CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. AGENDA ITEM: 3 MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: City of Belvedere Planning Commission

Transcription

1 CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: March 13, 2018 AGENDA ITEM: 3 MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: City of Belvedere Planning Commission Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner Irene Borba, Director of Planning and Building Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Floor Area, and Revocable License requests to construct a new residence for the property located at 312 Beach Road RECOMMENDATION The applicant requests approval of Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License applications to build a new single-family home, attached garage and other associated site improvements. The application is included as Attachment (5) and project plans are included as Attachment (6). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTION 1 MOTION2 MOTION3 MOTION 4 MOTIONS Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing four story home and detached garage at 312 Beach Road (Attachment 1); Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resource per CEQA at 312 Beach Road (Attachment 2); Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for the property located at 312 Beach Road, (Attachment 3); Adopt the Resolution granting Exception to Total Floor Area approval to allow a total floor area of 6,791 SF, where 3,445 SF is permitted at 312 Beach Road. (Attachment 4); Recommend City Council approval of a Revocable Licenses for improvements located in the Beach Road right-of-way and improvements located in the Belvedere Land Company Tide Lot, "The Strip" at 312 Beach Road.

2 PROPERTY SUMMARY Project Address: APN: Project Applicant: Property Owner: GP Designation: Zoning: Existing Use: 312 Beach Road Steve Wisenbaker Scott L Robertson Low Density Residential SFD -1.0 to 3.0 units/net acre R-15 Zoning District, Belvedere Island Single Family Residential Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the east side of Belvedere Cove and is surrounded by residential properties, private piers, floating docks and open waters of Belvedere Cove. The lot is 12,250-squarefeet, steeply down-sloping, in the R-15 Zone. The site affords views of Belvedere Cove, Raccoon Straits, and Angel Island. The subject property abuts City property the BLC "The Strip". ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED Lot Area 15,000 SF Total Floor Area 4,042 SF Lot Coverage 30% Structures 50% w/decks Left Side Yard Setback 10' Right Side Yard Setback 10' Rear Yard Setback 20' Front Yard Setback 15' or O' (*) Building Height 28' or 36' if slope Maximum at footprint is over 30 percent Parking Spaces 2 EXISTING 12,250 SF 3,934 SF 18% Structures 19% w/decks 2'7" 5' 50'8" 3' 6" 24'6" 2 PROPOSED No Change 6,495 SF 29% Structure 35% w/ Decks 10' 5' 39'3" 3'6" 35'10" *Section (F) In the R-IC and R-15 zones, where the average lot slope within the first forty feet of the front property line (across the entire width of the lot) exceeds twenty percent, the setback for a residential carport or garage may be reduced to a distance of zero feet, provided that the nearest point of the residential carport or garage is at least three feet from the improved street line, and provided the residential carport or garage is still twenty feet distant at all points from the opposite improved curb or improved street line. The Planning Commission's approval of such reduced setback shall be based upon the existing streetscape, the degree to which the proposed structure does not block existing views from the street, the width of the street at the site, and the ability of the applicant to provide off-street parking within the usual setbacks. If any living spaces exist or are proposed under or above such garage or carport, the garage or carport shall be required to meet the setback requirements for houses and other structures unless such living spaces are located entirely below the elevation of the street at the lot frontage Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 2

3 PROPERTY HISTORY Design Review Exception approval to build a tool storage room under the existing garage Revocable License approved for the existing dock. The Revocable License was approved jointly with the owners of 310 and 312 Beach Road Staff Design Review approval to replace an existing floating dock and gangway with a new floating dock and gangway Staff Design Review approval to replace the existing roof with a new light grey composition shingle roof Design Review Exception approval to repair the existing deck, and to install windows where doors were located. CITY OF BELVEDERE GENERAL PLAN 2030 The City of Belvedere General Plan 2030 provides a framework of policies that were adopted to coordinate all major components of Belvedere's physical development over a 20-year period. These policies serve as a basis to assess whether public and private development proposals are consistent with the General Plan. As explained below, staff suggests that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Here, the Planning Commission should consider the proposed new home, garage, and carport's design concepts in light of the Preservation and Design Chapters related policies of the Belvedere General Plan listed below. Policy Pres-2.1. Create and maintain tools to alert residents and City Staff of the potential existence of historic resources, including a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map. This will ensure that future development applications are reviewed for potential impacts to potential historic resources. Pres 2.1.1: Maintain an up-to-date list of Buildings with Historic Designation in Belvedere (Belvedere Historic Resources Inventory). Pres-2.1.2: Maintain an up-to-date Directory of Historic Properties from the State Office of Historic Preservation (State Historic Resources Inventory). Pres-2.1.3: Maintain an up-to-date Historic Resource Sensitivity Map. Utilize the map to educate the community about existing and potential historic resources and to determine which properties should be examined for their potential to be eligible for listing on either the local or state Historic Resource Inventories when a development application is received on the parcel. High sensitivity parcels: Require that a formal historic resource assessment be completed to determine if the resource is eligible for listing. (DPR form 523A and B to be completed by an Architectural Historian) Medium sensitivity parcels: Require that an informal assessment be completed to determine if the resource appears to be eligible for listing. Informal assessment could include information gathered from property owner, City or County records, Landmarks Society, State Office of Historic Preservation, etc. 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 3

4 The existing house is designated as "high" on the General Plan Historic Resource Map. Properties with a "high" designation are homes that are more than 100 years old. Consistent with General Plan Preservation Policy 2.1.3, the project applicant received a Historic Resource Evaluation that concluded the home is not eligible for listing as a CEQA historic resource. GOAL CD-3: Ensure compatibility witlt neigltborltood scale and proportion. Policy CD-3.1: All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to attract attention to themselves. GOAL CD-4: Encourage materials and colors that reinforce community cltaracter. Policy CD-4.1: Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impact, that blend with the existing land form and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. The General Plan policies above are implemented by the City's Design Review Ordinance. Here, staff suggests that the project as proposed conforms to both the General Plan Policies and the corresponding Design Review sections of the Code, as explained in more detail below and in the draft Design Review Resolution. The project has been designed to fit in to the neighborhood, and to not draw attention to itself. The colors and materials combined with the proposed landscaping blend in with the existing landscaping, and will minimize the visual impact of the new home. PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and recommendation of Revocable Licenses. The applicant proposes to construct a new 6,495-square-foot residence which includes an attached garage and a detached carport. The project also includes site and landscaping improvements including new patio areas, fences, and a hillavator. The hillavator is designed to provide the residents access to the dock. Other proposed site improvements include new decks on all three levels of the home. The lower floor deck and patio area includes a plunge pool, pool house and bathroom. Landscaping is proposed throughout the property. The applications are included as Attachment 5. The proposed single family dwelling exceeds the allowable floor area on the property for the R-15 zoning district; therefore an Exception to Floor Area is required to allow construction of the new single family dwelling. The project proposes 6,495 square feet where 4,042 square feet is permitted. In addition, Revocable Licenses are required for the improvements in the City right of way and the city property known as the Belvedere Land Company "The Strip". Project Plans are included as Attachment 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Arcltitectural Style, Colors and Materials The applicant proposes a new shingle style three story residence with an attached two car garage and a detached carport. The proposed colors and materials of the residence consist of cedar shingles stained "driftwood" gray, steel sash windows and doors, painted "blackjack'', concrete faced with blue stone retaining walls, bluestone patios, stainless steel vertical flat bars with Ipe cap and solid rail for the decks, and cedar fencing. 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page4

5 Site and Floor Plans The applicant proposes to construct a new three-story, 6,495 square-foot residence in essentially the same footprint as the existing residence. The proposed residence is moved 10 feet away from the northern property line to conform to the required side yard setback, increasing privacy for the adjacent neighbors. The majority of the additional floor area is accommodated under the new garage and on the lower floor within the footprint of the existing house. The height, bulk and mass of the proposed structure is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. The project, designed by Steve Wisenbaker Architects also includes new site improvements including a hillavator, a plunge pool, pool house, new fencing and entry gate, retaining walls, planting areas, an outdoor kitchen and extensive plantings throughout the property. The floor plans include three floors with decks off of each floor. An attached two car garage is proposed to be constructed at the front portion of the property to provide parking and storage for the new residence. The existing two car garage is proposed to be demolished, and a carport will replace it in a similar foot print. The garage and parking deck would be accessed from Beach Road via a new concrete driveways. New entry stairs and gate are proposed to access the front entrance of the home. The projects complies with setback and height requirements. The project is proposed on a steeply sloping lot that exceeds a thirty percent slope. Applicable here, if a lot has thirty percent average slope or more, Belvedere Municipal Code section (a), (c) and (d) allows a height of up to thirty-six feet in the R-15 Zone if: a) on a lot sloping downhill from the street on which it fronts, every point within forty feet from the street line the maximum height does not exceed twenty-eight feet; c) no part of the structure exceeds thirty-six feet from Existing Grade; and d) the average height of the structure does not exceed twenty-eight feet. These conditions are satisfied. First, the height of the structure will be approximately 26' from Existing Grade within the first 40' of the property and 35'1 O" from Existing Grade to the uppermost point of the roof on the rear portion of the property, due to the slope in grade. Second, the maximum height of the home is less than 36 feet, and will be approximately 35' 10" from Existing Grade. Finally, the average height does not exceed 28 feet in height. Additionally, the project meets the requirements of the zoning district, in terms of setbacks, lot coverage, height, and parking. The hillavator is outside of the required setbacks, and will not be visible from the street. The only exception requested is an Exception to Total Floor Area, as the house is proposed at 6,495 SF, and the BMC allows 4,042 SF. Floor Plans The first floor (starting at the bottom of the house) will be comprised of a family room, wine room, two bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a study. Decks are proposed off the bedroom, the family room, bathroom and gym. A small patio is proposed outside of the office and gym. The second floor includes the kitchen, dining room, sitting room, living room, laundry room, powder room, guest bedroom and entry to the home. A deck is proposed off the back side of the home at this level. The upper floor consists of the master bedroom suite, including his and hers bathrooms and wardrobes. 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 5

6 Roof Plans The roofs are proposed in "Inspire engineered charcoal grey." The garage roof will match the roof of the home. The proposed carport roof is proposed with a trellis. Landscaping There are two trees proposed for removal with this project, one Eucalyptus and one Magnolia. The existing landscaping has not been maintained for many years. The project proposes to clean up the landscaping. Additionally, the project proposes an extensive landscape plan for the entire property including the planting of one Edible Fig tree, one Japanese Maple and one Southern Magnolia. Extensive plantings are proposed at the front, side and rear yards of the property. The project also proposes to construct retaining walls, and a walkway to access the plunge pool and pool house on the lower patio area. The existing old stairs that lead to the dock are proposed to be replaced with concrete stairs and a walkway in the Revocable License Area. The project proposes to remove a portion of the existing ivy covered fence at the front property line, which ranges in height between 6 and 8 feet. New stairs proposed to access an entry gate and fence is proposed. All improvements are proposed on private property. The new fence is proposed in 5 foot vertical cedar boards with a steel entry gate. The removal of the existing covered fence will open up views from the street. The project proposes a new two car garage in the left comer of the property and a guest parking deck in the right hand corner. The parking deck will replace the existing two car garage. The parking deck will be open, with its roof constructed as a trellis and metal guardrails. The parking deck will open views from the roadway to Belvedere Cove where none previously existed. New planting areas are proposed between the garage and carport. Exterior Ligltts There are a total of 26 lights proposed on the exterior of the home spread around each elevation. There are lights proposed on the garage, carport, front entry, the sides of the home where there are stairs and the outdoor kitchen area. Lights are proposed on the rear elevation on the roof deck, and on the lower portion of the patio near the plunge pool and pool house. There is minimal lighting proposed with this application. Cut sheets of the proposed exterior lights are provided in the application materials. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT REVIEW The proposed architectural design was reviewed by the City's Consulting Architect, Mark Sandoval, who concluded that the project is in substantial compliance with the Design Review requirements of Title 20. In response to Mr. Sandoval's comments, the project architect relocated the proposed hillavator inside the setbacks, as reflected in the attached plans. Mr. Sandoval's comments are provided in a letter dated January 19, 2017 (Attachment 7) and have been incorporated into the Design Review findings, where appropriate. DEMOLITION PERMIT: Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section and Chapter 16.28, specific findings for a Demolition Permit must be made for the Planning Commission to approve the Demolition Permit for the removal of the existing residence and carport. 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 6

7 Staff suggests the findings for a Demolition Permit can be made. First, the project has been conditioned and designed as to avoid impacting the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the project will be required to adhere to the requirements for a Demolition Permit from the Building Department, such as preparing an Erosion Control Plan, and must comply with all Regulations from the Building and Fire Code. Adequate measures will be implemented during and after grading activities to provide adequate site protection and the project will be conditioned to identify how the project complies with State air quality requirements. Second, the proposed project will not result in the removal of a building which has been recognized as having historical or architectural significance. Because the property is listed as having a "high" likelihood of historic value per the City's General Plan historic resource survey map (since it is more than 100 years old), a complete Historic Resource Evaluation was performed, which concluded that the property is not eligible for listing as a CEQA historic resource. The Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., which concludes that "Jn summary, the subject property at 312 Beach Road does not display a level of historical significance that would qualifj; it for individual listing as an individual historic resource on the California Register of Historical Places under any criteria. As the property and building have not been determined to possess historic sign(ficance, an evaluation of the structure's historic integrity is therefore unnecessary, and the issue of physical integrity is negated " Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Belvedere Housing Element due to the fact that the project proposes to build a single family home to replace the single family home demolished. Staff has determined that the required findings for the Planning Commission to support the Demolition Permit can be made and a Resolution has been prepared for consideration (Attachment 1). HISTORICAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE Historical Resources: CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. (CEQA Guideline sections (a)-(f).) Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Historical Resource (CEQA Guideline section (f).) As explained below, staff suggests that 312 Beach Road does not constitute a historical resource per CEQA, and therefore a categorical exemption is proper. CEQA Guideline Section (a)(3) and interpreting case law provides that the City in its discretion may determine that a property is a Historical Resource for purposes of CEQA pursuant to Section (a)(3), regardless of whether the property is listed in, or eligible for listing in, a local register of historical resources or the California State Historical Register. As explained, staff does not find that the subject property constitutes a historical resource. First, the property is designated as "high" sensitivity in the 2030 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan, meaning that the property has a structure on it that is over 100 years old. As such, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted on the home by Garavaglia Architects Inc. that concludes the home is not eligible for listing as an historical resource. Based on the above information, and the information contained in the Historic Resource Evaluation, staff suggests the required findings per CEQA Guideline Section (a)(3) that the property does not constitute an historical resource. 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 7

