Table 1: 2022 Rate Adjustment Summary
2021 2022 Dollar
Change
Percentage
Change
Adjustment
to Rates
Collector Operations 2,802,295 2,902,207 99,912 3.57% 2.19% Garbage Landfilling and Organics
Processing 575,849 587,194 11,345 1.97% 0.25%
State Compliance Database
Subscription (6,126) 1,342 7,468 N/A 0.16%
SB 1383 Compliance 0 36,451 36,451 N/A 0.80%
Profit Calculation 353,969 370,258 16,289 4.60% 0.36%
Recyclable Materials Processing 121,650 66,015 (55,635) -45.73% -1.22% Interest 39,149 40,545 1,396 3.57% 0.03%
Zero Waste Marin Fees 70,346 69,573 (772) -1.10% -0.02% Franchise Fees 501,205 515,648 14,443 2.88% 0.32%
Other Agency Fees 84,000 84,000 0 N/A 0.00%
Recycling Property Insurance 14,070 10,263 (3,807) -27.06% -0.08% SB 1383 Negotiations and
Implementation Support 0 4,212 4,212 N/A 0.09%
Total Annual Rate Revenue
Requirement 4,556,407 4,687,708 131,302 2.88% 2.88%
2022 Rate Adjustment Details
Collector Operations
Collector Operations compensates MSS for labor, benefits, general and administrative, depreciation and lease, maintenance, fuel and oil. Per Exhibit B, compensation for Collector Operations is adjusted using the CPI index for Water and Sewer and Trash Collection. R3 used publicly available Bureau of Labor Statistics data to verify the calculated increase of 3.57% to Collector Operations. 238
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
The result is $2,902,207 in Collector Operations for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $99,912 compared to 2021.
Garbage and Organics Tipping Fees
Garbage Landfilling and Organics Processing tipping fee projections are calculated using actual tonnages collected from January 1 through June 30, 2021, which are then annualized to project total 2021 tonnages.
Those tonnages are then multiplied by the projected 2022 tipping fees calculated in accordance with Exhibit B. This is based on the actual per ton tipping fees for each waste stream category, or if unavailable, projected tipping fees are calculated using the current year per ton tipping fees escalated by the change in WST— subject to a minimum increase of 2.5% and a maximum increase of 5.0%.
R3 reviewed MSS’s projected 2021 tons and the 2022 per ton tipping fees for residential garbage, residential green waste/organics, commercial garbage, commercial mixed waste for processing, commercial food scraps, and MSS-served Agencies’ waste delivered to MSS. Per Exhibit B, R3 confirmed that MSS correctly projected tons by category using annualized actual tons for the first six months of the current rate year and, as actual tipping fees are unavailable, applied the 3.57% WST adjustment to project 2022 per ton tip fees.
The result is $587,194 in Garbage and Organics Tipping fees for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $11,345 compared to 2021. This increase is the result of increased tonnages projected in 2021 compared to 2020.
The reasons for this increase are currently under review, as the Town is the only MSS Agency for whom projected tonnages are increasing. Whereas other MSS agencies are projected to have tonnage decreases of 3.74% to 6.00%, the annualized 2021 tonnage trend for San Anselmo yields projected increases of
1.97%. Further analysis will be done regarding the specific root causes of this projected tonnage increase for the Town.
Database Subscription for Compliance with State Law
The rate setting methodology allows for the recovery of additional revenues associated with costs for changes in law and/or new State mandates.
For increased operating expenses due to State Laws, including AB 1826 and SB 1383, MSS has included in its rate application a line item for a compliance database. This item was added and approved in MSS’s 2020 and 2021 Rate Adjustment applications for MSS’s subscription to Recyclist, which is a valuable reporting tool related to compliance with State Law. MSS expects this line item will continue to be present in future rate applications.
The result is $1,342 in Database Subscription for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $7,468 compared to 2021.
The reason for this increase is that the Town’s Data Subscription amount in 2021 was a negative $6,126 credit to the rate revenue requirement; this was the result of an accidental over-allocation for Data Subscription in 2020 that was corrected in 2021, thus resulting in the negative value in that year. The 2022 values represent the Town’s accurate share for Data Subscription, and further swings in this item are not anticipated.
239
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
Compliance with SB 1383
Similar to the above, MSS is requesting adjustment for anticipated increases in operating expenses associated with new State Law, SB 1383. SB 1383 takes effect January 1, 2022 and will result in increased subscriptions to organics services throughout MSS’s service area. Throughout its seven franchises in Marin County in 2022, MSS will add one new organics recycling collection route (comprised of a truck and driver), one new outreach and education specialist, and additional equipment to process and clean collected organic waste.
Subject to approval of an amendment to the Franchise Agreement with MSS, the company will also be providing compliance monitoring and inspection services, contamination monitoring, outreach and education, and reporting functions on behalf of the Town. The total 2022 revenue recovery for these new SB 1383 compliance measures for MSS is $387,765.
The result is $36,451 in new SB 1383 Compliance rate revenues for the Town in 2022; this item was not present in the rate revenue requirement in prior rate years.
Profit Calculation
R3 reviewed the calculation of MSS’s profit, which is a function of total allowable operating expenses ($3,527,194 for the Town) divided by the contractually set operating ratio of 90.5% and subtracting the same sum, rounded to the nearest dollar. MSS’s actual profit achievement will vary depending on the company’s real revenues and expenses; as such, profit is not guaranteed.
The result is $370,258 in Calculated Profit for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $16,289 compared to 2021. The increase is due to a net increase in allowable operating expenses, which were described in the previous sections of this report.
Recyclable Materials Processing
A net recyclable materials processing cost is calculated each year to share the risks and rewards of changing recycling markets between rate payers and MSS.
Per Exhibit B, the Recyclable Materials Processing cost is escalated by the annual change in the WST and that amount is then divided by the number of all tons of recyclable materials processed at Marin Recycling Center from July 1 of the prior rate year through June 30 of the current rate year.
The recyclable materials revenue amount is calculated based on 90% of the total revenue received by the Marin Recycling Center for recyclable materials, which is then divided by the number recyclable material tons processed at Marin Recycling Center. The calculation does not include income or tons from recyclable materials processed for third parties or agencies that were not customers of MSS or the Marin Recycling Center as of December 31, 2018.
For Rate Year 2022, the resulting Net Recyclable Materials Processing Cost Per Ton is $29.59, a decrease of $24,19 from the 2021 value of $53.78. This reduction is due to increases in the value of recyclable commodities sold by MSS in the prior year.
The result is $66,015 in Recyclable Materials Processing for the Town in 2022, which is a decrease of $55,635 compared to 2021.
240
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
Interest
Interest is based on MSS’s actual interest from its loan amortization schedules for actual and projected capital expenditures for services under the Agreement as of the last base year review in 2019. This is increased in the same manner as Collector Operations, as described above, via WST annually.
The result is $40,545 in Interest for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $1,396 compared to 2021.
Zero Waste Marin Fees
Zero Waste Marin Fees are set as a pass through as government fees and, per Exhibit B to the agreements, changes in such fees result in appropriate adjustments to rates to compensate MSS for increases or decreases in such fees.
JPA fees included in the annual indexed rate applications for the MSS service area are set to be equal to the current Zero Waste Marin Fee assessments for the current fiscal year, with 100% of the MSS hauler fees passed through to the MSS Agencies, and with none of the MSS Transfer Station fees passed through to the MSS Agencies. For 2022, the total amount passed through to the MSS Agencies is $699,372.
The result is $69,573 in Zero Waste Marin Fees for the Town in 2022, which is a decrease of $772 compared to 2021. The decrease is due to the fact that the 2021 fees included a true-up for under collection of fees in 2019 and 2020, which is no longer included in the rate application.
Franchise Fees
Franchise Fees are calculated by multiplying the applicable franchise fee percentage by each agency served by MSS by the revenues projected for each that Rate Year. The Town’s Franchise Fee is 11% of gross revenues.
The result is $515,648 in Franchise Fees for the Town in 2022, which is an increase of $14,443 compared to 2021, and is due to an overall increase in the rate revenue requirement.
Other Agency Fees
Other Agency Fees are calculated and applied to each of the Agencies based on the specific fees set by those Agencies. MSS pays the Town $84,000 annually in fixed Vehicle Impact Fees (to cover the cost of road impacts from MSS’s solid waste collection vehicles). MSS correctly included in the rate application.
This amount does not change year-to-year.
Annual Rate Revenue Reconciliation
The Rate Revenue Reconciliation item is to reconcile the projected rate revenue from the 2020 rate adjustment to the actual revenue collected through rates charged during the 2020 rate year.
Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, MSS experienced an overall shortfall of $1,497,138 in 2020 billed revenues compared to the annual revenue requirement. However, because MSS also received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan in 2020 – and expects that loan to be forgiven – MSS is waiving the Rate Revenue Reconciliation for 2020, contingent on final determination of the PPP loan forgiveness.
MSS is still awaiting news regarding PPP loan forgiveness; if, in the unlikely event the PPP loan is not forgiven, MSS requests the ability to revisit the 2020 Rate Revenue Reconciliation.
The Town did not have an annual Revenue Reconciliation item in past years (2020 would have been the first such year of this reconciliation for the Town) so the effect of this is $0 to the Town in 2022. 241
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
Extraordinary Items
Items that are outside of the categories as defined in the Exhibit B Adjustment methodology may be proposed by MSS as extraordinary items. Two such items are proposed by MSS for 2022 and are described below.
Recycling Property Insurance
Property insurance for recycling processing facilities have gone up across the country for circumstances outside of MSS’s control. MSS has previously and separately briefed the Agencies on this item, and R3 is aware of the market circumstances surrounding it. R3 finds that this extraordinary item is supported and reasonable. The 2021 recycling property insurance extraordinary item proposed by MSS was $124,662, and for 2022 it is $90,726.
The result is $10,263 in Recycling Property Insurance for the Town in 2022, which is a decrease of $3,807 compared to 2021.
Funding for SB 1383 Contract Negotiations and Implementation The MSS served Agencies have contracted with R3 to provide support for negotiation of an amendment to the MSS franchise agreements with the Agencies, effectuating the new services, terms and conditions for SB 1383 compliance. That contract also includes a contingency for support to the Agencies in implementing SB 1383 in 2022. R3’s expenses for that work are not to exceed $44,380 and are recoverable via the solid waste rates so as not to be direct expenses to the Agencies.
The result is $4,212 in SB 1383 Contract Negotiations and Implementation support for the Town in 2022.
Survey of Comparable Rates
Attachment 1 shows the results of R3's survey of solid waste rates as of October 2021 for agencies located throughout the Bay Area. For the purpose of comparing the MSS Agencies’ rates to other agencies we have applied the 2022 rate increases for MSS served Agencies and compared those anticipated 2022 rates to the current rates for all other agencies. It is anticipated that rates for other agencies will also increase in 2022, and since this comparison uses 2022 rates for the MSS Agencies, the rate comparison will become more favorable as other entities adopt 2022 rates.
Figure 1, on the following page, shows a summary of Marin rates for residential customers with 30-35 gallon garbage service. Bars shown in blue are 2021/22 rates for Mill Valley Refuse Service; purple is the 2021/22 rate for Tamalpais Community Services District; red are 2021/22 rates for Recology Marin, and; green are proposed 2022 MSS rates. The grey bar is the average for all of Marin County, excluding the MSS Agencies. Overall, 2022 rates for the Agencies served by MSS are less than or equal to the Marin County average.
242
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
Figure 1
Marin County Rates: MSS 2022 Proposed Residential 32-gal Can compared to Current 30-35-gal Can Rates and Marin County Average of $51.18 (Excluding MSS Rates) If approved, 2022 monthly residential rates for a 32-gallon container (the most frequent residential service level) for the Town will be $51.28. The Town’s commercial rates for a 3-cubic yard bin serviced 1 time per week will be $841.58.
These survey results are presented as an indication of the reasonableness of the resulting rates for 2022.
Conclusions should not be immediately drawn from this information because rate comparisons are intrinsically difficult and often misleading. This results from differences in issues such as those listed below:
The types and ranges of services provided;
The level of subscription to solid waste services by residential, commercial, and industrial customers;
The ratio of residential to commercial and industrial customers; The terrain in which the service is performed;
Disposal, transfer and process costs, and amounts per capita; Rate structures; and
Governmental fees (e.g., franchise fees, vehicle impact fees, etc.). $-
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
$80.00
243
Review of Marin Sanitary Service’s 2022 Rate Application November 11, 2021
* * * * * * *
R3 appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the Town. Should you have any questions regarding this report or need any additional information, please contact me by phone at (510) 292-0853 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
R3 CONSULTING GROUP
Mr. Garth Schultz | Principal
244
1 YD Bin 1 YD Bin 3 YD Bin 3 YD Bin
20 Gal. 30‐35 Gal. 60‐64 Gal. 90‐96 Gal. 1x/Week 3x/Week 1x/Week 3x/Week City of Alameda Alameda 7/1/2021 35.99 $ 45.43 $ 74.64 $ 104.25 $ 173.05 $ 349.57 $ 519.16 $ 104.67 $ City of Albany Alameda 5/1/2021 40.89 $ 45.78 $ 79.13 $ 112.45 $ 182.40 $ 547.20 $ 547.20 $ 1,641.60 $ City of Berkeley Alameda 7/1/2021 27.30 $ 43.66 $ 87.28 $ 130.87 $ 173.77 $ 489.63 $ 480.92 $ 1,428.48 $ City of Dublin Alameda 7/1/2019 N / A 28.82 $ 52.95 $ 77.07 $ 139.86 $ 489.18 $ 419.58 $ 1,328.34 $ City of Emeryville Alameda 1/1/2021 13.43 $ 22.23 $ 44.46 $ 66.67 $ 132.39 $ 397.17 $ 397.17 $ 1,191.51 $ City of Fremont Alameda 1/1/2020 38.94 $ 39.72 $ 43.33 $ 62.64 $ 108.92 $ N / A 244.85 $ N / A City of Livermore Alameda 7/1/2021 29.94 $ 39.63 $ 59.36 $ 59.93 $ 119.07 $ 371.48 $ 357.20 $ 1,138.04 $ City of Newark Alameda 1/1/2021 32.08 $ 35.65 $ 63.15 $ 90.63 $ 144.48 $ 450.78 $ 382.24 $ 1,042.40 $ City of Oakland Alameda 7/1/2021 46.13 $ 52.36 $ 92.29 $ 138.62 $ 255.26 $ 765.71 $ 607.89 $ 1,823.59 $ City of Piedmont Alameda 7/1/2021 87.98 $ 93.23 $ 128.43 $ 143.82 $ N / A N / A N / A N / A City of Pleasanton Alameda 7/1/2021 N /A 27.58 $ N / A 48.12 $ 123.49 $ 392.01 $ 370.45 $ 1,154.44 $ City of San Leandro Alameda 7/1/2021 27.29 $ 34.00 $ 56.59 $ 79.16 $ 149.07 $ 450.70 $ 450.70 $ 1,352.09 $ City of Union City Alameda 7/1/2021 31.95 $ 39.95 $ 79.96 $ 119.90 $ 165.98 $ 458.43 $ 434.94 $ 1,185.35 $ Castro Valley Sanitary District Alameda 7/1/2021 32.42 $ 51.26 $ 87.29 $ 124.30 $ 213.68 $ 641.18 $ 519.67 $ 1,371.06 $ Oro Loma Sanitary District (L1) Alameda 9/1/2021 N /A 23.15 $ 46.65 $ 69.95 $ 130.61 $ 339.49 $ 347.89 $ 974.53 $ Oro Loma Sanitary District (L2) Alameda 9/1/2020 N /A 23.15 $ 46.65 $ 69.95 $ 130.61 $ 339.49 $ 347.89 $ 974.53 $ Oro Loma Sanitary District (L3) Alameda 9/1/2021 N /A 26.98 $ 53.97 $ 80.69 $ 151.12 $ 392.82 $ 402.55 $ 1,127.65 $ City of Richmond Contra Costa 1/1/2021 35.23 $ 43.02 $ 81.41 $ 120.93 $ 286.41 $ 729.43 $ 657.93 $ 1,806.87 $ City of San Pablo Contra Costa 1/1/2021 28.37 $ 35.06 $ 67.87 $ 101.73 $ 267.92 $ 681.68 $ 624.96 $ 1,717.79 $ City of El Cerrito Contra Costa 1/1/2021 45.60 $ 59.77 $ 118.70 $ N / A 402.70 $ 1,143.87 $ N / A N / A City of Hercules Contra Costa 1/1/2021 35.10 $ 41.67 $ 73.61 $ 106.56 $ 299.79 $ 756.87 $ 690.14 $ 1,887.27 $ City of Pinole Contra Costa 1/1/2020 31.11 $ 37.21 $ 66.28 $ 96.29 $ 285.04 $ 727.45 $ 668.00 $ 1,839.38 $ Unincorporated West Contra Costa Contra Costa 1/1/2020 29.83 $ 36.60 $ 70.06 $ 104.37 $ 254.38 $ 645.29 $ 579.12 $ 1,585.36 $ City of Belvedere Marin 7/1/2021 51.06 $ 63.10 $ 107.06 $ 151.03 $ 270.81 $ 748.15 $ N / A N / A Novato Sanitary District Marin 7/1/2021 14.94 $ 23.90 $ 47.76 $ 71.67 $ N / A N / A 311.34 $ 772.52 $ West Marin 1 Marin 7/1/2021 28.66 $ 43.47 $ 81.52 $ 130.31 $ 330.74 $ 645.37 $ 496.12 $ 1,125.39 $ City of Sausalito Marin 7/1/2021 N / A $ 47.75 $ 143.25 95.50 $ $ N / A 662.35 220.78 $ N / A Tamalpais Com. Service Dist. 1 Marin 7/1/2021 N / A 71.02 $ 107.22 $ 145.47 $ 470.49 $ 1,411.48 $ N / A N / A Town of Tiburon Marin 7/1/2021 52.97 $ 60.09 $ 101.26 $ 152.43 $ 248.32 $ 677.47 $ N / A N / A Town of Corte Madera Marin 7/1/2021 38.15 $ 44.88 $ 82.04 $ 119.20 $ 179.81 $ 485.29 $ N / A N / A City of Mill Valley Marin 7/1/2021 50.09 $ 55.24 $ 92.24 $ 129.16 $ 232.94 $ 626.82 $ N / A N / A Town of Fairfax Marin 1/1/2022 $ 45.32 37.81 $ 90.67 $ 135.99 $ 266.52 $ 631.27 $ 624.82 $ 1,635.54 $ Town of San Anselmo Marin 1/1/2022 $ 51.28 39.24 $ 102.64 $ 153.96 $ 292.16 $ 876.43 $ 841.58 $ 2,524.91 $ City of San Rafael Marin 1/1/2022 39.77 $ 46.79 $ 93.58 $ 140.37 $ 302.00 $ 923.41 $ 577.97 $ 1,640.58 $ Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Marin 1/1/2022 35.18 $ 41.38 $ 82.77 $ 124.15 $ 296.25 $ 889.49 $ 599.44 $ 1,673.07 $ City of Larkspur Marin 1/1/2022 43.59 $ 51.25 $ 102.50 $ 153.75 $ 325.43 $ 975.94 $ 653.53 $ 1,713.64 $ Town of Ross Marin 1/1/2022 36.90 $ 43.43 $ 86.86 $ 130.29 $ 217.54 $ 376.80 $ 557.57 $ 1,672.55 $ County of Marin Marin 1/1/2022 31.54 $ 51.53 $ 105.56 $ 163.47 $ 372.26 $ 1,116.93 $ 595.89 $ 1,787.68 $ City of Campbell 1 Santa Clara 7/1/2021 30.25 $ 37.41 $ 67.72 $ 98.04 $ 172.62 $ 522.81 $ 345.24 $ 1,045.62 $ City of Cupertino 1 Santa Clara 2/1/2021 28.50 $ 30.50 $ 58.71 $ 86.91 $ 180.23 $ 540.74 $ 288.39 $ 865.15 $ City of Los Altos Santa Clara 7/1/2021 39.13 $ 42.15 $ 84.28 $ 126.45 $ 165.35 $ 496.08 $ 196.07 $ 1,488.27 $ City of Milpitas Santa Clara 1/1/2021 34.08 $ 37.04 $ 43.56 $ 50.05 $ 122.91 $ 302.68 $ 279.14 $ 790.21 $ City of Monte Sereno 1 Santa Clara 7/1/2021 33.76 $ 41.92 $ 76.48 $ 111.03 $ 229.53 $ 695.28 $ 459.06 $ 1,390.55 $ City of Mountain View Santa Clara 7/1/2021 25.45 $ 37.10 $ 74.20 $ 111.30 $ 113.50 $ 385.35 $ 339.80 $ 1,064.90 $ City of Palo Alto Santa Clara 7/1/2017 27.81 $ 50.07 $ 100.15 $ 150.22 $ 219.49 $ 590.31 $ 504.40 $ 1,455.48 $ City of San Jose Santa Clara 7/1/2021 N / A 54.77 $ 91.54 $ 137.31 $ 166.51 $ 476.84 $ 232.57 $ 665.12 $ City of Santa Clara Santa Clara 7/1/2021 38.85 $ 38.85 $ 48.54 $ N / A 149.93 $ 442.56 $ 389.02 $ 1,137.97 $ City of Sunnyvale Santa Clara 7/1/2020 N / A 37.36 $ 41.47 $ 46.67 $ 179.73 $ 504.63 $ 446.54 $ 1,301.57 $ City of Saratoga1 Santa Clara 7/1/2021 32.48 $ 40.26 $ 73.20 $ 106.14 $ 245.22 $ 743.12 $ 490.44 $ 1,486.23 $ Town of Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 7/1/2020 34.33 $ 47.85 $ 95.74 $ 143.57 $ 117.61 $ 184.05 $ 247.70 $ 430.39 $ Town of Los Gatos1 Santa Clara 7/1/2021 32.23 $ 40.11 $ 73.07 $ 106.03 $ 214.01 $ 648.33 $ 428.02 $ 1,296.66 $ $ 47.28 37.72 $ 94.94 $ 143.14 $ 296.02 $ 827.18 $ 635.83 $ 1,806.85 $ $ 51.18 39.31 $ 89.33 $ 130.32 $ 279.13 $ 765.76 $ 489.94 $ 948.96 $ $ 49.36 38.45 $ 91.95 $ 136.30 $ 287.58 $ 798.83 $ 592.06 $ 1,616.21 $ $ 43.17 35.87 $ 77.64 $ 110.76 $ 216.18 $ 605.89 $ 468.58 $ 1,324.74 $ 1 1 CY not available, reflected here for 1.5 CY Bay Area Rate Survey
Effective
Dates
Commercial
Jurisdiction County Residential Single Family
All City Average
Marin Sanitary Service Agencies Average
Marin County Average without MSS
Marin County ‐ All
245
1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com PPP Loan Program
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a federal loan program backed by the US Small Business Administration that helped businesses keep their workforces employed during the COVID-19 crisis.
