie culvert may be failing because of soil erosion or inadequate capacity. It needs to be re -engineered and upgraded to handle a greater capacity of water rzrrr-off. At the same titne, the street turn -around, adjacent to the culvert, should be enlarged to current standazds. In summary, given all the challenges with developing this property, we think the easiest and best way to comply with current zoning ordinances and hillside guide3ines is to combine the two lots and build one home with adequate parMng andemergency access. However, if a second home is built, creating access fmm Marquand is preferable to Fremont road which is a narrow, one -lane (two-way) road with difficult access. Yet, the owners aze npt required to do a lot line adjustment and could potentially try to build on the separate lots, as currently configured. If the City approves a LLA, there should be conditions attached to ensure compliance of both lots with the local zoning and building regulations as the law allows. Thank you for the oppoatunity to comment on this project. Respectfully submitted, Greg Reel Victoria DeWitt ' 57 Fremont Rd. 40 Fremont Rd_ cc: Paul Sensen, Duector Cpmmunity Development, naul.iensenCa7cirvofsanrafael.or¢ San Rafael Public Works Dept. - iosh.minshallla7cityofsanrafael_ore _, __ __, , o � � .� � � ,� � � �� ;§� m� �� � � � §|� � � %� ;� � � �! § �| � '� ���A� � ƒ �� f � » � ) •■, ■- ���_� || . ,_.. § � .. - | � \� � � f � � � \� ^�) \- .�.��..|. a . . ) , . ` '` � / .` .y � y � \. \�: \�� .� w�\� $r r\. �~~ N § �| � '� ���A� � ƒ �� f � » � ) •■, ■- ���_� || . ,_.. § � .. - | � \� � � f � � � \ � 7 .�.��..|. ) , � g ` '` � / .` � ������ ���_� i t A � E" f � t' [[I"} 1 ` F#E a +o f.gr=s�. tgr9 `i: k [ ' e' 11 t? � ' 11 }}[$� � { € -1 a� fll { -[ f k...l � PI$� . } � { � i }k }€• .t{ f � kt flrf f( '���� It� �� tt 1 �° tf '1}[c +�'{ } 3 r°} $ +� ttr }$� r� �� � ��f �}ff}F frit � �� 1 k i9j}.� } }; .} t+[ ty r� Y LL f"r 6 Fg 11 °; fjff efjA+ i ` 7}`4}�i 'q[� t�i+ it t} 1 �}� y�t`ii0 �. �{`kt tS �� �l `t¢r 9 [r gSe tl fi� t1 & [([ � sr $f ji[q [ra[ it$ ; {`i'ffSS R f:� �ti i t- i ar }a�fi `{ �.9 t �' � y°� t} 1 i }.g Fg apgyen �F p� 1 i}P 41 F [ 0. $[ 6�1 "l r$} f li � 8°S {t _� �'e R� 4 f� �fl �!1° -� f �_1[�_ if ii e+g:l o t` �• �:{$ til' t [ I'•i tf (:r jaE [f : n itE f 1:� F Via• t}i'It! f �, :� [ � }:. ��tf� t + Ifiit [ [ u kiI }` 1 ��(� ;:�. ; } ('fillff 1J} �� �' ; i �'�t i 9$}�ti :�� i {`1 � �i � [I f I j}�` �t f�i� e [ jli Irff � } (�i;1}p F14 F[Y j� 1 t 1 t i�i k ([' � � i[' E•'a � !f •�tf[ }f( (B lYxt [ i +`ti If+f } i [se t` !' +� i } i [ f[} i �i ! ° � k : i e ei e[};� 'i'..