v. A grading security for $5,000 shall be submitted in the form ofaCertificate ofDeposit (CD) or cash to cover grading, drainage, and erosioncontrol. Contact the Department ofPublic Works for details.

c. An erosion control plan, which includes a signed statement by the soilsengineer that erosion control is in accordance with CAQSA standards.The erosion control plan shall demonstrate protection ofdisturbed soilfrom rain and surface runoff and demonstrate sediment controls as a"back-up" system. (Temporary seeding and mulching or straw matting areeffective controls.).

d. The Soils Engineer shall provide a letter to the Department ofPublicWorks certifying that all grading and drainage has been constructedaccording to plans filed with the grading permit and hislherrecommendations. Any changes in the approved grading and drainageplans shall be certified by the Soils Engineer and approved by theDepartment ofPublic Works. No modifications to the approved plansshall be made without approval of the Soils Engineer and the DepartmentofPublic Works.

e. The existing vegetation shall not be disturbed until landscaping is installedor erosion control measures, such as straw matting, hydroseeding, etc, areimplemented.

f. All exposed areas resulting from excavation and grading shall be seededor planted with appropriate vegetation and maintained until established toprevent erosion.

36. ENCROACHMENTS

a. A Revocable Encroachment Permit is required from the Public WorksDepartment for all work within the right-of-way.

b. A Revocable Encroachment Permit shall be recorded at the Marin CountyRecorder's Office prior to any construction in the right-of-way.

c. An encroachment security in the a form ofa Certificate ofDeposit (CD) orcash in the amount ofthe work to be constructed in the right-of-way shall besubmitted to the Public Works Department with the Encroachment Permit.

d. Construction within the public right-of-way is limited to that necessary tosupport the lot's use. This includes driveways, sidewalks, and sometimes cargarages or decks on steep hillsides. Garbage can enclosures are not permittedin the right-of-way. Fences, gates, structures, and walls within the right-of­way will only be approved when they meet the conditions set in Section11.16.010 and 20.60.065 ofthe Mill Valley Municipal Code.

e. Submit drawing(s) ofthe fence/gate/wall showing height, type of material andlocation proposed ofall improvements to the Public Works Department forreview and approval.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

1111/13/12

37. SEWAGE SYSTEM'REQUIREMENTS - The applicant shall obtain a sewer connectionpermit from the Department ofPublic Works. The fee for this permit is $5,000 for asingle family home, $4,000 for each additional unit, except the fee is $1,250 for a secondunit under 700 sq. ft. Inspection fees may be added to the basic connection fee.

38. MATERIAL STORAGE - All construction materials, debris, and equipment shall bestored on site. Ifthat is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtainedfrom the Department of Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris,debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee for using the right-of­way for storage of construction materials or equipment is $10.00 per day in residentialareas, and $20.00 per day in commercial areas. A minimum of 12' clearance shall bemaintained at all times along the roadway. The placing ofportable restroom facilities inthe City right-of-way will not be permitted.

39. ROAD BOND-

a) A $10,000 road security in the form ofa Certificate ofDeposit (CD) or cash forrepair ofdamage to the City streets shall be submitted to the Public WorksDepartment prior to the issuance of any permits.

b) Submit a DVD clearly showing the existing condition of the road of the proposedtravel route to the Department ofPublic Works prior to the start ofconstruction.

Applicants are advised that absent clear videotape evidence to the contrary,

road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City prior to releaseofthe road security. Damage assessment will be at the sole discretion of the

City, and neighborhood input will be considered in making that assessment.

40. ROAD CLOSURESa. Road closures will only be permitted with prior authorization ofthe

Department ofPublic Works consistent with the City's road closurepolicy. Persons wanting to close the road are required to provide writtennotification to affected property owners and neighbors. Signs containingdetails of the proposed closure must be posted 48 hours in advance.Coordinate traffic control and all temporary road closures with the MillValley Department of Public Works. Contact Julie McClure, EngineeringTechnician, at the Department of Public Works at 388-4033 to obtain aroad closure permit.

b. Submit a traffic detour plan to the Department of Public Works.

41. ROAD IMPACT FEE - All Projects with a construction value of$10,000 or more will becharged a fee of 1% of the building permit value.

42.TREES AND VEGETATION - Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according toSection 11.24.090 ofthe Mill Valley Municipal Code. Trees and shrubs shall be kept

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

121l/13/12

trimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over public properties provide a clearanceofnot less than eight (8) feet. Bushes and other vegetation shall be trimmed so no portionhangs over the sidewalk or the road if no sidewalk is present.

43. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS - All improvements within the publicright-of-way shall be in accordance with the Uniform Construction Standards of AllCities and County ofMarin unless noted otherwise herein.

44. The street shall be overlaid with a minimum of2 inches ofasphalt. Limits ofoverlayshall be along the project property frontage.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Dan Martin, 388-4033

45. The project shall be subject to the 2012 California Building, Plumbing, Electrical,Mechanical, Energy, and other applicable Title 24 codes.

Expiration of Approval

46. This approval shall expire one year from the date ofapproval unless a building permit hasbeen issued. Prior to the expiration ofa design review approval, the applicant may applyto the Director ofPlanning and Building for a one-year extension from the date ofexpiration. The Director ofPlanning and Building may make minor modifications of theapproved design at the time ofextension ifhe/she finds that there has been a substantialchange in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design. Ifbuilding permit is issued during the effective life of the design review approval, theexpiration date of the design review approval shall be automatically extended to coincidewith the expiration date of the building permit.

47. This approval is effective from the date ofapproval until the building permit is issued andshall expire one year after approval should a building permit not be issued.

The motion was carried 2/1 with Commissioner Geiszler opposing.

3. 410 Magee - Crescini - Design Review - File No. 4018 (Zanarini) A publichearing to hear the application ofMichael Rex Associates for Design Review anda Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act inconnection with the demolition ofan existing residence and the construction ofanew 5,148 square foot residence on a parcel owned by Tiffanie DeBartolo.

4J0 Magee doc.

This item was continued to the December 10, 2012 hearing.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

1311/13/12

Page 1 of2

Tom Zanarini

From: Paul Kraaijvanger [paulusk12@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:09 AM

To: Tom Zanarini

Subject: 51 Walnut Study Session

August 6,2012

Dear Mr. Zanarini;

Due to a family holiday, I will not be able to attend the study session for 51 Walnut Ave, Mill Valley, CA onAugust 13th at 7pm.As the direct neighbor of 51 Walnut (we share a fence), at 45 Walnut to the North feel directly impacted bythe planned construction at 51 Walnut,and want to convey these concerns/thoughts regarding the proposed plans.

Update: I visited the architect yesterday, and expressed these same concerns to her (Barbara). Some of myconcerns are now already representedin a new set of plans that are being drawn up, but my understanding is that these new plans are NOT beingdiscussed at the study session andthat in fact the 'old' plans are being studied. I will thus provide you my comments regarding those plans.

The story poles up at 51 Walnut still reflect the old plans. Regardless of the final shape of the plans, I havethe following concerns:

1. Size. Currently 51 Walnut has a - 800 sf single story bungalow. The current plans call for 2,700 squarefeet + garage space. My home sits on .6,980 square feet and 51 walnut has a similar lot, maybe slightly larger . I think its Josh's intention tomaximize the home, which he is entitled too,but I am concerned it s out of proportion with the massing and size of neighboring homes. I would like toverify that the survey is accurate in orderto make sure that the size of the house is what is allowed.

2. Light. This home would be a double story home to our direct South. We do not have a lot of light as it is,and a two story home to our South withsignificant construction in the yard would dramatically reduce the amount of natural light in our home. Yourdrawings show windows to our south and sincewe have a single story home, a two story home to our South would virtually eliminate all light into thebedrooms. More importantly, the currentdesign calls for a significant portion of the yard to be taken up by the two stories which will also block ourclear story windows to facing South. The Eastportion (or furthest away from the street) is our living/dining/kitchen area, and the length of the houseextending well into the yard of 51 Walnut, thefact that its two stories dramatically impacts this living area, and our yard.

3. Privacy. When we remodeled 5 years ago, we built an addition in our yard with clear story windows.Currently these windows sit @ 9 feet high

and look at clear sky. The current plans would block the light and put the master directly at the level of theclear story windows allowing for a directview into the living/dining room and kitchen. The extension of the roof line to cover the porch off the masterbedroom on the second story blockseven more light.

4.Design/Roof. The current design has the new home at 51 running the length of the lot with significantmassing along our south side. It eats upmost of the yard at this point and it will feel like we have an aircraft carrier next to us!.. I do think the newdesign addresses some of these concerns.I am not crazy about the double roof, but whatever ends up being smaller is better in terms of light.

The new plans call for keeping the garage in the back and eliminating the garage in the front of the house.

ATTACHMENTS011 '2/'"1("\1 '"I

Tom Zanarini

From:Sent:To:SUbject:

Dear Tom,

Doug Fiek <dfiek@yahoo.com>Wednesday, November 07,20126:58 PMTom Zanarini51 Walnut Written Statement

Thank you for showing me the updated plans. As a backyard neighbor, my request is to paint Not paint the house white,which can be Too Reflective and can give a sense of even greater mass. I'd really appreciate that the house be painted adarker earth tone color which would be more appropriate given the style of homes in the neighborhood.

Thank you for including these comments.

BestDoug

1

Tom Zanarini

From:Sent:To:

SUbject:

Michael Dyett <dyett@dyettandbhatia.com>Sunday, November 11, 201212:44 PMrandlaw@pacbell.net; Mike Moore; Tom Zanarini; j.j.mccauley@comcast.net;steve@geiszlerarchitects.com51 Walnut - My Letter in Opposition as a Neighbor

Dear Chairman Rand and Fellow Commissioners,

I am writing in opposition to the application for a spec developer house at51 Walnut Avenue . As a resident at 82 Walnut Avenue, this home would intrude into our view of Mt. Tam andsubstantially and adversely change the character of our street and offers no redeeming value. The building mass issquarely centered in a viewshed that my neighbors and 1value - as you can see from the story poles showing a more thatdouble of visible mass as we look to Mt. Tam, and the roof plan does nothing to mitigate this impact.

The architect has made no effort to respond to viewshed and privacy concerns and appears to be intent on maximizingbulk and mass with no apparent effort to offer a sensitively crafted design that would be a positive addition to thecommunity, and I certainly do not want to see a replication of the Oakdale project, which also adversely affects itsneighborhood.

Other specific concerns:The minimal front setback places a large unarticulated building mass

almost on the street with no sense of engagement or context. A is-foot setback for a two-story mass, with no upper­story stepbacks is completely incompatible with the cottage character of our street. In fact, well-designed, new homeswith porches on our block invite neighbor dialogue; they are not 3in your face",

The covered terrace and upstairs deck, while not strictly speakingcounted toward FAR compliance, is another example of over-building, with adverse effects on neighbors' privacy. 1

thought the Commission has generally frowned on such design elements in similar neighborhoods. A covered terrace,which can be easily screened in, is really an extension of interior space, and we normally would include such floor area inzoning ordinances we do for communities that value residential character and are concerned about the 3bighouses onsmall lots" problem. (I have been invited to discuss this very issue with Beverly Hills next week, and its central to ourcurrent work for Santa Monica.)