Recipients of PPP loans were eligible for forgiveness after all proceeds were expended. Once forgiven, PPP loan proceeds effectively became “grants” that were used for the purposes of continuing to employ workers during the early and extremely uncertain financial times of the COVID-19 pandemic.
MSS’s PPP Loan
Marin Sanitary Service (MSS) applied for and received a $4.575 million PPP loan in 2020 which was spent in continuing to employ 265 workers in 2020. MSS is one of many solid waste companies to receive a PPP loan. MSS has applied for loan forgiveness, which would effectively render proceeds as a “grant” for keeping workers employed during the pandemic. MSS’s PPP proceeds were spent employing workers in 2020, meeting the requirements of the program. Of the $4.575 million in proceeds, $2.5 million was used to employ workers in collection operations for the seven solid waste collection franchise agreements MSS holds with public agencies; the remainder was used to employ workers in other MSS divisions (such as the debris box division, maintenance division, Marin Resource Recovery Center, and others.
PPP Proceeds Benefit MSS Ratepayers
Continuity of Service Delivery
As was the case for many other solid waste collection operations, MSS saw immediate declines in ratepayer revenues in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without the $2.5 million in PPP proceeds used to continue to employ collection workers, and because of unprecedented reductions in rate revenues (primarily due to subscription downsizing and/or service cessation in the commercial sector) MSS would likely have had to layoff collection workers in order to cover its other fixed cost capital and fee obligations.
Doing so would have negatively affected MSS’s ability to provide contracted collection services, resulting in service disruptions, routing changes, and lack of continuity in service delivery (which was the case in some other California communities).
Moreover, service disruptions would likely have been long-lasting even after anticipated recovery in rate revenue collections, due to an extremely challenging driver labor market. Had MSS needed to layoff collection workers, the likelihood that MSS would have been able to re-employ those same collection workers upon revenue recovery is highly unlikely. Instead, MSS would have had to compete with other solid waste companies and other driver focused companies (e.g., Amazon, UPS, trucking, etc.) to recruit, train, and retain new collection workers, which would likely have resulted in a decline in service quality, and may have resulted in an increase in overall labor cost. These impacts were avoided because of continuing to To: Dave Donery, Town Manager, San Anselmo
From: Garth Schultz, Principal, R3 Consulting Group
Date: January 5, 2022
Subject: Background and Analysis of MSS PPP Loan Forgiveness 246
Town of San Anselmo | Background and Analysis of MSS PP Loan Forgiveness Page 2 of 3 employ workers which was made possible by the PPP proceeds, enabling MSS to retain existing employees and avoid the need to layoff and then re-hire employees including hard-to-hire drivers.
Voluntary Waiver of 2020 Rate Revenue Reconciliation
Per the Franchise Agreements that the Town of San Anselmo (Town) and the other six public agencies have with MSS, MSS’s annual compensation is adjusted in accordance with a “balancing account” of ratepayer revenues owed vs. received. This was established for two reasons:
1) To shield MSS from the revenue reduction impacts of customer “downsizing” to smaller and less costly solid waste collection services, which solidifies MSS’s partnership in continuing waste diversion and reduction; and
2) To return surplus rate revenue to ratepayers in the event that MSS collected more ratepayer revenues than needed to achieve a reasonable profit.
Annually, and in accordance with its rights in the Franchise Agreements, MSS may calculate the magnitude of the “balancing account” for the prior rate year and apply that amount to the rate adjustment for the following rate year as a “rate revenue reconciliation” adjustment. Prior to the pandemic, it was expected that the magnitude of such adjustments would be relatively minimal and vary over time. However, as a result of the steep declines in ratepayer revenue in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 rate revenue reconciliation adjustment across the seven MSS public agencies was $1.5 million.
This $1.5 million adjustment would have amounted to an additional 3.56% increase in 2022 rate revenues for the Town, had MSS not voluntarily waived its right to request such an adjustment. MSS was able to waive this contractually allowed adjustment to its compensation, again, because of its relatively secure financial position resulting from PPP monies. The result is a 2022 adjustment to solid waste rates that is less than half of what it would have been had MSS not participated in the PPP program.
Avoidance of Extraordinary Compensation Adjustments
MSS incurred new expenses in adjusting its operations to continue to provide services during the COVID19 pandemic, as was the case for essential service businesses (such as PPE and increased cleaning of offices and trucks). MSS could have requested an extraordinary adjustment to its ratepayer compensation to fund the cost of these new expenses. MSS has not made such a request, which is attributable to MSS being in a relatively secure financial position, largely due to the PPP proceeds.
MSS also saw immediate and steep reductions in ratepayer revenues in mid-2020 during the height of the pandemic. Some solid waste collection providers in other communities made requests for extraordinary adjustments to their ratepayer compensation in response to revenue declines. Had MSS not received PPP proceeds, MSS may have needed to request an extraordinary adjustment to its compensation to continue to maintain operations.
Finally, it should be noted that ongoing and significant reductions in rate revenues are continuing in 2021, and anticipated to continue through 2022, and may continue in 2023 and beyond. Although the “balancing account” mechanism and the associated annual rate revenue reconciliations provide an avenue for MSS to recover from these revenue drops, there is a two-year timing difference between when MSS experiences the shortfall in revenues, and when they are recovered from ratepayers. As a result, MSS is experiencing negative impacts to its income cashflow, which we estimate will be as much as -$1.75 million in 2022, and with negative cashflows (and consequential reductions in income) persisting through 2024. MSS will be eligible for a base year “cost-based” rate review for the 2025 rate year, which will set 2025 rate revenues based on the actual cost of operations (if MSS requests the base year review in lieu of the normal indexed adjustment).
247
Town of San Anselmo | Background and Analysis of MSS PP Loan Forgiveness Page 3 of 3 Actual Projected Estimated Estimated Estimated
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Rate Revenue Shortfall $ (1,500,000) $ (1,300,000) $ (1,000,000) $ (700,000) $ (500,000) Rate Revenue Reconciliation $ - $ - Waived $ 1,300,000 $ 1,000,000 PPP Proceeds $ 2,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -
New Expenses (PPE and Cleaning) $ (200,000) $ (150,000) $ (100,000) $ (50,000) $ (50,000) Impact to Annual Income/Cashflow $ 800,000 $ (1,450,000) $ (1,100,000) $ 550,000 $ 450,000 Cumulative Impact to Income/Cashflow $ 800,000 $ (650,000) $ (1,750,000) $ (1,200,000) $ (750,000) Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated income and cash flow impacts to MSS from 2020 through 2024, including the PPP proceeds, estimated new expenses related to COVID-19 protocols, and waiver of the 2020 rate revenue reconciliation adjustment. It should be noted that this projection indicates that MSS will, cumulatively over these five years, experience an overall income loss of $750,000, inclusive of the PPP proceeds. Though the rate revenue reconciliation will make up the loss in subsequent rate years, the fact remains that MSS’s near term cash flows are – and will remain – negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic despite the PPP proceeds.
Table 1: Estimate of MSS’s Cash Flow Impacts Through 2024 It should be noted that the $2,500,000 in PPP Proceeds noted in Table 1 is still subject to forgiveness by the SBA and will not be booked as revenue in MSS’s accounting records until forgiveness occurs. This means that the apparent $800,000 positive impact to income/cashflows in 2020 is only indicative of available cashflows for business operations.
PPP Proceeds are Not Rate Revenues
Collection services provided under the MSS agreements are funded by solid waste rates paid by ratepayers, which are heard and approved annually by the franchising public agencies. Annual adjustments to rates considered by the agencies take into account either a) projections of compensation due to MSS via an “indexed rate adjustment” methodology, or b) projections of MSS’s forecasted cost of operations via a “base year rate adjustment” methodology. In both cases, determination of the contractually established annual rate adjustments are predicated only on rate revenues paid to MSS by ratepayers, as those are the sole recurring form of compensation that MSS receives for provision of collection services.
The MSS rate adjustment methodology (and other similar rate adjustment methodologies for most other solid waste agreements in California) does not include one-times grants in the determination of contractually allowed adjustments to rate revenues. Contractually speaking, the Town and its ratepayers have no claim on the PPP proceeds, and MSS is under no obligation to report or include the proceeds in determining annual rate revenue adjustments.
However, and despite having no obligation to do so, MSS notified its franchising agencies about the PPP proceeds, and voluntarily waived a portion of its contractually allowed rate adjustment for 2022, which was to the benefit of ratepayers. Moreover, ratepayers have and will continue to benefit from MSS’s receipt of PPP proceeds, while MSS has and will continue to incur near-term revenue shortfalls and cash flow impacts, as described in the following pages.
248
Town of San Anselmo
Staff Report
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
FROM:
Elise Semonian, Planning Director
SUBJECT:
75 Jones Street, APN 007‐283‐12, Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve amendment to Specific Planned Development at 75 Jones for conversion of a preschool into single family residence and a second story addition. The amendment allows the lower walls of the structure to be demolished...end
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council conduct a public hearing, consider testimony from all parties, and deny the appeal and approve the project subject the findings in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 6, with one additional condition to require a revised landscape plan that will provide for year‐ round screening between 75 Jones and 101 Ross by trees or other plants, to be approved by the Planning Director after considering input by the Ross Valley Fire Department, the applicant and any neighbors.
The following alternative actions are available:
1. Grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission decision with direction to staff to prepare a resolution with appropriate findings for consideration at a future Town Council meeting; or
2. Request additional information from any of the parties and/or staff and continue this matter to a future date for consideration of the requested information.
BACKGROUND
See November 15, 2021, Planning Commission staff report attached (Attachment 3). All materials considered by the Planning Commission, which are made part of the public record, may be found with the November 15, 2021, meeting materials here (Item 5C):
<https://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=685> In February 2020, the Planning Commission approved an application for a Specific Development Plan to subdivide a former San Francisco Theological Seminary site, now owned by Erin Heath and Jim Rivera (“Applicants”) into two parcels. One parcel included the single-family residence at 101 Ross Avenue and the other included the preschool structure at 75 Jones Street. The applicants received approval to remodel the preschool into a single‐family residence with the entire roof removed, all exterior walls modified, and second story addition over the existing slab foundation.
During construction, the project demolition exceeded what was shown on the approved Planning Commission plans and all lower walls were demolished. Staff stopped work at the site and required the Applicants to Town of San Anselmo Page 1 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™249
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
request a modification to the specific plan to allow for demolition of all the lower walls of the residence. Staff believed that a revision to the specific plan was necessary as, based on the comments by the Planning Commission, the approval was for a remodel and the Commission may not have approved the setbacks, floor area and parking if the structure was new. The Applicants paid double planning application fees to request the revision to the demolition plan after‐the‐fact.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the specific plan amendment on November 15, 2021.
Attorney Elizabeth Brekhus represents Kaliel Roberts and Michael Greer (“Appellants”), owners and residents of 101 Ross. Ms. Brekhus submitted comments and spoke during the hearing to voice her clients’ objections to the project. They requested the Commission to eliminate the upper floor volume over the living room and eliminate the 20‐foot‐tall windows facing their site to reduce the mass and scale of the home and increase privacy. They argued that, as new construction with new neighbors that object to the design, de novo review is warranted. They believed the project should be required to comply with regulations for a new single-family residence, which would require reduction in the floor area and compliance with the setbacks.
Appellants believed the Planning Commission could not make required findings that: 1) the project does not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties, 2.) will not unreasonably affect privacy, and 3) is of a bulk mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the additional demolition and design by a 4‐0‐3 vote (Commissioners Swaim, Heiman and Hilmi abstaining due to conflict of interests and not present at the meeting). The Commissioners stated that the project design had not changed with the modifications, so they were not material. They found the approved building location improved light and air for neighboring properties and the two‐story living room windows did not unreasonably affect privacy as there is no floor at the second story. The project was approved based on the findings and conditions in the original approval and one new condition to require a landscape plan that would provide for year‐round screening by trees or other plants, to be approved by the Planning Director after considering input by both the applicant and any neighbors.
Following the Planning Commission’s November 15, 2021, decision to approve the amended project, the Appellants submitted an appeal to the Town Council to reconsider the decision.
DISCUSSION
As provided in the Municipal Code, “the Town Council shall determine the appeal or the review based upon the testimony and documents produced before it and any site visits. The Town Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the Planning Commission and may make such findings and determinations as are consistent with State law, this Code and other applicable rules and regulations.” (SAMC § 10-1.06(h)
<https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_anselmo/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT10PLZO_CH1PLCO_10-1.06APREPLCODE>) Thus, the Town Council hearing is a de novo hearing in which the Council may consider the project in its entirety.
See November 15, 2021, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3). Staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission decision based on the reasoning expressed by the Planning Commission at their Town of San Anselmo Page 2 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™250
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
November 15, 2021 meeting (see draft Minutes, attachment 2 and video <https://sananselmoca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=685>) and the Findings and Conditions below, and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 6, with one additional condition to require a revised landscape plan that will provide for year‐round screening between 75 Jones and 101 Ross by trees or other plants, to be approved by the Planning Director after considering input by the Ross Valley Fire Department, the applicant and any neighbors.
ANALYSIS
Since the site is in a Special Planning District the Town Council has much discretion to consider the request to amend the project to demolish the walls of the preschool and construct a residence and landscaping in conformance with approved plans. The Town Council may use the adjacent zoning development standards for guidance but is not bound by those limits. The proposed project would meet most standards for the multifamily district. The proposed structure will be compatible with the mix of architectural styles in the neighborhood.
Design Review Findings
1. Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area;
The former building was used as a preschool and required renovation to make it compatible with the surroundings. The scale and structure proposed is in keeping with the adjacent buildings, which are primarily two story, flat elevation dwellings. The current structure on the site is a 12‐sided commercial structure from 1979 that is being used as a preschool. The proposed project will convert this structure into a 2‐story 2,358 sq ft residence. The renovation will make the existing structure and property more compatible with the surrounding properties which are primarily high‐density residential buildings. The scale and massing of the proposed structure will complement the 2‐story flat facades of the adjacent structures but will break it up with smaller proportions for a slightly more residential feel. The proposed structure will also be lower in height than those surrounding it. See renderings showing context and elevations showing the adjacent typology (Attachment 7).
2. Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less desirable;
The renovation of a preschool to a new single‐family home will result in a reduction of noise as there will be far fewer occupants as well as less traffic since there will no longer be student drop‐offs and pick‐ups or multiple children and staff in outdoor areas. A new, solid fence and landscaping have been installed at the property line which helps to reduce noise transmission to the surrounding neighbors. All doors and windows will be double pane with a higher insulative value which will also help reduce sound transmission in and out.
3. Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to depreciate materially in appearance or value or otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or orderly development in such area; The appearance and function of the proposed project should increase the value of the surrounding areas as it will replace a 1979 era structure and parking lot that is used for a preschool/commercial use with a single‐ family residential use in a primarily residential neighborhood. The project adds one housing unit, reduces noise and traffic, and provide a contemporary structure that fits in with the context while meeting current energy performance and building codes.
Town of San Anselmo Page 3 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™251
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
4. Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors and provides for satisfactory access by emergency vehicles and personnel; The change in use from a preschool to a single‐family home decreases traffic. The preschool had vehicle trips to and from the site for staff and for multiple preschool students to be dropped off and picked up. Residential vehicle trips will be significantly lower than the prior use. The structure is set back from the street so will not be a distraction for passing motorists.
5. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons using the improvement or endanger property located in the surrounding area; and
The renovation will improve the overall structure and all mechanical equipment will be upgraded, which will improve function and efficiency. The structure will have sprinklers and other fire‐safe construction.
6. Is consistent with the Town General Plan.
The project is consistent with the Town General Plan which recommends addition of new housing units, including new market rate housing units. The project design will complement the surrounding area by being within the scale of the adjacent single family and multi family structures. The structure is set back from the street at a greater distance than is typically required for residential structures. The building mass is broken up with smaller proportions that make it compatible with residential development. The two‐story wall of glass in the proposed living room does not impair privacy of adjacent development as the upper‐level floor is 17‐18 feet from the face of the window so occupants cannot look out the window as they would with a window adjacent to a floor. 30‐foot‐tall landscape hedge material exists at the site and additional trees are proposed to provide screening of the residence and privacy between the sites. The project decreases traffic in a residential neighborhood.
7. Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties; The immediate neighbors to the west are currently shaded by five large redwood trees and the proposed structure will remain shorter in overall height which will greatly minimize any additional shading (see shade studies on A0.1). The western neighbors have no windows that face the project. The project is sited towards the rear of the site which sets it apart from 101 Ross, which is close to Jones Street, allowing light to enter windows on each residence. A structure built closer to 101 Ross could cast shadows on 101 Ross Avenue.
8. Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and decks; The window, door and deck placement and size have been designed to maximize privacy for the proposed property and those surrounding it. The residence and proposed windows and decks are set back at the rear of the site, so they are not situated adjacent to 101 Ross Avenue. New, water smart, efficient landscaping will be added to aid with privacy and include fencing for each individual yard and perimeter screening plantings. The structure is set back from the street at a greater distance than is typically required for residential structures.
The two‐story wall of glass in the proposed living room does not impair privacy of adjacent development as the upper‐level floor is 17‐18 feet from the face of the window so occupants cannot look out the window as they would with a window adjacent to a floor. 30‐foot‐tall landscape hedge material exists at the site and additional trees are proposed to provide screening of the residence and privacy between the sites, including upper‐level decks.
Town of San Anselmo Page 4 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™252
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
9. Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and
The proposed renovation will create a property that better complements the existing character of the surrounding area and structures than the existing preschool structure. The project maintains the existing building footprint. The structure will be shorter in height but similar in style and scale to the existing buildings.
Setbacks and parking will be in keeping with the properties in the immediate vicinity, which are unique for the town. The structure is set back from the street at a greater distance than is typically required for residential structures. The building mass is broken up with smaller proportions that make it compatible with residential development. 30‐foot‐tall landscape hedge material exists at the site and additional trees are proposed to provide screening of the residence and privacy between the sites.
10. Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.
The renovation will entail an upgrade to the current building and improve the immediate surroundings. All San Anselmo construction codes and regulations will be followed to ensure the health and safety of neighbors living nearby. The renovation will involve updating the mechanical systems, appliances and fixtures so they are code‐ compliant and high‐efficiency. Materials selected will be in keeping with the look and style of the surrounding properties, but incorporate modern, innovative and eco‐friendly materials.
Use Permit Findings
San Anselmo Municipal Code 10‐3.1305 requires the following finding to be made:
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town.
The conversion of a preschool structure to a single‐family residence will not be injurious to the neighborhood or Town. The proposed use is in keeping with the zoning in the area. The proposed addition is setback from the street, has an attractive design that is compatible with the existing structure, and will not negatively impact the neighborhood or Town. The proposed use is less intense than the preschool use and will reduce impacts on the neighborhood. The proposed 20‐foot‐tall windows do not allow views from the second story as the second story floor is set back approximately 17 feet from the window. Significant vegetation has been installed and is proposed to screen between the site and the adjacent single family residential development.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
See Design Review finding 6 above.
CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the Climate Action Plan by allowing construction of one new residence within walking Town of San Anselmo Page 5 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™253
TO: Town Council Meeting of 1/11/2022
distance of schools and services and by preserving an existing foundation and construction that has been partially completed at the site. Preservation of the foundation eliminates the need for significant off haul of demolition materials and import of concrete, and associated emissions. The project includes new vegetation and trees to replace trees removed for construction. The site will be energy efficient and built to modern energy codes, unlike the former structure.
Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 ‐ new construction or conversion of small structures, because it involves converting an existing commercial building to one single family residence. No exception set forth in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to location of the project related to impacts on environmental resources (no undisturbed land area or heritage trees to be disturbed); (b), which relates to cumulative impacts (residential scale project with no significant construction in the area); Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances (typical residential scale project); or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources.
The existing building at 75 Jones Street and the adjacent multifamily residences were designed by local architect Roger Hooper in 1978. Information on Mr. Hooper is attached to the February 2020 staff report as Attachment 4. The structure would not qualify for listing on a state or historic register. To be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
The only criteria that could apply to this structure is the 3rd criteria. Roger Hooper’s architectural work has not been fully surveyed and assessed and he was not as notable as other Bay Area architects of the time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal
2. Minutes of 11/15/21 Planning Commission hearing
3. Planning Commission 11/15/21 Staff Report
4. Planning Commission 2/3/21 Staff Report
5. Correspondence to Town Council
6. Standard Conditions of Planning Approval
7. Project Plans and revised demolition plan
Town of San Anselmo Page 6 of 6 Printed on 1/7/2022
powered by Legistar™254
255
Mayor Fineman and Members of the Town Council
January 3, 2022
This reliance on the findings of the February 3, 2020 meeting, without regard for the privacy concerns raised by a new neighbor, or a true re-evaluation of the project as new construction, not a remodel, was wrong. It rewards the lack of disclosure and communication by Applicants and punishes the neighbors who were victims of this behavior. Kaliel Roberts and Michael Greer ask the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission.
SPD Districts Give Owners Flexibility but Neighbors Are Protected by De Novo Design Review Zoning rules exist to restrain the use of private property for the protection of neighbors, the neighborhood, and the town as a whole. In San Anselmo, SPD districts have essentially no binding zoning rules. In the place of rules there are guidelines that the property should basically conform to the zoning standards of adjoining lots,1 and also the requirement to undergo Design Review and obtain a Change in Use Permit anew every time an SPD is being redeveloped.2 Therefore, in place of strict zoning guidelines,
careful review by government officials with the input from neighbors becomes the safeguard of the neighborhood.
The owners of 75 Jones (“Applicants”) complained at the November 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting that the requirement to undergo de novo design review was too onerous. The Planning Commission seemed to agree, and simply relied on its previous findings and allowed an amendment to the previous approved plan for a remodel, instead of requiring the Applicants to submit a new plan for a new construction project. (See, e.g., November 15, 2021 Planning Commission at 1:42:00, Commissioner Gary Smith: “I see elements that would make the original design problematic, however, at this stage, that is a project that was approved.”) However, the Applicants have received a tremendous benefit from the flexibility of the SPD, including the ability to unevenly subdivide their lot into non-conforming sizes and sell the larger lot for $3.5 million the Appellants. They must live with the downside of the SPD, and the Planning Commission should have performed a new design review for a new build project, not allowing the Applicants to re-submit their project as a remodel that had undergone extensive and foreseeable demolition.
The De Novo Design Review Hearing on November 15, 2021 Should Have Treated the Project as New Construction, Not as a Remodel
The Town of San Anselmo stopped construction on 75 Jones in August 2021 because the demolition on the project exceeded the amount approved under the submitted plan. (See November 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting at 1:31:50). The structure at 75 Jones was a “non-conforming structure, and by exceeding the demolition, our town rules would require it to be brought into compliance with current standards.” (Id. at 1:35:45). Most importantly, this would mean that the structure should conform to the 20-foot rear setback (a requirement in any relevant zoning district), which it currently violates, allowing it to loom over 101 Ross’s back yard.
The owners of 75 Jones knew early on in the process that this was going to be new construction, not a remodel, and yet they carried on without amending their permit at their own risk. At the November 15, 2021 meeting, the Applicants’ General Contractor made clear that he understood the extent of the demolition to be near-total from the very beginning. (See id. at 57:00, noting that structural engineering plans called for removal of 107 linear feet of walls, out of 163 linear feet total). Moreover, in January 2021, eight months before construction was ultimately stopped for demolition, the architect reached out and 1 Sausalito Municipal Code section 10-3.909. 2 Sausalito Municipal Code section 10-3.908. 256
Mayor Fineman and Members of the Town Council
January 3, 2022
confirmed with the Town staff that if they did a more extensive demolition (as the contractor was urging) that they would have to go back to the Town and seek permission. (Id. at 1:01:00). The architect openly stated that their contractors were telling him the building should be demolished and the slab rebuilt, he needed to keep the existing structure as a remodel in order to preserve the “odd existing setbacks.” See exhibit A, emails between the realtors for the Applicants and the Appellants. Ultimately, the extremely foreseeable complete demolition of the exterior walls took place without Applicants disclosing such, resulting in the stop work order eight months later in August 2021.
The Applicants then filed an application to allow demolition of the structure to the slab foundation and requested permission to build the previously approved design. Despite the admission that their demolition was complete to the slab, and the building would be new construction, the Planning Commission did not review the project de novo as new construction. Instead, they took into account how much time and money Applicants had already spent while relying on the approval from the February 3, 2020 meeting, and essentially forgave the fiction that Applicants had been passing a project that was new construction as a remodel. (See November 15, 2021 Planning Commission at 1:38:00, Commissioner Jennifer Asselstine, considering “what’s been purchased, what the investment is, what the structural design is, what the architectural design is, it would be not at all be an insignificant request to . . . change the design”; Commissioner Krebs at 1:44:20: “after-the-fact type of situation is difficult where the homeowner has invested lots of time and money”.) This generous interpretation is not merited. It is apparent that the Applicants took a calculated risk characterizing their project as a “remodel” so that they could grandfather in the non-conforming characteristics of the existing building while preserving almost nothing of the original structure. This was not a good-faith error in characterizing the home as a remodel that was prevented by the discovery of dry rot. It was known by Applicants long before the discovery of dry rot that building a two-story house where a one-story house had stood, with all new window and door openings, was impossible without complete demolition, at least by the time they spoke to contractors in January 2021.
Yet Applicants failed to disclose this and seek a new, accurate permit. This is not the type of behavior the Town should reward by sweeping it under the rug and pretending they are evaluating a remodel instead of new construction.
The November 15, 2021 Planning Commission Was the First Opportunity for the Appellants To Object; Their Concerns Were Not Given the Weight They Should Have Been Given Had the Project Been Considered De Novo
The final reason that the City Council should review the plan for 75 Jones de novo is that there is a new neighbor at 101 Ross who bought their home from the Applicants without notice of the new twostory home Applicants intended to build. This lack of notice is important because usually a new buyer who claims ignorance of a previous public decision is considered to have been on record notice of the decision and has no right to complain; however, in this case, the actions of the Applicants and their representative make that not the case, and the Town should treat the complaints of the new neighbors as seriously as they would have had these concerns been raised at the February 3, 2020 initial hearing on the design review application for a two story home at 75 Jones.
Kaliel Roberts and Michael Greer bought 101 Ross from the Applicants after the February 3, 2020 approval of the Applicants’ plan for subdividing 101 Ross and 75 Jones and building a new two-story home at 75 Jones. The Appellants thought that they were paying $3.5 million for a beautiful home in a central but private location. They knew that the preschool next door would likely be converted to a single-family home, but when they asked the Applicants’ real estate agent about it, instead of being given the approved plans, which would have been easy enough, the real estate agent told the Appellants that the plans for 75 257
Mayor Fineman and Members of the Town Council
January 3, 2022
Jones were “conceptual.” See Exhibit A, emails between the realtors for the Applicants and the Appellants.
By this, the Appellants understood that there were no approved plans in place, and they would have a chance to receive notice and comment on any plans submitted. The surprise and betrayal felt by the Appellants when they saw the framing go up for two-story windows overlooking their backyard and rear of their house could have been entirely avoided had these plans been disclosed by the Applicants prior to accepting $3.5 million from Appellants.
At the November 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, their first opportunity to be heard, the Appellants voiced the position that they would prefer a home on 75 Jones located in the conforming location closer to the street; their concern regarding light and privacy to the side of their home being much less than that of the light and privacy of their primary living areas at the back of their home and back yard. Instead of taking the Appellants’ concerns regarding the design of the proposed home at 75 Jones seriously, some of the Planning Commissioners stated that the placement of the home next to 101 Ross’s backyard was actually a benefit to 101 Ross, patronizingly ignoring the Appellants’ stated position on the issue.
The Design of 75 Jones Should Not Pass Design Review
When the proposed two-story structure underwent de novo design review on February 3, 2020, the Applicants still owned 101 Ross, and therefore the interests of an independent owner of 101 Ross were not represented. It is clear that had the Planning Commission performed a true de novo design review of a new construction building on November 15, 2021, as they should have, the design would not have passed muster. (See November 15, 2021 meeting: Planning Director Semonian at 46:55: If the Planning Commission changed the designation from remodel to new build, it could require them to meet the 20 foot rear setback for R2 or R3; Semonian at 1:35:45: “It would be a non-conforming structure, and by exceeding the demolition, our town rules would require it to be brought into compliance with current standards”; Commissioner Gary Smith at 1:42:00: “I see elements that would make the original design problematic”; Commissioner Daniel Krebs at 1:46:00: “I did oppose the project previously . . . it was too close to the property line, it exceeded the FAR”.)
The design of the proposed structure at 75 Jones is not only placed in the wrong spot on the property, it is also designed in such a way that it is maximally visually intrusive to the main living areas at the back of the home at 101 Ross, and the outdoor dining and back yard. (See Exhibit B, photos of the project.) The reasons why the proposed plan should not pass design review are outlined in the attachment to the Appellants’ Appeal, submitted on November 24, 2021, but they are also summarized below:
A. The development of 75 Jones is not functionally and aesthetically compatible with existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area (Finding 1) The design of 75 Jones has created the effect of a large, second story indoor/outdoor observation deck peering into 101 Ross’s backyard, outdoor dining, family room, and kitchen (which is entirely visible through a wall of accordion glass doors installed by the owners of 75 Jones, who renovated and sold 101 Ross to the appellants). The neighborhood is dense yet charming because the homes, whether single family or multi-family, are appropriately scaled to the urban village setting, which allows neighboring properties to maintain privacy for themselves and each other wherever possible. A two-story wall of windows is wholly out of place in the middle of a dense village setting where the two-story wall of windows faces not an expansive view, but the neighbor’s property.
258
Mayor Fineman and Members of the Town Council
January 3, 2022
B. The development of 75 Jones will cause the surrounding area to depreciate materially in appearance and value (Finding 3)
The Appellants purchased the property from the owners of 75 Jones in September 2020, believing that they were paying a premium for a large, private lot in the heart of downtown San Anselmo. The owners of 75 Jones were able to sell 101 Ross to appellants for a premium price that reflected the privacy of the site as it appeared when 75 Jones only held a 1 story structure. Appellants would not have purchased 101 Ross for the price they paid had they known of the approved plans for the proposed home at 75 Jones.
The development of 75 Jones in the manner proposed will devalue 101 Ross significantly, as the property no longer feels private. The 20-foot windows and second floor deck proposed for 75 Ross create the feeling that the inhabitants of 101 Ross are being watched, destroying the magical, private feel of the home for which appellants paid the owners of 75 Jones $3.5 million.
C. The development of 75 Jones will unreasonably impair access to light and air (Finding 7) The second story at 75 Jones will not only block ambient light during the day, it will also create light pollution at night. The two-story windows line the double-height living area, which will be lit into the evenings without any type of screening. These windows will glow like a lantern at night right into 101 Ross’s property.
D. The development of 75 Jones will unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties, including by the placement of windows and decks (Finding 8) 75 Jones’s proposed second story deck and 20-foot windows facing 101 Ross unreasonably affect the privacy of 101 Ross. The Planning Commission discounted the invasiveness of the 20-foot story windows because there is no second story living area directly adjoining the window. However, the second story “library” looks out through the large windows directly into the backyard, family room, kitchen, and outdoor dining space of 101 Ross. Whoever is sitting or standing in the library will be able to look out through movie screen-sized windows to see a young family playing in their backyard.
In addition, the Planning Commission ignored how invasive the second story deck facing 101 Ross is, given privacy concerns. This deck does nothing but provide the occupants of 75 Jones with a view into the home at 101 Ross and its backyard.
The Planning Commission implicitly acknowledged the privacy impacts, but suggested mitigating them through the use of vegetative screening. In an atmosphere of drought and hardening homes against fires, there is no guarantee that subsequent owners of 75 Jones will be willing or able to maintain vegetation large enough to effectively eliminate the privacy intrusion created by the 20-foot windows and second story deck. The only effective solution is to prevent this privacy intrusion in the first place by requiring a modification to the design of the house.
E. The development of 75 Jones will be of a bulk, mass and design that does not complement the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood (Finding 9) The 46% FAR for the proposed home at 75 Jones is an indicator that the bulk of the home is excessive. The design of the home, when viewed from 101 Ross, is extremely bulky. The way the secondfloor projects towards 101 Ross creates an aggressive architectural effect that does not complement the existing neighborhood, including the graceful lines of the existing Victorian at 101 Ross. 259
Mayor Fineman and Members of the Town Council
January 3, 2022
Elimination of the 2nd story bulk created by the two-story living room, which does not create usable living space for 75 Jones but does significantly affect the use and enjoyment of 101 Ross by appellants, would improve the design and reduce the bulk and mass of the proposed home. Eliminating this architectural flourish will bring 75 Jones back within the FAR that would be allowed for a single-family home on this size lot, and improve the relationship of the home with its neighbors, without significantly impacting the usability of the home at 75 Jones.
Conclusion
The proposed project at 75 Jones as it is – a new construction project, with a too-large FAR, in violation of setbacks, and designed with dispensable architectural flourishes that upset the neighbors, should not be approved. Reversal of the Planning Commission’s decision will undeniably be a hardship to Applicants, but one caused entirely by their lack of communication and full disclosure, both to the Town and to the Appellants. Applicants’ lack of communication and disclosure should not reward the Applicants and punish Appellants. The Town should fully and fairly apply the zoning rules to 75 Jones, and reverse the Planning Commission’s approval of the project at 75 Jones.
We appreciation your consideration of these concerns.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth Brekhus
260
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
261
1/3/22, 3:02 PM Gmail - FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=227876452f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1720967982066177438 1/5 Michael Greer <[email protected]>
FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split 2 messages
Alisa Wynd <[email protected]> Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:25 AM To: Kaliel Roberts <[email protected]>, Mike Greer <[email protected]> See email chain below re the former preschool lot…
Alisa Knobbe Wynd, JD
Broker Associate
Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty
500 Drakes Landing Road | Greenbrae CA 94904
415.298.4037 | [email protected]| alisawynd.com
Top Agent Network | Marin Platinum Group | Lic #01342726 See My Market Report
From: Kira Swaim <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:50 AM
To: Alisa Wynd <[email protected]>
Cc: David Swaim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split That’s definitely their plan. They have already started conceptualizing it and such.
Chat soon.
262
1/3/22, 3:02 PM Gmail - FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=227876452f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1720967982066177438 2/5 Kira
Kira Swaim || Owner, Tam Realty || Leading San Anselmo Team || 415.209.4750 || [email protected]|| tamrealty.com On Sep 27, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Alisa Wynd <[email protected]> wrote:
I thought the seller’s plan was to convert the preschool into a single-family home. Is that not correct? Alisa
Alisa Knobbe Wynd, JD
Broker Associate
Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty
500 Drakes Landing Road | Greenbrae CA 94904
415.298.4037 | [email protected]| alisawynd.com
Top Agent Network | Marin Platinum Group | Lic #01342726 See My Market Report
From: Kira Swaim <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:15 AM
To: Alisa Wynd <[email protected]>, David Swaim <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split Please see note below from Sarah and share with buyers. 263
1/3/22, 3:02 PM Gmail - FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=227876452f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1720967982066177438 3/5 Thanks much.
