HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2020-02-04 #3Corn
=A J]l LU4 MA]
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
ent— Plannina Division
Meeting Date: February 4, 2020
Case Numbers: ED18-082
Project Planner: Ali Giudice- (415) 485-3092
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 38 Upper Fremont, -Request for an Environmental and Design Review for anew 2,667
square -foot, single-family residence on a vacant 6,865 square -foot hillside lot; APN: 012-041-
48; Single-family Residential (R5) District; Jeffrey and Tracy Prose, applicant/owners; File
No(s).: ED18-082.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project
Low Density Residential
R5 Zoning District
Vacant
Site:
Lot Size
5,000 sq. ft.
6865.6 sq. ft.
North:
Low Density Residential
R5 Zoning District
Vacant
South:
Low Density Residential
R10 Zoning District
Single Family Residence
East:
Low Density Residential
R5 Zoning District
Single Family Residence
West:
Low Density Residential
R10 Zoning District
Single Family Residence
*Lot slope is based on engineering staff calculations using the AutoCAD and accounting for the contour intervals of
2 feet as shown on the survey. This lot slope number is consistent with prior lot slope calculations submitted through
a prior application.
38 Upper Fremont Road
Development Standards
Minimum Required
or
Maximum Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Compliant
Y (yes)
N (no)
Lot Size
5,000 sq. ft.
6865.6 sq. ft.
NO CHANGE
Y
Lot Slope
59.5% *
NO CHANGE
Max Gross Building Area*
(2,500 square feet + 10% lot area)
3,186 sq. ft.
0
2,667.00
Y
Natural State
(25% + 59.5% (lot slope))
5801.4 sq ft
(84.5% x 6,865.6 sq ft)
n/a
5,546.92 sq ft
80.79%
N
(-.254.48 sq
ft
30 feet
31 feet
N
-Height
Stepback
20 -foot max wall height
n/a
20 feet max
Y
Parking
2
2
Y
Guest Parkin
2
n/a
2
Y
Setbacks
Front
15
15 feet
Y
Rear
10
10
Y
Side -East
5
13+
Y
Side -West
5
9
Y
*Lot slope is based on engineering staff calculations using the AutoCAD and accounting for the contour intervals of
2 feet as shown on the survey. This lot slope number is consistent with prior lot slope calculations submitted through
a prior application.
SUMMARY
The proposed project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for review of an
Environmental and Design Review permit for construction of a new single-family residence on a hillside
lot. This item was referred to the Board for conceptual design review on December 4, 2018. At that
meeting the Board expressed concerns about the project and provided guidance to the applicant (see
Background section below). The Board's recommendation on this phase of the project will be used in
formulating a formal decision on the Environmental and Design Review Permit. The project will also
require an exception due to some deviations from the hillside development standards and a use permit
to allow the proposed parking solution.
Staff is seeking the Boards evaluation of the project based on prior feedback and on the applicable design
criteria, which is discussed in detail below. Staff would like the Board's recommendations on the following
items:
• Response to Conceptual Design Review. Whether the applicant addressed the Boards commpnts
that were given at Conceptual Design Review on December 2018.
• Site Plan: Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site given the
development standards that apply to this property.
• Architecture: Whether the proposed modern design contributes to the mix of architectural styles
of the neighborhood and whether this style adequately incorporates transitional elements such as
stepped facades, balconies, and/or other architectural details to minimize height differences.
• Materials and Colors: Whether the colors and materials are appropriate.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The lot is a triangular shaped, steeply sloped lot with a slope of 59.5 percent (based on engineering staff
calculations) and therefore is considered a hillside lot subject to hillside development standards. The site
contains a number of trees of varying sizes, including some redwood trees that will remain. An existing
paved narrow roadway provides access to the property. Existing development in the surrounding area
consists of two-story homes with varied architectural styles. There are a number of tall trees located
throughout the property. Some of these trees will be removed due to poor health and others will be
removed to accommodate the project. A sewer easement runs along the north side of the lot. The
easement varies in width and straddles the property line encumbering portions of the project site as well
as the neighboring property to the northwest.