8 Tribal Cultural Resources: Recently the California Legislature amended CEQA to include "Tribal Cultural Resources" as a protected resource, similar to the category of"historical Resources". As with a Historic Resource, now a project may not use a Categorical Exemption if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource. (See, Pub. Res. Code, ; CEQA Guidelines, (f).) However, if there are no Tribal Cultural Resources on site, a Categorical Exemption is proper. Therefore, the City must first make a determination as to whether Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property. A Tribal Cultural Resource may include a variety ofresources such as site features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. (Pub. Res. Code, ) A Tribal Cultural Resource is designated in one of two ways: 1) the resource is listed in a national, state, or local register of historic resources; or 2) the City in its discretion determines the site contains a resource. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding, the lead agency may determine that a site contains Tribal Cultural Resources based on the following factors per Public Resources Code section : ( 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ( 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Here, as explained below, staff suggests that substantial evidence in the record does not support a finding that Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property. Staff recommends that the City make the determination that no Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property, and that therefore a Categorical Exemption from CEQA is proper. The property is not designated as "high" prehistoric sensitivity, but rather "low" in the Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels defined as having a "low" sensitivity are those that: parcels that have been previously surveyed and found not to contain a prehistoric site; parcels having more than a 30 degree slope over 50 percent or more of the area; parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Drive when the adjacent slope is greater than 30 degrees and there is no prehistoric site or spring within 750 feet Staff has prepared a draft resolution regarding No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources for the Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment 2). Design Review Findings The Design Review findings, specified in Belvedere Municipal Code Title 20, state that all new structures and additions should be designed to avoid excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to, and fit in, with others in the neighborhood and should not attract attention to themselves. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 8

9 single plane should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. Landscaping should also soften and screen structures and maintain privacy. The proposed project includes a new 6,495 square foot single family dwelling and associated site improvements. The house is designed to be unobtrusive and minimally visible from the street. The lot is steep and the house has been designed to address the site characteristics of the lot. The house is designed to mimic the footprint of the existing house, and create more floor area by building into the hillside. The proposed home is consistent with the bulk and mass of the existing structure and does not significantly impair views from the street. The house as designed fits in and relates to the development pattern in the neighborhood. The proposed exterior materials will blend in with the neighborhood, as there is a mix of modem and traditional homes in the vicinity. The house has been designed with vertical and horizontal elements to avoid monotony. New and proposed landscaping at the front, side and rear property lines will help soften the appearance of the new home from the street and from adjacent parcels and from the water. The new house, garage and carport are consistent and compatible with the neighborhood and would be harmonious with the site and surrounding development. Staff can make the required Design Review findings as provided in the attached Resolution (Attachment 3). EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA The applicant requests an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow 6,495 square feet where 4,042 square feet is the maximum allowed and 3,934 SF exists. The total parcel is size is 12,250 square feet in area. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is 3 3 % to the lot area. The proposed FAR would be 53% on this parcel. The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 6,495-square-foot (total) residence. City staff reviewed the pattern of development within the project vicinity. Although on the higher side, there are homes within the neighborhood that have higher FAR' s and five homes that have floor areas in the mid 60 percentile. Attachment 8 is a table showing FAR' s for 16 homes within a 200 foot radius of the property. Pursuant to Section (A)(l) of the B.M.C., in order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area, the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area; c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. First, staff finds that as proposed, primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the proposed additional square footage. As noted above, the new home is in a similar footprint as the existing and the additional floor area is being dug into the hillside, primarily under the existing garage. The home has been designed so that none 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page9

10 of the windows will impact the neighbors' privacy. The view from the street will not be blocked; in fact, the removal of the existing garage and replacing it with a carport will open up the view from the street. Second, the unusual characteristic of the property that minimizes the impact of the proposed greater floor area is that the property is extremely steep. The steepness of the lot allows the additional square footage to be built into the hillside, which will have a minimal impact to the neighborhood. The impact of the additional square footage is not significant given the unusually steep lot. Third, the project is also appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the area, and satisfies all Design Review criteria. Lastly, the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties because the project will be constructed in a similar footprint as the existing home and the additional square footage will built into the hillside. Staff recommends that the findings for Exception to Total Floor Area can be made, as established in the Resolution included in Attachment 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations. On March 13, 2018, the proposed project was determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section Class 3(a) because the proposed project consists of construction of one single family residence in a residential zone. City action is required by May 13, 2018, or the project may be deemed approved. As explained more fully above, CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource. Here a categorical exemption is appropriate because there is no possibility that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site. The subject property is categorized as a Low Sensitivity site for Tribal Cultural Resources. Also as explained above, staff finds that the property is not historic under CEQA, nor eligible for listing in the local historic register. The discussion regarding CEQA historical issues is incorporated here by reference. REVOCABLE LICENSE In accordance with Section the City's Administrative Procedures Manual, a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-way may be granted at the discretion of the City Council, provided any proposed encroachment into the right-of-way complies with the Design Review requirements of Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the City Council to grant a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-way include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Where necessary to provide pedestrian or vehicular access from private property to the adjacent public street; 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 10

11 b. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit landscaping to be installed that the City determines will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape; c. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit the creation of an uncovered off-street parking area, and will thereby relieve parking or traffic congestion on the adjacent City street; d. Where the public right-of-way will be used to construct retaining walls, drainage structures or other facilities that the City considers necessary to protect or maintain the public infrastructure; and/or; e. Where appropriate to validate already existing private improvements in the public rightof-way for the purpose of shifting the City's potential liability for injuries and damages to the private property owners using the right-of-way for private purposes. f. Where fencing is proposed on City property, with the exception of where said fencing would be located on a very steep slope and would serve as a safety measure for vehicles and pedestrians, said fencing shall normally be avoided as this effectively turns public property into private property and potentially creates the unwanted image of a "tunnel effect" along our city streets. Currently, there are is one Revocable License for the dock which was issued in 1978 jointly with the property owners at 310 and 312 Beach Road. The project proposes two separate Revocable Licenses, one for the Beach Road right-of-way and one for the City owned Tide Lot, referred to as "the Strip." Beach Road Right-of-Way The project proposed a stone wall on the south corner of the lot. The proposed stone wall will match the existing stone wall on the neighbor's property and will be 3' 7" in height and 7' long. Explained above, Section ( c) of the Administrative Policy Manual provides that a Revocable License may be appropriate to allow the creation of off-street parking Here, staff suggests that the proposed stone wall is consistent with Revocable License policy because it will support the off street parking deck. The car deck is designed to integrate into the new house and will create a smoother traffic flow because it is further back from the street than existing parking. There is one on-street parking space between 312 and 310 Beach Road that will remam. Additionally, the wall is small in size at 3 '7" in height and 7' long. Moreover, the proposed stone wall will serve Revocable License policy (b) above as it will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape. City Tide Lot (Belvedere Land Company, "The Strip") The project also proposes to remove the existing dilapidated wooden staircase that leads to the dock and proposes a new concrete staircase and ramp to access the dock. The project proposes hillavator tracks and landscaping in the "The Strip" as well. Although not improving a "streetscape" per se, staff suggests that the proposed improvements to the City Tide Lot serve Revocable License policy (b) because they will enhance the aesthetic views of Belvedere from the water by removing dilapidated wooden stairs and installing attractive landscaping. Additionally, staff suggests that the improvements are consistent with Policy (e) above as the project will allow for the improvement and reconstruction of the dilapidated wooden stairway, 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 11

12 which is an already existing improvements in the right-of-way, thereby shifting the City's potential liabilities to the property owners who use the right-of-way for the private purpose of accessing the dock. CORRESPONDENCE A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, Staff has received comments from two neighbors. The property owners of 266 Beach Road submitted a letter indicating that strncture is not appropriate in terms of mass, bulk and character for the neighborhood. Staff has also received an from Richard Wodehouse representing the property owners of 499 Bella Vista indicating that their concerns about height of the hedge at the street, and the glass panels on the garage door have been met by the project team. CONCLUSION Staff can make all of the required findings for the Demolition, No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources, Design Review Permit, Exception to Total Floor Area and recommends approval of the Revocable License to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION MOTIONl MOTION2 MOTION3 MOTION 4 MOTIONS Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing single family dwelling and garage at 312 Beach Road (Attachment l); Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resource per CEQA at 312 Beach Road (Attachment 2); Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for a new house and associated improvements at the property located at 312 Beach Road (Attachment 3); Adopt the Resolution granting Exception to Total Floor Area approval to allow a total floor area of 6,495 SF, where 3,445 SF is permitted at 312 Beach Road (Attachment 4); Recommend City Council approval of a Revocable Licenses for improvements located in the Beach Road right-of-way and the Belvedere Land Company Tide Lot, "The Strip" at 312 Beach Road. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Attachment 10: Draft Demolition Resolution Draft No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources Resolution Draft Resolution for Design Review Resolution Draft Resolution for Exception to Total Floor Area Project Applications Project Plans Report from Mark Sandoval (Consulting Architect). FAR Chart Departmental Reviews Correspondence 312 Beach Road March 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 12

13 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,934 -SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 312 BEACH ROAD WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 3,934-square-foot single family residence, with a detached garage built in 1909 at 312 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the demolition project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at its March 20, 2018 regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and determined that the subject property did not constitute a Historical Resource nor did the property contain or constitute Tribal Cultural Resources under CEQA, based on the findings, determinations, and information contained in the "No Historical Resource" resolution for this Project, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the requested Demolition Permit on March 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the findings specified in section ofthe Belvedere Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of an existing 3,934-square-foot single-family residence with detached garage at 312 Beach Road, with the following conditions: a) The property owners shall defend with counsel acceptable to the City and hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to, or arising from, the granting of this Demolition approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action with counsel acceptable to the City in its discretion, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. b) All requirements of the Building Official shall be met. A permit for demolition must be issued by the Building Department before the commencement of work. ATTACHMENT 1

14 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 2 c) All work shall be completed within 30 days of the commencement of demolition unless deconstruction methods are used in which case 12 weeks is permitted. "Commencement of demolition" shall mean the date of the issuance of the building permit for demolition or a start date specified in written correspondence from the property owner and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit for demolition. d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public rightof-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager. e) Obstruction or blockage, partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, shall not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance shall be required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets shall be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each workday. f) Demolition shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Demolition is prohibited on City holidays except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. The City Manager is urged to impose a very high-level of scrutiny in the determination of "special circumstances." g) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work. h) All requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) shall be met. i) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations. j) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit for review and approval an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects: depts/pw/ divisions/mcstoppp/ development/-/media/ Files/Departments/PW /mcstoppp/ development/mecm final pdf

15 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 3 k) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with State air quality requirements related to the control of dust generated by the demolition and construction, and prepare a plan for the reuse and recycling of demolition materials. 1) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. m) In the event that archeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on March 20, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

16 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 1 DEMOLITION FINDINGS Given that the existing residence and garage are proposed to be demolished, a Demolition Permit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section and Chapter BMC Section , defines Demolition as "the razing of a building, removal of a dwelling unit, or the removal of more than fifty percent of the total exterior wall and roof area from the grade up... Removing a residential second unit or converting a duplex into a single unit is considered demolition." The following findings address the demolition of both the main residential unit and the Accessory Dwelling Unit. In approving the Demolition Permit, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. That the demolition, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City; The proposed demolition will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the demolition must satisfy the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department, and must also comply with all Building and Fire Code regulations. Further, staff finds that, with a condition of approval stating that the applicant demonstrates compliance with State air quality requirements; this demolition project would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City. B. That the demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed; Demolition will not remove a building of recognized historical or architectural significance. The existing single-family residence and garage were constructed in During the preparation of City of Belvedere 2030 General Plan Update, a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map was created which categorized the parcels within the City based on the likelihood of containing a historical significant property. The Historic Resource Map contains three levels of historic sensitivity which consist of Low, Medium, and High. The project site is designated "High" on the Historic resource Sensitivity Map, which means it is a property over 100 years old. Additionally, A Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Garavaglia. The report concludes that "Jn summary, the subject property at 312 Beach Road does not display a level of historical significance that would qualify it for individual listing as an individual historic resource on the California Register a/historical Places under any criteria." Also, the home is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. Moreover, in March 2018, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution Finding No Historical Resource under CEQA.

17 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 2 C. That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The plan presented in the application, and as conditioned, would provide adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The applicant states that an erosion control plan will be put in place. Demolition is expected to take 30 days to complete. D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. The applicant's estimated 30-day time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. E. That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining housing on the property have been thoroughly considered. A housing unit would be removed as part of this application; however, a new housing unit would be constructed in its place. Therefore, no reduction in housing units will result from this project. F. The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere Housing Element. As noted above, the demolition of the existing residence will not have a substantial impact on the availability of housing units in Belvedere and is consistent with the goals of the Belvedere Housing Element as it will not remove any housing stock from the City.

