HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2016-02-09 #3Community Development Department -Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915·1560
PHONE : (415) 485·3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: February 9, 2016
Agenda Item: 3
Case Numbers: ED14-062
/7~' Project Planner: Kraig Tamborni r{i f.:J"
(415) 485-3092
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 10 E Crescent Drive (Silva Apartments) -Environmental and Design Review Permit
for a new four-unit apartment building on a vacant in-fill property; APN: 10-291-67;
HR 1.8 Zone; Dan Silva, Applicant/Owner; West End Neighborhood
'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City approval of a major Environmental and Design Review Permit (Zoning Entitlement) is required for
new multi-family residential development; subject to approval by the Planning Commission (Pursuant to
San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Chapter 14.25). The Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED)
requirement has been established by the City in order to assure that the design of new development, as
allowed by the properties General Plan designation and Zoning District, would be integrated into the
community consistent with key City design goals . The City may require a proposed development project
to be modified or revised through conditions , as deemed necessary 10 satisfy the findings required for
approval. Further, a project could be denied if the findings required for approval of the project design
would not be satisfied, as determined by the City .
In addition to being subject to DeSign Review, this project also must comply with the HR1 .8-H (High
Density ReSidential, Hillside Overlay) zoning standards, Chapter 14 .16 (Site and Use Regulations) and
Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards). Internal and External agencies and departments were also asked to
review the project and provide its requirements, in order to confirm that the project could be built in
compliance with the construction standards and requIrements enforced locally, without affecting the final
design details. City Staff and the Design Review Board have determined that the project complies with
the zoning standards and would adequately address the City's Design Criterja. A draft resolution (Exhibit
2) has been prepared with the findings required for approval of the project. Conditions of approval have
also been recommended for this project by the Design Review Board and staff. The DRS has requested
that the final building colors and final landscape palette should be presented to the ORB for approval on
its consent calendar before a building permit is issued. No other modifications to the building design have
been recommended.
At the ORB meetings, neighbors expressed concerns with site safety and building scale. Safety concerns
exist with regard to existing vehicle speeding and its impact on the area (including this site). These
concerns are outside of the scope of this project. Public Works Department has been asked to provide
any further response, if necessary. Improvements are required for the property frontage, which have
been identified by Public Works as appropriate for the site needs and constraints . The building scale,
specifically height and mass, have been evaluated and recommended to be appropriate for the site and
surroundings by the ORB and are within the zoning permitted limits. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the project, with conditions to incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMNUS~)ION 2
It is recommended that the Planning CommissIon adopt a resolution approving the Environmental and
Design Review Permit for the proposed Silva Apartments Project four unit apartment complex, in the
District, at 10 E ·Crescent
General Plan Delslgll1atfon
Project Site: High Density Residential
Medium Density ResIdential
Fourth Street
North:
South:
East
West
Lot Size
Required:
Retail Office
Medium Density
(existing)
Allowed: 30' (Hillside)
Parking
28.5'
8 , (4 covered, 4 uncovered)
8 covered parking
Min. Lot Width (New lots)
HR1.8
MR3
NA
C/O
MR3
Lot Coverage (Max.)
Standard: 60% Lot
50%
Residential Density
EXlstlttg Land-Use
Vacant
Multi-Family
Public Street
Multi-tenant commercial
Two-unit building
Allowed: Min. 3 Max. 5 (1 unit per 1800sf site
4 unIts
Upper Floor Area (Non-hillside residential)
Allowed: NA
NA
Setbacks
NA Reguired Existing Pror;!osed
Outdoor Area Landscape Area
Required: 1 yard area per unitlmln. 6' dim.
50% front
Min 3' side yard by
driveway
Proposed: 150 sf per unitl6'
>50% front
5' side yard
Front:
Side(s):
Pad. Side:
Bldg. Sap:
Rear:
Grading Tree Removal
15'
5'/5'
20'
S'
5'
Total: Cut 460cy. Fill 260cy Total(No.lspeclas): None
nla 15'
nla 5 '/10'
nla nla
n/a nla
nla 33'
., Hillside building height is measured from natural grade to top of roof/sfructure at all points of the sfructure. Standard buildIng
height is measured from an established exterior finished grade elevation to mid-point of a sloped roof.
Description/Setting:
The site is a 10,394 square vacant. rectangular, hillside parcel that slopes upward from the street toward
the northwest corner of the lot. The front of property from 13 to 18 more steeply
at the rear; with approximate 37-percent cross-slope. The street right of way extends into the lot such
that the front boundary line is approximately feet from the of pavement.
No significant or The fronts on E
up to residential development to the north and west, and commercial property on Fourth Street on its
east There is a mature on the to west. The sIte
residential lots do not have sidewalk frontage improvements.