Design Review Board meeting
On December 4, 2018, the Design Review Board (Board) reviewed a conceptual design review for this
project. The Board provided the following comments:
• Demonstrate compliance with Hillside Guidelines as it would be difficult support exemptions to
the hillside development standards;
• A 30 -foot downslope wall should be avoided;
• Observe stepback within 15 feet of building envelope;
• Need to decrease massing on the downslope;
• Size of residence is likely too large. Consider stepping into hill to reduce mass;
• Architecture is not in context with surroundings;
• Colors and Materials Lacks cohesiveness;
• Parking needs to be reworked to be more unified on site;
• Plant native plants other than trees to replace trees proposed for removal;
2
• Show roadways and surrounding properties to provide context.
Staff seeks the Boards input on how well the applicant has responded to these comments. Staff notes
that the applicant exceeds the height limit by 1 foot and proposes a natural state of 254.48 square feet
below what is required. Both of these would require an Exception.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan: The site plan proposes a driveway cut at the lower portion of the lot. The driveway provides
access to a 4 -car stacked garage. The project would maintain a total of 80.79% of the lot in a natural
state, where 84.5% is required. Thus, the project will require a natural state exception. The site plan
shows compliance with front, side and rear setbacks.
Architecture: The project proposes a 31 -foot high structure where 30 feet is the maximum height. Thus,
the project would require an exception for height. The project is designed in a modern architectural style.
The building includes a number of terraces that follow the slope of the site and break up the wall heights
to no more than 20 feet high. The design includes decks within some of those terraces. The proposed
materials include dark colored artisan shiplap siding as the base of the building on the downhill side. This
same shiplap siding is mixed in with a dark horizontal ash wood siding throughout the building. Board
formed concrete is used for the stairs leading to the front entry. Guardrails for the decks are stainless
cable rail. Solar Panels are proposed on the rooftop.
Landscaping: The project plans do not include a landscaping plan. Due to the wooded setting of the site
there is not much room for added landscaping. The project proposes removal of existing trees as well as
re -planting. During conceptual design review the Board recommended the applicant select native plants
rather than trees to replace the trees to be removed on the property
Lighting: The project plans do not include light fixtures. However, light fixtures will be required to comply
with the City's lighting requirements.
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The property is located within the Low Density Residential (LDR) Land Use Designation. The following
General Plan policies are relevant to the project site:
Land Use Policy—LU12 (Building Heights): General Plan Land Use Policy LU12 establishes a maximum
building height of 30 feet for this property. The applicant proposes a structure with a maximum height of
30 feet.
Hillsides — CD -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. The following Hillside Design
Guidelines are relevant to the project.
• Significant existing natural features should be integrated into new 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.
3
• 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 be 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.
The project site plan demonstrates compliance with the hillside residential standards except for the
following deviations, which will require an exception by the City Council:
• The building height is 31 feet where a maximum 30 feet is allowed
• The proposed natural state is 80.79 percent of the lot where at least 84.5 percent is required.
Grading for the project is minimized to those areas that will accommodate the residence and associated
driveway and garage. The structure has been sited to minimize tree removal. However, a total of 5 trees
will be removed; two trees will be removed to accommodate the project. The structure has been designed
with a series of terraces, decks and balconies and includes varied rooflines and building alcoves to break
up the mass of the building. Thus, single planes along the downslope are avoided. The use of dark colors
blends with the natural wooded hillside and respects colors of the surrounding development. The
applicant will be required to provide lighting that complies with the City's lighting requirements. Staff seeks
the Board's input on the deviations to height and natural state.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The following development and performance standards are applicable to the project. As noted in the
development summary table, the project proposes to comply with the R5 zoning district development
standards as well as the development standards of the Hillside Development Overlay except as noted
above with respect to building height and natural state.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The San Rafael Design Guidelines serve as a guide for evaluating development. The project is a Single-
family residential project. The following design guidelines apply to the project:
• 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 buildings should be considered, and transitional elements included to minimize apparent
height differences.
• There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building.
• The placement and size of windows in the building should be 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 fagade.
4
• 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.
The project incorporates terraces, varied roof/ine and building stepbacks break up the volume of the
building into smaller units. There are a variety of building styles with varying setbacks in the West End
neighborhood and within Upper Fremont. The proposed building complies with the current hillside
development standards and utilizes darker colors to blend with the sites natural setting. The entry to the
building is provided by well-defined stair access. Windows and decks provide visibility to the street on all
sides of the street frontage. Light fixtures will be required to comply with the City's lighting requirements.