18 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY AT 312 BEACH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HISTORICAL RESOURCE UNDER CEQA WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 3,934 square foot house and garage at 3 12 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical resource; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Permit and associated project, and heard and considered evidence on the potential historic resource value of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the property is designated as "high" sensitivity in the 2030 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan, meaning that the structure on the property is older than 100 years old.; and WHEREAS, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Gravaglia Architects Inc. that concluded the home does not constitute a CEQA historic resource because it lacks historic integrity and otherwise does not satisfy the criteria for eligibility as a historic resource; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings stated above, in the staff report, and in the Historic Resource Evaluation conducted by Gravalia Arhitects all incorporated herein, that based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, the subject property does not constitute a historical resource under CEQA; and WHEREAS, because the property does not constitute a CEQA historical resource, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical resource, and a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section is proper; and WHEREAS, the demolition project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines; and ATTACHMENT 2

19 Resolution Beach Road March 20, 2018 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby find, in exercising its independent discretion, based on the findings listed above and in the staff report, incorporated herein, that the property located at 312 Beach Road does not constitute a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section (a)(3) as follows: 1. The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage. 2. The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons who are important to the community's historical past. 3. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values. 4. The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission March 20, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

20 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW HOUSE, GARAGE AND PARKING DECK AT 312 BEACH ROAD WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code for a new house, garage and other associated site improvements at 312 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the project been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction; and WHEREAS, CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource. Here a categorical exemption is appropriate because there is no potential that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site. The property is not designated as a "high" pre historic sensitivity, but rather "low" in the Pre Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. "Low" sensitivity structures are those parcels that have been previously surveyed and found not to contain prehistoric sites, parcels having more than a 30 degree slope over 50 percent or more of the area, and parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Drive when the adjacent slope is greater than 30 degrees and there is no prehistoric site or spring within 750 feet. Additionally, the residence at 312 Beach Road, constructed in 1909, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. Additionally, the property does not constitute a CEQA historic resource, based on the findings, determination, and information contained in the associated "No Historic Resource" resolution for this Project, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing on March 20, 2018;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Design Review criteria specified in Section and to of the Belvedere Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 3

21 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to build a new house and garage with the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action with counsel acceptable to the City in its discretion, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. This approval is conditioned upon the accuracy of all facts stated in the application and supporting documents. 2. Construction shall conform to the revised drawings prepared by Steve Wisenbaker Architects, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on February 26, Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. 4. The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) for conformance with the District's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) prior to issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed landscape plans comply with MMWD. 5. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit including but not limited to: Vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD. CFC The fire pit shall comply with TFPD Policy

22 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 3 6. All requirements of Public Works shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit including but not limited to: An updated Revocable License will be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way and easements. The project will require a video recording of the condition of the haul route pavement. The applicant will be responsible for any damage to the roadway or other improvements along the haul route caused by the removal or delivery of materials by truck. A deposit will be required should the roadway not be repaired to the satisfaction of the City. The deposit amount (estimated range from $10,000 to $30,000) will be determined at the time of the Building Permit review. A Geotechnical Investigation or geotechnical review letter is required. The geotechnical investigation should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review the proposed Grading & Drainage Plans for conformance with their recommendation prior to Building Permit issuance. Topographic Survey information shall be included either on the site plan or on a separate plan. The basis for determining elevations (assumed, NGVD, or NAVD) should also be clearly indicated. The surveyor's name and license number shall be included. The project requires a Site Plan showing the property line locations (referencing the survey source and mapping information), any existing easements, building setbacks, encroachments etc. The project will require a detailed Grading Plan & Drainage Plan showing cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County. This can be found at the following website: depts/pw/ divisions/mcstoppp/ development/-/ media/files/departments/pw /mcstoppp/guidanceforapplicantsv _ 2508.pdf Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by City of Belvedere municipal code Section (D), permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual. The project will require a Utility Plan (if not shown on the Site Plan) showing the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, irrigation, gas, electrical, telephone, cable TV, etc.

23 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 4 The project will include soil disturbance during construction and applicants therefore must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. See the following link for the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Applicant Package, revised November 2015: ~/media/files/ departments/pw/mcstoppp/ <level opment/mcstoppp-erosion-and-sediment-control-plan-applicantpackage.pdf?la=en The project will require a Landscape Plan and Irrigation Plan. 7. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and the Director of Planning and Building. The final lighting plan shall clearly indicate the quantity, location and type of exterior light fixtures. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and Director of Planning & Building. Said landscaping plan shall include a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall identify measures to protect existing trees on the project site that are to be retained and shall include but not be limited to the following: Installation of orange mesh construction fencing or other protective barrier at the drip line of trees prior to commencement of demolition. Adjustments to protective barrier/fencing anticipated during the different stages of demolition and construction. Excavation and trenching methods used to avoid unnecessary root damage. Communication and coordination with the adjacent property owners regarding tree protection measures, including obtaining consent of property owner, if required, to access property and perform these measures. Monitoring by the arborist during work around the trees to remain Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and Director of Planning and Building.

24 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page 5 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review & approval a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official & Public Works Manager. The Construction Management Plan & Construction Parking/Staging Plan submitted pursuant to City Regulations No. 290 and shall include the following: a. The delivery of materials and equipment to and from the construction site shall be limited to weekdays between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. b. Parking of deliver trucks shall be limited by Belvedere Municipal Code Specifications and Standards for Encroachment Permits for Work in the City Right-of-Way. c. Street parking for construction related vehicles shall be limited to three (3) vehicles in accordance with City requirements. d. Construction vehicles shall not block Beach Road and are subject to the requirements of the City of Belvedere Public Works Department Noticing and Road Closure Permit Process. Road closures are limited to the hours of 9:00AM to 4:30PM and three (3) business day advance notice. e. Construction vehicle ingress and egress shall be per route shown on the Construction Parking & Staging Plan (Sheet Al.0). f. Pre-construction and post-construction surveys of the condition of Belvedere A venue; road impact fee; and any other required deposits shall be completed in conformance with the City of Belvedere Building Department application requirements. 10. Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans. 11. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. 12. Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established for this project. 13. In the event unanticipated archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken. 14. These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings. 15. These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the property. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property owner shall demonstrate compliance with State/BAAQMD air quality requirements related to the dust generated by grading and construction. 17. Prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall provide an elevation survey prepared by a licensed surveyor to the Building Department indicating the height of the new residence.

25 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Page The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager, for review and approval, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Construction Management Plan the satisfaction of the Building Official. 19. Prior to approval of the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall stake the comers of the foundation (with offset) and shall submit a survey of the foundation stakes to include the boundaries of the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on March 20, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

26 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 1 Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. The majority of the existing landscaping will be removed as it has been over grown and not maintained for the past years. There are two trees proposed to be removed with this project and the remaining of the trees are staying. The cut and fill proposed will be minimal, and grade changes will remain in harmony with the neighborhood. The construction of the proposed residence and the removal of the trees and associated outdoor space compliment the topography of the site. There is minimal cut and fill required for the construction, and therefore creation of the residence and associated improvements are in substantial conformance with this finding. Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land-forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. The project proposal maintains a balanced and harmonious relationship between the structure and its site and adjoining properties because the proposed new residence and garage have been designed to relate to and fit with the adjacent properties and the slope of the land. The new house and garage are designed in a manner as to minimize the building mass and bulk on this site as the home is proposed to be built into the hillside and maintaining the mass and bulk of the existing home which is consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves. The residence is designed to avoid appearing monumental or excessively large in size. The residence, garage and car deck will read as a one story from Beach Road. The home is proposed in a similar footprint to what exists now. The design of the home relates to and fits in with the others in the neighborhood as there is a mix of traditional and modern homes along Beach Road. The residence is not out of character with the setting or the neighborhood and is designed to not draw attention to itself. Although there are many older homes on the water side of Beach Road, there is a mix of modern and traditional homes on Beach Road. The proposed materials and rooflines are in character with the setting, the proposed residence and garage appear in character with the mixed architectural style of the dwellings in the neighborhood.

27 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 2 B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. The proposed project is designed so that it does not include large expanses of any one material. The use of a variety of materials will add architectural variety and will help break up building planes. The house is a traditional design with shingles, and architectural elements that add architectural variety which break up the building planes and avoids monotony. Further, the proposed residence and garage would not increase the impression of bulk due to its location on the lot and its construction within the basic footprint of the existing residence, and the existing and proposed new landscaping. Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures visual impacts, that blends with the existing landforms and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone ranges are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. The building design and materials minimize visual impact, blend with the landform and neighborhood, and do not draw attention to the structure themselves. The house is proposed in wood shingles, steel guardrails, engineered slate roof, steel windows and doors, cedar garage door and fencing and bluestone retaining walls and patios. The color palate for the project includes light and dark grays and dark browns. The colors and materials for the project are soft and muted and will complement the surrounding neighborhood. Fences and screening. A. Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical, and should not significantly block views. Fences are compatible with the site, preserve privacy, and do not significantly block views. The project includes construction of new fencing at the front property line. The fence is proposed to be 6 feet in height and constructed out of vertical wood. A new fence and gate are proposed on the front right side of the new house which is also proposed in vertical wood. Garbage will be screened on the right side of the garage with enclosures for both.

28 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 3 Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. The proposed home is in a similar footprint as the existing house and the proposed window placement and privacy screening has been proposed to give consideration to privacy. Most importantly, the existing, established landscaping, trees and fencing at the sides of the property boundaries will remain and provide ample privacy screening. There are new decks proposed, however given the existing landscaping and the way the homes are oriented, there will be little impact to neighbor's privacy. Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. The proposed new driveway, garage and car deck will accommodate three cars. The new garage is shifted further down the property, away from the street and moved to the other comer of the lot. The garage and car deck are designed to integrate into the new house and will create a smoother traffic flow given that they are further back from the street. These improvements are designed to minimize interference with traffic flow and encourage separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan. Skylights should not have white or light opaque exterior lenses. The applicant proposes exterior lighting that will not create glare, hazard or annoyance to neighboring properties or to passerby' s; as conditioned, all proposed light fixtures are shielded and or directed downward. Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities. The proposed project includes requests a Floor Area Exception. Because the findings for it are satisfied, it is not reasonable or feasible to eliminate these nonconformities. The Floor Area Exception request is to allow an additional 2,453 SF of floor area to be constructed. The permitted floor area for the property is 4,042 SF and the proposed floor area is 6,495 SF and the existing house contains 3,934 SF. The site is steep, and the home is designed to be built into the hillside, maintaining a similar footprint as the existing. The existing house also encroaches into the side yard setback. The proposed project does not include any non-confonnities and conforms to the Belvedere Municipal Code.

29 Resolution March 20, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 4 Landscape plans -- Purpose. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters. B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls,that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings. The proposed project includes a combination of existing landscaping, (mostly trees) to remain and an extensive landscape plan. The existing landscaping is well established and the majority of the trees will remain. The extensive landscape plan will provide screening and softening of the proposed house and garage. The landscaping is in substantial conformance with this finding as it includes natural and native vegetation, is compatible with the character of the site and the surrounding properties, and is designed to provide screening of architectural elements. The landscaping will not significantly obstruct views from nearby dwellings and provides privacy between properties. Landscape Plans - Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turn areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. B. Landscape plans should include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age. C. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. The proposed landscape is in substantial conformance with this finding as it includes one Edible Fig tree, one Japanese Maple and one Southern Magnolia. Extensive plantings are proposed at the front, side and rear yards of the property. The project also proposes many shrubs, perennials and vines. The plants proposed are low water use and include slow and fast growing species.

30 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY AT 312 BEACH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A HISTORICAL RESOURCE UNDER CEQA WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 3,934 square foot house and garage at 312 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical resource; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Permit and associated project, and heard and considered evidence on the potential historic resource value of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the property is designated as "high" sensitivity in the 2030 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan, meaning that the structure on the property is older than 100 years old.; and WHEREAS, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Gravaglia Architects Inc. that concluded the home does not constitute a CEQA historic resource because it lacks historic integrity and otherwise does not satisfy the criteria for eligibility as a historic resource; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings stated above, in the staff report, and in the Historic Resource Evaluation conducted by Gravalia Arhitects all incorporated herein, that based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, the subject property does not constitute a historical resource under CEQA; and WHEREAS, because the property does not constitute a CEQA historical resource, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical resource, and a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section is proper; and WHEREAS, the demolition project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines; and ATTACHMENT 4

31 Resolution Beach Road March 20, 2018 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby find, in exercising its independent discretion, based on the findings listed above and in the staff report, incorporated herein, that the property located at 312 Beach Road does not constitute a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section (a)(3) as follows: 1. The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage. 2. The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons who are important to the community's historical past. 3. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values. 4. The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The prope11y is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission March 20, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

32 Project Address: 2 lt,, Bf:A? H: RV. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION. 450SANRAFAEL~VE BELVEDERE,CA PH FAX Date: CitY of Belvedere.,., Amount: $3~8l.-, ReceiptNo.:.? 1!.ft.//-f': :i8q;;0... ~ec'd. by: _Af._Sj.1';_/ _- Planning Comm. Approval \:El, Design Review Exception Staff Approval Zone:...,_.._i -J... S..._ --- O O Does this project have an active building permit? Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No lxj Yes 0 Address of Property: '? 12- f2l?a-w.go AD -f Record Owner of Property: -S::~ffL Re:t,/,,-.e"i.5a...,; No 9( Yes 0 Permit No.: Mailing Jt/JJ..g Ell/UAITA/JV.-#J&r14 ~ytime Phone:!/t.0T:@-/.a-35 Address: ~L. AL fftr::r Fi;t:X: _ ;..;.,... _ _._\_ :S L-/:_f!! //,AN.Ill A--C.~ irlfl/ Owner's Representative: 6r@t?-. VJV; /\Jl2A-~. :. :. '. Mailing ~ia:mkl.pl.am Address: "6u ft};;. 'JPO Daytime Phone: (41 ) 1t..f-tDZli Fax: C.OQl.8 MJ\t?E'.-RA, ~A. q#fz? ?wi2bf?f?.@.pac...bell-.nl2"): Project Description: ::G ~~ M.1Ak l± M t:ent' ' :. Design Review Application Page 1 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPI ATTACHMENTS

33 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to demolish the existing dilapidated structure which is not historically significant and replace it with a new single family residence. The new residence is proposed to be located in essentially same place as the existing residence. This maintains the long standing, well established pattern of development in the neighborhood. The height, bulk and mass of the proposed structure is also consistent with the existing structure and does not significantly impair views from the street or from adjacent properties. The new residence is moved 10 feet away from the northern property line to conform to the required side yard setback thereby increasing privacy for the adjacent neighbor. A floor area exception is requested to allow a floor area increase from the existing 3,934 sq. ft. to 6,495 sq. ft. Most of the increased floor area is accommodated under the new Garage and on the Lower floor within the foot print of the house. A proposed new 2 car Garage is moved to the north side of the property and is directly connected to the residence. The existing garage is proposed to be converted to a guest parking deck with it's roof and walls replaced with a trellis and guard rail that will open a significant view corridor from the street to the bay where one does not currently exist. The guest parking deck will also serve as a staging area during construction. The existing site is a relatively steep down slope which is proposed to be terraced with rock faced garden scale retaining walls. The new configuration of the site will provide access down to the front door of the house and to provide garden paths and places in the front and back yard. The terracing and plantings are intended to create a garden reminiscent of the scale and character of an "old Belvedere garden". At the lowest terrace in the back yard a bunker is proposed to provide a subterranean "garden room" adjacent to a plunge pool and lawn area. The site retaining walls will be designed to control drainage and stabilize the slope. The lowest retaining wall is located to respect the required 10 foot rear yard setback, but a variance is requested to allow a 4 foot cantilevered deck to extend into the setback. The existing dilapidated wood stairs and ramps which provide access to the existing boat dock are proposed to be replaced with a concrete "lane" of stairs and ramps and a hillavator. The hillavator provides shared access with the northern neighbor to the boat dock and is located straddling the northern property line.