Kira
Kira Swaim || Owner, Tam Realty || Leading San Anselmo Team || 415.209.4750 || [email protected]|| tamrealty.com Begin forwarded message:
From: Ana Sarah Miranda <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split Date: September 27, 2020 at 9:54:07 AM PDT
To: David Swaim <[email protected]>, Kira Swaim <[email protected]> Good morning David & Kira,
Please see Alisa’s e-mail below. Can you please let her know that yes, the adjacent Parcel will remain zoned commercial per the Assessor.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
All the best!
Sarah Miranda
Special Projects Administrator
264
1/3/22, 3:02 PM Gmail - FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=227876452f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1720967982066177438 4/5 First American Title Company of Napa
497 Walnut Street / PO Box 388
Napa CA 94559
Phone (707) 254-4500
Fax (707) 226-9346
We are proud to announce that we are now servicing Napa, Sonoma, Marin, Solano and Mendocino Counties.
Please contact us for all of your title and escrow needs.
From: Alisa Wynd [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 9:38 AM
To: Ana Sarah Miranda
Cc: Larson, Courtney
Subject: Re: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split Hi Sarah,
The buyers are asking me if Parcel 2 (former day care center parcel that is being kept by the sellers as part of the lot split) is going to be classified as a “residential” lot. Do you know the answer to that question? Alisa
Alisa Knobbe Wynd, JD
Broker Associate
Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty
265
1/3/22, 3:02 PM Gmail - FW: Order #: T0060066-101 Ross Avenue, San Anselmo- Lot Split https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=227876452f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1679012517827061642&simpl=msg-f%3A1720967982066177438 5/5 500 Drakes Landing Road | Greenbrae CA 94904
415.298.4037 | [email protected]| alisawynd.com
Top Agent Network | Marin Platinum Group | Lic #01342726 See My Market Report
Kaliel Roberts <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 12:49 PM To: Mike Greer <[email protected]>
Can you find this thread in your email and download it as a pdf? Elizabeth needs it. [Quoted text hidden]
266
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
1 DRAFT MINUTES
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 15, 2021
This meeting was conducted via Zoom.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair David Swaim, Vice Chair Thomas Tunny, Tim Heiman, Leyla Hilmi, Daniel Krebs, Gary Smith, Jennifer Asselstine.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Swaim, Hilmi and Heiman left after item 5B.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Swaim called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced how the public may participate in the meeting.
2. OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
No one wished to speak during open time.
3. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Planning Director Elise Semonian had nothing to report.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the July 19, 2021, minutes with a correction to the spelling of Commissioner Heiman’s name.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT SB 478 AND AB 970 - Consider “An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo Amending Title 10 of the Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code to Comply with 2021 Senate Bill 478 and AB 970” and make a recommendation to the Town Council. The ordinance increases floor area in the commercial zoning districts for housing development projects and allows required parking to be reduced for an electric vehicle charging station and any associated equipment.
Elise Semonian presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the Town Council adopt the draft ordinance. In response to a question, she confirmed there is currently no floor area limit in the multifamily zoning districts.
Chair Swaim opened the public hearing. No one from the public wished to comment.
The Consensus of the Commission was that the changes are appropriate to comply with the State law and recommended the Town Council adopt the ordinances.
It was moved/seconded Krebs/Asselstine to approve the staff report recommendation to recommend that the Town Council adopt the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. 278
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 2 B. ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT AB 345 - Consider “An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo Amending Title 10 of the Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning), Chapter 6 (Accessory Dwelling Units), adding new Section 10-6.209 Sale of Accessory Dwelling Units for Low and Moderate Income Housing” to comply with AB-345, which requires local agencies to allow certain nonprofit corporations to sell an accessory dwelling unit to families of low or moderate income if certain conditions are met.
Elise Semonian presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the Town Council adopt the draft ordinance. She answered commissioner questions.
Swaim questioned if the ownership would be like a condominium where the owner does not own the land and just the structure. Staff and the town attorney indicated that the sale may be set up like a condominium, but ownership could take other forms. Semonian noted that since SB 9 passed it is unlikely that anyone will use this provision, since SB 9 it is more lenient.
However, it may be useful in a multifamily or commercial zone where SB 9 does not apply.
Staff clarified that the buyer must be lower income.
Chair Swaim opened the public hearing. No one wished to comment.
Commissioner Hilmi asked what the concerns were regarding the ordinance the first time it was heard by the Commission. She had no objections to the ordinance.
Swaim indicated he had been concerned with ownership and if there would be any requirements for maintenance. Krebs believed there may have been concern regarding the general impact on the Town with more lots and neighbors and the inability to impose conditions, but they would like to promote affordable housing. Staff believed the Planning Commissioners had been concerned that anyone could form a nonprofit and had questions about enforcement.
The Commission asked how value would be calculated and who would calculate value and price. Staff indicated the State defines affordable income levels and the Town will be adopting the State definitions with adoption of the SB 9 ordinance. Marin Housing is typically retained to value units for the Town based on the income level and size of the household that is purchasing the unit. The unit is restricted at resale and could not be resold for market rate, but some appreciation is allowed. For sale units are typically for moderate income households, as lower income households may not qualify for a loan. But there could be a special loan program.
Purchasers must obtain their own financing. Regarding enforcement, currently San Anselmo contracts with Marin Housing to do enforcement. A nonprofit like Habitat for Humanity may do their own enforcement. Staff would need to ensure there is some provisions for enforcement of the conditions in the agreement.
279
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 3 Commissioner Krebs could not see anything in the ordinance about controlling the pricing on the sale of the unit. Town Attorney Acevedo indicated details would have to be worked out and the Town would need to review the agreements and ensure there are provisions in the transaction agreement. She did not have any other recommendations for giving the town greater control or enforcement, or incentives. A conditional use permit would be required from the Planning Director and conditions may be imposed.
Chair Swaim suggested the town could allow owners to partner with nonprofits to build the unit itself, and then sell it to someone, to encourage more ADUs to be built.
Commissioner Hilmi questioned how often it would be used for affordable housing by nonprofits, given the cost of construction in Marin. Semonian responded that Habitat for Humanity has been doing these projects in other places and the addition of the ADU is what helps the project financially, where a single unit is not feasible.
Commissioner Asselstine suggested the Town consider having an ordinance in line with SB 9, as that may be used more frequently, to make investment by nonprofits more palatable and more attractive.
It was moved/seconded Heiman/Krebs to approve the staff report recommendation and recommend the Town Council adopt the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously.
C. 75 Jones – Demolition Permit/Amendment to Specific Planned Development.
Consider an amendment to a Specific Planned Development at 75 Jones that allowed conversion of a preschool into single family residence and a second story addition.
The amendment is requested for a demolition permit to exceed 50% wall demolition and to construct the approved structure.
Commissioner Hilmi recused as she lives within five hundred feet of the site. Commissioner Heiman recused as he owns property within five hundred feet of the site. Chair Swaim recused, as he did with the initial application, as the applicants were clients and his wife represented the sale of 101 Ross. The three Commissioners left the meeting.
Elise Semonian presented the staff report and a history of the project. She indicated that she stopped work at the site in August since the project exceeded the demolition that was approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that the demolition that was approved did show that there would be new openings on every wall on the lower level, that all interior walls would be demolished, and that the slab foundation would remain. Wall area was removed for new footings. The Town Director of Building and Public Works and the Building Official supported the proposed demolition as necessary based on the site conditions and they recommended not preserving the remaining small areas of wall. The site is in an SPD zoning district, which gives the Planning Commission much discretion as to what to approve, subject to design review and a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission can make the finding that what has taken place is consistent with the approved plan and allow the project to continue as 280
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 4 designed and approved before. The other extreme is to find the project is no longer a remodel but a full demolition and require the project to meet the 20-foot rear setback required for the adjacent zoning districts and require parking to meet the 20-foot front and 8-foot side setbacks.
Or, the Planning Commission has discretion to apply different standards to the site, including more restrictive standards such as those for single family residences. She noted that a lot of time and funds have been invested into the project and there is some value in the foundation that is retained. The Planning Commission may also find that this is a new residence but allow the proposed setbacks based on the unusual situation at the site and how existing buildings are situated. Or, the Planning Commission may approve the project with modifications, such as reduction in window area or massing. Staff did not make a recommendation since there are so many options for the Planning Commission to consider. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, give staff direction, and continue the item to December 6, assuming there is a quorum for the hearing, so staff may return with written findings in support of the Planning Commission direction.
Building Official Erica Freeman and Town Attorney Megan Acevedo were present.
In response to a question by Commissioner Smith staff indicated that the wall placement and design matches the approved project and there has been no material changes beyond removal of walls.
Commissioner Smith questioned why the contractor removed the walls. Building Official Freeman indicated that she looked at the foundation plans and structural drawings and she believed they tried their best to keep what was there and existing and that nothing has changed other than removing framing. She believed the contractor removed the framing because it was rotten.
Commissioner Smith asked if she would have called in the structural engineer to validate that the building materials that were in existence could not be retained because they no longer had ductility. He asked if her opinion that they could not support the structure was just an on-site evaluation based upon apparent rot and other deterioration. Freeman indicated there were only a few walls remaining. Director Condry looked at the framing and agreed that it needed to be removed. It is not ductility and wood but, it would be a concern to keep moist material, pests, and dry rot in a new wall that could erode over time. The inspector did ask an engineer to come out when they changed some of the strong wall placements. So, the strong walls were added in addition to the existing foundation, and there were variations from what they were building compared to the approved plans.
Ronan O Dea, project general contractor for 75 Jones, indicated that by June 30 the majority of the demolition had been completed. He indicated that on July 15 Town inspector DeWayne Starnes conducted a foundation inspection, reviewed the plans with him and identified no issues with the demolition or construction. On July 26 they had another foundation inspection and Starnes requested some additional information on the foundations, but again did not raise issues with the demolition. On August 20, Inspector Lisa Sarto called the job site and informed him that she had been instructed to red tag the job and cease construction immediately. She 281
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 5 indicated that they were in conformance with the approved plans and the discovered site conditions. The discovered site conditions included severe areas of dry rot and substandard framing that had been removed. Pictures of these conditions were submitted to the Town on September 2. Freeman and Condry reviewed the as built conditions, and both agreed that the building was in conformance with the approved plans and that any demolition that was performed was necessary. Mr. Condry advised them to amend the demolition permit to include the removal of all the remaining exterior walls. The project has approximately 163 linear feet of exterior wall. The approved structural drawings call for new framing and sheathing for approximately 107 linear feet of the walls, or more than 50%, prior to discovering additional dry rot. As the general contractor for the project, he is responsible to construct a building that is in conformance with state and local jurisdiction codes, approved structural plans and calculations, and approved architectural drawings. He believed the demolition facilitated this and was not illegal demolition.
Luke Clark Tyler, project architect, believed the issue under consideration was the extent of the demolition and not real estate disclosures or design review, and the design was approved in February 2020. In February he demonstrated that creating a single-family home would be a benefit to all surrounding properties as opposed to a commercial or multifamily unit. It would reduce the amount of traffic on the street from when it was a preschool and be the best development type for surrounding property values. The additional square footage would best be accommodated as a second story above the existing building footprint, since the current location provided the most light and air for all the surrounding properties. The structure is located at the corners of all the surrounding structures, which means that everyone has the opportunity for lighting on all sides of their home. The change of use also provided more privacy, which was augmented by new trees along the north edge that borders 101 Ross.
Adding the second story above the existing footprint was intended to be a quicker build and a shorter period of disruption for the neighborhood. The style of the home was attempting to transform the oddly shaped conical structure into a more residential structure that can bridge the numerous two-story box duplexes in the surrounding neighborhood with the single-family vibe that also exists in that area. The project is in a unique SPD zone which meant it had no specific zoning code. Because they took the single-family route, they kept closely in line with the standard residential requirements just to ensure that it would fit in. The structural plans submitted to the building department showed new footings and strong walls required for the new openings, which meant an increase in demolition. The demolition plan he submitted for the building permit application was the same as the Design Review demolition plan with the addition of some notes, the first of which said, “see the structural plans for more info and demo.” That note was added because the structural plans show the information about the required footings and strong walls. When they talked with contractors they suggested they replace the entire structure for the sake of cost. He reached out to the planning department in January and found out they would have to return for Design Revie if they rebuilt and replaced the slab. They decided on extra construction costs to retain the design of the project, all the engineering that had been done. It would generate less waste and save on concrete, which has a significant carbon footprint. They encountered additional issues with raw and insufficient sheathing, which did require replacement for health and safety of the final product. There are always unknowns in construction, and extensive remodels are especially prone to this as things 282
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 6 are uncovered. He noted that he had prior Planning Commission approved projects with similar conditions that were not returned to the Planning Commission. As the general contractor noted, there were two building inspections on site after demolition that did not raise any flags.
The general contractor reviewed the rotten sheathing issues with the building department. The project was put on hold once the building was almost entirely framed. The Building Official and Director of Public Works recommended replacing the remaining portions of wall. The design is the same, the old slab is the same, the footprint is the same, the finished product and landscaping will be the same. The owner has offered to add more trees to address the complaints of 101 Ross. He requested approval of the project at this meeting so construction can resume, or at least provide direction to resolve the issues administratively.
Erin Heath, with Jim Rivera, owners of 75 Jones, indicated they felt extremely vulnerable going through the process at a distance from London. She indicated it was stressful and financially destabilizing to have the project stopped several months into building just after their family made a difficult and hurried move. They were confused that they had to return to the Planning Commission due to their contractor demolishing a wall and a quarter to address health and safety issues that the building department deemed necessary. They paid significant fines, fees for new architectural plans and are worried their project is in jeopardy. They had support from their neighbors for the original project, who welcomed the aesthetic improvement and decrease in traffic and noise. They were determined to salvage and reuse what they could and work with existing conditions to minimize the environmental impact, as well as the impact of construction on the neighbors. Using the existing structure meant that there would be more light, air and privacy for 101 Ross and 75 Jones. They are building the approved design within the existing footprint on the original slab. The structure has already been framed, and the windows and doors have already been purchased. Nothing about the project has materially changed. If a missed procedural technicality were to result in the demolition of the structure, the financial impact would be devastating and the environmental impact would be significant. It would also mean a longer overall project time frame creating further disruption for their neighbors and it would set a potentially perilous precedent for development in the Town going forward. They asked the Planning Commission to approve the demolition plan at the meeting so as not to further delay the project or compromise the integrity of the work that has been completed to date.
Vice Chair Tunny opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Brekhus, attorney for Kaliel Roberts and Michael Greer, submitted a letter to the Planning Commission. The Commission confirmed receipt of the letter. Her clients asked the seller’s realtor about the plan for the property before the close of escrow and were told the project was conceptual. They bought the property with no knowledge the design was approved.
She reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the views from 101 Ross Avenue towards the project under construction. They were concerned with a 20-foot-tall window opening for a wing that extends very close to their backyard, outside deck, upper deck, kitchen, a bedroom and family room and dominates the view from the backyard. She pointed out second story windows and decks at 75 Jones. She requested the upper floor area that is not living area to be removed and elimination of the 20-foot-tall windows to reduce the huge mass 283
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 7 and scale of the home. This would not eliminate any usable floor area for the applicants and just eliminates a grand living room with two story ceilings. They requested this because it is so close to her client’s residence and was approved with no objection since the applicants owned 101 Ross Avenue at the time. She acknowledged that an after-the-fact approval is difficult, and it is hard to know what to believe about whether it could be foreseen or not. Here, the applicants did foresee that it was going to be a lot easier and that there could be problems. The circumstances are now different. Now neighbors are objecting and it is new construction. The site received a square footage bonus because it was a remodel. She contended the construction is for a single family and should meet single family regulations. She believed the Commission would not have approved 20-foot-tall windows overlooking the backyard of a neighbor if the applicants did not own 101 Ross. She believed they would have scaled it back and approached a compromise position to eliminate the second story wing that extends close to 101 Ross, scaled back the windows, and required trees. She did not believe they could make findings seven, eight and nine as stated in their letter.
Annelise Bauer, resident, struggled to understand how a project that was approved by the Planning Commission over a year ago can be subject to a de novo review when the only change of plans was immaterial and was necessitated by rot and the need for health and safety and was met with the building departments approval. People may not invest in the town if latent defects after plan approval can subjected homeowners to the possibility of completely uprooting their plans and investment. The applicants relied to their detriment on the planning commission approval based on the approved findings, none of which is impacted by the minor change and demolition. She believed findings seven, eight and nine clearly indicate that impact on the neighborhood was considered and decided. In addition to stifling development, it will enable neighbor discord and discredit a process intended to support a homeowner right to develop their own property in accordance with the planning commission approval. She urged the Planning Commission to uphold the past approval of the project.
Chris Nelson spoke in support of the application. He believed it would add beauty to the street and is in keeping with the surrounding development and reduces noise, traffic and parking issues and makes the area safer for children walking or biking to and from school. He indicated at least three children have been hit on bikes over the last few years by cars hurrying to and from school, and one of them was his own son. The applicants are conservation minded and have restored other projects in the town. She recalled her similar experience with a Planning Commission approval where they were forced to hire a lawyer because the neighbors wanted to stop their project. She did not believe the project is about a small section of rotted wall demolished but over a disgruntled neighbor disputing a project that was approved after thorough review and approval by the Planning Commission. Rather than supporting the homeowners who have a long track record of careful thoughtful development, the Planning Department has reopened consideration of the already approved project after the homeowners have spent incredible sums of money. She recommended approval of the project.
Applicant Erin Heath indicated they are trying to resolve the concerns with the neighbors. The trees planted on the fence line will grow up to 30-feet tall and will help obscure the window.
The window does not overlook anything and is a design element. There is no privacy concern. 284
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 8 She offered to do whatever they can to address any issues of impact that might happen because of the window. They responded to the neighbor through their lawyer and had never heard back. They offered to plant additional evergreen trees to address privacy and view concerns. She felt that this was an issue between homeowners and a private real estate issue.
The landscaping plan has not been implemented due to construction. There will still be several trees installed.
Vice Chair Tunny closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tunny asked about the town's obligation and rights with respect to changes in circumstances where it leads to additional demolition, and the level of assessment.
Semonian indicated that everything in the SPD district requires design review and a use permit, unlike most single-family districts. The town did not have a specific demolition permit process at the time this project was approved. The issue here was that they just strayed from the plan that the Planning Commission approved and exceeded the demolition. The project’s status as a remodel was important to the Planning Commission when they considered the project. But the Planning Commission can make the determination that the demolition is in conformance with the approved plan.
He questioned if they have to reconsider the design review approval since the design is the same, other than having additional footings and shear walls and other things to strengthen the project.
Town Attorney Acevedo indicated that the Planning Commission may rely on the original findings if they believe that all the findings that were made with the original approval still stand.
The SPD approval would just be amended to reflect the change in the demolition. The original conditions limited demolition to what was in the approved drawings. They can consider if it has been exceeded to an extent that they should revisit the project as a new project. The SPD zoning allows much discretion.
Commissioner Krebs indicated that the Planning Commission sometimes requires a project to comply with setbacks when a house is demolished. He voted against the project initially, but he was the only one. He wondered what kind of review was required at this stage.
Semonian indicated this project was unique in that the existing residence would not be considered nonconforming due to the SPD zoning district status. It is unlike a typical singlefamily residence in a setback, which would be required to be brought into conformance with current standards if demolished. Here the Planning Commission is not required to do that and can just amend the development plan.