Staff seeks the Board input on the project design.
Hillside Design Guidelines
The applicant faces development challenges due to the lot shape, tree coverage, existing easements,
and topography. The following Hillside Design Guidelines are applicable to the project:
• Parking. The Hillside Design Guidelines specify that off street visitor parking should be located in
bays that fit with the natural topography and minimize grading. The applicant is proposing 4
covered parking spaces within a mechanical lift in the garage. Additional guest parking can be
accommodated via the driveway. This parking configuration has been reviewed by the
Department of Public Works. The applicant will need to obtain a use permit for this parking
solution.
• Building height. The Hillside Guidelines specify that building bulk should be reduced by cutting
the structure into the hillside. The project includes building elements that are stepped with the
hillside pursuant to Section 14.12.030(A) of the San Rafael Municipal Code. In addition, the
building height on the downslope is no more than 20 -feet in height as required for hillside lots.
The project will require a height exception to allow a 31 -foot height where 30 feet is the maximum
allowed. Staff seeks the Boards comments related to this.
• Natural State. The project would maintain a total of 80.79% of the lot in a natural state, where
84.5% is required. Thus, the project will require a natural state exception. Staff seeks the Board's
comments related to this.
• Tree replacement. The project proposes to remove 5 trees on site. The San Rafael Hillside Design
Guidelines requires tree replacement at a ratio of 3 to 1. Due to site conditions, it is anticipated
that replacement at this ratio will be challenging. At the December 12, 2018 conceptual design
review, the Board recommended the use of native landscaping rather than trees to replace the
trees that would be removed. Nonetheless the applicant does include 4 new replacement trees:
The applicant proposes the use of western redbud or western dogwood. Staff seeks the Boards
guidance on tree replacement
Staff seeks the Boards guidance regarding the following:
• Whether the proposed modern design adequately respects and compliments the neighborhood's
existing architectural styles;
• Whether the proposed colors and materials are appropriate for this site given the natural setting and
existing development;
• Whether the Board recommends in support of the height exception.
Whether the proposed site plan demonstrates efficient use of the site and whether the Board
recommends in support of the natural state exception;
• Does the proposed redesign reflect the Boards comments? Specifically:
o Does the redesign reflect a decreases massing on the downslope?
o Does the redesign reflect a more efficient design of space?
o Does the project demonstrate cohesiveness of exterior colors and materials?
o Context of architecture in relation to surroundings.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site within 15 days of the board
meeting. Notice was also posted on the site a minimum of 15 days prior to the meeting. No inquiries have
been received as of the preparation of this staff report. However, the City did received comments from
the West End Neighborhood Association expressing concerns about compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood, impacts from shading, and potential impacts on privacy (see attached letter). The
comments also provide recommendations regarding the roadway condition, construction activity, etc. that
are typically address as part of the entitlement process. The Board may address the design related
comments presented by WENA. Other non -design related comments will be addressed as part of the
formal decision on the project. Design Related comments provided by the WENA are as follows:
• Project is not compatible to existing neighborhood given the number of stories: Staff seeks
Board input on this topic;
• The structure should use sloped roof to follow the natural contours: Staff seeks Board input
on this topic,
• Concerns that the parking and driveway are not suitable. No exceptions to parking should
be allowed: The proposed parking will require a use permit with input from public works;
• Concern about grading on a steep slope for the stacked parking: The project has been
reviewed by the City's engineer and will require a geotechnical report as part of the building
permit. The project will require building permits that comply with geotechnical report
recommendations.
• Concerns about the accuracy of lot slope: Engineering staff have reviewed the slope
calculations. Based on calculations prepared by the city engineer using AutoCAD and contour
intervals and lot area provided in the site survey, staff concludes that lot slope is 59.5%. This
number is consistent with calculations submitted by prior applicants.
• Concerns about the potential inaccuracies of the building areas of surrounding structures
and a request to reduce the size of the structure to comply with hillside guidelines: The
project demonstrates compliance with the hillside guidelines except with respect to height (over
by 1 foot) and natural state (under by 254.48 square feet).