The entry to the bike storage and mud room seems poorly thought outand is likely to be an eyesore. These storage functions should be accommodated in the rear half of the lot.

With a single curb cut, we expect the residents here will park on thestreet and rarely use the long driveway because it will require them to back out.

No landscaping in the front setback area are illustrated, and aspecific planting plan for this area should be part of a condition of approval, but that being said, the project design aspresented should not be approved.

In sum, I ask the Commission to firmly reject his application and urge the developer to seek a new architect who will lookat neighborhood character and context, at view corridors and landscape, and bring back a sensitive design that we couldall support.

Your consideration of my views is appreciated.

Tom Zanarini

From:Sent:To:Subject:

JEAN & MICHAEL JEFFERIES <jefferies4@sbcglobal.net>Sunday, November 11,201210:54 PMTom Zanarini51 Walnut Ave.

To members of the Mill Valley Planning Commission,

After spending several days observing/studying the new story poles/plans at 51 Walnut we have concluded thatthe revised proposed new structure is far too close to the sidewalk and that the concerns expressed at the firstmeeting seem to have been ignored. With few exceptions, almost every home on Walnut sits 25-30 back fromthe sidewalk. ..induding homes that have landings, stairs or porches. The new revised proposed structure hassignificant mass (visual wall affect) especially when viewed going west on Walnut. It substantially andadversely changes the character of Walnut Avenue.

Although we did not attend the first planning meeting regarding 51 Walnut we were informed by neighbors whodid attend the meeting that the new owner was cautioned about the front set back and mass of the proposed newstructure with recommendations to return with revised plans addressing these concerns. The new design is asimposing, if not more imposing, as the first submission and it appears that the objections expressed byneighbors were ignored or misunderstood; this is unfortunate. We have lived on Walnut Ave for over 25 yearsand have witnessed remodels and rebuilds on almost every structure on Walnut Ave between Park Ave and FernAve. The individual structures vary in style and design, and as a result, we consider Walnut Ave to be one ofthe most interesting and charming streets in Mill Valley. We encourage the owner of the proposed newstructure to develop a building plan that is consistent with the architectural feeling and set backs of Walnut Aveand to respond sensitively to the concerns expressed by Walnut Ave residents. We should not have to continueto write to the commission or attend meetings with the same comments and concerns.

At this time, we ask the Commission to reject this application and request that the owner/developer seriouslyconsider the character of our Walnut Ave neighborhood to present a design that we could support.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

. Sincerely,

Michael and Jean Jefferies78 Walnut Ave.Mill Valley381-9103

1

November 13, 2012

Dear Mr. Moore, Director of Planning and Building:

I am writing to provide my comments on the building proposal for 51 Walnut Avenue that is to

be discussed in today's Planning Commission Meeting. I look forward to the redevelopment

and improvement of this lot, but having viewed the story poles, in my opinion the structure has

been placed much too close to the front of the lot given its height and massing. I feel that

either the house's initial height needs to be significantly lower, or it needs to be moved much

farther back from the sidewalk. As the house currently sits, it is out of character with the look

and feel of the rest of the neighborhood.

Sincerely,

Dale Kunkel

62 Walnut Avenue

Tom Zanarini, * &

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Helen Silvani <hsilvani@sbcglobal.net>Tuesday, November 13,20127:38 AMTom Zanarinihsilvani@sbcglobal.net51 Walnut Ave

To the members of the Mill Valley Planning Commission,

I have lived on Walnut Ave for nineteen years and I love it because it is a street of small to medium houses setin spacious country cottage gardens which is what gives it it's charm. I have looked at the plans and walkedaround the story poles and I object to the proposed construction at 51 Walnut Ave. It is entirel y out of keepingwith the rest of the street.

This monolith sits right on the street with no front garden. It is visually assaulting, doesn't invite neighborlyconversation -its just a big overbuilt structure that is totally in your face.

Parking has always been an issue around here, especially with school parking. The proposed construction isencroaching on the existing driveway making it so narrow that nobody will ever use the garage in the back andtherefore add to the parking problem. The current tenant has already tom her side view mirror off on the storypoles .

The covered terrace will be walled in in no time to become indoor space. Both the covered terrace and secondstory deck are unnecessary and contribute to the over scale of the project. They could be removed and the wholehouse set back on the lot allowing for a front yard.

This massive two story construction completely blocks the view of Mt. Tam from a number of the neighborsand as you walk up Walnut towards East Blythedale.

At this time I ask the commission to reject this application and ask the developer come back with a design thatreflects the character and quality of this Walnut Ave. neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration,

Helen Silvani65 Walnut AveMill Valley381-2798

1

(').....

DYETT & BHATIAUrban and Regio na l Planners

November 21, 2012

Mayor Lion and Members of the City CouncilCity of Mill Valley26 Corte Madera AvenueMill Valley, CA 94941

RECEIVEDPlanning Department

NOV 2 "\ 70 12

City of Mill Valley

Re: Appeal of Planning Commission November 13th decision on 51 Walnut Avenue (APN 028­233-27 - File D12-4004)

Dear Mayor Lion and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of myself and several other residents ofWaInut Avenue, I am submitting this appealof the Planning Commission's November 13th decision to approval the application for a newhome at Walnut Avenue with a variance (an unnoticed action, I must note) and some otherconditions. We presented written and oral testimony to the Commission, which is in theadministrative record. The application that was noticed and the subject of the Staff Report wasfor Design Review and a Categorical Exemption for demolition of an existing residence andconstruction of a new 2,717 square foot house, known as the Deitch Residence. (The meetingagenda erroneously stated this property was owned by Shahram Ghoudsian, a developer; thishas yet to be corrected on the City's website, which has led to some confusion about who theapplicant is among those who did not attend the hearing at which this error was noted.)

As neighbors, we believe that this home, as approved by the Commission, is still too large, tooclose to the street and too intrusive into our views of Mt. Tam; as such, it will substantially andadversely change the character of our street. Moreover, with the variance for a reduced setbacknext to the adjacent Steps Lanes and Paths (SLAP) walkway, this approval creates a dangerousprecedent - a "slippery slope" is what Commissioner John McCauley called it at the meeting.Sustaining the variance will adversely affect the SLAP system and provide no redeeming value.Because the variance simply allows the house to be moved to the south to accommodate awider driveway, it seems clear to us that this variance is solely for the economic benefit of thehomeowner - a grounds for a variance approval normally not acceptable under theGovernment Code. At this point, we do not know what the Commission minutes will say arethe specific grounds for approval as they will not be approved until the Commission'sDecember meeting, and there was no information about this potential action in the Agendapacket, but the legal principle that we believe has been violated seems clear to us.

Furthermore, the building mass intrudes into a streetscape that my neighbors and I value - asyou can see from the story poles showing a more that doubling of visible mass as we look upWaInut Avenue, and the initial roof plan did nothing to mitigate this impact. Even with theconditions imposed by the Commission reducing the ridgeline height, the mass and reducedsetback remain. We do not believe that the Commission, in its deliberations, specificallyresponded to details on setback, off-street parking and privacy concerns that were raised by thecommunity, and the variance appears to be a way to allow the lot owner to continue tomaximize bulk and mass with no apparent effort to offer a sensitively crafted design that would

755 Sansome St. Suite 400IT 4159564300San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 956 73/5

www.dyettandbhatia.com

DYETT & BHATIAUrban and Regional Planners

be a positive addition to the community. One Commissioner stated that he was "OK" with thereduced front setback as proposed, while another thought maybe picking a number out of theair, somewhere between one and four, was the way to go.

Another specific concern supporting our appeal is that the minimal front setback, even asmodified by the Planning Commission, continues to place a large unarticulated building massalmost on the street with no sense of engagement or context, which is contrary to centralconcepts in the residential design guidelines and the General Plan, and the cottage character ofWalnut Avenue. We do not agree with the Staff Report statement that relocating the housecloser to the front property line "places the house in a manner that is more in keeping withexisting houses on Walnut Avenue". Between Park and Fern most front facades are back 20 to25 feet, although some remodels are closer to the sidewalk, creating a varied and invitingstreetscape. The photos in the Architect's plan submittal are misleading, in some cases, as thefront yard is not shown; you can see this if you look at 65 Walnut, and 69 Walnut. In otherinstances, cropping out the bottom of a front fence creates a false sense of closeness. Increasinga setback for a two-story mass by four feet, with no upper-story stepbacks, seems completelyincompatible with the cottage character of our street. In fact, well-designed, new homes withporches on our block invite neighbor dialogue; they are not "in your face".

Most new homes also provide a double driveway curbcut, enabling off-street parking. This wasnot done here. We think it unlikely that the homeowners will drive all the way into the back tounload groceries. We need real parking solutions that will work and not impact on-streetparking!

The covered terrace and upstairs deck, while not strictly speaking counted toward floor areaand FAR compliance, are also example of over-building, with adverse effects on neighbors'privacy. In deliberations on prior projects, such as 375 Summit Avenue and 175 Elm, theCommission has generally frowned on such design elements as contributing to visual mass anda sense of over-building. A covered terrace, particularly a north-facing one, which is the coldestexposure, can be easily screened in and heated, and so readily become an extension of interiorspace, resulting in allowable FAR to be exceeded. In similar communities that value residentialcharacter and are concerned about the "big houses on small lots" problem, conditions often areimposed to limit the potential to circumvent FAR limits. We do not yet know whether this willbe done for 51 Walnut Avenue as the Conditions of Approval are not yet available for publicreview I gather, as they require Commission approval ofminutes.

The front entry to the bike storage and mud room seems poorly thought out and is likely to bean eyesore. These storage functions should be accommodated in the rear half of the lot. Thisissue was I thought ignored in the Commissions deliberations and decision-making althoughraised in public comments and mentioned briefly by the Chair.

Required Variance Findings Not Sustained by the Record

The public notice and Staff Report for the application for a home at 51 Walnut Avenue did notinclude any mention of a potential variance, and no variance application apparently wassubmitted, accepted as complete and made available for public review. In my professionalexperience, it is not usual, or normally countenanced, for City staff to introduce a variance as

C)DYETT & BHATIAUrban and Regional Plann.ers

Ci

an additional discretionary action at the conclusion of the public testimony, with noapplication on me, no Staff Report, no public notice, and no fee paid, and then act on thataction as a mitigating measure. I would hope that you could request the City Attorney to adviseon that question.

If it is deemed proper for the Planning Commission to have granted a variance from aprocedural perspective, we submit that the required findings can not be made in this specificinstance and that the record before the Commission at the time of its action does not have thesubstantive detail that is normally expected for a variance proceeding. Here is our reasoning,with the required findings presented in italics, followed by commentary.