Commissioner Asselstine indicated she was not on the Commission for the initial review. She read the minutes, looked at the plans and visited the site. She indicated the house is an anomaly because of the previous position of the preschool. The applicant described their commitment to keeping as much as they could. She noted the architect described that the 285
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 9 location had a benefit to 75 Jones and 101 Ross by bringing light into both structures. She imagined if the rear setback had been required the two houses would have been much closer together and there would have been exterior walls facing exterior walls. The Victorian house has a lot of glass on the side and a lot of light comes in from the south side. So, she believed the current placement of the structure was a benefit to 101 Ross. She said it would not be insignificant to request a change to the approved design at this point as there has been an investment, materials have been purchased, and there is a structural and architectural design.
The actual design has not changed. The living space on the second floor is about 17 or 18 feet back from the 20-foot glass wall. No one will be standing at the window like if there was a floor adjacent to the window. She believed there are still some issues that could be ameliorated by additional trees that keep their leaves throughout the year. She did not believe it mattered if she liked the design, but she believed it is in keeping with the height of the multi-unit structures on either side of it and is shorter than 101 Ross. Both sites will benefit from additional screening as they have balconies facing each other. They could put coatings on the windows to create translucency until the vegetation grows taller.
Commissioner Smith agreed with Commissioner Asselstine’s assessment of the current site conditions. He would not review the previous decision that was made by the Planning Commission. He believed elements of the original design were problematic. However, at this stage, this is a project that was approved. He believed many of the circumstances that had occurred during demolition were unforeseen and often happen with older structures. Since they have not deviated from the design that was approved, he would not request any significant changes to the structure. He noted the timeline is complex and it may not be an issue for the Planning Commission. The approval was on February 3, 2020, they do not know the actual dates for the closing and sale of 101 Ross or when construction started at 75 Jones.
He questioned the window of time between the approval and the actual work and when the new occupants took possession of 101 Ross.
Commissioner Krebs acknowledged that projects are difficult when they come in after the fact.
He felt they should take into consideration that the homeowners have invested a lot of time and money into building and the approval by the Planning Commission. He considers unforeseen circumstances versus something that was under the control of the applicant. He believes these were unforeseen circumstances, acknowledging that in hindsight one could say an old house will have dry rot they should investigate. He would give them the benefit of the doubt and believed that they acted in good faith and it was not done with the intention of trying to avoid greater scrutiny at the initial project approval process. He would not comment on the disclosures related to the purchase of 101 Ross. Commissioner Krebs was concerned with health and safety and the quality of construction. Nothing has changed that would have a material impact to the neighbors. He opposed the project previously because it was too close to the property line, and he did not believe findings could be made for a special exception to exceed the floor area ratio. But he believes there is no significant impact on privacy since, even though there is a 20-foot window, there is not a floor that would allow views out. So, he does not see the window as a material impact. The structure is close to the property line, but the setback has not changed. He leaned towards approving the project. 286
Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes November 15, 2021 10 Acting Chair Tunny agreed that the real estate transaction is irrelevant. He believed 101 Ross benefits from the design of the project, which minimizes impacts on privacy, light and air. There would be different issues raised with moving the house forward. He is inclined to approve the project. He questioned what screening is in the landscape plan.
Semonian reviewed the approve landscaping. The Commission could require major trees if they do not believe the plan is adequate. She noted that Marin Water will not allow trees to be planted during the drought and Ross Valley Fire must review the plan and will not allow planting within five feet of the house. They may allow additional landscaping at the border if it is not pyrophytic. She noted all the existing landscaping is likely on the 75 Jones site, because it appears the fence is not located on the property line. A new tree is proposed.
The Commissioners supported additional trees to increase year-round screening at the site, subject to fire department approval.
Town Attorney Acevedo clarified that they are making an amendment to the original plan. They are acknowledging that there has been additional demolition beyond what was originally approved. The original findings can still be made, despite the changes.
Commissioner Krebs moved to approve the amendments for additional demolition based on the findings that were articulated originally for both the Conditional Use Permit and the Design Review and based on the prior conditions of approval since the Commission has determined that there has been no material changes to the project and the same findings and conditions of approval can be made today as made for the first approval with an additional condition of approval that the applicant develop a landscape plan that would be approved by the Planning Director that would provide for year-round screening by trees or other plants approved by the Planning Director and with input by both the applicant and any neighbors. Commissioner Asselstine seconded the motion and it carried 4-0-3 (Commissioners Swaim, Heiman and Hilmi abstaining due to conflict of interests and not present at the meeting).
Elise Semonian announced that the approval is subject to appeal if the appeal is filed within ten calendar days and filed with the town clerk with the appeal fee.
6. ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
None.
7. ADJOURN
Vice Chair Tunny adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m.
287
1 TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
For the meeting of November 15, 2020
Agenda Item 5C
Owners: Erin Heath and Jim Rivera
Design Professional: Field Issue Design
Project Address: 75 Jones Street
Assessor’s Parcel No.: 007-283-12 (formerly 007-283-11) Zoning: SPD – Specific Planned Development
General Plan: Downtown Mixed Residential
FIRM Flood Zone: X (outside special flood hazard area)
Request
Amendment to a Specific Planned Development at 75 Jones that allowed conversion of a preschool into single family residence and a second story addition. The amendment is requested to allow the lower walls of the structure to be demolished and to construct the approved structure.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicants and staff and continue the item to the December 6, 2021, Planning Commission meeting.
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
Timing
Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code Section 65950 et. seq.) the Planning Commission must approve or disapprove within 60 days of the project being deemed complete and exempt from CEQA.
Public Notice
A notice was mailed to all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project and posted.
Staff has attached emails received to date, all in support of the project. Staff has spoke with the new owners of 101 Ross Avenue who claim that the second story addition project was not disclosed to them prior to purchase, and they are concerned with the bulk and mass of the structure and privacy impacts from the second story deck and large windows that face their site. 288
2 II. STAFF ANALYSIS
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Development
Standards
Development
Standards 75 Jones - After Subdivision
R-2 R-3 Before Approved/Proposed
Min. lot area for
subdivision 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 5,900 sq. ft. 5,900 sq. ft.
Density units/acre 12 20 0 7
Rear setback 20' 20' 4' 1.5" 4' 1.5"
Front setback 20' 20' 50' 8" 46' 3"
Side setback (South) 8' 8' 8' 3" 8' 3"
Side setback (North) 8' 8' 12' 6" 12' 6"
Floor area ratio n/a n/a 1,594 sq. ft./27% 2,722 sq. ft./46.1% Lot coverage 2,065 sq. ft./35% 2,950 sq. ft./50% 1,594 sq. ft./27% 1,676 sq. ft./28% Parking
2 spaces, must comply
with setbacks
2 spaces, must
comply with setbacks
2+ spaces within setbacks,
3 spaces comply with
setbacks
2 spaces in front/side
setback
Previous Actions
1971 Use permit approved for Open End study group to hold classes at 101 Ross Avenue.
1973 Use Permit approved for Shasta School private boarding and day high school at 101 Ross Avenue.
1975 Use Permit approved to allow World College West private school use at 101 Ross Avenue.
1978 Request by Seminary to rezone site from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 High Density Residential to build three units at 110 Mariposa, two units at 100 Mariposa and with a multipurpose room/childcare center (75 Jones) denied. 1978 Request by Seminary to rezone site from R-1 Single Family Residential to SPD Special Planning District to build three units at 110 Mariposa, two units at 100 Mariposa, and a multipurpose room/childcare center (75 Jones) approved by Ordinance 752. 2012 Design Review for a 286 sq. ft. addition on the first story and a 90 sq. ft. deck on the second story at 101 Ross Avenue.
7/18/2016 Design review/use permit/subdivision approved to split lot into two and allow the two units at 100 Mariposa to be
condominiums.
2/2/2020 Design review/use permit/subdivision to split lot into two and approve second story for 75 Jones Street.
Background
On February 3, 2020, the property owner received Planning Commission approval (Pederson, Brasler, Cronk and Engelhardt voting in favor, Krebs voting against, Swaim and Heiman absent) to subdivide a site into two lots and a conditional use permit and design review for a Specific Planned Development to convert an existing preschool into a single-family residence and to construct a second story 289
3 addition at 75 Jones Street, one of the new lots. The approved plan was for 2,358 square feet of living space (39.9% of the lot area) and 364 square feet of second story volume. Total adjusted floor area was 2,722 square feet, or 46.1% of the lot area. The project was approved for the extent of demolition shown on the plans. The approved plans included removal of the trees at the site, which were not considered “heritage trees” due to their size (See Sheet Note 1 Sheet A1.1 11/26/19 design review plans/2/3/20 approved plans). The meeting may be viewed here:
http://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=399 (Item 6B). Minutes of the meeting are attached.
The project was proposed as a remodel. “The applicants seek to maintain as much of the existing structure as possible for the ground floor.” (Staff report, Page 2) The demolition plan on page A2.0 provided, “Demo all interior walls (exterior walls to remain, slab on grade foundation to remain)” and indicated only new openings would be created in existing walls and not total wall demolition. The Planning Commission approved the project subject to the Standard Conditions of Planning Approval which state, “demolition … that does not conform to the Planning Commission/Planning Director approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.” The floor area proposed was over the maximum allowable floor area for a single-family residence in an R-1 District. The applicant submitted facts to support the findings that would be required for a 325 square foot floor area exception for an R-1 site, including that the design employed mass reducing techniques such that the additional square footage over the maximum Adjusted Floor Area permitted for an R-1 site would be reasonably mitigated and would not result in overbuilding of the lot. “The proposed design remains within the footprint of the existing building and replaces a large conical roof with a 2nd story that will be lower in height than the peak of the current roof. The new structure will employ 2‐story flat facades to mimic the adjacent structures but unlike most of the neighboring structures, the project will break up the facades a bit so the complementary massing will be more residential in feel. The livable space is within the allowable square footage, but the project seeks an FAR exception to allow for the vaulted areas that will end up counting twice under the current San Anselmo method of calculating FAR.” (Page 7 of 2/3/20 Attachment 8, material submitted by applicant). The floor area exception findings were not required for approval of a Specific Development Plan, as the Town can set the development regulations, including floor area, for an SPD-zoned site.
At the February 3, 2020, hearing,several Planning Commissioners expressed concern that the 75 Jones lot was smaller than the minimum lot size required for subdivision. The lot was proposed to be smaller since the applicant was seeking to provide a lot area for 101 Magnolia Avenue that would keep it within the floor area ratio allowed for an R-1 site. Commissioner Krebs was concerned that the rear setback for 75 Jones did not comply with adjacent R-1 and R-3 standards (4 feet proposed where 20 feet required), parking was not in conformance with R-1 or R-3 standards (parking was proposed in the setbacks, which would be allowed for an addition in an R-1 or R-3 site) and the floor are was over what would be permitted for an R-1 site. The applicant noted that 75 Jones was only over the floor area permitted for new construction for an R-1 lot due to the 364 square feet of double ceiling height area.
On August 21, 2020, the Town received an application for a building permit for a “remodel existing wood framed, single story, commercial structure with slab on grade foundation. Remove existing vaulted roof and add 2nd story above existing first floor” (Sheet A0.0 8/21/20 permit submittal). The 290
4 architectural plans, including proposed demolition, were identical to the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
On January 4, 2021, the project architect asked Associate Planner Sarah Price if it was necessary to retain the existing structure since they had been speaking with contractors that indicated it would be “so much easier if they cold demo and rebuild the slab.” (January 4, 2021, emails between Luke Clark Tyler and Sarah Price, Attachment 2). She informed him that the structure could not be demolished without returning to the Planning Commission for a demolition permit.
On May 14, 2021, the Building Department issued the building permit. Building permit plans may be viewed here: https://www.townofsananselmo.org/DocumentCenter/Index/717.
The Town has a record of only two inspections for the project:
July 7, 2021, the project passed a foundation inspection by Dewayne Starnes, “Need engineers letter of conformance and for change to strong walls at rear of structure which had less than approved dimension to property line.”
July 26, 2021, the project partially passed a footing inspection by Dewayne Starnes, “There has been a modification to the footing at Gridline A. I have instructed them to provide me with a conformance letter from the engineer and a stamped and signed revised detail for this footing.
I have indicated they can proceed at their own risk until I receive said documentation. I have attached copies of photographs and correction notice to the file.” On August 20, 2021, planning department staff contacted the building department to stop work on the project since the demolition appeared to exceed what was shown on the approved plans as only three small areas of wall were left. On August 23, 2021, the project architect indicated “the structural plan for the building permit application showed new footings and shear walls were required” and “We had issues with rot in a few locations and existing sheathing that was too thin and oriented incorrectly for a few of the required structural shear walls.” On September 2, 2021, Sean Condry, Director of Public Works and Building, and Erica Freeman, Building Official, inspected the site and reviewed the drawings. Condry indicated, “while he did go beyond the drawings, he has a good case that it was unavoidable given the amount of structural work.
Walls that needed strong walls had to be removed, a wall with two large windows had no framing left when the windows were removed and so on.” They allowed the applicants to “finish the shear, hold downs etc. for seismic/safety reasons.”
Staff has verified that the structure is constructed over the original building slab foundation and the location of the structure has not changed. It appears the fences at the site are not located on the property lines.
The applicants submitted this application to allow demolition of the structure to the slab foundation and request permission to build the approved design.
291
5 III. DISCUSSION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
The parcel is zoned SPD Specific Planned Development (San Anselmo Municipal Code, Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 9) with a “presumptive use” of R-2 (See 1979 minutes, Attachment 14 and Ordinance 752).
The stated purposes and intent of the SPD district:
The Town contains numerous lots which, because of size, hillside location, unusual topography, natural resources, or aesthetic appeal, cannot appropriately be developed through adherence to rigid zoning designations and restrictions. The special characteristics of these lots necessitate a flexible approach to the development of these lots which will provide for logical and orderly development, and at the same time, promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the Town.
Planned development contemplates flexibility and variety in the location of buildings and the diversity of lot sizes and building designs. The Planned Development District is intended to accommodate various types of development such as neighborhood and district shopping centers, single family residential developments, professional, multiple housing developments, commercial centers, and any other use, or combination of uses which can be made a part of a planned development. (SAMC Sec. 10-3.901) The presumptive use designation R-2 is a guideline in considering and evaluating the specific planned development, but the town is not bound by the presumptive use designation (SAMC Sec. 10-3.906).
The project lot is adjoined by parcels zoned SPD and R-3 High Density Residential. 1 All development in
the SPD zoning district requires the approval of a Use Permit and Design Review from the Planning Commission (SAMC Sec. 10-3.908). Since the site is in an SPD district, the Planning Commission has much discretion to consider the request.
As an addition, the proposed project met most standards for the R-3 zoning district except the 20-foot rear setback. As a new residence, the project does not meet the R-3 standard for rear setback (20 feet required) or parking (two spaces that meet 20-foot front and 8-foot side setbacks required). Staff believes that if the applicant requested permission to construct a new residence,staff and the Planning Commission would have recommended compliance with the R-2 or R-3 standards unless there was some reason to deviate from the standards.
It is possible to provide parking that complies with the 20-foot front and 8-foot side setbacks. If the structure was required to be brought 16 feet further forward, the residence would need to be entirely redesigned to comply with the required 8-foot side setbacks. The new owners of 101 Ross indicate they would prefer a structure further forward on the site. 1 The Town’s adopted zoning map shows one adjacent site zoned R-1. However, this site APN 007-283-07 was rezoned from R-1 to SPD in 1978 for a 3 unit multifamily development (Ordinance 752), the same time the project site was zoned SPD. There is no evidence the site was ever rezoned back to R-1, which would have required notice to the property owner. Therefore, the 75 Jones site is not adjacent to any sites zoned R-1. 292
6 Since the proposed development is a single-family residence and not multifamily development, it may be appropriate to apply the single-family standards to the site. This could require the floor area to be limited to 40% of lot area.
The Planning Commission could also find that they would have approved the project on this SPD zoned site even if full demolition was proposed.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the application and make a recommendation to the applicant and staff and continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Required Findings for Design Review
1. Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area;
2. Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less desirable;
3. Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to depreciate materially in appearance or value or otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or orderly development in such area;
4. Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors and provides for satisfactory access by emergency vehicles and personnel;
5. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons using the improvement or endanger property located in the surrounding area; and
6. Is consistent with the Town General Plan.
7. Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties;
8. Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and decks;
9. Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and
10. Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.
Required Use Permit Findings
San Anselmo Municipal Code 10-3.1305 requires the following finding to be made
1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town.
Prepared By:
Elise Semonian
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Correspondence from Applicant
2. 1/4/21 Email from architect to Price
293
7 3. Correspondence received
4. Proposed demolition plan
5. Proposed structural plan
6. 2/3/2020 Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing
7. 2/3/2020 Staff Report
8. 2/3/2020 Application and Supplemental Questionnaires
9. 2/3/2020 Approved Plans
10. 2/3/2020 Approved subdivision plan
11. 2/3/2020 Correspondence received
12. 2/3/2020 Standard Conditions of Approval
13. 2/3/2020 Information on architect Roger Hooper
14. 1979 Rezoning minutes
294
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
For the meeting of February 3, 2020
Agenda Item 6B
Owners: Erin Heath and Jim Rivera
Design Professional: Field Issue Design
Project Address: 75 Jones Street and 101 Ross Avenue
Assessor’s Parcel No.: 007-283-11
Zoning: SPD – Specific Planned Development
General Plan: Downtown Mixed Residential
FIRM Flood Zone: AE and X (partially within special flood hazard area) Request
Subdivision of site into two lots and Use Permit and Design Review to convert existing preschool into single family residence and construct a second story addition. Proposed materials include dark wood exterior, dark framed windows and doors, metal framed glass rails, and tile at roof decks. The proposal would convert the existing commercial use to residential use. The proposed ground floor would include two bedrooms, a kitchen, dining room, and laundry. The proposed second story would include the master bedroom, master bathroom, and library. Two upper story decks are proposed on the east of the parcel. The proposed height is approximately 20 feet. Development standards are based upon, but not contingent upon, the established development standards for adjoining lots that are zoned R-3 and R-1.
Lot Area Floor Area Lot Coverage
Existing (combined) 14,806 sq. ft. 4,354 sq. ft. (29%) 3,582 sq. ft. (24.2%) Existing 101 Ross (single family house) 2,760 sq. ft. (18.6%) Existing 75 Jones (preschool) 1,594 sq. ft. (10.7%)
Proposed 101 Ross 8,906 sq. ft. 2,760 sq. ft. (31%) 1,988 sq. ft. (22%) Proposed 75 Jones Street 5,900 sq. ft. 2,722 sq. ft. (46%) 1,676 sq. t. (28.4%) Recommendation
That the Planning Commission approve the project subject to findings and conditions in the staff report.
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
Timing
Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code Section 65950 et. seq.) the Planning Commission must approve or disapprove within 60 days of the project being deemed complete and exempt from CEQA.
295
Public Notice
A notice was mailed to all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project and posted near the site. Staff has attached emails received to date, all in support of the project.
II. STAFF ANALYSIS
Previous Actions
1971 Use permit approved for Open End study group to hold classes at 101 Ross Avenue.
1973 Use Permit approved for Shasta School private boarding and day high school at 101 Ross Avenue.
1975 Use Permit approved to allow World College West private school use at 101 Ross Avenue.
1978 Request by Seminary to rezone site from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 High Density Residential to build three units at 110 Mariposa, two units at 100 Mariposa and with a multipurpose room/childcare center (75 Jones) denied. 1978 Request by Seminary to rezone site from R-1 Single Family Residential to SPD Special Planning District to build three units at 110 Mariposa, two units at 100 Mariposa, and a multipurpose room/childcare center (75 Jones) approved by Ordinance 752. 2012 Design Review for a 286 sq. ft. addition on the first story and a 90 sq. ft. deck on the second story at 101 Ross Avenue.