>>� f[{�f tg F;,f`� f�tflt� �f{�f;� �}}� ti}- { �f r �`t[}i} � � ft k � ®1-[l rif t} Ffla � �}_� � ° t f i i}� `' �: �� } i`N� iiji'I +t�Fi �j� } E f[6; +f r�It �y_f;}{ f�tr�f eki[ i}7}i t t }c � ® 1r7t� 9 i[ [f f � [�5����F[t fll-�{�f(�tEif�ap yy$$— s t !!E'iI [ ` i i Ae p� 1 i I'}[if i ��� F � ell i k f � Rj�if ; [va t !ji t � � f It { fit I � t ° r C (PP ¢ r [may i t i i i }3 t [ei fe 1}� � � 1}>r k ff; .� 1} {t{ le } � � � g ` ( �f 1 +f 1} tt � � ° � f � r i i't 1+ { � {t�l� k} i� ° 1 }�� tEt � � � � e .. !IF + �� t It : $ � �f 5 fFFl�g {' i GI} t} [�a x A `{ tf $ �1 fa� `} ( � � � � � � if l[ n r e f 1x f y� : �ltt f s �[ f flr Yf [_i iF}}y �} ai w tf { Yf � � � �. ` �} } i � � i f�� � � (g } f1 ``1 ��? }i kn rF �� i ,1 9 a � /t f fl � � � i � � F .if [ e p 1 9 ; � . A.P.N O'12-04341 H.12 a wws � � �.«. •u•��r •.••...�r....«...s.� €� I a �.t� e'�il'jt�3�`� � [F � E, �i; � i {tt ! d, � � int 1 { !fit t �� { ! aFd # [ tp j . f #• { i [ - #° . �, i t6it {g ( tt' t'� i� .6 ;� .�s�t;(i tttt#`ttti I � 3 w� it iH i � 1. � �� p� {� t.H# to ft c 1°gkfl a }n .tdp •f f { }{ Id € t }Ei{ 3t l� � � si�' tt t� l� F:�t�% l��i€#[!� e t � t" €� �` f t #°le tt �� t!d 1te � � �# d€tFj� td{6 Ito R.d � d ti 8i k # t�•t .d .# wd# d t . . ( t ; s�i t� `1 te€ i�[ i �� �� � !+ ( � i F�1 # � ; i tF �i i t tijt � a ptj dtt t t# d cd i t d � f d8 li�i({�3II' °skt� {ilH tpd° {� : i s 3�i . tii6Et :$d t#d € 6 �d ff � 6' of � fi€ I�ttF }it R��! d} � j Ili .,�`' €�' `#iFi it[ tai: `; 1{pt{ i1t !1[i tt;}I .:� €iidH }`� pld� j x ;!! �� � }dpF i�.t i tdl gdit { {rf h`HF - 3!!}#d. -#Itp . t ....i t [Hifd}}tt# #t{ lift [ i{!ij � rr #a6 rxttt{ i%%i( f#' Fit{S#t It �: �FFi}[ i�v �#`;4 kM��t isi xii{. It {{}}#€Fa{•1 F{j eteett d{H :FR [ {a � tt; {# #Fltlr!!F !! F#1F t -et F`o- #fi5 !`ti• &[ E: F5� {r^f ted rt FiftF pt � t� t t �e iFi�}is`td at 4� `� i}#e t; :ll�yi;lFl k ffi� FFfi tteet#ta# v g AP O'12-043-01612 -N � u uwe.e �,a"1'T.�....g .�a.y....�.m..a.� a fia§�y'��i'e� a6��a�3a9 ���� �kP���� ���°�a�l�P�� � 3 i��� ���� ��� � �� e �� ����zg @ff� �s�a �g� £,'S y ff § gg ppp � : � pq � A@ E� S§984 ��Y �p� 2 � A � H8 g �I _- - Ci�S®g , 6_- d@ } C :ice' .58 �.c.--�' yam_ ¢ l --_- -y _�' __ iy� $• F P P F P i COSTOM A .I[JII�iC6 i n 4 s R� � �vneaxroA -ws-is ei.. cwi.moui+w is s ii=•• �p. ee'em. iw9li•r ..i.iep ep' =9E i`�B6 •Ig��l ��ps�. igi ea g86¢C PF F�� e e v.