That there are exceptions, or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions applying to theland, building or use refe"ed to in the application, which circumstances or conditions arepeculiar to .th« property in question, and do not apply generally to land, buildings and/oruses in the same district.

While it is true that 51 Walnut is affected by a creek setback, this is a condition applying tomany lots along Walnut and Sycamore avenues and is not peculiar or unique to this property.Furthermore, as 51 Walnut is a relatively standard lot, in terms of size and configuration, forthe neighborhood, we see no extraordinary circumstances or conditions justifying a reducedsetback adjacent to a SLAPwalkway.

That the hardship is not due to any action on the part of the applicant.

The only hardship we see is self-imposed by the applicant's desire to achieve a specific floorarea and building configuration and the architect's disregard for neighborhood character. Sincethis could not be done while at the same time providing adequate width for access to the reargarage, sliding the housing into the side setback became an option that the Director proposedand the Commission picked up on and discussed, although, as noted before, CommissionerMcCauley thought it was a slippery slope. The hardship suggested, that the lot width does notaccommodate the building and driveway widths without a variance, is solely due to the actionof the applicant's architect in initially designing the house in a way that would not provideadequate rear yard vehicle access or dual curbcuts for off-street parking in the front.

That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of rea­sonable property rights of the petitioner.

This finding does not mean that a homeowner is guaranteed the maximum floor area allowedby the ordinance. In fact, no pro-forma evidence or written materials were presented to showthat reasonable property rights would be denied if no variance were granted. If the owner'spurchase price was predicated on achieving a specific building size, and a variance was requiredfor that to occur, that should have been information that was in the record, andCommissioners should have been able to discuss this fmding in a rationale manner withreference to numbers, real estate comps, building costs, rents and other parameters ofreasonable use, as the term is defmed in law (and it is not the same as "fair market value" or"highest and best use", which the City Attorney can explain). It is not the City's obligation tohold an owner "harmless" if he overpaid for land. With this in mind, we submit that the

().:»

OYETT & BHATIAUrban and Regional Plann.ers

granting of this variance is not necessary to preserve reasonable property rights as weunderstand them on our neighborhood. -.

That the granting of such application will not under the circumstances of the partiCUlarcase, affect adversely the health, comfort or safety of persons residing or working In theneighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of theparticular case, be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to property orimprovements in the neighborhood.

We submit that this variance, if upheld by the Council, will adversely affect the character of ourneighborhood, the use and enjoyment of a SLAP walkway, and be detrimental to the publicwelfare and property values in the neighborhood. It also sets a dangerous precedent, andpotentially could invite applications for more encroachments into sideyards along SLAPwalkways as well as interior side yards, with cumulative, long-term, adverse consequences thatwe would hope the Council would want to avoid.

In sum, we ask the Council to overturn the Commission's approval, firmly reject thisapplication, affirm rules of procedure for considering variances (e.g., they must be noticedactions), urge the developer to respect neighborhood character and context, and bring back asensitive design that we could all support.

Your consideration of our views is appreciated.

(

RECEIVEDPlanning Department

November 26,2012 NOV 26 2012

City Of Mill Valley CityofMill Vall yAttention: Mill Valley City Council ' -- , ~

RE: APPEAL of 51 Walnut Deitch Residence Planning Commission Conditional Approval

Dear Mill Valley City Council;

With this letter, the undersigned, Paul & Danielle Kraaijvanger and Alden Erikson would like to appeal the

decision by the Mill Valley Planning Commission to conditionally approve the Deitch project at 51 Walnut, Mill

Valley, CA. Paul & Danielle are neighbors at 45 Walnut, and Alden is a neighbor at 55 Walnut Ave. While we

appreciate the Planning Commission's work and feedback, we feel that the conditions for approval are too

vague and offer us no further recourse when the Mill Valley Planning & Building departments approve final

building plans that may not specifically reflect the concerns of both the public and the Planning Commission.

Specifically we have the following concerns:

1. Height. Mass and Bulk

Height, Mass and Bulk ofthe proposed new residence. While the proposed 2,702 square foot residence

meets the maximum allowable square foot requirement for this lot (FAR), it does not take into

consideration:

a. The bulk, mass and height of neighboring homes (1,450 sq feet for 55 Walnut and 2,200 sq feet

for 45 Walnut).

b. The sun porch, open on three sides adds another 192 square feet to the home (and Height, Bulk

and Mass), but does not get counted towards the FAR.

c. The roof-deck on top of the covered sun porch and roof lines add more bulk, height and massto

the home, without adding to the FAR. The roof deck is now 6'x5', although its orientation is un­

determined.

d. New Mill Valley FAR calculation rules allow the creek (approximately 300+ sq feet) to the East of

this property to be counted towards the FAR.

e. The existing 2 car garage is not counted towards the FAR.

The Planning Commission has not addressed the size of this building for this particularly narrow

lot and has not considered reducing the size of the house to fit more closely with the

neighboring homes. This house will be 40% larger than the average home bordering the home

to the North and to the South. Furthermore, if you consider the actual buildable portion of the

lot (subtract 300+ sq feet), and add the additional structure that add to the height, bulk and

mass, you have effectively a 3000+ sq foot home on lot that should support a 2,200 sq foot

home.

Under section 20.66.040 ofthe City of Mill Code, the Planning Commission can consider a

reduction in the FAR to allow for a better fit with the neighbor hood and/or other

circumstances.

ATTACHMENT 4

2. Reduction in Height.

The original plans called for the home to be 27' high . This was partially due to the requirement of being

above the flood zone. At the Planning Commission meeting, after the public comments, the Commission

determined that there was probably an error in the calculations that should result in the reduction of

the height of the building by 2'10". While this reduction in height is certainly welcome - especially for

45 Walnut - to maximize light into 45 Walnut, the final conditions did not require the residence to be

2'10" shorter. The conditions for approval apparently do not specify a reduction in height, but merely

call for the home's height to be adjusted as allowed by the minimum floodzone elevation. Without this

appeal, we really do not know at this time how high the home will be before final approval by the

building and planning department. Furthermore, the current story poles at 51 Walnut do not reflect this

(potential) adjustment in height, so that neighbors can evaluate this proposed reduction .

3. Variance Approval

One of the concerns of the planning commission was the width of the driveway leading to the double

garage to the north of the home. The commission felt the drive-way was too narrow to allow for off­

street parking at the two-car garage in the rear of the home. One suggestion was to create a turn­

around in near the rear of the home so cars would not need to back out. After public comments were

concluded, the MVplanning department suggested a variance to move the entire home 18" South into

the side setbacks adjacent to the path. In this manner a wider drive way could be accommodated. The

Planning Commission discussed and approved (by 2-1 vote) this variance without any of the required

steps in the variance process. Typically this process includes an application, consideration why other

options are not possible (such as reducing the width of the home by 18"), a neighborhood notification

process and an schedule public hearing on the matter. Under section 20.66.040 of the City of Mill Code,

the Planning Commission can consider a reduction in the FAR to allow for a better fit with the neighbor

hood and/or other circumstances.

4. Moving the Home Away from the Curb

The Planning Commission felt the house was too close to the street given its size. The Commission

discussed moving the home back 4' from the current location away from the street. We feel the

Commission again failed to consider the option of reducing the maximum square footage of the home to

obtain the same result - a smaller home that fits into the neighborhood. Although the 4' was discussed,

in the end the conditions for approval are for the home to end at where the home on 45 Walnut's clear

story addition begins. We do not support moving the home further back and feel the potential

reduction in the height of the home may reduce the curb-side 'bulk'. However, it's hard to evaluate the

new position of the home without story poles that reflect the changes.

In summary, we feel there were enough conditions and substantial modificatlons to the current design

1) HEIGHT, BULK MASS

The home is too large for this specific lot. Additions to the home that do not count towards the FAR,

underestimate the true size of this new home. The narrow lot will furthermore accentuate the height,

• ..

bulk and mass of this large home. We both would like a design that is significantly smaller than is

currently called for. We would like the city to exercise its power to mandate a smaller design than

allowed by the FAR.

2) HEIGHT

Clarification of the exact reduction in height due to uncertainty regarding the flood zone requirements.

The height of the home is directly related the loss of privacy and light for 45 Walnut, and thus should be

confirmed prior to final approval.

3) VARIANCE

The 18/1 Variance that was suggested and granted in a manner of minutes without following procedure

and protocol, or the consideration of a reduction in the size of the home to accommodate a wider

driveway

4) STREET SETBACK

An unspecified increased setback from the street due to the size of the home. While 4' was discussed,

it's not certain how far the home will move back. New story poles should reflect this item, and all

previous items.

Should you require more feedback please contact me at 45 Walnut Ave, Mill Valley CA94941

Regards,

~--------------------Paul Kraaijvanger Alden Erikson

December 3,2012

Michael DyettDyett & Bhatia755 Sansome Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94111

Paul and Danielle Kraaijvanger45 Walnut AvenueMill Valley, CA 94941

Alden Erikson55 Walnut AvenueMill Valley, CA 94941

RE: Status of Appeal of 51 Walnut Avenue

Dear Messrs. Dyett and Erikson and Mr. and Mrs. Kraaijvanger:

Your respective letters of November 21,2012 and November 26,2012 constituted atimely appeal ofthe Planning Commission's November 12,2012 decision to approve, bya 2 to 1 vote (with two Commissioners recused due to stated conflicts of interest), theCategorical Exemption and Design Review application of Joshua Deitsch. As noted inboth of your letters and as the record of the meeting will show, the approval also includeda Variance to the southerly sideyard setback that came about as a proposal from staff toattempt to address several other Design Review related issues that arose during the .Planning Commission's deliberations on the project following the close of the publichearing. The Variance was not part of the original project application, included in thepublic notice nor identified on the meeting agenda. As such, I am writing to inform youthat because of the inclusion of the Variance in the Planning Commission approvalwithout sufficient public notice and based on discussions with the City Attorney, yourappeal will not be going forward to the City Council.

The only way to cure the procedural problem created by the approval of the project withthe Variance in conjunction with the Design Review application is to return to thePlanning Commission for a new public hearing. The applicant has been advised of thissituation and their options to proceed. As this will be, in effect, a new Design Reviewapplication, including, if necessary, an application for a Variance, the applicant will havethe opportunity to revise the project plans to incorporate the recommendations and

City of Mill Valley, 26 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley, California 94941 e 415-388-4033

conditions approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2012. We havescheduled the hearing on the new application for the Planning Commission's regularmeeting of Monday, January 14,2013. A new public notice will be sent out to propertyowners in the area and posted on the property according to the City's procedures andtimeline. All other applicable City requirements (story poles.etc.) will also be in effect.

