Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2017-07-11 Agenda PacketRA 1A z s C�r� CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA SAN RAFAEL_ PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 11, 2017,7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 1400 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA RECORDINQ OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL. OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA, ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION Anyone with an urgent communication on a topic not on the agenda may address the Commission at this time. Please notify the Commuity Development Director in advance. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes June 27, 2017 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 23 Meyer Rd. (Temporary Address) —Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of 3,570 sq. ft. new single-family residence and associated site improvements (driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant, 93,857 sq. ft. (2.15 acre), hillside and ridgeline site; APN: 012-291- 15; Single -Family Residential -Hillside Development Overlay (R1a-H) District; Draper Revocable Trust, owner; Jerome Draper, applicant; File No.ED15-027. Project Planner: Steve Stafford DIRECTOR'S REPORT CQMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: July 25, 2017 I, Anne Derrick, he certify that on -Friday, July 7, 2017, 1 posted a notice of the July11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board. • Sign interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling 4151485-3085 (voice) or 4151485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. • Public transportation t9 City Mall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at 41/454-0964. • To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Agency Board loss than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be availaf I6 for inSAe6boR fit the Community Development oopattment, Third Floor, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL TAKE UP NO NEWBUSINESS AFTER 11:00 P.M. AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. THIS SMALL BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT NO AGENDA ITEM QR OTHER BUSINESS WILL BE DISCUSSED OR ACTED UPON AFTER THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 11:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND THIS RULE TO DISCUSS AND/OR ACT UPON ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM(S) DEEMED APPROPRIATE 8Y A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE MEMPERS PRESENT APPEAL RIGHTS: ANY PERSON MAY FILE AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON AGENVA ITEMS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS (NORMALLY 5:00 P. M. ON THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY) AND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS OFAN ACTION'ON A sVBDIVISION. AN APPEAL LETTER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, ALONG WITH AN APPEAL FEE OF $350 (FOR NON -APPLICANTS) OR A $4,476 DEPQSIT (FQR APPLICANTS) MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND $HALL SET FORTH THE BASIS FOR APPEAL, THERE ISA $50.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF AN APPEAL BY APPELLANT. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, June 27, 2037 PAP Regular Meeting San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings CALL TO ORDER Present: Larry Paul Jack Robertson Barrett Schaefer Gerald Belletto Absent: Berenice Davidson Sarah Loughran Mark Lubamersky Also Present: Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Sean Kennings, Contract Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES URGENT COMMUNICATION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes May 23, 2017 No vote on Minutes due to lack of quorum. This item will be continued to next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Staff Report Jack Rpbertson moved and Karry Paul seconded to direct staff to prepare Draft Environmental Impact Report with minor changes to the scope of the Environmental Impact Report. The vote is as follows: AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Gerald Bellettp NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Berenice Davidson, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ADJOURNMENT: ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS -DAY OF , 2017 Gerald Belletto, Chair THE CITY WITH A MISSION Community Development Department — Planning Division Meeting Date: Agenda Item: July 11, 2017 Case Numbers: ED15-027 Project Planner: Sieve Stafford/(415) 458-5048 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 23 Meyer Rd. (Temporary Address) - Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of 3,570 sq. ft. new single-family residence and associated site improvements (driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant, 94,857 sq. ft. (2.18 acre), hillside and ridgeline site,. The project requests an Exception from the prohibition to ridgeline development; APN: 012-291-15; Single - Family Residential -- Hillside Development Overlay (R1a-H) District Zone; Jerome Draper, Applicant; Draper Revocable Trust, Owner; Case Number: EX17-007, ED15- 027 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project proposes to construct a new, multistory, 3,570 sq. ft. single-family residential and associated site improvements (i.e., driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant, 94,857 sq. ft. (2.18 acre), hillside and ridgeline site. Since the entire site is located within 100 vertical requires the granting of an Exception by the City Commission (Commission) and the Design Review findings: feet of a visually significant ridgeline, the project Council, with the recommendation by the Planning Board (Board), and shall be based on -the following 1. There are no site development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development; 2. The density has been reduce to the minimum allowed by the General Plan land use designation density range; 3. No new subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development; and 4. The proposed development will not have significant ad 'verse visual impacts due to modifications for height, bulk design, size, location, siting and landscaping, which avoid or minimize the visual impacts of the development, as viewed from all public viewing areas Planning staff's finds the proposed project meets these required findings (see discussion under the Analysis section of this report). On February 7, 2017, the Board reviewed the proposed project and provided unanimous support (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) for the site and building design with minor modifications. RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 2) recommending the City Council approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-027) with conditions. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 2 PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: Btwn. 166 Wolfe Grade and Parcel Number(s): 012-291-15 20 Brushwood Ln. Property Size: 194,857 sf (2.18 acres) I Neighborhood: I Picnic Valle Site Description/Setting: The subject site is located on the northern slope of a small ridge west of Southern Heights Ridge above Picnic Valley. The parcel is identified as a 'visually significant ridgeline' property In the General Plan It is located within 100' vertical feet of the ridgeline separating San Rafael from the unincorporated county (Greenbrae). The site is 94,857 sq. ft. (approx.) or 2.18 -acres in size with a significant (46.7%) northwest -to -southeast trending upslope from Meyer Road. It is currently undeveloped oak woodland. The property is surrounded by single-family hillside and ridgeline residences on large wooded parcels to the east, west and north. The site has multiple easements which affect its development. The downslope front property boundary begins approximately at the centerline of Meyer Rd. roadway pavement; the entire Meyer Rd. frontage of the site is located within a 20' -wide roadway access easement for Meyer Rd (The roadway access/ easement is 40' -wide, half of which is located on the site). This 20' -wide roadway access easement is concurrent to, or overlaps with, the required 20' front yard setback for the site. Similarly, the upslope rear property boundary is located within another 20' -wide roadway access easement for Brushwood Ln. (Like the downslope front property boundary, the roadway access easement is 40' -wide, half of which is located on the site). Unlike Meyer Rd., which the City maintains a public Right -of -Way (ROW), the City does not maintain a ROW on Brushwood Ln. Brushwood Ln. is currently developed with a shared private driveway. Additionally, a 10' -wide utility easement (Marin Municipal Water District) parallels the entire eastern side property boundary. Also, another 10' -wide utility easement ("Pacific Telephone and Telegraph") parallels the ridgeline, at the upslope southwestern corner of the site. BACKGROUND On April 3, 2013, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CC12-001) was issued by the Public Works Director determining the parcel to be a legal lot of record, subject required improvements to Meyer Road -as determined by the Public Works Department. m On August 28, 2013, the City completed Pre -Application (PA13-007) review of the project On November 18, 2014, the Board completed conceptual design review (CDR14-008; Commission Liaison Lubamersky) of the proposed project and provided the following recommendations: Site Characteristics General Plan Designation I Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site: HR R1a-H /Vacant Parcel North: HR R1a-H SFR South: Unincorporated County Unincorporated County Unincorporated County East: HR R1 a -H SFR West: HR R1 a -H SI=R Site Description/Setting: The subject site is located on the northern slope of a small ridge west of Southern Heights Ridge above Picnic Valley. The parcel is identified as a 'visually significant ridgeline' property In the General Plan It is located within 100' vertical feet of the ridgeline separating San Rafael from the unincorporated county (Greenbrae). The site is 94,857 sq. ft. (approx.) or 2.18 -acres in size with a significant (46.7%) northwest -to -southeast trending upslope from Meyer Road. It is currently undeveloped oak woodland. The property is surrounded by single-family hillside and ridgeline residences on large wooded parcels to the east, west and north. The site has multiple easements which affect its development. The downslope front property boundary begins approximately at the centerline of Meyer Rd. roadway pavement; the entire Meyer Rd. frontage of the site is located within a 20' -wide roadway access easement for Meyer Rd (The roadway access/ easement is 40' -wide, half of which is located on the site). This 20' -wide roadway access easement is concurrent to, or overlaps with, the required 20' front yard setback for the site. Similarly, the upslope rear property boundary is located within another 20' -wide roadway access easement for Brushwood Ln. (Like the downslope front property boundary, the roadway access easement is 40' -wide, half of which is located on the site). Unlike Meyer Rd., which the City maintains a public Right -of -Way (ROW), the City does not maintain a ROW on Brushwood Ln. Brushwood Ln. is currently developed with a shared private driveway. Additionally, a 10' -wide utility easement (Marin Municipal Water District) parallels the entire eastern side property boundary. Also, another 10' -wide utility easement ("Pacific Telephone and Telegraph") parallels the ridgeline, at the upslope southwestern corner of the site. BACKGROUND On April 3, 2013, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CC12-001) was issued by the Public Works Director determining the parcel to be a legal lot of record, subject required improvements to Meyer Road -as determined by the Public Works Department. m On August 28, 2013, the City completed Pre -Application (PA13-007) review of the project On November 18, 2014, the Board completed conceptual design review (CDR14-008; Commission Liaison Lubamersky) of the proposed project and provided the following recommendations: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 3 A Redesign the access driveway to relocate the `guest' parking area closer to the residence to discourage backing out onto Meyer Rd., widen the 'throat' of -the driveway at the junction with Meyer Rd. and reduce the grade; 9 Reduce the height of the retaining wall to comply with the hillside guidelines (3' height downslope of residence; 4' height upslope of residence) by stepping back or breaking up retaining walls into series of wall structures; 9 Take advantage of the allowable Setback Waiver to encroach into the front setback 10' with the residence and access driveway; and 9 Provide darker exterior colors On February 7, 2017, the Board reviewed the formal project application and unanimously (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) recommended approval of the proposed site and building design, with minor modifications to the facade treatment frontage architecture (see discussion under the Design Review Board Recommendations section of this report). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use: The project proposes to construct a new 3,570 sq. ft., mufti -story, single-family residence and associated site development or improvements, including landscape and drainage improvements and concrete driveway access from Meyer Road. The prdJect requests an Exception to the prohibition on development within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. Site Plan: The new single-family residence and driveway are proposed to be located, generally, along the Meyer Rd. frontage. Both the site and.the proposed project are located within a 100 vertical feet of a significant ridgeline. Vehicular access to the building site is proposed through a new driveway located at the northeast corner of the site, immediately west of an existing natural storm water drainage swale, and continuing west along the existing slope contours. The new driveway would be, generally, 18' -wide and widen to 18-70' at turnaround and parking areas, located approximately midway up the driveway. The driveway is proposed with a maximum grade of up to 18%. The project proposes to locate the new garage at the top of the driveway, 15' setback or upslope from the roadway easement/required front setback on the site. The project proposes to 'stepback' the remainder of the residence, locating the first floor of the residence 4 -- 5' setback or upslope from the garage floor and the second floor of the new residence 14' setback from the garage floor. Retaining walls up to 12' in height are proposed downslope of the driveway, primarily to create the turnaround 'and uncovered parallel parking space areas, all located outside the required 20' roadway easement/frorit yard setback. Two, generally equal height retaining walls up to 6 -tall are proposed upslope of the driveway, the upper retaining wall setback approximately 3' 3" from the lower retaining wall. The retaining walls downslope of the driveway are proposed to be poured -concrete while those located upslope of the driveway are proposed to be blown-Shotcrete. Both are proposed to be integral - colored in dark gray. Two uncovered patio areas are proposed along the west elevation totaling 256 sq, ft. in area. The project also proposes to create a triangular-shaped, 23,600 sq. ft. (approx.) private conservation easement area at the southwest corner of the site, which would incorporate the portion of the significant ridgeline within the site boundaries. Wood trellis arch treatments, 8' in' height, lead to separate pedestrian staircases which connect both the main entrance and the patio areas to Meyer Rd. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 4 Architecture: The project proposes a multi -story design for the new residence which would be 'cut' into the hillside in order to comply with the maximum allowable budding height for the site. The project design proposes, primarily a 'hipped' roof form with a low -to -moderate pitch (4" -in -12") to flowing the natural slope of the site. Small gabled roofs projections provide building articulation along the frontage and at the entry to the residence. Proposed exterior materials and colors include a stone veneer wainscot, two-tone stucco finish base color, trim color and composite asphalt roof shingles, all in a medium taupe - dark brown earthtonelwoodtone color palette. The project proposes a secondary trim color, a medium red color on the window sills. Landscaping: The project proposes to remove a total of 35 existing trees on the site prior to grading and construction activities. Most of these trees requiring removal. are California bay trees though one (1) tree is a Coast Live oak. Most trees proposed for removal have been deemed in an Arborist Report for the project to be in poor health and/or form. The proposed Landscape Plan for the project includes 16, 15 -gallon size replacement trees, all of which are California native ornamental species. Grad!nglDrainage: The project will require approximately 610 CYDS of total site grading: 580 CYDS of `cut' and 30 CYDS of 'fill' with 550 CYDS of 'off -haul'. The site is currently served, and will continue to be served, by a network of open drainage ditches and culverted stormwater drainage system. The project proposes to install two (2) engineered linear stormwater dissipater structures, both located downslope of the proposed new residence and driveway and Meyer Rd. One stormwater dissapator is proposed to be 30' in length and located adjacent to the driveway and the other stormwater dissapator is proposed to be 65' in length and located adjacent to the new residence. ANALYSIS San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Hillside Residential (HR). The HR designation is characterized by moderate to steep slopes which may have unstable geology andlor local visual significance, and are typical of developed hillside residential areas The project has been reviewed by staff for consistency with all applicable San Rafael General Plan 2020 policies, a complete analysis of which is provided in Exhibit 4. Staff finds that the project, as conditioned, would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies related to Land Use, Housing, Neighborhoods, Community Design, Circulation, Infrastructure, Sustainability, Safety, Noise, and Air and Water Quality. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Chapter 4 — Residential (R) District The site is located within the Single -Family Residential — Hillside Development Overly (R1 a -H) District. The proposed project will require consistency with the property development standards for the R1 a District, including a maximum 30' building height, maximum 25% lot coverage and minimum require yard setbacks. Those property development standards applicable to the project are identified in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5). As designed, the project complies with all applicable property development standards for the R1 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 (6,500 sq. ft.), minimum natural state requirement (71.7% of lot area) and building 'stepback' (20' maximum height on downslope exterior REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 5 walls).These applicable hillside development standards are identified in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5). As designed, the project generally complies with the applicable hillside development standards, including maximum gross building square footage, minimum natural state and required building 'stepback'. The project does not comply with the prohibition on ridgeline development and requires the granting of an Exception. Ridgeline Development Exception The hillside development standards prohibit development of new structures within 100' vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline unless an Exception is granted by the City Council, with the recommendation by the Commission and the Board, the prohibition to ridgeline development precludes all reasonable economic use of the site. The Exception is required to be based on the following findings: 1. There are no site development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development-, 2. The density has been reduce to the minimum allowed by the General Plan land use designation density range; 3. No new subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development; and 4. The proposed development will not have significant adverse visual impacts due to modifications for height, bulk design, size, location, siting and landscaping, which avoid or minimize the visual impacts of the development, as viewed from all public viewing areas. StafF's Comments. Staff finds the project meets these required findings, as follows: 1. There are no site development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development, given' that; the entire site is located within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline; no alternative location on the site exists which would not require the granting of the Exception to ridgeline development on the site; 2. The density has been reduce to the minimum allowed by the General Plan land use designation density range, given that; the site has a General Plan land use designation of Hillside Residential (HR), which allows 0.5-2 units of gross density per acre and is consistent with the one (1) residential unit proposed by the project on the site; 3. No new subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development, given that; the project does not propose to subdivide the site and the site is ineligible for subdivision under the City's currently adopted Subdivision Ordinance. The site is 94,857 sq. ft. in area, slightly over 2 acres. Pursuant to Section 15.07.020(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance, any subdivision of -the site would need to create parcels with a minimum lot size of 2 acres, based on the HR General Plan land use designation and the 46.7% average cross -slope; and 4. The proposed development will not have significant adverse visual impacts due to modifications for height, bulk design, size, location, siting and landscaping, which avoid or minimize the visual impacts of the development, as viewed from all public viewing areas, given that; the intent of the City's adopted hillside development standards and design guidelines is to reduce adverse visual impacts and adherence to these applicable standards and guidelines will reduce project impacts as much as possible. To reduce perceived bulk and mass on hillsides, new development on the site should both preserve as much existing landscape screening as possible and augment with additional landscape screening, should be located as close as possible to the Meyer Rd. frontage and should step up with the existing natural slope. As currently proposed, the new residence would not project above the ridgeline on the site and potential public views of the natural ridge tree silhouette would not be interrupted. The applicant has installed story poles to help demonstrate the scale and height or visual impacts of the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure and the roof ridge. At their February 7, 2017 meeting, the Design Review Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed building and site design with minor modifications. Chapter 18 — Parking Standards Pursuant to Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, the project is required to provide two (2) 'covered' on-site parking spaces and two (2) additional on-site parking spaces, either 'covered' or 'uncovered, `... conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit which they serve", due to its REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 6 hillside location. The project proposes two (2) `garage' on-site parking spaces and two (2) 'uncovered' parallel parking spaces, located approximately midway up the driveway. The `garage' parking spaces meet the minimum 20' x 20' interior dimension requirements; the proposed garage is approximately 20' x 24'. The additional guest parking spaces, as required with new hillside development, also meet the minimum 9'x 22' dimensions for uncovered parallel parking spaces. The project proposes to provide a 16 -23' -wide driveway, where a minimum 10' is required. The project also proposes a driveway of up to 18%, where a maximum 18% is allowed. Staff s Comments. As designed, the proposed project complies with the number of required parking spaces and their minimum dimensions. However, staff continues to have concerns with the configuration of the vehicle turnaround area and uncovered parking areas. The proposed design results in locating one (1) of the uncovered parking spaces possibly too far down the driveway, conflicting with requirement that the uncovered parking spaces -shall be "conveniently placed relative to the dwelling unit which they serve." Staff also has concerns as to the usability the uncovered parking space located midway down the driveway. The uppermost uncovered parking space is located on a portion of the driveway with an average 10% grade while the lowermost uncovered parking space is located on a portion of the driveway with approximately 15% grade. The Hillside Design Guidelines require landings for all parking spaces over 10% grades, which has been incorporated as a condition of approval. At their February 7th meeting, the Board did not raise concerns with the location of the proposed parking.. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The proposed project will require consistency with the applicable review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, pursuant to Section 14.25.050 (Review Criteria; Environmental and Design Review Permits). Those review criteria applicable to the project are identified in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5). Staff's 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. As designed, the project generally complies with all applicable review criteria. Staff finds the multi -story scale proposed by the project design is well established in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also finds the use of stucco finish by the project design complies with the City's WUI requirements. However, staff continues to find that the review criteria seek to create greater interest in large expanses of retaining walls, such as those proposed by the project (The project proposes approximately 240 linear feet of retaining walls, 95 linear feet below the driveway and 145 linear feet above the driveway. The proposed material of the lower driveway retaining wall is poured concrete and the upper driveway retaining wall is blown Shotcrete, both with integral dark gray color. Landscaping is proposed to help mitigate the perceived visual scale of these large expanses of retaining walls). Staff finds the overall design of these retaining walls would be improved with the addition of a facade treatment such as texturing, sculpting or a stone veneer. As part of their recommendations on the project, the Board requested additional fagade treatments. The design of the project has responded by adding a dry stack stone veneer or wainscoting along the base of the residence Story poles have been installed on the site by the applicant to help demonstrate the scale and height of the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure, the roof ridge and the driveway retaining walls (See Story Pole Staking Plan; Sh. SP1 of the project plans). The project plans include a Several colors and materials boards have been submitted to Planning, proposing a diverse color palette of generally medium -to -dark shades of taupe and browns, which will be presented at the Commission hearing. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: EDIS-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 7 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 the applicable hillside residential design guidelines is highlighted in the attached Compliance Checklist; Hillside Design Guidelines (Exhibit 6). As designed, the project generally complies with all applicable hillside design guidelines. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION On February 7, 2017, the Board reviewed the proposed project and provided unanimous support (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) for the site and building design with minor modifications. Their recommendations were, as follows: • The location and height of the residence and driveway retaining walls are appropriate if the project can comply with the required stepback along the Meyer Rd. frontage; • 'The design of the residence is well articulated subject to the gable roof projections integrating better along the Meyer Rd. frontage; • The entrance to the residence is too narrow and should be wider; • The exterior colors are appropriate, including the red trim color; • The- exterior facade treatments should_ include an additional texture, such as a stone base or Hardi-plank/Hardi-shingle; • The size of the residence is modest for the size of the parcel; the applicant should consider adding a fourth .bedroom to the design; • The landscape plans shall include vine plantings along the base of the lower driveway retaining wall to mitigate its scale and mass; • The applicant should confirm that all plant species on the landscape plan are available; and • The project plans shall include a contextual elevation showing how the existing tree line would relate to the proposed height of the project. A video of this February 7, 2017 meeting may be viewed at hftp://www.citvofsanrafael.o[g/meetings/. While some of the Board's comments were confirmation of the appropriateness of the project design, others were recommended design changes. As requested by the Board, the project design has been modified to these requested design changes, as follows: • New separate uncovered deck and landscape planter projections have been added to the downslope elevation to create the required building stepback along .the Meyer Rd. frontage, where no exterior wall plane exceeds 20' in uninterrupted height; • The primary gable roof project along the Meyer Rd. frontage has been enlarged, increasing in width from 12' to 16', and a small gable roof projection over an upper -story bay window has been eliminated; • The entrance to the residence has been enlarged, increasing in width from 4' to 8'; • A new dry stacked stone veneer wainscot, in a medium earthtone/woodtone color, has been added to the base of the residence; • A fourth bedroom and bathroom, 270 sq. ft. in size, has been added to the second floor, behind the remainder of the residence; • The landscape plan has been revised to include vine plantings along the base of the lower driveway retaining wall (6, 5 -gallon container size, Lonicera Hispidula or California Honeysuckle, planted 9' on -center and trained with horizontal cables installed 36" on-center);and • A partial cross-section of the site (Sh. 1, View B -B) has been included in the plans showing how the proposed height of the residence relates to both the ridgeline and tree line. In addition, the project plans also have been revised as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No:. EDI 5-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 8 The number of existing trees requiring removal has increased, from 29 to 35 trees, in order to accommodate the design and location of the additional or fourth bedroom and bathroom and increased upslope retaining wall (These additional trees are California Bay trees and, while their size would typically qualify them for determination as `significant' trees, the arborist report for the project has determined that most of these trees to be in poor health or growth habit); The number of replacement site landscaping has increased from 164 to 224 total plantings, most. of which are located along the Meyer Rd. frontage; and A new wood staircase is proposed to provide direct pedestrian connection between Meyer Rd. and the entrance to the residence. 'ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(a) (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts single-family residences located witthin single-family residential zoning districts. The project proposes to construct a new, 3,570 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant parcel .located within the R1a-H District, a single-family residential district. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ! CORRESPONDENCE No Neighborhood Meeting was required for the proposed project since it does not include a request a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning or any other action requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff understands, however, that the applicant, Jerry Draper, has voluntarily met with many of the surrounding neighbors to introduce the project and to respond to questions. 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 site and the appropriate neighborhood groups (the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assn. and the Southern Heights Homeowner's Assn.) 15 -calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. Additionally, notice was posted on the site, along the Meyer Rd. frontage, 15 -calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. At the time staffs report to the Board was printed, Planning received one (1) email with public comments as a result of noticing. Indi Young, a neighboring resident (15 Meyer Rd.) provided the following comments: • The story poles cannot be viewed well without removing those existing trees proposed for removal by the project. Can more be done to improve their visibility? • What are the long-term plans for the ridgeline on the site? Can a new road be constructed along the ridgeline? m Dark, `tree -bark' (i.e., grays and browns) exterior colors are preferred. No white or red window trim colors. ® Prefers relocating the new residence further east on the site with a straight driveway connection and a wide turnaround/uncovered parking apron similar to the design of the existing residences across the street and closest to the site at 20, 24, 28, 32 and 36 Meyer Rd. o The project will negative affect property values of residences in the neighborhood that currently have views of Mt. Tamalpais. How will they be compensated for their loss resulting from the project, such as a reduction in current tax rate? Staffs comments. © The applicant is not allowed to remove the existing trees proposed for removal unless and until the project is approved. The applicant has indicated that the installation of story poles has been challenging due to both the heavily wooded site and its steepness (46.7% average cross -slope). REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: E13115427 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 9 Staff has reviewed the project, as proposed, and provided comments in this report on the project's consistency with the City's adopted development standards, review criteria and design guidelines. The ridgeline is already improved with private shared driveway, Brushwood Ln., within a dedicated 40' -wide roadway access easement, half of which is located along the entire rear property boundary of the site. Any proposal to improve this private shared driveway to meet City roadway standards is possible though unlikely given, among other factors, the potential costs. Any proposal to improve Brushwood Ln to a City roadway standards would require appropriate vetting though a public hearing process with notice to all affected property owners and their neighbors. The project proposes an exterior color palette of dark earth tones/wood tones, including two-tone stucco finish base color, trim color and composite asphalt roof shingles, all in a medium taupe - dark brown color shaded. The project proposes a secondary trim color, a medium red color on the window sills. The project does not propose a white trim color. Several colors and materials boards have been submitted to Planning, which will be presented at the Commission hearing. At their meeting on the project, the Board recommended adding another texture to the building facade. The project has since been revised to provide a dry stack stone veneer wainscot along the base of the residence. Additionally, the Board supported the use of red trim in the proposed exterior color scheme. Staff finds that potentially relocating the project closer to the eastern side property would likely create its own set of impacts which have yet to be reviewed. An existing 20' -wide roadway easement exists along the entire front. property boundary of the site, which does not allow encroachment by retaining walls or parking areas. In addition, the site is steep (46.7% average cross -slope), which has the effect of pushing any development upslope no matter where on the site. The financial impacts of new development, both positive and negative, on existing development is beyond land use review and approval by staff and the decision -makers. The City does not regulate or preserved existing private views, views of Mt. Tamalpais. The review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits encourage the preservation of `major' views of Mt. Tamalpais from public streets and public vantage points (i.e., dedicated trails on public lands, public fishing piers, etc.).The applicant has installed story poles to help .demonstrate the scale and height of the project. Based on the recommendations by the Board, the applicant has included a partial cross-section of the site (Sh. 1, View B -B), which shows the height of the proposed residence below the ridgeline and tree line. Between the time staff's report to the Board was printed though before it was distributed, Planning received additional public comments on the project. Will and Stephanie Noble, a neighboring resident (11 Meyer Rd.) provided the following comments: • Dark earth tone/wood tone exterior colors are requested without contrast in color values. ® Project architecture should relate well to the natural woodland setting. • The residence should be reoriented so that it faces north better, towards the Downtown and Puerto Suello Hill. • The driveway should be easy to access and create good visibility for both eastbound and westbound traffic along Meyer Rd. a Construction and grading activities on the site should be as least disruptive to existing neighborhood traffic as possible. The driveway should be constructed prior to the new residence so that materials can be stored on-site. ® The project approvals should include vegetation management clear obstructive growth along Meyer Rd. • Adequate notice should be provided to neighbors for any necessary road closures. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: ED15-027 (23 Meyer Rd.) Page 10 The timeline for all grading and construction work should be coordinated with the work proposed to replace the Southern Heights bridge StafF's comments. The project approval is subject to a standard condition (Condition 17; ED15-027) for new development on steep or otherwise challenging sites, which require the applicant submit a comprehensive construction management plan to Planning for review and approval with the recommendation of the City Engineer. Construction management plans typically include, but are not limited to, hours of construction/grading activities, weekly notices of anticipated schedule of construction/grading, activities, limiting materials to more frequent but smaller deliveries, requiring flagmen during all grading activities and material deliveries, limiting locations of material storage and parking, requiring carpooling of construction workers, coordination of 'construction/grading activities to other public works project in the neighborhood that has the potential to cause traffic delays, requiring one vehicle traffic lane open at all times. After the Board's February 7, 2017, meeting on the project, Ms. Young provided staff with a photo of a recently constructed single-family residence in Kentfield that she believed should be a model for the project. Staff subsequently forwarded this photo to the applicant for consideration. At the time staff's report to the Commission was printed and distributed, Planning received one (1) email with public comments as a result of noticing. Suzy Gray, a neighboring resident (18 Meyer Rd.) provided the comments that construction of the project should impact existing neighbors minimally and requesting a copy of the required approved construction management plan, once it has been approved by Planning with the recommendation of the City Engineer. The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Adopt resolution recommending City Council approval of the application as presented (staff recommendation) 2. Adopt resolution recommending City Council approval of the application with certain modifications or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the public hearing on the application to all allow the applicant or staff to address any of the Planning Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Recommend denial of the project application to the City Council and direct staff to return with a revised resolution EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Letter from applicant, dated May 12, 2017 4. GP Consistency Table 5. ZO Consistency Table 6. Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Compliance Checklist 7. Public Correspondence 8. Plans Half-size project plans have been provided to the Planning Commissioner only ra, Nub in i RESOLUTION NO. 17 -XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION ON RIDGEINE DEVELOPMENT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED15-027) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,570 SQ. FT., MULTI -STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (DRIVEWAY, RETAINING WALLS, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING) ON A VACANT 94,857 SQ. FT. (2.18 ACRES) HILLSIDE AND R[DGELINE PARCEL, LOCATED AT 23 MEYER RD. (APN: 015-291-15) WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CC12-001) was issued by the Public Works Director determining the parcel to be a legal lot of record, subject required improvements to Meyer Road as determined by the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2013, staff completed Pre -application (PA13-007) review on the project and provided comments to the applicant; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board (Board) completed conceptual design review (CDR14-008) of the project and provide the following comments: • Redesign the access driveway to relocate the `guest' parking area closer to the .residence to discourage backing out onto Meyer Rd., widen the `throat' of the driveway at the junction with Meyer Rd. and reduce the grade; • Reduce the height of the retaining wall to comply with the hillside guidelines (3' height downslope of residence; 4' height upslope of residence) by stepping back or breaking up retaining walls into series of wall structures; • Take advantage of the allowable Setback Waiver to encroach into the front setback 10' with the residence and access driveway; and Provide darker exterior colors; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2015, a formal project application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-027) was submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, proposing to construct a 3,156 sq. ft., multi -story single-family residence and associated site improvements (driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant 94,857 sq. ft, hillside and ridgeline parcel and subsequently assigned the address of 23 Meyer Rd.; and WHEREAS, the project application also requests an Exception (EX17-007) to the prohibition on development located within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2017, the Board reviewed and unanimously recommended approval (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) of the proposed site and building design, with the following comments; • The location and height of the residence and driveway retaining walls are appropriate if the project can comply with the required stepback along the Meyer Rd. frontage; • The design of the residence is well articulated subject to the gable roof projections integrating better along the Meyer Rd. frontage; • The entrance to the residence is too narrow and should be wider; • The exterior colors are appropriate, including the red trim color; EXHIBIT 2b -1 • The exterior facade treatments should include an additional texture, such as a stone base or Hardi-plank/Hardi-shingle; • The size of the residence is modest for the size of the parcel; the applicant should consider adding a fourth bedroom to the design; • The landscape plans shall include vine plantings along the base of the lower driveway retaining wall to mitigate its scale and mass; • The applicant should confirm that all plant species on the landscape plan are available; and • The project plans shall include a contextual elevation showing how the existing tree line would relate to the proposed height of the project and WHEREAS, in response to the Board's comments, the project design was subsequently revised, as follows: • New separate uncovered deck and landscape planter projections have been added to the downslope elevation to create the required building stepback along the Meyer Rd. frontage, where no exterior wall plane exceeds 20' in uninterrupted height; • The primary gable roof project along the Meyer Rd. frontage has been enlarged, increasing in width from 12' to 16', and a small gable roof projection over an upper -story bay window has been eliminated; • The entrance to the residence has been enlarged, increasing in width from 4' to 8'; • A new dry stacked stone veneer wainscot, in a medium earthtonelwoodtone color, has been added to the base of the residence; • A fourth bedroom and bathroom, 270 sq. ft. in size, has been added to the second floor, behind the remainder of the residence; • The landscape plan has been revised to include vine. plantings along the base of the lower driveway retaining wall (6, 5 -gallon container size, Lonicera Hispidula or California Honeysuckle, planted 9' on -center and trained with horizontal cables installed 36" on- center);and • A partial cross-section of the site (Sh. 1-, View BSB) has been included in the plans showing how the proposed height of the residence relates to both the ridgeline and tree line WHEREAS, though not required by Board, additional changes are proposed to the project design, as follows: ® The number of existing trees requiring removal has increased, from 29, to 35 trees, in order to accommodate the design and location of the additional or fourth bedroom and bathroom and increased upslope retaining wall (These additional trees are California Bay trees and, while their size would typically qualify them for determination as `significant' trees, the arborist report for the project has determined that most of these trees to be in poor health or growth habit); • . The number of replacement site landscaping has increased from 164 to 224 total plantings, most of which are located along the Meyer Rd. frontage; • A new wood staircase is proposed to provide direct pedestrian connection between Meyer Rd. and the entrance to the residence; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CE^QA), pursuant to Section 15303(a) (Neve Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines; which exempts single-family residences located witthin single-family residential zoning districts. The project proposes to construct a new, 3,570 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant parcel located within the R1a-H District, a single- family residential district; and EXHIBIT 2b -2 WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, including Exception No. EX17-007 and Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-027, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS,'the Planning'Commission of the City of San Rafael does hereby make the following findings related to Exception No. EX17-007 and Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-027: Exception No. EX17-007 Findings 1. There are no site development alternatives which avoid ridgeline development, given that; the entire site is located within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline; no alternative location on the site exists which would not require the granting of the Exception to ridgeline development on the site; 2. The density has been reduce to the minimum allowed by the General Plan land use designation density range, given that; the site has a General Plan land use designation of Hillside Residential (HR), which allows 0.5-2 units of gross density per acre and is consistent with the one (1) residential unit proposed by the project