34 Project Address: ~I~ J? AV!t t2 D. ZONING PARAMETERS: Lot Area..., _l_'?-rl O Lot Coverage Total Floor Area _.--if1;t... Required b ~~/""'(d"-'~'"""ef'--i/l-...li:1r-- O'-tf.._1-=-lf" o_t/j...-- Front Yard Setback =-- --I'S..._' Left Sideyard Setback... ~... """'ID_i Right Sideyard Setback... -~... Rear Yard Setback... IO_ ID_',, -- Building Height Maximum... ' ~k"""'J-:--- Building Height Average /2_..._' Parking Spaces....i..,._,, t Existing 1:2-1~0.Z.'- 711 &' -o''..zf-b" u'-?" Proposed lz:,'z-?o ~ 4 (To Be Compl~ted by Appfiq~nt) Date Filed: General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:---..., Address of project: ~l~ J2?A?H- f2tj A: 0 ~W@. :;.RJ?. 1 0/r 3. - N~me, address; and telephone nu.mber of person to be contacted concerning this project: {111?)-qz4-IV2.oj &re Vt? Wl?PtJBM f?,?t;ofaf1a:l- PlNZ.A:6 q r(g WO! {lj}f2ff? NA-.DEM<!A. ~ 4. Indicate number pf the p_e_imit application for the project to which this. f<?rm pertair:is:.-'-;..., _...\ List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals requir~ for. this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ewe ~. '.,. 6. Existing zoning district: -~'----_{.:...:15' '_, ' ?. Proposed use of site (Projectfor which this form is filed):..-& r k/b '* FAM IL'{ f2...l?.7 I DE/Jc. 8. Year built: Original architect: Project Description ~ 9. Site size. I~, 'Z1:50 d 10. Square footage...y'... 1._fi.....,.6... fp 11. Number of floors of construction. 2! 12. Amount of off-street parking provided..:c 13. Plans attached?,_""'-. _ Design Review Application Page 2 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

35 Project Address: ~(Z- Bei\V H- f<.d. 14. Proposedscheduling. ;2rJMMeR Wl~ 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. Af 6 t±omi tj 0 tj PLAl/7 16. Anticipated incremental development. O 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 0\\1~ 6 fnbw ft\m IL. Y RJ2? 1D EN~ 18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning ap. lication, state this and indicate clearly why th~ C!Pplication is required. V. I & 1ZJ A.L-UJW ~IJ~ u~ op: ~w.i::.12- f0+2-rlon Of 11-li=='.6~ Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below al} Items 'checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Yes No 0 J8( 0 )&( Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 ~ 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinify. 0 )'I. 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or qu;~mtity, or alteration of existing 0 j& drainage patterns Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 32. Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value. 33. Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. Environmental Setting 0 g 0 0 ~ 0 (g 0 IS 0 ig 0 0 g 34. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots r Polaroid photos will be accepted. V 35. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (onefamily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rea~ard, etc.). Attach phqtographs of~he vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.. %~ li:f6ff?/15 ICA\L. f?..~ovgci;;: :t,;vakua:t/01../ Design Review Application Page 3 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-l l-l I.doc

36 Project Address: UAtJf- RD For Design Review applications not requiring a building permit this form does not apply. Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. Design This Section advises you.of the Ti.me Limit Gu.idelines that ~re applie.d to all Design Review applications that require a building permit as prescribed by Section -20; of the Belvedere Municipal Code. "As part of any application for Design Review, the applicant shall file a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, and based thereon, a construction time limit shall be established for the project in accordance with Section (b) of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Compliance with s~c~ time li~it ~hall become a: condition.of desiqn review appr~val" Th~ maximum time for completion of construction shall.-not exceed six months f9r_additions ~nd remodeling up to $10Q;OOQ in~value; 12 months for construction i.jp to $500,000 in value; and 1 a months for construction valued at more than $500,000. Failure to complete construction in the agreed upon time will result in fines ranging from $400 per day to $800 per day with a $200,000 maximum penalty. Application for an extension of the prescribed time limit can be made providing certain conditions are met. The maximum extension is 6 months. The time for completion of the construction shall also be indicated on the building permit. In the space provided below please indicate the estimated project valuation. Estimated cost of construction: $ -.~""'""";_;;;_µ::..;=:...=~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0!JO{) Based on the above estimated proje valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project: 0 1. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be less than $ Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be more than $ Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $ Construction shall be completed six (6) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. I D 4. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $ Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. ){ 5. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at more than $ Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuanceofthequildin~permit. _. ~~ ~e:jj~t()jj Of' (t7 MD~ (O~ \~ CfJM.Pl 1'1otJ Of CONb-rf<l)C(fDN tb t<.~lj~d For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Gu1aelines or wish to exceed the time limit that was approved by the Planning Commission, the following outlines the "Extension of Construction Time Limit" ( ) process: Design Review Application Page 4 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-l l-11.doc

37 Project Address: 812.-~ f<j:::> 1. Within twelve months following the original approval of Design Review for the construction, and provided that no construction activity has yet commenced on the project, the applicant may apply for an extension of the established construction time limit, not to exceed an additional six months. 2. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be accompanied by complete working drawings for the construction, a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension, and a fee, as established by City Council resolution. 3. Within 10 working days of re~ipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission whether to approve the requested extension. 4. The committee's recommendation shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and noticed as an amendment to the applicant's existing Design Review approval. Any modification by the Planning Commission of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the Design Review approval. 5. Administrative extension. Within 1 O working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicanfs option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. The committee may recommend to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission may approve, an extension if it is determined that any one or more of the following factors presents an unusual obstacle to complying with the standard construction time limit: a. Site topography; b. Site access; c. Geologic issues; d. Neighborhood considerations; e. Other unusual factors. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a written recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve the requested extension and setting forth the findings it has made justifying its decision. The Committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines of Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, provided however that such extensions do not result in a construction time line exceeding 18 months. This Section advises you of the costs that may be involved in processing Planning-related applications and/or appeals. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to be responsible for all expenses incurred in the processing of your application(s)/appeal(s). As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source: Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2008, {subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ Assistant Planner $ City Attorney $ Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead Design Review Application Page 5 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

38 Project Address: ~I Z-- eft\4-1: fcp. For all applications and appeals, an initial deposit is required at the time of submittal, with the amounts determined by City Council resolution. In addition to the initial deposit, the property owner/appellant may be required to make further deposits for anticipated work. Invoices are due and payable within 15 days. Application{s) /or appeal{s) will not be placed on an agenda until these deposits are received. This Section applies to all projects that receive design review. It has been found that there are often misunderstandings regarding changes to building plans that receive Design Review. This occurs when construction plans are submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance after planning approval has been achieved. Another common occurrence is a change to the project while it is underway without first obtaining an approval from the City for the deviation from the original plan. To help your project proceed in an expeditious and harmonious manner, the City of Belvedere wishes to inform you of several basic understandings regarding your project and its approval. By you and your representative signing this document, you are acknowledging that you have read, understand, and will comply with each of the points listed. 1. Once Design Review approval has been granted, construction plans may be submitted to the City. The construction plans shall be identical to the plans approved for design review. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Section ). Deviations from the plans approved for Design Review cannot be approved except by an amendment to the Design Review approval. It is the applicants' responsibility to assure conformance, and the failure of staff to bring nonconformities to the applicants' attention shall not excuse the applicant from such compliance. 2. Comments from City staff regarding the project shall neither be deemed official nor relied upon unless they are in writing and signed by the City Manager or his designee. 3. Without the prior written approval of the City, construction on the project shall not deviate in any manner, including but not limited to form, size or color, from approved construction plans. If at any time during construction, and without such written approval, construction on the project is found by a member of City staff to deviate from the approved construction plans in any manner, an official STOP WORK ORDER will be issued by the City, and there shall be a total cessation of all work on the project. 4. If such a STOP WORK ORDER is issued, the City may initiate proceedings to impose administrative penalties or nuisance abatement proceedings and issue an order to show cause, which will compel the undersigned property owner to appear before the City Council and show cause why the work performed does not deviate from the approved plans and why such work should not be condemned as a public nuisance and abated. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Chapters 1.14 and 8.12) Design Review Application Page 6 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

39 Project Address: ~ \Z... f>fci-l.tf: 42 D -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.;~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~ i~ '..,. "r '~ ""~ ~ \.., ', ' ;; "' ~ ~ "' ~ ; ' '" ~ " '"'~,. ~ ~ '~ Story Pole Requirement Preliminary Story Poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least twenty (20) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard. Final Story Poles must be placed at the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure. Limit on the Number of Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review Approvals Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section (8)(1 )(a), for a site or structure with no existing active Design Review approval, during any twelve-month period, an applicant may obtain up to four administrative approvals, which may be in the form of either Staff Approval, Design Review Exception, or a combination of the two. However, there is no limit to the number of times an applicant may apply for Planning Commission Design Review. Any such administrative or Planning Commission Design Review approval(s) shall be valid fo r a period of twelve (12) months from the date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued for the project within said twelve (12) month period, in which case the Design Review approval shall be v~lid as long as there is an active building permit for the project. Once a project has been approved by Planning Staff or the Planning Commission, administrative approvals to amend the existing active Design Review approval for that project shall be limited to three such approvals at any time during the lifetime of the underlying Design Review approval, plus one such approval during the process of obtaining final inspection approval of the project. Any such administrative approval{s) granted shall NOT extend the twelve (12) month term, of the underlying Design Review approval, or the building permit construction time limit if a building permit has been issued for the project. All property owners must complete and sign the section below which is applicable to your property. Street address of subject property: '!JI~ f?~j\-6(± \2.'V AP, Bf.L.. p~, <Z.A Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: --~~:...-_..;..Z._&;...;;.~_--=O_..S" );;o- Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or Other Entity Please provide proof of ownership and of the signer's authority to enter into contracts regarding this property. One of (or a combination of) the following documents may contain the necessary information. For trusts: the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto; property deed; certificate of title insurance. For other entities: articles of incorporation; partnership agreement; property deed; certificate of title insurance; written certification of facts by an attorney. Photocopies are acceptable. To ensure privacy, documentation will be shredded in a timely manner, or, upon request, returned to the applicant. Design Review Application Page 7 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\pLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-1 Ldoc

40 Project Address: 8 (Z. efayj- (2J) I,, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above-described subject property is owned by a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity and that my signature on this application has been authorized by all necessary action required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity. I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities," above and representations one through four contained therein. In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded. Signed this ~~~20J1, at Belvedere, California. Signature ~~0- Signature Title(s) OwN~ Title(s) D Trustee(s) 0 Partners: D Limited or 0 General 0 Corporation 0 Other Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: > Properties Owned by Individuals I, = sc~ :?o~--t:&jj, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property. I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief I agree to be responsible for all costs incurreo in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities," above and representations one through four contained therein. In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded. Signed thi ~fr, 20J::{.. at Belvedere, Gallfomia. S1gnature_~"""'""'-~~--~~-::::::J-' Design Review Application Page 8 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITlON\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev doc

41 Project Address: ~I 1.,,, fs PAg/= f2 D. };>- Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional) I, ~ ~,herebyauthorize ~[2 Wt~{~R._ to file on my beh8ifatlybppicatlofls, plans, papers, data, or docume s necessary tooba"in approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City _Coo 1 is designation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and fi al d r until th designation is rescinded in writing. Signature of Owner: Date:~~'?$\ tlj/1 Signature of Representative: Date:~f)Gg.1&1 ~17 Design Review Application Page 9 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

42 APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNJNG COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Date: Rec'd. "Yf/fu'(l Amount ~~/ Receipt'!' 7 8 DZ.D Assessors Parcel No: Zone: --+a,_, -l._2_.. _ Address of Property: Type of Property: 0 ( Z. f>f.alh i<i?ad l<e=z I PiPfh:lAL- Record owner of Pro~rty~~4?1../ Mailing \0 :;w.f. MovifiAii.i~i~ DaYt~e Phone:CJ1$:) f75'f.- 12?:6 Address: ~4'.pAJ..:t;:. fs~ Fax=----~ '71-:?'!> '6> t...f.@-<"' YAN M -Pk. &&j Owner's Representative: 6:(tv'f? \.f\,f lhfen {?~ Mailing ~t/o:(a:f-/la:l... f'la!t.a Daytime Phone: C.4ts)qAf-JOZD Address: t>u~ _1:12!? Fax: torjii Mi\i)#RA,4fr tf4tit6 ~w l~l?b@ PA-k BEL-, /Jet: Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: :2t1'2i{ <;q. f Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: No J?@l?&\S J?a'tE:S l\tlfz;: ~eosm -k'( ~ :f\m.i* =:ft.v.~s w1kk h'cf<9 on?jfe 4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: ::pe1 M...\sb (" 1(/dc kh;/>sht=: h, W9P.?Afl ~r;t... M@ 10 f,z&012t2jj f<zl1ie alf;. :fo :f f'4tl R;J?--ro- \\~(A~ /\l I>l-. Vp Demolition Permit Application Page I of2 City of Belvedere UJ;>lannh-~tMing Fcnns\PlANNIHO FORMS latesr EDmOtMPPUCATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMll'_doc Rov. ~LC

43 Project Address: ~/ Z,, B~ f?.d 5. Sizeffype of trucks used to haul demolition material: ii; N W\\t::::.E::kd:::::,e Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: (, :25 {_. y.?'3-f:: t-t Vlk,YthNINCV. 6tl[2f?.f V:Z.. 7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed: < C?M.PL 1)Z:: CON<?"'\\S.V<;\\o rj IN ::?_3 MON:C\\,S 8. Period of time demolition is expected to take: _ N""'ie... M""'""'o... N... 11\~ Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in conjunction with the demolition: Erosion, sedimentation, and /or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: 11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: Year building to be demolished was constructed: _...;l:...q"""0::;. 4. _ 13. Official designation of historical or archjtectural significance, if any: _J,j_O~tJ~X:::. 14.0ther ~ Note: The demolition contractor will b~ requi~ed to. provide the City wjth a certificate of worker's compensation insurance and may be required to' post a bond. The contra~or. n:iust also secure a City of Belvedere business license before the actual demolition perm.it can be issued by the Building Official. I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the demolition permit re es and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in attached e ibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Demolition Permit Application Page 2 of2 City of Belvedere U:~n.. ~O<ring Fonno\Pl.M'NING FORMS-l.ATEST EOITION\APPUCATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc Rov. wnaooa LC