This will not affect your right to appeal any subsequent decision of the PlanningCommission related to this project. Michael: a full refund of your $250.00 appeal fee willbe processed immediately. We did not collect an appeal fee for the second appeal letter.If you have any further questions about this situation, please do not hesitate to contact meby phone or e-mail.

~~Mike MoorePlanning and Building Director

c: 51 Walnut File

[MILL VAllEY]

STAFF REPORT

TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 14,2013

FROM: Tom Zanarini, Associate PlannerrSUBJECT: 51 Walnut Avenue - Design Review and a Categorical Exemption - Chambers &

Chambers Architects, Applicant - Joshua Deitch, Owner - APN 028-233-27­File D12-4040

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1.) Conduct a Public Hearing;

2.) Find that the project is categorically exempt under Sections 15303(a) of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the construction of a new 2,717 squarefoot house; and

3.) Approve the Design Review application in connection with the demolition of an existing 970square foot residence and construction of a new 2,717 square foot house, based on testimony andevidence in the record and the findings in Exhibit A. The project will be approved based on theconditions of approval in Exhibit B.

BACKGROUND

The Planning Commission previously reviewed this project at a Study Session on August 13;2012 and then conducted a public hearing on a Categorical Exemption and a Design Reviewapplication on November 13, 2012. At the conclusion of the November 13 public hearing andfollowing Commission deliberation, the Categorical Exemption and Design Review application,along with a Variance to the southerly side yard setback requirement, proposed by staff duringCommission deliberations, was conditionally approved by a 2-1 vote. Commissioner Chambers(whose firm prepared the project plans) and Commissioner Richardson (who lived within 500feet of the project site) recused themselves and did not participate in the hearing or deliberations.The approval added several conditions to modify the project to address specific concerns raisedin the public testimony and through Commission deliberations. Those concerns included theproposed two-story residence appearing to loom over the street; the narrow width of the

ATTACHMENT 6

driveway such that it would discourage the regular use of the driveway and the existing garage atthe rear of the property for off-street parking; reducing the overall height of the proposedstructure based on the minimum finished floor height required to conform to the FEMAdesignated AE floodplain; and reducing the size of the second level deck off of the masterbedroom to approximately 30 square feet.

During Commission deliberations, Mike Moore, Building and Planning Director, proposed thatthe Commission consider adopting a variance to move the structure 18 inches into the south yardsetback to give a vehicle adequate clearance to reach the existing detached garage in the rear ofthe property. The proposed variance would also allow the Commission to require that theresidence be moved further back from the street, which would address the concern about thevisual impact of the two-story residence from the public right-of-way, as well as privacyconcerns from the northerly neighbor. The Planning Commission discussed the variance proposalduring its deliberations and after the public hearing had been closed. The Commission voted 2-1(Commissioner Geiszler opposed because of the variance) to approve the Design Reviewapplication with a variance to relocate the residence 18 inches into the south yard setback. Thefacts to support the required findings for a variance, were verbally provided by staff anddiscussed with the Commission and would be subsequently incorporated into the meetingminutes for final Commission approval at a subsequent meeting.

Prior to the expiration of thelO-day appeal period, staff received two appeal letters concernedwith the procedure in which the variance was accepted and approved, as well as other issues. Thetwo appeal letters are attached (Attachment 4). Prior to scheduling the appeals for a CityCouncil hearing, staff requested that the City Attorney review the variance approval and adviseon the next step related to the appeal. The City Attorney determined that the design review andvariance applications are quasi-judicial matters that require the same due process requirementsand principles, including appropriate public notice and the opportunity for comment. Mr.Stepanicich recommended that instead of proceeding with the appeal to the City Council, that thedesign review and variance applications be brought back before the Planning Commission withthe requisite public notice and hearing procedure. The applicant subsequently modified theproject to eliminate the need for the variance and address the specific conditions that theCommission had applied to the project at the November 13 public hearing.

ZONING COMPLIANCE

The subject site contains a 970 square foot residence with a 360 square foot detached garage.The proposed project includes the construction of a 2,717 square foot house and retaining theexisting 360 square foot detached garage. The proposed project meets all of the applicablerequirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as described below.

Zoning:

Proposed Use:

Lot Size:

RS-6 (Single-Family Residential, 6,000 square footminimum lot size)

Single-Family Residence

7,764 square feet

2

PreviouslyProposed

Allowed Existing Approved01114/13

11/13/12Floor Area:

Main Level: 970 square feet 1,453 square feet 1,453 square feet

Upper Level: 1,264 square feet 1,264 square feet

Attached Garage: (500 square feet) osquare feet osquare feet

Detached Garage: 360 square feet 360 square feet 360 square feet

Total: 1,330 square feet 3,077 square feet 3,077 square feet

Total Counted into 2,717 square feet 970 square feet 2,717 square feet 2,717 square feetFAR: 35% 12.4% 35% 35%

Lot Coverage:3,105 square feet 2,546 square feet 2,546 square feet

40% 33% 33%

House Setbacks:

Exterior Setback: 29 feet 3 inches 16 feet 6 inches 20 feet

Side Setback: ofeet 7 inches 8 feet 8 inches 9 feet

Side Setback: 4 feet 4 inches 8 feet 7 feet 8 inches

Rear Setback: 25 feet 9 inches 73 feet 9 inches 70 feet 5 inches

Garage Setback(existing).

North Setback: 2 feet 2 feet 2 feet

East Setback: 24 feet 24 feet 24 feet

House Height (Single27 feet 26 feet

Setback - Dbl(double setback) (double setback)

Setback):

Additional Info:

Cut:

Fill:

Off-haul: ocubic yards ocubic yards

Impervious Surface:3,174 square feet 2,897 square feet 2,897 square feet

40% 37% 37%

Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces

STAFF ANALYSIS

The applicant proposes to construct a new farmhouse style 2,717 square foot 2-story single­family residence. The residence includes 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms on the upper floor. Anexisting 360 square foot detached garage in the rear of the property is included in the projectplans.

The applicant submitted a revised Design Review application and project plans on December 6,2012 that respond to the Commission's concerns and conditions of approval from the November13,2012 hearing to widen the driveway, reduce the overall house height, move the house furtherback from the public right-of-way and reduce the rear second-floor deck size . The Planning

3

Commission requested that the applicant:

(I Redesign the second level deck to be no larger than 6 feet by 5 feet and incorporated intoa hip roof design over the rear ground level porch.

(I Move the house 4 feet further back-from the public right-of-way so that the rear wall ofthe proposed residence aligns with the wall break of the residence at 45 Walnut Avenue.

e Reduce the overall building height to conform to the City's floodplain managementregulations that require a finished floor elevation in the FEMA designated AE flood zoneof no more than I-foot above the base flood elevation of 33 feet 10 inches, whilemaintaining the existing plate heights and roof pitch.

The following analysis describes the revisions made to the previously approved Design Reviewapplication from November 13,2012 and incorporated into the current proposal:

• Redesign the second level deck to be no larger than 6 feet by 5 feet and incorporatedi;lltoa hip roof design over the rear ground level porch.

The Commission requested that the applicant reduce the size of the rear second level deck to aidthe privacy of the neighbors. Commissioner Geiszler stated at the November 13, 2012 meetingthat the deck should be reduced to a size no greater than the sliding glass door and able to fit 2chairs and a table. The applicant was able to incorporate a shed roof and reduce the deck to 10­feet by 5 feet. Sheet A2.2 of the project plans shows that this size deck fits two chairs and asmall table . Sheet A3.1 of the project plans shows the 7 foot reduction in deck length that theCommission requested. The applicant is proposing a shed roof at the deck due to the minimumwidth required to have a usable deck off of the bedroom. In revising the design, the architectfound that a 6 foot by 5 foot deck was too small to incorporate usable space. The proposed shedroof accomplishes the Commission's intent of reducing the deck's mass as viewed from 55Walnut Avenue.

e Move the house 4 feet to the rear of the property so that the rear wall aligns with thewall break at 45 Walnut Avenue.

The applicant increased the front yard setback from 16 feet 8 inches to 20 feet. The residencewas moved 3 feet 6 inches toward the rear to align the rear wall of the house to a point parallel toan angle at the residence of 45 Walnut Avenue. The revised location places the front wall of theresidence behind the front wall of 45 Walnut Avenue, creating a symmetrical step between thehouses on either side of 51 Walnut Avenue (45 and 55 Walnut Avenue).

e Reduce the overall building height to conform to the City's floodplain managementregulations that require a finished floor elevation in the FEMA designated AE floodzone of no more than I-foot above the base flood elevation of 33.8 feet, whilemaintaining the existing plate heights and roof pitch.

4

The applicant has lowered the house 1 foot from the November 13,2012 plans reducing theoverall height from 27 feet to 26 feet. The upper level plate height remains at 8 feet while themaximum main level plate height increases in the family room from 9 feet 8 inches to 10 feet.The southern section of the house, which incorporates a living room on the main floor andbedrooms 2 and 3 on the upper floor, is reduced in height from 25 feet to 24 feet. The finishedfloor elevation complies with the FEMA designated AE flood zone at 34 feet 10 inches, one footabove the base flood elevation of 33 feet 10 inches.

Variance

The Commission's action on November 13,2012 included a variance to relocate the residence 18inches into the southern interior yard setback to allow for more driveway width. The applicantdid not include a variance application in the current proposal, but instead has modified the widthof the proposed residence to allow greater driveway width without a variance. The proposedhouse width has been narrowed 6 inches to allow greater clearance between the residence andexisting driveway. The previous side yard setback between the residence and driveway was 8feet 2 inches. The proposed minimum side yard setback is 9 feet. While this is less than the 18inches requested by the Planning Commission at the November 13,2012 public hearing, it isgreater than the existing minimum clearance of 8 feet 8 inches as shown on Sheet A1.1 of theproject plans. The residence is set at a slight angle from the.side yard setback, which increases to11 feet 2 inches at the rear of the residence. In addition to increasing the driveway clearance, theapplicant is proposing a 625 square foot permeable parking pad to allow vehicles to maneuver tohead out of the driveway nose first.

Design Review Guidelines

Slope Design

The proposed project is located on a flat lot with no slope design issues.

Flora and Fauna Design Guidelines

A landscape and planting plan is included on Sheet L1 of the project plans . The landscape planincludes maintaining the existing street trees to aide in privacy screening from the street. Privacyscreening between the neighboring properties includes adding a row of Japanese maple treesbetween the parking area in the rear and the property line. A row of European hornberry treesand a solid 6-foot fence along the south property line will provide a small landscape screen alongthe length of the south property line. A natural landscape buffer is included within the 30-footcreek setback. The proposed landscape plan utilizes existing trees in compliance with DesignGuideline 3, uses water tolerant vegetation complying with Design Guideline 5 and increases theprivacy between neighbors with screening trees and a 6-foot privacy fence on the north propertyline complying with Design Guidelines 6 and 8.

