project would result in the shade reaching that house about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours sooner.
Two story buildings are allowed and building heights vary from one to two stories in the neighborhood. The area has a mix of architectural styles and staff believes the proposed building design would be compatible with the mixed visual character of the area.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan that includes screening landscaping. Conditions of approval would require landscaping in compliance with the approved vegetation management plan to be installed prior to project final. Landscaping cannot be installed during the drought and 6 SAMC Parking Standards Table 5A Note 4
7 SAMC §10-3.507 8 SAMC §10-3.1501 Purpose and intent
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
403
6 a bond or deposit could be required to ensure the landscaping is installed after the drought.
All parking and deck areas will be pervious surfaces. Only approximately 136 square feet of new impervious surface will be added to the site.
The bulk and mass of the second story have been reduced by stepping the front and north elevations back from the lower level. The rear elevation massing is broken up by the deck and recessed master bedroom wall. The south elevation has one and two-story elements. The lowerlevel plate height is 8’ 4.5”. The upper-level plate heights vary, but several areas have a plate height of 7’ 4.5”, which is low and will minimize the mass of the upper level. The applicant has articulated the two-story wall on the south elevation.
Front Elevation Plans 1, 2 and 3
Right Side Elevation Plans 1, 2 and 3
Parking Setback and Size Variance and Setback Variance for Residence Staff believes a new residence on this site that complies with a 20-foot front setback and has two code-compliant parking spaces and up to 400 square feet of garage area would be much larger and more massive than what is currently proposed. A new home would likely have taller plate heights at the lower level and have a larger second story, like the first plan for this site. The small lot size and angled front property line are also unusual circumstances that make it difficult to comply with the 20-foot front yard setback requirement.
Staff believes the tandem parking spaces will not have a negative aesthetic impact on the neighbor and are not uncommon in the area. The addition of one additional parking space in the front setback will encourage parking to be off-street, which will be a benefit in the long term as the Town adds more red curb lanes in neighborhoods to ensure roads are accessible for emergency vehicles, which often reduces on street parking. In addition, the Town is expecting other property owners to convert garages to ADUs, which will continue to increase demand for street parking spaces. However, since many of the Planning Commissioners did not support the short third space, a condition of approval requires it to be removed from the plan.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
404
7 Demolition Permit
Staff supports the demolition permit as most of the demolition is for the non-conforming garage structure walls and not the existing residence. As stated above, the proposed design has less mass than what would typically be proposed for a new residence. In approving the demolition permit, the Planning Commission could allow the residence to be demolished in full or limit demolition to what is proposed. Staff recommends a condition of approval that allows up to 35% demolition of the residence exterior walls in the event additional demolition is necessary during construction. The applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission to exceed that threshold.
Prepared By:
Elise Semonian
Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Project Plans
2. Application Materials and Findings
3. Neighborhood Communication/Correspondence since April 2021 (additional correspondence at links below)
4. Draft Findings and Conditions of Approval
5. Standard Conditions of Approval
6. Minutes of April 19, 2021 and January 6, 2020
7. April 19, 2021, Hearing Materials (hyperlink)
8. January 6, 2020, Hearing Materials (hyperlink)
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 5
405
1 Elise Semonian
From: Katrina Russek >
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:40 PM
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting
CAUTION: External Sender
Re: 9 Laurel Avenue
Proposed 2nd Story
Dear Elise,
Kindly forward my email to the Planning commission for tonight’s meeting, unfortunately we are not able to attend and wish for our opinion to be heard.
My husband and I live at Hillcrest Avenue and we are a block and a half away from this proposed 2nd story construction home. We have lived in our home for 22+ years and enjoy the beauty, the comfort and the charm of our neighborhood. We are writing to the Commission to strongly object to allowing this construction to move forward. Additionally, it is my understanding that the owner/developer of this house wishes to renovate the house in order to flip it, make more money and move out of our area. We are not happy with a 2 story house in an area that it is primarily one story homes (short of the apartments) and allowing this construction to go forward is a slippery slope. I also don’t want people from outside SA to turn this town into a location where people can buy a home, tear it down, renovate it and flip it and move on. It has been a terrible issue that a couple of homes on Laurel and Hazel were allowed to be torn down and McMansions built in their place on a very small footprint. We do not wish this practice to continue.
Since we have lived in our home, there hasn’t been a day go by that someone is working on a home, seeking to renovate (I suspect without permits as there are no notices posted) and I wish for our Planning Commission to put an end to this work. Now, repairing a leaking roof or a destroyed patio is one thing, but allowing a 2nd story construction is simply ridiculous and must stop. I need only cite the home formerly owned by Tim and Lisa Kemp (On Hillcrest Avenue) as one of these no‐permit nightmares.
I hope the Commission will see this issue very clearly, saying no to the owner/developer and not allowing him to continue with his pleadings and continuances and taking up any more of our Planning Commission’s time. Please count my husband and me as two local residents saying “NO” to this non‐local residence’s request.
If you have any questions or wish to speak with me directly, please feel free to contact me directly.
Otherwise, thank you for taking our opinions into consideration.
Katrina
Katrina Russek
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
406
Dear Planning Director, Elise Semonian, and the Planning Commissioners, I am the owner of Laurel Ave and a long-time resident, 28 yrs, of San Anselmo. I am opposed to the proposed remodel of 9 Laurel Ave because it has a 2nd story. I am in support of a singlestory improvement of the property.
A 2nd story addition in this case violates the Town’s General Plan and the Town’s Housing Elements:
Town’s General Plan expressed in Land Use Goals 1 and 2 The Land Use Map Object 11, Policies: 11.1
San Anselmo Housing Element, H2.2, (1) (2) (3)
Full descriptions at the end of this letter
LAP
Myself and my fellow neighbors at 1055 San Anselmo Ave, 8 Laurel Ave #2 & 15 Laurel Ave are the ones most adversely affected if a 2nd story is built at 9 Laurel Ave. Our light, air and privacy would be infringed upon. The value of our properties and the quality of lives would be diminished. This violates San Anselmo Housing Element, H2.2, (1) (2) (3) My Light
The developer’s shade study is INACCURATE.
The developer states in his application that suncalc.org data show existing shadows at noon on my house in the winter. This is false as my pictures from this winter prove. Also, I have highlighted the shadows of the story poles on the exterior winter images. I have added screenshots with time stamps for proof since the developer is questioning these pictures. I have light coming in my windows after 3:00pm. The Developer states that the proposed 2nd story will cast shade on my house starting at 10:30 am. Shade from 10:30 am to 3 pm or later? That is an additional 4.5 hours of shade, minimum, on my house. Far different than the 1.5 hr difference he is claiming. (images 1 – 5)
The developer also claims that in Sept existing shadows reach my house at 3:30 pm and the proposed 2nd story shadows reach my house at 3:00 pm. Again, this is inaccurate as my photos reveal. I have light on the side of my house and coming in my windows up to 6:00 pm. Very different than his data shows and the 30-minute difference in light he claims. Actually a 3-hour difference. (image 6)
Unfortunately, I did not take pictures in March to know the impact of shade that would occur but can conclude from my fall & winter pictures that the developer’s shade study for spring is also inaccurate and the light coming into my home would be adversely affected 3 seasons, at minimum or all year round.
It is clear the developers’ shade study and his statements of additional shade on my house are an attempt to minimize the dramatic difference in my current light and the shade his proposed project would cast. This violates San Anselmo Housing Element, H2.2, (3)
DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUE AND QUALITY OF LIFE
Our E/W lots are severely impacted by 2nd story construction ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
407
Most houses in San Anselmo are built on N/S oriented lots. This small section of Laurel Ave is E/W oriented. The sun tracks to our south and most of our light comes in our southern windows. A 2nd story on an E/W lot is more detrimental to the immediate neighbors than on a N/S lot.
story were built at 9 Laurel nd Realtors have told me my property would decrease in value if a 2 Ave, “Your house will definitely depreciate. Who wants to buy a house in the shade?” Aviva Kamler, Sotheby’s.
The developer will not live in the house. This is a flip.
The developer has stated, plainly, and I quote,
“I do not care about the neighborhood or the neighbors.” Hasson Afrookteh, Developer
OUT OF CHARACTER WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
This plan is overbuilding the lot
The developer’s plan in style and size is out of character and immense for this tiny lot, destroying the character of our neighborhood of charming cottages – quintessential Old Town San Anselmo. Contrary to the Developer’s claim we are NOT a neighborhood of “mixed architectural styles with no particular design aesthetic that predominates”. story structures which infringe on the LAP of nd Our tiny lots are not compatible with 2 the immediate neighbors. The proposed project is even taller than the apartment building by 5’4”. If built this project adversely affects everyone in our neighborhood – our quality of life and our property values. This violates Town’s General Plan expressed in Land Use Goals 1 and 3, The Land Use Map Object 11, Policies: 11.1, and San Anselmo Housing Element H2.2 (1) (2) (3)
Please do not destroy our charming neighborhood for the profit of these developers who do not care about the neighbors and the neighborhood – which the developer has said outright on our recent zoom call.
Thank you for your time,
Fran Farmer
Laurel Ave
Town’s General Plan expressed in Land Use Goals:
The Primary land use goal for San Anselmo is the conservation of the small-town character of the community and its close relationships with the natural beauty of its setting.
1. The small-town character, scale and pace of life in San Anselmo shall be preserved, as shall the Town’s close connection with the natural beauty of its setting.
3. New developments shall be integrated harmoniously into San Anselmo’s existing neighborhoods and commercial areas.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
408
The Land Use Map
3. The current mixture of residential densities immediately west of the Town’s downtown area is to be maintained.
Object 11. To preserve, maintain and enhance the existing character, scale, and quality of life in San Anselmo’s residential neighborhoods.
Policies: 11.1 New development, including rehabilitation and expansion projects, shall be of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.
San Anselmo Housing Element
H2.2 Design that Fits into the Neighborhood Context. The Town will encourage innovative design that creates housing opportunities that are complementary to the location of the development. It is the Town’s intent to enhance neighborhood identity and sense of community by ensuring that all new housing will (1) have a sensitive transition with the surrounding area, (2) avoid unreasonably affecting the privacy of neighboring properties, or (3) avoid impairing access to light and air on neighboring properties.
Image 1 – from the developers’ application
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
409
Image 2 – exterior winter light
Image 3 – exterior images with timestamps
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
410
Image 4 – interior winter light
Image 5 – interior images with timestamps
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
411
Image 6 – exterior fall light with timestamps
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
412
From: Jerri Linn
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: #9 Laurel Ave.
Date: Friday, September 3, 2021 2:55:54 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Commissioners,
This letter is in response to the proposed plans for #9 Laurel Ave.
My name is Jerri Linn and I live with my husband at Laurel Ave. I have looked over the new proposed plans for #9 Laurel and appreciate the developers modifications. I am not opposed to his remodeling the existing little house. I also do not mind him adding on a ADU, BUT, I am really opposed to his second story addition, most importantly because it adversely effects the adjacent neighbors.
The new plan proposal goes against the San Anselmo Municipal code according to the Town’s General Plan, under San Anselmo Housing Element:
H2.2 Design that Fits into the Neighborhood Context. The Town will encourage innovative design that creates housing opportunities that are complementary to the location of the development. It is the Town’s intent to enhance neighborhood identity and sense of community by ensuring that all new housing will (1) have a sensitive transition with the surrounding area, (2) avoid unreasonably affecting the privacy of neighboring properties, or (3) avoid impairing access to light and air on neighboring properties.
The height of the addition blocks the light at #5 Laurel for a good portion of the day so that the owner has no direct light in the studio where she works. It would also hinder her ability to fully utilize solar panels that she wants to put up. It adversely effects #15 Laurel and #1055 San Anselmo by infringing upon their privacy and in the case of #1055 San Anselmo Ave., it also blocks their light in the afternoon. The second story also effects the light in the lower floor apartment across the street.
The fact that the developer wants to create a building that is even taller than the apartment building across the street shows that he is in total disregard of the character of the neighborhood.
I understand his desire to make a profit on an investment, but i think that he could fill that need by building out rather than building up.
I do have a question about his referring to an ADU in his response to the questionnaire regarding the requested variance for moving the parking to the other side of the house. Does he or doesn’t he want to build an ADU at a later date?
In closing, I support improvements to the house and property. I also support an additional ADU. I do not support a second story.
I would like to request that at the next meeting the commissioners make sure that the people who speak give their names and their addresses because in the last meeting I was aware that some of the folks that commented on the remodel either didn’t live in the immediate vicinity in or didn’t even live in San Anselmo.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
413
Thank you, Jerri Linn
Elise, Could you please make sure that the rest of the planning commission gets this letter? Thank you again, Jerri
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
414
From: Steve Lamb
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: 9 Laurel Ave
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:49:06 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Hi Elise,
I'm opposed to the proposed remodel project at 9 Laurel Avenue. I live in the apartment building across the street from the site.
For me it's very simple: this project is the wrong one for this location and this location is the wrong one for this project.
Thanks,
Steve Lamb
Laurel Avenue
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
415
From: Christopher Braun
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: 9 Laurel Ave 3rd remodel and addition
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:31:50 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My name is Chris Braun and I live at directly across the street from Hassan Afrookteh’s and Brooke Peterson’s proposed remodel and addition at 9 Laurel Ave.
I am totally opposed to the 3rd attempt by the developers to build the second story they are asking for. I feel it is the developers' property and they have the right to remodel if they choose to, however, there is a Town Plan, ordinaces, and laws which they have to follow to protect us as property owners and renters. Not one person in my neighborhood is for this plan.
This plan has serious effects on people’s lives, especially those living at #5 Laurel., #15 laurel, 1055 San Anselmo Ave , and myself.