REPORT TO PLANNING COIMMISSION
a
windows ,
opening I typical
provided at the
Project requires Major
or entitlements are
No: ED14-062 3
units over a
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: ED14 w 062 Page 4
ANALYSIS
2020
The development implements General Plan High Density land use designation
3 5 units, is with density commercial
responsive to the site constraints; e.g'l location on close to the Fourth
roadway, the steeply upsloping characteristics and lot situation between parcels with
nl".all"an,...~~iC' in grade elevation, and need for protection of an adjacent Redwood on neighboring
parcel to the west.
There are no site specific pollcies for this site that warrant further analysis. As a permitted land use, the
adequately through its conformance with City
standards applied through the Zoning Ordinance and Building Permit process. General Plan design
In .... ,!'''\rnr\l'·Q,.o~ into San Rafael Design which are UluvU';:J.;JC;'U
below.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.04 -HR1 ,8 Zoning District Development Standards
As noted In the Project Description and Zoning Summary Table, project designed to comply
with the HR1.8 District including allowable for to 5 units, lot coverage maximum of
60%, 50% front yard landscaping, and 1 foot outdoor yard area unit, with minimum 6 foot
dimensions. The zoning code permits projections and overhangs into required yard areas, as proposed
by the up to 3 in yard up to 6 in front yard. The project with the
applicable Hillside Overlay District (-H) 30-foot height and 20-foot wall stepback requirements, Chapter
14.18 parking requirements, review requirement which are further
in the respective sections below.
",,\I<:J''-'O:Ir.<::! slope than 25%1, site is subject to the -H overlay
district and Hillside Design Guidelines manual. Given that site is designated for high density
development in the General not all of the -H overlay standards are applied to the project Multi-
family development rem~ins subject to the hillside requirement a 30 foot height limit as
measured from natural The stepback and height limit help to reduce building bulk.
Vertical walls are required to maintained at 20 and generally follow hillside
The plan with buitding hillside and height Although not
proposed, the project could for a 50% reduction in the front setback, if desired or deemed
hillside nr-::llrt' .... lrI
TO PLANNING COMMISSION· Case No: ED14-0S2 5
....... 'T''''' .......... from
These
IL ..... "' ........ ...,. COMI\j~ISlSIOiN w Case No: ED14 .. 062 6
A. is in accord with the 1"0"',"'.011""'/ plan, zoning ordinance and
B. That the is consistent with all sits) architecture and lanas(~a{Jm(J
qUi'de,flm~s for the district in the site is located.
minimizes B(JlfP.r.~~R environmental'n'll"'~""'(!> G. That the n~r1,.",,.r
D. That the ~I''''"a,..' will not be detrimental to the
Imc.'fOl.ferrJenrs in the
health, or Wf4/r~J~A nor m::'1{~n.:::l/lV
aa~;auare innr.oc~~ and c:!'onlli'Q. vehicle access
rL:!.I,::atll"ln to architecture in the 111 ..... lnll"lI in terms of
Bright,
for the
};I-Maintain/enhance natura! lan l (1SlCal)e
~ Outdoor areas should
}I-shall be t"'nrnnIJ!';:)nr
);>-
Attention be to a consistent if an exists.
' ... '1111<111'" facades should be varied and and pay attention to the street facades.
LAINNIING CO'MI\j~IS:SIOIN -Case No: ED14-062 7
);. Use techniques to break
I~HIIII"~:'" setbacks and
the volume of large buildings into smaller components (i.e., architectural
roo!Tllnes) where to street n!:lrr£lTrlC'
y Use transitional elements such as sreIPlJ€!O ra1 caC1es,
neighborhood.
Building Height
to merge larger buildings into an existing
) Consider aOJ'ac~;:mr OUJIOffJOS as transitional elements to minimize ~ru"\~I"iQnr height differences.
roof forms to those found in the area, where possible.
Screen and Integrate equipment into building architecture.
Minimize of roof vents.
Provide a sense of entry to units.
Entrances should orient to the street, where possible.
Windows
> Placement should be consistent with the overall design neighborhood Where not
possible, give greater attention to other to articulate the fa,9ade.
~ Proportions should be consistent with building.
~ Placement along rear and side elevations should consider privacy needs of ne,ranl1OJ'S
Driveways and Parking Areas
)p> Minimize curb cuts and large areas,
~ Recess or place parking in rear where possible.
~ Distribute parking to provide easy access to units.
Front Landscaping and Fences
~ in front should contribute to the overall quality of the neighborhoods,
)i> Fences in front should be in character with the house.
? Landscape the areas acjjacent to walkways.
Lighting
j;o> Limit intensity to an amount needed for adequate securHy and safety.
J> Shield light sources to prevent glare.
J;. Fixtures should complement the architecture.
(Hillside Design Guidelines
~ Preserve natural features to the extent feasible and minimize and I"Ir~"n~H .. a jN\v .. ~,..,t~
» Articulate facades (through use of step backs projections) and rooflines to follow slope
contours, to avoid extended horizontal lines, large wall planes and to provide shadow and articulation.