44 Project Address: ~ ( Z-- f/fl\ C.fJ- f< D... ~PLICATION F<?R EXCEPTION. TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION 450SANRAFAELAVE BELVEDERE,CA Pu FAx , ~ ~- -- ~--~ ~ - - ~-- --::-----~~- ~ ~ ~ ' " " ' ".:< > "' ' ~ ~ '. ~' " ~.,,, :-,,. : ",.,. ~,,,, :: -,,, -~~-~----~~'- ~ - - ~ _.. ~ - ~~~~- - ~ ~- ~~~~~~~~-~~- Date: OFC 2 Q 2017 Rec'd. by: /VS1<1 Amount: _<$_l_o Assessors P 8 arcel No: Gity ofe elvedere Receipt No.: :>7t-fL/ I Zone: Address of Property: _!!;_:..._(t,,_: --= e B"'- 'j{-_{.,_lf A- o -R b_ _ Type of Property: ;;?(t.j&-l-.~ f'a-m lt...y RE;-?tO 2N:f tal-?~ f?oe:?f(@ (O~W. MovtJtAllJ 1*=11Jb f?a{paytime Phone: ;tff-5"..! (Z-? 2; Record Owner of Property: Mailing Address: 1r:arf~DA.t:F A~.) f;5t.g,- Fax: sl.f<@vanma-u. WM..,... ~~::;;.:.-=:._o..:;...<...j._._ _ WV?l?N BA:~ g......,.. Daytitne qpp- ipilj Fax: GWIZB -;S@.J:>~t:;i.Lr. Nf:: C ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 4A~ sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS:~sq. ft. As provided in Belvedere Municipal Code Section (1), I hereby apply for an exception to the floor area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. I propose that the Planning Commission make the following findings of fact: 1. Thar primary vie;/.,s from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because: 1Af. N~W R~ ID E::rJ uis IS. ff'=of'02f:p -fo f?6: C-ON~JRVcf@ 1H~~AM S PL.A&~ Af711H2 i:::xocrnb BE=P1 De.tJvt:r,. ANP :Cff-1$ Hetbtf4W lk=, AtJP HA?? Of:nu~.. ~ f;?&l.penk~ l?@j6-t$1wcwtt1t11tf?gk.c$t]nb~~tpfi.il.. Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 1 of3 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREAdoc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC

45 Project Address: ~ { 1,,,,, f?ba?lt ISP ~Of i'tt 2 AWtrIONAL--~PA$ l? Atl0Kb:PN0:SD Ukl$f<.:!&;2Nw &;AeAf,fe. ANP tb4t('uj(o:fh!pf!il.l. M11-tf;: LtJWt::.f<.. f'lajr.. 2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, because: Mt&( Of :rtte ~~g:.. f La>fZ.. A(?t:;A I~ L!-u-L 1t{fJJ:ftlE-lSf;k=e1JreLV ~er OowN6LOPt2 c1tj~te. j}tt?: f&ofthf:.,'q NEW W2t DE-IJ~ 3. That the proposed structure(s} are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s} all Design Review criteria, because:,... f?j?7pdn7e:--: Jo =fttl:? :2A;lv1 E;;. Nf, :t1? ttj$m :ff:- J 4. That the. additional square-footage-will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to resid~nts ofadjoini~g pro~~rtie~, b~cause:. :f-~h:2 f't<dpo?jsd Nf::.\J\/ RE:::~IPJ:?tJC:. \? MOV~D AWAY E~OM :ra~ AOJA-~ NOB+H:E-f':V Nl?-lktt'WR -ro f<.;=::-bpt:;u:l:th~ B :Q 21geD. \0 1-6t,Vf; '(ARD -b?rcbj\?+';. In addition, Section (2} includes guidelines that the Planning Commission must follow. I propose that the following guidelines can be met: 5. That the proposed new construction would not create a new or expand on existing nonconformity on the property, because: f(~z f>on&f? \-0 :ft\j? 6AM i:: Ab rf M=lf_4. ;_ f Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 2 of3 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanaget\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC

46 Project Address: (For purposes of this Section, floor area in the existing structure which is in excess of the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to be an "existing nonconformity" on the property, and the grant of a floor area exception hereunder shall not be deemed to create a "new nonconformity." Additionally, for purposes of this section, where an applicant proposes to construct new and additional parking spaces, construction of parking structure or spaces within a setback shall not be deemed to create a nonconformity.) 6. That the proposed new construction is not a continuation, expansion, or subsequent phase of a project for which one or more variances were granted, which project was completed within two years prior to the floor area exception application, because: V..._. A_.._ I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for approval of the exception equested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented h m and in t attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli Signature: ~~~==~~it ~============--- Name: ~~;_,r,,c:~1-,1--1-~~:;;..j1..;;_µ:::..i.:;..~~~~~~~~- Date: n.eo..1..tj, Ul1 Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 3 of3 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanaget\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC

47 ' ' Project Address: g,\2.-- BMft{- (<JD. APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450SANRAFAELAVE BELVEDERE,CA PH FAX Date: DEC Rec'd. by: fl/s./vi Amount: 1'3_1_~_-_ Parcel ~ty erefr-+8-i C~l';':eiCdeEO!f!F ")71..,;..- J Receipt No.: (7'- '/"I r Zone: "l...;;l;;...{_\' City property to be encroached upon: Address of Property: Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view ea~ement, tide lot): Record Owner of Property: -:?corr ~on Mailing ID?io f f'.fovtjta1tjt?ff.1tjg 1<.p Daytime Phone: (4(6J 651- tz-36 Address: -S6J?T-f=:7.pA-kf:S Az-. Fax: fjb~9:> s~ V./t#J MAl,,,_&Jfll Owner's Representative: P{1:3J~ Wl0 aj E?f\-t:::..~ Mail_ing :?t>o:[amau Pt.At.A- Daytime Phone: (_4 [6) qaj- IOZ!J Address: 6Vtf{2 1-tlO Fax: 6.tJgre:. tvf&pgg,a,. ca. 14.tfZ-5" S.Wtb@KR-~PA?=f> ;.t..~. N-f?C: Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): 111 Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 Revocable License Application Page I of7 City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

48 r=- STREET I PAft\CtlG (/!\'<ORTH! '00 L ---- EXHIBIT"A" PROPERTYUNE 5571>400 w LICENCE AREA SHOWN SHADED REVOCABLE LICENSE - BEACH ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 1/16" = 1' 0" 312 BEACH ROAD BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA AP#

49 ,._ :": Project Address: ~{2- f::fa4{- J<.:\? APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX41S i ' ;t,7c Date: I'- /L:t, I< l Rec'd. by: Amount: o 1~ Receipt No.: :;;J )l/l.f/ I Parcel No.: Zone: r 'S- City property to be encroached upon: Address of Property: Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): Record Owner of Property: :Jeer:~ ~-:C'..::??J Mailing \O?U>?:= MOUUfAIN bft<:.ltjb@ Daytime Phone: (4ti;r ') 55"1-120f? Address: ~-,3.QAf..G. A,t. Fax: ~ kf?. -VAN MA? et?fj\, Owner's Representative: ~~ Wl2laJB~ Mailing?&JO =f'amaf.c f>l/ 1.A Daytime Phone: {if b) qpt-jozd Address: SUtf~ 1/JO Fax: COR(f;2 M.AP-f2?A(!A. '14'(Zb '5iVL6f?tL.R@:P~k.. Na Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): A; calc-f;:e;r "~ 11 o-r Pfff? AJJP l<am!?z CPkiNE-17f1Mb p;<frpfg:('f ttr $/~ BEUJ+ RD. 1h -A pour:: ~ww MeA;N tt16t\ WA:t" ;.R. t..tne:. II Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 Revocable License Application Page 1 of7 City of Belvedere U :\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\ WordVersions\APPLICA TION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

50 ('; Project Address:.6>(2- ~ f2.p. IMPORTANT! This application will first be reviewed by the City Staff and/or Planning Commission. If the application successfully passes this review, a revocable license agreement will be drawn up by City Staff and a formal recommendation will be made to the City Council to approve it. The property owner(s) will need to sign the agreement document and have the signature(s) acknowledged by a notary public or the Deputy City Clerk before the agreement can be ratified by the City Council. A specimen copy of the revocable license agreement is attached for your information. THE OWNER'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WILL PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LICENSE. I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the revocable license requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ocument are a Public Record. Name: Date: 2ct;fr. f.of?.e:rr.eot:j fra? 1 1 UJ l?:j Revocable License Application Page 2 of? City of Belvedere U:\Plaruring\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

51 EXHIBIT"A" IUJT SIDEYAA!l S..'TBACKUllE EXISlt'IGDOC (NOC!WlGE) I I I I I ~ 1 I I \ I I ~ I I ~ REVOCABLE LICENSE - CITY PARCEL APN /16" = 1'-0" 312 BEACH ROAD BELVEDERE, CALIFOR~'IA AP# I I I I ~ffighj: I I I I I I I I I

52 REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TIME EXTENSION CITY OF BELVEDERifECEIVC. Building Department DEC > '.) tn San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA City of Belved Ph: Fax: FOR STAFF USE ONLY I ~ -J Date: h-/i~u II/ Rec. by: J1o"f :ij.j""- ~l'e.;f"' Amount: $1.000 Receipt#: Committee Review Date: Address of Property: ~ l 1- :B~ Al±t 1?0At? Building Permit No.: Date Issued: Parcel Number: (:?0-Z.~?-og Zone:_t(~-_\? Owner of Property: 6?z?ft ~f2ep:t~ Mailing Address: IO.g,W C MovAi1'AltJ Spg ujk Rn. z:o-rr-?dflle k.~;5' Daytime Phone: (41~.15'~ - l~ Facsimile:._N_A Applicant (If other than owner): ~V~ W l:/f tj BA-~ Applicant Mailing Address:'??001AMAI- fiata 1 bljt(f;. 'ltjo 1 (!JJ(2::[r;;., HAf?BRA, ~ q4qz Applicant Phone: Efl-5") tfp}- [O'lO Facsimile:-f-'N~A~ E:.:e;co:o;co:.::ctl::~l~O~ -B:il:g:e:it::l:o:dat:: Construction period assigned by Planning Commission: Please explain why extended construction time is needed (attach supporting documents, if any): Please complete both sides of form

53 REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TIME EXTENSION Extension Of Construction Time Limit Based On Increased Valuation As Prescribed by Section (D) of the Belvedere Municipal Code. 1. The increased valuation must be as the result of one or more of the following factors: a. Site Topography b. Site Access c. Geologic Issues d. Neighborhood Considerations e. Other Unusual Factors 2. A written statement from the owner must accompany the application which attests to the causes, as noted above, that have created an increased. vahµ1tion estimate. 3. The application is to be accompanied by a contractor's estimate indicating the new valuation estimate. 4. Within ten (I 0) Workffig days of receipt of a complete application "Request for Administrative Hearing For Construction Permit Time Extension'', said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Offic'ial, City Planner and City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representative of the applicant. After'the review the committee will determine in private if an extension to the oijginal time limit is to be granted. 5. Should an extension be granted, the Planning Department will provide a notice to adjoining neighbors, within 100 feet of the project, and.the subject project has received an extension to its original construction time limit. 6. Appeals regarding a review committee determlnation must be heard by the Planning Commission. The fee for a Planning Commission hearing regarding a review committee determination for an extended time limit, based on increased valuation, is included irt the originai application fee. An appeal fee of$150 shall be required as part of any appeal of a staff action. We, the undersigned owner, representative, and' contractor, have read the information provided abov~d hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the bes our kn ledge and belief. Signature of Contractor: Date: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~- -2- Please complete both sides of form

54 Fixture# Style Project Qty LIGHTING Metal Body White Acrylic Bottom Lens Dimensions and Lamping: 8: 8" Ax 7" B x 8.5" C x 3.5" MC: 3 lbs. LN LED: Nominal 20W, 1000 Delivered Lumens OW650 I Angle 11: 11" Ax 10" Bx 12" c x s MC: 3 lbs. LN LED: Nominal 20W, 1200 Delivered Lumens LED Color Temperature: 35K 3500K 30K 3000K -40K 4000K LED Control Options : CLV Integral Power Supply, 0-lOV Dimming to 1 % Voltage Options: l 120V 2 277V MV Multi-Volt Diffusers: WA Gloss White Acrylic (WA) Standard Finishes: PAL Aluminum (PAL) PNL Nickel (PNL) PBR Bronze (PBR) PLB Light Bronze (PLB) PMB Medium Bronze (PMB) PDB Dark Bronze (PDB) PRB Oil Rubbed Bronze (PRB) PMW Matte White (PMW) PWW White Wrinkle (PWW) PSB Satin Black (PSB) PBW Black Wrinkle (PBW) PBB Brushed Brass (PBB) Premium Finishes: BA Brushed Aluminum (BA) SN Satin Nickel (SN) PC Polished Chrome (PC) BB Brushed Brass (BB) other Options: REM Remote Emergency Power Supply PAB Antique Brass (PAB) PHB Hammered Bronze (PHB) PHC Hammered Copper (PHC) PHS Hammered Silver (PHS) PSG Satin Gold (PSG) PPA Patina (PPA) PRO Traffic Red (RAL 3020) (PRO) POR Pure Orange (RAL 2004) (POR) PYL Traffic Yellow (RAL 1023) (PYL) PGR Emerald Green (RAL 6001) (PGR) PBL Signal Blue (RAL 5005) (PBL) STBD To Be Determined PB Polished Brass (PB) AB Antique Brass (AB) PTBD To Be Determined RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2017 City of Belvedere Custom sizes and finishes available upon request. Fluorescent and/or mcandescent lamps not included. Camman reserves the right to make design changes without prior notice. Unless othernise specified. mounting is to a 4 inch octagonal iunction box. Structural mounting IS required for fixwres over 50 pounds. Please comact the factor; for specific mounting instf!jctions. Photometric 1nfo1mation 3vailable at cammanlighting.com CAMMAN LIGHTING I DERRY, PA j (724) I