The 24' 6” second story dwarfs all the other one story houses on our street and is taller than my apartment building which is 19’ 6”.
From my apartment directly across the street, the Second Story addition will act like a wall. When i look out of my apartment at what is now sun, sky and trees, I will see a blank wall with a deck and window looking down into my apartment. The light at all times of day all year will be affected. .
The height of this addition does not fit in any way in our neighborhood which as you know goes against the Town Plan of harmoniously integrating into a neighborhood. The developers say that because it has a slanted roof it fits into the neighborhood. My apartment building does not have a slanted roof. The problem is the plan is just to big, too tall to fit in. This is demonstrated by the drawing in his plan, page A13, and all the things the developers are trying to do to solve the problems it creates: privacy hedges, which cause shade issues, and taking out all the windows on the south side of the second story to solve privacy problems with #15 Laurel. Who is going to spend 1.6 million dollars at least on a house with no windows on one side of the second story. The second story is too tall.
The Town requires shade studies at 9AM, noon and 3 PM. There is no question my apartment will be affected by the shade from the second story except in June, the summer and warmest time. The light will be effected all year round.
I will note that using the developers' tool SunCalc, there were discrepancies found in the length of shadows. Please refer to the letter of Marstin Talllant on this topic. I also tried using the SunCalc tool and through Elise aked the developers for clarification twice, but heard nothing in return.
Shadow studies at 6AM, 6PM and 9PM, though not required by the town, demonstrate how the second story shadows seroiusly affect my sunlight and as well as 1055 San Anselmo and #5 Laurel. Studies at these times are important because the effect is substantial because of the second story. i request the Commission look at these times, because the shade at these times is severe in comparison to the reqired times, because of the Second story. Who decided on these limited times in a place where there are so many angles of sunlight from houses in the valley to on the hills.
The developers will not live in our neighborhood. The last time they said they were going to rent the house. This plan is purely for the developers' profit. The extent that the 3 adjacent houses, myself, and the other tenants in my apartment will be drastcally, I say drastically, affected by this second story,, are among the reasons it was denied the 1st time. These factors still exist this 3rd time. The reason the second proposal received a continuance was beacuse the ADU made the buildings over the FAR. If this second story is not denied, the developers can just apply for a permit for the ADU later, without having to go before the Planning Commission. Why the 3 parking spaces? It is my hope that the letters explaining why all of us are individually opposed to this plan, and as a neighborhood ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
416
are united in opposition, will prompt the Commisioners to come and view the story poles ,and property from in our homes. This will eliminate any "he said she said”, but will establish the truth. The SunCalc studies for all day starting at 6AM to 9PM need to be looked at by the commission because of this situation and to fairly judge the validity of this plan’s shade, light and air effects. The developers have been kindly asked 6 times to clarify their shade studies and have not responded.
I, and I’m sure all of my neighbors, would be happy to invite you into our homes, to come and see for yourself the many, serious problems with this proposed remodel and addition at 9 Laurel Ave.
I am requesting that at the Planning Commission meeting on Sept 20th, those people who call in at the end, are required to give their address. Last meeting there were people who called in who did not even live in San Anselmo.
Thank you very much,
Chris Braun
San Anselmo
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
417
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
418
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
419
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
420
From: Dennis Mowbray
To: Planning
Subject: 9 Laurel Ave
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2021 9:26:44 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Planning Commission
9 Laurel Ave has been a rental for the past 50 years. It would be wonderful if it could be owned by someone who lived there and lovingly cared for it, improving it.
Some projects need to be vacated with extensive work by professionals. 38 San Rafael Avenue is a good example. What was a large awkward residence was transformed into a lovely charming welcoming home, an improvement to our town. It is an example of how very project should be an improvement.
There have been several proposals for 9 Laurel by the new owner. All have a second story.
Because the lot and the adjacent lots are small, the second story towers above the three adjacent homes, blocking the sun and view. Even the siding is vertical, just to emphasize the second story height.
The neighborhood has asked if the increased square footage could be on the first floor, but the owner is determined to do what he wants to do. I think every owner should be able to do what they want. But I do not understand why anyone would want to be inconsiderate of the physical and social surroundings. He has made a small investment in a small lot. If he wants to make a larger profit, he needs to invest in a larger lot.
I do not envy your position. He has threatened the town with his lawyers. But if we give in to every bully with lawyers, what will our town become?
Sincerely
Dennis Mowbray
Avenue
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
421
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
422
orientation of the main entrance.
ADU: The proposal in question on April 19 included the conversion of the existing garage to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). In the narrative for the current proposal, the applicant states that the redesign responds to the Commission's "specific direction" on April 19 to remove the second story or the ADU. It's not clear that the Commission made such a stark choice. But the applicant chose to remove the ADU, despite his lawyer's statements at that meeting that the State of California favors ADUs and that the proposal should therefore be accommodated. Neighbors expressed support for the ADU, and to our knowledge, no one in the neighborhood opposes it. Still, the applicant removed the ADU from the plans, even though an ADU would be an asset to the property, the neighborhood, and the community at large, and the applicant does not need the second story as he does not plan to live in the house.
In conclusion: We support the improvement of the one-story house. We support the addition of an ADU. We oppose a second story addition to the house.
Thank you for your attention.
Herb Miller
Holly Gadsby
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
423
Rosalind Jackson & Terry Curley
San Anselmo, CA 94960
April 14, 2021
San Anselmo Planning Commision
525 San Anselmo Ave
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Re: Proposed Remodel at 9 Laurel Ave
Dear Planning Commission,
We live at , which shares a property line with 9 Laurel Ave. We are writing today to again respectfully request that you reject the 9 Laurel remodel project as proposed given the negative impact that a development of this scale would have on our property’s privacy and light as well as the character of the neighborhood.
Regarding privacy, we want to express particular concern about the likely acoustic privacy impacts of having a second-story deck off of the master bedroom at 9 Laurel that would be located in close proximity to our side yard and our bedroom – both spaces where we especially value privacy and quiet. Living in close quarters already with our neighbors, we know how easily sound carries between our small properties. This deck, ostensibly designed to be a place for the future dwellers to use before bed and upon waking up, is very likely to be a particular source of nuisance noise for us. We have raised concerns about this particular design feature multiple times and have yet to see it addressed in the proposed design. We also continue to have concerns about the effectiveness and longevity of tall plantings as a solution to obstructing views from the proposed second story into our home and yard.
As for sunlight, we consider every square foot of our property usable living space, and having made a move from San Francisco to seek out better weather and outdoor living in San Anselmo, we especially prize our little home’s yard. The proposal talks about minimal shadows cast on our building during the required 9 AM- 3 PM period, but we ask the Commission to also consider the impact on sunlight in our side yard, which is an area of our small property that we highly value and regularly use as an extension of our home – for grilling, dining and gathering with friends. If approved, the shadows and sightlines from this project would have a meaningful, negative impact on our enjoyment of this outdoor space and our quality of life.
Finally, the mass of this project remains out of character with our neighborhood of predominantly small single-story homes on small lots. The latest proposal now meets the FAR requirement, that reduction in square footage has been achieved by removing a planned ADU that can instead be added later without Commission review – but leaves the issue of primary ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
424
concern, the two-story expansion, largely untouched. we highly value the role that the smaller properties of our neighborhood play in enabling first-time buyers, those living on fixedincomes, and others to be able to call our community home amidst the Bay Area’s affordability crisis. Instead, this proposal still seeks to maximize square footage and developer profits at the expense of the neighbors and our town’s important stock of small-but-charming starter homes.
We fully support smart property improvements at 9 Laurel, but it should not come at the cost of a rare opportunity for affordability in our community, the charm of our unique neighborhood, and the well-being of the property’s immediate neighbors. Again, we urge you to reject this plan and to encourage the developer to work with his neighbors to improve his property with a one-story expansion / improvement that does not have negative impacts on those surrounding 9 Laurel.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rosalind Jackson and Terrence Curley
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
425
Matthew & Colleen Noel Sent Via Email
94960
September 15, 2021
San Anselmo Planning Commission
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Dear Planning Commission Representatives:
This letter is to oppose the permit application for 9 Laurel Avenue by Hassan Afrookteh and Brooke Petersen (“Developers”.) Preliminarily, we would like to note that we still have not received a response from the Developers or their attorney as to whether they intend on encroaching on or demolishing the existing fence between 15 Laurel Avenue and 9 Laurel Avenue. This is an issue that we feel should be addressed at the public hearing set for September 20, 2021 since we still do not know whether this will have to be litigated. The Planning Commission previously stated that this was a consideration in evaluating proposed projects and a concrete answer to this inquiry would be probative as part of such an evaluation.
In addition, it also needs to be noted that several vertical PVC pipes (aka “story poles”) have been allowed to remain erected at the subject property since February, 2020 (nineteen months.) There appears to be no reason why these poles could not have been taken down and re-erected throughout the Developers’ various iterations of their proposed project.
However, since the poles remain erected, we strongly encourage all of the members of the Planning Commission to visit our property so that you can personally view the impact that this proposal, as presently constituted, would impact our property and the surrounding neighborhood. We are also authorized to make this request on behalf of Fran Farmer (5 Laurel Avenue), Chris Braun (8 Laurel Avenue #2) and Rosalind Jackson and Terry Curley (1055 San Anselmo Avenue.) These are the homes most directly impacted by the proposed project.
Regarding the revised plan, salespeople sometimes use a tactic called “door in the face” where they try to sell a customer something that they know will be rejected. After the salesperson is rejected, they then present something more moderate which looks more reasonable relative to what was originally offered. That is precisely what transpired here. The Developers initially presented something that bordered on the absurd in their initial plans. Although we acknowledge that the Developers have made modifications to their proposal, the current proposed design should have been the starting point as opposed to a finished product.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
426
We maintain that the proposed project is simply not in line with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed structure is simply too large in scale in relation to the other homes in the neighborhood and is a complete overbuild for the lot.
Further, the impact on our family’s air (our view of the sky will be significantly impacted to the north of our property) and privacy (the project’s second story windows provide a clear view of our back deck), we object to the proposed plan. Please see the attached photos which demonstrate the project’s impact on our home.
While we certainly appreciate the fact that the Developers have an interest in making improvements to the property, we feel that the adverse impact on the neighbors should outweigh the interests of property developers who have made it clear that their primary goal is to profit off of this project. They can still reap a tremendous profit by completing a tasteful one-story remodel that does not adversely impact the air, privacy and light rights of the surrounding neighbors.
Finally, please consider that there is not one person in the immediate neighborhood who is supportive of this proposal. Please further consider that at the previous hearing, practically all of those who spoke in favor of the project did not reside in the neighborhood, let alone San Anselmo.
View from the rear deck at 15 Laurel Avenue
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
427
View from the rear deck at 15 Laurel Avenue
View from the driveway at 15 Laurel Avenue
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
428
View from the street of 15 Laurel Avenue adjacent to 9 Laurel Avenue Sincerely,
Matthew, Colleen and Claire Noel
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
429
From: Jerri Linn
To: Planning
Subject: Questions about the decisions
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:15:34 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
To Commissioners Elise Semonian, David Swaim, Thomas Tunny, Susan Cronk, Tim Helman,
Leila Hilmi, Daniel Krebs, and Gary Smith,
As someone who witnessed the planning commission’s decisions about the proposed plans for 26 Rutherford and 9 Laurel Ave remodel, I was struck by the inconsistency with your findings, therefore I would love to know how you came to those decisions.
In the Rutherford deck expansion, you seemed to be concerned primarily with the impact it had on the immediate neighbors so you asked for modifications. In the 9 Laurel decision, your biggest concern was the variance request and not how it adversely impacted the three neighboring home owners. Especially how it greatly diminished the existing light for #5 Laurel. That seemed to not only reduce the property value but also the ability of the owner to be part of the clean energy initiative in California. Also the fact that there are legal challenges to the property lines of the neighboring property seems to be important.
Granted, the proponents and some of the opponents of these plans were primarily focused on the aesthetics of the building, and were overwhelming, I would have thought that the adverse effects of the 9 Laurel remodel on the adjacent neighbors would be an important reason to have the developer rework his plans, especially because he clearly stated that he doesn’t want to live there and his main focus is to maximize his profit either by renting or selling the property.
So, could you please enlighten me on the criteria that the commission bases it’s decisions on? I am sincerely confused and would love a response to my questions.
Thank you, Jerri Linn
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
430
From: Marstin Tallant
To: Fran FARMER; CALDWELL; Michael Ferrelli; Jerri & Terry LINN; Terrence Curley; Rosalind Jackson; Bradly Long; Herb & Holly MILLER; Dennis Mowbray; Jerri Linn; MARSTIN C TALLANT; Elise Semonian Subject: REQUEST Shade Studies for 9 Laurel
Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:36:42 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
We, the above group, request a more thorough shade study as it will show additional shade cast from 9 Laurel building that is not apparent from the shade study provided by Hassan Afrooktah, the developer. We also request larger, single page shadow studies. Those provided are much too small to extract any meaningful data. SunCalc does not reveal the type of study the developer provided. We need an explanation of how the developer used the SunCalc program to project the shadows he provided.
Sincerely, Marstin Tallant
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
431
From: Christopher Braun
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: Shade Studies for 9 Laurel 3rd proposal
Date: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:11:53 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Elise,
In working with some other members of our neighborhood on the SunCalc tool which Hassan used to calculate his shade studies,
we would like you to ask Hassan to present an explanation as to our concerns about its accuracy.
We think Hassan’s presentation should include the planning commission also.
We are simply asking for clarification to extend the times beyond 3 PM and before 9 AM.
Marstin Tallant has contacted Hassan 3 times for clarification and information and he has never gotten back to him.
We think this is important to the main issues involving his proposal and would be helpful for everybody to be on the same page.
We hope that he will comply and could you pleaae get back to me with what he says.