+, e1°°.•e- i' xxvi " e xe. • .. i y 0 � iEg�9 giga�ps E6 $�91 °s E ffi � a $ � � 0�jii,. -� � � �`�'_:/ i j�_ s c ,�� v. �.�. � i Is !� �. — .t' i8sd I'<� s e® _ - _ � Ff g yam_ ¢ l --_- -y _�' __ iy� $• F P P F P i COSTOM A .I[JII�iC6 i n 4 s R� � �vneaxroA -ws-is ei.. cwi.moui+w is s ii=•• �p. ee'em. iw9li•r ..i.iep ep' =9E i`�B6 •Ig��l ��ps�. igi ea g86¢C PF F�� e e v.+, e1°°.•e- i' xxvi " e xe. • .. i y 0 � iEg�9 giga�ps E6 $�91 °s E ffi � a $ � � 0�jii,. -� � � �`�'_:/ i j�_ ,�� i Is !� �. — E� I'<� DAAINAOB �N �`C_-� .A�I,CBRAK D�F.4IGp�ry ��F 5�— .p BALCEAAK DESIGN � r ;li� � �� I� . _i �:y T� Iffi e � � g 9 ,- � r a..; 99� �� C� BALCEAAK DESIGN r ;li� �� pp { � i � � � ! S F��lr ��a� $5 R�nn�qq�nn�y{ yn��nnr Sfr[ �' ��"a � � �� _ __ $w o• i - ECS ��\\ dr% ©" �I�R 1 -I �� _, - Il-1�f ®'ll'lllll� �� kirrs �!e ! i it (;F t 1lrr6 irgr7 : [ r Frr ii��i k�F �� � iFi 1! ti�jr !!i ra i"i y F iri ({F' �� a�E i'i{:ii !i� I i �� /i8k � S - c= BALCERAK DE9IGN Y 6 PLAN'I'fN6 PLAN q r 9 a✓ _.,. ��,, �� - Il-1�f �� kirrs �!e ! i it (;F t 1lrr6 irgr7 : [ r Frr ii��i k�F �� � iFi 1! ti�jr !!i ra i"i y F iri ({F' �� a�E i'i{:ii !i� I i �� /i8k � S - c= BALCERAK DE9IGN Y 6 PLAN'I'fN6 PLAN q r 9 a✓ r_� �l �:a P �_S' -J ' . _ _ y I � � _- P�� ��� PP��a � ��� ��� ��; � _ :.:- � � F � � F FES aFa � ' - '-__ i �'B OI Ie y30 08 � F �' g-" E �$ I e � -a ►, s 5p i 5 5 S j? 5 e i S S S S S i t s e P s e: i e e e e e e a eP a e e r r P a e i! r t E e i■ I e ee i[ t P 1 . I aS� IF� FIP[a I P� '��!°� �g � of [� � F IB ��[ I�� [� F galiFe f[f (f $` eS *PPi �G IB �� F�e:if IFf €f F� ie F;`g .t�s e� PI �FFF S 7 Af ;� FP �Ilpa i Fr I� IF �} �i G� �� le �$ Ix'€ e" p,l {� ! !�'ierr F1 } .� � iiie `�s at : r_� �l �:a P �_S' -J ' . _ _ y I � � _- P�� ��� PP��a � ��� ��� ��; � _ :.:- � � F � � F FES aFa � ' - '-__ i �'B OI Ie y30 08 � F �' g-" E �$ I s Urxamoar ao en•�ne[a oizoaa-i: TRP.E PLAN a ••�� uBALCBRAK DE9IGNa '�FF e � � � ►, s � � � �� i�� �� �� �� s Urxamoar ao en•�ne[a oizoaa-i: TRP.E PLAN a ••�� uBALCBRAK DE9IGNa '�FF �:� ��� ��� ����. £�a �� �� � � �� � � e��� ��� �a � ���� \` A'B ^ 6ALCEAAIi DESIG�^v a ��i� 5,/9)3 ' e f 7���iftli��iE�ii�i�l93i e � vQ v .. e. v...e:lt�:l ���tiatE,9ii96;�i;,.itt��9= 6 °�' �;;iall�� __ moi' �\ �� �` i j �� f t ._ .. -. v .. S��z:X ��.L _ -yam \�� i � 3 �. ,�' � 1 f ' iT'^"' � m � �C—„®t Y� .t i �34 .''