on the site;; 3. No new subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development, given that; the project does not propose to subdivide the site and the site is ineligible for subdivision under the City's currently adopted Subdivision Ordinance. The site is 94,857 sq. ft. in area, slightly over 2 acres. Pursuant to Section 15.07.020(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance, any subdivision of the site would need to create parcels with a minimum lot size of 2 acres, based on the HR General Plan land use designation and the 46.7% average cross -slope; and 4. The proposed development will not have significant adverse visual impacts due to modifications for height, bulk design, size, location, siting and landscaping, which avoid or minimize the visual impacts of the development, as viewed from all public viewing areas, given that; the intent of the City's adopted hillside development standards and design guidelines is to reduce adverse visual impacts and adherence to these applicable standards and guidelines will reduce project impacts as much as possible. To reduce perceived bulk and mass on hillsides, new development on the site should both preserve -as much existing landscape screening as possible and augment with additional landscape screening, should be located as close as possible to the Meyer Rd. frontage and should step up with the existing natural slope. As currently proposed, the new residence would not project above the ridgeline on the site and potential public views of the natural ridge tree silhouette would not be interrupted. The applicant has installed story pales to help demonstrate the scale and height or visual impacts of the project, representing the exterior wall heights at the corners of the new residential structure and the roof ridge. At their February 7, 2017 meeting, the Design Review Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed building and site design with minor modifications. Environmental and Design Review Permit No. EDIS-027 Findings A. As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table (Exhibit 4) attached to the staff report to the Planning Commission, the project design is in accord with the General Plan, EXHIBIT 2b -3 the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance; in that: - . As documented in the General Pian 2020 Consistency Table attached to the staff report to the Planning Commission, the project will be consistent with Land Use Policies LU -2 (Development Timing), LU -8 (Density of Residential Development), LU -12 (Building Heights) and LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), Housing Policy H-2 (Housing That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), Neighborhoods Policy NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), Community Design Policies CD -1d (City Image; Landscape improvement), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -5 (Views), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines), CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -18 (Landscaping) and CD -19 (Lighting), Circulation Policy C-7 (Circulation Improvement Funding), Infrastructure Policy 1-2 (Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services), Sustainability Policies SU -6 (Reduce Use of Non -Renewable Resources) and SU -6 (New and Existing Trees), Safety Policies S-1 (Location of Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard Maps in Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical Review), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New Buildings), S-18 (Storm Drainage Improvements), S-22 (Erosion) and S-32 (Safety Review of Development Projects), Noise Policies N-3 (Planning and Design of New Development) and N -10h (Nuisance Noise; Mitigation for Construction Activity Noise), and Air and Water Polices AW -7 (Local, State and Federal Standards) and Alin -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff); 2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5) attached to the staff report to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, given that: a. The proposed project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding Al above; b. The project will reduce or remove negative impacts caused by inappropriate location, use or design of buildings and improvements, given that; 1) The project is proposed to be consistent with all applicable development standards and design criteria and guidelines in both the Rl a District zone and the Hillside Development Overlay (-H) District; and 2) The Design Review Board (Board) has reviewed the proposed project and unanimously (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) recommended approval of the site and building design, subject to minor improvements which have been incorporated in revised plans for review by the Planning Commission; c. The project will ensure the adequate provision of light, air space, fire safety and privacy between buildings, given that; 1) The new residence will be setback a minimum of 100' (approx-) from the closest neighboring residence across Meyer Rd. (20 and 24 Meyer Rd.) and a,minimum of 300' (approx..) from all other neighboring residences (166 Woife Grade and 20 and 25 Brushwood Ln.); and 2) the project is conditioned to be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current building, fire safety and seismic codes; d. The project will provide for adequate, safe and effective off-street parking and loading facilities, given that; 1) The proposed project will provide two (2) covered on- site parking spaces and two (2) additional uncovered on-site parking spaces to meet the requirements for new single-family development on streets less than 26' -wide; EXHIBIT 2b -4 and 2) The proposed project has been previously reviewed by the Board on February 7, 2017 who unanimously recommended approval of the site and building design, including the on-site parking; e. The proposed project will promote a safe, effective traffic circulation system, and maintain acceptable local circulation system operating condition, given that; during conceptual design review of the project, the Board provided comments that the new driveway approach to Meyer Rd. should be widened 'to allow easy -to -maneuver and safe egress and ingress; f. The project will preserve and enhance natural resources and key visual features in the community, including the bay, shoreline, canal, wetlands and hillsides, given that; the project proposes to locate the new residence at the base of the hillside, closest to Meyer Rd., and below the existing ridgeline and tree line to preserve a majority of the site in its existing natural state; g. The project will coordinate the service demands of new development with the capabilities of existing streets, utilities and public services, given that; the proposed project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and all utility service providers who have indicated that the service demands of the project can be met, subject to the payment of fees to offset impacts; and h. The project has provided opportunities for effective citizen participation in decision- making,,. given that; staff referred the project to the appropriate neighborhood groups (Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assn, and the Southern Heights Homeowner's Association) early in the review process. Additionally, staff noticed all three (3) public hearings on the project (November 18, 2014 concept review, February 7, 2017 formal design review and this Planning Commission hearing) in compliance with Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance (Public Notice). Notice of all three separate meetings and this hearing were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, the appropriate neighborhood groups and all interested parties, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the meetings or hearing, and notice was posted on the project site along the Meyer Rd. frontage prior to all meetings. All public comments received during the review of the proposed project are attached to staff's report (Exhibit 7). All public comments were neither in support or opposition of the project but, rather, are individual `concerns'. Comments received from other City departments and non -City agencies on the project have been incorporated in the review, either as plan revisions or conditions of approval. 3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5) attached to the staff report to the Planning Commission, the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits, given that; a. The project will maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development and the natural environment, given that; 1) The project proposes to locate the new residence at the base of the hillside, closest to Meyer Rd., and below the existing ridgeline and tree line to preserve a majority of the site in its existing natural state; 2) The project proposes to limit existing tree removal to 35 trees to preserve a majority of the site in its existing natural state; and 3) The project proposes to preserve those.potion of the ridgeline within an protected private open space easement which also would preserve a majority of the site in its existing natural state; EXHIBIT 2b -S b. The project will promote design excellence by encouraging creative design and the innovative use of materials and methods and techniques, given that: the Board has reviewed the proposed site and building design and recommended approval, subject to minor modifications which have been incorporated into revised plans for review by the Planning Commission; and c. The project will preserve and enhance views from other buildings and public property, given that; 1) A_ s identified in Finding A2 (c) above, the new building will provide a minimum 100' (approx..) setback from the closest neighboring residence; and 2) As identified in Finding A3 (a) above, the project proposes to maintain a majority of the hillside in a natural state by locating development adjacent to Meyer Rd., limiting tree removal, and preserving the ridgeline and tree line in perpetuity with a private conservation easement. B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Single -Family Residential -- Hillside Development Overlay (R1 a -H) District in which the site is located, given that; 1. The project design will be consistent with the maximum allowable building height for the site (30' allowed; 27.5' above existing grade proposed) 2. The project design will be consistent with the maximum allowable lot coverage for the site (25% or 23,714 sq. ft. allowed, 2.6% or 2,479 sq. ft. proposed); 3. The project design will be consistent with the minimum required yard setbacks for the site, as follows: • 20' front required; 35' front proposed; 15' side required; 133' side (west)1120' (east) side proposed; • 25' rear required; 96' rear proposed; and 4. The project design will be consistent with the 'stepback' requirement for the site, as all downslope exterior walls will be a maximum height of 20' above existing grade.; 5. The project design will be consistent with the minimum 'natural state' requirement on the site (71.7% or 68,012 sq. ft. required; 56.9% or 82,457 sq. ft. proposed) 6. The project design will be consistent with the maximum `gross building square footage' allowed for the site (6,500 sq. ft. allowed-, 3,570 sq. ft. proposed); 7. The project design will be consistent with the parking requirement for the site. As follows: • Two (2) covered parking spaces required; two (2) garage parking spaces proposed; and • Two (2) additional on-site parking spaces required due to non -conforming width of Meyer Rd.; two (2) additional uncovered on-site parking spaces on driveway proposed; and 8. The proposed project will be consistent with review criteria for Environmental and - Design Review Permits (Chapter 94.25 of the Zoning Ordinance), given that; the Board reviewed the formal application submittal at their February 7, 2017'meeting and, after EXHIBIT 2b -6 determining the project adequately met the review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits, unanimously (4-0-2; Kent and Lentini absent) recommended approval of proposed building and site design, subject to minor modifications which have been incorporated in revised plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given that: The project proposes to remove 35 existing trees, five (5) of which are deemed `significant' (i.e., any Oak tree more than 6" in diameter or any tree more than 12" in diameter, as measured 4.5' above the root crown, and in good health and form), which are required in hillside developments, to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio or 15 replacement trees are required. The project proposes to plant 16, 15 -gallon container size, replacement trees, all of which are California native ornamental species; 2. The proposed project includes storm water detention dissipater areas along the Meyer Rd. frontage, between the residence and Meyer Rd., which will help mitigate the resulting impacts of storm water surface runoff from the site; and 3. The site neither contains, nor is immediately contiguous to, recognizable wetlands, creeks or similarly sensitive environmental features, and it has not been identified in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (Exhibit 38 — Threatened and Endangered Species) as a general location were threatened and endangered species have been previously observed or maintain a suitable habitat for their likely presence to be found. D. The project design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City, given that: 1) The project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, the appropriate surrounding neighborhood group (Gerstle Park Neighborhood Assn. and the Southern Heights Homeowner's Assn.) and the Board; 2) Conditions of approval have been included to mitigate any potential negative impacts anticipated to be generated by the grading and construction proposed by the project; and 3) The project would not change or increase the allowable density of residential development • on the site over the existing single-family residential land use. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael makes the following findings of fact related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); ' California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (a) (New Structures), of the CEQA Guidelines; which exempts single-family residences located witthin single-family residential zoning districts. The project proposes to construct a new, 3,570 sq. ft., single-family residence on a vacant parcel located within the R1a-H District, a single-family residential district. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Exception No. EX17-007 and Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-027, based on the findings of fact above and, subject to the following conditions of approval: EXBMIT 2b -7 Exception No. EX17-007 Conditions of Approval This Exception (EX17-007) approves development on the site, a vacant parcel (APN: 012- 291-15) located entirely within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant ridgeline, as shown of the community design maps (Exhibits 17 and 18) of the General Plan. This Exception approves building and site development consistent with the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-027) approval. 2. This Exception shall run shall run concurrently with the Environmental and Design Review Permit (FD15-027) approval_ If the Environmental and Design Review Permit expires, the Exception shall also expire and become invalid. Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED15-O27 Conditions of Approval General and On -Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented to the Planning Commission at their July 11, 2017 hearing, by Oberkamper & Associates Civil Engineers Inc. (Sh. C1-C6 and 1), Fredric C. Divine Associates Architects (Sh. A1.1, A1.2, A2 and A3) and Matthew Reilly landscape Architect (Sh. V1 and V2), and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all buildinglgrading permits, subject to these conditions. Minor modifications or -revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the City Council, or the City's Planning Commission, and ,may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review Board. 