Thank you very much,
Chris Braun
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
432
From: Christopher Braun
To: Elise Semonian
Subject: shadow study clarifications.
Date: Sunday, September 12, 2021 11:47:15 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Elise, this an expert from Marstin Tallant’s letter to the planning commission:
On page 9 of his “Application Materials” item no. 7, he states “Studies of existing and proposed shadows (sheets A20 and A23) are visualizations of data collected from Suncal.org taken on the first days of spring, summer, autumn and winter at 9Am, 12noon and 3PM. Looking at the referenced sheets indicate they on NOT the first days as the developer states, but are all taken on the 21st of the each quarter. Omitted are the times of day for 6 AM, 6 PM and 9 PM. The times chosen maximize solar panel efficiency. Looking at the later times one finds shadows creeping over 5 Laurel and 1055 San Anselmo Avenue homes in the afternoon. This two-story proposal deprives those homes of light and sun. We have requested, on three different occasions, shadow studies for those additional three times. We have had no response from the developer. The developer needs to make his shade studies clearer by including those new times, and enlarging the drawings such that one picture covers an entire page. It is very difficult to read the shadows due to colors he has chosen. What does he have to hide? To help us understand the developer's shade studies using SunCalc..org (the program he included in a letter), the developer needs to demonstrate to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission how to use this program. An architect has access to more sophisticated shade studies that we can afford. Regarding the figures he cites for light and reduction . . . (1) Are there any errors? (2) How would we know? (3) Has he purposefully gamed the system to favor his proposal? (4) How would we know?
See "Findings for Design Review" submitted by the developer. In response to statement no. 7, page 9, the developer cites the amount of sunlight affected. In actuality, on December 21 the entire house of 5 Laurel is swept by shade. And the shadow cast at noon is 45.47 ft not the 30.3 feet he indicates. Big mistake. How did he arrive at
30.3 feet? Show us. How many more errors are there?
On page 9, of the “Application Materials,” the developer indicates that the "shadow studies show no impact to 15 Laurel and 1055 San Anselmo Ave during those times.' If you look at the shadow studies after 3PM, which is not "one of those times," you will find, surprise, shadows, particularly on 1055 San Anselmo Ave. The developer's studies are smoke and shadow to obfuscate the truth.
Perhaps, in addition to explaining how to best use SunCal, the developer might create a simple animation to show shadows around 9 Laurel Ave. as thy proceed through the year or in the least, each quarter on the 21st for each of 6 daylight periods sunrise to sunset!
Elise, This email is backing Marstin Tallant about getting the develeper to explain the discrepancies in his shade studies ,,At the last planning commission zoom meeting I mentioned these times 6AM, 6PM,& 9PM, with photos of the sun early in the morning behind the story poles. This was ignored as were, the shade, privacy and light issues,because the focus of the commission was on the size, that the proposal was too big for the lot. On that front the whole issue has always been the obvious point that this huge addition of a second story absolutely does not fit into our neighborhood of small one story houses, and all the problems it causes, privacy, light & air, among others.This proposal as everyone knows is even taller than my apartment building. In using his tool, SunCalc now we find discrepencies to his shade calculations. Also They are on the 21st of every quarter, not the 1st as he says.. The demolition of the ADU bring the privacy air and shade issues back and now are more important, why he has made such an effort to solve them. Well there are still issues with them, EX) the shade from the privacy hedges. I am asking the developer to put his best foot forward and explain why in using the same tool SunCalc we find different lengths of shadows. Also if Marstin has asked to make them clearer that is not a big or unfair thing at all to ask of him. We ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
433
are dealing with peoples lives, investments in homes, not expected to be so adversely affected by a plan that does not follow the town plan and ordinances. This is completely clear. You know as a neighborhood we have tried from the very beginning to work with the developer as he is coming into our neighborhood protected by the town plan and ordinances. Privacy,Light and Air are issues his second story effects so dramatically causing drastic measures he is trying to take to eliminate them, even to the point of leaving out windows on the south side.
The question is are they successful. Well in the shade studies we have found some real dicreamcies. I feel that this a chance for him to put his best foot forward and explain how he arrived at them. On a logical note, I understand the town requires the times of 9AM, noon, & 3PM , but what about the other times of the day? Why are they excluded? In using SunCalc it shows clearly issues of shade were the develeper says there is none. He would go a long way to mending his actions over this time by coming forward, how he arrived at his present studies ,on the 21st of each quarter not the1st like he says. The additional times not required by the town create shadow issues so they should be looked at, and brought to the attention of of the commission without question if the rights the of residents are being considered. Isn’t that what the Town Plan and different ordinaces are for? if they as they are going to really affect peoples lives which they will, why not look at them.I honestly hope he will step forward, and comply with our asking him to explain the discrepancies we found. They are going to come out anyway. Why not? It's simply being honest, and if there is no problem then he will be helping himself. It is just simple clarification.
Thank you very much,
Chris Braun
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 6
434
MINUTES
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 20, 2021
This meeting was conducted via Zoom.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Leyla Hilmi, Daniel Krebs, Gary Smith, David Swaim, Thomas Tunny.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Susan Cronk, Tim Heiman.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Swaim called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
There were no comments from the public.
3. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
Elise Semonian told the Commissioners that 52 Austin is no longer being heard tonight and that the state legislature passed SB 9, allowing duplex development in single-family residential zones and subdivision of single-family lots.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/s Krebs/Smith to approve the August 16, 2021, minutes. The motion carried 5-0 (Cronk and Heiman absent).
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 9 LAUREL AVENUE DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES Request for design review for a 536 square foot upper story addition to the existing single-family residence. The existing garage and driveway would be demolished. A variance is requested to allow one parking space to be created in the north side setback (8-foot side setback required). A second tandem space would be legally located within the front and side setbacks. The Planning Commission will also consider a variance to allow an area of pavers in the front setback to be used for an additional, undersized, parking space. A demolition permit is requested since the project includes removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls (54.3% demolition proposed, which includes garage walls). A variance is requested to maintain the existing lower level of the structure 15.94’ to
18.97’ from the front property line (20-foot setback required for over 50% demolition). The maximum building height would be 24’ 8" (up to 30 feet allowed).
Lot Size 3,983 sq. ft. Existing Lot Coverage 1,317 sq. ft. 33% Proposed Lot Coverage 1,247 sq. ft. 31% (up to 35% allowed) Existing Adjusted Floor Area (FAR) 1,039 sq. ft.
26.1% Proposed FAR 1,783 sq. ft. 44.8% (maximum allowed 45% +325 sq. ft. with design review)
Planning Director Elise Semonian presented the staff report and recommended approval of the project based on the findings and conditions in the staff report.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
435
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
2 Chair Swain asked Elise Semonian about the afternoon on December 23 in the shadow study.
Semonian suggested having the applicant address the shadow study question.
Brooke Peterson, co-applicant, indicated that they have been residents of San Anselmo for 24 years and they are hurt by statements that say they are outsiders that have nefarious aims to make a quick profit and show no regard for the neighborhood. Their intent is to update and transform a small 80-year-old structure with two bedrooms into a still small but updated, tasteful, charming and welcoming home that complements the town and the neighborhood.
Hassan Afrookteh, co-applicant, indicated that the drawings are not remarkably different than what they presented in April but include these changes:
• Removing the ADU so they could bring the house within the 45% maximum FAR and not ask for the FAR exception. He believed the house qualified for the FAR exception. • Demolishing the garage to bring the house in compliance with the lot coverage ratio of 35%.
• More articulated south facade to break up that façade. • Front door moved to face the streets and away from 15 Laurel. • Privacy fence, since the garage is removed.
• Podocarpus for screen planting, fast growing effective evergreen screen plant He reviewed the shadow study. There is little impact in spring. A shadow from just the top of the peak his 55 Laurel at 3 pm. In summer, there is no impact. September is almost identical to March. On the shortest days of the year. He took raw data from an online sun calculator Sun Calc. Users input date, time, location and height and receive a shadow multiplier. So, for 3 pm, the shadow links multiplier for this site is 3.35. So, an object one foot tall will cast a shadow
3.35 feet tall. The underlying line data is the existing height of the house various elements of the house, and what the online application indicates the sun is doing. It is just mathematics.
His position is that yes, there is an impact. But no, it is not a significant impact. Because over the course of the entire year, it is only at the shortest times that there is any impact. He tried to quantify the time differences based on how many hours of daylight there are and came up with percentages. The biggest impact was 15% on the shortest day of the year.
Chair Swaim opened the public comment period.
Matt Noel, adjacent neighbor on Laurel, told the commission that the themes and their conversations with the applicants have all been about profits. They are seeking a second story for profit and the applicants have threaten legal action against them. They are objecting to the structure, and it is nothing personal against the applicants. They appreciate that the applicants want to improve the property. They feel strongly that the proposal with its second story will have a significant impact on their privacy and view of the sky to the north. They submitted photos to depict the impact. The project is not aligned with the character of the neighborhood.
It is too large and out of scale with other homes in the neighborhood, which are primarily single-story cottage style homes built in the early 1900s. They believe the applicants can achieve their long-term goal of profit with a tasteful one-story remodel that does not have ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
436
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
3 adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbors. They would like to know if the applicants intend on encroaching on or demolishing the existing fence between the sites and removing their deck, as previously threatened.
Fran Farmer, 28-year resident of adjacent site on Laurel, stated that the shadow the proposed project will cast on her house is excessive and will devalue her quality of life and property value. She also stated that if this project is approved, it will violate the town general plan expressed in Land Use Goals one and two, the land use map, object 11, policy 11.1, and San Anselmo housing element H2.2. She reviewed images of existing conditions and the story poles.
She indicated views of the sky and trees would be eliminated completely and an immense amount of shade would be cast onto her house. Currently, even in the winter, the sun clears the current roofline, and she has sun coming in her windows all year round. She believed the photos showing actual sunlight on the side of her house and coming in her windows is much more definitive and accurate than the shadow study. She indicated the structure would shade her house four and a half hours in the winter. She questioned the accuracy of the developer’s shade study. She urged them to deny the project and require a single story.
Terry Curly, adjacent property to rear of project site on San Anselmo Avenue, stated the second story will look down on their side yard where they entertain on a regular basis. It also looks down on four of their home’s windows. It will affect their privacy. Tall plants cannot mitigate noise or privacy issues. The drought may preclude planting the screening. The second story will directly affect them with sound and the deck at the rear looks through multiple backyards. He questioned the shadow study and indicated the addition would shade their side yard where they grow tomatoes. He supports smart property improvements, but they should not come at the cost of others in the community. He opposed the project with a second story but would be open to a project that includes the use of the garage to gain square footage. They appeal for consideration of the second-floor deck that is over their bedroom and side yard, which is of particular concern to them for its impact on noise and privacy.
Chris Braun, 8 Laurel, Apt 2, said that the proposed project would affect his privacy, light, and air, and it goes against the codes of the town of San Anselmo. He has a view of trees and sky it will be changed into a blank wall with four windows. The second story does not fit into the neighborhood is far too tall and five feet four inches taller than his apartment building. He disputes the developers shade study and says he tried to contact the applicant, but he never responded.
Marstin Tallant, 31 Rowland Court, presented his shadow study using SunCalc. He showed the commission how the proposed project would affect the light that reaches the houses around 9 Laurel Avenue. He was concerned with loss of light, compromised views and loss of privacy for the neighbors. He believed the shade studies should be conducted on the 21st day of each quarter. He is concerned that it does reasonably impair light and air structures on neighboring properties. It will affect the privacy of the neighbors and will be of a bulk and massive design that does not complement the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods. He also voiced his opposition to the mini parking spot that was proposed.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
437
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
4 Jerri Lynn, Laurel resident, stated she is not directly impacted by the developers building, but she supports him remodeling the property and would support him enlarging it by building out rather than up. She added that Fran’s quality of life and ability to work is going to be impacted so she is against the second story of the project.
Herb Miller, 16 Laurel, said he opposes the second story addition to 9 Laurel and stated that there are no two-story houses on the block. He liked that the recommendation from staff to move the main entrance from the side of the house to the front of the house and that an ADU is a good idea. The applicant should not be allowed to alter a neighborhood they do not want to live in.
Jo Ann Hartley, 43-year resident of Hazel Avenue, said that the proposed changes do not suit the neighborhood. She suggested an addition to the front or back that does not impede the lifestyle of surrounding residents.
Bradly Long, Laurel, speaking for himself and resident Michael stated that light can be and is beneficial to one's mental wellbeing. He said they are living in a community and there are consequences to their actions. The consequence of the proposed renovation is that the neighbors will be negatively impacted not only their fiscal impact, but also their mental health impact. The project will shade the neighbors and intrude on their privacy. His view of the morning sky will be obstructed. He wondered if the applicant actually asked the neighbor how she feels about her office being put into complete shade. He believed this would place a “box” in the neighborhood and it is not a tasteful design like the quaint cottages of the neighborhood.
They respectfully requested that the current renovation plan not be approved.
Terry Sozanski, Laurel Avenue, said that the proposed remodel will negatively impact neighbors light, air and privacy and urged the Commission to reject the second story proposal.
Michael Ferrelli expressed his concerns that the owner has done nothing to improve the site in many years and there is not one plant in the yard. The design will be a square box with two windows and not an improvement. He urged the Commission to deny the project.
Ellen Coldwell, 27 resident of Laurel Avenue, said that the project will negatively affect her light and air. It is important to take into consideration the surrounding neighbors that are impacted by this project. She would support variances for a single story. Keep the project in the character of the neighborhood. They should consider keeping starter homes for people and not pricing them out.
Leon, San Anselmo Avenue resident, stated that he supports everyone that has spoken out against the proposed project.