��'��� ri�t� ilii i ��t�. f. � �;_. � -_ � N- �. � � Y �� � � // II _ —�— // �," � �� // �'� �� �_ ��� ����� � a� ����° A a �.. -'� � �� �t€ 9E, 6 a gt��;;���1� aap�6i99� �� � ��� ya � b ` t ;_ @sCeCg3q$ g qa 3� �p � 4 8 V � n � J � ¢ 7. � 4 � I ` i i � 4g dpp$Wg P€ia i� $R �� € 3 w AP.N Ott-OA9�It 6t2 nwiw� Ne � .� �«���r A wrsu...�..sa..m. � -_ - v -- �- - - - -�-� - �� i ���� � i � �� � ® N � � i — — -. o ,-' % -- _� _ _ __ v- .- K; ,:« ;: -; -- �� �� �� � � �$; a� � �W 9: y � � S s � "."` , ^- �w.�,.""� w.r.N o�z-oaa-�� saz =�.�•_ - ��'E ......�.a.._..... EVNa.'""wn"�": ."rn".'.°�:d.. � r may... �� \� �� .. i� � �� i �� � _� f � �_ � � 1 i �: ( O o o$ I 1 0 � �• 1 1 0 � o � �vL__. � T- 1 � i.../ /-a �." 1 , - �i `. � �� �� o = �, o --,; ;; -- ;; m 1 . 1 . - � 1 _ - �- �- _- _ 1 , � . _ � , - ,, � ,1 j T _ _ - _ / // 1I � •® •® ® � � ® / / / I/• � / � %/ &1. � T 1 -� AP.N Ott-09$�It 6t2 a G T" 0 � � ®-i 4> N � ,:i', � i� � 011 � �� ER �9 E� �€ , �� �� �� � e � e � � I � O AP_N O'12 -043A'1 R12 Nr+u. cn e � $-� p^., ^4®� M.vemN`s„aµ� �� �!� se � -__® _ - __- - __i_- �_ -_ - _ - _. _.- -.__-_ ____- t�£ �: .� � � F 'I - i � � ®-i 4> N � ,:i', � i� � 011 � �� ER �9 E� �€ , �� �� �� � e � e � � I � O AP_N O'12 -043A'1 R12 Nr+u. cn e � $-� p^., ^4®� M.vemN`s„aµ� �� �!� se c> � ' 41 � I � '�, � � 6�9 6�� i�@ a� 8� � ER �� �� �� �� �� �� � � I N i � � ,:, � � �� ...._ _�......�r .........�..`..er..a... ar.n o�z-oas-�� a� z s, awa � � : °� � ooj� •• r� IN I s® � Y. � J ��;® �J� m �Lr��1�. .�, �� � � rH � FE� 2t ]� I���S C �� cc C� �� �- I��� �, _---.�--_. _J ��_ S rq� �_ 3 c> � ' 41 � I � '�, � � 6�9 6�� i�@ a� 8� � ER �� �� �� �� �� �� � � I N i � � � ! � c> � ' 41 � I � '�, � � 6�9 6�� i�@ a� 8� � ER �� �� �� �� �� �� � � 3�3 �� ®�9 8 �� # � a� � e � � � ! � � � ...._ _�......�r .........�..`..er..a... ar.n o�z-oas-�� a� z s, awa � � s C b � I,�a °. �'y... .r. AP_N Ott-043-tt St2 wn. mru.0 w::rw..i �. � .:..TY".`�'0,.. •..ue.n.raa•a..... 1 � v... u rus � ......��ar.re g b �� �II�F'� � �, � � g�� `�� X99 � � i � �� 3 `�Q E� �9 �� �� �� €� t � �� b � I,�a °. �'y... .r. AP_N Ott-043-tt St2 wn. mru.0 w::rw..i �. � .:..TY".`�'0,.. •..ue.n.raa•a..... 1 � v... u rus � ......��ar.re 4 ig�3'l �� � �, � �33� 9 p�q����3�p9 � g�ggj��g�$�4 € � � 1� ���� �g � °e� 9 E �' _8 tl a5 $9 °a z� E �9 �P �- < a a � p 0 � �' a 9 AP.N Ott-099-tt 8.t2 LL - „_ � '_ ..� � •e..n. m��n ew..��aw..... ......m..........o..a.m...