• Concerns about impacts on privacy to neighbors across the street: The project complies
with the privacy guidelines by directing windows to the street.
• Concerns about height of the solar panels: Unless the Board can support recommending
approval of a height exception and, the exception is ultimately approved, the height of the
structure will not be allowed to exceed 30 feet, inclusive of solar panels.
• Grading plans with respect to disturbed area: The applicant will need to return disturbed area
to natural state.
0
CONCLUSION
As mentioned above, the applicant has submitted an Environmental and Design Review application
seeking input from the Board regarding architectural design approach and site design. The project
incorporates a series of steps the follow the slope of the lot. Staff seeks the Boards input on how well
the applicant has responded to the Boards December 4, 2018 recommendations. The Board's comments
and recommendations will help with a formal decision on Environmental and Design Review permit.
EXHIBITS
Letter from West End Village Neighborhood Association
2. Plans submitted for 12/4/18 Conceptual Design Review (for comparison)
Full-sized plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
cc: Jeffrey and Tracy Prose
WEZZil"R
West Enid Neighborhood AusociatiOn
December 2, 2019
Ali Giudice
City of San Rafael = Planning Division
1400 Fifth Ave -
San Rafael, CA. 94901
RIE: 38 Upper Fremont; IEDIB-6982, Plans dated November 3, 2019
We have the following comments for this formal application:
p:
Dote:
It should be noted that many of the comments contained in this letter were also detailed in previous
letters. This is our 51' comment letter submitted to the Planning Division for 38 Upper Fremont. ' A
hearing previously scheduled with the Design Review Board was canceled because the lot was found to
be 1,111 sq' smaller than previously thought (7,977 sq' vs 6,866 sq' per current survey). The applicant
has now included a survey/topographic map with lot square footage calculated by the land surveyor.
While the applicant has responded to some of our comments, there are still several issues contained in
this letter that we would -like addressed. We request that Planning respond to our comments in the staff
report prepared for the Design Review Board hearing.
1. COMPLIANCE WITH HIIL,>LSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES (IID
a) Hillside Design
The plans show a large single family home with a modern/industrial design which appears boxy and
too massive in size and appearance. - At 4 stories, it is incompatible with the surrounding 2 -story homes
(described by planning staff). It -protrudes out of the hillside rather than hugging the hill and looks like
a shoe -box, tipped on it's side. The Hillside design standards encourage following the natural contour
of the land and stepping back the levels into the hill. The multi-level square roof line is in stark
contrast to its surroundings and other nearby homes. The roof line should follow the natural slope of
the land and by incorporating a sloped roof and breaking the roof into smaller components, it will
reduce the -mass. Sloping the roof line, will be more compatible with surrounding homes that have
sloped roof lines which comply with the hillside guidelines.
The main entrance to the home is on the lower bedroom level, yet 23 exterior steps from the garage and
an additional 16 interior steps to the main living area. Better design would have the main entrance lead
directly to the main living area, perhaps from guest parking located on the uphill side.
We would like the Planning std to verify that the proposed building is well within 100 feet of the
ridgeline.
All other Hillside Design Guidelines, zoning and building codes, ie. setbacks, stepbacks, height
restrictions should be complied with -or exceptions/variances identified in the staff report.
b) marking
Upper Fremont Drive is a very steep, narrow (2-way/1 lane), very substandard hillside street with NO
public (street) parking. Therefore, parking requirements must comply with current code, with NO
exceptions.
The applicant is proposing a pit -stacker system to comply with City parking requirements. This. is an
unusual design for hillside residential parking. The SR Zoning Ordinance Parking Standards does not
address/allow mechanical parking systems and the City has only talked about these types of parking
systems in the downtown zoning district.
Recently, a mixed use project in the downtown, at 703 Third St., proposed 120 units plus retail space
with a mechanical parking system and would use mechanical lifts with no pit or underground feature.
The City is requiring a use permit for the mechanical lift parking proposal along with
recommendations of the PW Director and the Planning Commission, per staff report prepared by Steve
Stafford on Feb 26, 2019.