Hassan Afrookteh, co-applicant, indicated the neighbor’s shadow study is not accurate and overstates the height of the project. He addressed the photos provided of 5 Laurel and stated that the photos do not give an accurate representation of the shadows and how they will affect the neighbors. He said that the photos do not disprove his shadow study because the photos ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
438
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
5 are not taken at the same time as the shadow study he provided. He also addressed Matt Noel’s concerns and stated that Noel threatened him with adverse possession. His site plan is based on a recorded survey. He said the proposed project would not cast a shadow on 15 Laurel. The upper-level deck is off a bedroom, arguably the most private part of any house and not associated with excessive noise. He said it was very unlikely nuisance noise would come from a bedroom. What is likely is that nuisance noise would come from a gathering in the side yard of the neighbor’s site into the bedroom. “Character of the neighborhood” is the most ambiguous phrase that there can be. Every time there is a hearing the neighbors mob them and control the narrative and limit discussion.
Commissioner Hilmi asked what the plate height of the bedroom is. Hassan Afrookteh responded that the plate height is 7 foot 4 inches in the mechanical room.
Chair Swaim closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Smith asked that if they were to step forward into 2022, would they still have the flexibility to try to manage this to a smaller project of a single unit building without having an ADU on the same lot. Elise Semonian stated that if there was no renter for three years then they could avoid design review under new state legislation. If the site did not have a tenant for 3 years, then they could build additional units on the site.
Commissioner Smith stated that he agrees with the planning department recommendation, both for the parking variance and the variance for the existing structure. He said he walked around the site and the neighborhood to see if the proposed project would fit into the neighborhood. There is a lot of variation from split levels to full two stories to very small cottages and the variation in the type of homes creates the character of the neighborhood, and they are all attractive
Commissioner Krebs indicated the applicant has taken into consideration many of their concerns. He appreciates the neighbors and their strong opposition. The project triggers very strong emotions for neighbors, many of whom have lived there 25 to 40 years. A change like this is very difficult to accept. People do have a right to build on their homes to a certain limit, and they do have a right to make money off those properties. He does not think that the applicants not living in the home should disqualify them from being allowed to make changes, but he understands that if someone lives there, they have more sensitivity to the impact changes have on neighbors. He believed it will have a material impact on the light for 5 Laurel and privacy for 15 Laurel. He questioned if a second floor is reasonable under the circumstances. Whether the design fits the character of the neighborhood depends on if you consider the immediate neighborhood or further out. There are no second floors near the site but many further out. He is frustrated by the conflict and uncertainty of the various shadows studies and does not have a good sense of which ones are accurate.
Commissioner Tunny stated he is torn on this one too and agreed with points made by Commissioners Smith and Krebs. He indicated it is hard to make the design review findings. On the other hand, it is eight feet taller than the existing home and approximately 20 by 25 feet on ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
439
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
6 the second floor. It is a 1,700 square foot home, which is still modest. It is a great opportunity for some small families in a great neighborhood. But there are significant impacts on more than one neighbor. The design is a little bit wonky since they are working with the existing building.
He liked the materials and believed it will look better than other “McMansions” in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hilmi agreed that it is a difficult decision. She tries to look forward to another 100 years and how the neighborhood might look. It is hard to be the first second story. There are numerous two-story buildings in the area and no restriction on two stories in San Anselmo.
She felt the design was bulky given that they are trying to do two stories in a neighborhood that does not currently have two story buildings. If one of their neighbors were to add a story, then it would start to fit in. But they are the first and that does impact how the neighborhood looks.
She noted that a design that could pass as a single story would be far more appropriate, such as one and a half stories where there is a steep pitch roof with dormers and the roof slopes away from the neighbors and there are no tall walls. The shade study is just science, and it should not matter what day of the year studies are done so long as they are not doctored. She questioned the town’s policy on rights to light from the side of a house and if people have more right to light and views at the front and rear sides of a structure. Her understanding is that variances are for exceptional circumstances due to the physical constraints of a site. This lot is a little on the small side, but it does not actually qualify for the exception. That the survey indicates part of the land is on the neighboring site could help them to avoid a variance if the lot is narrower.
She would like to be consistent with other decisions. She believes the upper level could be tightened up and smaller and still be an effective master bedroom of, for example, around 14 feet by 14 feet. She did not believe the design is there yet. She would like to see a shade study done by an outside party who is not connected with either the neighbors or the owners.
Chair Swaim agrees that it is a difficult decision. He appreciated the applicant’s efforts to modify the design in response to their concerns. He is concerned about the impact on neighbors, especially 5 Laurel because of how the light would be affected, and on 15 Laurel. He did not believe a second story is in keeping with the neighborhood currently. He does not think he would be able to approve this project.
Commissioner Krebs said a small lot does not constitute a special circumstance. The House is a fairly modest size at 1,700 square feet. He did not prefer the design but does not believe every design has to be craftsmen. It could be a little bit more articulated in some ways. He supported Commissioner Hilmi’s idea of making the upper floor a little smaller. If it was in a sloped roof, it might have less of an impact on light, but that may not make a big difference in privacy. He agreed it would be good to have a professional shade or shadow study done to help them understand the impact. But the project will have an impact on 5 Laurel just given the small size of these lots.
Commissioner Hilmi stated that if you live downtown in a dense neighborhood, privacy is not necessarily a given, even if you had it when you bought the site. There will be changes. She believed they should explore any ways to reduce the shading. She said that the applicants being developers is completely irrelevant.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
440
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
7 Commissioner Krebs agreed with Commissioner Hilmi about the applicants being developers and her opinion on privacy. On small sites residents will hear neighbors talking and that is just part of living in a neighborhood.
Commissioner Tunny asked Commissioner Hilmi about reducing the upper level. Commissioner Hilmi answered that she thinks it can still be reduced somewhat and still be a nice upstairs bedroom. She is not considering the financial benefits and whether it is worth doing the project if it is reduced.
Commissioner Smith said that on San Anselmo Avenue three houses over there are two story homes in a row. On Roland Court there are two story homes. They are close together and have very little privacy. The design looks boxy and awkward, which is a trade off with houses of that style on a lot this size.
Chair Swaim asked Elise Semonian if she looked into what they could do with a single story on the lot. Semonian indicated they are very limited by the lot coverage limit. She said that the neighbors said they would support a variance to allow the applicants to keep their house one story, but she does not know if that would be possible to make the findings, because it would have to be a very big variance.
Commissioner Krebs stated that he is leaning towards not approving the project as submitted.
Commissioner Hilmi agreed that she would also vote no to approving the project. She acknowledged that she is looking at the project for the first time and was mindful that the applicant has been to prior hearings. But she just did not believe the design is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Smith said he supports the planning departments recommendation to approve the project and it meets the criteria that the owners were given to work with.
Commissioner Tunny stated he is leaning against approving the project, but he said that the applicant was responsive to what they said last time, and now he would like to find ways to give them direction to continue working on this.
Chair Swaim asked Elise Semonian if they can ask the applicants if they would like to continue the project or if they want the commissioners to vote right now. Hassan Afrookteh and Brooke Peterson asked what continuing the project would entail.
Chair Swaim answered that the light and air and privacy issue with the two-story is his biggest concern. He said it may be more than just a tweak, and a complete redesign.
Hassan Afrookteh indicated they redesigned twice to fit within all the town requirements that are outside of opinion. The only exception requested is for moving the parking from one side to the other. So, he was unclear what direction there is for the design. He asked if the Commission considered all the mitigation measures for privacy issues.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
441
Planning Commission September 20, 2021
8 Chair Swaim said they need to get a shadow study from an outside source.
Commissioner Hilmi said that they could try a one and a half story house to have less of an impact on the neighbors. She said there is a bit of space on the ground level they could try to work with.
Hassan Afrookteh responded that a one and a half story house would not work. One the roof pitches are brought together there is not adequate ceiling height. That is why they proposed the low walls. They cannot lower the wall on the stairs, and they have no room to relocate the stairs.
Chair Swaim said they may not be able to give the applicants direction with this plan and asked of they should just take a vote.
Semonian would not be able to help the applicant with revising the project based on what she had heard. A major change would be required. She suggested voting but staff should consider returning with a resolution in writing.
Krebs said that he does not see a tweak that would have the commission approve the project.
Commissioner Hilmi and Commissioner Tunny discussed reducing the second story to be able to approve the project, but Commissioner Hilmi was not in favor of designing a new project for them at the meeting.
M/s Krebs/Heiman to deny the application since the design will have a material impact on the light and privacy of the neighbors and they cannot find special circumstances for the parking variance. The motion carried 4-1 (Smith opposed and Cronk and Heiman absent).
Chair Swaim announced the ten-day appeal period.
6. ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Krebs asked about the Q & A option in the zoom meeting and said they should remove that feature. It was noted that the comments made in the Q & A were completely inappropriate and unacceptable.
7. ADJOURN
Chair Swaim adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
442
1 MINUTES
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 18, 2021
This meeting was conducted via Zoom.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Tim Heiman, Thomas Tunny, Leyla Hilmi, Gary Smith, Susan Cronk.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair David Swaim, Daniel Krebs.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Tim Heiman 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 noted that the Town Council appointed Jennifer Asselstine to the planning commission and reappointed Tim Heiman.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
5. 9 LAUREL AVENUE - Resolution memorializing the Planning Commission’s September 20, 2021, findings to deny design review, variances and demolition permit application for 9 Laurel Avenue.
The applicant read a letter dated October 18, 2021, from his attorney John E. Sharp to Elise Semonian, Planning Director. Semonian indicated that if the draft resolution does not reflect the decision that they made, they can suggest modifications to staff. They also do not need to take any action on the resolution and the record from the meeting would stand. She recommended approval of the resolution so that the Town Council has written findings from the Planning Commission. It was noted that only four of the seven planning commissioners that were at the September meeting are present.
The applicant indicated that he felt that he was provided direction by the Planning Commission, and he followed it. He believed the decision was arbitrary. The commissioners discussed the resolution.
There was no motion to approve the resolution.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 570 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Request for a conditional use permit to sell alcohol for a proposed retail wine store. 9 LAUREL AVENUE
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
443
Planning Commission April 19, 2021 Minutes
3 Goodwin, applicant, informed the commissioners that there are many neighbors that do support their plans and have no problems with the roof deck.
Commissioner Tunny closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Heiman stated that tearing down the shed just to make just to bring it under a threshold for design review is unnecessary even though it makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint. He said the shed does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He stated that the only thing they can do is minimize the deck and he would like to see dimensions for the smaller deck. He would like to make the deck smaller and be moved further away from the front roof edge. He agrees that the plants along the railing to protect privacy are temporary and can be changed so they do not guarantee privacy for neighbors.
Commissioner Krebs stated he will approve the trellis and agrees that the shed does not have to be removed because it does not impact the neighbors. He stated he believes that the roof deck needs to be reduced.
Commissioner Smith said he appreciates the architecture but recognizes that the mass of the building is not in sync with the mass of other structures in the neighborhood. He does not think that trellis or shed are an issue. He agrees with his fellow commissioners to further modify the deck and mitigate the consequences and reduce the impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cronk said the shed has a very minimal impact. She agrees with the applicants that the railing will finish off the design and create a balance. She also stated that if the all the commissioners want to reduce the deck, they could give the applicant specific modifications so they d not have to come back to another public hearing.
Commissioner Tunny stated he agrees about the shed and the trellis being approved and agrees with Commissioner Cronk about the railing. He thinks it a matter of pulling the east edge back towards the structure.
M/s Heiman/Cronk to approve the application including the trellis and allowing the existing shed to remain and the addition with a modification to the proposed roof deck such that the rail along the south elevation be moved back such that it is no more than six feet from the face of the addition. The motion carried 7-0.
Commissioner Tunny announced the ten day appeal period.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
A. 9 LAUREL AVENUE Public hearing to consider application for design review for an upper story addition to the existing single-family residence and an exception to allow the addition to be 274 sq. ft. over the maximum adjusted floor area. A lot coverage variance is necessary for the addition, which exceeds the maximum 35% lot coverage ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
444
Planning Commission April 19, 2021 Minutes
4 by 136 square feet. A setback variance and design review are requested to allow parking spaces to be created in the front and side setbacks in the northwest area of the site. The existing garage would be converted into an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Lot Size 3,983 sq. ft.
Existing Lot Coverage 1,317 sq. ft. 33%
Proposed Lot Coverage 1,530 sq. ft. 38.4%
Existing Adjusted Floor Area 1,039 sq. ft. 26.1%
Elise Semonian presented the staff report and answered commissioner questions.
Hassan Afrrookteh, applicant, further explained the plans for his property.
John Sharp stated that there is nothing in the ADU law that says a person has to consider an ADU separately.
Commissioner Heiman asked for the elevation of the wrap around deck.
Afrookteh answered a little over two feet.
Commissioner Heiman asked what is in the utility room.
Afrookteh answered that part of it is storage and it was be used as a laundry room as well.
Commissioner Tunny opened up the public comment period.
Fran Farmer, neighbor at 5 Laurel, stated that the project would adversely affect the light coming into her home which would devalue her quality of life and her property value. She also stated that approving this project would set a precedent that would put all starter homes in jeopardy. She offered a solution that the commissioners approve a variance for the applicant to add a modest addition to the back of the home.
Matthew Noel, neighbor at 15 Laurel, would like the applicant to make a two-story house that looks like a one-story house. He stated that approving this project will take away the charm of the neighborhood and encourage future property owners to take similar measures to maximize profits.
Rosalind Jackson, neighbor at 1055 San Anselmo, stated her primary concerns are overbuilding on lot, privacy and sound concerns and what else will come next for a project of this size considering how the property owner has gone about the project so far. Her husband said he was concerned that the ADU would become a main living space.