~ Differentiate building floor elevations to achieve height variation.
~ usable outdoor area and avoid flat areas.
~ Groups of buildings should be with visible differences in materials, colors, forms and
variation.
~ Covered and "tuck under" parking are encouraged,
Conceptual review a proposed five-unit in July 2013. Formal
project review of a four unit project was conducted on September 5 (Belleto, Liaison); with
ru .. 'al"'fll"l. .... given for further design changes in to comments made by staff, and the
Recommendations were made to consolidate roof penetrations, enhance the front entry, increase
setback to the uphill relocate decks privacy, dimensions,
garage heights, and provide the elevator for use.
On January 5, 6, the Board conducted a followup review of the format applfcation and u,vVU';:')..-;:)!I;;'U
remaining concerns with the project, including review of the elevator and floor heights of the
(Schaefer, PC Liaison). The noted the garage height is not due to and the
heights provided respond to all of the site characteristics and constraints necessary to access this space.
The further desire to the ADA unit, simplify
licensing requirements and impacts to this resident when servicing of the elevator is needed. An arborist
TO PL~A.NI\lING COMMISSION -Case No: 8
I COJRRE:SPONI[)E~aCE
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION d Case No: ED14-062 9
Department of Public Works and may provide additional comments on this topic of concern at the
hearing) if neE:WE~a
Frontage improvements for lot have as a condition of assume
property line projects from the street at a right angle. This includes construction of a sidewalk along this
property that would to Fourth and property
frontage is considered appropriate for the site and orderly development of the property. The design and
the property IS appropriate for the area,
public safety potential. Public Works also reviewed the drainage plan) and accepted it as adequate
with conditions for revision at time of buHding permit submittaL This includes on-site bio-retention
with a landscape area sufficient to handle the site containment and f.iltration requirements.
Planning Commission the following options:
1. Approve application as presented (staff recommendation)
2. Approve application with modifications, or additional conditions of approval
3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or
concerns
4. Deny the project
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Planning Commission Hearing Notice
4. GHG Reduction Strategy Checkljst for the LJr"nrol""'I'
5. Arborist Report
6. Public Comments
Project Plans and Photocopy of the Color and Material Board Palette for Illustrative I ........ "'C'OCO (Provided
to Planning Only)
21312016 Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map (10 E Crescent Dr)
While we strive to produce maps with good accuracy and with current accompanying data)
E h -bet 1 V···ty M (10 E C _~~<+urr'i~~f the information herein cannot be guaranteed. This map was prepared X 1 1 -lClnl ap reS\dHsI~ot4lfitn~c computer aided drafting techniques, and it does not represent legal
Legend
Marin County
Marin County
San Rafael Sphere of
Influence
"., San Rafael Sphere of
Influence
San Rafael
San Rafael
Ba~ Waters
Bay Waters
Parcels
Parcels
Easements
UCENSE AGREEMENT
PUE
Storm Drainage
Storm/Sanitary Sewer
~ Sanitary Sewer
OTHER
Boat Docks
Boat Docks
ROW
/"V'ROW
OneWay'Arrows
.... One Way Arrows
Street Centerline
Street Centerline
Street Names
Street Names
Street Names
SITUS
SITUS
City Limit Line
".' City Umit Une
=--
/ N I!, ~A
u
Ii . . . ~. /:J R ;;; r~
----.. rv ~ ----~~---
I' ~!J • ... 1 r.,
~ -....-:-------
----
f.J.ms ~
1m I ~ m ~1
11' {.J 111
118 115 .a
1.2)
o
boundary survey data.
~ .(;>'
£
Ii
n--~ ~[:;:.,~.
ro ;0..
2 ..
I'
e
,.p
~ -
Mel ~h
httpJ/gis.cilyofsarYafael .orgfsanrafaeilfusionlwidgetslPrintlprintpage_ms.php?mapfile=C%3A%2FOSGe04W%2Ftrnp%2Fsess_56b25d7ab14e5%2FSanRafael.map&mapname=SanRafael¢erxy=5972928.7996... 1/1
EXHIBIT 2
NO.1
RAFAEL PLANNING COMM[SSION APPROVING AN
14-062)
WHEREAS l on July 8,2014, Silva submitted an EnvirOlU11ental and Design
Review Pennit application to for construction of a four unit apartment building in the HR1.8
District, hillside overlay; and
WHEREAS, on August 19,2015, the application was accepted as complete and
n"''''''UI by
W}-[EREAS, on September 9, 2015, at a duly noticed meeting the City of San Rafael
reviewed the to to allow
on Novelnber 5, 15, were submitted review
to Design Review Board recorrunendations, distributed by other City Deprutments
for compliance with code requirements. and the project was scheduled for review by the Design
Review Board; and
WHEREAS, on January 5,2016 the City of San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed
the revised project and on a unanimous vote recommended approval of the project with
""'U"'''U~4'U'''''', .... tJ"" .......... "" ........ .J to r"'''''''''H
WI-IEREAS, upon review of the application} the project has been detennined to be
'V'u .................. Quality (CEQA) to
Section 15303 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts urban inti!! development for multi-
family residential of four or fewer units on a site that is not environmentally sensitive; and
WHEREAS, on February 9,2016, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
oral
Development Deparlment staff.