Soils and Grading Design Guidelines

5

The proposed project is located on a flat site within a FEMA designated AE flood zone. Thefinished floor is proposed one-foot above the base flood elevation and there will be minimalgrading after demolishing the existing residence.

Drainage Design Guidelines

The drainage plan has been reviewed and preliminarily approved by the Public WorksDepartment. Further review of the plan will be conducted during the building permit phase.

Building Design Guidelines

The applicant will comply with the City's Green Building Ordinance, WUI, and EnergyConservation requirements for the new structures. The residence complies with the height andsetback requirements in the Mill Valley Municipal Code. The proposed project was modifiedfrom the November 13,2012 proposal to minimize the mass and bulk of the residence bylowering the building height 1 foot and reducing size of the rear upper level porch. A 25 foot by25 foot parking pad is included to allow a turnaround area for vehicles to head out nose first fromthe rear of the property.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Staff has received no public comment at this time. Two appeal letters for application D 12-4004are included in Attachment 4.

EXHIBITS

A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVALB. PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

ATTACHMENTS

1. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMO DATED AUGUST 13,20122. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 13,20123. PLANNING COMMISSIN STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2012.4. APPEAL LETTERS

6

EXHIBIT AFINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

51 WALNUT AVENUE, APN 028-233-27, File No. DI2-4004

A. The project is Categorically Exempt from the CEQA requirementfor the preparation ofenvironmental documents under Section 15303(a) ofthe CEQA Guidelines .

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) exempts "one single-family residence in a single­family zone." The project at 51 Walnut is consistent with this class of CategoricalExemption and no further environmental assessment is required.

B. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

The new house and existing detached garage is a single-family residential developmentproject consistent with the single-family land use designation in the General Plan. Theproject meets the height, setback and floor area ratio requirements of the Municipal Codefor single-famil y residences. The finished floor elevation of the new residence willconform to the requirements of the City's Floodplain Management regulations (Title 18of the Mill Valley Municipal Code) .

C. The proposal is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City.

The proposal is consistent with applicable City Design Guidelines 17 (Scale, Mass andHeight) 19 (Windows, Roofs and Skylights) and 21 (Parking) by locating the residenceapproximately 20 feet from the front property line; by widening the existing driveway tothe rear detached garage to a minimum of 9 feet and providing a parking turnaround areaat the rear of the property; by locating and sizing the second story windows to address theprivacy of adjoining neighbors; by reducing the overall building height and stillconforming to the City'S floodplain regulations; by reducing the size of the deck off ofthe second floor master bedroom and incorporating it into that portion of the roof; bydesigning a hip roof instead of the previously proposed double shed roof design; and bymaintaining the existing detached garage at the rear of the property to reduce the overalllength of the house.

D. The City has considered whether to apply any limitations on building, size, height andsetbacks pursuant to Section 20.66.045.

No limitations have been placed on the project pursuant to Section 20.66.045.

8

EXIDBITBCONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

51 WALNUT AVENUE, APN 028·233-27, File No. D12·4004

PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Tom Zanarini, 415-388-4033 x 4810

1. Floor plans and building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with plansprepared by Chambers and Chambers Architects received by Planning DepartmentDecember 6, 2012 on file with the Mill Valley Planning and Building Department, exceptas may be modified by these conditions of approval.

Conditions Requiring Compliance Prior to Issuance of Building Permits

2. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions of approval, plans submitted to theBuilding Department for plan check shall be in substantial conformance with thoseapproved by the Planning Commission. Any changes to the approved Design Reviewplans, including changes to windows or the demolition plan, must be reviewed with andapproved by the Planning Department prior to submitting for a building permit or arevision to the building permit . Any changes must be clearly highlighted (with a"bubble" or "cloud") on plans submitted to the Planning Department A list describing indetail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the plans. Any changes thathave not been explicitly approved by the Planning Department are not valid and may besubject to stop work orders and/or require removal.

3. All conditions of approval shall be included on the front sheet of the constructiondrawing submitted for a building permit.

4. Prior to issuance of building permit , the applicant shall submit Green BuildingCompliance Form, which includes a signature page for the certifying agency (Build itGreen or LEED) to confirm Design Conformance based on the Green Building Checklistsubmitted during the planning application.

5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, on the proposed project, the applicant shall arrangea pre-construction meetingwith staff that shall be attended by Mill Valley staff, theowner, contractor and all sub-contractors to review these conditions of approval,permitted hours of operation etc.

6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a sign shall be posted in a location where the signis clearly readable from the public right-of-way. The sign shall be 9 to 12 square feet insize. Information on the sign shall include:

a. Address of site.b. Permitted hours of construction.c. Name, address and phone number of the contractor.d. Name, address and phone number of the person responsible for the project.e. Name and phone number of the party to call in case of an emergency.f. Requirement that workers carpool to the site.

9

g. The phone number of the City of Mill Valley Code Enforcement Officer.

Conditions Requiring Compliance Prior to Final Inspection/Occupancy

7. Site landscaping shall be in substantial conformance with the Landscape Plan on file withthe Mill Valley Planning and Building Department. The final landscape plan shall bestamped by a licensed landscape architect and filed with the Planning Department prior tooccupancy. Plans for any irrigation of the site shall be incorporated into the landscapeplan. All planting shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy of theproposed residence. Upon the discretion of the Planning Director, installation may besuitably guaranteed by posting a cash bond equal to 100% of the cost and installation ofany landscape improvements.

General Conditions

8. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents andemployees (collectively "the City") from any and all claims, actions, lawsuits, damages.losses and liabilities arising or resulting from the granting of this permit by the City, theperformance of the use authorized by this permit or the exercise of the rights granted bythis permit. The applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Cityshall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel ofthe City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, actions orlawsuits, any expert fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs orattorneys' fees in any such claim, action or lawsuit.

9. The light source of all exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded from adjacentproperties.

10. The project shall comply with all applicable Energy Efficiency Regulations in the MillValley Municipal Code.

11. All portions of the job site in view of the public and immediately adjacent neighbors shallbe maintained in an orderly condition. All trash, debris, construction scraps and brokenor unused machinery shall be removed from the site at the end of each work week.Construction materials not used within two weeks of their delivery date shall be screenedfrom public view. All sidewalks, driveways and public/private roadways fronting thesubject site shall be broom cleaned at the end of each work day.

12. Prior to pouring the foundation, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department awet-stamped certification from a licensed surveyor that confirms that the location of theresidence on the site complies with the approved setbacks.

13. Prior to sheathing the roof, the applicant shall submit a wet-stamped certification from alicensed surveyor to the Planning Department confirming that the height of the roof forthe residence complies with the approved plans.

10

14. Property lines shall be certified by a licensed surveyor at the time of the first foundationrelated building inspection.

15. A surveyor shall certify that the fmished floor and flood opening comply with Title 18 ofthe Municipal Code prior to setting the first floor foundation.

16. An elevation certificate certifying that the finished floor elevation and flood openings arein compliance with Title 18 of the Municipal Code is required prior to final buildinginspection.

17. The hours of construction activity, including the use of power tools, shall be limited to8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction is not allowed on Saturdays,Sundays, or holidays.

FIRE DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Tom Welch, Fire Marshal, 389·4130

18. Fire Sprinklers:

A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for:

a) All new construction.b) Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure as per

Uniform Fire Code Section 1001.9.c) Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be

completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the MillValley Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinklersystem design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the MillValley Fire Department and N.F.P.A. Standard 13D.

19. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California BuildingCode, Uniform Fire Code, and Fire Department Standard 205. Final inspection andsignoff of address posting shall be coordinated through the Building Department.

20. Smoke and CO detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California BuildingCode. Final inspection and signoff of smoke and CO detectors shall be coordinatedthrough the Building Department.

21. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for:

a) All new roofs shall be non-combustible.

NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group ROccupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the Uniform BuildingCode and approved by the Building Department.

22. Prior to occupancy, a spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney(s) (3/8 to W' meshminimum).

II

23. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted by the Fire Department unless allconditions have been met.

24. Fire Department and City personnel shall be granted access to private driveways andprivate roadways in order to enforce applicable ordinances related to fire codes,municipal and penal codes pertaining to maintaining road access for emergency vehicles.

25. To avoid inspection delays by the Fire Department, all requests must be made at least 48hours in advance.

26. All permits and/or inspection fees required by the Fire Department shall be paid in fullprior to final occupancy being granted.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Any questions. contact Dan Hughes. 388-4033

27. GENERAL

a. A construction management plan/schedule is required from Department of PublicWorks as prot of the building permit submittal and prior to building permitapproval and shall be incorporated into the job set of plans. This plan shall be abinding document; failure to adhere to the plan may result in stoppage of theproject. This plan shall be updated as project conditions may change. Updates toplan shall be provided to the Department of Public Works. Plan / schedule shallinclude (but not be limited to) work schedule (intended start of construction date,road or lane closure intent/dates, important milestones and proposed final dates),storage type and location and travel routes.

b. Prior to the issuance of any permits, applicant shall provide the Department ofPublic Works recorded easement documentation indicating necessary right-of­way for bridge and driveway facilities for use by adjacent property.

c. Prior to the issuance of any permits, applicant shall stake (or mark in a manneracceptable to the Department of Public Works) driveway bridge abutment (orother foundation for bridge) location to ensure abutments are out of the banks ofthe channel. Applicant shall notify Department of Public Works when markingsare in place. Department of Public Works shall inspect and if locations are foundto be out of the banks of the drainage way shall release this item as a requirementof permit issuance. Final project sign off will be required by the Department ofPublic Works, therefore final location of installed bridge facility must also beconfirmed to be located out of banks of channel.

28. DRAINAGE

a. All site drainage shall be dissipated in a manner that prevents erosion andconforms to current storm water discharge practices in Marin County. Theapplicant is responsible for ensuring storm water runoff is maintained in

12

its natural path.b. Final drainage improvements shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer, and

reviewed and approved by the CityEngineer prior to issuing a BuildingPermit.

c. Drainage improvements shall be installed as per the recommendation ofthe soils evaluation prepared by the project soils engineer.

d. Since drainage is not codified, but controlled by civil law, an Attorneyshould be consulted to verify that any proposed concentration of water thatis currently sheet flowing over the property will not result in legal liabilityfor the applicant.

e. All stormwater runoff lines (such as building downspout lines, landscapedrain lines, etc.) must be discharged in a manner that conforms to thecurrent stormwater discharge practices in Marin County.

41. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION - Applicant is responsible for ensuringthat contractor uses Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry ("GeneralConstruction and Site Supervision" brochure available at the Department of PublicWorks) to prevent storm drain pollution. Applicant shall be responsible for anyenvironmental damage caused by his/her contractors or employees.

42. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - No construction activity orplacement of structures and/or debris is allowed within a waterway with a defined bedand bank.