7/18/2016 Design review/use permit/subdivision approved to split lot into two and allow the two units at 100 Mariposa to be
condominiums.
Project Description
The existing site is one parcel that includes a single-family dwelling at 100 Ross Avenue and a building that is used as a preschool at 75 Jones Street. The applicants request approval to subdivide the parcel and convert the preschool building into a single-family residence. No construction is proposed for the existing Victorian.
The proposed residence at 75 Jones Avenue would maintain two parking places accessed off Jones Street. The applicants seek to maintain as much of the existing structure as possible for the ground floor. The ground floor includes two bedrooms, kitchen, living, and dining rooms. The new second story would include the master bedroom and bathroom. Proposed materials include dark charred wood, tile roof at decks, dark framed windows and doors, and dark exterior accents.
The parcel is zoned SPD – Specific Planned Development. According to the San Anselmo Municipal Code, Development standards for parcels designated as SPD shall be based upon, but not contingent upon, the established development standards for adjoining lots. The project lot is adjoined by parcels zoned SPD, R-3 High Density Residential, and R-1 Single Family Residential. All 296
development in SPD zoning requires the approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Commission.
The proposed second story requires approval of design review.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing Proposed Code
Zoning SPD – Specific
Planned Development
Same
General Plan Mixed Use Residential Same
Development
Standards
75 Jones 101 Ross
Development
standards for
adjoining lots:
R-1 R-3
Density (units/acre) 3 7 5 1 20
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 14,806 sq. ft. 5,900 sq. ft. 8,906 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft.
7,500
sq. ft.
Minimum Street
Frontage
105’ 47.23’ 88’ 40’ 50’
Minimum Average Lot
Width
105’ ± Between 47
and 65
Over 75’ 60’ 75’
Flood Zone X and AE Zone X Zone X and
AE
Lot Coverage (sq. ft.) 3,582 sq. ft. 1,676 sq. ft. 1,988 sq. ft.
Lot Coverage (%) 24.2% 28.4% 22% 35% 35%
Floor Area (sq. ft.) 4,354 sq. ft. 2,722 sq. ft. 2,760 sq. ft.
Floor Area
Ratio sq. ft. (%)
29% 46% 31% 40% 75
Jones/
35% 101
Ross
none
Setbacks Front 20’+
Rear 8.25’
Side 4.09’
Street side 10’
Front 20’+
Rear 4.09’
S. Side 8.25’
N. Side 12.5’
Front 10’
Rear 20’+
S. side 7.1’
Street Side
20’+
Front 20’
Rear 20’
Side 8’
Street Side 12’
297
III. DISCUSSION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Since the site is in a Special Planning District the Planning Commission has much discretion to consider the request. The Planning Commission may use the adjacent zoning development standards for guidance but is not bound by those limits. The proposed project would meet most standards for the multifamily district. Staff finds the proposed lot lines and floor area ratio to be reasonable and the resulting structures not out of character for the proposed site and neighborhood. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could require the lots or resulting development to comply with standards for one of the adjacent districts.
Preschools are a conditionally permitted use in residential districts. Here, the use was allowed with the SPD zoning. There is a high demand for preschools in Marin County and the loss of the preschool will be an issue for the many families that attend the school. However, there is also a great need for housing. The Town’s general plan supports development of housing and does not have policies related to maintaining or developing preschools. The proposed use of the site furthers the Town’s housing goals.
The proposed design of the remodel and second story addition will result in an attractive structure that will be compatible with the mix of architectural styles in the neighborhood.
Environmental Determination
Categorically Exempt: Section 15303 – conversion of small structures, and 15315 – Minor Land Divisions, because it involves subdividing a small residential property and converting an existing commercial building with no potential for impacts as proposed. No exception set forth in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the project including, but not limited to, Subsection (a), which relates to location of the project related to impacts on environmental resources (no new land or trees to be disturbed); (b), which relates to cumulative impacts (residential scale project with no significant construction in the area); Subsection (c), which relates to unusual circumstances (typical residential scale project); or Subsection (f), which relates to historical resources.
The existing building at 75 Jones Street and the adjacent multifamily residences were designed by local architect Roger Hooper in 1978. Information on Mr. Hooper is attached (Attachment 4). Staff does not believe the structure would qualify for listing on a state or historic register. To be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
The only criteria that could apply to this structure is the 3rd criteria. Roger Hooper’s architectural work has not been fully surveyed and assessed. The article notes that he was not as notable as other 298
Bay Area architects of the time and staff would agree with that assessment. If the Planning Commission believes further study is warranted they may continue the application to request preparation of a historical resource evaluation for the structure.
Subdivision Findings
The Planning Commission shall make the decision for approving the proposed subdivision on the finding that the proposed Tentative Map and single lot subdivision (with remainder parcel) is consistent with the General Plan of the Town. The subdivision would increase the amount of housing in town, which is consistent with the Housing Element. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage and does not substantially (and avoidably) injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That subdivision will not cause serious health problems. The project as proposed has no conflict with existing easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision. The Specific Planned Development District zoning does not have development standards such as minimum lot size or width. “The PPD and SPD Districts are overlay districts and allow for the establishment of development standards suitable to a specific use or project site.” (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 10-3.402) Design Review Findings
1. Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area;
2. Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less desirable;
3. Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to depreciate materially in appearance or value or otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or orderly development in such area;
4. Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors and provides for satisfactory access by emergency vehicles and personnel;
5. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons using the improvement or endanger property located in the surrounding area; and
6. Is consistent with the Town General Plan.
7. Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties;
8. Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and decks;
9. Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and
10. Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.
Please see applicant’s findings in Attachment 2 – Application Materials.
Use Permit Findings
San Anselmo Municipal Code 10-3.1305 requires the following finding to be made
1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be 299
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town.
The conversion of a preschool structure to a single-family residence will not be injurious to the neighborhood or Town. The proposed use is in keeping with the zoning in the area. The proposed addition is setback from the street, has an attractive design that is compatible with the existing structure, and will not negatively impact the neighborhood or Town. The proposed use is less intense than the preschool use and will reduce impacts on the neighborhood.
IV. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the application based on the findings above and subject to the following conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval is for the plans for 75 Jones Street, prepared Field Issue Design and considered by the Planning Commission on February 3, 2020. The subdivision of the site into two lots is approved as shown on A1.0.
2. The subdivision map shall be recorded prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the 75 Jones Street proposed residence. The 75 Jones Street addition shall be subject to the Town’s standard conditions of approval, Attachment 3 to the staff report.
3. The final parcel map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and it shall substantially conform to the approved tentative map and any conditions attached thereto. Such parcel map shall show:
a. The title of the map and the name and legal designation of the tract or grant in which the survey is located and ties to adjoining tracts;
b. All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto. Permanent monuments shall be set for all new lines created by the parcel split. This requirement may not be waived; c. The bearing or witness monuments, the basis of bearing, the bearing and length of the lines, and the scale of the map;
d. The area of each lot in acres, and hundredths thereof, or in square feet; e. Any required easements or dedications in the manner set forth in subsection (c) of Section 10-2.706 of this article;
f. All easements of record; and
g. Certificates as follows:
i. A certificate signed and attested by all parties having any record title interest in the land consenting to the preparation and recordation of the final map; ii.A certificate for execution, attested as set forth in subsection (i) of this subsection, offering for dedication for public use those parcels of land which such parties desire or are required to dedicate;
iii. A certificate by the civil engineer or the licensed surveyor responsible for the survey and final map. The signature of such civil engineer or surveyor shall be attested, unless accompanied by his seal;
iv. The Town Engineer;
v.The Planning Director; and
vi. The County Recorder.
4. At the time of acting upon a tentative parcel map or at any time prior to the filing of the 300
final parcel map, the Town Engineer may waive, modify, or amplify any of the requirements of this section for a final parcel map if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of this article and that such waiver or modification will not be contrary to the objectives of this article.
Prepared By:
Sarah Price
Assistant Planner
&
Elise Semonian
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Application and Supplemental Questionnaires
2. Project Plans
3. Standard Conditions of Approval
4. Information on architect Roger Hooper
301
From: Carla Kacmar
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: FW: 75 Jones
Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:36:53 PM
FYI
Sincerely,
Carla Kacmar
Town Clerk
-----Original Message-----
From: Corinne Geramoni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Town Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 75 Jones
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Town Council,
I live at 71 Ross Avenue and want to express my support for the project at 75 Jones. Erin and Jim have consistently and tastefully renovated and improved dwellings on Tunstead, Ross, Mariposa and now Jones. Our neighborhood has been enhanced by their vision and years of improvements. The current project retains the historical and unusual shape of the former nursery school. I look forward to another thoughtfully designed building and appreciate the expense and time they have put into preserving and enhancing San Anselmo.
Thank you,
Corinne Geramoni
71 Ross Avenue
302
From: Kendra Gilberd
To: Planning
Cc: Peter Gilberd
Subject: Support for the Heath-Rivera project, 75 Jones Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:15:38 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
To whom it may concern,
We are writing to provide our full support of Jim Rivera's and Erin Heath’s project at 75 Jones.
We have known the Heath-Rivera’s since moving to San Anselmo in 2012. They have continued to preserve and upgrade their property over 10 plus years with intention and deep consideration for aesthetic and functionality.
We believe their project is a vast improvement. The previous building was a commercial daycare and it created much more traffic, noise and congestion in the neighborhood than a single-family home. The previous building was not in good shape and the Heath-Rivera’s took great care to consult all town departments before beginning their conceptual work. Once they had plans, they consulted and reviewed with their neighbors. The neighbors welcomed the project for its design and appreciated that it reduced the noise and traffic. The Heath-Rivera’s went through the review process with the Planning Commission and once they received their approval, they proceeded with the building.
Given that they completed the planning and review process and there was just an unanimous vote to proceed with the project, we are concerned at the precedent overturning this decision would establish.
The Heath-Rivera’s have always been conscientious and engaged community members. They have developed their property slowly, with all the proper review and approval processes and with meticulous care to restore and improve the neighborhood.
We hope that you will allow this project to be completed without further costly delays and disruption.
Sincerely,
Kendra and Peter Gilberd
San Anselmo residents
303
From: Carla Kacmar
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: Fwd: 75 Jones Street
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:38:00 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Susan Lund <[email protected]>
Date: January 4, 2022 at 8:12:54 PM PST
To: Town Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 75 Jones Street
CAUTION: External Sender
Hello,
Its come to my attention that a stop-work order was issued for the project located at 75 Jones Street.
I am writing back to express my continued support of the homeowner's improvements to their property. As a design professional in our community (for over 23 years), I can say that Erin Heath is a genuine professional looking to add value and preserve the spaces she designs.
I've carefully watched the work they have done to develop not only this property, but also 101 Ross. The Jones Street project is a tremendous improvement over the dilapidated preschool that once existed at that site.
We are in unprecedented times in our world, so I sincerely hope that the planning commission will allow this project to move forward.
Warmly,
304
Susan
Susan Lund
305
From: Carla Kacmar
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: Fwd: Support for 101 Ross + 75 Jones improvement projects Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:55:56 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gretchen Richardson <[email protected]> Date: January 4, 2022 at 9:06:27 PM PST
To: Town Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Support for 101 Ross + 75 Jones improvement projects CAUTION: External Sender
Hello Town Council,
I’m writing in support of the 75 Jones Street project that has been put on hold and kindly ask that you let it continue as desired by the owners.
Please see my previous note to the Planning Commission (below) where I share that the owners have previously developed lovely, conscientious & appropriate local properties while keeping neighbors considerately involved and informed about their remodels that have been built to code.
Having a single family home at 75 Jones Street rather than a school will have far less of an impact on the neighborhood, especially where we already have a preschool, elementary school and seminary. We believe that the owners of this property have taken everyone in the neighborhood into consideration with their new project, as they have always done. We were dismayed to hear that the project has been stalled and hope to see it reinstated soon. Please consider the above when reviewing this project, and allow this new single family home build to resume. It will surely be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.
Cheers,
Gretchen Richardson
San Anselmo, CA
C: 415-595-3915
E:[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elise Semonian <[email protected]>
306
Date: November 12, 2021 at 11:34:30 AM PST
To: Gretchen Richardson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Support for 101 Ross + 75 Jones improvement projects
Thank you. I’ll provide your comments to the Planning Commission. -Elise
<!--[if !vml]-->
<image003.png>
<!--[endif]-->Elise Semonian, Planning Director
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Lands of the Coast Miwok
(415) 258-4617
www.townofsananselmo.org
The Building, Public Works and Planning Department counter is open Mondays and Wednesdays 8:30 a.m. to 11:55 p.m.
We are still available to contact by email and phone outside of those hours.
From: Gretchen Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:08 AM
To: Elise Semonian <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Support for 101 Ross + 75 Jones improvement projects CAUTION: External Sender
Good morning, Elise—
I would like to share a note of continued support for the project at 75 Jones. Erin Heath designs beautiful, respectful, family homes and I’ve always found her to be a very conscientious communicator and planner, keeping her neighbors informed and aware of construction impact. When I volunteered at San Anselmo Preschool and Wade Thomas Elementary (spanning 10 years), she consistently reached out to the schools to share her plans to mitigate noise and traffic, working around school timing. I found this to be extremely conscientious of her as she recognized the potential impact on her neighbors. The properties she’s restored and preserved tend to be some of the most loved in town and I look forward to the development of this residential property as well.
I’m writing in support of her being able to continue the project at 75 307
Jones. It’s replacing an old, decrepit preschool building that was an eyesore—and not structurally sound—with a lovely home that will certainly be a welcomed site in San Anselmo. Please consider enabling this project to move forward and to result in a safe, thoughtfully built home in the neighborhood.
Cheers,
Gretchen Richardson
Gretchen Richardson
Principal, Richardson Clark Design
San Francisco, CA
C: 415-595-3915
E:[email protected]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gretchen Richardson
<[email protected]>
Subject: Support for 101 Ross + 75 Jones
improvement projects
Date: January 29, 2020 at 11:54:12 AM PST
To: Elise Semonian
<[email protected]>
Dear Elise and Town of San Anselmo,
My husband and I are writing in support of projects at 101 Ross and 75 Jones, owned by Erin Heath and Jim Rivera. We are big fans of theirs and their ability to improve properties within our community in a responsible and trustworthy way.
We have loved what they have done at 205 Tunstead as well as the Victorian on Ross Ave. We ask that you grant their request to move forward with the proposed improvement
project for 101 Ross and 75 Jones.
Many thanks,
Gretchen + Clark Richardson
Gretchen Richardson
415-595-3915
[email protected]
308
309
From: Carla Kacmar
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: FW: Support of 75 Jones Development
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:51:33 PM
Sincerely,
Carla Kacmar
Town Clerk
From: Kimberly Hawks <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Town Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Kurt Hawks <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of 75 Jones Development
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear San Anselmo Town Council Members,
We are writing this letter to show our support of the property development at 75 Jones in San Anselmo.
We have known Erin Heath and Jim Rivera professionally and personally for nearly a decade, and hold them in the highest regard. We have watched as they have conscientiously improved their property over the last 10+ years and have been impressed by this and their other San Anselmo property and home renovation projects; they have beautifully preserved and upgraded their properties, which has benefitted the entire neighborhood. Erin and Jim are of the utmost integrity--communicating with neighbors and consulting with all town departments before and throughout their projects, researching and following building codes, maintaining the architectural integrity of their properties in San Anselmo, and being mindful of the environment.
These are the kind of people that we love having in our community, and we appreciate their investment in our town. They are a local couple personally invested in our community, and are not developers. We trust wholeheartedly that Erin and Jim are thoughtfully following any town guidelines and being respectful of neighbors in their development. Erin is a designer who considers the aesthetic of the neighborhood and minimizes any inconveniences to neighbors in all of her designs. Their previous and current projects are a vast improvement over the rundown structures that were there previously, and the property at 75 Jones will be less of an impact on the neighborhood than the rundown preschool that caused traffic and noise, or a multi-family dwelling.
We encourage you to consider their amazing track record, commitment to this community, meticulous development, and maintenance of their past projects within San Anselmo, and to please support continuing their project at 75 Jones. Please feel free to reach out to us with any questions.
Thank you,
Kimberly & Kurt Hawks
14 Agatha Ct
310
San Anselmo
Sent from my iPhone
311
06042018 version 1
EXHIBIT A
Town of San Anselmo
Standard Conditions of Planning Approval
1. All conditions of approval shall be included on the first sheet after the cover sheet of the construction drawings submitted for a building permit.
2. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, the plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Planning Commission or Planning Director. If any changes are made to the approved plans the applicant is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes and reviewing them with the Planning Department prior to submitting for a Building Permit or a revision to the Building and/or Grading Permit. All changes made to the Design Review Plans approved by the Planning Commission/Planning Director and the Building Permit construction document submittal must be clearly highlighted with a “bubble” or “cloud” on plans and marked with a “Delta ‘P’” at the time of initial Building Permit submittal. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the plans. Any changes that have not been clouded on the plans and noted in a transmittal memo and explicitly approved by staff are not approved.
Construction, demolition or grading that does not conform to the Planning Commission/Planning Director approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
3. Site landscaping shall be generally consistent with any approved landscape plan. Plans for any irrigation of the site shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. All planting shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy. Upon the request of an applicant to receive a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and at the discretion of the Planning Director, landscape installation may be guaranteed by posting a cash bond equal to 100% of the cost and installation of any landscape improvements. As required by San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 10-3.604 “Landscape Maintenance,” all landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition in accordance with approved landscaping plans.
4. Acceptance of the construction drawings and specifications does not release the applicant and owner from correction of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If, during the course of construction, the public interest requires a modification or a departure from these accepted plans, the Town shall have the authority to require such modifications or departure and specify the manner in which the same is to be made.
5. The applicants and/or owners shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council and Town boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”) against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly 312
06042018 version 2
notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defend the action with attorneys of the Town's choice, with all attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the applicant and/or owners.
Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval:
6. This approval shall be final either 10 calendar days following the date of action by the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or Town Council, whichever is last. This approval is effective from the date of approval until the building permit is issued and shall expire one year after approval should a building permit not be issued. If building permits are issued during the effective life of the approval, the expiration date of the approval shall be automatically extended to concur with the expiration date of the building permit. The approval may be renewed once by the Planning Director for one year if the applicant submits a written statement to the Planning Director showing good cause prior to expiration of the application.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall reimburse the Town for any known unpaid costs associated with the project, including work done by consultants and the Town Attorney. Prior to project final the applicants shall reimburse the Town for any other unpaid costs associated with the project, including work done by consultants and the Town Attorney.
8. The light source for all exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
Cut sheets for all exterior lighting shall be submitted as part of the building permit. Lighting shall be designed to focus the light onto only the areas necessary to be illuminated and minimize overflow of lighting off-site. Exterior lighting shall not include unnecessary illumination of building or site walls. Town staff will review compliance with this condition after installation of the lighting and reserves the right to require adjustment or elimination of lighting that violates this condition.
Department of Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval:
9. For all improvements within the public right of way, the applicant shall submit plans to adequately describe the work. Plans shall include but not be limited to drainage details, cross-sections, driveway/roadway grades and utility locations as necessary.