NOW the follo\ving
A. The PlalUling Commission exercised its independent judgment and determined that the Class
3 categorical for the project is appropriate and consistent with the provisions of
10 involves a on an in-till
Exhibit 2 -PC Resol-I./Non
February 9,2016 PC ""'feeling
10 E Crescent Dr. (ED 14-062)
site that Is con1rnercial and other multi-family development in a medium and
high residentially zoned and designated area.
B. The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the purposes of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25 (Design Review) given that:
a. The project has been reviewed by the Review Board
with 14.25 Criteria, the San
Residential Design Guidelines (which ,incorporates aU pertinent General Plan 2020
design policies including those that may be found the Use, Neighborhood
F'\1'Y\,t'Vll1t''I11tu ,j.J''''''''''''''''''A and all other policies contained General
Plan), the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance development
standards and design criteria f01' development the HR1,8 District.
b. review assures that new to
be compatible with the West End and adjacent neighborhood area, and would
integrate into the community consistent with the key City design goals, as required by
Plan High
The project design is consistent with all applicable site) architecture and landscaping design
and HR1.8 site is IV .... 'I.~'-'U
a. The site development proposes multi-family developn1etit that is penuitted and that
complies with the I-fRl.8 district as detailed in the February 9) 2016 Report to
b. The project has been reviewed and recOinmended by the Design Review Board as
satisfying the applicable criteria which has been referenced in Finding B above and
the 9, 16 to
c. The Plaruling Corrunission has reviewed and determined that the project would
adequately satisfy the applicable site design cl~iteria refelTed to herein and in the
9, 2016 to the Commission, project
proposes a new builditig that is con1patible in scale, materials, colot and
density allowed for the site and found in the neighborhood, with quality materials)
colors, landscaping and proposed and improvements that would meet
-:."r • .,.rr",' for to street
frontage,
D. conditioned, the project design minimizes adverse enviromnental itnpacts by minimizing
grading primarily to the construction footprint, preserving existing vegetation to the
maxinlum extent feasible, proposing appropriate lighting and neutral/non-reflective colors,
stonn providing landS,)apm~
improvements, providing outdoor deck area for residents and adequate on-site parkign and
access, complying with zoning and standards~ providing mitigation fee payment
for and is to
healht and safety codes and standards enforced through the building permit and inspection
process.
-2-
E. wi 11 not to or nor
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity given that the project has
been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly.
approves the Environmental and Design Review Pelmit subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval (ED14-062)
Community Development Department. Planning Division
General Conditions
"I. This Design Review Permit shall be valid for from the approval date, i.e.} =-.:::::..:::.=...==:::..t..
n. ..... '1f" ... ,nT shall for obtain a
time shall be requested prior to the initial expiration date, If the nrn1pr-,
entitlen1ents or any subsequently issued building permits expire without substantial
the to
2. If, during the course of construction) cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources are
1f'l1",,",,'\/Gi,r""'" at or work shall halted ImrneClla'(;el
within 50 metet's (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional
archaeologist. The City of San Rafael Planning Division and a qualified archaeologist (i.e.,
an with shall
immediately contacled by the responsible indlvidual present on-site. When contacted~ the
project planner and the archaeologist shall inunediately visit the site to detern1ine the extent
of resources to measures ... "" ..... ,-..'9",:.1"1
to Issuance of Building
building teclmiques, materials, elevations appearance of this project (1/18/2016
plans for Silva Apartments by Brent Russell), as presented for approval by the Planning
Commission on Fehruaty 9, 20 16~ shall be the sarhe as required for the issuance of a building
permit. Any future to the review
approval the Community Development
4. All meters
appmienances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be
screened tt'om public view. The method llsed to accompli'sh the screening shall be indicated
on the building plans and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building
S. Prior to issuance of a building shall comply with conditions of the
Municipal Water rnn,1·r."""rt'lPnTC' and water ... · ... r''''''· .. ·
6. Prior to issuance of a building pelmit, the applicant shall obtain approval by the Design
Board details. applicant shall
submit the final building colors and materials selections and tlnal landscape plan details
- 3 -
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. Include
IS,
so not create
as a sheet 1n the .... "" .... VI ••
............. .,.h Division 48 how's
the project.