43. SOILS AND GRADING

a. All exposed areas resulting from excavation and grading shall be seededor planted with appropriate vegetation and maintained until established toprevent erosion.

b. A Grading Permit is required from Department of Public Works for sitegrading. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section14.32 of the Municipal Code (copies available at the Public Works office)by providing the Department of Public Works with the following:Note: The applicant should submit the application and all supportingdocuments at least two weeks prior to the scheduled start ofconstruction in order to avoid delay.i. A site map, foundation plan and grading plan.ii. A completed Grading Permit Application.iii. Submit 3 copies of the soil engineers report to the Department of

Public Works along with 2 copies of the site plan showing the outline of theproposed structure, cross sections, a foundation plan if available, and $1,500refundable deposit to cover actual cost of peer review by City-retained soilsengineer.

IV. A construction schedule.v. A grading security for $5,000 shall be submitted in the form of a

Certificate of Deposit (CD) or cash to cover grading, drainage, and erosion

13

control. Contact the Department of Public Works for details.c. An erosion control plan, which includes a signed statement by the soils

engineer that erosion control is in accordance with CAQSA standards.The erosion control plan shall demonstrate protection of disturbed soilfrom rain and surface runoff and demonstrate sediment controls as a"back-up" system. (Temporary seeding and mulching or straw matting areeffective controls.).

d. The Soils Engineer shall provide a letter to the Department of PublicWorks certifying that all grading and drainage has been constructedaccording to plans filed with the grading permit and hislherrecommendations. Any changes in the approved grading and drainageplans shall be certified by the Soils Engineer and approved by theDepartment of Public Works. No modifications to the approved plansshall be made without approval of the Soils Engineer and the Departmentof Public Works.

e. The existing vegetation shall not be disturbed until landscaping is installedor erosion control measures, such as straw matting, hydroseeding, etc, areimplemented. . .

f. All exposed areas resulting from excavation and grading shall be seededor planted with appropriate vegetation and maintained until established toprevent erosion.

M. ENCROACHMENTS

a. A Revocable Encroachment Permit is required from the Public WorksDepartment for all work within the right-of-way.

b. A Revocable Encroachment Pennit shall be recorded at the Marin CountyRecorder's Office prior to any construction in the right-of-way.

c. An encroachment security in the a form of a Certificate of Deposit (CD) orcash in the amount of the work to be constructed in the right-of-way shall besubmitted to the Public Works Department with the Encroachment Permit.

d. Construction within the public right-of-way is limited to that necessary tosupport the lot's use. This includes driveways, sidewalks, and sometimes cargarages or decks on steep hillsides. Garbage can enclosures are not permittedin the right-of-way. Fences, gates, structures, and walls within the right-of­way will only be approved when they meet the conditions set in Section11.16.010 and 20.60.065 of the Mill Valley Municipal Code.

e. Submit drawing(s) of the fence/gate/wall showing height, type of material andlocation proposed of all improvements to the Public Works Department forreview and approval.

45 . SEWAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS - The applicant shall obtain a sewer connectionpermit from the Department of Public Works. The fee for this permit is $5,000 for asingle family home. Inspection fees may be added to the basic connection fee .

46. MATERIAL STORAGE - All construction materials, debris, and equipment shall be

14

stored on site. If that is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtainedfrom the Department of Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris,debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee for using the right-of­way for storage of construction materials or equipment is $10.00 per day in residentialareas, and $20.00 per day in commercial areas . A minimum of 12' clearance shall bemaintained at all times along the roadway. The placing of portable restroom facilities inthe City right-of-way will not be permitted.

47 . ROAD BOND-

a) A $10,000 road security in the form of a Certificate of Deposit (CD) or cash forrepair of damage to the City streets shall be submitted to the Public WorksDepartment prior to QIe issuance of any permits.

b) Submit a DVD clearly showing the existing condition'of the road of the proposedtravel route to the Department of Public Works prior to the start of construction.

Applicants are advised that absent clear videotape evidence to the contrary,road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City prior to releaseof the road security. Damage assessment will be at the sole discretion of theCity, and neighborhood input will be considered in making that assessment.

48. ROAD CLOSURESa. Road closures will only be permitted with prior authorization of the

Department of Public Works consistent with the City's road closurepolicy. Persons wanting to close the road are required to provide writtennotification to affected property owners and neighbors. Signs containingdetails of the proposed closure must be posted 48 hours in advance.Coordinate traffic control and all temporary road closures with the MillValley Department of Public Works. Contact Julie McClure, EngineeringTechnician, at the Department of Public Works at 388-4033 to obtain aroad closure permit.

b. Submit a traffic detour plan to the Department of Public Works.

49. ROAD IMPACT FEE - All Projects with a construction value of $10,000 or more will becharged a fee of 1% of the building permit value.

50.TREES AND VEGETATION - Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according toSection 11.24.090 of the Mill Valley Municipal Code. Trees and shrubs shall be kepttrimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over public properties provide a clearanceof not less than eight (8) feet. Bushes and other vegetation shall be trimmed so no portionhangs over the sidewalk or the road if no sidewalk is present.

51. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS - All improvements within the publicright-of-way shall be in accordance with the Uniform Construction Standards of AllCities and County of Marin unless noted otherwise herein.

15

52. The street shall be overlaid with a minimum of 2 inches of asphalt. Limits of overlayshall be along the project property frontage.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Any questions. contact Dan Martin, 388·4033

53. The project shall be subject to the 2012 California Building, Plumbing, Electrical,Mechanical, Energy, and other applicable Title 24 codes.

Expiration of Approval

54. This approval shall expire one year from the date of approval unless a building permit hasbeen issued. Prior to the expiration of a design review approval, the applicant may applyto the Director of Planning and Building for a one-year extension from the date ofexpiration. The Director of Planning and Building may make minor modifications of theapproved design at the time of extension if he/she finds that there has been a substantialchange in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design. ITbuilding permit is issued during the effective life of the design review approval, theexpiration date of the design review approval shall be automatically extended to coincidewith the expiration date of the building permit.

55. This approval is effective from the date of approval until the building permit is issued andshall expire one year after approval should a building permit not be issued.

16

obtained from the Department ofPublic Works prior to placing any constructionmaterials, debris, debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee forusing the right-of-way for storage ofconstruction materials or equipment is $10.00 perday in residential areas, and $20.00 per day in commercial areas. A minimum of 12'passable auto traffic clearance (paved travel way) shall be maintained at all times alongthe roadway. The placing of portable restroom facilities in the City right-of-way will notbe permitted.

44. ROAD IMPACT FEE - Applicants should be aware that, as part of the fees required forbuilding permit issuance, all Projects with a construction value of$10,000 or more willbe charged a fee of 1% of the building permit value.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Dan Martin, 388-4033

45. The project shall be subject to the 2010 California Building, Plumbing, Electrical,Mechanical, Energy and other applicable Title 24 codes.

Expiration ofApproval

46. This approval shall expire one year from the date ofapproval unless a building permit hasbeen issued. Prior to the expiration ofa design review approval, the applicant may applyto the Director ofPlanning and Building for a one-year extension from the date ofexpiration. The Director ofPlanning and Building may make minor modifications of theapproved design at the time ofextension ifhe/she fmds that there has been a substantialchange in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design. Ifbuilding permit is issued during the effective life ofthe design review approval, theexpiration date of the design review approval shall be automatically extended to coincidewith the expiration date ofthe building permit.

The motion was carried 4/0.

51 Walnut - Deitch - Design Review - File No. 4040 CZanarini> A public hearingto hear the application ofChambers & Chambers Architects for Design Reviewand a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act inconnection with the demolition ofan existing residence and the construction ofanew 2,717 square foot residence on a parcel owned by Joshua Deitch.

51 Walnut doc.

Staff presentation from Associate Planner Zanarini

Applicant presentation from owner Joshua Deitch

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

101/14/13

Public Comment

Commission Deliberation

Motion

A. The project is Categorically Exemptfrom the CEQA requirementfor the preparation ofenvironmental documents under Section 15303(a) ofthe CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) exempts "one single-family residence in a single­family zone." The project at 51 Walnut is consistent with this class ofCategoricalExemption and no further environmental assessment is required.

B. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

The new house and existing detached garage is a single-family residential developmentproject consistent with the single-family land use designation in the General Plan. Theproject meets the height, setback and floor area ratio requirements of the Municipal Codefor single-family residences. The finished floor elevation ofthe new residence willconform to the requirements of the City's Floodplain Management regulations (Title 18ofthe Mill Valley Municipal Code).

C. The proposal is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City.

The proposal is consistent with applicable City Design Guidelines 17 (Scale, Mass andHeight) 19 (Windows, Roofs and Skylights) and 21 (Parking) by locating the residenceapproximately 20 feet from the front property line; by widening the existing driveway tothe rear detached garage to a minimum of9 feet and providing a parking turnaround areaat the rear ofthe property; by locating and sizing the second story windows to address theprivacy ofadjoining neighbors; by reducing the overall building height and stillconforming to the City's floodplain regulations; by reducing the size of the deck offofthe second floor master bedroom and incorporating it into that portion ofthe roof; bydesigning a hip roof instead ofthe previously proposed double shed roofdesign; and bymaintaining the existing detached garage at the rear ofthe property to reduce the overalllength of the house.

D. The City has considered whether to apply any limitations on building, size, height andsetbacks pursuant to Section 20.66.045.

No limitations have been placed on the project pursuant to Section 20.66.045.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

111/14/13

PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Any Questions, contact Tom Zanarini, 415-388-4033 x 4810

1. Floor plans and building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with plansprepared by Chambers and Chambers Architects received by Planning DepartmentDecember 6, 2012 on file with the Mill Valley Planning and Building Department, exceptas may be modified by these conditions of approval.

Conditions Requiring Compliance Prior to Issuance of Building Permits

2. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions ofapproval, plans submitted to theBuilding Department for plan check shall be in substantial conformance with thoseapproved by the Planning Commission. Any changes to the approved Design Reviewplans, including changes to windows or the demolition plan, must be reviewed with andapproved by the Planning Department prior to submitting for a building permit or arevision to the building permit. Any changes must be clearly highlighted (with a"bubble" or "cloud") on plans submitted to the Planning Department. A list describing indetail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the plans. Any changes thathave not been explicitly approved by the Planning Department are not valid and may besubject to stop work orders and/or require removal.

3. All conditions ofapproval shall be included on the front sheet ofthe constructiondrawing submitted for a building permit.

4. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit Green BuildingCompliance Form, which includes a signature page for the certifying agency (Build itGreen or LEED) to confirm Design Conformance based on the Green Building Checklistsubmitted during the planning application.

5. Prior to issuance ofa building permit, on the proposed project, the applicant shall arrangea pre-construction meeting with staff that shall be attended by Mill Valley staff, theowner, contractor and all sub-contractors to review these conditions ofapproval,permitted hours ofoperation etc.