55 312 Beach Road Belvedere, CA Historic Resource Evaluation Prepared for Steve Wisenbaker Corte Madera, CA Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. March 12, 2018

56 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was contracted by Steve Wisenbaker of Steve Wisenbaker Architects in November of 2017 to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 312 Beach Road in Belvedere, California (see Figures 1 and 2). This report has been requested in connection with the proposed demolition of the existing structure. The property has not been previously evaluated, and is not part of an existing or identified potential historic district. Figure 1. Subject buildings highlighted in yellow (Google Maps aerial view, amended by!author) 1

57 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 2. Parcel map of subject property highlighted in yellow (Marin County Assessor s Office, amended by author) The property and structure was identified in the report An Evaluation of Cultural Resources and a Legislative Overview for the City of Belvedere General Plan Update as having high historic sensitivity as the structure is over 100 years old. 1 The subject property is not currently listed as a historic property on the Designated Historic Properties provided by the City of Belvedere. 2 No local criteria were provided for the purposes of this evaluation, and none was used to evaluate the subject property. The 2010 City of Belvedere General Plan 2030 defines a Historic Resource as any site, building, structure, or object included in (or found eligible to be included in) the California Register of Historic Resources. 3 The property is over 50 years old, and as such this HRE will address the subject property s eligibility for individual listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) with the information available. 1 William Roop and Sally Evans, Archaeological Resource Service, An Evaluation of Cultural Resources and a Legislative Overview for the City of Belvedere General Plan Update, Marin County, California (City of Belvedere, 2009), Deputy City Clerk, Designated Historic Properties (City of Belvedere, 2012). 3 City of Belvedere, City of Belvedere General Plan 2030: Volume One: Goals, Policies, and Actions, (City of Belvedere, 2010),

58 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 METHODOLOGY Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff conducted a site visit and survey of the property s interior and exterior on November 2, During this visit, staff documented the building s configuration and architectural elements with photographs and field notes. Previous to the site visit the client provided GA with historic drawings of the property. Garavaglia Architecture Inc. also conducted additional archival research on the subject property and surrounding area. The following repositories/collections were consulted to complete the research process. This research process was not exhaustive of all possible information available on the property and building, and did not include additional survey work. (See References section for complete list of resources) Ancestry.com Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society California Digital Newspaper Collection City of Belvedere Planning and Building County of Marin, Office of the Assessor-Recorder Newspapers.com Online Archive of California 3

59 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 BUILDING AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SITE 312 Beach Road is located on block 233, lot 08 (APN ), on the east side of Beach Road. The lot is irregular in shape, with an approximate area of 12,000 square feet. 312 Beach Road is zoned as 11 Single Residence Improved. The residence at 312 Beach Road faces west, and is located in the approximate center of the lot. The lot is tiered, stepping down east towards Belvedere Cove. The residence occupies approximately one eighth of the lot, and is separated from Beach Road with hedges and a small white metal gate (see Figure 3). There is a stand-alone open-gabled roof two car garage with shingled siding at the southwest corner of the property, accessible from Beach Road. The garage is set downhill with an upper level paneled garage door entrance at the west, and a single paneled entrance door at the north. The garage has large single-lite windows at the east and north elevations, and a wrap-around deck at the upper level. Figure 3. View of the subject property from beach road, looking northeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) At the east yard paved pathways and brick steps connect through stone retaining-wall planters and hedges. The paths and steps lead from Beach Road to the primary entrance of the residence, and around the south and north elevations to the rear of the property through small brick patios (see Figure 4). At the south elevation the pathways lead to landscaped terraces with stone retaining walls at the south side of the east, rear, yard (see Figure 5). A wood staircase begins approximately halfway down the south side of the yard, leading to a dock at the east property line on Belvedere Cove (see Figure 6). 4

60 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 4. View of the pathways at the east yard, looking northeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) Figure 5. View of the concrete steps and landscaped tiers at the south and east of the property, looking uphill towards the west with the garage at center (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 5

61 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 6. View of the wood stairway leading to the dock at Belvedere Cove, looking downhill towards the east (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 6

62 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 BUILDING Figure 7. Overall view of the subject building and site, looking southeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) The residence at 312 Beach Road is a one-and-one-half story single-family structure. The building is irregular in plan, and is set downhill with an upper level entrance. The building is wood-framed and set on a projecting foundation with a projecting sill. The residence is sided with staggered shake shingles at all elevations, and the fenestration is primarily single-lite casement windows. The intersecting gable roof has overhanging eaves and exposed beam ends at the gables facing north, south, and west. The building shares identifying features with the Shingle style, but overall can be considered of vernacular residential form. 7

63 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Exterior West Elevation The west elevation is asymmetrical, with a one-story south-facing gable intersected by a twostory west facing gable portion (see Figures 8 and 9). A gabled bay projects from the second story of the west-facing gable portion above the projecting roof of the single-story. The south portion of the elevation is partially set back. The fenestration at this elevation is consistent with the remaining elevations, with varying sizes of single-lite casement windows. Figure 8. View the west elevation, looking northeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) Figure 9. View of the west elevation, looking southeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 8

64 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 The primary entrance at the west elevation faces south. The solid single-paneled door is set back slightly with a wide beveled frame, with a raised threshold (see Figure 10). The door includes a metal knocker, a large bell sits at the left of the door, and a hanging lantern to the right. To the south of the entry door is a set of single-lite French-style doors with a shallow canvas awning (see Figure 9). There are narrow single-lite French doors leading to two narrow balconies with metals rails at the second story of the north side, with canvas awning hanging above the doors at the central gable (see Figure 8). Figure 10. Detail view of the primary entry (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 9

65 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 South Elevation The south elevation is accessible via paved steps leading from the west. A brick chimney structure extends from the lower level of the residence to above the gable roof (see Figure 11). There is a secondary solid entrance door set into the chimney structure, and one single-lite window at the upper level at the east. Figure 11. Overall view of the south elevation, looking northeast (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 10

66 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 East Elevation The east elevation is accessible from the paved steps continuing from the west. The upper and lower levels are visible from this elevation (see Figure 12). A bay projects from the upper level, extending across approximately one third of the elevation. A wood deck supported by wood piers extends past the bay and the upper level towards the north. The fenestration at this elevation features bands of vertically oriented single-lite casement windows across both levels, including the projecting bay at the upper level. Figure 12. Overall view of the east elevation, looking uphill towards the northwest (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 11

67 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 North Elevation The north elevation is accessible from paved steps running from the west and the east, flush along the elevation (see Figures 13 and 14). An enclosed stair runs from the upper level, below the projecting bay. The stair enclosure is setback from the northwest and southwest corners. There is a west facing single-lite entry door at the west end, and a north facing single-lite entry with a transom above at the east end. There are two additional single-lite casement windows at the upper and lower level of the north elevation, at the east side. There is a chimney sided with shingles, with a decorative cap, extending past the roof of the upper level bay. Figure 13. View of the north elevation enclosed Figure 14. View of the north elevation enclosed stair looking downhill towards the west stair looking uphill towards the east (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) (Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., November 2017) 12

68 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 HISTORIC CONTEXT BELVEDERE 4 In 1890, a group of prominent local businessmen and investors formed the Belvedere Land Company to develop their newly acquired island adjacent to the Tiburon peninsula. Belvedere Island was connected to the mainland by a narrow sand spit and a protected lagoon and rose from the waters as a tree-covered rocky mass with steep sides but commanding views of Angel Island, the Marin headlands and San Francisco Bay. The company immediately set about terracing the big island with lineal, winding roads embanked with stone walls, and promoted the subdivision as a residential park. The plan was an immediate success, the in place for San Francisco s first families as the century turned. 5 To attract buyers, the Land Company improved streets, installed a water system and set about providing a ferry landing to connect the island with Tiburon, Sausalito, San Francisco and the wider Bay Area community. In the early years, Belvedere was made up of a mixture of seasonal and year-round residents with an active, bohemian-type summer atmosphere and a more subdued winter social scene. However, it also was a place that residents and visitors alike wanted to improve for more comfortable and hospitable year-round living. To this end, the City was incorporated in 1896, and had established a post office and school district by Belvedere developed in two phases. After the initial offering of lots in the decades around 1900 attracted prominent San Franciscans looking for summer homes and a more rural lifestyle, there was a second marketing push in the 1940s to bring in more year-round residents. Consequently, there is a variety of housing stock reflecting these two eras. From the first are grander residences constructed in the popular styles of the time: Stick, Arts and Crafts, Queen Anne, Mission Revival, and First Bay Area Tradition. Many of these have shingle or wood siding, double hung windows, dormers, bay windows, multiple levels, obvious exterior ornament, and are set on larger lots. From the second are smaller, more modest buildings in the mid-century architectural styles distinguished by single-levels, lower profiles, simpler exterior ornament, larger windows and a direct connection to outdoor living areas, all on smaller, more closely placed lots. These two developmental periods are the results of shifts in the organizational structure of the Belvedere Land Company. From its founding until 1935, it was run by a Board of Trustees who answered to a series of shareholders. In 1935, Harry Allen (successful developer of Sea Cliff in San Francisco) became the sole owner of the Belvedere Land Company. Recognizing the change in the realty market, he set about promoting Belvedere as a family friendly, more modest community to the upper-middle class market. In 1945 the remaining marsh water was drained and a new lagoon was filled with bay water. A model house designed by prominent architect George Rockrise was built in 1949 and presented as appealing picture of lagoon living. 6 Growth was steady until the post-world War II era when Belvedere, like many Bay Area communities, found itself with a rapidly increasing population and all the governing issues that 4 Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, A Pictorial History of Belvedere: , edit. Beverly Wright Bastian and Barbara Britton Gnoss (Tiburon, California: Wood River Publishing, 1990), historical overview summarized from various chapters. 5 Ibid., 7. 6 Ibid.,

69 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 come with it. In 1954, a city manager form of governance was adopted but many critical operational functions were still carried out by the county or by consultants. The 1950s through the 1970s mark the third active building phase in Belvedere s development. Direct ferry service to San Francisco resumed in 1962, attracting residents wanting to live outside of the city. This period was a golden age of post World War II architecture, and Belvedere became a showcase of mid-20 th century contemporary residential work. 7 Today, the predominantly residential community retains its original resort-era charm with a number of large, late-victorian cottages still serving as prominent visual landmarks as visitors approach across the original sand spit (now Beach Road). The Albert Farr-designed Belvedere Land Company offices and cottages on Beach Road provide the architectural cues for a number of these early residences. Scattered among the larger residences are the smaller bungalows and early ranch-type houses of the second marketing phase. Then finally, in the lagoon and on the west side of the island, are later developments dating to the post-world War II and more recent periods. 7 Ibid,

70 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 SITE HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY PARCEL DEVELOPMENT The area of Belvedere was largely developed between 1890 and the early 1900s, coinciding with the active establishment of the Belvedere Land Company (see Historic Context on pages 13-14). Residential development began along the tiered hillsides, and moved inland in the 1940s. Available historic documentation about the area primarily focuses on the connection of Belvedere to nearby Tiburon, slightly north of the subject property. A cursory review of the residences along the southern portion of Beach Road suggests construction of neighboring properties occurred between 1892 and An aerial photo from 1956 shows that the surrounding residential properties had developed by this time, including inland construction towards the west (see Figure 15). The City of Belvedere General Plan 2030 states that The historic development pattern of Belvedere Island is that parcels on the eastern side closer to Belvedere Cove were developed first, and they tended to be smaller parcels with smaller homes. 8 A site plan from the original drawing set shows the property with the same general site configuration as present today (see Figure 16). A paved path from the Beach Road, connects to brick steps and additional paved walkways. At the south, the brick steps continue to a landscaped terrace and additional pathways towards the east, and at the north continue past the enclosed steps to a patio at the lower level of the residence, also accessible from the paths at the south. The retaining walls of the terraces are extant, but are only landscaped at a relatively small section at the south. Figure 15. Aerial photograph of the subject site and surrounding properties, 1956 (historicaerials.com) 8 City of Belvedere, City of Belvedere General Plan 2030,

71 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 16. Original rendering of the subject property and residence. Note the overlay at the right of the image is not a part of the original drawing. (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) 16

72 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The residence at 312 Beach Road was initially constructed circa An undated set of original elevation drawings shows the building in the same general massing and configuration that it is in today, with several notable differences in the details (see Figures 17 through 20). 9 The exterior walls are noted to be plaster, and the fenestration consists of multi-lite casement windows with articulated sills, two small multi-lite fixed windows at the west and south, and a multi-lite oculus window at the gable end of the south elevation. The entry doors appear similar as they are today, with the exception of multi-lite French doors in place of the single-lite French doors at the west facade. There is no chimney at the south elevation in the drawing, but a chimney at the south side of the west elevation in the drawing, where the double French doors are today. There are supportive brackets beneath the projecting bay at the east elevation, and no open deck, in the drawings. Figure 17. Drawing of the west elevation (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) 9 No historic photos or documentation was available to confirm to what degree the details were applied at the time of original construction. 17

73 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 18. Drawing of the east elevation (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) Figure 19. Drawing of the south elevation (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) Figure 20. Drawing of the north elevation (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) Belvedere City records indicate that an addition was construction in 1952, however it is unclear what this addition may be. In 1958 owners Frederic and Jean Bost constructed the upper level deck across the east and south elevations (see Figure 21). 18

74 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 21. Drawing of east deck submitted to the City of Belvedere, 1958 (MacDonald Engineering Company, San Francisco, CA, Provided by the City of Belvedere) In 1968 owner James Zink constructed the garage at the southeast of the property. The drawing submitted to the City of Belvedere shows the garage supported by stilts at the rear, not with the lower level as it is currently. The fenestration and doors appears are similar to those that remain today, and the roof was noted to have white gravel per the drawings (see Figure 22). Figure 22. North and east drawings of garage submitted to the City of Belvedere, 1968 (Walter H. Toens, Building Designer, Provided by the City of Belvedere) Several small alterations were recorded at the property between 1968 and 2008, including the construction of a dock, the addition or conversion of a storage room, and re-roofing, presumably of the main residence. In 2014 the majority of the deck was removed from the south and east elevations, leaving the extant deck at the north side of the east elevation. At this time a door at the east elevation was converted to a window, in the approximate placement shown in the original drawings, and a kitchen window was converted to a door to access the extant deck. 19