Chris Braun, neighbor at 8 Laurel, stated that the project will create lighting issues for his home and is uncharacteristic for the neighborhood. He also stated that the addition will create parking issues because more people would live in the house meaning there will be more cars.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
445
Planning Commission April 19, 2021 Minutes
5 Marstin Tallant, neighbor at 31 Rowland, informed the council that the project will contribute to the drain in the neighborhood clogging and cause flooding. He opposes the project.
Herb Miller, neighbor at 16 Laurel, oppose the project. He stated it is too big for the lot and uncharacteristic of the neighborhood.
Ellen Caldwell, neighbor at 25 Laurel, presented photos of other houses in the neighborhood in order to show the bungalow theme that the project would not fall into.
Jerri Linn and Terry Sozanski, neighbors at 20 Laurel, stated that other two-story houses in the neighborhood have much bigger lots than the applicant’s lot.
Nancy Taylor, neighbor, stated that she thinks this is a modest proposal of a great development that improves the neighborhood. She is in favor of the project and does not think it impacts the adjacent houses as much.
Peter Pfau, neighbor, supports the position that staff outlined and thinks it is a big improvement over the previous plan.
Tracey, neighbor, supports the project and does not think it is fair or correct to say that the proposed addition will make the house uncharacteristic of the neighborhood when it is building across from an apartment building. She also does not think it is fair to be upset with the property owner about the process being slow.
Jason, neighbor, supports the project and stated that he was impressed by the owner’s changes in the second submission that addresses many neighbor concerns. He also questioned how someone is supposed to build a two-story house that looks like a one-story house. He stated it is a bad precedent to not allow the applicant to build a second story just because the neighbors do not want it.
Aviva Kamler, neighbor, stated that the bungalow homes are very unique to San Anselmo and does not believe a homeowner should be able to remodel their home to increase the value of their property while simultaneously decreasing the privacy, light and space of the surrounding homes. She also believes the proposed project is too big for the lot.
Leon Kouyoumjian, neighbor, stated that the proposed project is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood.
Al and his wife, neighbors, approve of the project because the applicant considered aesthetics.
Jo Ann Hartley, neighbor, suggested the applicant build out instead of up and hopes that the proposal is rejected.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
446
Planning Commission April 19, 2021 Minutes
6 Chris Braun, neighbor, stated that all the people that have spoken in support of the project are not taking into consideration the hardship that it is causing the adjacent neighbors.
David Broome, neighbor, supports the project and thinks it is a great aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. Also thinks not approving the project would set a dangerous precedent that an organized group of neighbors could prevent someone from improving their house.
Michael Ferrelli, neighbor, stated that only people that live on the street should have a say on the project.
John Sharp, applicant, stated the government mandate that affordable housing needs to be addressed which ADUs help with.
Commissioner Tunny closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Krebs stated that he still thinks that there are still problems with the project that need to be addressed, such as the size of the house compared to the lot. He is in favor of trying to promote ADUs but does not think that should allow people to expand beyond what the town allows.
Commissioner Cronk believes that the proposal has greatly improved. She also stated that the house is not bungalow style and does not think it is particularly attractive and could use improvement. She said that she is in support of the parking and setbacks as requested and the lot coverage variance is reasonable to her. She cannot get behind the exception of the FRA.
Commissioner Heiman stated that it would be very difficult for the applicant to add to the first story instead of adding a second story. He does not see a reason that could make him support the bonus to the FRA and thinks the project needs to be reworked. He suggests the secondfloor deck off the bedroom could be removed because it hinders privacy. He supports the other modifications of the plan that were suggested by staff and agreed to by the owner such as relocating the front door and eliminating the deck around the ADU. He is in favor of the variance for the two-car tandem parking in the front and side setback, but he is not in favor of the third parking space in the front setback. He is fine with the lot coverage.
Commissioner Smith stated there are elements of the proposal which could be refined and some of which can mitigate conflicts, specifically with the FRA. He does not see a reason for denial but agrees with Commissioner Heiman that the third stall of parking is not necessary.
Overall, he is in support of the staff opinion that this plan can be improved but he does not think it is unreasonable to seek a second-floor addition in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tunny stated he also does not like the third parking space and likes all of staff’s recommended changes. His main concern is the FRA and would like the applicant to get under the limit.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
447
Planning Commission April 19, 2021 Minutes
7 Hassan Afrookteh, applicant, said he will remove the ADU and come back with new plans but said he will go to the California Housing Authority, Office of Transparency and Compliance because he does not think what the commissioners are doing is legal.
Commissioner Cronk stated that no one is contesting the ADU and the applicant is welcome to go get a permit for it tomorrow.
Commissioner Tunny also wanted to clarify that even if they are not counting the ADU in the FAR that they are finding the main dwelling to be too large.
M/s Heiman/Cronk to continue the project and the applicant resubmits the plans taking into account the comments that have been made at the hearing and to keep it within the FAR. The motion carried 5-0.
B. 316 GREENFIELD AVENUE Public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application for a new 480 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) proposed partially within the 20-foot required setback from Greenfield Avenue (10- foot setback from property line proposed). Due to the width of the public right-ofway, the front wall of the ADU would be 21’ 3” from the sidewalk, in line with the main residence and neighboring development. The proposed ADU is setback 8 feet from the west side property line where a 4-foot setback is required.
Elise Semonian presented the staff report and answered commissioner questions.
James Alai, applicant, stated that the ADU is for his mother. He wants to keep the aesthetics and be in alignment with the other homes on the street and it keeps him from having to dig back into his hillside.
Commissioner Tunny opened up the public comment period.
Paul Nyulassie, architect, said he can do some architectural changes to the façade.
Cece, neighbor, stated that she and her husband are in total support of the project.
Commissioner Tunny closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Cronk appreciates the neighbor support and would like there to be design changes that could make it more street friendly.
Commissioner Krebs agrees with commissioner Cronk and would support her request to change some of the design elements facing the street.
M/s Krebs/Cronk to approve the staff report. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
448
Monday, January 06, 2020
Semonian presented the staff report. Staff included findings submitted by the applicant. The lot does have an unusual small size. Staff recommended approval of the minor exception and Planning Commission discussion of the variance findings. She answered commissioner questions.
Eric Spletzer, project applicant, presented the project and answered commissioner questions The majority of the Planning Commission supported the project and variance requested based on the small size of the deck area, the steepness of the slope, small lot size, location of a protected tree in an area that encumbers the property, and since no square footage is added to the house.
The project is a minor expansion of an existing deck at the front of the house that is not visible from the street and the privacy or views of the adjacent property owner are not being impacted.
M/s, Daniel Krebs, Matt Brasler, to approve the lot coverage variance and minor exception for the deck at 8 Island Drive subject to the conditions in the staff report. AYES: Tim Heiman, David Swaim, Pete Pedersen, Matt Brasler, Susan Cronk, Daniel Krebs. NOES: Bill Engelhardt.
ABSENT: None.
B. 9 LAUREL AVENUE - DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES, GRADING
PERMIT, FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION
Project Address: 9 Laurel Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Hassan Afrookteh
Assessor's Parcel No.: 007-112-11
Zoning District: Single Family Residential Below 150 MSL General Plan Designation:Single Family Residential
FEMA Flood Zone: Zone X (0.2%) - area inundated by 0.2% annual chance flooding.
Request: Design Review for an addition and substantial remodel to an existing single-family residence and for a Maximum Adjusted Floor Area Exception to allow the residence to be 319 sq. ft. over the maximum adjusted floor area.
The project would lift the existing first story to create a new second story.
Grading permit for 90 cubic yards of fill and 52 cubic yards of cut, primarily to elevate the level of the rear yard for drainage. Setback variance for new construction within the front setback and to increase the height of the existing structure in the front setback approximately 15 feet from the front property line (code: 20 feet). Variance to replace a legal non-conforming garage and second parking space in the rear and south side yard setbacks with a garage at the lower level of the residence, partially within the front setback, and to create a new uncovered space within the front and north side setbacks. The proposed height of the residence is 28 feet (code: 30 feet). Proposed materials include white board and batten siding, white vinyl trim, and light gray composition shingle roofing and cedar fencing.
Lot Size 3,983 sq. ft.
Existing Lot Coverage 1,312 sq. ft. 33%
Proposed Lot Coverage 1,347 sq. ft. 34% (code: 35%)
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
449
Monday, January 06, 2020
Existing Adjusted Floor Area 1,039 sq. ft. 26%
Proposed Adjusted Floor Area 2,111 sq. ft. 53% (code: 45% + 325 sq. ft.) Semonian presented the staff report and recommended denial of the project.
Hassan Afrookteh, the applicant, presented the project and answered commissioner questions.
Fran Farmer, Laurel Ave resident, expressed concerns regarding how her light and sun exposure will be affected by this new construction and the potential for mold and lack of solar energy possibilities due to shade.
Jerry Lynn, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concerns that the proposed project is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood and is too big.
Herb Miller, Laurel Ave resident, expressed concerns that the project does not fit well with the neighborhood as it is a big house on a small lot.
Terry Sozanski, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concern regarding the negative impact on neighbors with regards to privacy, light and air, and the project being out of character with the neighborhood.
Colleen Noel, Laurel Ave resident, expressed concern that the project does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood, overbuilds the lot and negatively impacts privacy, and light.
Steve Lamb, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concerns and echoed other residents' concerns.
Lamb questioned the content of the supplemental form for demolition that was submitted by the applicant.
Ellen Caldwell, Laurel Ave resident, expressed her concerns, specifically regarding drainage and grading.
Christopher Braun, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concerns, specifically about the proposed project blocking the sunlight and the sky to the apartment across the street.
Terry Curly, San Anselmo Ave resident, expressed his concerns regarding light, privacy, grading, and drainage.
Rosaline Jackson, San Anselmo Ave resident, expressed her concerns regarding the impact of the project on the community.
Matt Noel, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concerns regarding the overbuilding the lot, the project being out of character with the neighborhood, privacy, light and property line litigation.
Dennis Mowbray expressed his concerns about the project.
Michael Farrelli, Laurel Ave resident, expressed his concerns with regards to the project being out of character with the neighborhood.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
450
Monday, January 06, 2020
Leon, San Anselmo Ave resident, expressed his concerns with regards to the project being out of character with the neighborhood.
Patrick Torres Jr, on behalf of his parents living at Laurel Ave, expressed concerns with regards to the project being out of character with the neighborhood. He also mentioned concerns regarding drainage out to the street, parking, light, and noise.
The applicants responded.
Commissioner Brasler asked about the property line issues raises. The applicant said that they will have to take it to court or have the surveyors figure it out.
The majority of the commission indicated the design was out of character and scale with the neighborhood. They did not support the variances requested, although some indicated support for the setback variance for the parking, which would replace parking that is currently in a setback.
More information on grading and drainage was requested. Some Planning Commissioners indicated a second story might be supported with an appropriate design and no variances.
M/s, Matt Brasler, Daniel Krebs, to deny the design review, variances, grading permit and floor area exception for 9 Laurel Avenue based on the findings in the staff report. AYES: Bill Engelhardt, Tim Heiman, David Swaim, Pete Pedersen, Matt Brasler, Susan Cronk, Daniel Krebs. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
C. 1214 SAN ANSELMO AVENUE - USE PERMIT - THIS ITEM WILL BE
CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING
Project Address: 1214 San Anselmo Avenue
Applicant: Bryan Hendon
Assessor's Parcel No.: 007-051-21
Zoning District: C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Request: After-the-fact request for a use permit to convert an office use to a residential dwelling unit. Residential use requires a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. No exterior changes are proposed.
This item was continued to a future meeting date due to a change in the application.
6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
(SECOND UNIT) REGULATIONS Consider “An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo Amending Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) Chapter 6 (Accessory Dwelling Units) Articles 1-3 to Bring the Town Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations into Conformance With 2019 State Housing Bills” and make a recommendation to the Town Council.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 7
451
ADAM FRANCH
DEVELOMENT - MANAGEMENT - ARCHITECTURE
April 15, 2022
Attn: Elise Semonian, Planning Director
Project Manager
Town of San Anselmo
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Re: 9 Laurel Avenue ‐ Shadow Study Verification
Dear Ms Semonian,
I have reviewed the shadow study for the proposed remodel & addition project located at 9 Laurel Avenue in San Anselmo California, APN 007-112-11. The referenced documents include the 9 Laurel Avenue Drawings, a Numerical Shadow Impact excel file, Study 01 SketchUp Model, Study 02 SketchUp Model, Study 01 PDF, and Study 02 PDF. The referenced file versions are noted here:
After completing an analysis of the provided documents, I can confirm the revised shadow study is substantially accurate. As a part of the review, I have confirmed the 3D model is accurately geo-located at longitude 122.571453W and latitude 37.978648N; The proposed structures are accurately modeled in the 3D file and match the proposed project drawings, site plan, building height, and solar North is accurately identified in the 3D model. The Shadow Study 01 and Shadow Study 02 pdf files accurately represent the amount of shadow cast from the proposed project onto the neighboring property. In addition, the Numerical Shadow Impact excel file accurately identifies the minutes of daylight versus the minutes of additional shadow cast onto the neighboring property.
Please contact me with any additional questions.
Best Regards,
Adam Franch, AIA
C-34374
[email protected]
720-219-2117
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
452
Shadow Study #1 for 9 Laurel Ave.