The City has no standards or zoning codes to address pit stack parking in a residential area, let alone
addressing the safety of using such a system on steep hillside lots. Some vehicles cannot be
accommodated by mechanical parking systems because of the size or weight, ie large sport utility
vehicles and.pick-up trucks. We don't have any code or standards as to what the minimum size vehicle
these systems should accommodate. Public Works has requested additional information, including the
maximum vehicle dimensions that can be accommodated (Memo dated April 30, 2019)., Again, there is
nothing in the code relating to single family residential use.
The City of Sunnyvale has defined pit stacking parking systems as equivalent to tandem parking, as
follows:
"Tandem parking" means the placement of two parking spaces in such an arrangement where access to
one or more parking spaces is dependent on moving another vehicle. Mechanical lifts, stackers or
other similar means of mechanized parking where parking spaces are not independently accessible
shall be considered tandem parking."
Pit stack parking is considered tandem type of parking and does not meet the requirement that guest
parking spaces be independently accessible as required by the hillside design guidelines, per San Rafael
municipal code:
15.07.030 - Street, driveway and parking standards.
(c) Each lot created on substandard city streets and all private streets shall provide a minimum of two
(2) off-street, f -street, independently accessible guest parking places for each dwelling unit intended to be
developed on the lot. These parking spaces shall not be located on the driveway apron. These spaces
shall be conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit they serve.
Providing additional on-site parking next to a substandard street can improve access for emergency
vehicles, per Municipal Code 15.07.010. This is especially true on a street like Upper Fremont with
NO emergency vehicle turn -around. It could definitely benefit from the additional street width added
by siting guest parking spaces immediately next to the street rather than hidden away underground.
Guest parking spaces added adjacent to the street also provide additional room for passing vehicles to
maneuver on a narrow street like Upper Fremont.
Lastly, digging a deep pit on a steep hillside with a long history of slides and underground waterways,
next to a narrow road which was not built to current standards, is a threat to public safety.
San Rafael Municipal Zoning code 14.18.010. G. states:
Ensure that off-street f -street parking and loading facilities are designed_ in_ a manner that will ensure
"
efficiency, protect the public safety and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from
adverse impacts;"
There are many underground waterways on. this hill and diverting water around a subterranean garage
seems risky. Where would the disturbed flow of water be diverted to? The pit appears to be 8-10 feet
deep; a detailed description of the pit and the stacking mechanism is missing from the plans.
Upper Fremont Drive is not built according to today's standards. How will digging a deep pit affect the
stability of the road and the surrounding properties, as the hill immediately and steeply drops off on the
opposite side of the road, leaving it vulnerable to collapse? Any damage to the roadway could
effectively cut off emergency response vehicle access to properties further up the hill.
We strongly request that the City require the applicant to conduct a thorough 'sa fegy and feasibility
study prior to any approval of this untested parking systema.
Page All Parking and Circulation Diagram:
We think the legibility of this drawing could be improved by increasing the scale to the same size as the
other pages, 1/4" =1 foot. It is difficult and dangerous to back up at an angle onto a narrow, steep and
poorly -lit road with no downhill guard rail. The applicant has not included information about the slope
and angle of the road in relation to the driveway and the drawing is difficult to read the boundaries of
the road. There is a reason why the Municipal Code (14.12.030(F)) prohibits vehicles from backing
out onto a street less than twenty-six feet wide. There is history of a car being parked on this site that
rolled several feet down the hill and there were no guard rails to stop it: Luckily, no one was injured.
c) Natural State requirement/ house size
We emphasize the importance of complying with all hillside design guidelines, including the natural
state requirement- With such a small allowable footprint for a home on this site, City planners and .
board members must verify applicant's calculations and ensure compliance with the natural state
requirement. The applicant has now provided a topographic map prepared by a land surveyor.
