Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2020-01-22 #2REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 7 Bellevue Ave. (Interim Address) — Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Lot Line Adjustment to allow the construction of 4,478 sq. ft. new single-family residence and associated site improvements (driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant, 20,012 sq. ft., hillside parcel; APN: 016-213-08 & -09; Single -Family Residential (R20) District Zone; Gary Armor, Applicant; Armor 1989 Revocable Trust, Owner; Country Club Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site: Low -Density Residential (LDR) R20 Vacant Lot North: LDR R20 Vacant Lot South: LDR R20 Single -Family Residence (SFR) East: LDR PD (1380) Vacant Lot West: LDR R20 SFR Lot Size Lot Coverage (Max.) Required: 20,000 sf Allowed: 6,004 sf (30%) Proposed: 20,012 sf Proposed: 3,657 sf (18.3%) Height ` Gross Building/Floor Area Allowed: 30' Allowed: 4,501 sf Proposed: 23' Proposed: 4,478 sf Parking Upper Floor Area Required: 4; 2 covered, 2 uncovered Allowed: 4,503 sf Proposed: 6; 2 covered, 4 uncovered Proposed: 796 sf Natural State (Min.) Setbacks Required: 10,066 sf (50.3%) Required Existing Proposed Proposed: 10,020 sf Front: 20' n/a 54' Side(s): 12.5' n/a 15724' Rear: 10' n/a 11' Tree Removal Grading Total (No./species): 10 `Significant"; 10 Oaks Total: 1,370 CYDS Requirement: 30 Replacement Trees; 30 Oaks Cut: 940 CYDS Proposed: 8 Replacement Trees; 5 Oaks Fill: 430 CYDS Off -Haul: 0 CYDS * Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/structure at all points of the structure. Standard building height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to mid -point of a sloped roof. SUMMARY The project is being referred to the Design Review Board (Board) for formal review of proposed site and design improvements for the development of a new single-family residence on a vacant hillside parcel. The project also includes a proposed Lot Line Adjustment for the exchange of 1;917 sq. ft. of land from the subject site and an adjacent legal parcel (APN: 016-213-09) under common ownership. The project proposes a new common or shared driveway to access both sites and the additional parking required for hillside development. Based on the recommendation(s) of the Board, the Zoning Administrator will act on the application submittal. Staff finds that, while the project complies with most of the applicable design guidelines, revision of the landscape plan is appropriate to provide additional tree plantings for screening and to fully -mitigate the proposed tree removal. Staff further finds waiver of a portion of the uncovered parking spaces, may be in order to reduce tree removal and limit driveway retaining wall heights and site grading. Staff requests the Board review this report and provide recommendations on the following: Parking • Whether the driveway and the uncovered parallel parking area should be redesigned, including waiving or reducing the required parking, to preserve more `significant' trees, reduce downslope driveway retaining wall heights and reduce grading impacts. Architectural Design • Whether the proposed architectural design adequately relates to the natural hillside conditions. Retaining Walls • Whether the design of the proposed integral -color driveway retaining walls is appropriate or whether the design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition of a fagade treatment such as texturing or sculpting. Landscaping • Whether the proposed Landscape Plan for the project is appropriate. • Whether the proposed landscape plan should be revised, specifically to provide additional mature replacement trees along the east property boundary, to reduce view impacts along westbound Point San Pedro Rd. • Whether the proposed Landscape Plan should be revised to include planting the remainder of the required replacement Oak trees on the adjacent vacant parcel which is under common ownership with the subject site. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The subject site is located on the hillside above San Pedro Elementary School, in the Country Club neighborhood. It is in common ownership with the legal vacant parcel located immediately north of the project site. The site is currently 21,930 sq. ft. in area with a 25.3% west-to-east/north-to-south trending upslope from Bellevue Ave. and Point San Pedro Rd. It is currently an undeveloped oak woodland. The is surrounded by larger (3,200 + sq. ft.) single-family hillside residences on large wooded parcels to the west and south and a large (6 + acre) vacant hillside parcel to the east. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes to construct a new 4,478 sq. ft., multi -story, single-family residence and associated site development, including driveway access from Bellevue Ave, drainage improvements and landscape enhancements. Site Plan: The site is generally a `knoll' with steep slopes leading to a relatively level bench area. The new single- family residence would be located generally along the level bench portion of the parcel and driveway would be located generally along the entire frontage, following the slope contours below the new residence. The new concrete driveway would be 20' -wide then narrow to 16' before widening again to provide a turnaround and uncovered parking area. The proposed driveway grade is a maximum 23% grade. Retaining walls are proposed along the east (upslope) elevation of the new driveway with heights up to seven feet (7') above grade. Slightly lower retaining wall are proposed along the west (downslope) elevation of the new driveway and turnaround and parking area with heights up to 6' 8" above grade. The poured -concrete retaining walls are not proposed to be colored or finished. Floor Plans: The project design proposes to orient the new garage with storage and laundry facilities at the driveway grade, below the main floor with both common areas (kitchen, dining room and family room) and three (3) bedrooms and baths. A master bedroom suite is proposed on the upper floor. Patio decks are proposed at the front and rear of the main floor In addition, a elevated deck is proposed at the rear o the residence, off the upper floor master bedroom suite. Architecture: The project proposes a craftsmen -style architectural design with wood shingle siding in natural finish, plaster wainscot base in light earthtone color (La Habra San Simeon), low -pitch (3"-inl2") hipped roof forms with dimensional composite roof shingles (GAF Timberline Barkwood) and white trim. A Material and Color has been prepared and submitted by the applicant/owner which will be presented at the Board meeting. Landscaping: The project proposes to remove a total of 10 existing trees on the site prior to grading and construction activities. Most of these trees requiring removal are Coast Live Oak trees, 6"-30" in diameter at breast height and in good health. The proposed Landscape Plan for the project includes eight (8), 24" -box size replacement trees, five (5) of which are Coast Live Oak trees located along the north and south side elevations. Grading/Drainage: The project will require approximately 520 CYDS of total site grading: 940 CYDS of 'cut' and 430 CYDS of `fill'. The project proposes 20 CYDS of `off -haul' with the remainder of excavation (500 CYDS) relocated to the adjacent vacant parcel which is under common ownership. The site is currently served, and will continue to be served, by an open drainage swale and culverted stormwater drainage system located along the roadway edge of Bellevue Ave. The project proposes to install two (2) bioretention planters, located both immediately above and below the driveway, which flow into an engineered stormwater dissipater structure located slightly above the existing swale along Bellevue Ave. 3 ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low -Density Residential (LDR). The LDR designation is typical for single-family residential development. The project's proposed single-family hillside residential use is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories). Also, the project would be in accordance with Land Use Policy LU -12 (Building Height) and the maximum 30' building height, based on the City's current measurement for hillside development (building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/structure). Staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following specific design -related General Plan Policies: ➢ Housing Element Policy H-3 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context) seeks to design new housing, remodels and additions to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. New housing development should incorporate transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development character and privacy. New housing development should respect existing landforms and minimize effects on adjacent properties. ➢ Neighborhoods Element Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods) seeks to preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live. New Development should: • Enhance neighborhood image and quality of life, • Incorporate sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to • respect adjacent development character and privacy, • Preserve historic and architecturally significant structures, • Respect existing landforms and natural features, • Maintain or enhance infrastructure service levels, and • Provide adequate parking ➢ Community Design Element Policy CD -3 (Neighborhoods) seeks to recognize, preserve and enhance the positive qualities that give neighborhoods their unique identities, while also allowing flexibility for innovative design. New development should respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods. ➢ CD -5 (Views) seeks to respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways. ➢ CD -6 (Hillsides and Bay) seeks to protect the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay by controlling development within hillside areas, providing setbacks from the Bay, and providing public access along the Bay edge. ➢ CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) recognizes preserves and enhances the design elements that contribute to the livability of neighborhoods and their visual appearance. Recognizes that each neighborhood is unique, and that design review must consider the distinct characteristics of individual neighborhoods. ➢ CD -18 (Landscaping) recognizes landscaping as a significant component of all site design 4 Staff Comments. Staff believes the site is challenging for development purposes, based on its 'knoll' - like topography with very steep slopes (approximately 47% average cross -slope) at street grade leading to a relatively level bench area where the building pad for the project is proposed. The project would create fairly significant visual bulk and mass immediately along the Bellevue Ave. frontage, primarily due to the proposed hilltop building pad location, the removal of 10 existing 'significant' trees (mostly Coast Live Oak trees; 'significant' is defined in the San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines as greater than 6" in diameter size as measured to breast height or 4' 6" above the root crown) and the 6 — 7' retaining wall heights along the driveway that lack tiering. The project would create public view impacts primarily along westbound Point San Pedro Rd., above San Pedro Elementary School, though staff believes these visual impacts to be limited, given that; large single- family residential development already dominates the hillside and create public view impacts, particularly -at 49 Bellevue Ave. and to a lesser degree at both 23 and 55 Bellevue Ave. Staff believes these public view impacts may be mitigated by additional mature replacement tree plantings along the east elevation. Staff believes the project also would be consistent with a majority of applicable single- family residential design guidelines. Staff's concerns are discussed in greater detail in staff's report below. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4 — Residential (R) District The site is located within the Single -Family Residential — Hillside Development Overlay (R20 -H) District. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards for the R20 District, including a maximum 30' building height, maximum 30% lot coverage and minimum required yard setbacks (20' front, 12' 6" sides and 10' rear). Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Property Facts summary above. As designed, the project complies with all applicable property development standards for the R20 District, including maximum building height, maximum lot coverage and minimum required yard setbacks. Chapter 12 — Hillside Development Overlay (-H) District The project will require consistency with the applicable hillside development standards for the (-H) District, including a maximum gross building square footage (4,501 sq. ft.), minimum natural state requirement (50.3% of lot or 10,066 sq. ft.) and building 'stepback' (20' maximum height on downslope exterior walls and side walls). These applicable hillside development standards are generally identified in the Property Facts summary. As designed, the project appears to comply -with most of the applicable hillside development standards, including maximum gross building square footage and required building 'stepback'. However, the project does not comply the minimum natural state requirement (10,066 sq. ft. required, 10,020 sq. ft. proposed); however, the nonconformity is easily correctable with minor design modification (s). Chapter 16 — Site and Use Requlations Sight Distance Pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project shall provide a sight distance triangle of 15' from the curb return or roadway if without curbs, free of visual obstructions greater than three feet (3') in height. The project proposes a 16 -20' -wide two-way driveway access along the Bellevue Ave. frontage which would comply with the required sight distance triangle. The project proposes retaining walls upslope of the driveway no greater than three feet (3') in height. The project proposes a rock retaining wall downslope of the driveway 4' 6" in height which is also located within the sight distance triangle, though it would be constructed entirely at or below hillside grade. Pursuant to Section 14.16.295 (Sight Distance) of the Zoning Ordinance, driveways shall provide a sight distance triangle of 15' from the curb return, or as determined by the City Engineer. The project proposes a 20' -wide two-way driveway along both the Tamalpais and Lincoln Ave frontages, which also comply with the required 15' sight distance triangle 5 Chapter 18 — Parking Standards Pursuant to Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project shall provide two (2) covered on-site parking spaces and two (2) additional on-site parking spaces (covered or uncovered) "...conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit which they serve", due to its hillside location. The requirement to provide additional parking spaces may be reduced or waived when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal make the requirements infeasible. The project proposes two (2) covered on-site parking spaces, located in the garage, and four (4) uncovered parking spaces (2 perpendicular parking spaces and 2 parallel parking spaces), located adjacent and across from the covered parking spaces. The site is in common ownership with the parcel located immediately to the north. It, like the subject site, has `knoll' -like topography with very steep slopes (approximately 47% average cross -slope) at street grade leading to a relatively level bench or building pad. The bench on the adjacent parcel is much smaller than that of the subject site so the project proposes to construct the additional `hillside' parking spaces as part of the project and incorporate all four (4) `hillside' parking spaces in a new common access easement along with the driveway. The covered or garage parking spaces meet the minimum 20'x 20' interior dimension requirements; the proposed garage is approximately 22' 53/4" x 21' 3". The additional parking spaces, as required with new hillside development, also meet the minimum dimension requirements for perpendicular parking spaces (9'x 19' required; 9'x 20' 9'/Z" proposed) and parallel parking spaces (9'x 22' required; dimensions for uncovered parallel parking spaces. The project proposes to provide a 16 -20' -wide driveway, where a minimum 10' is required. The project also proposes a driveway with grades of up to 23% and, since the driveway exceeds 18% grade, it is required to be concrete material with sawed or grooved `cuts' to enhance traction. Staff's Comments. As designed, the proposed project complies with all applicable parking standards. However, public comments have been submitted (see below) requesting redesign of the project to reduce the proposed tree removal on the site. Staff has determined that redesign of the driveway and parking area, specifically the elimination of the two (2) uncovered parallel `hillside' parking spaces, would preserve three (3) of the proposed 10 existing trees proposed for removal (see Exhibit 2; Tree Removal Plan; Tree Nos. 6, 9 and 10). This reduction would result in the relocation of a portion of the driveway downslope retaining wall further upslope with reduced heights of likely three feet (3') or less and reduced site grading. Staff has further determined that relocating or shifting the project, approximately five feet (6) more north would result in preserving another existing tree, Tree No. 4, though it may also require approval of a reduction in the required side yard setback (Exception) of approximately 1 — 2'. The Board may reduce or waive the requirement to provide additional parking spaces due to the hillside conditions when the size or shape of the lot or the need for excessive grading or tree removal make the requirements infeasible. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: Whether the driveway and the uncovered parallel parking area should be redesigned, including waiving or reducing the required parking, to preserve more `significant' trees, reduce downslope driveway retaining wall heights and reduce grading impacts. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The project should comply with the applicable review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits), are as follows: ➢ Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should relate to the existing development in the vicinity. Major views of ridgelines should be preserved and enhanced from public streets and public vantage points. Development should respect site features 9 and recognize site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation. Sensitive areas such as highly visible hillsides, steep, unstable or hazardous slopes, creeks and drainageways, and wildlife habitat should be preserved and respected. ➢ Architecture. The project architecture should be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the vicinity. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged include: a) creation of interest in the building elevation; b) pedestrian -oriented design in appropriate locations; c) energy-efficient design; d) provision of a sense of entry; e) variation in building placement and height; and f) equal attention to design given to all facades in sensitive location. ➢ Materials and colors. Exterior finishes should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area. Color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture. High-quality building materials are required. In hillside areas, natural materials and colors in the earth tone and wood tone range are generally preferred. Concrete surfaces should be colored, textured, sculptured, and/or patterned to serve design as well as a structural function. ➢ Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide safety for building occupants, but not create glare or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas. ➢ Landscape Design. The natural landscape should be preserved in its natural state, as much as practical, by minimizing grading and tree and rock removal. The landscaping shall be designed as an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive to natural site features. Water -conserving landscape design shall be required. Smaller scale, seasonal color street trees should be proposed along pedestrian -oriented streets while high -canopy, traffic -tolerant trees and landscape setbacks should be proposed for primary vehicular circulation streets. Staffs Comments. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits seek to have the proposed design (architecture, form, scale, materials and color, etc.) of all new development `relate' to the predominant design or `character -defining' design elements existing in the vicinity. The existing residential development along Bellevue Ave. is characterized predominantly by large, multi-level single- family residences (average 4,125 sq. ft.). Planning staff finds the multi -story scale proposed by the project design is well established in the surrounding neighborhood. The site is challenging for development purposes, based on its `knoll' -like topography with very steep slopes (approximately 47% average cross -slope) at street grade leading to a relatively level bench area where the building pad for the project is proposed. As stated earlier, the project would create fairly significant visual bulk and mass immediately along the Bellevue Ave. frontage, primarily due to the proposed hilltop building pad location, the removal of 10 existing `significant' trees (mostly Coast Live Oak trees, and the 6 — 7' retaining wall heights along the driveway. These impacts may be mitigated by redesigning the driveway and the uncovered parallel parking area and waiving or reducing the required parking to preserve more `significant' trees and reduce downslope driveway retaining wall heights while also reducing grading The project would create public view impacts primarily along westbound Point San Pedro Rd., above .San Pedro Elementary School, though staff believes these visual impacts may be reduced by additional mature replacement tree plantings (3 — 4 additional Oak trees) along the northeast elevation. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: • Whether the proposed landscape plan should be revised, specifically to provide additional mature replacement trees along the northeast property boundary, to reduce view impacts along westbound Point San Pedro Rd. 7 The existing design character in the immediately vicinity of the site is difficult to evaluate due to thick landscape screening throughout the neighborhood. However, it appears to be a mixture of gabled and hipped roof forms with, predominantly, horizontal shiplap siding exteriors in earthtone/woodtone colors. The site is located within the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) — High Severity fire zone, which may require both ignition -resistant exterior materials on new structures and vegetation management by property owner. The project proposes a contemporary craftsman -style design with low -slope hipped roofs (3" -in -12" slope) with wood shingle siding and plaster wainscot and driveway retaining wall in woodton e/ea rth ones (A Material and Color Board has been submitted by the owner/applicant, which will be distributed during the Board's meeting.). These exterior finishes may conflict with the exterior materials allowed in WUI areas and may require re-evaluation to comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building (https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2016-v1/chapter/7A/sfm- materials-and-construction-methods-for-exterior-wildfire-exposure#7A). Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: • Whether the proposed architectural design adequately relates to the natural hillside conditions. Additionally, the project proposes approximately 180 linear feet of retaining walls along the driveway up to 6 — 7' in height; approximately 85 linear feet below the driveway and 100 linear feet above the driveway. The proposed material of the driveway retaining walls is poured concrete, plastered with a smooth finish and an integral light tan earthtone/woodtone color (La Habra `San Simeon') to help blend in with the natural backdrop and reduce their perceived visual mass. Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: • Whether the design of the proposed integral -color driveway retaining walls is appropriate or whether the design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition of a facade treatment such as texturing or sculpting. The steep slopes of the site, immediately from street grade along Bellevue Ave., are wooded with `significant' trees, primarily Coast Live Oak trees (A `significant' Oak tree is defined in the San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines as greater than 6" in diameter size as measured to breast height or 4' 6" above the root crown). The project proposes to remove a total of 10 existing, 'significant' mostly Oak trees. The landscape plan for the project proposes five (5), 24" -box, replacement Oak trees where 30, 15 -gallon, replacement Oak trees are required (3:1 replanting ratio per the San Rafael Hillside Design Guidelines). A submitted tree removal plan (Exhibit 2) deemed these trees proposed for removal to be in good health ("normal vitality"). A submitted tree replacement letter from a landscape architect (Exhibit 3) concludes that the site cannot support the planting of 30, 15 -gallon, replacement Oak trees and, instead, supports the limited tree replacement (5, 24" -box, Oak trees) proposed by the landscape plan. As stated earlier, staff finds that additional Oak replacement tree plantings (2 — 3, 24% box Coast Live Oak trees) are needed along the northeast (rear) property boundary to help reduce public view impacts along westbound Point San Pedro Rd. Since the subject site is in common ownership with the adjacent vacant parcel to the north, staff encourages the owner/applicant to explore planting the remainder of the required replacement Oak trees (20, 15 -gallon, Coast Live Oak trees) on the adjacent vacant parcel (APN: 016-213-09) Staff requests the Board's comments on the following: • Whether the proposed Landscape Plan for the project is appropriate. • Whether the proposed Landscape Plan should be revised to include planting the remainder of the required replacement Oak trees on the adjacent vacant parcel which is under common ownership with the subject site. Story poles have been installed on the site by the applicant to help demonstrate the scale, mass and height of the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new.residential 0 structure and the roof ridges. A Story Pole Plan has been created and is attached to staff's report as Exhibit 6. San Rafael Design Guidelines: Planning staff requests the Board's guidance in evaluating the project for consistency with the following applicable Residential Design Guidelines: ➢ Building Design • Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a consistent streetscape. • All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous walls should be avoided. • Attention should be paid to the street- and Canal -front facades of buildings by incorporating similar materials and details. ➢ Scale • 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 buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used. ➢ Building Height • Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize apparent height differences. ➢ Roof Shapes • Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area. ➢ Building Entrances • There should be a clear, well-defined sense of entry from the street to the building. • Examples of elements that can be used to define the primary entrance and to further define the street facade are a usable front porch or verandas, an overhead trellis canopy, or other similar feature. ➢ Windows • 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 facade. • 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. • Window placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of adjacent neighbors. ➢ Driveways and Parking Areas • Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized, in compliance with zoning. 9 • Minimize large paved areas, for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block, stamped concrete or pavers). ➢ Front Landscaping and Fences • Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood and to create a strong landscaped character for the site. • Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged. Planning staff has no additional comments concerning the proposed site and building design beyond those listed elsewhere in staff's report. Hillside Design Guidelines The project is also subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide a guiding framework of design principles that builds on the unique challenges that often accompany hillside development. These guidelines are recommendations intended to measure overall design quality and to insure high-quality projects. The proposed project's compliance with these pertinent hillside residential design guidelines is summarized in the attached Hillside Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist (Exhibit 7). The proposed project would be consistent with all of the applicable hillside development standards with the exception of minimum natural state; the project would be deficient by 46 sq. ft. of natural state. Staff finds this deficiency to be easily correctable with minor modification(s) to the site and/or building design. The proposed project would be consistent also with all applicable hillside design guidelines with the exception to preservation of existing `significant' trees, reduced retaining wall heights, and number of replacement trees, as discussed earlier in staff's report. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency: The project proposes an exchange of land, 1,917 sq. ft. in area, from the subject site to an adjacent legal parcel (APN: 016-213-09) under common ownership. As one of the conditions of approval, the project is subject to the lot line adjustment provisions pursuant to Chapter 15.05 of the Subdivision Ordinance. If the project is approved, staff will work with the applicant and the City Engineer to reduce the size of the subject site and increase the size of the adjacent parcel which must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site, the appropriate neighborhood groups (Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Point San Pedro Homeowners Association, Seastrand Homeowners Association and Villa Real Property Owners Association), and all other interested parties, a minimum 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the site, along the Bellevue Ave. frontage, a minimum of 15 days prior to the date of this hearing. At the time staff's report was printed, Planning received one (1) public comment (Exhibit 4) as a result of noticing. Len Rifkind, attorney for the neighbor located immediately south of the subject site at 23 Bellevue Ave., provided the following comments: 1. The proposed Landscape Plan should be revised to provide additional landscaping screening along the southern side property line, between the subject site and 23 Bellevue Ave. to preserve existing privacy; and 10 2. The proposed project should be redesigned, reduced in size if necessary, to preserve more of the existing mature Coast Live Oak trees proposed for removal and not proposed for removal. Staff's comments The applicant and owner of the subject site, Gary Armor, has submitted email responses to Mr. Rifkind's comments, which attached to staff's report as Exhibit 5. Staff is providing responses to Mr. Rifkind's comments, which are similar to Mr. Armor's responses in regard to Item #1 only: The submitted Landscape Plan proposes to plant three (3), 24" -box, Coast Live Oak replacement trees and four (4), 5 -gallon, Ceanothus `Concha' shrubs along the south side property line, between the new residence and the existing residence at 23 Bellevue Ave. After conducting a site inspection, staff has determined: 1) The existing single-family residence. at 23 Bellevue Ave is located 75' setback from the common property boundary and the new residence is proposed to be located 25' from the common boundary for a total of 100' separating both residences; and 2) The existing residence at 23 Bellevue Ave. was constructed in 1993 with a comprehensive landscape plan, including tree, shrub and groundcover plantings along the common property boundary which are now mature and provide a dense, multilayer landscape screen between the two properties. The proposed Ceanothus `Concha' shrubs are a fast- growing species each with an anticipated mature size of 6'x 6'. Staff believes the proposed landscape plan for the common property boundary is appropriate. In the alternative, staff believes the plantings of Ceanothus `Concha' shrubs could be increased by 1 — 2 additional 5 - gallon plantings. 