2. The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Any future modification to the color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation prior to approval by the Planning Division. 3. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-027) approves the construction of a 3,570 sq. ft., multi -story single-family residence and associated site improvements (driveway, retaining walls, drainage and landscaping) on a vacant 94,857 sq. ft. hillside and ridgeline parcel (APN: 012-291-15). 4. The lower uncovered parking space along the driveway, closest to. Meyer Rd., is required to be redesign to include a landing with an average cross -slope no greater than 10%. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded legal instrument which creates the private open space easement along that portion of the ridgeline on the site. ' This document shall contain language prohibiting development of any kind and making this private open space easement irrevocable and in perpetuity. EXHIBIT 2b -8 6. All `off -haul` of excavation and delivery/pick-up of construction equipment shall occur during off-peak weekday hours only, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7. All grading and construction activities, including any and all deliveries of equipment, materials and workers, shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays. Low -noise construction, occurring entirely within the interior of the building, may be permissible beyond these approved days/hours of operation with prior approval by the Planning Division and only after the building is completely enclosed (wails, roof, doors and windows). Any work on Sundays and federally -recognized holidays is strictly prohibited. S. Final landscape and irrigation plans for the project shall comply with the provisions of Marin Municipal Water District's (MMWD) most recent water conservation ordinance (currently Ordinance 429). Construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall be pre -approved by MMWD and stamped as approved by MMWD. The building permit application submittal shall include a letter from MMWD approving the final landscape and irrigation plans. Modifications to the final landscape and irrigation plans, as required by MMWD, shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. 9. All new landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic drip system and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any new landscaping dying or dead shall be replaced in a timely fashion. 10. All public streets that are impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping. 11. All submitted Building Permit plan sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of approval. 12. if archaeological or cultural resources are accidentally discovered during excavation/grading activities, all work will stop within 100 feet of the resource and the qualified archaeologist will be notified immediately. The qualified archaeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning Division and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of' the find and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No work shall occur in the vicinity until approved by the qualified archaeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. Prehistoric resources that may be identified include, but shall not be limited to, concentrations of stone tools and manufacturing debris made of obsidian, basalt and other stone materials, milling equipment such as bedrock mortars, portable mortars and pestles and locally darkened soils (midden) that may contain dietary remains such as shell and bone, as well as human remains. Historic resources that may be identified include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, structural foundations, cabin pads, cans with soldered seams or tops, or bottles or fragments or clear and colored glass If human remains are encountered (or suspended) during any project -related activity, all work will halt within 100 feet of the project and the County Coroner will be contacted to evaluate the situation. if the County Coroner determines that the human remains are of EXHIBIT 2b -9 Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify FIGR within 24 -hours of such identification who will work with Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. No work shall occur.in the vicinity without approval from Planning staff. 13. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or'entity, including the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the indemnities. 14. In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of ,such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the counsel to defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City.. 15. The applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by the City, associated with the reviewing, process and implementing of the land use approval and related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established from time. to time by the City Finance Director to cover, staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead, plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall reimburse City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by the City. 16. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-027) shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building/grading permit is issued and construction commenced or a time extension request is submitted to the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of approval, or July 11, 2019. Failure to obtain a building permit and construction commenced or failure to obtain a time extension within the two-year period will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit. 17. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED15-0627 shall run concurrently with the Exception (EX17-007) approval. If the Environmental and Design Review Permit expires, the Exception approval shall also expire and become invalid. EXHIBIT 2b -10 Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits Community Development Department, Planning Division 18. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval by staff with the recommendation of the City Engineer. The CMP shall include, but is not limited to, carpool details for construction workers, proposed construction truck route, proposed location of material staging areas, proposed location of construction trailers, proposed location of construction worker parking, proposed dust control program, a statement that neighbors along Meyer Rd. and located east of the site (11, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 24 Meyer Rd. and 20 Brushwood Ln.) shall receive weekly notices of the upcoming construction/grading schedule, a statement that all delivers of materials shall be small loads and more frequent, a statement that all delivery of materials and grading shall be flagman -assisted as needed, a statement that vehicular traffic shall be maintained along Meyer Rd. at all times, a statement that the project shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code), as modified by these conditions, which limits the days and hours of all grading and construction activities. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail. Public Works Department 19. A grading permit is required from the Public Works Department (111 Morphew St.). Provide detailed grading plans and soil erosion plans. Include a Construction Management Plan. Provide a statement from Marin Municipal Water District that the driveway may encroach over their existing easement. 20. A traffic mitigation fee of $16,984 shall be required. 21. The drainage plan shall be modified to show all stormwater facilities (detention and dissipater systems) shall be located completely on-site and maintained by the owner. 22. The project proposes a total of more than 2,500 sq. ft. of new impervious area, Provide a stormwater control plan in compliance with MCSTOPPP requirements. Please refer to http:l/www.marincounty.org/depts/pwldivisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and- redevelopment-projects. 23. All work in the public right of way requires the issuance of an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. The project engineer shall submit three (3) sets of plans showing all work proposed in the public right-of-way, including details of all utilities, to the City Engineer for review and approval. 24. Include the attached sheet 'Pollution Prevention -- Its Part of the Plan" with each construction drawing set submitted for building permit. 25. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,0.00 of valuation exempt. Community Development Department, Building Division 26. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently computed at $2.97 per square foot. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them and proof of payment shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of the building permit. EXHIBIT 2b -I I 27. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Residential Code, 2016 California Building Code, 2016 Plumbing Code, 2016 Electrical Code, 2016 California Mechanical Code, 2016 California Fire Code, 2016 California Energy Code, 2016 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, 2016 California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments, or the codes that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal. 28. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings to include: a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans C) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade pian and height of the building) h) Structural Calculations i) Truss Calculations D Soils reports k) Green Building documentation 1) Title -24 energy documentation 29. Each building shal[ have address identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. For new construction and substantial remodels, the address shall be internally -illuminated or externally -illuminated and remain illuminated at all hours of darkness. Number shall be a minimum 4 inches (4") in height with Y2 inch stroke for residential occupancies. The address shall be contrasting in color to their background. 30. The new address of the structure is determined by the Chief Building Official. The tentative address for the proposed dwelling is 23 Meyer Rd. The address for the new dwelling shall be legalized upon completion of its construction. The title, block on each sheet of each plan set for all permit applications shall provide the proposed building's address identification information. 31. A detailed soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to address the proposed grading (soils export, import and placement) or site remediation. In particular, the report shall address the compaction of soils at the building pad and driveway locations and shall be based on an assumed foundation design. 32. As a new building, the project is required to comply with the California Green Building Code, including Tier 1 standards. 33. All new construction, additions, or remodels shall comply with the Wood -Burning Appliance Ordinance. New wood burning fireplaces and non -EPA certified wood stoves are prohibited. 34. This new building is located within a Wildand-Urban Interface Area. The building materials systems and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction shall comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A. EX MIT 2b -12 San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau 35. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2016 California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 36. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed. Deferred submittals for the sprinklers system shall be submitted by a licensed C-16 contractor to the San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau for review. 37. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide adequate water supply service for the required fire protection system. San Rafael Sanitation District 38. The proposed new sewer facilities shall adhere to the San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) Standard Specifications for Side Sewers and Laterals. The applicant shall provide a profile for the surface and invert elevations for the proposed pipeline. 39. Provide information on type, size, slope and details on the proposed utility trench and backfill. 40. Cleanouts are required every 90 linear feet and must be installed at each bend or change in direction greater than 45°. 41. A sewer connection fee of $8,980.16 is required. Please note that after June 30, 2016 this fee may increase. During Construction Marin Municipal Water District 42. The parcel shall be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the following requirements: a) Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application. b) Submit a copy of the approved building permit. c) Pay the appropriate fees and charges. d) Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of the application. e) Comply with the Main Municipal Water District (MMWD) rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. f) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 -- Water Conservation. Indoor plumbing fixtures shall meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape, irrigation, grading and fixture plans shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 — Water Conservation should be directed to the District's Water Conservation Department at (415) 9451497. You may also find information on the District's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org. g) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the Districts review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1558. h) Use of recycled water is required, where available, for all approved uses, including irrigation and the flushing of toilets and urinals. Questions regarding the use of recycled water should be directed to (415) 945-1558. EXHIBIT 2b -13 Pacific Gas & Electric 43. Electric and gas service to the project site will -be provided in accordance with the, applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E`s website at htt :/lwww. e.comlm homelcustomerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE -5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 44. The cost of relocating any existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead facilities to underground shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or property owner. 45. Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Prior to Occupancy Community Develo o ment Department, Planning Division 46. Final inspection of the project by the Community Development Department, Planning Division, is required. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 47. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. In the alternative, the applicant or property owner shall post a bond with the City in the amount of the estimated lands cap inglirrigation installed cost. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping shall be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed three (3) months past occupancy. 48. The landscape architect for the project shall submit a letter to the Planning Division, confirming the landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved project plans and the irrigation is fully functioning. 49. All exterior lighting -shall be shielded to reduce off-site glare. A minimum of one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided at all exterior doorways and throughout the vehicle parking area. Less than one (1) foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided on all property lines. 