1. APPEAL OF MCGUIRE RESIDENCES Tuesday, January28, 2014 City Council

2. Appeal and Presentation Format  Appeal Filed By Kim Stoddard  Owner/Resident at 66 Marion Avenue  13 Grounds for appeal  Staff’s Presentation to include:  Project Overview  Focus on 3 of the major grounds for the appeal

3. Project Site & Information  Applicant: Zwick Architects  Property Owner: Peter McGuire  Size: 18,725 square feet  General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Land Use Designation  Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R-2-2.5) Zoning District  Allows for single family and two-family residential development  Density of the site could allow for 7 residential units

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-34  Design Review Permit for the construction of new single- family residences requires a Design Review Permit per Section 10.54.050.B.1.  Tree Removal Permit for the removal of protected trees as part of a development application requires a Tree Removal Permit per Section 11.12.030.A.1.a.  Conditional Use Permit to allow tandem per Section 10.40.120.B.1.  Tentative Map for the division of land into a common interest development requires a Tentative Minor Subdivision Map per Section 9.55.020.  Encroachment Agreement for the construction of structures in the public right-of-way per Section 10.56.030.B.  Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the City Council

5. Project Overview  Two detached residential units  West Wind House (2,500 sq. ft)  East Wind House (2,159 sq. ft)  Both provide:  Located at the top of the parcel Minimize grading and disturbance of site  Two-car carports  A guest parking space per unit West Wind House proposes to park in tandem  Wood and stone materials to match the neighborhood  Cisterns to collect water run-off West Wind House East Wind House

6. Tree Removal Permit & Landscape Plan  55 Total Trees (52 on site)  18 trees to be removed (15 on site)  37 trees to remain on site  27 Replacement Trees  Project consistent with the Tree Removal Permit conditions On-SitePublic Right-of- Way Protected Trees  8 Coast Live Oak Trees  7 Bay Laurel Trees  2 Coast Live Oak Trees  1 Bay Laurel Tree

7. Tentative Map ParcelParcel AreaBuilding Coverage Exclusive Use Common Area East Wind House 4,239 square feet 1,863 square feet 2,376 square feet West Wind House 3,940 square feet 1,461 square feet 2,479 square feet Common Area 10,546 square feet N/A

8. Encroachment Agreement: West Wind HouseEast Wind House

9. Encroachment Agreement: Widen Marion Ave. up to 7- feet wide Fronting the Project Site

10. APPEAL  Section 10.84.010.D of the Zoning Ordinance  Any person or party affected or aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission is able to file an appeal to the City Council Stoddard Residence 66 Marion Ave. McGuire Proposal 62 Marion Ave.

11. Ground for Appeal: b.Exception for parking. On the downhill side of a street, that portion of a building devoted to covering the off-street parking spaces and building access may project above the 32 foot (32’) required height limit subject to the following conditions: (1)The overall height of the structure and all appurtenances does not exceed 40 feet; (2)The portion of new proposed structures exclusive of covered parking does not exceed the 32 foot height limit; (3)The covering does not violate any other provisions of this Title; (4)The covered parking is the highest structure on an uphill lot; and (5)The covered parking is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as governed by Chapter 10.54 (Design Review Procedures) of this Title. Staff suggests the storage area be considered accessory to parking area Storage area considered to be appurtenant to the garage Project Exceeds Allowed Height

12. Impacts to Light and Air Design Review Permit Finding: The design and location of buildings provide adequate light and air for the project site, adjacent properties and the general public. Ground for Appeal :

13. Shade Study does not demonstrate the existing trees which may cause shading currently Impacts to Light and Air

14. Ground for Appeal :  Geotechnical engineering report prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group May 2013  “did not reveal any signs of active or imminent [slope] instability”  “did not observe any significant adverse geologic features or zones of weakness with the exposed rock outcrops”  “Project site is suitable for the planned improvements” Slope Stability

15. Recommendation 1.Adopt the draft resolution which denies the appellant’s appeal and upholds Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-34 which approves a Design Review Permit, Tentative Minor Subdivision Map, Tree Removal Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Encroachment Agreement to allow the construction of two single family residences on the vacant lot located at 62 Marion Avenue; and Resolution includes 2 conditions of approval regarding landscaping and tree removal as discussed in the staff report. 2.Adopt the draft resolution which approves an Encroachment Agreement for the construction of an elevated driveway and related site improvements in the Marion Avenue right-of-way, and the parking of up to 2 vehicles partially located in the Marion Avenue right-of- way.

16. Views  Chapter 10.88 defines views as,  any view of the Sausalito Waterfront, San Francisco Waterfront, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tam, Strawberry Point, Tiburon, Belvedere, Angel Island, East Bay, and/or the City of San Francisco or any view greater than 300 feet distance and/or including significant aesthetic, cultural, natural or historical features. The term “view” does not mean an unobstructed panorama of all or any of the above.  Chapter 10.88 defines primary views as,  any view distance from primary viewing areas of a dwelling such as the living room, dining room, kitchen, master bedroom, and deck or patio spaces serving such living area. A secondary view shall be any view from bathrooms, accessory bedrooms, passageways and utility areas.

17. CEQA  Letter from Law Offices of Neil Sorenson, dated May 9, 2011  Under CEQA only 1 exemption need apply to a project  The Class 32 Infill Exemption Applies to the Project  None of the exceptions to the exemption apply  “Sensitive Environment” issues do not apply to this class…only classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11.  No evidence of “cumulative impacts from projects of the same type” in this area  No unusual circumstances applicable to the property Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.  (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.  (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.  (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.  (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.  (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.