2. Bellevue Ave. is characterized as large lots (average 22,500 sq. ft.) with large single-family residences (average 4,125 sq. ft.). The project proposes a new 4,478 sq. ft., multi -story, single- family residence on a 20,012 sq. ft. parcel. Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with predominate development pattern along Bellevue Ave. Staff is sensitive to the tree removal proposed by the project. As stated earlier, staff believes redesign of the driveway and parking area, specifically the elimination of the two (2) uncovered parallel `hillside' parking spaces, would preserve three (3) of the proposed 10 existing trees proposed for removal (see Exhibit 2; Tree Removal Plan; Tree Nos. 6, 9 and 10). This reduction also would result in the relocation of a portion of the driveway downslope retaining further upslope with reduced retaining wall heights of likely three feet (3') or less and reduced site grading. Staff further believes that relocating or shifting the project approximately five feet (5) more north would result in preserving another existing tree, Tree No. 4, though it may also require approval of a reduction in the required side yard setback (Exception) of approximately 1 — 2'. Exhibit 2 includes tree protection guidelines which, should the project be approved, would become a condition to ensure the remaining trees on the site are minimally impacted by grading and construction activities on the site. CONCLUSION Staff requests the Board's recommendations to the Zoning Administrator on whether the project adequately complies with all the applicable design -related General Plan Policies and Zoning Ordinance regulations and standards, including residential and hillside design guidelines, as. identified earlier in staff's report. Staff finds that, while the project complies with most of the applicable design guidelines, revision of the landscape plan is appropriate to provide additional tree plantings for screening and to fully -mitigate the proposed tree removal. Staff further finds waiver of a portion of the uncovered parking spaces, may be in order to reduce tree removal and limit driveway retaining wall heights and site grading. In addition, staff welcomes the Board's guidance on the any site and/or building design details that would further improve the project 11 EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tree Removal Plan, Dated January 23, 2016 3. Tree Replacement Letter, Dated July 25, 2016 4. Public Comments, Dated January 14, 2020 5. Response to Comments, dated January 14, 2020 6. Story Pole Plan 7. Hillside Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist 8. Reduced Project Plans Full-size and reduced (11"x 17') color plans have been provided to the Design Review Board Members only. cc: Gary Armor — 47 Filbert Ave.; Sausalito, CA 94965 12 1` 0) rn U Old Un E C O- (6 E 06 O- m E -kArN rL Ave, CL rao o mfr R �}v` 0 °Uu `: Cf r ..e Y � L 1 I� CO U on a =: . 1` 0) rn U Old Un E C O- (6 E 06 O- m E -kArN rL Ave, a ..e 1 I� "-u-) . CN t! 1 5 49 p N 01 O _ N C', 2 AA x SEA WAY ui EXHIBIT 1 SARIN' -'FINE SERVICE s peclafizing, in Tree Preservation i Landscape Tree Inspection Reppr.t 09 C'eiJeWU'a 'San [Roft.417 �A Prepared for: 6,3_9VAP ar Prepared.on: kn'wan� n' 2036 Prepared by - Robert Movey 15A Certified Arbodst WC -0167 Marin Tree Service, Inc. 34 OeLuca Place, $ulte M RECEIVED Sari Rafael., CA 949011 J U N PLANNING EXHIBIT 2 - 5f�ecicriliirtr)itFTrcel�r<s�ruc�tiv��. Scope ant Li�d�RO"S OrHanuary-1-1, 20161 inspected -the landscape trees at 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA. The inspection of all trees was made from the ground and involved inspection of the external features only. No invasive, diagnostic or laboratory testing was carried out. The identification of these trees was based on broad. .feawres risible at.the time of inspection. I have also examined the existing site pian in ord r to assess theimpact of the proposed construction on the trees. Where recommendations are made in this report induding.those recommendations contained in the Tree Protection Guidelines it is essential that these recommendations be able to beimpleniented.. Any additionat drawings, details.or redesign that - impact -on the ability to do so may negate the conclusions made in this report. Arborists are specialists who use their education, knowledge, experience, and training to provide proper care and professional evaluations and diagnosis of individual trees. Arborists attempt to minimize the risk of living near trees -while enhancing and maintaining the overall .beautty-and.health- of the trees. Recommendations by the arborist may be accepted or disregarded by the client. Trees inherently pose a certain degree of hazard and risk front breakage, failure, or other causes and conditions. Marin Tree Service -vials-es.recommendat-ions, to,m4nimize or reduce these hazardous conditions but cannot guarantee to eliminate 4 �. ri, ospeciaily in the evera of a storm of other.a —I i.ti nature. While a detailed inspection normally results in the detection of hazardous conditions, there can be no guarantee or certainty that all hazardous conditions will be detected. There.alwa as tr RLbe some. risk -involved with: all:trees4 With: proper mon toring_and..care _trees_ can.- be managed. The only way to eliminate all risks is to remove the trees. If Vou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marin Tree verEtice for assistance. absevvations and7ree Schedule The trees 1n the following schedule are -the trees that :steed to -be :rests-oved -for the new const€ uctio.n. . These trees are in a moderately wooded area and there will be many remaining trees. The Tree Protection Guidelines in Appendix A §hotild be followed to protect 611 of the trees that are to remain on the property. SCIeiatiflc Nance Condition DOR Recoiv mendOon 1. Coast Live Normal•vitality, In the center of the 19" Remove Oak (Quercus property in the Agrifolia) construction- envelope of the planned. residence. 2. Coast Live Oak Normal vitality In the center of the 12" Remove (quercus property in the Agrifolia construction envelope.of . the planned residence. 3. California Bay normal vitality In the center of the 18" .Remove Laurel i7F op i't'y. in :Che (ilmbeliularia) construction envelope of the planned residence. 4. Coast Live oak Normal vitality On -the -west side -of -the- 30" Remove (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolia the planned driveway 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, :CA � Page 2 jwmw twa w `�``_ = Ske?curiFrfiid_FtaTre:r F're:s�r�crtir�u ScWnMk Hare: Identification is made on the basis of visual features visible from ground level at the time of .inspection. Dgm pa eter at Breast height): The trunk diameter at approximately 4 %' above ground or at the point at which the trunk develops a constant diameter. 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA Page 3 Scientific; Name Canditinn � 14caftn � DSH Recommendation 5. Coast Live Oak Normal vitality On the west side of the 14'• Remove (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolia the planned driveway 6. coast Live Go - i mar -vivant' On the w.est.slde:ofthe fir: Remove (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolia the planned driveway 7. Coast Live Oak formal vitality On the southwest side of s Remove (Quercus the,}propertyin•the• area. pha ,r $i:G4$ 3 for the.ptanned dlri:atl`vvay - S. Coast Live Oak Normal -vitality On the southwest side of 16" Remove (Quercus the property in the area Agrifolia forthe planned driveway 9,. toast Lite Oak Normal vitafty on the west side of the a. R' :ternve (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolia the planned driveway 10. Coast Live Oak formal vitality On the west side of the 30" Remove (Quercus property- in -the -area -for -- � .hg3lLilia the planned Ir.iiieaaa'p' ScWnMk Hare: Identification is made on the basis of visual features visible from ground level at the time of .inspection. Dgm pa eter at Breast height): The trunk diameter at approximately 4 %' above ground or at the point at which the trunk develops a constant diameter. 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA Page 3 _1Mtf ��� S1�etrrrlr,rrrct:inirt�Arz:!