50. All ground- and rooftop -mounted mechanical- equipment shall be fully screened from public view. 51. All trash and recycling containers shall be fully screened from public view within an appropriately located and designed enclosure structure. After Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 52. Following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90 -day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on EXHIBIT 2b -14 adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 11th day of July 2017. Moved' by Commissioner _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: Paul A. Jensen, Secretary and seconded by Commissioner SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Berenice Davidson, Chair EXHIBIT 2b -15 Draper Planning Group 11 Sacramento Avenue San Anselmo, Ca 94960 415 457-3431 May 12, 2017 Mr. Steve Stafford City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division P O Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 44915 RE: AP 012-241-15 23 Meyer Road This letter is to memorialize the modifications to our design. given the feedback we received from the Design Review Board meeting of February 7, 2017 where our application was approved. Our letter of January 23, 2017 summarizes how we have addressed the major components of the project. Architectural elements At the suggestion the Design Review Board and planning staff our architect Fred Divine added a deck off of the kitchen and reworked the side of the residence facing Meyer Road so that it would better comply with the City's step back requirement. The result is a more articulated facade that, along with the staircase leading up from the street to the upper driveway/entrance, makes for a better presentation of the home as viewed from Meyer Road. Other modifications suggested by the Design Review Board and planning staff are also reflected in the design drawings. These includes widening the gable above the window at the on the first floor dining room, revising the architectural elements of the front entrance staircase, adding a storage room off the garage, and adding a fourth bedroom out the back of the residence. To vary the design elements of the residence Fred added a natural stone veneer on the lower section of the building where it faces Meyer Road and this addition gives the building a much more interesting visual feel. The natural stone veneer varies in height along the garage as compared to the adjacent veneer on the home because the veneer needs to be in proportion with the mass it is enhancing. Fred has created an elevation study to help conceptualize what the building might look like with shadows, vegetation, and tree plantings. 23 Meyer Road -- Planning Commission statement Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 3 Meyer Road landscape modifications The Design Review Board and staff also recommended some changes to the landscape plan on Meyer Road. This area has been enhanced with more vegetation and the retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway will be covered with California Honeysuckle to minimize the visual effect of this retaining wall which is already a dark gray color. We validated that all of the plants specified in the landscape plan are or will be available from local nurseries. In cases where there were questions regarding availability we have provided alternate plant selections. Tree inventory Our arborist Kent Julin (ArborScience) revisited the site and assessed the five bay trees that would need to be removed because of the addition of the fourth bedroom. The proposed project would require removal of 35 trees. Each tree has been marked with a numbered metal tag and/or surveyors tape to make it easier for neighbors, staff, and board members to better visualize which trees are staying and which are to be removed. Tree 31 meets the definition of a "significant" tree in the San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Guidelines and we have proposed planting of three more trees as specified in the Guidelines for a total of 18 trees to replace the six "significant" trees. Ridgeline tree coverage Our engineer Lee Oberkamper prepared an elevation showing the proximity of the proposed residence as it relates to the ridgeline. The structure is located as close to Meyer Road as is physically possible'thus minimizing its visual effect on the ridgeline. The Oberkamper drawing (1 -Meyer Road Cross Section View) helps to visualize how the structure will look when viewed in context with the existing tree canopy. We believe that this project design and the relatively modest home size will result in the best utilization of the property for a single family home with a minimum of environmental impacts. Sincerely, /s Jerome Draper Jerome Draper Land Use Planner 23 Meyer Road — Planning Commission statement Page 2 of 3 The following reports have been submitted: 1. Civil engineering drawings (Oberkamper: C1-C6) 2. Site Plan (Divine: AL1) 3. Site. Plan - Enlarged (Divine: A1.2) 4. Floor plans (Divine: A2) 5. Elevations (Divine: A3) 6. Landscape/Vegetation Management Plan (Sweetbriar/Vine Maple: V1) 7. Tree Removal Plan (Vine Maple: V2) 8. - Drainage Analysis (Oberkamper) 9. City of San Rafael Department of Public Works Encroachment Permit 10. Arborist Report (ArborScience) 11. Geotechnical Investigation Report (SalemHowes Assoc) 12. Storm Drainage letter (Oberkamper-March 19, 2015) 13.. Color Palette (three pages: stucco, trim, retaining wall/roof) 14. Two Shotcrete wall study (Oberkamper) 15.4' High Tiered Wall Study (Oberkarnper) 16. MMWD email approving proposed driveway over MMWD easement 17. Inline notes from August 12, 2015 completeness review 18. Map of Meyer Road Subdivision (three pages) 19. Artist's rendering of proposed home in 16" x 20" format 20. Letter from engineer Lee Oberkarnper regarding driveway connection to Meyer Road 21. Letter from John Sharp to Lisa: Goldfien. regarding access to Meyer Road. right-of-way 22. Story pole drawings (Oberkamper: SP1) 23. Letter from Lee Oberkamper certifying story pole location and fill height 24. Civil engineer drawing -Meyer Road Cross Section View (Oberkamper: 1) 23 Meyer Road — Planning Commission statement Page 3 of 3 ,- 0 q Q as 0 0 C;) W 2 C.)o oA - a� � v ti �' 0 •� �' �. Q'ocd 4-4 p o U N a�C�, vCd .0 o n4 N dl v co �W0. 0 m cn C,3 U o � +- U' U' 4-400Cd 04� rn p � kn N a U N0 a3 r� F� 0 u cicif. ow -<cd an IS O cc 0 O o o U o o rJ3 0 0 0d w cxj c 10 �sO 4..i ,� v a) U O D U O o U U cd 6' N °J E U . ga, as � N �"Cf ++ N U o ani R1 U 10,as N o C) w H +� a °� b a cd va ai U N q*'tnj a) O r 03 U F7 m 71O u U O �+ 0 U � d o -~�, V cd 44 0 vi ' o q, �' ;., off.[ > Ell 0a - dl a $ d Q i o ani H 0 AH� � am Li 'out o s��C gyp+ 2 t, •�"i N Firn F �' .��' RS •� '^r F, cd . R U as '� ti .F,4 y « N U y •U a q O U N gz Aa Ell vi ,� W U W t'' 'U 3rUia~ id U] k� tau O i� cd N EXHIBIT 4 9 A U ` o cc! c 13 �[w , o G p •� '� W �-j 0+0 oU rn m ti - U "tl y 1,4� m � } 4' d) a ; °' �. a w m a 14 a tzz "�-'- 7� 00 G 'll y�� N ,^Nll cd a U N N EXHIBIT 4 z 14 u tf1 v�+ 4ti i"' to • � a> cd n ' m w Q. tw zs .� '—` Cd �. as O N p.., bA � p `•� Q N N�00 U ca R,.O Cd U m 41 v1-4? p o yyyy � a O D U ¢� N s>. T � -C ) ��o�� `d0 0o OU O +°� o 0 0 x ca Pa '0 C.) m m O of U N 'cS U N c7 ai > CD N ,r U P�� 0" ca o'er ens,95 iy bA 4a• Ob�.' U y IM O '. O r� O }�, Re W M O �--� •� O U o a�' s..' , U ;> CA F+ � ul o b ani o � A � � •cy � ,� a o � � an a� •� o O _ U U � SU U yfl) �orn ;an�„oaoH� P,o o o N c� N cn • U N — ;. � c� P� a .� CJ o ani ani o n �, 0 4Q fSe v id cd 10 cd cd ~' oo d 4� a] m P b to N o tib 'aur d WO b4 ani b m d❑ d) �+ m w E4 'd + q 0 Cf O O gWC U CD vi CT cid Ny a O N 41 O m P. , p4 cid N tVd h�•Q N ,s�� N Gam] L� 'U ,p .0- bA o 0 U 'cl 91 �a zl d� N ice" �� o b Uw N 04 Cj 3 m 0 a 4� tj 0 Py 0O , `' ani P, fl I Y 'o '52 c .•- o (c t� •�i 41 -d p o U 1 -s-,4 N P,0.• y �•. `+moi rn H-„�'"_, ed QN ,p -� til +U+ `fid+ cd vi O [17 Y NA v o a m cVd ami No .� o o a� cUd cam 10 v; co ^ � co d) a) � � NA bob 08 71 b Id C3 0 t� NA >4 pa N + 0 c� bB :� Ul 61 ,tdd •0 o g ;2 .N i Q fti 14 o al d) -A--; .o O >' 4 wAl m b11 6 a > bAo a `. > jkn U O O 0 :a m 42 ¢ " q crr Q o d, O o `n O d] 0 p p b ami ai cd cd GA o . w' dN3 az a� aD : 'd m --� ui U i. '� rn dl a� . o d y •� O p. a u r•., 4-i 4-4 bf 74 on 0 - C3 m � xU bUA a) 0 cc ted o o�' - U • ��" 'a 4U -r d to •r, byo cd o -� dpi F. K. 7140) 0 0'� c`ri N m 0O �i an-. LIS 0 �y m '� j aD o U Edo , c d+-•' m W tf 0 ' .� � bn � � � a q"aj N .V-, cd c m k N4 ani s. c�� F zo a� ' a; 3 0 a! O az N +' U t8 11 P'' 04 0 a a m OcFd U Nqmchi? 42 O G � o b am' -� a 46 �� C o Ln nai �� 1-1 ID m ro E g o cd zoo 0 � a' " �, ° m o a ed a) Ld � G od N 0 ate% '::1 a C -) o cd O U bll vUi id p N �' • � O c� dw r # C P m A,' G: p m N ao a..�i b x,17 ►. �I �j n) N 0 Cod . •� O N O O M 2 4 C * O oN m U n by cd O cd O N N O O C1 N cd v O P� P+ p S9 Q N U FI N U y 4- N 0 N Cd T7 O y p C U v+ c+UdN•s: CD ami t' o 'aCd 0 10 4; a) '� V ,W 41 N p O�;. N N I N N 113 O bfj 0 Ari uz ,4? � O cd Fv� � � cA tri co CL) 14U cq 0 00 Go TJ Ci O Gid b i U P,O Cn O o aoi �.°f 3 a �� °? d , � o -5 > o cd d m N N O O IU O'o (D U O O 04 •� {�4 w .O Q ami., M ID Re 'O ,.4 0 rUn U U _ •F; td + b cs � � � o % I., as 'd 00 -Ids b O 04 *D O @ qzl cu IZI [fid •, V • N N ¢` d] bA N�+ '��+ .� +O+ '� "d q -i O N q O •., W PQ o N "o '� ti OID N y .d N N aA G O4"'i ' �j (� �^ `j o ao o W a0 0 0 a� o Cd 3 0 a� w A b .0 .0 b4 rte, ill � C � a� � � � V3 Ep m a oUd) 0 �C! P, U� 0"� �N .�I sed �-' cd v ' bA ,� .. ,� U bA ,--� � • U i-, ,"--• 44 U vi -U O 'd O O v •o 4� N 0 .d o0 d bn o w a a� as o o N • cC ��" 41 bA o oA. u fn. d 0 C) • �? L) Lj v az O r�7 o G D a� cr O 6jPLO *�' ami N N r. 'P O ai U M d.) o '� O O N UJ P, A"p k Cc, 6l • 0 O — v .ate] O dA O O `G � O .,�' O > -d1-0 1 7-� 00 m cd O � Q) ho ��. W .•ice., bD N,W; U� m d�7..�'d {ma{.y.� cdd0 cc U O ti14lC CG r . , ++ >, Aye �•y +� '�v U M+ •U fl ai O S� , ~- W , X00 `� N {i0 VJ aGi nA A cd bA C,di U �.•" O 'dO C' O. > d d + J O d o G G o s 'n w U Q] cn v G� o y.a •cd O ., O G U O G U 41 O tw Lei cd z o Sao�4) ad o ���Q0�:� U�� �=���a�ro a 04 o � tio C-1 o'd too 5'0 0 �4 oU ado _U FG 0 cd�•o� A U W.� �bO b0 O C, O" b0 dA 'D ,01 •OUN ,tOU 0 •� y[r�Cc..ac�.,.i� _�' y .1 04N —a U U .1N s y d m l - —0 ;.4 FO -i 4i N O Lf 4, N N U U O 0Ovati b0 $, , O tO>py wNcd L0PO i' � `� ob .a 0U v ` 4a ni O . •� cd A p + -41 aui o i' v 3� rn O In 4) U 721 � � O b0 N "" .U, U P4 b0 U cd b0 o v� F+ G 4�3 4q 0 y v 45 aa) a • �'' ' U • v ' h•0 0 o -0'd G N sO, G .� 4, V -0•aU�+a us cid F; lid fi O .� G UO p .�1 U cd G sp..O sUd A K 5 A p, �� r'o , a W Al 0 o aa U "ri J G U n4:a O O B O V i�, U r�r� V , b0 Y O U U 1O N 7•. ,S4 N U. � .� bA Ov. C6 03 0 O U U ¢ m d y d) 0 ami c)ail Y rNTV U :'fl Cd G] N 10 V2 wO v Y d ccf .G �--+ 6l 3 � 9 � �] cn (Da� > tom. b I 7 o O a� c Oo o m B. i �' a� ,.7 al iw �a P4 b� , . "a R •>-j tl QJ bD z N q bn P4 Cd o C :Jf s oU.. � i"e El H i•a O cG _ O P -s 0( -) Wtj O U n •l U .5. U�^� b^ 1 r�i❑❑� ~ F Id `� a Cd icid N id U o 4) O C14 O d p � o •'—' U q" O bn m bA U is 41) 0 c] 040,0 q 0"" } O O Cd 64 o.a`, o o• U U �U a� p 0 (D AFt N "Cf lu U F -e C3 U Y O U U 1O N 7•. ,S4 N U. � .� bA Ov. C6 03 0 O U U ¢ m d y d) 0 ami c)ail Y rNTV U :'fl Cd G] N 10 V2 wO v Y d ccf .G �--+ 6l 3 � 9 � �] cn (Da� > tom. b I 7 o O a� c Oo o m B. i �' a� ,.7 al iw �a P4 b� , . "a R •>-j tl QJ bD z N q bn P4 Cd o C :Jf s oU.. ►I W 4) H U 0 O N Rl 12. ¢ U 0 a O %� U U N Cd U j, gal0 "' v, _ 3P .� O . � Cd bfl Q U Q W L't U 41 €� p 0 CD 0 0'P. Od o P r. O �, N 'C3 '-' '�-' 44 N U' ,��'` m O U o o w . �s w O U c, O +o p .fl N O tb m 0 L8 IJ ci O a 45'" N O t U] -C '�'• �� o ".�'� y ahu o Cd O 104, dl c' �-+ o g 'D fi U 3 � •� di a a .i N •11 0 O •b ObOA •zy a ' id c� H O -C a° o o o o 'v a s, a� a� H o O o is rn .� wo o a 't} • U Cil 'dbb N bb Q "�� ��� C[f Qo3b0,9� U rUn A U U� d ) O d IS, d5 O R 4] cCf C} u� Sia N O..� O 'n bl) O N� O y on O NN SL Q O N U bA con 3:U a., N o ' U N N O •0 O s-. c,-" b T❑1 U 7 fes, �D 'd ¢�l �+• U .+� 's�„ c "C CD o d o uty w cry 3 fi x. � -t 048 U '� a PI 0 m w >0 U N rT. q U� m O O N N aJ 0 U O m�P3 U , w y bA bD 84 2 bcl �! Go z a r� U td U ul 4-4QY� QV 6�� Z 5 b W O N m O ami �J b b �' e �l N U' M N «i t� CC' N N O I} CI.1 'd -oU �i cd �' C!1 bA va u N vi 4) H U 0 O N Rl w att0> v w O rf aq cC P °� La 0 IN � O•�� O m m O"Cdcq 2. oG] U +-O �O Ste. O W N 05 N ci' 4 0n- D P. a bA N Oa o0 42 04 9C'J 46 0 bA Q, - 0•o oor wEiW o Fs b+A 10. •� 'rii 0 vi ted .FG?-+ �J a0-+ . 0 O O y cid i-� 3 d W O 'd v 0 U U o a MW 0 U .• All U C-4 a� c� -d o o 00 � rt -5 IS o A o o o •d U ami ai v 3 �,9v�o� 3�0 a� y od O v y (D w Q" dl ,a �� En�0� � bj) Id as y N ai � G O n O �H+ �n as CJS In W03 N �w n P, -c� t9 ay 0 ani } 0 04 �h9 00, bA G ¢, 4- .. P, cd O m O 0 ov O A ao En d v d v ,n o w v, ca a tzi Ld nj o VA w o o cb o ani W U 4 b o 0 ad rn o U -4 m � .� Do � � o � � � a � vi F+- O O 0 tj O �� Qap F.' p,S� ON +;i R� v U j}a a d fi4 clq PQ 0ga, P4 d N w 0 y O M �y • ti[d •Q �i �y ' i. -I 4� 0 O Ca o Cl) 0 Cil O w 'G!1 0N �0oomaN N U o�Aas00O A O - CA cG � P4 N� U -0 U W a U• � UU+ ami b � U f, O O O � b +s � F r•. O ��Utt O cc: N 'n Q3 b Am GO e0 d j P, cC O UO a; - Y Q) a rnrA .0 U ip-I Q) ID4 X ;'-I ' N U 'd b00 v � '0 Q y U )'-P f T% ¢43U � 'a •U U U Cd •� � ;� � U 4) O U a) 4-I p p va U O �Qy. O , c W r�i� s��., �0 CL) 0 � 00 � 2s m P, C (L)� v Y bJo N 0 Cd . � O � a C U unrn (L) ��y � p � � � Cd 0 °' � .5 o � I^�j o 4. 0 v ' '� w o. =� o o us .a.� Q) U P++� .� N > cd 04 04 'o 0 �{a-]fir 0 ���d`-I! m w ¢ u o 0 r El cc3CX/33 O .4U yCz�n ryCD �U C� •a�O��-1 Rv�y' a`O� `iaj-,-�,I A Q) UGA G bjA �U QJ +� O - -t � Cd O4- O 'd �''b�n .d # RI rs �' M . 0 Q °U o 0bD � 0' 0 r, U4� cno a C o cd � o 3 ocd °�' •��.iUbU 0 hp �, on ani cu d A 'p by �+..cn b O ticc, `� . .0 R x, .O , m v QJ tci %]Q`�'i W cd V] ;-'d Cd P, U bp'� cd O O U UN Q) U O •�, M �%, rM sp, C,' A 40 'ma�yy M tn ISI G� . r�1 F i id cr U tl r ~% W I D 6 � O U U "El ry 'O „ d cG - U" P to O 45 U �+ � � � � i-�1 � U •� U � Yv 0 i-- �-I Edi O Edi ✓ 1 i•.[ '�'�i O ^�Q4 Cod i•T- P'1 � '42 1 iia F�, O O aU � V3S . W O ZR YO w o 2 dA N > 't��y .�-i 'd U id N a7 �y 'Ct 0 +.'.l - � 0 O a 0 ,� • ren '�'-' O +�.+ cid O Qi v U ,� O i--' «0 �U�yy v; R c d ¢ � d" c 0 bA N N >'o��p.��� � N 7, Al r%i �i uJ X1--1 1 �1 ! -1�1 ..y 0 Lr t -'y F�•'[ i -- 7-i O r -t to w EXHIBIT 5 04 o O ai O ay O �, ' N a) p '� -,fl v cd 4 N co as . L'3 O vi N o 3 ui bn a o 0 fla d 'd O x. b , a co w s• r a� c a> a� ani 04 g4 CC j O F+ �..f 4) all U tl. 'C} td cd b A'o o,-, o 3 ed0 o p iy c O Ln c� ~' cid c - `� O o d b 0 O r ,a� r�i" p. p e o�CV,,ter 3--o,P a� 6 P0. en +. 9 ad al E o O b O as x a, " + P N o > N U Aq is a; cd o� o Q 'D ch d)¢ d.w� 0 cd lo .M N b w o U b N M LIS Q..� rrni al c P. .+cd co 0 cd es a) >, a' °'" mai a] o o . b ,� a H Obi O 4 W L7 p b4 bA o ami 0awl 4-i m m N 40-� +'(".-' i-� U +-..� O b O O N ti 03 W W Py PA P, P� b y U�� W� � W o N O 'd cd N cdw CI 0 •m_ o b w d � O b y '� 'b O oto O N 'Q c FE U o -00 � all P. � � p � .�i � �c cr d) rn 10 ed�' a cq a7 t• O m oM aFC'i p d o (L) CC+ 'd ,� .N ani U o F U A N P '� bn 0 a `0 n p a 'n N a b. br" N 'b . a U 41 dpi b a3 1 N '? O Q O N O id br G' O . r Q_ 1 cG O�5 CI O d�>J2 cd 03 9] 0.0 rL bA V L 'Zi ," y 0 'F'' ti 0 +� avj 745 bA cid+ a7 �., 4-404 MCncA cc •` �" +-+ N til v� O p P U "CJ r "4' �' cj cd [d "CJ N Q7 Fl d p OC as as 40,ani cd C/l cd On s0 T3 a 0 0 0 0 a U '4 ai l a3 Q 3 cd P4 .� , EXHIBIT 5 r W o .c 3 v vy bl) ar v d) 4) ,C,,, - 'p � -5 c 4l t� a> C:, ,-� 'd 4) b Cl) c� cd V] ,�-� N 0 ,7, F�,.�,y'i Q cOi� •a F� 4) 4 v T rr cd O N N O N .� ul `� • -+ O ` r, ' ami m 3 v a� v41 v v v o 4) ( �^ }" p v o 0 ate) v 0 cd o 0 o o v ,n v a . •'c>" v Q) a) n.a.o w by +�r ?+cd a>) v vw O � �C ..o v 4� n m aW a € ® Q. cd o U) o'er v co, ti ca 04 d s°�..°; � v o• � �, o " O o 9� N G� ,� O 9 a) a �n vW v v o ai�4-4 u; cn F v v 41 ''�' aui - a) a) o o v c ^J a? ® o ca v oca 0 m oo v v � aUi o +;+5 AY k` O O gh ta4'� .o O � O+ .� ca ss---�� p •.-� m s.. O .,� O!J +� v v P+ •> 4) ••--� O �-' F`i N bi) > 'd `CC bfl y U O O 0 C24 w ca � U N b --a A a) .• .'j 4ti N N U rq b •� •s? N N N 0 O> a .'� Gn z7 O U.0— P4 0 0, tuo ai b4 v W i d �, 23 Mp o v 0> P, 4 c; . O b O O A a0i 4) O O a0i 3 > 4, O O a>i 0 b > .� O > N *¢O P4 > U c� O m v +-•+ v 4) E"+ 'O O �` m R� R•, N � %� 'O w O 0 id ''d > P -i '�S �d A 00 � •r' C� Z 19 o P. V 1-4 ID� w; ni4.4 �f Zo _ Qi v v a a' cd 0 4�i ai N 404 o b4 p o03 ani v o y`, 3 c� oR v v -d "L' � d d N cd 0 M rN bo w N t .m «i '�r� a) ' "fl 4) '� O a, O 4W +-+ c) P. •d ate+ O . 4 ¢ O R 7-. � M F , a N '� P. R O , :�! o >1 �, - -0 o s 3 sv. R a > °Y v by o th v c) v o .- . G `� w O t0 0 .fl p. 4) Q..� � 6- 5 4-a � 'd � c) � '+ � � � •� X. 4a cn # •��' a'cc+ aAi 4-e 4oi �` '.O cd i F-+ 4-+ p a) m O v) a) cd m N�1 a�•.. 'd Fi O aHO 1'.�'L1 a)'�' '� N '� ti r v 4O ybA 0� +O Cd �—d)o ov '.5d 'y i '+❑❑ •20 m3 v 9 0 p v o s v v v v r3 N7 cd ani ' 0 'd o M ai 3 Cj p Er • cp- . y W +7Eq1Q'q�yG, s°V,).F, t'-' '�Uci Z;I cR�'•�.