6. Prior to issuance ofa building permit, a sign shall be posted in a location where the signis clearly readable from the public right-of-way. The sign shall be 9 to 12 square feet insize. Information on the sign shall include:

a. Address of site.b. Permitted hours of construction.c. Name, address and phone number ofthe contractor.d. Name, address and phone number ofthe person responsible for the project.e. Name and phone number of the party to call in case ofan emergency.f. Requirement that workers carpool to the site.g. The phone number ofthe City of Mill Valley Code Enforcement Officer.

Conditions Requiring Compliance Prior to Final Inspection/Occupancy

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

121/14/13

7. Site landscaping shall be in substantial conformance with the Landscape Plan on file withthe Mill Valley Planning and Building Department. The final landscape plan shall bestamped by a licensed landscape architect and filed with the Planning Department prior tooccupancy. Plans for any irrigation of the site shall be incorporated into the landscapeplan. All planting shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to occupancy oftheproposed residence. Upon the discretion ofthe Planning Director, installation may besuitably guaranteed by posting a cash bond equal to 100% ofthe cost and installation ofany landscape improvements.

General Conditions

8. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents andemployees (collectively "the City") from any and all claims, actions, lawsuits, damages,losses and liabilities arising or resulting from the granting of this permit by the City, theperformance of the use authorized by this permit or the exercise ofthe rights granted bythis permit. The applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Cityshall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel ofthe City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, actions orlawsuits, any expert fees, and any award ofdamages, judgments, verdicts, court costs orattorneys' fees in any such claim, action or lawsuit.

9. The light source ofall exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded from adjacentproperties.

10. The project shall comply with all applicable Energy Efficiency Regulations in the MillValley Municipal Code.

11. All portions of the job site in view ofthe public and immediately adjacent neighbors shallbe maintained in an orderly condition. All trash, debris, construction scraps and brokenor unused machinery shall be removed from the site at the end ofeach work week.Construction materials not used within two weeks oftheir delivery date shall be screenedfrom public view. All sidewalks, driveways and public/private roadways fronting thesubject site shall be broom cleaned at the end ofeach work day. .

12. Prior to pouring the foundation, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a'wet-stamped certification from a licensed surveyor that confirms that the location oftheresidence on the site complies with the approved setbacks.

13. Prior to sheathing the roof, the applicant shall submit a wet-stamped certification from alicensed surveyor to the Planning Department confirming that the height of the roof forthe residence complies with the approved plans.

14. Property lines shall be certified by a licensed surveyor at the time ofthe first foundationrelated building inspection.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

13

1/14/13

15. A surveyor shall certify that the finished floor and flood opening comply with Title 18 ofthe Municipal Code prior to setting the first floor foundation.

16. An elevation certificate certifying that the finished floor elevation and flood openings arein compliance with Title 18 of the Municipal Code is required prior to final buildinginspection.

17. The hours ofconstruction activity, including the use of power tools, shall be limited to8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction is not allowed on Saturdays,Sundays, or holidays.

18. The driveway width at the TV bump-out shall be no less than 10 feet wide.

19. Applicant will work with the neighbor and staff to provide vegetation strips along thefence.

20. The height ofthe residence shall be reduced to meet the minimum required FEMAmandated finished floor elevation in the AE flood zone.

FIRE DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Tom Welch, Fire Marshal, 389-4130

21. Fire Sprinklers:

A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for:

a) All new construction.b) Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure as per

Uniform Fire Code Section 1001.9.c) Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be

completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the MillValley Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinklersystem design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the MillValley Fire Department and N.F.P.A. Standard 13D.

22. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California BuildingCode, Uniform Fire Code, and Fire Department Standard 205. Final inspection andsignoffof address posting shall be coordinated through the Building Department.

23. Smoke and CO detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California BuildingCode. Final inspection and signoffof smoke and CO detectors shall be coordinatedthrough the Building Department.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

141/14/13

24. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for:

a) All new roofs shall be non-combustible.

NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group ROccupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the Uniform BuildingCode and approved by the Building Department.

25. Prior to occupancy, a spark arrester shall be installed on the chimney(s) (3/8 to W' meshminimum).

26. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted by the Fire Department unless allconditions have been met.

27. Fire Department and City personnel shall be granted access to private driveways andprivate roadways in order to enforce applicable ordinances related to fire codes,municipal and penal codes pertaining to maintaining road access for emergency vehicles.

28. To avoid inspection delays by the Fire Department, all requests must be made at least 48hours in advance.

29. All permits and/or inspection fees required by the Fire Department shall be paid in fullprior to final occupancy being granted.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Any questions. contact Dan Hughes. 388-4033

30. GENERAL

a. A construction management plan/schedule is required from Department of PublicWorks as part ofthe building permit submittal and prior to building permitapproval and shall be incorporated into the job set of plans. This plan shall be abinding document; failure to adhere to the plan may result in stoppage oftheproject. This plan shall be updated as project conditions may change. Updates toplan shall be provided to the Department ofPublic Works. Plan / schedule shallinclude (but not be limited to) work schedule (intended start of construction date,road or lane closure intent/dates, important milestones and proposed final dates),storage type and location and travel routes.

b. Prior to the issuance ofany permits, applicant shall provide the Department ofPublic Works recorded easement documentation indicating necessary right-of­way for bridge and driveway facilities for use by adjacent property.

c. Prior to the issuance ofany permits, applicant shall stake (or mark in a manner

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

15l/14/13

acceptable to the Department ofPublic Works) driveway bridge abutment (orother foundation for bridge) location to ensure abutments are out ofthe banks ofthe channel. Applicant shall notify Department ofPublic Works when markingsare in place. Department ofPublic Works shall inspect and iflocations are foundto be out ofthe banks ofthe drainage way shall release this item as a requirementofpermit issuance. Final project sign offwill be required by the Department ofPublic Works, therefore final location of installed bridge facility must also beconfirmed to be located out ofbanks ofchannel.

31. DRAINAGE

a. All site drainage shall be dissipated in a manner that prevents erosion andconforms to current storm water discharge practices in Marin County. Theapplicant is responsible for ensuring storm water runoff is maintained inits natural path.

b. Final drainage improvements shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer, andreviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuing a BuildingPermit.

c. Drainage improvements shall be installed as per the recommendation ofthe soils evaluation prepared by the project soils engineer.

d. Since drainage is not codified, but controlled by civil law, an Attorneyshould be consulted to verify that any proposed concentration ofwater thatis currently sheet flowing over the property will not result in legal liabilityfor the applicant.

e. All stormwater runoff lines (such as building downspout lines, landscapedrain lines, etc.) must be discharged in a manner that conforms to thecurrent stormwater discharge practices in Marin County.

32. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION - Applicant is responsible for ensuringthat contractor uses Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry ("GeneralConstruction and Site Supervision" brochure available at the Department ofPublicWorks) to prevent storm drain pollution. Applicant shall be responsible for anyenvironmental damage caused by his/her contractors or employees.

33. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - No construction activity orplacement of structures and/or debris is allowed within a waterway with adefined bedand bank.

34. SOILS AND GRADING

a. All exposed areas resulting from excavation and grading shall be seededor planted with appropriate vegetation and maintained until established toprevent erosion.

b. A Grading Permit is required from Department ofPublic Works for sitegrading. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

161/14/13

14.32 of the Municipal Code (copies available at the Public Works office)by providing the Department ofPublic Works with the following:Note: The applicant should submit the application and all supportingdocuments at least two weeks prior to the scheduled start ofconstruction in order to avoid delay.

i. A site map, foundation plan and grading plan.

ii. A completed Grading Permit Application.

Ill. Submit 3 copies ofthe soil engineers report to the Department ofPublic Works along with 2 copies ofthe "site plan showing the outline oftheproposed structure, cross sections, a foundation plan if available, and $1,500refundable deposit to cover actual cost ofpeer review by City-retained soilsengineer.

iv. A construction schedule.

v. A grading security for $5,000 shall be submitted in the form ofaCertificate ofDeposit (CD) or cash to cover grading, drainage, and erosioncontrol. Contact the Department ofPublic Works for details.

c. An erosion control plan, which includes a signed statement by the soilsengineer that erosion control is in accordance with CAQSA standards.The erosion control plan shall demonstrate protection ofdisturbed soilfrom rain and surface runoff and demonstrate sediment controls as a"back-up" system. (Temporary seeding and mulching or straw matting areeffective controls.).

d. The Soils Engineer shall provide a letter to the Department ofPublicWorks certifying that all grading and drainage has been constructedaccording to plans filed with the grading permit and his/herrecommendations. Any changes in the approved grading and drainageplans shall be certified by the Soils Engineer and approved by theDepartment ofPublic Works. No modifications to the approved plansshall be made without approval ofthe Soils Engineer and the DepartmentofPublic Works.

e. The existing vegetation shall not be disturbed until landscaping is installedor erosion control measures, such as straw matting, hydroseeding, etc, areimplemented.

f. All exposed areas resulting from excavation and grading shall be seededor planted with appropriate vegetation and maintained until established toprevent erosion.

35. ENCROACHMENTS

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

171/14/13

a. A Revocable Encroachment Permit is required from the Public WorksDepartment for all work within the right-of-way.

b. A Revocable Encroachment Permit shall be recorded at the Marin CountyRecorder's Office prior to any construction in the right-of-way.

c. An encroachment security in the a form ofa Certificate ofDeposit (CD) orcash in the amount ofthe work to be constructed in the right-of-way shall besubmitted to the Public Works Department with the Encroachment Permit.

d. Construction within the public right-of-way is limited to that necessary tosupport the lot's use. This includes driveways, sidewalks, and sometimes cargarages or decks on steep hillsides. Garbage can enclosures are not permittedin the right-of-way. Fences, gates, structures, and walls within the right-of­way will only be approved when they meet the conditions set in Section11.16.010 and 20.60.065 ofthe Mill Valley Municipal Code.

e. Submit drawing(s) ofthe fence/gate/wall showing height, type ofmaterial andlocation proposed ofall improvements to the Public Works Department forreview and approval.

36. SEWAGE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS - The applicant shall obtain a sewer connectionpermit from the Department ofPublic Works. The fee for this permit is $5,000 for asingle family home. Inspection fees may be added to the basic connection fee.

37. MATERIAL STORAGE - All construction materials, debris, and equipment shall bestored on site. Ifthat is not physically possible, an encroachment permit shall be obtainedfrom the Department of Public Works prior to placing any construction materials, debris,debris boxes or unlicensed equipment in the right-of-way. The fee for using the right-of­way for storage ofconstruction materials or equipment is $10.00 per day in residentialareas, and $20.00 per day in commercial areas. A minimum of 12' clearance shall bemaintained at all times along the roadway. The placing ofportable restroom facilities inthe City right-of-way will not be permitted.

38. ROAD BOND-

a) A $10,000 road security in the form ofa Certificate ofDeposit (CD) or cash forrepair ofdamage to the City streets shall be submitted to the Public WorksDepartment prior to the issuance ofany permits.

b) Submit a DVD clearly showing the existing condition of the road of the proposedtravel route to the Department of Public Works prior to the start ofconstruction.