-4
or contrast
set.
a ........ ,', ....... P"-I
to aSSlue ,.."" .... 1'"1 ... 1'
a.
b.
c.
d. verification
e. accessibility aernOlr1S[lLate~a on
17.
a. 2013
b.
a.
c.
c. A is at
-5 -
d. is a (WUI) area. Provide a written
'Uh'"n .... ~.V.L Management Plan (yMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire Department.
This VMP must be completed and verified prior to final approval. Refer to of
UU!,"-UL'Io.I'-' 856 may viewed at:
..!..!....!..!...!..!..:~~~~!.!!.!:!~~w;;L~~s:::.!:~~' or you ma.y contact the Fire Department at
Marshal John Lippitt for any questions or
comments. VMP
be placed within any CC&R's placed on the property (if subdivided).
e. Contact the (MMWO) to
water supply serving the fire protection system.
Department Works
18. Please review the comments from the December 7j 2015 DPW memorandum. The following
shall be addressed prior to issuance a
a. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of site. grading and
construction work.
b. A soils report shall be submitted with the application for a building pennit. The
project soils engineef shall review and the submitted for a
.. I:IoI"'At"i"Iln"\" .... rI-:l1'tI"\ .... C' of the project soils report.
c. An encroachm.ent pennit with a revocable license shall for
within right-of-way, as proposed by this project.
d. The driveway shall be concrete and contain a friction C>",,'!'o"''''
Show on plan 1l"1'1~A. .... .-n Construction
Standards and the City's .Municipal Code.
<:rlf"UJn on western building
turns (where the flow n1ay be inteITupted, leading to
failure of swale to perfonn). The revised drainage
• .....,..,. . ..,." ........ an or inlets
provided.
f.
of new impervious surface area. Provide a Stormwater
Control Plan~ which shall include a written doc\unent, and an Control Plan in
the permit set(s). guidance can
'-' ........ ~ ...... [rom MCSTOPPP infolmation hosted on the Marin County Website at:
-6 -
g.
h.
L
Cl.
b.
c.
d.
e. sewer
7-
Project File).
permit.
" ... r""·.~ shall be requested and "' ...... "·n.,"'''rt prior to issuance of a building
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
u ...... ' ....... u,~"" held on 9th 2016.
Moved by Commissioner _____ and seconded by ~~.,,~., ... u~.~ •• ~. ______ _
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISS10N
ATTEST: ________________ __ BY: ______ ~ ____________ _
- 8 -
3
Ave at 0 Sf. San CA,
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written I"'l"'Irroc::nl"'lrH1onI"'A
the
, 94915-1560.
In upon
(Jrovi$~/,()n.~ of the
CCllmrrllss:fOrl rfp.iRrn1/m;;." that this
1400 FIfth
on
the staff
Hall Is available through GDIden Gate TfBnsll, Line 22 or 23. Pare-transit Is aval/able by calling Whist/estop Wheels al
To allow Individuals with snvlronmentalllln8$S or muff/pia chemical :>ensitlvlty to ii/tend fMt meeting/Maring. Individuals ~r~ requested (0 refrain 'rom
wesrlng scanted products
Exhibit 3 PC Notice
prH"7JIJI'" 9, 2016 PC Mee~llf1()
10 E Crescent
City San
Application NalmSJ'AOOrE!!Ss:
Application Nos.: ----l1li
Regulation
an~ilS(:8Jjle Ordinance
(SRMC Section 14.16.370)
Wood-Burning
EXHIBIT4
Reduction 'IIIIii.:'I".'~'I"""lu~"
Compliance
o Not
Applicable o 0 .. ""' • .0 ......
Not Comply
Not
Applicable
o Project Does
Not Comply
Project
o Not
o D08s
Not Comply
Project
Complies
o Not
o Project Does
Not
iance
EXHIBIT4
EXHIBIT4
EXHI81T4
Not Comply
EXHIBIT4
Not Comply
E:XHIBIT 5
I l1li
I
Prepared for:
1,
Prepared by:
ISA .011'1"'.· ... 01'4 Arborist
we-D167
Marin Tree Service, Inc.
Suite M
Rafael, 94901
JUN "' 5 2015
PLANNING
EXHIBIT 5
Scope and limitations
On April 30/' 2015 I Inspected 2 Redwoods at the construction site at 10 East Crescent, San
CA. The Inspection of all trees was made from the ground and involved Inspection of the external
features only. No Invasive, diagnostic or laboratory testing was carried out. The Identification of these
trees was based on broad features visible at the time of inspection.