10. The project shall comply with the Town of San Anselmo Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Ordinance. If the project paves or otherwise creates more than 150 square feet of impervious surface, a Flatwork Permit is required from the Public Works Department. In addition to the site design measures and Flatwork Permit required for small projects, new and redeveloped projects that create or replace more than 500 square feet of impervious surface may require bioretention or permanent stormwater controls designed to remove sediment and other pollutants and to mimic the pre-project site hydrology by controlling the flow rates and/or the volume of stormwater runoff from the project's added and/or replaced impervious surfaces and a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 5-8.11). 313
06042018 version 3
11. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent the discharge of construction wastes or contaminants from construction materials, tools, and equipment from entering storm drains or watercourses. Plans for adequate BMPs to be installed, implemented, and maintained during construction and after final stabilization shall be submitted with the building permit application. The combination of BMPs used, and their execution in the field, must be customized to each site using up-to-date standards and practices. The Town will provide references to current guidance manuals and BMP information on request. (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 5-8.10)
12. The Director of Public Works may require dedication of street rights-of-way or improvements.
No permit for the development of any parcel of land abutting a public street shall be issued until the Director certifies that frontage improvements in accordance with the current Town specifications in use by the Department of Public Works and at the location prescribed by the Town Engineer in accordance with the Streets and Highways Plan of the Town: 1.) have been installed at no cost to the Town; or 2.) will be installed as a part of the development and prior to occupancy; or 3.) that in lieu of the improvements the applicant has deposited the estimated cost of the improvements with the Town. (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 7-
10.101)
13. Any improvements, public or private, damaged during construction shall be replaced, by the applicant, in-kind or with new improvements. All cracked, broken, or uplifted sidewalk, driveway and/or curb and gutter fronting the property shall be replaced. Applicant shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works prior to the start of the project improvements to identify the extents and limits of replacement.
14. All construction materials, debris and equipment shall be stored on site. If that is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris, debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. A minimum of 12’ passable auto traffic clearance (paved travel way) shall be maintained at all times along the roadway. The placing of portable restroom facilities in the Town right-of-way will not be permitted unless there is not an appropriate location on the subject property and Public Works approves placement in the right of way.
15. If a permeable paving system is to be used as a part of the site development strategy, the analysis shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. For drainage purposes, the underlying intent, either retention or detention, shall be fully quantified. If retention is to be used, a soils report, including percolation of the soils shall be submitted as a part of the plans. If detention is to be used, peak runoff quantities, storage capacity of the system, discharge rates, discharge points, impacts to existing facilities etc. shall be included. For small to medium projects, the Town and County prescriptive method outlined in the Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management may be used if approved by Public Works.
b. The structural adequacy of the system that accommodates vehicle loading including emergency response vehicles (i.e. fire trucks) if the access to be designated for that 314
06042018 version 4
purpose.
c. Provisions for ongoing maintenance of the pavers shall be included in the submittal package.
16. Drainage improvements shall implement Low Impact Development standards, including but not limited to:
a. No increase in stormwater runoff as compared to existing conditions b. Maintain natural drainage patterns
c. No concentration of flows, allowing drainage to flow naturally and to percolate and mimic existing and sheet flow conditions.
d. Rock rip-rap outfalls shall be located as far from property lines as possible and shall be designed to mimic existing drainage conditions (i.e. sheet flow, velocity dissipater, etc.) e. All stormwater runoff lines (such as building downspout lines, landscape drain lines, etc.) must be discharged in a manner that conforms to the current stormwater discharge practices in Marin County and as outlined in the Town’s Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management on the Town website.
17. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to the Town as part of the Building Permit and/or Grading Permit and shall be incorporated into the plans. This plan shall be a binding document. Failure to adhere to the plan may result in a “Stop Work Notice” being placed on the project. An electronic copy of the APPROVED CMP shall be submitted to the Town and may be posted to the Town’s website. This plan shall be updated as project conditions warrant. Updates to the plan shall be provided to the Town for review and approval. The CMP shall include but not be limited to:
a. Work schedule (start of construction date, road or lane closure intent/dates, important milestones and proposed final dates).
b. A video of the right of way in front of and adjacent to the property and the haul route as required by Public Works before any work commences.
c. Construction Hours-Construction hours may be changed before or during construction as needed and determined by Public Works.
d. Construction Waste Management Plan
e. Staging/storage type and location
f. Travel routes and turn-around locations
g. Road and/or lane closures (Applicant to provide information on how many anticipated road closures, and the reasons for each road closure).
h. Worker auto parking space locations/construction parking i. Phasing (if applicable)
j. If construction improvements are in areas of steep slopes, the Contractor shall provide safe temporary hard surface stair access to the improvements. This access shall be shown on the CMP.
The CMP may be more stringent if the project is located close to schools or in impacted neighborhoods. A CMP may be required to be modified if a neighborhood becomes 315
06042018 version 5
“impacted” during the construction. Impacted neighborhoods are defined as areas in geographic proximity (i.e. using the same streets for access) with a significant number of simultaneous construction projects.
Delivery times shall be determined at the time of Building Permit review and included on the Construction Management Plan sign.
A 24 inch by 36-inch weatherproof copy of the approved Construction Management Plan shall be posted on the site as part of a job site sign and located so as to be clearly readable from the public right-of-way. In addition to the approved Construction Management Plan, the sign shall include the following information:
a. Address of the project site.
b. Permitted hours of construction and of deliveries/off-haul. c. Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the General Contractor. d. Name, e-mail address and direct phone number of the person responsible for managing the project.
e. Name and direct phone number of the party to call in case of an emergency. f. Town of San Anselmo Building Department.
Building Department – Standard Conditions of Approval:
18. All construction shall comply with the California Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, and Mechanical Code, and other applicable Title 24 Codes in effect at the time of building permit submittal.
19. It is the responsibility of the designer(s) to ensure that all of the above Title 24 codes, as well as any applicable San Anselmo Municipal Codes are incorporated into the design.
20. The hours of construction activity shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. These hours may be changed as required by Public Works or Building.
21. A mechanical permit is required for any exterior mechanical equipment. Prior to the issuance of a mechanical or building permit for mechanical equipment, the applicant shall provide adequate information, reports and data to the Building Department demonstrating that the noise level from any exterior mechanical equipment or exterior vents, when measured at the property line boundary, complies with Town Noise Ordinance decibel limits.
22. All portions of the job site shall be maintained in an organized and professional condition. All trash, debris, construction scraps and broken/deteriorated machinery shall be removed from the site by the end of each week. If off loaded construction materials are not used within 2 weeks, they shall be screened from public view. All sidewalks, driveways and public/private roadways fronting the subject site shall be broom cleaned at the end of each business day.
23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Construction Sign shall be posted in a location where 316
06042018 version 6
the sign is clearly readable from the public right-of-way. The sign shall be 9 to 12 square feet in size (for example, 3’ by 3’ or 3’ by 4’). Information on the sign shall include:
a. Address of site.
b. Permitted hours of construction.
c. Name, address, and phone number of the contractor.
d. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the project. e. Name and phone number of the private party to call in case of an emergency.
f. Requirement that workers carpool to the site.
g. The phone number of the Town of San Anselmo Building Department.
24. A Pre-Construction Meeting is required. Prior to initiation of any work on the proposed project, the applicant shall arrange a pre-construction meeting that shall be attended by Town of San Anselmo staff, the owner, general contractor, and sub-contractors responsible for demolition, foundation and excavations, framing, roofing and major deliveries to review these conditions of approval, permitted hours of operation, etc. Staff may require additional subcontractors depending on project scope. The general contractor is responsible for ensuring that all contractors adhere to the Construction Management Plan and all Conditions of Project Approval and Conditions of all permits (Building, Grading, Encroachment, etc.).
25. All required construction signage and any required tree-protection shall be posted and available for Town inspection at the time of the Pre-construction meeting. If these measures are not in place at the time of the pre-construction meeting, a re-inspection fee will be required and issuance of building permit will be delayed.
26. Any project within a Special Flood Hazard Area shall comply with the standards of construction and standards for utilities in San Anselmo Municipal Code Title 7, Chapter 11.
27. All electrical and communication service laterals, including those for cable television service, to any new building or structure or building or structure undergoing a substantial improvement as defined by California Building Code Chapter 2 shall be placed underground from the main service equipment within the building or structure to a location designated by the supplying utility in accordance with the supplying utility's applicable rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State or other competent jurisdiction. The Building Official may grant an exception to this condition when it is found that the undergrounding of the utility service laterals will cause an unnecessary hardship or results inconsistent with the intent of San Anselmo Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 4. (SAMC Sec. 9-4.01-9.4.03)
28. Every building shall be numbered by placing the appropriate number on or adjacent to the main entrance to the building so as to be readily seen from the street. Address numbers must be Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters with a minimum stroke width of one-half inch.
Numbers on residential buildings shall be self-illuminated, internally-illuminated or placed adjacent to a light which is controlled by a photocell and switched only by a breaker so it will 317
06042018 version 7
remain illuminated all night. Building numbers shall be a color that clearly contrasts with the color of the background upon which they are placed. Residential building numbers shall be not less than four inches in height and non-residential /commercial building numbers shall be not less than six inches in height. All numbers shall be of proportionate width to the height, shall be made of permanent material, and shall be placed in a manner as to not be easily defaced or removed. (San Anselmo Municipal Code Sections 9-5.03 and 9-5.06).
29. Building plans shall include a green building program description and completed checklist that demonstrate the project shall comply with the applicable Green Building Standards adopted by the Town Council including the green building rating system(s); minimum compliance thresholds; and methods for verification of compliance with the adopted standards. The checklist shall be incorporated onto a separate full-sized plan sheet included with the building plans. A qualified green building rater, if required, shall provide evidence that the project, as indicated by the project plans and green building program description, will achieve the applicable Green Building Standards prior to issuance of a building permit. The green building rating system in effect at the time of building permit submittal shall be that which is applicable to the development project throughout the project construction. During the construction process, alternate green building measures may be substituted, provided that the qualified green building rater or applicable individual provides documentation of the proposed change and the project's continued ability to achieve the Green Building Standards to the Chief Building Official. Prior to final building inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building rater, if required, shall provide evidence that project construction has achieved the required compliance. Where certification through GreenPoint Rated or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is required and such certification is only available subsequent to occupancy of the completed building, the applicant shall provide documentation of such certification within one (1) year of the date of the final building inspection for the project. (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 9-19.040)
30. The applicant shall submit a Construction and Demolition Diversion Report to the Building Department prior to final inspection of the project and granting of occupancy. Prior to obtaining any final inspection and grant of occupancy from the Building Department, the person who has obtained a building permit shall pay an Avoided Disposal Regulatory Fee if the Building Official determines that the applicant has not satisfied the diversion requirements. (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 9-20.02)
31. All permits and/or inspection fees required shall be paid in full prior to final occupancy being granted.
Fire Dept. Standard Conditions of Approval:
32. The project shall comply with the Ross Valley Fire Department Plan Review memorandum for the project. The memo details items required for compliance and required inspections.
33. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted by the Fire Department unless all conditions have been met.
318
06042018 version 8
34. Fire Department and Town personnel shall be granted access to private driveways and private roadways in order to enforce applicable ordinances related to fire codes, municipal and penal codes pertaining to maintaining road access for emergency vehicles.
Ross Valley Sanitary District – Standard Conditions of Approval:
35. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Ross Valley Sanitary District prior to project final. Any private sewer lateral may be required to be tested, repaired or replaced prior to project final. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to project final.
Marin Municipal Water District – Standard Conditions of Approval:
36. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) for water service prior to project final including compliance with all indoor and outdoor requirements of MMWD District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation.
37. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with the most current Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) landscape requirements. New construction and rehabilitated (renovations or changes made to sites with an existing irrigation system) landscape projects will be affected by these requirements if the altered landscape area is greater than 500 square feet. The Code requires a landscape plan, an irrigation plan, and a grading plan. Evidence of compliance (compliance letter or exemption) shall be submitted to the Building Department as part of the building permit review process. Any question regarding the MMWD’s current water conservation and landscape Ordinance should be directed to (415) 945-1497 or [email protected].
38. Indoor plumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements.
39. Installation of a gray water recycling system is required for all projects that require installation of new water service and existing structures undergoing “substantial remodel” that necessitates an enlarged water service in compliance with MMWD Ordinance No. 429.
40. Backflow protection may be required as a condition of water service.
41. Prior to project final inspection, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Town Building Department that the project has received final approval (or is exempt from review) from the following three MMWD departments: Water Efficient Landscaping, Engineering, and Backflow Prevention.
END OF STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
ORIGINAL DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL
11/26/2019
330
ORIGINAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL
8/21/2020
331
A
B
C
D
E
F
12 3
45 6 A.7 A.9 B.5 C.1C.2 C.3 C.6 C.8 C.9 1.9 2.5 5.2 5.3 5.6 1 2
3 4
56 1.9 2.5 5.2 5.3 5.6
A
B
C
D
E
F A.7 A.9 B.5 C.1C.2 C.3 C.6 C.8 C.9 SSW-AB 54" x 33" SSW FOOTING b SSW-AB
b 54" x 33" SSW FOOTING 66" x 54" SSW FOOTING
aSSW-AB 66" x 54" SSW FOOTINGaSSW-AB
Copyright ©2005 Hogan Land Services, Inc. This drawing is in instrument of service and is the sole property of Hogan Land Services, Inc. Any use of this drawing without written consent by Hogan Land Services, Inc. is prohibited. S1.0
FOUNDATION PLAN
6 1702 4TH STREET
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
TEL (707) 544-2104
FAX (707) 522-2105 www.hoganls.com DATE
A
B
1JOB #: PM: DATE: CHK: SCALE: DRAWN BY:
THE HEATH RESIDENCE
APN: XXX-XXX-XXX
75 JONES STREET
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA 1/4"=1'-0" UON DB3 MLB HSP 4412.04 OF 18 CONVERSION/REMODEL & ADDITION 8/3/20 FOUNDATION NOTES ALL MECHANICAL & EPOXY ANCHORS ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. REFER TO THE APPROVED STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND THE GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET S-CS. ALL WATERPROOFING MEASURES AND FLASHING METHODS SHALL BE DETERMINED AND PROVIDED BY OTHERS. FOUNDATION PLAN A ALL FINAL GRADES SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH POSITIVE GRADIENTS AWAY FROM FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE RAPID REMOVAL OF SURFACE WATER RUNOFF TO AN ADEQUATE DISCHARGE POINT. NO PONDING OF WATER SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN STRUCTURAL AREAS OR ADJACENT TO FOUNDATION. ALL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND CIVIL ACTIVITIES ONSITE ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS.SHEET KEYNOTES REF. NEW-TO-EXISTING FOOTING DOWELING INTERFACE: PROVIDE NEW #4 REINFORCING DOWEL AT TOP & BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEMENTS WITH SIMPSON SET-XP OR 3G EPOXY ADHESIVE WITH MINIMUM EMBEDMENT OF 6 INCHES INTO THE EXISTING AND 12 INCHES MINIMUM OF LAP INTO THE NEW RESPECTIVE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS. EXISTING 4" CONCRETE SLAB WITH #3 BARS @ 18" O.C. PER RECORD DRAWINGS, AS VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. NEW CONCRETE SLAB ELEMENT: 4" THICK SLAB WITH 8" THICKENED EDGE. #4 REINFORCING BARS @ 18" O.C. EACH WAY, SET AT MID-HEIGHT OF SLAB. CAST SLAB OVER 5" CRUSHED, COMPACTED GRAVEL. PROVIDE CRACK CONTROL PER PLAN DETAIL. PRACTICE METHODS AND MEASURES AS DETERMINED AND PROVIDED BY OTHERS, U.O.N. OR APPROVED. ALIGN EXPANDED FOOTING ELEMENT WITH BEARING SUPPORT ABOVE AS VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR. REFER TO PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE. EXPAND EXISTING PERIMETER FOUNDATION TO FACILITATE NEW PAD FOOTING AT SIMPSON SSW STRONG WALL ELEMENT. INSTALL #4 REINFORCING DOWELS WITH 6" MINIMUM EMBEDMENT @ 48" O.C. AT NEW-TO-EXISTING SLAB INTERFACE. INSTALL WITH SIMPSON SET-XP OR 3G EPOXY CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE. PAD FOOTING AND ANCHORAGE AT PRE-FABRICATED STAIR ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS AS VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. PROVIDE RETROFIT FOOTING AT NEW HOLDOWN ANCHORAGE PER PLAN. 9 1 S0.1
1SD1
1SD1
1SD1
1SD1
1SD1
1SD1
1SD1
5SD1
4SD1
1SD1
1SD11SD1 1 1 1 SD1
1 1
1 1
2 6
6 66
9 9
2SD1
2SD1
2SD1
7 2SD1
3 4
23456
5 5
5 55
5 6SD2
6SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1
7SD1 SIMPSON STRONG WALL PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL MODEL W de S ANCHOR BOLT STRENGTH SSW18 51 17 12.25 SSW-AB1 HIGH SSW21 33 11 15 SSW-AB1 STANDARD ab
1 PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE TYPE SPECIFICATION P1.5 P2.0 P2.5 P3.5 2 SHEET LEGEND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS ASSUMED BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THIS OFFICE. ALL EXISTING FRAMING TO REMAIN SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK, FURNISHMENT, AND INSTALLATION OF NEW STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, THROUGH UTILIZATION OF A PACHOMETER TEST PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED FIRM. IF THE EXISTING FOUNDATION ELEMENTS ARE DISCOVERED TO BE CONTRARY TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL HOGAN LAND SERVICES TO CONFIRM ADEQUACY OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. 3 S0.3
8 7SD1
8SD1
7 7 S0.19 S0.1
2 1SD1
8 9SD13SD1 SEE SSW1 SEE SSW1
1 SSW1
1 SSW1 SEE SSW1
1 SSW1 SEE SSW1
1 SSW1
2 SSW1
2 SSW1
2 SSW1
2 SSW1
9 2SD51SD5
7SD1
8SD1
Z:\HLS-Projects\4412- Heath-Jones St\DWG\STRUCTURAL\4412.04 - SFD\4412.04 - STRUCT-DESIGN.dwg, 8/3/2020 8:29:48 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 ORIGINAL STRUCTURAL SUBMITTAL 8/2
1/2020
332
B6 A B C D E F 123456 A.7 A.9 B.5 C.1C.2 C.3 C.6 C.8 C.9 1.9 2.5 5.2 5.3 5.6 123456 1.9 2.5 5.2 5.3 5.6 A B C D E F A.7 A.9 B.5 C.1C.2 C.3 C.6 C.8 C.9 WSP WSP WSP WSP WSP WSP b b FULL HEIGHT BALLOON FRAME WALL 2x6 1.6E TIMBERSTRAND LSL @ 16" O.C. MAX. OVERALL HEIGHT ~ 19'-0" (+/-) V.I.F. B6 B4 B4 B3 WSP WSP WSP WSP WSP **FULL HEIGHT
BALLOON FRAME WALL** aa B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B6B6 B3 B3 **FULL HEIGHT BALLOON FRAME WALL** **FULL HEIGHT BALLOON FRAME WALL** B3 UP B4 Copyright ©2005 Hogan Land Services, Inc. This drawing is in instrument of service and is the sole property of Hogan Land Services, Inc. Any use of this drawing without written consent by Hogan Land Services, Inc. is prohibited. S2.0 7 1702 4TH STREET
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
TEL (707) 544-2104
FAX (707) 522-2105 www.hoganls.com DATE AB1JOB #: PM: DATE: CHK: SCALE: DRAWN BY:
THE HEATH RESIDENCE
APN: XXX-XXX-XXX
75 JONES STREET
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA 1/4"=1'-0" UON DB3 MLB HSP 4412.04 OF 18 CONVERSION/REMODEL & ADDITION 8/3/20
LOWER LEVEL SHEAR WALL AND
FRAMING PLAN SHEET LEGEND FRAMING NOTES 3 S0.3 2 S0.3 SIMPSON STRONG WALL FRAMING SCHEDULE SYMBOL MODEL APPLICATION TYPE BASE CONNECTION (WOOD/CONCRETE) SSW18x9 TWO-STORY STACKED CONCRETE SLAB EDGE SSW21x10-STK BALLOON FRAMING CONCRETE SLAB EDGE ab 1 SHEAR WALL & FRAMING PLAN A (LOWER LEVEL) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, CONDITIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND ASSEMBLIES PRIOR TO THE FURNISHMENT AND INSTALLATION OF THE STRONG WALL SYSTEM. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THEY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DETAILS PROVIDED ON THIS PAGE SHALL BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLICATIONS PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO ENSURE CONSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TOLERANCES AS SET FORTH BY THE MANUFACTURER. SHEET KEYNOTES REF. PROVIDE CS-16 STRAP WRAPPED AROUND CORNER ALONG NEW LOWER LEVEL WALL TOP PLATE-TO-COMMON BLOCKING/FRAMING WITH 24"-MINIMUM END LENGTH. CS-16 STRAP AT FLOOR BEAM ELEMENT FASTENED TO SHEAR WALL TOP PLATES WITH 36"-MINIMUM END LENGTH. PROVIDE PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE ECC/Q66 COLUMN CAP. PROVIDE SOLID BLOCKING WITH P.E.N. PER SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE AND CONTINUOUS CS-16 STRAP AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF OPENING FACILITATING THE R/A GRILLE (S.A.D.). PROVIDE HU/C68 FACE-MOUNT HANGER TO SUIT AT POCKET DOOR HEADER, FASTENED INTO ADJACENT ENTRY HEADER ELEMENT (U.O.N. APPROVED OR EQUAL). PROVIDE CONTINUOUS CS-16 STRAP AT TOP OF OPENING FASTENED INTO SOLID BLOCKING WITH P.E.N. PER SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE. BALLOON FRAME WALL ELEMENTS SHALL BE COMPRISED OF LSL STUD FRAMING, LSL/PSL COLUMNS, AND LSL/PSL HEADERS. NOMINAL FRAMING SPECIFIED PER PLAN SHALL BE THE MINIMUM EQUIVALENT STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE LUMBER FRAMING. CONSTRUCTION AND ASSEMBLY OF THE TYPICAL WALL ELEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND INSTALLATION TOLERANCES. SEE SSW2 SEE SSW2 6 SSW2 6 SSW2 SEE SSW3 1 SSW3 SEE SSW3 1 SSW3 2 SSW3 2 SSW3 4 SSW2 4 SSW2 3 4 1234 2 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 10 SD3 Z:\HLS-Projects\4412- Heath-Jones St\DWG\STRUCTURAL\4412.04 - SFD\4412.04 - STRUCT-DESIGN.dwg, 8/3/2020 8:29:53 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 ORIGINAL STRUCTURAL SUBMITTAL 8/21/2020 333
iC.