75 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Construction Chronology Date Owner Alteration c Manuela Page Hellmann Original construction July 1952 Frederic & Jean Bost Addition, details unknown February 1956 Frederic & Jean Bost Alteration/repair, details unknown August 1958 Frederic & Jean Bost Construction of deck July 1968 James Zink Construction of garage June 1975 Mary Kay Barnes Construction of dock March 1977 Mary Kay Barnes Storage room construction or reconfiguration July 2003 Richard S. and Jean C. Slottow Replace dock May 2004 Richard S. and Jean C. Slottow Re-roof, presumably of primary residence 2014 Scott L. Robertson Removal of existing deck at the east; conversion of door at east deck back to window; conversion of kitchen window at northeast to door 20

76 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 ARCHITECT AND BUILDER INFORMATION The residence at 312 Beach Road was originally designed by architect Albert Farr. Born in Omaha, Nebraska in 1871 and raised in Japan, Farr moved to Oakland California as a teenager. 10 By the early 1890s Farr worked for San Francisco architects Clinton Day and the Reid Brothers. 11 By the late 1890s Farr had acquired his own list of wealthy clients, and in 1897 opened his own firm in San Francisco, receiving one of the first architecture licenses in California in Farr received a range of commissions throughout the Bay Area and in California, and was influenced by a variety of early American architecture styles. 13 An article in San Francisco Heritage s quarterly newsletter, authored by architectural historian Bradley Wiedmaier, describes the perception of Albert Farr and his career accomplishments: Common perception has most identified Bay Area architect Albert Farr with his shingled houses in Pacific Heights and Belvedere. Yet, in fact, his work shows an amazing variety and evolution of architectural styles. Farr was regarded as a major figure in his own time. He emerged during the first years of the 20 th century within what historians came to call the First Bay Area Tradition. Coxhead, Polk, and Maybeck were constructing their Presidio-wall Pacific Avenue rustic townhouses as icons in the adjacent blocks at virtually the same time that Farr demonstrated his own approach to the rustic Bay movement. His work in Belvedere became well known. Piedmont, Claremont and Oakland hold scores of additional examples of his work, and he is well represented on the Peninsula...Spain, England, France and Switzerland chose Farrdesigned residences to serve as consulates. Yet Albert Farr s importance in Bay Area architecture has been overlooked historically. Immediately after World War II, when Modernism eclipsed the historicist modes - and with Farr retired since the onset of the war - he began to fade from prominence. 14 Farr worked extensively in Belvedere. In 1891, prior to the official formation of his own firm, Farr designed the residence named Landfall for the Frederick Bridge Family in Belvedere. 15 As development in Belvedere occurred primarily at the turn of the century, the construction of this property marks one of the first in Belvedere. 16 Farr s impact in Belvedere is most notable for is work in the First Bay Tradition Style, specifically with the Belvedere Land Company building in 1905 and the adjoining cottages in Farr designed several other buildings in Belvedere including the Motor Boat Clubhouse, Belvedere City Hall, the subject property at 312 Beach 10 NoeHill website, Albert L. Farr, NoeHill, 11 Ibid. 12 Steven Finacom, Landmark Nomination: 2777 Shattuck, Former Berkeley Bowl Property, Farr and Ward, Architects, 1940 (City of Berkeley, 2015): NoeHill website, Albert L. Farr. 14 Bradley Wiedmaier, Near & Farr: The San Francisco Architecture of Albert Farr (Part I), Heritage News (September/October 2004, no. 5), Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, A Pictorial History of Belvedere: , edit. Beverly Wright Bastian and Barbara Britton Gnoss (Tiburon, California: Wood River Publishing, 1990), Ibid. 17 Ibid.,

77 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Road, and potentially others that have not been identified (see Figure 23). 18 Figure 23. Albert Farr s name on the title block for the original drawings for the residence at 312 Beach Road, circa 1909 (Albert Farr Architect, San Francisco, CA, Provided by Client) At the turn of the century Farr worked extensively in San Francisco, including design and construction of both residential and commercial properties. Wiedmaier notes that Farr s reputation as a medievalist and anglophile led to numerous commissions for Tudor remodels of vertical Victorians in the 1900s and 1910s. 19 Several of these ornate buildings are extant in San Francisco, including 2419 Vallejo Street (c. 1904), 2400 Vallejo Street (c. 1905), 2350 Vallejo Street (c. 1913), and a Georgian Revival style residence as 2245 Sacramento Street. 20 Farr s work in San Francisco expanded to the First Bay Tradition style, notably in residences built at 3333 and 3343 Pacific Avenue. 21 Farr continued work in the greater Northern California region in the first decades of the 20 th century, and is credited for the design of Jack London s Wolf House in Glen Ellen. 22 In 1922 Farr partnered with Joseph Francis Ward to open their firm Farr & Ward. 23 Farr continued to work until his death in NoeHill website, Albert L. Farr. 19 Bradley Wiedmaier, Near & Farr: The San Francisco Architecture of Albert Farr (Part II), Heritage News (Spring 2005, no. 2), Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Steven Finacom, 2777 Shattuck, Former Berkeley Bowl Property, Farr and Ward, Architects, NoeHill website, Albert L. Farr. 22

78 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 OWNERSHIP HISTORY A sales flier for the Belvedere Land Company names E.M. McAffee as the owner of the subject lot in No additional information was available on McAffee. In 1909 Manuela Page Hellmann is listed as the owner of the property, and oversaw the design and construction of the residence. Ms. Hellman was born in Valparaiso, Chile in 1863 as Manuela A. Page. In 1902 Ms. Hellman married Horatio G. Hellman, a commissions merchant in San Francisco, and partner in the liquor wholesaling business of Hellmann Bros. & Co. with his brother, Richard. A 1902 newspaper article announcing their marriage notes that the couple was to reside permanently in San Francisco (see Figure 24). A 1906 newspaper articles later notes Mrs. Hellmann s residence in San Francisco, and follows that she would be spending the summer in Belvedere (see Figure 25). Like many other wealthy San Francisco residents, it is likely that the Hellmanns kept the subject Belvedere house as a summer home, and not a permanent residence. Mrs. Hellmann died in San Francisco in Figure 24. Newspaper article announcing the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Hellmann ( San Franciscans Wed in a Belvedere Home, San Francisco Call, June 12, 1902) 24 David M. Gotz, message to author, November 15,

79 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Figure 25. Newspaper article regarding the welfare of Mrs. Hellmann ( The Smart Set, San Francisco Call, August 11, 1906) Between 1945 and 1958 the property and residence was owned by Dr. Frederic C. Bost and his wife Jean Bost. According to the 1940 census Mr. Bost, born circa 1901 in California, and Mrs. Bost, born circa 1906 in Idaho, lived in San Francisco with their three children, Gail, Alice, and Fredieric W. In 1956 the Bosts made some alterations and repairs to the residence, and in 1958 added the upper floor deck to the east and south elevations. The Bosts owned the property until In 1968 James Zink is listed as the owner of the property on the construction drawing for the garage. No further information was available on Mr. Zink. The next known owner of the property is listed as Mary Kay Barnes, a widow. No additional information was available on Ms. Barnes. In 1978 the deed for the property was granted to Richard S. and Jean C. Slottow from Ms. Barnes. Mr. Slottow was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1923, and died in San Rafael, California in Mrs. Slottow was born in 1929 and died in 2010, and was listed as last residing in Belvedere. The Slottows had three children, Michael, Rick, and Tim. Minor alterations were made to the property and residence after 1978, including the construction of a dock and the replacement of the roof. The property was last sold in 2011 to Scott L. Robertson, the current owner. In 2014 Mr. Robertson oversaw several alterations to the residence including the removal of the majority of the deck on the east and south elevations, and two window and door conversions on the upper level of the east elevation. Ownership History Dates Name(s) 1891 E. M. McAffee Manuela Page Hellmann Frederic C. and Jean Bost Unknown James Zink Unknown Mary Kay Barnes Unknown Richard S. Slottow and Jean C. Slottow present Scott L. Robertson 24

80 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria. 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or 4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. CRHR criteria are similar to National Register of Historic Places criteria, and are tied to CEQA, so any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA. INTEGRITY When evaluating a resource for the NHRP or CRHR, one must evaluate and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one or more of the above listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance. The following seven aspects define historic integrity: Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting. The physical environment of a historic property. Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 25

81 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling. A property s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Comparisons with similar properties should also be considered when evaluating integrity as it may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to reflect the significance of a historic context. Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR. If the property is not found to be eligible for the CRHR under any criterion, an integrity evaluation will not be necessary. 26

82 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 FINDINGS CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 312 Beach Road in Belvedere for historic significance. The CRHR uses generally the same guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service); as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the evaluation discussion. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The subject building at 312 Beach Road was constructed circa 1909 and therefore meets the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the CRHR evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria: Criterion 1 (event) As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce. 25 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated event or trends must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends 26 Development began in the Belvedere area in the late 1800s with the formation of the Belvedere Land Company and the acquisition of the island adjacent to the Tiburon peninsula. Within the decade the company began to terrace the island to plot land for residential lots and housing construction. The development attracted predominately wealthy San Francisco residents, growing the population with both seasonal and year-round residents. Wealthy residents built homes on the east and south parts of the island as summer and weekend homes. 27 By 1896, Belvedere was incorporated, and was functioning as an independent city by Development of residential housing continued along the Belvedere coastline through the turn of the century. The residence at 312 Beach Road was constructed circa 1909, towards the end of the first phase of residential development in Belvedere, reflecting the residential building trend on the eastern side of Belvedere Island at the turn of the century. 28 Research suggests that Mrs. Hellman, first owner of the property, primarily resided in San Francisco and used this property as a summer home (see page 23). A cursory review of the extant residences along the eastern side of Belvedere Island along the southern portion of Beach Road, showed a majority of residences constructed between 1892 and 1900, with only one other residence constructed in 1909, and another in The immediate residence to the north of the subject property, and the residence to the south, were constructed after 1960, or have been significantly altered since initial construction. A formal survey would be necessary to determine the historic integrity of these properties, and the remaining residential properties in Belvedere. 25 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, online at 26 Ibid. 27 William Roop and Sally Evans, Archaeological Resource Service, An Evaluation of Cultural Resources, City of Belvedere, City of Belvedere General Plan 2030,

83 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 At this time, there is insufficient information to evaluate the property and its association with the development of Belvedere. A substantive survey of extant early structures would be required to create an historic context reflecting the in-depth development of Belvedere to be able to fully evaluate the subject property within such an established context. As such, the subject residence at 312 Beach Road does not appear to rise to a level of significance, at this time, for its association with an event to be eligible as an individual resource under Criterion 1 for the CRHR. However, should a survey of existing buildings take place and a development context be created, the building should be reevaluated within such a framework. Criterion 2 (person) This criterion applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. The NPS also specifies that these properties are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. 29 The subject property has had several owners throughout the years, beginning with the ownership of the lot by E.M. McAffee in By 1909 the property was owned by Manuala Page Hellman, who oversaw the original construction of the residence. Mrs. Hellmann was married to Horatio Hellmann, a commissions merchant, and likely lived primarily in San Francisco, and used the property at 312 Beach Road as a vacation home. Mrs. Hellman owned the property until Between 1945 and 1958 Frederic C. and Jean Bost owned the property and residence. There is no information available to indicate whether or not the couple lived in the house full time, or with their three children. The Bosts were responsible for the construction of the upper floor deck at the south and east elevations. Information on whom the property was sold to in 1958 was not available, but a set of drawings for the construction of the garage in 1968 lists James Zink as the owner. Similarly no information was located on the ownership of the property in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, until Mary Kay Barnes is listed as the grantor of the deed in No additional information was available on Mr. Zink and Ms. Barnes. In 1978 the deed was granted to Richard S. and Jean C. Slottow, a married couple with three children. Little information was available on the Slottows, who were responsible for several small alterations at the property. There is no available information to suggest that any persons associated with the property have made a significant impact on local or California, and as such 312 Beach Road does not appear to be eligible as an individual resource under Criterion 2 for the CRHR. 29 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 28

84 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 Criterion 3 (design/construction) Under this criterion, properties may be eligible if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 30 According to the NPS, Type, period, or method of construction refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history. 31 The subject residence at 312 Beach Road does not align with any particular style, and can be considered a vernacular residential building. The structure shares some identifying features with the Shingle style, as defined in A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia Savage McAlester, including wall cladding of continuous wood shingles, shingled walls without interruption at corners, an asymmetrical facade, and intersecting cross-gables. 32 The building is not, however, a high example of the style as is lacking the identifying features of steeplypitched gables, roofing of continuous shingles, multi-level eaves, and extensive porches. 33 The contemporary garage was constructed in 1968, and does not fall into the original era of construction. Elements of the subject residence can also be considered of the First Bay Tradition style, including it s natural wood elements, and connection to the slopping site, and the asymmetrical form. The 2010 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design , Historic Context Statement further describes the First Bay Tradition as a regional style of architecture, and the most notable architects of the style: Coined in 1947 by architectural critic Lewis Mumford, the Bay Region Tradition is a regional vernacular architecture endemic to the San Francisco Bay Area that is woodsy, informal, and anti urban. The Bay Region Tradition evolved over nearly 100 years and has since been classified into First, Second and Third traditions, spanning from the 1880s 1970s. The First Bay Tradition, spanning roughly from the 1880s to early 1920s, was a radical reaction to staid Classicism of Beaux Arts historicism. Eschewing the highly ornamented Victorian era styles also popular at that time, First Bay Tradition architects developed a building vernacular linked to nature, site and locally sourced materials. Characteristics of the First Bay Tradition include the use of local materials, particularly redwood; an emphasis on craftsmanship and the Arts and Crafts movement; the use of unpainted wood shingle cladding; and a sensitivity to site and climate. The style emphasized volume, form, and asymmetry. Examples of the First Bay Region tradition are found in San Francisco and the greater Bay Area, particularly in the hills of the East Bay. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America s Domestic Architecture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), Ibid. 29