�rv,.rtran P�< Appendix, --l-re � otedim i�3li -defines e Before development, avoid tree damage during construction by protecting the root zone. The following should be considered: A) Physical protection of the trees can be accomplished in stages during the progression of work: p Installing an inexpensive chain link, mire mesh, or wood fence around the drip line of trees is the most effective way to protect trees and -help with tree preservation. This fence should be installed at the drip line during the initial stages of development. o As development progresses, the fence can be moved to within 6 feet of the trunks. o if continued progress requires access closer than 6 feet to the trunk, other precautions can be taken; such as placing hay -bales around the trunks -so -the bark -is not struck with -equipment. til;3 Of fencing be cleady marlmd with signs that the -area twitin is -a tYee protection zone and no one is allowed to disturb the area. C) hoot Pruning: Whenever roots over I inch (2.5 cm) in diameter must be severed, they should be cut flush to.eliminate jagged edges. There.are three methods of root pruning: Soil excavation using supersonic air tools, pressurized water or hand tools, followed by selective root cutting. © Cutting through the soil along a determined line on the surface using a tool specifically designed to cut roots. © Mechanically excavating (with trenching machine or backhoe) the soil and pruning what is left of the exposed roots. D) irrigate the root zone with a soaker hose allowing water to penetrate the soil to the depth of the tree roots, b ne5 cm):of S-01 1=) .Aerate the root zone: improve aeration and reduce compaction. Spread organic mulch or wood chips (2-4 inches) over the surface to reduce evaporation and conserve soil moisture and temperature. F) Fertilization of the preserved trees before construction is recommended if nutrient deficiencies exist to boost the trees vigor and tolerance. G). P reVeI-I ;.i _€eRe5tiWe caPFAicaati0n�i tai v,educe- est. au" aa,a ShQUId. €b..S 1nI is ted pirio.i: to C ns:1,wct!"w-aii� continued until trees have recovered from construction related stress. H) Alternative trenching methods are available to avoid unnecessary root damage. Boring machines that tunnel under root systems and allow the installation of pipes and wires without root severance are a good alternative to trenching. If digging trenches is unavoidable, dig trenches and tunnels by hand to avoid unnecessary root.damage... i) Avoid uric: g ac± fsll giver lte oo� z€ es + xf #€fssg:tr Fo ot..s ifoo x jo s .ck. 1) Avoid cornpactingsoil over therootzones. Do not traffic with heavy equipment, pile debris or materials or leave equipment standing over the root zones of the trees. K) Crown cleaning before construction is recommended to reduce the risk of branch failures in areas where people, structures, and equipment are avithin striking distance. When removing large limbs, the final cut should not be flush with the trunk of the tree. This removes the branch collar that contains a chemical barrier Zane controls retting organisms. Traditional.surgeiy paint slr r. On_ not he used. it ig of no value and may promote rot. Roots absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through the soil and in return release carbon dioxide (gas exchanges). Therefore, adding backfill, compressing soil, paving, etc. retards gas exchanges and limits water percolation through the soil to the roots, promoting. root die back. This form of chronic stress may cause trees to die prematurely within five to twenty years after development; depending on the degree•of impact. Compensation can be attempted through fertilizing, soil mulching and aerating the sail using high-pressure equipment. 09 Bellevue, Sale Rafael, CA�� —°— _ page 4 � 8 � i ; g � ; g w �, � �_ ��` • �� Pedersen Associates Landscape Architecture Pederiens Pedemn, ASLA ,24 H Street San Rafdel, CA 94901 415 456 2070 415 456 2086 F CA Reg. Ala, 2300 H1 Reg, No. 7273 w vlwpudorsC na &wgk4e S. con, July 25, 201.6 - Ken Taub, Architect ...... . . . . . . . . RE: 6 -Ballevue Avenue, San Rafael Tres Removal and Roplacernont Dear Ken, Per our recent conversation it is evident the site conditions are in conflict with the 3 to 1 tree replacement policies of the City of San Rafael. The intent of the policy is to protect existing tress and assure continuity of the pre -development conditions with regards to privacy and -beauty. However, in this instance the number of replacement trees required (27) cannot be accommodated on the remaining portions of the site. I cannot recommend conformance, as it would be in conflict with Firessfe Mann- guidelines and comm sense development of the site. The 5-24' box Quercus agrifolia - Coast Live Oaks shown on the proposed landscape plan is an appropriate. amount given the scale of the lot. Best Regards, Pete Pedersen CLA#2300 JUN 95 2018 PLANNING 1614 Corresp 072516 Leonard A. Rifkind len@riflcindlawgrou.com Rifkind Law Group 1010 B Street, Suite 200, San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 785-7988 * www.rifkindlawgroup.com January 14, 2020 VIA EMAIL ONLY: Steve.Staffor;I &-cityofsanrafae(.org San Rafael Design Review Board Re: 7 Bellevue Avenue Dear Members of the San Rafael Design Review Board: Our law firm represents Paul Gutierrez, who resides at 23 Bellevue Avenue, and is the immediately adjacent neighbor to the south of the proposed Project to construct a new single-family residence at 7 Bellevue Avenue, San Rafael (the "Project"). On January 10, 2020, we met on site with the Project Applicant, Gary Armor, and Mrs. Gutierrez to discuss issues of concern to our clients. We summarize Mr. Gutierrez's design concerns as follows: 1. Privacy/Landscape Screen. Mr. Gutierrez requests that as a condition of design review approval, a landscape hedge approximately 6 -feet in height is required to be located adjacent to the existing Gutierrez fence along the entire length of the common boundary line equal to 126.21 feet. Landscape screening is necessary to provide privacy between the parties' respective properties. In particular, the French door serving one of the two master suites -in the proposed Project faces directly south .towards the Gutierrez residence and provides access to a patio area. The proposed screen will provide necessary privacy. The landscape screen needs to be planted on the Project side of the common boundary line because the Gutierrez landscaping is already mature and in many, locations there is insufficient room for new planting between the Gutierrez driveway curb and the common boundary fence line. 2. Oak Tree Preservation. The Project Arborist Report, prepared by Marin Tree Service is dated, having been prepared in April 2016. That report identifies 10 Coast Live Oak Trees, all with "Normal Vitality" condition slated for removal to construct a very large 4,478 square foot residence, including the garage. The arborist report should be updated. If the residence were of less grand proportions some of these 10 Coast Live Oak Trees could be maintained. This is particularly important because the sylvan setting of the neighborhood will be adversely affected by removal of these magnificent trees. EXHIBIT 4 Of significant concern are eight (8) additional Coastal Live Oak Trees at risk with construction of the proposed Project beyond the 10 trees slated for removal. See attached map with red circles around the trees of concern. Mandatory tree protection zones must be required to protect these remaining trees. We note the Project applicant appears to have done little to maintain his Coast Live Oak Trees on the property, perhaps in the hopes the trees fail and do not interfere with proposed design plans. Preservation of these trees must be a priority to make required design review findings. San Rafael Municipal Code Sections 14.25.090 (B)(C) and (D) requires landscape design criteria, minimizing adverse environmental impacts, and that the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare nor materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. Design review criteria requires minimizing tree removal. SRMC Sec. 14.25.050 (G). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, RIFKIND LAW GROUP By: Leonard A. Rifkind LAR/lb cc: clients 2 IIAMim VRIEE SERVICE Specializing in Tree Preservation p San Rafaelp, CA Prepareftr: ear%-,? Armor .Prepared.on: JanuarV 23, 2016 Prepared by: Robert Morey ISA Certified Arborist WC -0167 Marin gree Service; Inc. 34.DeLuca Place, $ulte M RECEIVED San Rafael, CA 9490.1 JUN PLANNING WWARM' a KIEL NEKWU SperializinginTree Preservation Scope and Umitions -ortlanuary 11, 20161 Inspected the landscape trees at 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA. The inspection of all trees was made from the ground and involved inspection of the external features only. No invasive, diagnostic or laboratory testing was carried out. The identification of these trees was based .on broad..featums visible at .the time of inspection. I have alsa examined the: existing site plan in order to assess the impact of the proposed construction on the trees. Where recommendations are made in this report including those recommendations contained in the Tree Protection Guidelines it is essential that these recommendations be able to be -implemented. Any additional drawings,. detalls.or redesign that -impact. on the ability to do so may negate the conclusions made in this report. Arborists are specialists who use their education, knowledge, experience, and training to provide proper care and professional evaluations and diagnosis of individual trees, Arborists attempt to minimize the risk of living near trees while enhancing and -maintaining theoverall-.beauty.and:.health of the trees. Recommendations by the arborist may be accepted or disregarded by the client. Trees inherently pose a certain degree of hazard and risk from breakage, failure, or other causes and conditions. -Marin Tree Service. makes. recommendations, to-minimize"or reduce these -hazardous condltions but cannot guarantee to eliminate them, especially in the event of a storm or other aGt of nature. While a detailed inspection normally results in the detection of hazardous conditions, there can be no guarantee or certainty that all hazardous conditions will be detected. There.always will. be. so.me risk.involved. with all: tre_es.. With: prnper monito ring.and:.care,. trees can be: managed. The only way to eliminate all risks is to remove the trees. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marin Tree Service for assistance. Observations and Tree Schedule The -trees 4n,the following -schedule are the trees that need to"be :removed for the .new construction. These trees are in a moderately wooded area and there will be many remaining trees. The Tree Protection Guidelines in Appendix A should'be followed to protect all of the trees that are to remain on the",property: Scientific Name Condition 7 Lowtion DDH Recommendation 1. CoastLive• Normalwitality in the center- of the- 18" Remove Oak (Quercus property in the Agrifolia)" construction envelope of ' -:the planned residence. 2. Coast Live Oak Normal vitality In the center of the 121, Remove (Quercus property in the Agrifolia construction envetope.of . the planned residence. 3. California Bay Normal vitality in the center of the 1V Remove Laurel proper-ty in-theF- (Umbellularia) construction envelope of the planned residence. 4: Coast Live Oak • Normai•vitatity on the-west.side•ofthe. 