(A)
-1
I
I
4 I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
(2)
-----1-- --1-----
I
I
4�$
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
A2.0 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 -J:.-
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_j_
-r1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(4')
---------1 D'
' De----
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
5 I
I
I
I
L
----� 4.0 ---- _,
� � �i � � ��
---------.ti::.. I --- 6
� 4.
r
I
I
I
I
:,sl I
I
L-----
(tvJ 0
�'vttvG
5 /Js.
,�,
-1
r--
----1
,j' (N) OPENING
I k k 1
(N) OPENING ,j'
, '1 1
I r ---, ----1-- --1----
.-----'\ � ,71------7
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: (E) ELEC TO
I
\
\
\
____ J "---0---"
L ___ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ DEMO ALL INTERIOR WALLS
(EXTERIOR WALLS TO REMAIN, SLAB
ON GRADE FOUNDATION TO REMAIN)
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
NOTE: SAVE ALL HEAVY TIMBERS FOR
REUSE IN REBUILD
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
)-PORTIONS OF OLD WALLS NOT BEING REMOVED FOR _j,,
I
I
I
/ NEW OPENINGS OR REPLACED FOR STRUCTURAL
REQUIREMENTS. AS DISCUSSED WITH THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR, BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR, WE NOW PROPOSED TO REPLACE THESE
WALLS FOR EASE OF CONSTRUCTION.
----,
_ _J ___ _
D
---t---
L
I
I
____ J
4 BE REPLAC
UPGRADE
I _,_ ____ __,,.'-'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
I TOO MUCH ROT I
,r-------1: '.&
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
(N) OPENING
/
/
/
/
/
/
�·
A. SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR MORE INFO
ON DEMO
B. (E) GAS METER TO REMAIN
C. (E) WATER METER TO REMAIN
D. (E) ELEC PANEL TO BE REPLACED
o'?'i:--�
E. (E) MECHANICAL SYSTEM TO BE REPLACED
F. (E) CONCRETE SLAB TO REMAIN, PROTECT
DURING CONSTRUCTION
SHEET NOTES:
I. SAVE ALL HEAVY TIMBERS
2. REMOVE (E) WALL
3. REMOVE (E) CABINETRY
4. REMOVE (E) PLUMBING (SINK/ TOILET)
5. REMOVE (E) DOOR/ WINDOW
- ---------1 D
(N) OPENING
k k
1 1
n
I Ill
I Ill
IHI�
I Ill
I Ill
I l�--"k1 Ill
u
_,--+---�
z
z w 0..
--·--------- --fa··--�
I I
.j
REQ SHEARW
(E) SHEATHI
LEGEND
...J
;;! " z
�Z-
-I
a: � I-
;'li ;:1i 0
IIO
v, vd0 w� [ij'!!? &.
�
-
(fl
NORTH
EXISTING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN
w
=:)
V)
V)
cu
...J �
w
-
<I:
u. +
w
u
z
w
0 -V)
w
cL.
I
I-
<(
w
I
Cl
>
I
0 ,.,
IV)
V)
w
z
0 ----,
LI')
r-,..
0 '°
a,.
a,.
6 I co
M
0 N
I
I:
r-,..
0 0
w .. V) z z a...
<( <(
z
<(
V)
PROJECT NO: 19101
DATE
11/26/2019
8/21/2020
11/15/2021
ISSUE
DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT A
SUBMITTAL L.!.1
PLANNING A
COMMISSION fn
EXISTING AND
DEMO PLANS
SCALE : I /4" = 1 '-0"
A2.0
REVISED DEMO FOR COMMISSION
11/15/2021
334
335
336
337
338
339
025203.0001\6521645.4
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-4036
T: 510.834.6600
F: 510.834.1928
www.wendel.com
[email protected]
January 7, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers
Town of San Anselmo
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: January 11, 2022 Town Council Meeting
Response to Appeal Regarding 75 Jones Street Conversion Project Dear Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers:
We submit this letter on behalf of the owners of 75 Jones Street, Erin Heath and James Rivera (“Applicants”) in advance of the January 11, 2022 Town Council meeting. Erin and Jim have been deeply involved in the San Anselmo community for more than a decade. They lived in San Anselmo, raised their daughter Georgia there, own property in the Town and have worked closely with Town staff on multiple successful projects on the former Seminary property that includes 75 Jones.
On the subject project, as well as all previous projects, Erin and Jim have worked in an open, collaborative and productive way with the Town and neighbors to execute successful improvements that benefit the community. Their commitment, reputation and integrity is wellknown.
This letter is in response to the appeal filed by their neighbors Kaliel Roberts and Michael Greer (“Appellants”) – who bought a neighboring property (101 Ross) from the Applicants in October 2020. Appellants challenge the Town Planning Commission’s action approving an amendment to the Specific Planned Development Use Permit pertaining to the conversion of the former preschool building at 75 Jones Street to a single family residence.
I. Background
The genesis of this action is that on February 2, 2020, the Planning Commission (“Commission”) approved the Applicants’ design review, use permit and subdivision to divide a lot and to approve a Specific Planned Development to redevelop the preschool into a singlefamily residence with a second story.1 This approval was not appealed or challenged.
1 The February 2020 meeting materials were accessible via the City’s website to any member of the public, including Appellants (who purchased 101 Ross in October 2020). 340
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers WENDEL ROSEN LLP
January 7, 2022
025203.0001\6521645.4
Construction of the residence at 75 Jones commenced in May 2021. Unanticipated dry rot was discovered during demolition – a commonplace occurrence – and required additional wall material to be removed. The Town’s building department conducted inspections of the site in July 2021 and did not flag any issues. Framing work commenced and was largely completed by August 2021. On August 23, a city inspector (Lisa Sarto) inspected the plans, spoke with the contractor and concluded the work was in conformance with the approved plans and discovered site conditions which included areas of dry rot and substandard framing of the preschool building and left the site. She returned the same day with a stop work order and the Town indicated that an updated demolition plan was required.
The Applicants’ contractor immediately met with Town building and public works officials to review the conditions and – as the staff report acknowledges – the Town’s Director of Public Works and Building and the Building Official agreed that the demolition work done was “unavoidable,” and that the structure “is constructed over the original building slab foundation and the location of the structure had not changed.” (11/15/21 PC Staff report at p. 4.) At that point, Town planning staff required the Applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised demo plan to continue and complete the work of the same project approved in February 2020. No changes in the approved project or design were proposed.
At its November 15, 2021 meeting, the Commission unanimously approved the amendment to the Specific Planned Development Use Permit and to allow demolition of the structure to the slab foundation. That approval by the Commission was based on its prior unchallenged approval and design review findings from its February 3, 2020 meeting and the flexibility provided by the Specific Planned Development (SPD) zoning designation of the property.
II. Appeal
Appellants challenge the Commission’s November 15th decision, essentially arguing that the Commission should have conducted a de novo review of the entire project because of the additional unanticipated demolition required during the conversion of the preschool building, and that the Commission erred in making several design review findings.
However, because this property is zoned “SPD,” and for the further reasons set forth below, de novo review is not required, and the design review findings made at the February 3, 2020 Commission meeting remain valid for what is the exact same project proposed and approved by the Commission nearly two years ago. Additionally, these are the identical design review findings that would have been required had the project been considered as new construction, as opposed to a remodel of an existing structure.
In other words, there is no purpose to be served by the appeal or de novo review: the project is unchanged and the design review findings (and support for them) remain the same as in February 2020. The only things that changed are that (1) more material required demolition than anticipated (not an uncommon occurrence), and (2) a new neighbor moved in who wants to belatedly object to a project approved nearly two years ago and well under construction. 341
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers WENDEL ROSEN LLP
January 7, 2022
025203.0001\6521645.4
For the Council’s information, Appellants have filed a separate civil suit against the Applicants. This appeal is a thinly-veiled attempt to gain leverage in that private civil proceeding. The Council need not be drawn in. Furthermore, the Appellants have made multiple inaccurate and inflammatory statements in a January 3, 2022 comment letter attacking the Applicants’ character. The facts tell a different story and do not support Appellants’ baseless allegations.
Therefore, the Council should follow the Commission’s unanimous decision to approve the project and the amendment to the Use Permit, and dismiss the appeal in its entirety. To address the Appellants’ specific contentions, we provide the following.
A. The removal of rotted exterior walls, as reviewed and supported by the Town’s Building Department, does not alter this project.
Regardless of the terminology used and the linear feet of exterior walls remaining from the former preschool, the project has not changed in any material way since it was proposed by the Applicants and approved by the Commission in February 2020. As acknowledged by the Commission at its November 2021 meeting, the project remains identical to, and in full conformance with, the plans submitted and approved in February 2020, with the exception of the additional wall demolition. The footprint of the proposed and partially-constructed single family home remains the same as that of the former preschool, with the addition of a small porch on the front of the home facing Jones Street.
The structure, layout, and design of the home remains identical to that which was proposed and approved by the Town in February 2020. The only change was the extent of existing exterior walls that required removal when dry rot was discovered within those walls.
Removal of those rotted walls exceeded the extent of the originally-proposed demolition, so the project was brought back to the Commission for review of that solitary issue. The final residence will not look identical to what was considered and approved by the Commission in February 2020. Thus, at its November 15th meeting, the Commission properly approved the amendment to the Use Permit and correctly acknowledged the ongoing applicability of its earlier – unchallenged – design review findings and conditions of approval.
B. San Anselmo Municipal Code section 10-3.908 does not require a de novo review of this previously-approved project application.
SAMC section 10-3.908 states in its entirety: “Use permits within a PDP or SPD District.
All development within a Planned Development District shall be preceded by the approval of a use permit and design review, as set forth in Articles 13 and 15 of this chapter of the San Anselmo Municipal Code.”
At its February 3, 2020 meeting, the Commission properly approved a use permit and made the necessary design review findings to allow for the conversion of the former preschool to a single family residence. That is all that is required by SAMC section 10-3.908. No appeal was filed with regard to the February 2020 project approval. There was no opposition to the design of 342
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers WENDEL ROSEN LLP
January 7, 2022
025203.0001\6521645.4
the proposed project lodged or voiced by any member of the public for more than 18 months following the Commission’s approval of the project.
As detailed below, the Applicants relied on the approval in good faith and obtained a building permit and commenced construction establishing vested rights to complete the project in accordance with those approvals.
At the Commission’s November 15, 2021 meeting, the sole issue before the Commission was whether an amendment to the approved development and Use Permit should be approved to allow for the additional demolition of the remaining exterior walls of the former preschool after they were found to be structurally deficient and contained dry rot. This was not a proposed new development, but simply a request for a minor amendment to the previously-approved Use Permit due to unforeseen circumstances occurring during the construction of the approved project. At the meeting, when asked if a de novo design review was required, the Town Attorney confirmed that the Commission had the flexibility under the SPD zoning to determine that the findings from their February 2020 meeting still apply and could rely on those original findings in approving the requested amendment and additional demolition.
After finding that there were “no material changes” to the project that had been approved in February 2020, the Commission unanimously approved the amendment to allow the additional requested demolition and reiterated the applicability of the conditions of approval and design review findings from its February 2020 approval, while adding a single additional condition regarding a landscape plan to increase privacy screening. As discussed by both the Commissioners and the Town Attorney, the Town’s municipal code does not require a de novo review to approve such an amendment to a previously-approved and, in this case, under construction, project.
C. The Planning Commission properly adopted and approved the necessary design review findings at its February 2020 meeting.
This appeal should be limited to the scope of the action taken by the Commission on November 15, 2021, specifically the approval of an amendment to the Use Permit to allow for additional demolition. The design review findings made by the Commission in February 2020 were not challenged or appealed. In reaching that decision, the Commission properly adopted those findings based on the flexibility allowed by the SPD zoning district. Moreover, in November 2021, the Commission acknowledged and recognized that those design review findings remain valid when approving the amendment. The Commission properly approved the requested amendment without revisiting those specific design review findings because the Commission correctly found that no material change to the project was proposed as part of the requested amendment to the Use Permit.
With regard to some of the specific contentions in the Appellants’ appeal, the Applicants wish to clarify that the living area on the second floor of the addition is set at least 17 feet back from the windows that will be facing the Appellants’ property and approximately 30 feet from the property line. Any contention that someone looking from the living area of the second floor 343
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers WENDEL ROSEN LLP
January 7, 2022
025203.0001\6521645.4
will be able to “peer” into the home at 101 Ross Avenue is absurd. (Several planning commissioners noted this as a nonissue.) Further, the Applicants specifically planted trees that will grow to be at least 30 feet in height along the border of the two properties and have been required by the Commission to develop a landscaping plan, with Appellants’ participation and input, to further screen the windows and any vantage points looking toward 101 Ross Avenue from the home at 75 Jones Street, providing even more privacy to Appellants. With regard to the deck on that same side of the Applicants’ residence, the direction in which the deck faces corresponds with a deck on Appellants’ property that is actually above the height of the proposed deck at 75 Jones.
The Appellants’ remaining contentions with regard to the design review of this project were again discussed by the Commission at its November 15th meeting. The SPD zoning designation and related Town municipal code sections allow for significant flexibility in approving projects, and do not require any specific design standards to be strictly followed in the SPD district. The Commission found that the proposed amendment made no material change to the previously-approved project and, as such, it was reasonable and appropriate to rely on the findings from its February 2020 meeting to approve the requested Use Permit amendment.
Moreover, at the November 15th meeting, several commissioners acknowledged that the placement and design of the project, utilizing the existing location of the former preschool, will be a benefit to Appellants’ property. Commissioner Tunny stated, “I think the neighbor at 101 Ross really benefits from the way this project was done. It minimizes impacts … and [the impacts] don’t rise to the level we see from other projects…. This configuration maximizes the light and air to both properties.” (11/15/21 PC meeting at 1:48:40.) Commissioner Asselstine explained that it will allow more sunlight onto 101 Ross Avenue, and the two homes will not be in as close proximity as they would have been had the rear setback been imposed and the proposed home at 75 Jones Street was moved to the front of the property. (See 11/15/21 PC meeting at 1:36:50 [“There is a benefit to 101 Ross from the current placement of the new structure… it makes sense not just for one property but for both actually.” (1:37:35)]) In summary, with guidance from the Town Attorney (11/15/21 PC meeting at 2:00:00- 2:00:36 [outlining the structure of the motion re additional demolition, and reaffirming the conditions and findings]), the Commission took a pragmatic, common-sense and legallysupported approach in reaching its unanimous decision to approve the use permit amendment at its November 15th meeting. (11/15/21 PC meeting at 2:01:00-2:03.15.)2 III. Conclusion
To date, the Applicants have spent years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars beginning the construction of their home at 75 Jones Street in reliance on the Town’s approval of their project application in February 2020, as well as the Town’s inspections in July 2021, to 2 We encourage the Council to review the Planning Commissions’ comments from the November 15, 2022 meeting (11/15/22 PC meeting starting at 1:30:00.) 344
Mayor Fineman and Town Councilmembers WENDEL ROSEN LLP
January 7, 2022
025203.0001\6521645.4
proceed in good faith with construction.3 The Applicants have complied with all inspections by the Town and strictly followed all instructions by the Town’s Building and Planning Departments in moving forward with the project, pausing construction, and seeking the amendment to the Use Permit requested by the Town given the necessary additional demolition based on unforeseen dry rot conditions discovered during construction.
The statements by Appellants implying otherwise are unwarranted, disingenuous and disparaging personal attacks on the Applicants. The design of the home was approved nearly two years ago. Framing is nearly complete and the project construction is considerably far along, as acknowledged by one Commissioner at the November 15th meeting. It would be fundamentally unfair to the Applicants to be forced to make any major, costly changes to the project at this stage, after vested rights have been established, and given their responsive and collaborative work with the Town staff. Nor would any purpose be served to require repetitive design review after the Commission properly considered and adopted necessary design review findings at its February 2020 meeting and acknowledged the ongoing applicability of those unchallenged findings on November 15, 2021.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, and in consideration of the Planning Commission’s reasoned review and approval of this project application and Use Permit, we respectfully request that the Council follow the Commission’s unanimous decision to approve the amendment to the Use Permit, and dismiss the appeal in its entirety so that Ms. Heath and Mr. Rivera may finally complete the construction of their home.
Sincerely,
WENDEL ROSEN LLP
Todd A. Williams
cc: Elise Semonian, Planning Director
James Rivera
Erin Heath
3 As the California Supreme Court established over 45 years ago, a party acquires a vested right in a building permit if the party “has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government.” (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 791; see also Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2004) 371, F3d 1122, 1125 [city estopped from revoking building permits after reviewed and approved the plans andafter applicant performed substantial work and incurred liabilities in reliance].) 345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380