However, the slope calculation was NOT included on the topographic map with the wet stamp of the
engineer. Instead, it appears the slope calculation was done by the applicant (owner/architect) and is
calculated for a portion of the lot and not the entire lot. Plans submitted by the prior owner of this lot,
Todd Sontag, in January 2008, stated average slope at 60%. The applicant has calculated a slope of
55:8% on the current plans and gave. 53% as the slope or, prior plans. We think the slope calculation
should be prepared b the he engineer that prepared the topographic map and not the applicant_
We understand that the applicant does not want to apply for an exception or variance so it is important
that the lot size and slope are accurate in order to calculate accurate disturbed area/natural state
requirements. IWe would like the applicant to show the calculations for the natural state and the
disturbed area clearly on the plans, understanding that the "disturbed area" includes more than the "lot
coverage." Other projects in the immediate vicinity have been required to comply with the natural state
requirement. There are other vacant lots immediately past this lot on Upper Fremont that we expect
will eventually be improved and will have to comply with the natural state requirement.
On page Al, the applicant has listed the square footage of most homes located on Upper Fremont. We
find there are some inconsistencies in his numbers. For example, 75 Upper Fremont (APN 012-045-
11) and 79 Upper Fremont (APN 012-045=14) are 2,903 sq' for each residence per Marin County
Assessor records, not 3,500 sq' as the applicant shows on his chart. Apparently, he used information
from Zillow. Both homes were built in 2004. 75 Upper Fremont combined 4 old lots with a total of
17,000 sq'. The slope was 45.6% and the natural state requirement was 70.6% with 74% proposed
with the new home. When compared to the lot, the home size is 17% of the lot size. 79 Upper
Fremont combined 2 existing lots with a total of 28,050 sq' (per Planning document). The slope was
47.3% and the natural state requirement was 72.3% with a proposed natural state of 84%. The home
square footage is 10% of the lot size. When looking at the homes immediately surrounding 38 Upper
Fremont, the home square footage as a percentage of the lot size ranges from 4% to 19%. In contrast,
the proposed home at 38 Upper Fremont is 31% of the lot, exceeding the surrounding development
pattern.
Address
APN
Home sq'.
Lot Size
% home/10t
77 Upper Fremont
012-045-15
2,449
22,994
11%
75 Upper Fremont
012-045-11
2,903
17,000
17%
55 Upper Fremont
012-041-26
1,494
33,600
4%
39 Upper Fremont
012-045-05
2,266
19,800
110/0
38 Upper Fremont
012-041-48
2,100
6,866
31%
31 Upper Fremont
012-045-17
2,376
12,825
19%
30 Upper Fremont
012-041-28
696
9,020
8%
Both neighboring homes at #31 and #39 have much larger lots, 60% to 240% larger than the
applicant's. In order to comply with all the Hillside Design Guidelines and be compatible with
neighboring properties, the applicant may consider a more moderate sized home, such as 1,500 or
1,600 sq'.
Developers like to build larger homes because prices are frequently calculated by using square footage
but moderate to smaller sized homes are compatible with this area and they are more affordable for less
affluent buyers. They fulfill a need in Marin to have more affordable homes to buy, not just to rent. It
creates healthier neighborhoods to have a mix of home sizes to accommodate different family sizes,
economic, and age levels.
20 FOURTH STORY — media room or ADU?
The applicant's original plans included an ADU. When neighbors asked about it, he was very adamant
in his intention to include a separate apartment. However, the Planning Department was able to
persuade him to remove the ADU due to health and safety reasons. `vVe agree with the Planning
Department's decision to eliminate the ADU given the narrow road, access problems and lack of street
parking, ie health and safety issues. In fact, a PG&E representative recently said that this area, with it's
hairpin turns and narrow road, has the worst access in all of Marin County!
We don't understand why a 200 sq' media room needs a full bath with a double sink and an additional
sink in the media room, for a total of 3 sinks. Because of the applicant's original insistence on
including an ADU, we are concerned.that this floor may be later converted to an ADU without permits.
It may be advisable to eliminate the Fourth Story to reduce bulk, make the home more compatible with
the surrounding 2 -story homes and effectively scale back the size of the home to a more appropriate
size for this small, steep lot.
3. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
The proposedresidence's design totally impacts the privacy of the neighboring property at #31 Upper
Fremont. Residents there will have no privacy in their main outdoor living space; the proposed home
directly faces their property and (as a 4 -story structure) towers over it. There are several large windows
and balconies that directly face #31. This is unacceptable and needs to be modified.