Applicants are advised that absent clear videotape evidence to the contrary,road damage must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City prior to releaseofthe road security. Damage assessment will be at the sole discretion of theCity, and neighborhood input will be considered in making that assessment.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

181/14/13

39. ROAD CLOSURESa. Road closures will only be permitted with prior authorization ofthe

Department ofPublic Works consistent with the City's road closurepolicy. Persons wanting to close the road are required to provide writtennotification to affected property owners and neighbors. Signs containingdetails of the proposed closure must be posted 48 hours in advance.Coordinate traffic control and all temporary road closures with the MillValley Department of Public Works. Contact Julie McClure, EngineeringTechnician, at the Department ofPublic Works at 388-4033 to obtain aroad closure permit.

b. Submit a traffic detour plan to the Department of Public Works.

40. ROAD IMPACT FEE - All Projects with a construction value of$IO,OOO or more will becharged a fee of 1% of the building permit value.

41.TREES AND VEGETAnON - Trees and vegetation shall be trimmed according toSection 11.24.090 ofthe Mill Valley Municipal Code. Trees and shrubs shall be kepttrimmed so that the lowest branches projecting over public properties provide a clearanceof not less than eight (8) feet. Bushes and other vegetation shall be trimmed so no portionhangs over the sidewalk or the road ifno sidewalk is present.

42. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS - All improvements within the publicright-of-way shall be in accordance with the Uniform Construction Standards ofAllCities and County ofMarin unless noted otherwise herein.

43. The street shall be overlaid with a minimum of2 inches ofasphalt. Limits ofoverlayshall be along the project property frontage.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Any questions, contact Dan Martin, 388-4033

44. The project shall be subject to the 2012 California Building, Plumbing, Electrical,Mechanical, Energy, and other applicable Title 24 codes.

Expiration of Approval

45. This approval shall expire one year from the date ofapproval unless a building permit hasbeen issued. Prior to the expiration ofa design review approval, the applicant may applyto the Director ofPlanning and Building for a one-year extension from the date ofexpiration. The Director ofPlanning and Building may make minor modifications oftheapproved design at the time ofextension ifhe/she finds that there has been a substantialchange in the factual circumstances surrounding the originally approved design. Ifbuilding permit is issued during the effective life of the design review approval, theexpiration date ofthe design review approval shall be automatically extended to coincidewith the expiration date ofthe building permit.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

191/14/13

46. This approval is effective from the date ofapproval until the building permit is issued andshall expire one year after approval should a building permit not be issued.

The motion was carried 3/0.

DISCUSSION:

4. Zoning Administrator/ Zoning Code updates/ Design Review Procedure andGeneral Plan Hearing Schedule (Moore) Update from staffand Commissiondiscussion on revisions to the Zoning Administrator process; status ofZoningOrdinance amendments for FAR/Second Unit; Design Review procedures andrequirements and scheduling for upcoming General Plan hearings.

Di.~cussion doc.

It was Mis by Commissioner Chambers/Commissioner Richardson to postpone to continue thisitem to a date uncertain. The motion was carried 5/0.

Adjourn

It was Mis by Commissioner McCauley/Chairperson Rand to adjourn to adjourn in honor ofDr.Kevin Harrington.

The motion was carried 3/0.

Any decision made by the Planning Commission on the above items may be appealed to the City Councilby filing a letter with the Planning Department within 10 calendar days describing the basis for theappeal accompanied by the $250 appealfee.

Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED

201/14/13

Tom Zanarini5 -

From:Sent:To:SUbject:

Mike MooreMonday, February 25, 2013 10:27 AMTom ZanariniFW: City Council Hearing today re 51Walnut

Correspondence re 51 Walnut

Mike MoorePlanning &: Building Director ICity of Mill Valley

26 Corte Mad era AvenueMill Valley, CA 94941415,388,4033 Immoore@cityofmillvalley.org

Follow the Mill Valley Planning Cst Building Department on Facebook and Twitter:

http://www.facebook.com (search: City of ~'1ill Valley Planning and Building)

http://twitter.com/mvplanning Ihttp://twitter.com/mvbuilding

From: Grant Rudolph [mailto:grantrudolph@gmail.com]Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:28 AMTo: Mike Moore; joshuaDeitzh@me.comSubject: City Council Hearing today re 51Walnut

To the city CouncilI am a neighbor of the property belonging to Joshua Dietz on 51 Walnut Ave that is up for an appeal of thedesign review approval.I can see the story poles from my window, and our properties touch at the comers over the creek.

,I am writing to support the plan as approved. Let's move on.

Be Happy First.

Grant Rudolph, MFTEchoRockNeurotherapy.comLENS NeuroDharma Technology45 Camino Alto #204, Mill Valley CA 949414153024848

ATTACHMENT 71

Greetings Mill Valley City Council:

RECEIVEDPlanning Department

FEB 28 iJ iJ

Cftyof ~

It was recommended by Staffto submit a written rebuttal to the appeal submittedby Kevin Morey, in respect to City Council's valuable time. It is my hope that this isan effective means of communicating our rebuttal to this appeal. Furthermore, thatthis appeal expresses the merits to defend tonight vs. additional past, present, ornew items of concern due to the extended exposure, This has been a veryexhausting, stressful, expensive process mentally, physically, spiritually, andfinancially. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of upholding oneof several approvals of this home.

APPEAL BROKEN DOWN:

We, the undersigned, are appealing the Planning Commission 's january 14th decisionon 51 Walnut because we do not believe adequate attention was given toneighborhood concerns or environmental issues.related to creek setback area. This isa new home in one ofour community's most treasured historic neighborhoods and, assuch, will be a model for other neighborhood concerns; that sensitivity seemed absentin the latest hearing and action on this application, so we think the council must act.

During the past 3 hearings we have made many significant changes to mitigateneighborhood concerns. We adopted every suggestion made by the planningcommission in order to accommodate and respect the neighbor's and neighborhood.Although this was a healthy challenge for us, we feel the commission did a fair jobrespecting and balancing property rights, and enforcing neighborhood concerns.It's difficult to comprehend that after 3 public hearings only 1 public comment wasnoted during our January 14th hearing; that the commission did not give adequateattention to neighborhood concerns. Furthermore beyond several means ofneighborhood outreach, we invited the neighborhood to come see a 3D model andreview the plans on 2 formal occasions.

Although the concern of Creek set back and environmental concern was neveraddressed over the history of our public hearings; the conditions of approvaladdress this mutually agreed concern from section 15303 of CEQA. Additionally aformalized and approved construction management plan, and a minimum of 30ftrear setback, of which the proposed design more than exceeds.

The house is still too big for the neighborhood and the City's has the authority torequest that it be smaller. The original plan, presented to the neiqhbors was for a2,400 square foot house, reasonably sited on the lot. Many ofus liked that scheme;why not go back to it? Since then, it seems the house has grown and the siting skewedin ways that do not make sense to us.

This is bewildering, as we have never designed a 2,400 square foot version nor wasit ever even a discussion. As a matter of fact, our first version was significantlybigger due to the attached garage and second floor storage area, see 3D model #1

(its obvious which one it is). Below is a list that reveals some of the changes we madein respect to reducing mass, bulk, and height. Note, this house is nearly 2ft. 7 inchesshorter than the last new house built at 71 Walnut.

Brief review of the past 3 meetings

e Reduced height by over 3 ft. from original design.e Reduced length by over 26 ft.e Hipped all the roofs.e Removed front 2nd floor balcony or perch.a Re-designed a stepped-back front facade.e Adjusted window alignment and removed 6 windows for neighbors' privacy.e Significantly broke-up the roof line.e Significantly broke-up the northwest wall.e Removed roof over master bedroom patio.e Overall roof ridgeline was reduced by over 50 ft.

The applicant did not respond fully and completely to the commission's prior direction,which would have been a set ofrequired conditions ofapproval butfor the re-hearing.The house is not lowered as under the initially approved condition, nor is the deckshrunk to the stated size as originally directed.

In regards to the commission's conditions of approval and height, we did what wasasked, which was to lower the house to the lowest FEMA flood plane. Due to FEMA'srequirement of having a foundation that ventilates water, the yield was 18 inches.In fact we did exactly what the commission requested. Furthermore nearly half ofthe house mass is at an extremely modest 23ft tall with the tallest ridgeline at 25feet 8 inches.

In regards to the back deck we originally designed the commission's suggestion of 5feet by 6 feet. However, it was only enough spacefor 2 people to stand or 1 personto sit. We proposed the same depth but 4 feet wider to accommodate 2 chairs and asmall table to support a cheese plate and 2 glasses of wine. The design stillaccomplished the commission's desired effect of building the deck into the rooflineof the covered patio thus decreasing mass and bulk. The commission was satisfiedwith the request and the design ended up with a unanimous approval.

The commission, operating without the input oftwo design professionals, gave noconsideration in its deliberations to creek setback areas and streamkeeper's concernsabout protection ofour creeks and riparian habitat, which have been paramountconsiderations 111 similar settings, such as the La Coma project and the second unitproject on Miller Avenue. Is creek protection no longer important?

Creek protection issues are a very important issue, and we are grateful that thereare stringent guidelines, conditions, and setbacks to conform to. We have more thanexceeded the minimum set back requirements and look forward to following theguidelines and conditions.

Parking is still not adequately handled.

This is a challenge to understand as we have 2 car parking in the garage, 2 carparking available on the garage driveway apron, and one car parking at drivewayapron. However, in a pinch we can tandem park approximately 3 more cars downthe driveway. Ifwe had to, we could conceivably park 7 cars on our site. I don'tbelieve there is another site on Walnut that could accommodate that muchparking...

The applicant's briefing shows remodels in our neighborhood, which are certainlyexamples ofadaptive reuse and good neighborhood fit but not photos ofnewconstruction in our neighborhood, for which wider driveways have been required andwere built and. In most cases ofnew homes on Walnut Avenue and Sycamore Avenue,two independently accessible parking spaces were required, conveniently located.

It's my assumption that the appellant is referring to the pictures I chose in theJanuary 14th hearing of parking references. I chose the pictures regardless of new,remodeled, or original construction. I chose them because they were the neighborsexpressing concerns about parking. However if we must use new construction onWalnut as an example, 71 Walnut the newest home built has a driveway apron for 2cars and a new garage that could fit perhaps a Smart car at best.. ..

Respectfully submitted by: Kevin Morey and others recruited in the neighborhood.

At this point we are beyond exhausted and disappointed that so much damage canbe caused by the primary appellant who lives down the street, chose not to speak orsubmit in writing a concern at our January hearing. This has been a poor utilizationof 10's of thousands of dollars and several months. However, I must say the systemworked in yielding a great design, and we are grateful for your consideration ofupholding the approval granted on January 14th .

Sincerely,

Joshua Deith and Famiy...