I hewe also examined the eXisting site plan In order to assess the Impact ofthe proposed
construction on the trees. Where recommendations are made In this report including those
recommendations contained In the Tree ProtectIon Guidelines tt is essential that these
recommendations be able to be implemented. Any additional drawlngsJ 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 tra,lhlngto provide
proper care and professional evaluations and diagnosis of Individual trees. Arborlsts attempt to
minimize the risi< of living near trees while enhancing and maintaining the overall beauty and health
of the trees. Recommendations by the arborlst may be or disregarded the client
Trees Inherentlv pose a certain of hazard and risk from failure, or other causes and
conditions. Marin Tree Service makes recommendations, to minimize or reduce these hazardous
conditions but cannot guarantee to eliminate them j especially in the event of a storm or other act of
nature. While a detailed inspection normally results In the detection of hazardous conditions, there
can be no guarantee or certainty that all hazardous conditions will be detected.
There always will be some risk involved wIth all trees. With proper monItoring and care, trees can be
managed. The only way to eliminate all risks Is to remove the trees.
If you have any questIons, do not hesitate to contact Marin Tree Service for assistance.
I examined a coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervlrens) with two co~domlnant leaders of 26" and 221/
DBH at breast height) of normal Vitality and structural The tree Is located on
the neighboring property to the west on the property line shared with 10 Crescent Ave and uphill
from the planned construction.
The current plans Include a retaining wall to be built beneath the Redwood tree. At 7' from the trunk
of the tree, the wall will jut out to 9' from the trunk to protect the tree. At this distance there will be
little or no root loss. A few lower limbs on the Redwood tree will require length reduction for vertical
clearance. The Tree Protection Guidelines in Appendix A should be followed during construction to
protec.t the Redwood.
10 East Crescent, San Rafael, CA 2
EXHIBIT 5
APlllendlix A
Before development, avoid tree damage constructIon bV protecting the root zone, The followIng
should be considered;
A) Physical protection of the trees can be acc:orrlpllshE!d In stages during the progression of work:
.. an Ine>cpenslve chain link, wire mesh, or wood fence around the drip nne of trees is the
most effec.tlve wav to protect trees and help with tree preservation. This fence should be
Installed at the drip line during the Initial stages of development.
.. As, del/el[)pnneJlt 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; othet precautions can be
taken, such as placing hay bales around the trunks so the barl( Is not struck with eqUipment.
8) Signage: all sections of fencing should be delu'lv marked with signs that the area within Is a tree
protection zone and no one 15 allowed to disturb the area.
C) Root Pruning: Whenever roots over linch em) In diameter must be severed/ be cut flush
to eliminate There are three methods of root prunIng:
• 5011 excavatIon
root cutting.
stH)lm.onlc: aIr toolsJ pressurized water or hand tools, followed bV selective
" Cutting throl)gh the soli along a determIned lIne on the surface uSlng a tool sP4~cIt1caIlVde:)lgrled
to cut roots.
M_,.hAI'II",II.1h, eNtavstlng trenching machine or ba(~kli.oeJ the soli and pruning what Is left of
roots.
D) Irrigate the root zone with a soaker hose water to penetrate the soli to the depth of the tree
roots. upper 6-18"
E) Aerate the root zone: Improve aeratIon and reduce compaction. Spread organic mulch or wood chips
over the ~urface to and cOhserve soli 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 to tedute pest attacks should be Initiated prior to cons.tructlon and
continued until trees have recovered from construction related stress.
H) Alternative trenching methods are available to avoId unnecessary root damage. Sorlng machines that
tunnel under root systems and allow the Installation of pipes and wires without root severance are a
a Iternatlve to trenching. If Is unavoidable, dig trenches and tunnels by hand to avoid
unnecessary root
I) Avoid backfill over the root zones of eJoClst)ng trees to avoid root suffocation and die back.
J) AvOid compacting soli over the root zones. Do hOt trafflc with heavy equipment, pile debrIs or materials
or leave equipment over the root lones of the trees.
1<) Crown cleaning before construction Is recommended to reduce the rIsk of branch fallures In areas where
structures, and equipment are within striking distance. When limbs, the final cut
should not be flush with the trunk of the tree. ThIs removes the branch collar that contelns 9 chemical
barrier zone that controls rotting organisms. Iradltlonal surgery paint should hot be used. It Is of no
value and may promote rot;
Roots absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through the 5011 and In return release carbon dioxide (gas
pl({'nAr'''II''''1. Therefore, backmr. compressIng soli. paving, etc. retards gas and limits
water percolation through the soil to the roots, promotIng root die back. this form of chronic stress may
cause trees to die within flve to twenty years after development, on the degree of
Impact. Compensation can be soillYlu!chlllg and aerating the 5011 using
hliln-l'liMSSUI'e equipment.