-� 'o+�3 .H�1 -+na') O�o��v--, .Fess1, o�, •�� v ry-, n0�1{. bA -8W O o = G m >>� a '"o> do4) • .`^c~d' Q�'0a ujfl 0 R ) dv M °)y +'2 1 i O aU O (L) -0 v0 `> �j O o "¢moi ��iryOrj CD o rail U o'"N v '�taili rno�" yScm, OV �mO cd UA- ta i ca ovL)-0rEiI'do oco ; �N mm)aId 0 U 0 � aao O CD ;:3 CJ A Gtil N TT FAM ' N NIia U � Id p� ON 0 0 0 •-� d -C�. yyf. Ch U +-• U 'GV bA tV ^ O �i4 42 •� U V O i"i , Q? • •� G4 N �+ �" N +mss' o v, ,� d e4 acn Cd �bp �] �'' �•'' � m bA 'T3 U � O Rt � G] bA y , O m 9 O 'O 0,ia]. a] a O 'O cd ++ •� "O U s� V s.. R A O 0 � O � fr' r�ii � Fes- � �O `O •� i -��'' O Vl •.U.y �3 -� N �, 'c� � P,o O rJ ago o+ o o a ;. G) p. w 's+ D) U Q N Q"'� R' O '31 i. U 0, �41 cq o 4) 0 � �,� � ��.� °�' � � �.�' *� DC7 �-�o•�'�.� � p3 ,- v a a41 u .; '- o. W o s, U. I as o ai I U O$ �` Y ��ow•!�00en aUi 4 GUl 'El U U +• +• N „� v 0 N" ca O v' ani '� o o.� 0 3 c'c °P, • vz ,.d O ed •' •mai Ld U6 E tub 'o �ai .VcidO U W 'El LF, co, O 4 U V Q0 Om . m 00 .ca �' �A oUacUd C[ ' 0 J N "s, -cad v G v. ^vO + 2 o G o neo b O •0 ca ¢• 4-i , .� �'" S� v� bn ce U Oa y N 0 r+ cd O Q. •v' ^ G� c� O ,�4 O •� +�`-' N ''d '� Ute"` cd iw-, ,�•��++I �+'" >, �O O -U" c U� L3 d24° r2 M�OMU 0 d ctl 'ap.' 0 . - - •maxy. 124 C, a �.� �, ' �• ` ami m Q O [G cd U ate`cs�c�.--1-';;. ��" +`-, ^UC•+DO U .,U�•i � 'C>+�Cd Nb+ b4>p vvw y o SO CNN ° U U dta p p };�r •OYf P,MW ''� •� d t Q .ti tl U v UU�++ . 0 CC �a 0 y 0U F, 4 �G m ��7 •" UO!c�' N o o °? to v.� I'd ri fro>°CL, 'da CCI .0 r -L �o E. Fl. m a, a ami d Q a i v rp+} h > O �2 fS Ga ,4w(� bA 0, �N U 4 � bll 0 `+ Fti V ire �0ccl ., 4 U �o00 NO 74 an oo m A � v CO o o O 'c o 0 o cd rZ �a O 04 'd r api o 0 �d R•s U in >, +, ' •� � w � H "tl '� Ow � ed a p o by w v oU 0 ao 4� ' o d��� a ig �� y ' 'd O bA c�i Q •~ �- En cd o C.) 0-0 i�ami CD �� taE] cOG" ' dD .c1 std •O, a0i t j ,O+ M O 'D R, •� 0 O O N N cd � ro N >, ami o 1. o o bA o Cd u Z d V, 2 0 o o v0, n as � .gb � 'A go �fb b+A dro v u + -d d w vi 11-4 c� F3 b ami Tt .-MO � OON •Y�o'd - - ,N0 -y0rn os. y ' �,• 2) 0 o o'O 0 .*`H A to .9 , 4Q' F� V o ea 2 O .+9 ctl CA 0, N U � � o vi � � U +' N ! 0 0 ci A W r M, rn ni W :i td o N O 8 Gl 6J v' bb 124 ed ' {`gay U i o ull,ci w It14 0� moo t �-y03 C5 cd a) ;ts Ln UO 11 0 q5 4-1 ¢ on p bq v �� 9 -d a °q q u o a d 'b❑ td y N �O�yy $) 8 sTcd -n �14 �,� . �UO W CdO N na^z o44 na a) n Cs by o cd c� >; a I bA '#' R O c A LP r q�� a)LP a) td m O C C3 , o O N afl �, ai Lz bO' a� r� 3 P&A az EEF�� Q a o G ° m Cs by cn by rn O N 0. � 0 fj10, p U iN as O S]` cd A > .� �c0 X.' 7cd m Q U cd by m n� O F tl 'd off, o CJ 45 00 Q .bA o o^ o xy c`1 N b4 O o d • N �y %4�+ W 0 o t-- 'A 4-1 ILI)'Cf cd a] O Ud'C O W U N z> d p r -a U U [3 �k A sy y a� � O� o� w F f 0�� U� Od � O o41 �' U o! v, '5 P, v 't! W � .� a,5.a o .� o r, bb �a W (d o a) cd (L5oa ° 0 G� p. +� p cd~ 2S a obN ma ^ri D 4- tDO oo o 4 o u (L) o o 113 JOE N b 21 '0 o 'Cf P, U ,� O O Q v o A � � by t�C O � .i r N a` N U a a y) s 0 �AJol� P. rn ni W :i td o N O 8 Gl 6J v' bb 124 ed ' {`gay U i o ull,ci w It14 0� moo t �-y03 C5 cd a) ;ts Ln UO 11 0 q5 4-1 ¢ on p bq v �� 9 -d a °q q u o a d 'b❑ td y N �O�yy $) 8 sTcd -n �14 �,� . �UO W CdO N na^z o44 na a) n Cs by o cd c� >; a I bA '#' R O c A LP r q�� a)LP a) td m O C C3 , o O N afl �, ai Lz bO' a� r� 3 P&A az EEF�� Q a o G ° m CD N w A 3� 40, -0 Eel LO .0 ^� 0 � Q d Q Cj a bA d by Ui> U cd in (L) N �. ['Ji] }:i . Com' •Q] '"b y .-� U a SC td ❑ 1-4 .q m 4 ip-+ ;>¢+ I'dkn '�' .+ a� �' �S c.' o 0 °'�dW�o0 � O' o V n N � bA ani � � � � o � aUi • � N CD o N en U p' _ cd N _ O 0 Pa Cd 44 ® 04 i"+ d p 2 P., as NS"-r•r�n N N cn O •� U O wo �n .O p •p c� O,p ,.p ryif 4 y w en 41� P -i ' N O ua O UO bA cn 7j U d p U ul O , `n Zr,, bn m two d H �d ca U N42 En U� > U� 0P� mA4 U� o �d c 0,0 o ® ko Q' �7 'd d' ami m o Ra bD ti 04 V bb OA CdCd Q ��o8 " VJ m .�i 4 iii *�-1 Y � bn � Y ,a � � G Q 2sz N IN o. o o� mo=d o aU + 0 r3 ..�-+el . N �s-e v "' +cf�f O 9Ujb t5 ry Gn En [d bA H 71 C6 m m } w. m9b a..i C+ i .L7 bA O S� U U O N a�vi '� p p N rvi� . tl- 4 00 i u'1O O W 10tl O '�� S O O C3 0 p tl N N� UM O N 0 0 Q p y" q a•. �� iij N We W o m 2 N T w cn O N U Mr:.%1 v d ¢�i tl ti ai c b (D r�' h U ,�, ril U as m .•. �tl '� ,n aU ~ U °O���yyAaa �vo ar o W U ici N •�•.� .b0'•� ra v N '� .Q •d 00 f-; �" `'d -� '� Qd o w bzv Q m an m U o is A m i o r� �+ m o n N Eti O O �o dam? O CoA°' ��fa np`'cd j a - .4 N ts m x oo eq U) � x r4 N ® x pk m .. a� ^ CD id - bA D 9 o �. r� F°� Q _o oa mqU�] m v*� o ou o o h 1 cu m v .bo oq .m ca CIa �_ rr� •Gp ti 43 �+�MN O yK ' "� - Q p -t v .✓ U Z!1 id �, �r � v d' i1, di cd Fle 3 cd N r� P+a u 44O Nca Ell m + ®-5 5 � ¢ i, s A4 0 fl 0 ^aJ s � � h v� o T c "0 a) a) w s° m W U . e �N fQ 0 N U U �+ N U N ^ � •J N P, o a o aui o -.o �. a) Uaw 04 0 cs 00 8 P,' o EKS {� A 0 va N +' O a91. ?�,o3a� U a aId 0 ID p vD f cn 4� U o GA^ N a u w 71 O V w N 0 O 'O ttccSS o .. CD o . ;., N ,: cd Ra a 0 O by d) N O O P U O N ' F,� o V 4y P O Ql y .O N U oCD w n T W U O O 0 O O m c -I of 1-4 o �5 U � U 9 N 20 1814 O «S +, O co >,DO a� Hul0�° 4-4 ata o o w v v Q o Sa o� �h ; m 00— - rn `d r o v Y O +�Cd 9� x. O y U p0 cd v> o r. s.. !2 v p j v s]. o Q °° Cr, � o, bA x' "d cUn iv., M v Td v a) 4 ti 9 a a •� a ani .� cd 41d o d.. •M cd >. •> �v., s� ¢, v Pk 6' ani 0 B4 TJ v vi O v U d U bA c� Q �; O N +, v Q O La v b Q Y Q Q N v "- biJ " Gam, c� d o . °J I v avi .o Y. •a y Q a� v v •°j, i>.,• cvi Q o 0 ca tiA N cYQd o 0 � ;.=. �+1 Q. b � -d W cl o`.or; D o m aria o° O v ani �, Y ti u, t- Q c°ii d Q n v Q ab > evn o d o bu o o '� °' o W�� o o p d m N vcd Y . iW ,r,q[. �H a y d •AN . tl F,,Wy 0 ' p n,.lv OP...�. KU NOOm v sK aQv.� obs Nbpd) P, QQ N Q-, IjJ �H v .� :�Cd ^"'! r'-1 •� V]I •� p Q •� .Fj •Q Cd 40, 41 O M U •bA•{y _O �.� •p Q �A az O O FE Q Q ,-- c R v m �14') Qpp o o o M ci •p 3 t3 Y.Q Q v o ai p NN dJ 63 +A � � cu' v °' n "� t�] o vQi o ( n bn ren" o U y �.o •3 e4E� 75 a s1 U O �a`.x� p..� CJ cd � a 6.1.E s, � T, > m �] T r� w Al o m v y o 015 0 ONc� m F ai ~ p o i Q, w W ami � cv u, .. a� ID J-bn �11 C14 ami �b:d�'� a� � 0� +4 o q o 0 V adi o o o ai o a a� 9 O T tf m m v ai ai 0 O k N > O+ GG' d �" �• N a �✓ d cif 0^d p m ,'~ °��' o R o dsod; p �-+ 14 0 m l--, � o N N Pte, U v, p h 0 opo o Q -6.40 Cd ^ aro � y o�'� ooo�Q�*�' Npa,'i�3..• au�+� o En Go O 0o� 0 a 0 m N o cd 0 [, 'n ;-+ '00 U dl 3 akn o O �o 0 y 0 �+ 'd N O ...� R, �'v`ii f1 ,C�, Fl d.' :.� Wn ,� U •9 , - W a0i.0 gh 0-9Cd d � ��-' '� � '•� ;� o � � tF~., � ' � � ni 0 � 0 � '.� N , td �, .d -d 0 N bA cn bA o N '� V ~ '�j �(D -d o -0 Gzt 'S �� i +, �0ia cid bA o cd�d cd b t- cid v0i .(.i O F A A+:d O G, -� c+ y (D N p p > O U 'a, C '� ,D f2r 0 . V rn • � T 4S w w O Q H11 +''�• � p 0 G � W bA O o O N � vii . p •� rn 'o"0 spy- a3 o 0 o A oo`"� d E4 L4 w _ U.P „l cd w 76 i/y [ rl y� w w Cil 40, .-p O O Q � � o QmO 9bO � Lo 0a ) oro on . o ••—, m ••—, •rs vs •� 104 w •O w id G w O0 N w O N l� 0. w IL Qr p p., n- K �n K �w O P H O y tr+ N: w O O H Un H cid H sw. � A, rn o a m d Ln M r ?4 w v 0 cc S'-. O � �' N �' N � � •� � 00ID Ij N U 0♦ -> m O71 P� to O 0O A c P4 0 Lb cqO�3cd o� o� q�m.� ��oP,$Q3 0 �oa d o cd r o W)ap�i o M'� t w v o, i as p'� -S s� 3cto pi AN v d N R_ O'N bo o o( pts o W� o 41'! p . v u0 Em 04 oi �' o °�' ttom, d o ani yx❑� ani O D bb 04 ° N.d3 U o U :d > Q, °' o p wID oQa cd w o a°Ji °��' ami R. d� ►�', H 3� A,. n ova ami as o a� m O U Q 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. NIA 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 v). 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) Natural State e uirRequirement (2 o + % of average slope) ad roposed jr X Gross Building Square Footage (2500 sq. ft. + 10% of lot size, maximum of 6,500 sq. maxross sq ft 3 , Q ro osed gross sq. ft. *Bull in_g Height (30 feet measured from natural grade). * Building stepback (20 foot height limitation on walls within 15 feet of the building Y envelope limit, encroachment allowed aloes 25°/u of builder ggj .Proposed height Setback Waiver proposed (permitted for a distance of not more than 1a of the required setback with DRB approval and special findings, requires compensating increase in setback on opposing setback * Ridgeline prohibition of dev opment within 100 vertical feet of a visually significant t rideline._�i�i'1Q9.1 Parking requirement of two additional spaces on substandard streets, * Lot standards of minimum sizes and widths established in Subdivision Ordinance. IV.A. Design Guidelines Applicable to All Hillside Residential Development Projects IVAL Preservation of Existinu Natural Features: Y NA__. _ Maintains mature trees and preserves significant vegetation. ------ -- - ---- -- �€ Minimizes grading and alterations of natural land forms with balanced cuts and fills. �i Drainage minimizes off site impacts and preserves natural drainage courses. ` oads and streets located and landscaped to minimize visual impacts. Access provided to oen space areas, EXHIBIT 6 IV.A2. Preservation of Significant trees 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 1�7 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 adiacent slopes. - Terracing uses incremental steps and visible retaining walls are of a minimum height and use stone or earth colored materials. Fads are of a minimum size for structures and open space (pads for tennis courts and swimming pools are discouraged). Off-site drainage impacts are minimized and drainage plans avoid erosion and damage 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. Erosion control plans and reve eta ation pian 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 or remove large areas or existing mature vegetation. Existing geologic hazards have been corrected, IVA4. Lot Confiizuratiton, Building Setbacks and Location (Complete for Subdivisions)- Lot ubdivisions)- Lot configurations provide a variety of shapes based on topography and natural features 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 stagLgercd. - - - - ----._ _-- Building locations are not located near visually prominent ridgelines and existing view /of residences are'reTeected. _ Front yard setbacks are minimized on downhill lots. IVA5. Street Layout, Driveway and ParkinLy Design Streets use narrower street widths if it reduces grading, visual impacts are. minimized ;.... I by terracing any :retainingwalls, and split roadways are encouraged. _ I ! r * Street layout follows the natural grade and long stretches of straight road are I ` avoided. Proper sight distances are maintained. M Street grades do not exceed 18 % of have received an exception. .. 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% haveogr oves and asphalt driveways are not proposed on slopes over 15%. E Parking bays are established or if parallel parking is permitted it is located on one side I l only and limited to 8 feet in width. IVA6. Reduction of Building Balk on Hillsides The building steps up the slope and/or has been out into the hillside. _ Roof forms and rooflines are broken up and parallel the slope. The slope of the roof does not exceed the natural contour by 20%.411 ; Overhan m or elevated decks and excessive cantilevers are avoided. laarge expanses of a wall in a single plane are avoided on downhill elevations. _ _ — �/ ! Building materials blend with the setting. IVA7. Hillside Architectural Character �Y . �. NA -- — _— _ ----- Y i Rooflznes are oriented in consideration of views from adjacent 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 raofin materials are discouraged when visible. Multi -Building Projects have different floor elevations to achieve height variation and ` V i avoid long continuous building masses. Articulated facades and variations in roof j form's are required. Buildings near hillside rims have a staggered arrangement and are screened with planting. — I 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. —_ Walls fences and accessory structures are compatible with adjacent buildings and are designed to respect views. Front yard fences are of an open design and provide a landscaped buffer. Walls and materials are of appropriate materials_ • Retainin walls meet height restrictions of feet on upslopes and 3 feet on X downslopes. Terraced retaining wails are separated by a minimum of three feet and f i V i 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. �i *Mechanical equipment is screened from view, - IV.A8. Planting Design for Hillside Residential Development Ma Major rock outcroppings and planting patterns of native plants and trees arc respected and retained. Replacement trees are planted with irregularly grouped trees which i retain a similar appearance from a distance. -_ 3 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 railed areas with high visibili' are reyegetated. Special plantin uidelines for 2:1 slopes are followed. ' Graded slopes have trees planted along contour lines in undulating groups and trees i ! are located in swale areas. d i Public rights -0 way are landsca ed.. s---- -; areas and Transition zones are planted in high fire hazard . building envelopes are located to minimize risk to structures. Planting materials are fire retardant. ;Subdivisions have provided an arborist's report to anal zy e life fire hazards. MA9. Site Lighting N'NA — Site 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 iOverhead lighting in parking areas is mounted at a maximum height of 15 feet and — oes not interfere with bedroom windows. — I! Overhead lighting in pedestrian areas does -not exceed S feet in height and low-level -_ 1 lighting is used aloM)yalkwa s. �- i *Exterior floor lighting is located and shielded so that it does not shine on adjacent 1 properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure isprohibited and not shown. N.M. Subdivisions and Planned Development Projects 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 enyci�o s 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 mace. _ IV.132 Single Family Residences on Individual Lots Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and J 'I 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 it minimizes the impact of hillside development. Common driveways 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 ! driveway conforms to the finished grade of the lot. IV.B3 Multi -family Residential Development 1 i 11 iNA i E Requirements for preservation of existing natural features, hillside grading and iI drainage, reduction of building bulk, architectural character, site lighting and planting 3 design are met. Yard setbacks and group common and private open space meet zoning ordinance a _ I e uq irements. A children's play area isrp ovided on developments with over 25 units. j he design decks, terraces, i site utilizes opportunities such as outdoor roof gardens, I bay windows, framing of views, pergolas, view lookouts, and sculptured stairs and � ' walkways. i i Large expanses of Bat areas, such as parking lots, are avoided; buildings are sited with jI 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 j with visible differences through materials, colors, forms, and fagade variation. ! i Building facades do not create a ground level wall of repetitive garage doors. Facades are articulated and rooflines avoid extended horizontal lines. Building facades have a mixture of vertical and horizontal elements, but emphasize verticality. Alignments of i ! 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 } ! erraccd and building clusters are separated with expanses of open sace. Tuck under parking is encouraged. 10% of the parking lot area is landscaped or trees I ! planted as required by the zoning ordinance. IV.C1 Highly Visible Ridizeline Areas Development is located within 100 feet of a sigpificant ridgeline, Designs minimize grading and building. pads. Structures and fences do not project above the ridgeline and views of the natural ridge silhouettes is retained. Roads near i ridges and on slopes are designed to accommodate grade and cut slopes are rounded + off. J IV.C2 Hillside Drainage Swales and Drainage Ravines A hydrologic analysis has been prepared and inadequate on and of -site existing I hillside 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 to protect downslope properties Subdivisions I i General plan setbacks from drainageways, creeds, and wetlands are met. {General Plan standard, exceptions cannot be granted) Subdivisions and other major projects have provided a biotic report to establish thea ro riate setback. provide ep—_—�L.