The applicant needs to prepare a drawing showing how the proposed building casts a shadow on
neighboring properties at different times of the year, per section 14.25.030 (C)(10) of the zoning
ordinance. We understand the applicant has prepared a "sun study" but has not shared it with the
neighboring properties.
4. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS:
On the uphill side, the property fronts a dirt road which is the continuation of Upper Fremont Drive, a
city street. The paved road above this is a private road/driveway owned by #39. Sections of the upper
roadway may require stabilization to protect the property from soil moving downhill and settling
against the new structure, per Geotechnical Report from April 30, 2015.
Public Works is requiring a condition of approval that the unimproved portion of Upper Fremont
abutting this property be paved to provide a vehicular turnaround at the Y with the private section of
Upper Fremont (Memo dated April 30, 2019 to Planning from PW). Currently, delivery companies
have refused delivery to residents on Upper Fremont and emergency vehicles have no place to
turnaround. The turn -around needs to meet minimum standards for roadway improvements and be able
to accommodate the maneuvering of delivery and emergency vehicles. The Plans do not currently
include this roadway improvement and should be shown on the plans. The survey/topographic map
prepared by Transamerican Engineers, shows Upper Fremont width of 20 feet but actual road width is
around 12 feet.
In the conditions of approval for 31 Upper Fremont (in 1998), the City required that the street be paved
along the entire frontage of the property with a 2" asphalt overlay prior to occupancy of the house.
Likewise, the City should require paving along the entire street frontage of 38 Upper Fremont before
occupancy.
5. CONCRETE DELIVERY PLAN:
The applicant needs to put forth a workable and approved feasible concrete delivery plan. When #75
and #79 Upper Fremont were built in 2004, the City required a change in the way concrete was
delivered to the sites after concrete trucks began losing traction on Upper Fremont and endangering
people and property downhill. The City approved pumping concrete via a long tube originating from
Espalda Court on the other side of the hill. The applicant should submit plans on how concrete will be
pumped from Espalda Court to the site to ensure safety and that access is not compromised. We
understand the applicant has made arrangements with property owners.
Any other large or heavy construction vehicles will need permission from the individual property
owners to use private property to maneuver those vehicles. Private property includes. the privately
owned streets at Trost and #39 Upper Fremont, as well as all neighboring driveways and private
parking areas and property. The applicant also needs to provide detail in their plans as to exactly where
the "staging area" for construction will be located.
In addition, the applicant needs to post a bond and document the condition of the street before and after
construction.
6e FIRE PROTECTION:
The Fire Marshall has provided the following comment re 38 Upper Fremont:
"The Fire Department is unable to provide emergency fire or EMS services that meets NFPA Standard
1710 response time criteria because the existing public roadway does not accommodate fire apparatus
vehicles and does not meet CFC provisions for Fire Apparatus Access Roads. San Rafael Fire vehicles
are unable to maneuver to this property due to unusual topographical conditions, substandard roadway
width, and hairpin type curves that do not meet CFC turning radius provisions. Additionally, there is no
existing provision on Upper Fremont Drive to accommodate the turning around of fire apparatus as
required by CFC Appendix D."
What liability does the City incur by knowingly allowing the building of a home that the City cannot
defend in case of a fire? What measures can be taken to provide required fire protection and.
emergency access to Upper Fremont?
On January 4, 2016, a house down the road from #38 Upper Fremont caught fire and was damaged
beyond repair. The Fire truck had difficulty making it up the hill and the fire fighters hand carried.
equipment uphill (up a steep incline) several hundred feet to the burning house. According to the Fire
incident report, two fire vehicles got stuck and were unable to get off the hill. Luckily, it was raining
that night; otherwise, the outcome would. have been very different.
As generally required by code, the applicant can use fire resistant materials but nothing is fire proof. A
Santa Rosa couple narrowly escaped the fire that engulfed their home. Their house was newly
constructed according to all the latest building codes for fire resistance. In fact, their house was so well
insulated and air -tight that they didn't hear the fire coming or smell the smoke until it was almost too
late. They had to be treated for significant burns to their bodies. It is a sobering reminder of how
unpredictable and devastating fire can be. .
There needs to be a turn -around at the end of the paved section of the city street, Upper Fremont Drive,
per the International Fire Code which requires a turn -around on access roads in excess of 150 feet
(Section D 103.4). This is important for emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, as well as Fire
-Suppression equipment.