10 East Crescent, San CA 3
E'XHIBIT 6
from: I<raig Tambornini
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, February 02, 2016 6:28 PM
'Tareq'
Cc:: Dan Silva; Kevin McGowan; Josh Minshall
RE: 10 E Crescent Observation Report-Frontage
Thanks
My understandIng is that staff has received all of the Information necessary to make City decisions on the
nl::lrtlorn.o'11' and scope of improvements In the of way. I am not aware of any surveyors If
you have a survey a surveyor that disputes the location of the common boundary nne present that ( I believe I
have asked about this before, and I don't think this Is the ease, but want to be sure). Mr. SUva has consistently presented
engIneering plans that appear to accurately IdentIfy the boundar!esl so this has not been a question. Agaln l you may be
I"pf . .ar.:l.n .... iinO' just the liRe, which Is a completely different matter; to but not
necessarily a property issue. frontage improvements work in the ROW remains withIn purview ofthe Clty Engineer
to determine as far as I know. This would Include the rocks and work done in front of your lot, that would have required
a and encroachment
At this tfme, I that the plan for the adjacent property makes sense and is consistent with City standards
accesslblHtYI etc. I would also not characterize the determinations and recommendations made In regard to
IrTll~rn\T""rT'lll'1ln .. access and in front of and on this lot as having been any unilateral decision -as It was done
wIth complete understanding of characteristics of both and is entirely within City controlled rIght of way with
regard to sidewalk frontage Improvements. As we discussed, the driveway was shifted to avoid severely cutting in front
of YOlir ffO~t boundary, at the recommendation of DPW. I would not agree with moving the driveway
south and think this 15 At this I cannot this as it Is and
there are no legal or technical questions left on OLlr plate to resolve. If your attomey has a different opinion I can refer
him to the City office, but I am not able to stop processing the case at thIs point based on the reasons
mentioned In your emaiL
I did forward your email to Mr. Silva. At thIs point, It is in his hands if he wants to provide any further response.
Sincerely,
Kralg K Tambornini
City of San Rdfael
Senior Planner
415-485-3092
"Old you know that you can now check zoning for a property online. Please go to www.c!tyofsanrafael.org/zonlng
to find for your nl"l'I,hOI't'u"
From: Tareq [mallto:tareq@crepevlne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 021 2016 1:28 PM
To: Kralg Tambornlnl .
Cc: Dan Kevin Josh Minshall
SUlbje!Ct: Re: 10 E Crescent ObselVation gOI"nt"t'_j.;;,..nn,t"l:IIl"ll:lo
Hello Kraig ;
I emailed
me when
to de~erml1ne
r
EXHIBIT 6
get
last email,
I do not aDE~reclate
attorney.
11, wrote:
Dan asked me to forward this to you. He is concerned with the proposed 1'''I'\I'\t-~ .... o.
Items below. already identifIed the
n~l'\tor1rJr.f'\ of line would
K T!:Il"nl'\l' ......... lr"Il
of San Rafael
Planner
41S"'485~3092
recommendation of the Planning Commission and solutions nrr\\111'10n to address
I can your for a at the 9 PC
if
that you can now check
~lJ!Jl.:.gn~!'!!]~~.Qrl'l'7~'m .. t!n!'r' ... to find zoning for your r"Il"f\.I"IOI't\I"
"""""I"\""r .. " online. Please go to
2
to
from:
Sent: Friday, 2016 11:09 AM
To: Tamborninl
Subject: Fwd: 10 E Crescent Observation Report-Frontage
I have to
applicant) which norAt1P"
as it OA",\..J'I\,.U"I.U. consent.
I will menlJOn I ... I-'I ....... ' ........ ~ ... will
applicant must move his building two more away my
application must lower his building few feet.
-The applicant must leave my rock garden as it is and not touch it .
-The applicant must find a solution to traffic and safety arising due to his project'.
I atn going to do what it takes to force the applicant to comply with my requirements if needed. I
hope the applicant will voluntarily modify his plans accordingly.
Please feel free to forward my email to the applicant.
Best regards,
Tareq Fakhouri
my
SWldeep Jhutti <;illill!!~~UQn~~
June 16, 2015 at
Tareq FakllOUri ~rul@~~~~~::
10 E
Sundeep Jhutti ~l1:till~ggM;!M!JMtl
On Tuesday, June 16! 2015 10:21 AM, Sundeep Jhuttl
Dan-
I highlighted one additional change on the report.
Also, see 11"\\11"111""'0 5
Sunny Jhutti
3
wrote:
EXHIBIT 6
On 20158:58 Jhutt! wrote:
my on finding
I have nll'" ..... \l1I'110 as
a Civil
l\11i"\I''1,f'I'!:'lll June 8 1 2015 6: 14 Dan wrote;
4
EXHIBIT 6
Dan Silva .e"'i"'It'1"'f"\IQ},\Olh/~
Dan Silva,
You wril find 2 attachments related to this I<Frontage" issue being disoussed.
We a Deftnitlon))' statement which our position that
property owner frontage is measured from a perpendicular
To the street centerline at the property corner and that it is not considered
being related to the extension of a line unless that side line is perpendicular to the
street centerline.