1 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
453
January 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:22 am
2 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
454
January 21st
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
3 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
455
January 21st
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
4 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
456
January 21st
12:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
5 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
457
January 21st
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
6 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
458
January 21st
04:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
7 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
459
January 21st
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunset at 5:21 pm
8 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
460
February 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:52 am
9 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
461
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
10 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
462
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
11 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
463
02:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
464
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
13 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
465
05:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
14 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
466
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
Sunset at 5:55 pm
15 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
467
March 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:11 am
16 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
468
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
17 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
469
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
18 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
470
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
19 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
471
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
Sunset at 7:23 pm
20 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
472
April 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:26 am
21 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
473
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
22 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
474
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
23 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
475
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
24 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
476
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
Sunset at 7:52 pm
25 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
477
May 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 5:55 am
26 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
478
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
27 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
479
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
28 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
480
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
29 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
481
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
Sunset at 8:19 pm
30 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
482
June 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 5:48 am
31 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
483
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
32 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
484
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
33 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
485
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
34 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
486
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
Sunset at 8:36 am
35 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
487
July 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:04 am
36 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
488
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
37 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
489
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
38 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
490
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
39 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
491
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
Sunset at 8:28 pm
40 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
492
August 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:31 am
41 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
493
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
42 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
494
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
43 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
495
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
44 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
496
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
Sunset at 7:54 pm
45 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
497
September 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:57 am
46 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
498
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
47 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
499
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
48 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
500
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
49 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
501
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
Sunset at 7:08 am
50 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
502
October 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:25 am
51 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
503
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
52 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
504
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
53 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
505
01:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
54 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
506
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
55 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
507
04:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
56 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
508
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
Sunset at 6:23 pm
57 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
509
November 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:57 am
58 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
510
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
59 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
511
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
60 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
512
12:20 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
61 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
513
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
62 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
514
03:40 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
63 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
515
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
Sunset at 4:54 pm
64 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
516
December 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:22 am
65 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
517
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
66 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
518
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
67 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
519
12:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
68 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
520
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
69 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
521
03:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
70 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
522
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
Sunset at 4:54 pm
71 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
523
Shadow Study #2 for 9 Laurel Ave.
1 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
524
January 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:22 am
2 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
525
January 21st
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
3 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
526
January 21st
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
4 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
527
January 21st
12:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
5 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
528
January 21st
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
6 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
529
January 21st
04:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
7 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
530
January 21st
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunset at 5:21 pm
8 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
531
February 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:52 am
9 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
532
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
10 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
533
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
11 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
534
02:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
535
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
13 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
536
05:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
14 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
537
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
February 21st
Sunset at 5:55 pm
15 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
538
March 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:11 am
16 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
539
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
17 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
540
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
18 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
541
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
19 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
542
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
March 21st
Sunset at 7:23 pm
20 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
543
April 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:26 am
21 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
544
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
22 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
545
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
23 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
546
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
24 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
547
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
April 21st
Sunset at 7:52 pm
25 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
548
May 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 5:55 am
26 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
549
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
27 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
550
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
28 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
551
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
29 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
552
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
May 21st
Sunset at 8:19 pm
30 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
553
June 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 5:48 am
31 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
554
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
32 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
555
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
33 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
556
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
34 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
557
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
June 21st
Sunset at 8:36 am
35 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
558
July 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:04 am
36 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
559
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
37 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
560
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
38 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
561
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
39 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
562
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
July 21st
Sunset at 8:28 pm
40 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
563
August 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:31 am
41 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
564
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
42 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
565
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
43 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
566
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
44 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
567
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
August 21st
Sunset at 7:54 pm
45 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
568
September 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:57 am
46 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
569
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
47 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
570
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
48 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
571
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
49 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
572
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
September 21st
Sunset at 7:08 am
50 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
573
October 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:25 am
51 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
574
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
52 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
575
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
53 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
576
01:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
54 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
577
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
55 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
578
04:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
56 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
579
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
October 21st
Sunset at 6:23 pm
57 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
580
November 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 6:57 am
58 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
581
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
59 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
582
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
60 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
583
12:20 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
61 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
584
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
62 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
585
03:40 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
63 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
586
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
November 21st
Sunset at 4:54 pm
64 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
587
December 21st
06:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
Sunrise at 7:22 am
65 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
588
09:00 am
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
66 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
589
12:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
67 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
590
12:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
68 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
591
03:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
69 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
592
03:30 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
70 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
593
06:00 pm
EXISTING PROPOSED
Shadow Study
9 Laurel Ave. San Anselmo
December 21st
Sunset at 4:54 pm
71 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 8
594
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
595
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
596
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
597
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
598
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
599
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
600
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
601
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
602
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
603
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
604
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
605
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
606
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
607
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
608
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
609
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
610
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
611
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
612
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
613
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
614
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
615
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
616
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
617
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
618
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
619
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
620
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
621
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
622
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
623
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
624
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
625
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
626
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
627
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
628
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
629
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
630
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
631
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
632
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
633
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
634
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
635
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
636
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
637
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
638
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
639
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
640
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
641
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
642
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
643
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
644
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
645
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT 9
646
647
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
648
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
649
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
650
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
651
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
652
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
653
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 10
654
Sunrise Sunset Hours Minutes Existing Proposed Hours Minutes Percent 21-Jan 7:22 5:21 PST 9:59 599 4:00 12:30 3:30 210 35%
21-Feb 6:52 5:55 PST 11:03 663 5:00 2:30 2:30 150 23%
21-Mar 7:11 7:23 PDT 12:12 732 0 0 0%
21-Apr 6:26 7:52 PDT 13:26 806 0 0 0%
21-May 5:55 8:19 PDT 14:24 864 0 0 0%
21-Jun 5:48 8:36 PDT 14:48 888 0 0 0%
21-Jul 6:04 8:28 PDT 14:24 864 0 0 0%
21-Aug 6:31 7:54 PDT 13:23 803 0 0 0%
21-Sep 6:57 7:08 PDT 12:11 731 0 0 0%
21-Oct 7:25 6:23 PDT 10:58 658 4:30 1:00 3:30 210 32%
21-Nov 6:57 4:54 PST 9:57 597 3:40 12:20 3:20 200 34%
21-Dec 7:22 4:54 PST 9:32 572 3:30 12:30 3:00 180 31%
Cumulative 8,777 950 11%
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Daylight Shadow Impact
Numerical Analysis of Shadow Impact of 9 Laurel Ave. on One South Facing Window at 5 Laurel Ave.
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000 Minutes of Daylight vs. Minutes of Additional Shadow Minutes of Daylight Minutes of Additional Shadow
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 11 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 11
655
APPEAL HEARING
for 9 Laurel Ave., San Anselmo
6/14/2022
Applicant Name: Hassan Afrookteh & Brooke Peterson
Property Address: 9 Laurel Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Assessor Parcel Number: 007-112-11
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
656
Applicant Name: Hassan Afrookteh & Brooke Peterson
Property Address: 9 Laurel Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Assessor Parcel Number: 007-112-11
Project Narrative
This is the fourth hearing for this Project. It was a lift-and-fill proposal which was first reviewed and subsequently denied by the Planning Commission on January 6, 2020.
Timeline
First Hearing
Project Number PRO 2019-063
Applied 10/21/2019
Hearing 1/6/2020
The agenda, drawings, information and a video of the 1/6/2020 hearing can be found here:
https://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=395 The Planning Commission provided direction for a redesign as follows:
1. Commissioners supported parking in setback: (1:58:14), (2:05:48),
2. Parking in front setback is allowed in a lot of cases (2:06:20)
3. Lift -and-fill is not appropriate for this site.
4. Make the house smaller by proposing a more modest addition (2:00:00)
5. Reduce the height of the structure by reducing first floor plate heights (2:00:10)
6. Reduce shadow impact on north neighbor
7. Don’t build in the front setback (1:58:45), (2:05:25), (2:08:15)
8. Don’t ask for 325 sq. ft. FAR exemption (2:03:25), (2:13:40),
9. Reduce volume and mass by eliminating internal parking (2:03:50), (staff report)
10. Employ additional mass-reducing techniques (2:15:30)
11. Do not raise the backyard by adding fill
12. Certain amount of shadow is acceptable (2:08:00), (2:09:00)
13. Second story is acceptable (2:08:00), (2:16:00) or may be inevitable due to site constraints (2:13:00) Second Hearing
Project Number PRO 2021-014
Applied 2/4/2021
Hearing 4/19/2021
Outcome Continued
The agenda, drawings, information and a video of the 4/19/2021 hearing can be found here:
https://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=545 Responding to the design directions from the Planning Commission during the 1/6/2020 hearing, the Project was completely re-designed. Second floor area was reduced by 55% from 1,175 sq. ft. to 536 sq. ft., and 370 sq. ft. of interior parking was removed in order to reduce size and bulk. The height of the house was reduced to 24’-8”, or 3’-4” lower than the earlier design, 5’-4” below max. of 30 feet. Second floor walls were stepped away from the front and north, and first floor roof was wrapped around the north side to reinforce the single-story volume as much as possible. A variety of roof shapes, gables and voids were employed to articulate and reduce the mass of the second floor.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
657
Concurrent with the re-design effort, newly enacted 2021 amendments to the California Government Code, and SAMC
10.6 relating to ADUs, allowed for by-right conversion of the existing 278 sq. ft. accessory garage structure to an ADU.
However, the Town staff argued that the FAR and lot coverage exemptions for the ADU in the statute 65852.2 (a)(8)(2)(C), and in SAMC 10.6.205 did not apply to this Project, and added the floor area and footprint of the ADU to the primary residence. By doing so, contrary to the intent of the Legislature, and in spite of their assertions to the contrary, the Planning Commission applied excessive and burdensome requirements effectively restricting the creation of an ADU 65852.150(8)(b). A letter dated 4/5/2022 was submitted to the Town objecting to mischaracterization of Project data was dismissed without any comment by Town staff. Correspondence from California Department of Housing and Community Development (CDHCD) regarding the ADU can be viewed here.
The Planning Commissioners’ comments included:
1. A 325 sq. ft. FAR exception is not allowed for this project (3:05:03), (3:08:00), (3:11:10), (3:18:00)
2. There is no precedent in disallowing second-story additions in any one-story neighborhood (3:15:12)
3. It is not unreasonable to seek a second-floor addition in this neighborhood (3:17:17), (3:21:15)
4. The second-floor addition area is significantly reduced from the first design (3:10:00)
5. Opposing arguments against this second story addition are similar to those against projects that are routinely approved (3:15:37)
6. There was support for the variance to relocate the parking spaces to the north side (3:07:00), (3:12:28)
7. The area of the ADU is part of the FAR of the residence (3:08:35), (3:10:43), (3:18:28)
8. There was support for plan modifications suggested by Town staff (3:12:00), (3:17:57)
9. Project can have an ADU, but not necessarily a second floor (3:06:00)
10. The second-floor addition and ADU are mutually exclusive (3:13:42)
11. Remove the ADU in order to have a second floor(3:18:21), (3:20:55), (3:21:38)
12. Commission has design review powers over the size of the second floor, and can deny a second floor at all (3:26:40)
Third Hearing
Project Number PRO 2021-014
Applied 2/4/2021
Hearing 9/20/2021
Outcome Denied
The agenda, drawings, information and a video of the 9/20/2021 hearing can be found here:
https://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=629 A third design for this property responded to comments by the Planning Commission at the April 19, 2021 hearing to “either remove the ADU or the second-floor addition from the project”. The re-design removed the ADU, and reduced the total floor area by 278 sq. ft. making the lot coverage 31% and FAR 44.8% of the lot area, which are below allowed limits. Changes recommended by Town staff were incorporated into the redesign. The proposed design conformed to all Code criteria relating to size, lot coverage, FAR and is 18% below the height limit.
Two-story buildings are allowed in R1 zoning, and building heights vary from one to two stories in the neighborhood. The area has a mix of architectural styles and the proposed building design would be compatible with the mixed visual character of the area. There is no precedent in disallowing second-story additions in any onestory neighborhood (3:15:12).
The bulk and mass of the second story were reduced by stepping the front and north elevations back from the lower level. The rear elevation massing is broken up by the deck and recessed master bedroom wall. The south elevation has one and two-story elements with an overhang and windows that further break up and articulates the two-story wall on ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
658
the south elevation. The lower-level plate height is 8’-4.5”. The upper-level plate heights vary, but several areas have a plate height of 7’-4.5”, which is low and will minimize the mass of the upper level. Several houses (here, here and here) that are larger, more bulky and less articulated than the proposed Project are currently under construction in similar neighborhoods in San Anselmo.
Street Elevations (East) for Designs 1, 2, and 3
South Elevations for Designs 1, 2, and 3
The removal of the ADU required the demolition of the existing accessory garage, which accounted for 29% of the total demolition quantity. Only 25.3% of the total demolition was for the primary residence. Non-habitable, accessory structures less than 500 sq. ft. are exempt from requirements for a demo permit (SAMC 10-3.2102). Town staff’s email indicated that a demo permit would not be required. Yet, staff subsequently required a demo permit and a variance to maintain the existing non-conforming portion of the main residence. Ultimately, Town staff supported the demolition permit as most of the demolition was for the non-conforming garage structure walls and not the existing residence. As stated above, the proposed design has less mass than what would typically be proposed for a new residence.
The Planning Commissioners’ comments indicated:
1. Commissioners were “torn” and found the Project “difficult” (1:36:12), (1:38:04), (1:38:15), (1:40:04), (1:40:17), (1:46:30)
2. It comes down to impact on light and privacy, and what is “material” (1:36:20)
3. If denied, application can be resubmitted in the future under SB9 resulting in a duplex with 4’ setbacks and a garage (1:31:58)
4. There is a lot of variation of different types of homes in the neighborhood that is desirable (1:26:25), (1:36:52), (1:54:52)
5. Project is reduced in size, taken into consideration many of the directions given in the last hearing (1:34:35), (1:46:32)
6. Numerous two-story buildings exist outside the immediate corner (1:40:40)
7. There is no restriction on second story homes (1:40:45)
8. House is a modest size, and finished well, and will have a good feel (1:39:00), (1:50:02)
9. People are entitled to improve and expand their homes to within limits (1:35:25), (1:40:50)
10. There was uncertainty about accuracy of the shadow study (1:37:38), (1:42:03), (1:45:55)
11. A shade study should be done an outside party (1:45:42), (1:46:07), (1:50:45)
12. Light impact on 5 Laurel is the primarily concern (1:47:15), (1:50:50) ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
659
13. It is impossible not to have an impact on the neighbors in small lots (1:50:34), (1:51:00)
14. A second floor’s impact on privacy is part of life in a tight neighborhood (1:51:10), (1:52:23)
15. Privacy is not a given in downtown area with dense neighborhood (1:51:12) Shadows
The proposed second floor is 19’-4” feet away from 5 Laurel Ave., over 20’ away from 15 Laurel Ave. and over 30’ away from 1055 San Anselmo Ave. residences.