In addition to improved access, before any building permits are issued and at all times, a fire hose must
be hooked up to a water source and be immediately available for use during all phases of construction
until an occupancy permit is granted. Several years ago, a fire was started at a construction site on
Terrace Avenue from a spark caused by cutting rebar.
7e EXISTING SEWER LATERAL LOCATED ON PROPERTY.
There is an existing sewer line running through the middle of this property. Older maps suggest that
the sewer line for #39 and #77 was located in the center of this property. In 2004, when #75 and #79
were built, they were connected to a new sewer main which runs under the dirt road. There are no
records indicating that #39 and #77 were ever connected to the new sewer main and it appears that the
sewer line located on this property is still active and is located in an abandoned City easement. Alicia
Giudice and Don Jeppson, the City Building Official, visited the site and were shown the exposed
sewer pipe. However, the location of the sewer pipe is not shown on the plans nor a plan for relocation
discussed with the affected residents. The applicant cannot build a house on top of an active sewer line
so we would like to see this issue addressed as part of the review process. See the attached photo.
8. GEOTECHNICAL/ARBORIST REPORTS:.
The geotechnical report as submitted was performed on APN 012-041-23/24 on April 30, 2015, for a
previous property owner. The proposed application is for APN 012-041-48. The geotechnical report
needs to be updated for the identified lot and current proposed plan.
The tree report is also from 2015 and needs to be updated for the correct lot, proposed plan and current
condition and size of existing trees, including the identification of significant trees. The current plans
don't show what trees will be removed and what new trees will be planted. Applicant needs. to submit a
vegetation management plan (required by Fire Dept).
0. LOT MERGER:
The Planning Division needs to determine if the underlying lots, APN 012-041-23 and 012-041-24 (old
lots 14, 15, and 16), have been merged into the current APN 012-041-48 and if not, a condition of
approval should require merger of these lots.
10. OTHER COMMENTS:
a) We question how effective a solar system on the roof will be given that this is a heavily wooded
north facing slope with limited sunlight for several months during the year. The drawings don't show
the pitch of the solar panels and if they will raise the roof line.
b) There is no grading plan as required by Public Works and which would help in determining the
"disturbed area" when calculating compliance with the natural state requirement.
c) Page A-2 Vicinity Plan does not appear to be drawn to scale. For example, 30 Upper Fremont is
only 696 sq' but appears to be twice as large as 38 Upper Fremont.
d) Page A-7, closet door in bathroom 2 appears to not open fully.
11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP) and STAGING AREA:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Division AFTER the applicant meets with surrounding neighbors, as was
required for 75 Upper Fremont when it was built. We suggest scheduling the meeting at City Hall with
a Planner present and at a time that is convenient for neighbors. It is imperative that the applicant
meet with neighbors to create a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and address their concerns
BEFORE approval from the Planning Division and a building permit is issued.
This plan would include hours of construction, staging plan, concrete delivery plan, plan for
maneuvering construction vehicles without trespassing onto private property, 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 CMP should detail where construction vehicles can maneuver without encroaching onto private
property. For example, the paved road directly uphill from this property is a private street, currently in
need of repair. Any maneuvering of construction vehicles on this private road could compromise the
integrity of the road and the applicant needs permission from #39, the owner of the private road, to use
the road. The condition of city streets used during construction should be documented and repaired for
damage caused by construction, including Marquard, Fremont, Upper Fremont, and Trost.
Along with the Fire Department and Public Works, the applicant should outline a Staging Plan intended
to reduce the negative impact of construction activities on the surrounding neighborhood by reducing,
noise, dust, traffic, and other health hazards. A traffic circulation plan will be required for dump trucks,
deliveries, parking for construction workers, etc..
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please note that we have solicited comments
and provided a copy of this letter to residents living on Fremont Road, Upper Fremont Drive and Trost.
Sincerely,
Chris Leinbach, President, WENA
Victoria DeWitt, Fremont Road resident
Fred P. Cushing, Upper Fremont resident
att:
Photo showing sewer line at approximate location of proposed driveway (1 page)
lb�
I
A
0" A
jr
l7cx
i . IV