30"" Remove (Quercus property In the area for Agrifolia the planned'drivewav 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, .CA� - - - .page 2 '.> SpeciolizinginTree Preservotion W Scientific fume Condition Location DHH Recommendation 5. Coast Live Oak Normalvitality On the west side of the 14" Remove (Quercus property In the area for Agrifolia the planned drlveway .6. Coast Live Oak No.rmal.vitallty On.the westside.of.the. 6„ Remove: (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolla the planned driveway 1. Coast Live Oak Normal vitality On the southwest side of 61' Remove (Quercus- the- property In -the -area. Ag4folia for the.planned driveway S. Coast Live Oak Normalvitality On the southwest side of 16" Remove (Quercus the property in the area Agrifolla forthe planned driveway 9. Coast Live Oak Norma! vitality On the west side of the g,r Remove (Quercus property in the area for Agrifolia the planned driveway 10. Coast Live Oak Normal vitality On the west side of the 30" Remove (Quercus- property -In -the -area -for Agdfolia the.planned driveway Scientific Name: IdentMcation is made on the basis of visual features visible from ground level at the time of .inspection. [SBH (Diameter at Breast Height): The trunk diameter at approximately 4 W above ground or at the point at which the trunk develops a constant diameter. 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA Page 3 +r� SpeciaUzing rn Tree Preservation Appendix A -4ree Protection Wdefines Before development, avoid tree damage during construction by protecting the root zone. The following should be considered: A) Physical protection of the trees can be accomplished In stages during the progression of work: ® Installing an inexpensive chain link, wire mesh, or wood fence around the drip line of trees is the most effective way to protect trees and help with tree preservation. This fence should be Installed at the drip line during the initial stages of development. o As development progresses, the fence can be moved to within 6 feet of the trunks. if continued progress requires access closer than 6 feet to the trunk, other precautions can be taken; such- as placing -hay balesaround-the trunks -so the bark -is not struck with -equipment. S) _Signage: all sectians:offencing should be clearly marked with signs -that -the area within is tree protection zone and no one is allowed to disturb the area. C) Root Pruning: Whenever roots over 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter must be severed, they should be cut flush to eliminate lagged edges. There are three methods of root pruning: d Soil excavation using supersonic air tools, pressurized water or hand tools, followed by selective root cutting. ® Cutting through the soil along a determined line on the surface using a tool specifically designed to cut roots. o Mechanically excavating (with trenching machine or backhoe) the soil and pruning what Is left of the exposed roots. D) Irrigate the root zone with a soaker hose allowing water to penetrate the soil to the depth of the tree .roots, gener.Iiy.the:upperfi J B"=(15 45 m) ofsaii. E) Aerate the root zone: Improve aeration and reduce compaction. Spread organic mulch or wood chips (2-4 inches) overthe surface to reduce evaporation and conserve soil moisture and temperature. F) Fertilization of the preserved trees before construction is recommended if nutrient deficiencies exist,to boost the trees vigor and tolerance. G) Preventive. pesticideappiicationsto reduce- pestattacks-shouid.bainitiated prior toconstruction.and continued until trees have recovered from construction related stress. H) Alternative trenching methods are available to avoid unnecessary root damage. Boring machines that tunnel under root systems and allow the installation of pipes and wires without root severance are a good alternative to trenching. If digging trenches is unavoidable, dig trenches and tunnels by hand to avoid unnecessary. root damage... Q Avoid addingbac4diii=overtherootzones•ofexistfng:tru~es:toavoid.rooti�a#ftacatieznat+ddieJiack. J) Avoid compacting soil over the root zones. Do not traffic with heavy equipment, pile debris or materials or leave equipment standing over the root zones of the trees. 10 Crown cleaning before construction is recommended to reduce the risk of branch failures in areas where .people, structures, and equipment are within striping distance. When removing large limbs, the final cut should not be flush with the trunk of the tree. This removesthe branch collar that contains a chemical barrier zone that controls rotting organisms. Traditional surgery paint should not be used: It is of no value and may promote rot. Roots absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through the soil and in return release carbon dioxide (gas exchanges). Therefore, adding backfill, compressing soil, paving, etc. retards gas exchanges and limits water percolation through the soil to the roots,. promoting, root die back. This form of chronic stress may. cause trees to die prematurely within five to twenty years after development, depending on -the degree of Impact. Compensation can be attempted through fertilizing, soil mulching and aerating the soil using high-pressure equipment. 09 Bellevue, San Rafael, CA _ Mage 4 i APN 016-21748 1 SAN RAFAEL.QA I TREE PUN PT. sµ PEDRO RMO E [ t f f PT. sµ PEDRO RMO Steve Stafford From: Gary Armor <garmor@sonic.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:58 PM To: Steve Stafford Ce: Ken Taub, Pete Pedersen Subject: Re: Public Comments: 7 Bellevue Ave. Steve- I have met with Attorney Rifkind and Mrs Guiterrez on Site Last Friday January 10. Here is my response which I Hereby submit to The Design Review Board: In regard to Item 1 Privacy/Landscape Screen, I have offered to "fill in" the Guiterrez landscaping prior to construction as they have water service and the plantings could be well established before the house is constructed and maintained without damage. Otherwise the landscaping will be the last to be placed, and no water service will be available until final inspection. This would entail approximately 23' of existing fenced and landscaped area, from the Easternmost property corner of both properties. The 6' patio door on the South Elevation facing their property is well over 100' from the fence line which abuts the Guiterrez driveway and curves away from appx 2' to over 12' of planting area as it is triangular with established plantings that screen their view of the patio door. This door accesses the patio from the lower master bedroom, with principal windows facing East and the Bay View. The balance of the South elevation is shingled wall, the design of which is stepped back from their property line with small clerestory windows to let in light in the proposed house design. In addition, their view is from a car turning the corner to their garage, as their house is set back on their lot and higher in elevation, with North facing bedrooms set above the garage which were observed to have curtains drawn on my meeting with Mrs Guiterrez and Attorney Rifkind. While I respect their privacy issues, the installation of 126' of 6' high landscaping along the entire common property boundary to screen a 6' patio door over 100' away from a driveway makes little sense to me, and will throw the landscape plan out of balance and not be in keeping with the natural state and low water usage requirements which have been carefully designed by Pedersen Associates, Landscape Architects. I feel the design of the house by Ken Taub Architect has dealt with privacy concerns in a sensitive manner and needs no modifications. Item 2. Oak Tree Preservation. As indicated, I consulted with Marin Tree Service early on, as I was concerned with the preservation of as many trees on the site as they add value to the property and beautify the landscape. Ken Taub, Architect and I have worked diligently to come up with a plan over 4 years to balance the site requirements of driveway access, grading, cut and fill with zero haul off, retaining walls, concern for the Natural State, and have revisited the siting of the house 5 times to make an appropriate design changes which maintain as many oak trees as possible on the site. I have grown up on the property, my Architect father designed had had built our house in 1951 at 1 Bellevue Avenue, which was taken away and demolished in 1967 along with 10,000 sf of lot area and our driveway access to make room for widening San Pedro Road from 2 lanes to four. So I am turning the corner on 70 years of ownership and care for the property including the Oak Trees. The tree report only reflects the status of the Oak trees on one lot. I have two half acre Lots of Record and many more trees cover the site. In addition, many trees are under stress from Oak cankers, and I have done my best to contain Sudden Oak Death from which there is no cure, by careful cutting and disposal of infected trees according to information obtained by UC Davis Horticultural Department. While some Oaks are to be taken down to accommodate construction of the driveway and residence, I feel I have done my due diligence in this regard. Over the years, I have planted 18 pine and cedar trees on the adjacent lot next to San Pedro Road, which has been graded on a 2/1 slope away from the road. I hauled 5 gallon buckets of water to get them established, but the drought has taken most of them. EXXHIBIT 5 In regard to the size of the proposed residence, it is 1,000 sf less than the Guiterrez residence which is also on a half acre lot. I feel it is appropriate for the property and fits in well with the neighborhood. Cordially, Gary Armor Owner On Jan 14, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Steve Stafford <steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org> wrote: Gary, Len Rifkind has submitted comments (attached) on the project for his client, Paul Gutierrez. This will be an exhibit to staff's report to the DRB and staff is required to respond within the report. Steve Steve Stafford COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Senior Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 415.458.5048 (o) 415.485.3184 (f) <20200114 LAR Corr to DRB and S Stafford.pdf> Q LAI Qr N_ 0 Q M w <V) W g ® a "- N a � ® $ a a o' LL a q o W Q Z O M N O Z a Q EXHIBIT 6 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate section for a complete explanation of the item. A "yes" indicates the project complies with the recommendation, a "no" indicates it does not. N/A is the abbreviation for "not applicable." This checklist is intended to measure overall design quality. The manual incorporates standards and suggested guidelines to insure high quality projects. Standards are indicated with an asterisk and are mandatory. They are indicated in the text by the term "shall". Exceptions to standards can only be granted by the City Council (indicated by a *) or the specific hearing body designated in the Manual (indicated by a •). Guidelines are recommendations and are indicated in the text by the term "should." Staff and Design Review Board will be guided by compliance with these guidelines in making their recommendations on the project design. The project architect or engineer must justify any variations. Only projects with high quality designs will be approved. Zoning Standards (Chapter III, Hillside Residential Development Standards) W.A. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects IVAL Preservation of Existing Natural Features: EXHIBIT 7 IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees ................ _........... ................... ..__._..__..._.._._.-._..._...._._.__._._.__._..._._._..._._..._.--- ._____._.._._._..._._......__.__._._--- -.._.._._._..._._---- ._......_.._._._.._....._.__._...-._._._._._._._._------- _.---- ._._.------ .__._......-------------- .------------- -------------- _................... _................. Y N NA / Retains significant trees or criteria for removal is met and *replacement criteria of 3:1 _.._._._. ._._._. _with _15 _gallon trees is met._ __............. ___._.___._. Existing trees are preserved by avoiding grading in the dripline, or change in grade or _ __ compaction. Arborist's recommendations are met. IVA3. Hillside Grading and Drainage _.......... ..-_ ------ _.-....-----------_ _ _ -----._......----- - - ----- - ----- __- -- - ---- - _ --- -- - -- _ - -- - - Y N NA Grading is minimized and all grading maintains a natural appearance with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1. Grading within 20 feet of property lines is minimized or similar to existing ---- -- -- - -adjacent slopes. --------- ---- - - _------._....----- ------ - ----—_------- --- - -----------_.... _ -- - ---- Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height and use stone or earth colored materials. V/ Pads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and - -- - - - ---- ---swimmin....poo._ _ are discouraged ...._...._.__..._...---- ---------- -- - - - _ - ------------ --- - - _..._......_. Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage j to on-site and adjacent properties. Impervious surfaces are minimized and storm water �! from roofs is conveyed to a comprehensive site drainage system Storm drainage _ improvements and drainage devices create a_natural appearance. _ * Debris Collection and overflow routes are provided where needed and located to minimize visual impacts_ ---/..__.._... -----._........... ._.....------- - ------ -----........_.... ... -......... ---- ................. ---- ---------------- --- -- ---- -_ ---- - d Erosion control plans and plan provided. ------- ---.._.._._. _._._...._._..._.._.. -- --- --- - ..... _......... ---.... _...._....................._...__._.._._._._._.._..._._._._._._._._-------._...------------- Geotechnical review has been done and mitigation measures will not substantially / modify the character of the existing landform, expose slopes that cannot be re -vegetated V or remove large areas or existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic hazards have been corrected. IVA4. Lot Configuration, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions .X-, ._NA . _...---- ---- -- --... _ .._.--- -- --------------- ----------------- _._.._—.__ - -------------- ----- % Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features V and lot lines are places on the top, not the toe, of the slope. — _ — .... _ Flag lots with a common drive are encouraged. .-- - - - - - - -._ - -- -- Building setbacks are varied or staggered. ._._._._ __...._... - -- ... - - ---._._......_..............................- Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view of residences are respected_ --._._ .................--.--..__._............._ .__....___...._._.._._..- --..................... -................------------- ------ ------ -._._._._...----...... --.......... ..................... --............................... _..... - * Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots._ IVAS. Street Layout, Driveway and Parking Design Y N I NA —% • Driveway grades do not exceed 18% or an exception has been granted. Parking has grade been designed so that vehicles will not back out into substandard streets. Driveways _ over 18% have grooves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%. Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side only and limited to 8 feet in width. IVA6. Reduction of Building Bulk on Hillsides IVA7. Hillside Architectural Character Y N NA Rooflines are oriented in consideration of views from adiacent areas and properties. _ ......_ .-.............. .._...... ------__ _-------- --- ---- ---------- ---- --- - Gabled, hip and shed roof forms with a moderated pitch are encouraged. Changes in roof form accompanied with offsets in elevations are encouraged. Flat roofs with membranes or built up roofing materials are discoura,ged when visible. _ ... .._...... .._.__._.._.._... --- -- .............. ...... -- .......... Multi -Building Projects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation and avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof forms are required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement and are --....-...-...-. ..... --- ._screened with planting . ........................ ...... - ` Building Materials, texture and color meet criteria and color coordinate with the �( predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape. Building walls and roofs are of recommended materials. j Walls, fences and accessory structures are compatible with adjacent buildings and are J designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide a _ landscaped buffer. Walls and materials are of appropriate materials. • Retaining walls meet height restrictions of 4 feet on upslopes and 3 feet on / downslopes. Terraced retaining walls are separated by a minimum of three feet and landscaped. Retaining walls holding back grade to accommodate a patio or terrace conform to the natural contours as much as possible and excessively high retaining walls are -prohibited. _ -- -- ----- - _-- - ---- -- Decks _do_not create excessively_high distances between the structure and grade. *Mechanical equipment is screened from view. IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development Y --N...... NA.. -- Major rock outcroppings and planting patterns of native plants and trees are respected and retained. Replacement trees are planted with irregularly grouped trees which retain a similar appearance from a distance. ._............ . ........ _...... _------------- --- -._._-..... _......... _................ _.......................... _.._.._..... .......... ....... .... _............. _--- _--------------- ......... _.............. ._._...._.............. ............... ...__..... _..._._._......... _..._..... _........ ....................... __................... ._.--- -._._._._._-. Y N NA •— - ..._..........�.�... _.. -- ----- ------ - ------ ._.... -- - - - -- -- ---------------- --- -------------------------...--- --- - ... ---- -- -- / New plantings have been selected for their effectiveness of erosion control, fire resistance and drought tolerance and consider neighbors' views. Native plants are used. .. _ ....._Irrigation systems and mulching are -provided. --- --- -- ------ -- - -_ _�-- -- ----- - ✓ Existing scarred or graded areas with high visibility are revegetated. Special planting guidelines for 2 1 slopes are followed. J Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees are located in swale areas. _Public rights-of-way are landscaped_ _...-- - - - - -- - --- -_..._ _._.................. ....................... --.... -... ....... ___._............-_--._................_._._._._......._......._....._._......._.....---------- Transition zones are planted in high fire hazard areas and building envelopes are V/ located to minimize risk to structures. Planting materials are fire retardant. Subdivisions_ have provided an arborist's report to analyze site fire hazards. MA9. Site Lighting --- - -- - - Y N NA JSite lighting which is visible is indirect or incorporates full shield cut-offs. Adjacent properties are not illuminated and light sources are not seen from adjacent properties _........ --------- -.-..__..- ._. or.. public rights-of-way.------- --------....._.._._------------- _----- ----- ---_----------------------------- - . ---- .. -- ---------._._......__.._....._...--_............._...._..._._._ Overhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and does not interfere with bedroom windows. _..__._....-_._._.._._..__...._.._...._....-- - --- .............. ----....__._._.._._..__._.___......................._................. --....... -... .... ......... ...... .......... --._._._...... ...... --.............. __.._.........._._._...._.....----._...... ... --................ -... -...._._.. V Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does not exceed 8 feet in height and low-level lightingis used._along _walkways. _._._._._....---------- ___._._.___._._.__._._._._._..-._----------- _.._...-.--------- ---.._---- _...-------- --.--.-..--.--.--..__..-.-.-.---.-.-.--- * Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited and not shown. W.M. Subdivisions and Planned Development Projects _.._._............. _..... ._..... ............. _.__.__._.....__......... _... ............. _... -._._.__._...._._.___._.__._.__._..__._..._.._.._.._......._._......... _.... _................... _................ ........... _..._............... _.......... ---------- ------------ _--- _._.____....__._.-._._.._...__._.__._._._._..._._.__._.._. Y N NA _ _..._ ...._.._...... ---._...- ---- — ---------- -- ------ ------ -- - --- -----........ - - - -- - - --- ---- - -- ._._.......... _........ - Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, street layout and design, hillside grading and drainage, and lot configuration, building setback and locations have been met and building envelopes established on all lots. Cluster developments meet the following criteria: Flexible front and side setbacks are provided; large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fills are allowed. Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with visible differences through materials, colors, forms and fagade variation. Facades are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open space. Buildings may be _ terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space. _ __ IV.132 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots - - - - ---- _....._------- ._.................. ............. ..._.__--------------- ------- -.......... ._.... -........_..._._.._._...._._._.._.... -...... -----------.... -..... ........... -- ... .............................................................. _.--._....._...__..._._._.._......._._._.._...._.. Y N NA t Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and V drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, and planting design are met. * An exception is necessary to allow tandem parking on lots served by an access drive if -- --- -----s----d-e-v--e--lopment. .... ...... .... ................ _... _ Common dr-ve-way-are encouraged. _._....__..__..__.._.__...___._._._._.._._....._......_..._._.___.__.._._._...._....__.___._......_._._ --- -- ------._...... --- --------- -- - -- -- ----- - * The driveway grade does not exceed 18% or an exception is required. Drainage from the driveway is directed in a controlled manner. The finished grade of the _ . _._.._._._._._-.1...._..........._.__ .._driveway conforms to the fmished grade of the lot. __._._._._ ............ _._.... ... _._.___---------- --- __-------------- __._._._..__ IV.133 Multi -family Residential Development - - ........ _.... . -- ._........... -.- --------- ------ --- ._...._._._._._...- ----------- _ - .... __...... - -- - -- ------------------- ...... --- _.... _.... -- -- -- -- ........... Y N NA Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting - _- - design are met. - --_-_ _ _ __ Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance requirements. A children's play area is provided on developments with over 25 units_ The site design utilizes opportunities such as outdoor decks, roof gardens, terraces, bay windows, framing of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and walkways.--- _._.._._...._.__._.._...___.._____--- ..._................... _........................... ._. Large expanses of flat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with units having different floor elevations to achieve height variation; buildings near hillside rims are sited in a staggered arrangement and screened with planting; existing vegetation is retained; and flag lots which encourage terracing of buildings and minimize cuts and fills are allowed. Long continuous building masses are avoided and groups of building are designed with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and fagade variation. Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facades V/ are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of units are staggered horizontally and vertically to create unit identity, privacy at entryways and in private outdoor spaces and to shape open -space. Buildings may be terraced and building clusters are separated with expanses of open space. Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parking lot area is landscaped or trees planted.. as required -by the zoning ordinance.__.__.___._._.____._...._._.._.___._..._._.__._._._..._.........._. _.............. _._._ ..... . _. _._._ .-___._.-._._._._ IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridgeline Areas. * Development is located within 100 feet of a significant ridgeline. _ Designs minimize grading and building pads. Structures and fences do not project Jabove the ridgeline and views of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads near ridges and on slopes are designed to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded off. IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Swales and Drainage Ravines .._._.......... ...... ... __._................... -_..... _...... ......... _... ... ... _.................................. ......... ....................... _____._................ ___________._...____....__................. ...... _......_._._._._____..... ....................... ___._---- ----- ___._..._._.._._._._._._._._._ YN NA .......---...........-. — - --------------------------------- ----------_.._..---............... ---- * A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and of -site existing Jhillside storm drainage facilities will be replaced. Appropriate setbacks from drainages have been established to preserve natural drainage patterns and public safety: Slope stability hazards in watersheds have been studied and measures _........proposed.. _protect downslope properties (Subdivisions) _.. ..... ......... .........................._. _. / General plan setbacks from drainageways, creeds, and wetlands are met. (General Y Plan standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects have provided a biotic report to establish the appropriate setback_ _ -- - * Debris basins, rip -rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when necessary to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Significant natural drainage courses V are protected from grading activity and are integrated into project design. When crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection is provided. Any brow _.... _....... ..........._._._. ............. ..... ditches are naturalized with plant materials and native rocks _..___............................... ...... _._____....__...__._...._._--- __.-.._.. Steam bank stabilization is done through stream rehabilitation and not through J concrete channels or other mechanical means. Stream planting utilizes indigenous - -- riparian_vegetation_.__...---...... ................. .... ------...._.......---------- ----- ------------._...- ...... ..... -------- - - -- -------- - IV.C3 Hillslope Habitat Areas --- ----------- --- - --- - --------- ---- - -----..._.._._....----- -- --- -------------- - ------------ --------------------- --- - Y N NA Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on _. __...._...._._______._...._..._hillsides, architectural ch . are..... --.. . Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project design and used to screen _.__-_ _____ ______ _ _development from offsite views.-- - - -... ............... ....... ........ _..... _......................... ...... ..... _.................. ... ........... _ --------- --..._.___._._._--_.__ Indicate any special requirements Y N NA _..._..._.,.....................__........... - --._.._._.--- --- -- -------- --._._._._._..__._._._..._.__..._.....- .l Geotechnical Review -- -- ------ -- -- .._Drainage_ Report.---._._._._...------------_ - - BiologicalSurvey._._...-.-.---.-.--.-.-.-.--.._.___...__._. _...AYborist's Report ___.___._._...._...._._ --- __.__.._._ Photo Montage_.and/or model ---- ---- - - _ Site. Staking Comments on overall project compliance and design quality Exceptions or waivers required for the project which can be approved by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission with the recommendation of the Design Review Board Exceptions which require the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission EXHIBIT 8 5 oy OQ Y w 0 r O u.N U' FZOVO Q W U ?ZOw Z 0� z O z3zLL�j N � UO Q z LL�c9 Fa- Kp }W. J a}s} IU-- D MOO jinn luul Z j2 ?pz30} Z�OOLLLLaO�LLZN N U�C>Ovu) (�� v��Lp�p//V��JO fQL�IJaa� Wa a�'(z7 ZNZal-SW�Wo=LLyOI=a- ZaNIZZ�Fg�ML- ��n�n�nIj��Jnnnnu�jnnn �l ❑_�j P.O. ZW°—°¢ �]gU WgaNZmN mz—tl1 ZZZWIyF a�aJ 3OLL ioQ�ip�aJa" LD ?$c .U-N —v opNr coga Z z ¢3 ga� 3 U L:0 ZWj0aa O0 (nJ/n� Q �O rz o o�XW2U'Ow SU¢¢aa6�¢4¢S �OOOOOOOOOO�N ��� Jwt900� Zai 0e-Ntl0 gJ� � V� Z6�a�¢wo a000000000000N000 UUUUU U a aU' K LL� LL 2 V1 pOo U U Z 18 3 a m?¢ 0 LLI G� m t s 3 C m W = N o U J Q Q O O t J y O p J 3 Z U 2 w WZ m Q U z�3 w �iLL � 33 Nto rcn # aj� •} 'y —G, ❑ ZQ Qyo F� o �c 300 E ox Z �53 �`_ 3', O 2p N iij N ado 3 o as z a >0 O 06`. UUN Q a y QQ y�U j 0 i w� w❑ o�� 0 w Ja a O O y CZ = J¢ Ua a ?o UN f0 Ltl z 3a U GJ Fzo �i o ®Z w zN o '� i ao Zz o u o o Wz o` pZ 9 6z �' om 8o Sa u�i opep ouo8 ..z a Q ?3 z o °0 53 ap m oU a� ao�o & 3 cooa a 0 Sgt q `�88 M o z o N as tr�tr� H z w gs Z n N ig � IN �qR��9ig" a g Jg zw a Z «� Rig gw w g q&R �se¢a�zS x��8 O o ZS 4. 3a mod 055 3 3 �<• aQ. a 5d a o aw i z a Y w O 4 � w Z0= N p O j �F~ J o3 a Z J� wN U g mm 3o Zz oC7Z OT �s�jj ¢w z m ori =� eYp^'$� ��a U) 3y om o mw LLm u �o G qE5% w <s G 3`� 3S3dm �o R��Nya a 2!3,2 g 0 A� A - EXHIBIT 8 j Q w LIJ 0 1 a OVON ONo3d NVS Ad 9 S a I 11 tt: LL�tt�t� �• oa AH 0, HE t" W 1 LL W ,- cy O O cy 11 7 l y� 3 1 a a WMI oaaad Ntl91d 1 d of ` �� � dw & ��• z a mom g21 z W g� a �� Ez ---.—�-�- F2 it 5o -. n - a a WMI oaaad Ntl91d 11 ovoa ONGad Nvs Id ;�> x x N N �m 7 O z 0 w_ J w FZ- u 0 o Om M i i r gg�a li!i� i i lig ;i i�g{Illi 11 lith � ji= 'f ii j3 s1�,,6i glll.•ls {� gi�il sil r, I ,3 i 11 t i ll j M 11 am= a=101111 �� � � �#�ji��4��� � � ��� i ai�;i iglu'► i iil � a� i; s GVOM 02143d NVS la aexr.e� .. •:� i -- - � v _ �•I -� r ��' �1,�l� _ '.^r�151�: ._ '�.�� �i iY lam, i � r/ � .9 } r �� _ �`,' , - � � � ,; ��'� .; .fes � `- 3 .r F.R� h - . �.-' }r.�. l t+. to �i 3- � ~ �� §w § .z § §k \ )( \k LU s 1 a OVOb Oaoaa rros .Ld I OVOU OHOed NVS'ld OVOU OldMd NVS 1d \ � 1 1 1 \ '1 \ i 111 v � ,10 Q� N II�II�!�I �3ea4� W3 a _"`-. a pp �yy � 6 W Y aCD 1 `d d ui C� m C9 _v � •-1 � f � �It 1 I 1 Ilk 1 1 L 1 \I I — I i I 11 1 i I i I AIJ ix 11 �Jqh II i gg a "a v <# W CD z J I N dr1 151 Oil rl 1 � � c O W 1 � � � J \i m L 1A oz \ z 5 tt T-1 7' owe€so �g � 's�5 � a� _ 1g9 q� 8�9 �_ I 1,!Ilid.-14 `0� a � norms as F � 8 y y I 6g 12 N \ 53� z T� UkF O "' $YJ qgqg yi a q F- �y y�q6 W Mid i N H z �� m a"� � a S I I � p "2 Z 3s i� g P�wqq m I i S U 4 • ~ O IL o \ Wo ' Wo w W 6 W N g It H ! N J W 2 � y. N i11 'f1H a > Hasa a aUoa � soh m Nil w H it Pat no W aid e= 'Buis � 1 3g orLL' p:m a m Zm�o p 'z• H� ^ kkkj]]] •- T �n Nom J W Z yo3 �E¢-I a OQO NOM wO K JLL�wu C� cc Q 'wULL'O a4 S� Air-a� Lo-LLa` oaz�W� O \ Zy \ - &pgs�aw�J0 - Q 1ff pslx��l'I I V� I' 0§ 2 bee•B � I \11 An— SN tit Ila y..{_. .....+-.._.. ..,,•�4�s.�. ml1 SI-3.00.Obaos�wy'aa,..._�v� �1 _.,.- •ogxzes+ ` I 1 w .N ]f P e ,'- lfjj s lµF ENi' 5 5 f 1 ��dl" 4 `YII w L' os Nca c' f° run .Nan• .., ovc y°........._..-..__., /f I l 1 1 1 'm / t` \� 0.._•..m. •.___.__ .._._....___.......__' RI 3da xsa _._ "\� Na $aa ter✓/ __ can \ �.:._._�� �•- uT:1 _ �- LL ! r\ 1N3N3AVd io � 3 t � o FE � 5 w�� € w k€ E A u6 o o r, 15, Ul c �� mm 2 jq _e UR