Two third-party Shadow Studies and a Numerical Shadow Impact dated 3-23-2022 were peer-reviewed by Town’s consultant, and verified as accurate on 4/15/2022. Shadow Studies 01 & 02, consisting of 70 plates each, show the existing and proposed shadows on the 21st day of each month of the year at 6:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 3:00 p.m. & 6:00 p.m.
Shadow Impact on 5 Laurel Ave.
Shadow Studies indicate the exact time when both existing and proposed shadows reach a south facing window on the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. Primary living spaces in the residence at 5 Laurel Ave. are oriented toward Laurel Ave. and San Anselmo Ave. The proposed Project faces the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. Shadows cast on one particular window at the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. were the subject of much dispute in prior hearings, and was cited by some Commissioners as a primary reason for the planning Commission’s decision to deny the application.(1:47:15), (1:50:50), (1:37:38), (1:42:03), (1:45:55), (1:36:20)
Numerical analysis indicates zero impact during seven months of the year and an aggregate yearly impact of only 11%.
Shadow impact on 15 Laurel Ave.:
15 Laurel Ave. is located to the south of the Project. Shadow Study 01 or 02 confirm that there is no shadow impact on 15 Laurel Ave. at any time of the year.
Shadow impact 1055 San Anselmo Ave.:
1055 San Anselmo sits to the west of the Project; therefore, shadow impacts are in only later afternoon, and they are mixed.
Shadow Study 01 shows that the proposed Project allows for more sunlight on:
1/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
2/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
3/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
4/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
9/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
10/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
11/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 3:40 p.m.
12/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
Shadow Study 01 shows that the second-floor addition casts slightly more shadow in late afternoons on:
5/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
6/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
7/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
8/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
Shadow impact on 8 Laurel Ave. (apartment building across the street from the Project):
Shadow study 02 confirms that there is no impact from the proposed second-floor addition on 8 Laurel Ave. at any time of the year.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
660
The proposed project at 9 Laurel Ave. has no impact on the light and air of 21 Laurel Ave., since it cannot see or be seen from 21 Laurel Ave. The same is true of any other property on Rowland Ct., Hazel Ave., Redwood Rd., and San Anselmo Ave.
In previous hearings, Planning Commissioners conceded that “it is impossible not to have an impact on the neighbors in small lots.” (1:50:34), (1:51:00), and “certain amount of shadow is acceptable” (2:08:00), (2:09:00).
Independently-verified evidence indicates that the Project will not cast significant shadows on any neighboring properties. Furthermore, an assertion that installation landscaping will cause unreasonable shadow impacts is unprecedented, and not supported by any facts or evidence.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
661
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Applicants request a variance to relocate two existing parking spaces that are currently located on the south and rear setbacks of the property to the north and front setback areas.
1. List below special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, to show why the variance should be granted, and why the granting of the variance will not be a granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone.
The parcel is 3,983 sq. ft. in area, and is 53’ wide. The parcel is trapezoidal in shape with front property line is at an angle to the side property lines, such that the north boundary is over 6’ longer than the south boundary, providing enough depth for tandem parking. An existing structure 29.18’ x 37.90’ occupies the middle portion of the parcel such that any open area left for parking falls within the front, side or rear setbacks unless the existing residence is demolished. The existing parking spaces are in the side and rear setbacks.
The only area outside of setbacks that can accommodate a set of stairs is on the south side of the residence. The most compact run of stairs (straight run) and landings require 80 to 90 sq. ft. of area. Placing a straight run of stairs inside the existing residence will require a near total demolition of the existing residence, and will create an unreasonable hardship.
A new residence on this site that complies with a 20-foot front setback and has two code-compliant parking spaces and up to 400 square feet of garage area would be much larger and more massive than what is currently proposed. A new home would likely have taller plate heights at the lower level and have a larger second story, like the first plan for this site. The small lot size and angled front property line are also unusual circumstances that Small parcel size, trapezoidal parcel shape, and an existing structure in the middle of the parcel are the physical constraints and special circumstances that make it difficult to comply with the 20-foot front yard setback requirement, and force any parking into the setbacks regardless of any design approach for the project.
All parcels in the immediate vicinity are smaller than is currently allowed, and most other existing residences in the vicinity have had their parking in the side setbacks and in plain view for decades without any detrimental effect on the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood and public.
The granting of a variance does not constitute a granting of a special privilege, since many surrounding properties have a similar condition and enjoy similar benefits.
As such, the provisions of California Gov. Code section 65906, providing that when, “because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification” a variance shall be granted, apply here. Moreover, the requirement that substantial evidence to support the Town’s required findings, as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 and Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506 has been achieved.
Accordingly, the strict application of San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 10-3.501, et seq, deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the Town’s zoning ordinance.
2. List below your reasons why the variance will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Relocating existing parking spaces from the south of the property to its north has no physical or measurable effect on the neighborhood. These are unenclosed parking spaces, with no physical impact on any quality-of-life values in the ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
662
neighborhood. They do not cast shadows, and are perceived as open space. The average person will not notice that open parking spaces have moved from one side to the other side of the property. On the other hand, enclosed garage space or parking spaces that meet the 20-foot front and rear setbacks and 8-foot side setbacks may lead to upper-level development that has a negative impact on adjacent property.
The existing site currently has no landscaping where the new parking space is proposed. The parking space configuration will be a tandem driveway, which is very common in San Anselmo residential areas and does not require new screening landscaping. The tandem driveway design with pervious pavers mitigates the visual impact of the parking design.
Most other existing residences in the vicinity have had their parking in the side setbacks and in plain view for decades apparently without any detrimental effect on the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood and public.
The neighboring north side yard, adjacent to where the parking spaces would be relocated, already has a transparent wire fence, and no landscape materials exist there that can block sight distance. The apartment building directly across the street has an open parking garage where cars have been in plain view for decades apparently without any detrimental or injurious effect on the neighbor’s enjoyment of their property. There is no material adverse impact to anyone. (Gov. Code Sec 65906, infra).
The addition of one additional parking space in the front setback will encourage parking to be off-street, which will be a benefit in the long term as the Town adds more red curb lanes in neighborhoods to ensure roads are accessible for emergency vehicles, which often reduces on street parking. In addition, the Town is expecting other property owners to convert garages to ADUs, which will continue to increase demand for street parking spaces.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
663
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Applicants request A demolition permit since the project includes removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls.
54.3% total demolition proposed, of which 25.3% is for the main residence walls and the balance is for accessory garage structure. A variance is requested to maintain the existing lower level of the structure 15.94’ to 18.97’ from the front property line (20-foot setback required for over 50% demolition).
1. The demolition will not remove from the neighborhood or Town, nor adversely affect, a building of historical, architectural, cultural or aesthetic value:
The project site is a portion of lots 5 and 6 of an unrecorded Yolanda Park Subdivision (“the subdivision”), subdivided prior to 1919. The first homes developed on the street were the bungalows at 15, 16 and 42 Laurel (and a residence in the area of 26 Laurel that was replaced). According to the County Assessor, the site and adjacent lot 5 Laurel Avenue were developed in 1939-1940. In 1934, the Town Council denied a request to rezone 5 and 9 Laurel Avenue to allow construction of a gas station. The Town of San Anselmo does not have an official local register of historic properties or historic districts. The site was not listed in the 1987 historic resource survey. The bungalows at 15 and 16 Laurel Avenue were identified as potentially eligible for local listing in that survey. The site does not represent a particular architectural style and was not designed by a notable architect. The residence would not qualify for listing on a state or federal historic register.
2. The project is consistent with the San Anselmo General Plan See finding above.
3. The project will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
The proposed residence will meet building codes and will be up to current fire safety standards with sprinklers. The second story is stepped back on sides and well-articulated and will not cause injury to others. Windows and solid deck railings have been designed to maximize privacy between sites.
4. The granting or denying of a demolition permit for the demolition of structures may also be subject to the following findings based on substantial evidence as determined by the Planning Commission or Town Council:
a.) Failure to approve a demolition permit will cause immediate and substantial hardship because of the conditions peculiar to a particular structure, and such hardship has not been created by an act of the owner in anticipation of action under this chapter. Examples of hardship include health and safety hazards that cause the building to be unsafe. Personal, family, financing difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not justifiable hardships.
b.) It is necessary to reveal previous architectural features covered up, such feature that would be functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements of the area.
These findings are inapplicable to this project. The structure would not qualify for listing on a state or federal register. Failure to approve the demolition permit would not cause immediate hardship and is not necessary to reveal previous architectural features.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
664
Findings for Design Review
Applicant Name: Hassan Afrookteh & Brooke Peterson
Property Address: 9 Laurel Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Assessor Parcel Number: 007-112-11
Residential R-1, R-2, and R-3 (Three (3) or fewer units) below 150 feet Mean Sea Level (flatland).
1. Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area
The current re-design addresses the comments made by the commissioners and the public in three public hearings as well as those contained in staff reports. During the 9/20/2021 hearing, the Planning Commission indicated that the Project has been responsive to Commission and staff input from the past two hearings. The Commission has consistently indicated that there is no precedent in disallowing second-story additions in any one-story neighborhoods (3:15:12), The project area is a mix of architectural styles with no particular design aesthetic that predominates. The residences were primarily built between the 1920s and 1960s. Because there is no predominant architectural style in the project area, the proposed building design would be compatible with the mixed visual character of the area. The Planning Commission has indicated that there is in fact a variation of different types of homes in the neighborhood (1:26:25), (1:36:52), (1:54:52), (1:40:40); that There is no precedent in disallowing second-story additions in any one-story neighborhood (3:15:12), and It is not unreasonable to seek a second-floor addition in this neighborhood (3:17:17), (3:21:15)
Defining a neighborhood as four houses on one side of a street is misleading and ignores the fact that there is a twostory, six-unit apartment building across the street, and numerous two-story buildings exist throughout the immediate area.
Specifically, the project addresses aesthetic compatibility with the existing improvements through articulation of massing and reductions in size, mass and volume of the residence in each iteration. These reductions, combined with articulation of massing, a variety of roof shapes, intersecting gables, voids and overhangs resulted in a modestly sized house of 1,783 sq. ft. that avoids aesthetic incompatibility with the mixed visual character of its surroundings.
The project is functionally compatible with its surroundings as the property will continue to function as a single-family dwelling like most of the surrounding properties. No other uses are proposed for this property; therefore, it is functionally compatible with its surroundings.
This property has not had any major improvements in eight decades. The house will have a new exterior, landscaping and sidewalk and will have a size and character that will fit well in the neighborhood.
2. Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less desirable.
The application does not propose to change the use of the property, and does not anticipate any increase in noise, odor and other undesirable effects resulting from its continued use as a single-family dwelling. Residential land uses are not associated with the creation of substantial objectionable odors. Potential noise resulting from the project include temporary construction noise, automobile movement and mechanical equipment and noise associated with residential use. The project is expected to emit residential noise similar to noise levels in the existing residential neighborhood.
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 existing house has not been updated in decades. The completed project will be highly desirable and will help to increase the value of the neighboring properties.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
665
“Good Home Improvers Make Good Neighbors”, is a 2008 study by Kevin Park at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. It’s conclusion states:
“This paper finds a modest but statistically significant effect of neighborhood home improvement activity on house value appreciation, even for individual households with comparable levels of improvement spending. Following theory, this “neighborhood effect” was strongest among those households which spend the least individually. Further, the higher spending neighborhoods had, on average, higher appreciation rates, even when looking at comparable levels of household home improvement spending, in 11 of the 18 metro-areas analyzed. Looking across all metros, the average magnitude of this difference amounted to an inflation-adjusted annual appreciation rate roughly 15 percent higher over the time period analyzed. For a typical house worth $110,000 in 1996, this would yield an additional $3,900 in value by 2004.”
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 completed house will remain a single-family house with the required off street parking. It generates no new traffic and will not create any unnecessary traffic hazards, nor impede access by emergency vehicles and personnel.
During construction the project will adhere to Town of San Anselmo's rules, regulations and guidelines regarding parking, traffic and work in the public right-of-way. A construction management plan which will include a traffic management plan will be submitted as part of the permit application.
5. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons using the improvement or endanger property located in the area.
The occupants of the improved house will enjoy living in a well-designed, well-constructed house.
No hazardous activities are associated with single family residential uses, and building codes do not allow the use of hazardous materials in construction.
6. Is consistent with the Town General Plan
The property is and will remain a single-family house in an R1 zoning district, where two-stories are allowed; thus, is consistent with the Land Use policies of the Town General Plan. The rehabilitation and addition will be consistent with Land Use Goal 1: “
The small-town character, scale, and pace of life in San Anselmo shall be preserved, as shall the Town's close connection with the natural beauty of its setting.” And Goal 3: “
New developments shall be integrated harmoniously in to San Anselmo's existing neighborhoods and commercial areas.”