The attached "Frontage Definition,," document supports our previous statements that
JhuUl's report is not when making reference to these as
having any relationship to the extension of an angular side line,
Also In light of this frontage issue we have chosen to revise our frontage Improvements to
stay within the definition and not necessitate a grant of easement from a
neighboring property owner,
review the 2 attachments. as they have favorably revIewed by San Rafael
Public Works.
~lnf"'j:lriCId\J Jl Hallberg, PE
JL Engineering
1539 Fourth St., San Rafael
from: Dan SHva
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:33 AM
To: JL Engineering
Subject: Fwd: 10 E Crescent Observation Report
~ ..... --~---Forwarded message ----------
Sunny Jbutti
Date: Sat, Jun 6J 2015 at 7:50
Subject: Re: 10 E Crescent Observation Report
To:DanSilva<lli~~~~~~~~:
Dan-
lfthel'e are T<:>"""". inconsistencies in
look.
report i will happy to take o:IlI"Il"\'th""9"
If these are opinions, i will not Unless
photograpbUc, surveying,or
If i am required to rework my own report I wil1l"t'I~"fJP hourly at
of $150/lu' charged in 0,25 hr increments.
Sunny
Sent from my iPhone
5
are backed up
true to
rate
<1
EXHIBIT 6
6,2015, at 7:40 AM, Dan Silva <ndcdansilvalO@gmaiLcom> wrote:
are some in
will contact with
As soon as they are resolved i will send you a payment.
Dan-
Wanted to know ifu received my report
payment for it. Thanks
Sunny
Sent from my iPhone
when I should expect
On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sundeep Jhutti
<jhurti(a),sbcglo hal.net> wrote:
Hi Dan-
Attached is the observation report for 10 E.
Crescent.
Sunny
<1
<Inv.pdf>
6
Krai
from:
Sent:
To:
EXHIBIT 6
Susan Springer < ssucculents@ hotmai Lcom >
Wednesday) September 09,201511:24 AM
Kraig Tambornini
URGENT: New Apartment Plans for 10 t. Crescent Dr.
I hope-you receive this message in time for your meeting this eve regarding the new proposed
::1n~~r"1""''In.o..'f" deVE~IOl)mlent at 10 E. Crescent Dr.
I live at 16 E. I am highly OP~)OSE~a to this dev'elooment reasons.
1. is way uphill, it will my view the Any people
hang laundry out would be unsightly and distractly for people rubbernecking at the intersection of E. Crescent
l\lrlll"'::1("I,o Mlle.
~n .... rCU"J"\IIC" it is down St movIng so quickly
and sharp turn into our street and driveway planned for next
up E. is a huge amount esp. up at same
time. There are a lot of pedestrians, It seems to me that it would be incredibly dangerous to make a very quick
turn into another The cars on the Mlrade Mile not V meets
between 3rd and 4th It Is a dangerous intersection without any traffic light. I see an even greater safety
issue with this development. Our driveway enables cars and pedestrians of room for safety after
steep turn, but I don't see how another development with a lot of cars turning Into any length of driveway
would not create a serious hazard. You just can't stop your car and make such a sharp turn without the
probability of vehicles broadsiding you.
3. Since Is no on the right E. few across us are always taken in
the evening. If this property is developed, there must be room for at least 2 cars, any cans
and recycling In driveway is
4. The hill property a amount dirt flows down (during rain)
Is eroding quickly. Everything has been done with environmental care to stop this erosion and Improve the
with concern hili (many trees so is no danger to from
the numerous apt. buildings and people who live above us. The prickly pears certainly prevent that erosion to
some e>etent.
5. There is a very very redwood tree on our ....... " ... ",,11'"1" •• we do not want to trim branches, if possible.
6. The building this curve is I would could
some barrier, at feast, of shrubs or small trees between all property lines so it would not be so unsightly.
Susan Springer
1
From:
To:
I
onto
EXHIBIT!)
auto .... VJ~&~.,JoVli • ..:> OietVlfee:n cars turnJr1lg
mtj;rs(~ct1on, or some means
is set a sensor aelt,ec1ts a car en1:erlng or leaVlnlg
from:
Sent:
To:
one
this
me
I now
you
to some
car or
,lam
EXHIBIT' 6
louis' feed back' about
)
owner
10 E Crescent.
in E
to
concerns on
10 East Crescent in San
20 in san is
) , I your
on . I
in area. cars M ':11 II I 1'1. a a turn 4 into
concern
4 ones out 10 Crescent
uieihllllh, on E some tree I a
are
to cars even Del:H~Strli:ms out
cars In
in area. It
a stream especially on
can
notes wIll to contact me if
2
EXHIBIT 6
from:
Sent:
To:
Dear
two are as 1't'\llnU,I'
wit! 10 a no
& in to
unit cellung:s.
me Dostea &
Sent my Iw.."nn,i!>