�-..... _ – — * Debris basins, rip -rap, and energy dissipation devices are provided when necessary j j to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken.' Significant natural drainage courses 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. Z 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 Hillslo a Habitat- Areas e N IT— E Cluster housing is encouraged and provisions regarding reduction of building bulk on _ =hillsides architectural character, and site li titin are followed i Existing vegetation is incorporated into the project.design and used to screen ..._ E._.._...x....__. __i_development from offsite views. Indicate any special requirements Geotechnical Review ' Drainage Report E Biological Survey_. -._ ___ _---- Arborist's Report Photo Montage and/or model d 1 Site Staking Comments on overall.project compliance and design uali Exceptions or waivers required for the pxoject which can be approved by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission with the recommendation of the Design Review Board Excejptions which require the approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Dcsign Review Board and Planning Commission Steve Stafford From... Ind! Young aindiyoung@gma.il.com> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 4.42 PVI To: Steve Stafford Subject: RE: Meyer Road CDR Followup Comment Hi Steve! Story poles have gone up, but we cannot see them until they cut down all the. trees. So, is there away to indicate where the house will go before the tree -cutting begins? Also, I won't be able to make the 7 -Feb meeting due to pre-existing tickets to the SF Symphony. (A special event— haven't gone in more than a decade.) My neighbors will be there, and I thought maybe I could register my four points with you by email? I would like them asked and recorded at the City meeting. - Long term plans for other property along that ridge ... who owns- the other property? Can a road be put along the ridge top? Shall we expect more development at some distant future 'date? Calor of windows in the house being built. I requested "NO WHITE" of Jerry gaper. Stef Noble requested a dart color house. We'd all loge something tree -bark colored (grays, browns) with dark window frames line Vic's place at 7 Meyer. - Cite the reason for siting the house to face our houses instead of siting it farther east, with straight driveway, facing the large view of the valley. Compensation for reducing the property values of the homes that currently have a view of Mt. Tam that is completely natural. (e.g. a reduction in tax rate) Thanksi --indi young 15 Meyer Road www.indiyoung-com From: Steve Stafford [mailto:Steve,Stafford@cityofsanrafael.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 201511:11 AM To: indi@acm.org Subject: RE: Meyer Road CDR Followup Comment Thanks for your comments, Indi. Story poles are part of the application review process if the proposed height of the structure needs to be evaluated for impacts. At this point, the Board did not request story poles during their concept review of the project and Planning has yet to review the formal submittal in depth to determine whether it needs further evaluation. Hope this helps. Steve Steve Stafford X EXHIBIT 7 ,.° community Development Depailment � r � MEMORANDUM DATE: February 3, 2017 TO: Design Review Board Members FROM: Steve Stafford, Interim Senior Planner SUBJECT: [ED16-027) 23 Meyer Rd.; Public Comments (N) Single -Family Residence on Vacant Hillside and Ridgeline (parcel APP: 016-291-15 After the printing of its report to the Design Review Board (Board) on the project proposing to construct anew single-family residence on a vacant hillside and ridgeline parcel (23 Meyer Rd.), staff received the attached public comments from a neighbor in the vicinity of the site. These comments by Will and Stephanie Noble (11 Meyer Rd.) are neither in support or opposition of the project but, rather, list their `concerns`, as follows: a Colors. Dark earth tone/wood tone exterior colors are requested without contrast in color values. Architecture. An architecture that relates well to the natural woodland setting is requested. ® Orientation. Reorient the new residence so that it faces north better, towards the Downtown and Puerto Suello Hill. o Driveway. The driveway should be easy to access and create good visibility for both vehicles exiting the site but also for eastbound and westbound traffic along Meyer Rd. • Construction Staging. Construction and grading activities on the site should be as least disruptive to existing neighborhood traffic as possible. The driveway should be constructed prior to the new residence so that materials can be stored on-site. Vegetation (Management. The project approvals should include vegetation management clear obstructive growth_ along Meyer Rd. ® for the site to eliminate Fork Notice. Adequate notice should be provided to neighbors for any necessary road closures. m Coordination. The timeline for all grading and construction work should be coordinated with the work proposed to replace the Southern Heights bridge. 23 Meyer Road Project neighbor comments This is the view from our house at 11 Meyer Road. We feel incredibly fortunate to have a spectacular mountain view and we purposely oriented our main living areas to focus on this view. You can also see that, because the new proposed construction at 23 Meyer Road is front and center to our view on the hillside in front of the mountain, we have a strong and vested interest in how it will look. As do our immediate neighbors. Although markers have been placed, until the trees are removed, we won't know the degree of impact this structure will have on our view. So we are going on the assumption that it will be in plain view for us from our windows and deck. Jerry Draper has been very cooperative in keeping us informed and working with us on this, so we trust there will be no major problems. But we just want to emphasize our main concerns: 1. House color: We request dark, muted tones with no contrast in values on the house itself or against the deep green of the trees. 2. House design: The architectural style should be in keeping with the woodsy setting and not try to win any awards for its cutting-edge originality. If Jerry is still working with the same architect, the homes on his website are all in keeping with what we would expect in our neighborhood and would hopefully blend nicely into the hillside. 3. House orientation: The current design seems to orient so that it is facing our hill, when it would seem more sensible and desirable to orient toward the view of downtowh'SR and the northern hills. We would feel less 'invaded` if the windows across the way weren't directly facing us, and the future occupants of the proposed house undoubtedly will feel the same. 4. Driveway: That it be engineered in such a way to make it easy to get in and out, both for the future owners and for all us neighbors who will be driving past it. 5. Construction process: During construction we hope that it will not impact through traffic any more than necessary. To this end, we expect that the driveway will be constructed first and then all construction storage and loading will be on the property itself and not obstructing the already very narrow curvy street. 6. Clearing of obstructive growth. We have had to trim back some of the scotch broom that sticks out into the roadway, especially dangerous at the blind curve. We weren't able to cut the larger thicker branches that grow further into the roadway so they continue to cause a potential hazard. So we would hope that as soon as possible, and certainly throughout the construction, Jerry's crew will assure maintenance. 7. Notice of any necessary road closures given well in advance. 8. Coordination with any work done on the Southern Heights bridge, if the two projects happen simultaneously. Thank you for your careful consideration of this project. Will and Stephanie Noble 11 Meyer Road San Rafael February 3, 2017 Steve Stafford From: indiyoung@gmail.com on behalf of indi young <indi@acrn.org> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 4;55 PM To: Gary Phillips; Kate Colin; Steve Stafford Subject: 23 Meyer Attachments: house_rnission_nicely--sited jpg Ili everyone! I'm not sure who was a the design review meeting on Tue 07 -Feb. I was unable to attend, and I am the one neighbor who will be most affected by the house proposed for 23 Meyer. I own 15 Meyer. I heard from my neighbors that there was a council person who wondered why the developer wasn't building a much nicer spec house, given the large parcel and location. I agree. I saw the elevation for the house, and wow it's ugly. I'm not an architect, but I am an architecture buff. If I am going to be looking at this house every day for the rest of my life, I'd like to see something graceful. I heard the council gave thumbs up to the proposed design. Is there a way we can, using the same foundation footprint, put a more graceful face on it? Something with big windows and access to the outside so the eventual residents will enjoy their home, instead of live in a dark place with these small windows? (Attached is a photo of a similar -size house on Mann Drive in Kentfield that was recently built, and it is at least graceful and probably more livable for the residents than the proposed design for 23 Meyer. It has a balcony and a terrace and looks welcoming.) Architects usually know proportion and balance. The developer's architect does not appear to have made any effort in this regard. Our neighbor Vit, the architect -owner at 7 Meyer, is making an artistic home. There are plenty of examples the developer could adapt from using the same or similar foundation, e.g.: htty://www.giannettihome.coml Thanks for any sort of answer or direction.:) indi M1Ae �. J4 i 0 X _ k im'j •fir% f , I .4 -61 Steve Stafford From: Suzy Gray <suzygray8@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 201'7 2:13 PM To: Steve Stafford Subject: 23 Meyer Road construction parking Dear Mr. Stafford, I live at 18 Meyer Road. We have eight children and six vehicles. We are in and out constantly with school and work. Meyer Road is narrow and a very hazardous drive without cars parked on the side of the road... will the construction crews be parking trucks along Meyer Road? I am very concerned about getting in and out with trucks parked up and down the road between our house and Wolfe Grade Road. There are two semi -blind comers that are tough to negotiate even without cars parked. Where will all of the construction vehicles be parked while 23 Meyer Road is being built? Thank you, Suzy Gray Steve Stafford From: Suzy Gray <suzygray8@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:46 PM To: Steve Stafford Subject: Re: 23 Meyer Road construction parking Thank you for your response but there doesn't seem to be anything typical about this particular site. It is a hillside that is very steep and there is almost no available parking on the side of the road above or below the address. There is barely one clear lane without cars parked on the side of the road. There doesn't appear to be any room for heavy equipment anywhere. I really hope that this does not become a problem for the families that live above the address... we have to be able to get in and out to work and school. Please let us know what the plan is. Suzy On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Steve Stafford <Steve.Stafford cit ofsanrafael.or > wrote: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Gray. Typically, the driveway would be constructed first so that construction vehicles, equipment and material can parking closest to the building site. Staff proposes to condition any approval of the project on the applicant submitting a construction management plan which attempts to mitigate impacts during the grading and construction activities. Construction management plans are reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and include, but are not limited to, reduced hours of grading and/or construction activities, requiring carpooling of construction workers, requiring flagmen to maintain one clear vehicle lane at all time, limiting material to small loads, etc.. Steve Steve Stafford COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Senior Planner City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Sox 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 415.458.5048 (o) 415.485.3184 (f) AV Did you know San Rafael zoning information is available on-line. Please go to www.citvofsanrafael.org/zoning From: Suzy Gray [mailto:suzygray8@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, .Tune 26, 2017 2:13 PM To: Steve Stafford Subject: 23 Meyer Road construction parking Dear Mr. Stafford, T live at 18 Meyer Road. We have eight children and six vehicles. We are in and out constantly with school and work. Meyer Road is marrow and a very hazardous drive without cars parked on the side of the road... will the construction crews be parking trucks along Meyer Road? T am very concerned about getting in and out with trucks parked up and down the road between our house and Wolfe Grade Road. There are two semi -blind corners that are tough to negotiate even without cars parked. Where will all of the construction vehicles be parked while 23 Meyer Road is being built? Thank you, Suzy Gray mAYd696t43 Yl9 C+14731�iQ7ld mmin5 J[[-HdMOdOL CiNiV A'IVflNnoo � M1 CM44WIN171 TAII CFVOII MA W I S� v era Yq caapi m U ao- nros Of 'a�li'd tl6tN 8k�� nC3w a 4 h � GJ I-3y�yF h Zm38� ' to EXIDDIT 8 NVId `JMCM AwNIWf m uVQII ld A w 93 �o MHggOMiP z Ra�=€ c- -Agg �RPURK m as ., & UV c 9,12 a q a26F 0 ass u Ndld NQU-XNNQD a3MAS AIMINdS . MON 1131M - f. r' y B i� 1 � g88asio®es°�e 5 r' y _ AA A �m m .1101M MMiM . __� _�..). O#q39NtgTAD I aONNMW .¥ �.. � - . , `�. . � E` \ � S31VIOOSSV 3NIA10 '3 ON(MIA 10 3 1 l H 0 N b (W ai33 ` 0 I vlva 133f021d 'xa0x, 30 3dT)S 30NMISM M3N 'S31ON WEND 'NV]d 3115 a� 10 som s , a � � & � LI ei iE Q � K I•�, rrrr _ . ca � E2 �Ejp • �lM r te r ' r r • �• of = o � r r Q sl � tl� R.R��e_�� rr r •N ��� r nB HIE / s 5 � �.lww6uw� wwag � Sw�9Co v$ �z sssasss� Y', \ `ba \ 4 a�aa]�g�oi Aft \88`W— ss o p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 B �.+PeB�B88�.t �n rnn onnnn�Yi ilj a 9 � NI 1P13 1- 1 o a ` tL�l / / •�o��sg E 4 I r zl / u 4k tnl / i J I a� 10 _VNVId 311S 098YIN3 1-1 H 0 H V 33N3'(IS3N M3 ' j3OSSV INIMI 'D 318JN "I sv mm0. k&Q J o] 1 1 H a d V 'an RIRM if 33NMIS d ¥]N §� k ] k ( � ■Vld 80011 (L M LZ690 v 34WCI"�� 61'8650 "" 3 3 11 H 0 N d vtl go W. 30N30538 MAN SNOII03S 9NIC11fln SNOI1VM 8MMX3 o W > F I ,`r 4J - J � 4! F G ~� 1 � • 8 ` HgA 4 � o 8 � +� v� � � 4 4 N Owns. AWN. 75PF .7F 3$ � O 4 I m O N� 111, w LLI M AP X ll \� ii i W SNOII03S 9NIC11fln SNOI1VM 8MMX3 o W > F I ,`r SNOII03S 9NIC11fln SNOI1VM 8MMX3 Ii Ic Z o 4J - J � 4! F G � 4 � o . 4 � � 4 4 N Owns. AWN. 75PF .7F 3$ � O 4 I m Ii Ic Z o 4J - J � 4! F G � 4 � o . 4 � � 4 4 N 75PF .7F 3$ � O 4 I m c MQZlE6 (Slkl �Kj QOAS-AR w) amoNd NGIA NOU33S SSOIDN ^- SWib'/7 `01VAON WE M oA10 aooNMI QQ[L aa� Yq .wpo«;*+x+�o DMI SAUNDN3 AAIB DNKUST11 GVOU c Hotava 3xm wl S31VOOSS9 ;q 'dJam lb39O 5L•L6t-Zw Ndb win WS Moll NRMVI a5g5 ams h ���7A8$BkY'M a P, .. aggdJaf9pal`5�` c ,1 Lr - -------------1 r ------ C3 -_C3 ° a RK � oo ° B^ .r. m.- 4',6 13 C a 0 11 1GE1�~ a1D _n o------- — p og.H. s f 14" r D 7`09 "pa r q� a 9"Q i a FORKED 12"0 5 1 b I '27 fr/ a 7 $- s o / s"o RVSED � 13'0 � „ n I g"0 O 14 0 5 n jtl oR£U -. f9 ms _ Ali! 8 v 3g An �Q L HUT RMI J m w'oj wewv wowdnind raseaut.+dnrwnvsc Y'811N'JW3dtl'J8AlM C !-1131E M3HJ1tlV@ 1 1 1 � adab MV ld 3.K3W3!)VNVH NOLLV13'J3h V DMINVld I ° b� \ x \ o qa \ P d � i m Igo 1612 ' 1m, E @1 29 59 l rall - p a � o m I P / m 9g a 1 wms AGEgg SSBn r m r / r r , � / F , 16V i ' ( NN IgNN �s � / f I r , / K �$ ao. f ° P m ; o' O p a � o � I P / m ° r , / K �$ ao. f 3lHL 0340Y sVea/t v061BVU —.N3;Ua aas uhf OuwNa— �aae aaoar sVafo� a �a�nperaavaaoNn xna Maar svavz J.IIIDb MBH.LLVW ,f NVId IVAC)Mki 99H.L amx fyg ISLpa ayd 008[/66 (SLb)aIYOHd sysbs v� oL.VAW a vs once aswmad£ on, YWBad11Y� N"d or IVIS 310d Aldols 8Y31M Nis fioa mmsx mep eav v xrvm aH mnaa� sL,o>s� Salva S3-€voossV v Adm i -mo �^ '"9`�'p n O 56-t6t-ilA IVdY — AWY'd NYSVON UM N �MCfM£68:�� N ~ 6 