The project is consistent with Land Use Policy 3.2: “Single-family residential development is most appropriate within and adjacent to existing single-family areas, and in areas easily served with water and sewer lines. Such areas should also serve as transition zones between mixed density and very low-density areas.” The project is located within a mixed neighborhood of single-story and two-story homes. This illustrates that the project is consistent with Land Use Policy 11.1: “New development, including rehabilitation and expansion projects, shall be of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.” Although the project is of a small scale, it is consistent with Land Use Policy 11.2: “Medium- and large-scale development projects in both single-family and mixed residential areas shall provide for a variation in building heights and exterior wall and roof articulation to avoid monotonous structures with a large, blank visual bulk and mass.”
7. Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties.
The proposed second floor is 19’-4” feet away from 5 Laurel Ave., over 20’ away from 15 Laurel Ave. and over 30’ away from 1055 San Anselmo Ave. residences.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
666
Two third-party Shadow Studies and a Numerical Shadow Impact dated 3-23-2022 were peer-reviewed by Town’s consultant, and verified as accurate on 4/15/2022. Shadow Studies 01 & 02, consisting of 70 plates each, show the existing and proposed shadows on the 21st day of each month of the year at 6:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 3:00 p.m. & 6:00 p.m.
Shadow Impact on 5 Laurel Ave.
Shadow Studies indicate the exact time when both existing and proposed shadows reach a south facing window on the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. Primary living spaces in the residence at 5 Laurel Ave. are oriented toward Laurel Ave. and San Anselmo Ave. The proposed Project faces the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. Shadows cast on one particular window at the rear of 5 Laurel Ave. were the subject of much dispute in prior hearings, and was cited by some Commissioners as a primary reason for the planning Commission’s decision to deny the application.(1:47:15), (1:50:50), (1:37:38), (1:42:03), (1:45:55), (1:36:20)
Numerical analysis indicates zero impact during seven months of the year and an aggregate yearly impact of only 11%.
Shadow impact on 15 Laurel Ave.:
15 Laurel Ave. is located to the south of the Project. Shadow Study 01 or 02 confirm that there is no shadow impact on 15 Laurel Ave. at any time of the year.
Shadow impact 1055 San Anselmo Ave.:
1055 San Anselmo sits to the west of the Project; therefore, shadow impacts are in only later afternoon, and they are mixed.
Shadow Study 01 shows that the proposed Project allows for more sunlight on:
1/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
2/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
3/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
4/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
9/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
10/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
11/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 3:40 p.m.
12/21 @ 3:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
Shadow Study 01 shows that the second-floor addition casts slightly more shadow in late afternoons on:
5/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
6/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
7/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
8/21 @ 6:00 p.m.
Shadow impact on 8 Laurel Ave. (apartment building across the street from the Project):
Shadow study 02 confirms that there is no impact from the proposed second-floor addition on 8 Laurel Ave. at any time of the year.
The proposed project at 9 Laurel Ave. has no impact on the light and air of 21 Laurel Ave., since it cannot see or be seen from 21 Laurel Ave. The same is true of any other property on Rowland Ct., Hazel Ave., Redwood Rd., and San Anselmo Ave.
Independently-verified evidence indicates that the Project will not cast significant shadows on any neighboring properties. Furthermore, an assertion that installation landscaping will cause unreasonable shadow impacts is unprecedented, and not supported by any facts or evidence.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
667
In previous hearings, Planning Commissioners conceded that “it is impossible not to have an impact on the neighbors in small lots.” (1:50:34), (1:51:00), and “certain amount of shadow is acceptable” (2:08:00), (2:09:00).
8. Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and decks During the 9/20/2021 Planning Commission hearing, commissioners indicated that
1. It is impossible not to have an impact on the neighbors in small lots (1:50:34), (1:51:00)
2. A second floor’s impact on privacy is part of life in a tight neighborhood (1:51:10), (1:52:23)
3. Privacy is not a given in downtown area with dense neighborhood (1:51:12) Screen plants have been successfully used to mitigate privacy concerns throughout the world for centuries. They have been used in San Anselmo for at least a century with examples throughout the town. Appropriately selected screen plantings are proposed on the east and south perimeters to block any views into the interior or the open spaces at 1055 San Anselmo Ave., and 15 Laurel Ave.
The sightlines and privacy issues are illustrated on sheet A19. These were identified during discussions with the affected neighbors, and in the course of the three public hearings. The Project uses high sill window on the north, east, and south facades, and has no second-floor windows that can overlook 15 Laurel Ave. The east façade second floor windows are setback an additional 6 feet, and are set deep behind a deck which acts as buffer. Solid railing on the second-floor deck blocks any views to 1055 Laurel Ave. from a seated or a reclined position.
The proposed project at 9 Laurel Ave. has no impact on privacy of 21 laurel Ave., since it cannot see or be seen from 21 Laurel Ave. or 8 Laurel Ave. The same is true of any property on Rowland Ct., Hazel Ave., Redwood Rd., and San Anselmo Ave. other than 1055 San Anselmo Ave. as discussed above.
9. Be of a bulk, mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood The Planning Commission has affirmed that there is no precedent in disallowing second-story additions in any one-story neighborhoods (3:15:12), and it is not unreasonable to seek a second-floor addition in this neighborhood (3:17:17), (3:21:15).
An on-the-ground observation of a neighborhood map of the Unrecorded Yolanda Subdivision indicates that 12 of the 37 structures contained in the outlined area are two-story, many are not bungalows or cottages, and multiple structures have attached garages. These are randomly distributed in the outlined area.
Building heights generally vary from one to two stories in the neighborhood. The aerial view on Sheet A16 shows that nearly 20% of the buildings in the immediate area are two stories.
The project area is a mix of architectural styles with no particular design aesthetic that predominates. The residences were primarily built between the 1920s and 1960s. Because there is no predominant architectural style in the project area, the proposed building design would be compatible with the mixed visual character of the area.
The proposed project maintains the low front portion of the existing residence, keeps the roof shape and slope of the existing residence on the second floor, while adding intersecting gables and a variety roof shapes. North and east facades are stepped back, west façade employs a recessed deck to break up and reduce the apparent mass of the building.
Stairs are located in the only place that can accommodate them without demolishing of the existing residence. Stairs are intrinsically two-story elements whose volume cannot be stepped back. An overhang that introduces a shadow band and windows are employed to break up the stair wall on the south side. Examples of similar second floor additions with two ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
668
story walls and little to no articulation that are currently under construction in San Anselmo can be seen here, here, and here.
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 improved structure will incorporate many sustainable features. The existing house structure kept intact in the front, and the rear portion is incorporated into the improvements. The site will include fully landscaped front and rear yards.
Peer-reviewed independent shadow studies prove that he proposed project has no impact on access to light and air for neighbors to the south, or across the street to the east.
Demolition of the existing garage will, on aggregate, provide more sunlight to the neighbor to the west for eight months out of the year and marginally increase shadows after 6:00 p.m. for the remainder of the year. There is only an 11% aggregate impact to the neighbor to the north throughout the year. The completed project will be built conforming to the latest edition of the California Building Code and up-to-date fire safety standards. It will be earthquake resistant, will have fire sprinklers, and will incorporate many sustainable features. It will be highly desirable and will help increase the value of the neighboring properties.
A requirement to step back walls of the Project on all sides is impractical, unprecedented, has no foundation in San Anselmo Municipal Code. Current buildings under construction throughout the town (here, here, and here) are evidence to the contrary.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
669
Materials
The proposed exterior materials include gray board-and-batten siding, white wood trim and fascias, white window and door frames, and light gray asphalt shingle roof. Hardscape materials consist of wood deck over natural grade, tiled porches, pavers on permeable substrate, and artificial turf. The project includes landscaping in front and back yards with trees, hedge screen plants, shrubs and perennials.
Board and batten is a commonly used cladding material in San Anselmo and in Marin County. It is enjoying a new popularity.
In the immediate area board and batten siding can be seen on a second-floor addition at 25 Laurel Ave. and at 96 Redwood Ave. Elsewhere in town it is used in:
18 Mariposa, a newly constructed multi-family housing
MHBB bakery at 101 San Anselmo Ave.
Studio 5 Design, 25 San Anselmo Ave.
Residence at 44 Bolinas Ave.
Residence at 35 Waverly Rd.
Impacts During Construction
Project construction is estimated to take 10 to 12 months.
During project construction, the project contractor shall comply with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed.
4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible.
5. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers.
6. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
7. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number for the building department to contact regarding dust complaints. The Building Official or his designee shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
8. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent.
9. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
10. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
11. Minimize the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes.
Site Runoff & Stormwater Management
The proposal does not include any re-grading of the site and does not alter the site’s natural drainage patterns. The Town will require Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented at the site during construction and all development projects in San Anselmo must comply with the Town’s Grading Ordinance.
Odors
Diesel fumes from construction equipment and trucks may be found to be objectionable, but construction of the project would be temporary. The project will not create objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people, resulting in a less than significant impact.
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
670
Noise and Vibrations
Construction activities associated with construction of the project would temporarily increase noise levels in the project area. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially when heavy equipment is used. The construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project site, would be audible at the nearby residences, and could result in a significant impact.
Measures to reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible shall be included in contractor specifications and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with manufacturer recommended noisereduction devices to minimize construction- generated noise.
2. All property within 100 feet of the site shall be informed at least two weeks prior to the start of the construction project.
3. A noise disturbance coordinator shall be designated by the project applicant and will be responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the construction site.
4. Construction hours, including the arrival and departure of employees, shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
5. Quiet construction work (such as hand painting and work inside the building) shall be allowed until 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Sundays from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The construction work must not be heard from adjacent sites.
6. No amplified music or radios are permitted to be audible off the site.
7. Stationary construction noise sources such as air compressors, generators or pumps shall be shielded to minimize their sound and shall be located as far as practical from existing residences and businesses.
8. Impact tools and equipment shall have intake and exhaust mufflers recommended by the manufacturers. Pavement breakers and jackhammers shall also be equipped with acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds recommended by the manufacturers. In lieu of or in the absence of manufacturers' recommendations, the Director of Public Works shall have the authority to prescribe such means of accomplishing maximum noise attenuation as he deems to be in the public interest, considering the available technology and economic feasibility.
9. All internal combustion engines for construction equipment used on the site shall be properly muffled and maintained.
10. All unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.
Green Building Features
The existing building at 9 Laurel Ave. was built in 1939. It is a single-story wood-frame structure that is clad in wood siding and stucco, and rests on a poured-in-place concrete foundation. The existing structure has no insulation in attic, floor or walls. There is no weather stripping on doors, and gaps exist in the siding. The existing furnace and water heater are old. There is a low-flush toilet; faucets and shower head are not low-flow.
The project in this application will be of type RR5 under Table A of San Anselmo Green Building Standards for Residential Remodels. The project intends to incorporate the following measures:
Demolition & Construction Activities:
• Minimize demolition by re-using the existing structure • Utilize a waste management company where demolition waste will be diverted Site & Storm water:
• The aggregate irrigated landscaped area in the project will be under 500 sq. ft. • There are no lawn areas; only synthetic lawn is used
• 65% of all parking, walking or patio surfaces is permeable, where min. 20% is required • Plant selection consists of low and medium water-use plants • Storm water will flow over permeable and landscape areas before leaving the site ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
671
Structure:
• Place cement mortar in annular spaces around pipes, electrical cables, conduits or other openings around the bottom plates of exterior walls to protect against passage of rodents Openings
• Install Low E windows, and glazed exterior doors
• Install weather stripping on all doors and windows
Roof & Insulation:
• Install R-36 or greater insulation in attic spaces
• Install R-30 insulation at bottom floor
• Install Energy Star Cool Roof roofing shingles
Finishes:
• VOC content of adhesives, sealants, caulks shall comply with local rules or meet VOC limits in 4.504.1 & 4.504.2 of CA Green Building Standards Code
• Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with local rules or meet VOC limits in 4.504.3 of CA Green Building Standards Code
• Carpets and carpet cushion shall meet Carpet & Rug Institute’s Green Label Plus Program • Carpet adhesive shall meet VOC limits in 4.504.1 of CA Green Building Standards Code • Composite wood products: Hardwood plywood, particle board & medium density fiberboard composite wood products shall meet the requirements for formaldehyde limits in 4.504.5 of CA Green Building Standards Code Equipment:
• Gas fireplace shall be direct vent sealed combustion type • Install Energy Star refrigerator and dishwasher
HVAC:
• Ducts and mechanical equipment will be protected from dust during construction • Install a high efficiency furnace or a VRV system
• Install R-8 insulation warp on heating & cooling ducts • Install ductwork under attic insulation
Plumbing & Hot Water:
• General: Plumbing fixture to meet applicable standards in Table 1701.1 of the CA Plumbing Code • Water Closets: Effective Flush Volume not to exceed 1.28 gallons per flush • Shower Heads: Maximum flow rate of 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 psi • Lavatory Faucets: Maximum flow rate of 1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi. Min flow rate of 0.8 gallons at 20 psi • Kitchen Faucet: Maximum flow rate of 1.8 gallons per minute at 60 psi • Install insulation on exposed hot water pipes in unconditioned areas • Install a high efficiency water heater or an on-demand water heater Moisture Control & Indoor Air Quality:
• Concrete slab floor shall have a vapor retarder
• Concrete slab floor shall have a capillary break of no less than 4” of clean crushed drain rock • Install vapor barrier at all under floor areas
• Moisture content of wall and floor framing shall be less than 19% before being enclosed • Exhaust fans shall be Energy Star compliant & ducted to the outside; shall be controlled with a timer switch, an occupant sensor or a humidistat
• Install one Carbon Monoxide Alarm in garage
ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
672
Lighting & Electrical:
• All lighting shall be LED type
• All lighting controls per CA Energy Code
• 240-volt, 40-amp receptacle in garage for electric vehicle charging ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12 ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT 12
673