85 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 The First Bay Tradition is closely associated with the religious and residential designs of Bernard Maybeck, Ernest Coxhead, Julia Morgan, A. Page Brown, Joseph Worcester, Louis Christian Mullgardt, A.C. Schweinfurt, John Galen Howard, and Willis Polk. Some describe it as the regional interpretation of the Eastern Shingle Style. Classically trained architect Bernard Maybeck ( ), a Bay Area architect since 1890, exerted tremendous influence in the development of the regional, vernacular style. 34 The subject residence was designed by architect Albert Farr, noted for his work in Belvedere designed in the First Bay Tradition style. The A Pictorial History of Belvedere describes the First Bay Tradition style: The predominant style in Belvedere s early building period was the First Bay Tradition. Taking some elements of the eastern Shingle style, it is a mélange of medieval English imagery by way of Early American architecture with a Swiss Chalet detail or two. Modest exteriors and the use of natural materials such as shingles of stained wood, openness to the landscape, and the sometimes whimsical application of classical ornament were some of its characteristics. 35 The most direct examples of Farr s work in the First Bay Tradition style are the Belvedere Land Company building (c. 1905) and the attached cottages (c. 1906). The Belvedere Land Company building represents the Early American architecture styles utilized in the First Bay Tradition with steep gables, an asymmetrical facade, a projecting upper floor and small-paned oriel windows. 36 The attached cottages at Beach Road possess some of the same elements, with the additional of more whimsical details. 37 Early Farr-created elevation drawings of the subject residence at 312 Beach Road show some identifying features of the First Bay Tradition style of Farr in Belvedere, including an oriel window, an asymmetrical façade, and a projecting upper-floor. It is not clear how closely the building was constructed to these early elevation drawings. The original drawings note the siding as plaster, inconsistent with the First Bay Tradition, and there is not information to indicate if the extant shingle siding was applied at the time of original construction. NPS further defined the work of a master as: A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft..a property is not eligible as the work of a master, however, simply because it was designed by a prominent architect. 38 Farr worked in many styles throughout his career, working both in trends and to the preferences of his clients. At the turn of the century Farr worked extensively in San Francisco, 34 Mary Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design , Historic Context Statement (San Francisco: San Francisco City and County Planning Department, 2010), Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, A Pictorial History of Belvedere, Ibid., Ibid. 38 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 30

86 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 with commissions ranging from residential to mixed-use to commercial. Many of these commissions were various revival-style or Tudor style residences, either as remodels or original designs. Many of these buildings are extant in San Francisco, including a commercial building at 533 Second Street, a Georgian Revival style residence at 2245 Sacramento Street, and residences at 3333 and 3343 Pacific Avenue, that can be considered representations of the First Bay Tradition style. The aforementioned properties currently have an A Historic Resource Present status with the San Francisco Planning Department. Farr s design style varied in Belvedere as well, notably with the English half-timbered Belvedere Presbyterian Church (c. 1900, since relocated and altered and now serving as Belvedere City Hall) and the gambrelroofed residence at 296 Beach Road (c. 1891). Although the subject residence at 312 Beach Road shares identifying features with the Shingle style and the First Bay Tradition, it is not a high example of either. With elements of both the Shingle style and the First Bay Tradition, the residence at 312 Beach Road can be considered of a vernacular residential style Further, greater examples of Albert Farr s work are extant in Belvedere and the greater Bay Area, which better represents his masterwork as a regional architect. Therefore, the subject residence at 312 Beach Road does not rise to a level of significance for its design to be eligible as an individual resource under Criterion 3 for the CRHR. Criterion 4 (information potential) In October of 2016 Holman and Associates Archeological Consultants conducted a Cultural Resource Study and concluded that there are no potentially significant historic and/or prehistoric materials seen anywhere inside the project areas, which has had extensive soils removal and landscaping through the 20th century. 39 Therefore, the subject property at 312 Beach Road does not possess enough information potential to be eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 4. CONCLUSION The subject residence at 312 Beach Road, constructed circa 1909, reflects a turn-of- the-20 th century building trend in Belvedere, but does not currently rise to a level of significance to be eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1. Research did not indicate that any other persons associated with the property had a significant impact on history, and therefore the subject property does not rise to a level of significance to be listed as an individual resource on the CRHR under Criterion 2. The subject residence was originally designed by Bay Area architect Albert Farr, but as a vernacular residence does not directly represent a particular architectural style, and is not a significant representation of the work of Albert Farr. Therefore, the subject property does not rise to a level of significance to be listed as an individual resource on the CRHR under Criterion 3. The subject property at 312 Beach Road does not possess enough information potential to be eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 4. In summary, the subject property at 312 Beach Road does not display a level of historical significance that would qualify it for individual listing as an individual historic resource on the California Register of Historical Places under any criteria. As the property and building have not been determined to possess historic significance, an evaluation of the structure s historic integrity is therefore unnecessary, and the issue of physical integrity is negated and. 39 Rebecca Markwick, message to author, March 8,

87 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 REFERENCES Bastian, Beverly W. and Barbara B. Gnoss, Eds. A Pictorial History of Belvedere: Belvedere-Tiburon: The Landmarks Society, Brown, Mary. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design , Historic Context Statement. San Francisco: San Francisco City and County Planning Department, California Office of Historic Preservation website. California Register. California Office of Historic Preservation. City of Belvedere Planning and Building Databases, permits and other documentation related to 312 Beach Road Belvedere Avenue. City of Belvedere. City of Belvedere General Plan 2030: Volume One: Goals, Policies, and Actions. City of Belvedere, County of Marin, Office of the Assessor-Recorder, deed history for 312 Beach Road (November 2017). Deputy City Clerk. Designated Historic Properties. City of Belvedere, Finacom, Steven. Landmark Nomination: 2777 Shattuck, Former Berkeley Bowl Property, Farr and Ward, Architects, City of Berkeley, Gotz, David M. (Archivist). message to author, November 15, Jack London State Historical Park website. Wolf House. Jack London State Historical Park. Markwick, Rebecca (Associate Planner). message to author, March 8, McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, NoeHill website. Albert L. Farr. NoeHill. Roop, William and Evans, Sally, Archaeological Resource Service. An Evaluation of Cultural Resources and a Legislative Overview for the City of Belvedere General Plan Update, Marin County, California. City of Belvedere, Wiedmaier, Bradley. Near & Farr: The San Francisco Architecture of Albert Farr (Part I), Heritage News, Vol. XXXII no. 5 (September/October 2004). Wiedmaier, Bradley. Near & Farr: The San Francisco Architecture of Albert Farr (Part I), Heritage News, Vol. XXXIII no. 2 (Spring 2005). 32

88 312 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE Historic Resource Evaluation March 12, 2018 APPENDIX A: Original Elevation Drawings and Site Plan APPENDIX B: Drawings Submitted to the City of Belvedere 33

89

90

91

92

93 IvL SANDOVAL ARC S, INC. MEMORANDUM DA TE: 10/19/17 TO: Irene Borba, Director of Planning and Building, City of Belvedere PROJECT NO: MSA FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA REGARDING: 312 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum PROJECT DOCUMENTS Architectural Drawings: Prepared by STEVE WISENBAKER AIA, Tamai Plaza, Suite 200, Corte Madera, CA 94925, dated 12/12/17 and consisting of 17 individual drawing sheets 145 Cone Madera Town Center #40-l Corte Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & Nonh Bay Phone: msa(!_l;msandovalarchitects.com w\vw.msandovalarchitects.com Topographic Survey: Prepared by LAWERENCE DOYLE., 100 Helens Lane, Mill Valley, CA 94941, dated 12/15/17 and consisting of 2 sheets Combined Report: Prepared by First American Title Company, dated 12/25/17 and consisting of 19 pages Additional Documents and Related Application Material : Application For Demolition Permit, dated 12/20/17; Application For Design Review, dated 12/20/17; Application For Exception to Floor Area, dated 12/20/17; Application For Variance, dated 12/20/17; Application For Revocable License, dated 12/20/17; Historic Resource Evaluation Updated DRAFT, prepared by Garvaglia Architecture, Inc,, 582 Market St #1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, dated 12/15/17 and consisting of 17 printed pages (report indicates 32 printed pages in total) REQUESTS The applicant is requesting the following permit approvals to allow for the demolition of an existing older three-story older home with a detached two-car garage with an existing total floor area of 3,934 square feet, and replacing with a new 6,495 square foot three-story contemporary vertical board and shingle clad home with attached two-car garage and detached two-car parking structure. The existing home although designed by architect Albert Farr, whom is noted for his work in Belvedere designed in the First Bay Tradition style, the property does not appear to rise to the level of significance required for this property's listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register based on the conclusions found within the Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by the Owner's Architectural Historian Consultant. Along with the construction of the new home the applicant is proposing to make significant site and landscaping improvements to the property which include, adding new terraced rock faced retaining walls; terraces; garden pathways; plunge pool with outdoor shower 312 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 1 /19/17 Page: 1 Arch i kc lure His lo ri c P rescrv at ion Design ATTACHMENT fa

94 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. and garden room in addition to reconfiguring the existing two-car garage into an open parking structure; install new metal guardrails, adding a Hillavator (which the applicant intends to share its use with the adjoining neighbor to the north), and adding a new concrete stairs and walkway access to the existing boat dock below. The following is a summary of each application requested by the Applicant: Application for Design Review to allow the construction of the new 6,495 square foot three-story contemporary vertical board and shingle clad home with attached two-car garage and detached two-car parking structure. Application for Exception to Total Floor Area to allow for an 2,453 square footage increase in the permitted buildable floor area allowed from 4,042 square feet to 6,495 square feet Application for Demolition Permit to allow for the demolition of the existing 3,934 square foot home and the project's demolition material and debris Application for Variance to allow for an encroachment into the permitted rear yard setback 145 Cone Madera Town Center #404 C0!1e Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@ 1 1nsandovalarchitects.con1 \VWW.msandovalarchitccts.com Application for Revocable License to allow for new exterior landscaping, site, and building improvements to project within the public right-of-way as shown in drawings PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property located at 312 Beach Road is located on the east side of Beach Road and its lot is irregular in shape and is shown to have a total area of approximately 12,000 square feet. The existing residence is placed somewhat in the center of the lot and faces to the west, and the detached two-car garage is at the edge of the road above. The lot is tiered and descends downhill from the roadway to Belvedere Cove below to the east. The residence that occupies the lot is separated from the roadway by hedges and a small metal gate. The stand-alone two-car garage is at the southwestern corner of the property. To the south, in the back yard of this property, pathways with several landscaped terraces with stone retaining walls lead to the base of the property; from this point, a wood staircase leads from the east property line to a wooden boat dock that accesses Belvedere Cove. The existing home was constructed in 1909 but as mentioned previously does not appear to be at the level of significance required for this property's listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register based on the conclusions found within the attached Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Garvaglia Architecture, Inc. The applicant wishes to replace the existing home with a new 6,495-square-foot three-story contemporary vertical-board and shingle-clad home with an attached two-car garage that will be placed in approximately the same location as the original home. The new residence is shown to be moved 10 feet away from the northern property line to conform to the required side yard setback, which will help provide greater privacy for both neighbors. A new two-car garage is proposed along the north property line and connects directly to the new home. The existing stand-alone gabled two-car garage is to be converted to a guest parking deck, with its roof and walls replaced with trellis and guard 312 Beach Road- Design Review Memorandum Date: 1/19/17 Page: 2 A r..:h i l cc t urc Historic Preservation-Design

95 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 145 Cone ivfadt!ra Tmvn Cemer #404 Corte Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & N\)i1h Bay Phone: rails that will open views from the roadway to Belvedere Cove where none previously existed. As mentioned above, the site is steeply sloped downward from the street, where the applicant is proposing to utilize rock-faced garden-scale retaining walls with plantings set between. The new configuration will provide access from the front main entry of the home to the rear edge of the property below the main residence via a meandering pathway that snakes through terraced gardens with stone retaining walls at each side. At the lowest grade elevation and at the terminus of the path, the applicant is proposing to place a subterranean garden room adjacent to a plunge pool and lawn area that looks outward to the Cove. The existing dilapidated wood stairs and ramps that currently provide access to the existing boat dock at the water's edge is to be replaced with concrete stairs, ramps, and a Hillavator, to which the applicant intends to share access with the adjoining property owner to the north. The new home will be predominantly clad in cedar shingles, with the parts of the home, garage, and carport structure that are visible from the roadway clad in a 1 x 6 vertical board siding; all of which are to receive a natural stain color. From the street, the new residence will appear rather unassuming; however, upon viewing it from the side and rear elevations, one will begin to comprehend the actual size and overall scale of the new home. Although the new residence is significantly larger than the existing home it replaces and what is allowed under the R-15 zoning district, much of this additional square footage is needed to accommodate the new two-car garage and the lower floor beneath the new building's footprint, thus allowing the structure to better fit the steep topography of the site, and in turn, deemphasize the vertical mass of the new home. msa@tnsandovalarchitects.com The architect has designed each of the building's elevations in an imaginative and compositionally pleasing way. Most of the windows that look outward toward the adjoining neighbors appear to be appropriately sized to capture desirable views yet still preserve the privacy of each neighbor. Upon examination of each of the building's elevations, I believe the architect has succeeded in breaking up the mass of the home without causing it to appear overly contrived, busy, or lacking compositional purpose. DESIGN ANALYSIS Preservation of Existing Site Conditions. Although the applicant appears to be placing the new home in the general location of the home it replaces and intends to utilize the existing stand-alone two-car garage, most of the site improvements and landscaping are proposed to be replaced with new Relationship Between Structures and the Site. Although the new home exceeds the maximum floor area permitted under this zoning district and is significantly larger than the existing home it replaces, it seems to be consistent in size with and continues to maintain the established relationship between the structure and its site similarly to other homes along this section of Beach Road. 312 Beach Road- Design Review Memorandum Date: 1/19/17 Page:3 Arch itec tu re+l is tori c Prcserv ation-design

96 1\1. SANDOVAL ARC EC S, INC Minimizing Bulk and Mass. The architect has designed each fa9ade in an imaginative, compositionally pleasing, and cohesive manner. Each wall plane appears to be well-articulated without being excessive. The use of low sloped hipped roofs with extended eave overhangs, large picture windows, and balconies helps enormously to break up the mass of the proposed structure without allowing it to be contrived or purposeless. In short, the proposed design for this new residence avoids monotony and will likely not appear excessively bulky Materials and Colors Used. No color board was provided at the time of this review. Comments: 145 Cone Madera Town Center #40-1 Corte Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: Staff may wish the applicant to provide additional information regarding the proposed stain for the new wood siding to fully understand its durability and weathering characteristics and if it will change color over time. It is also unclear from the drawings if the stone retaining walls will be capped with stone or some premanufactured coping material Fences and Screening. All proposed guard railings and site-retaining walls depicted in the drawings will be constructed from quality materials and should be complementary to the proposed architectural style of the new home, but no details have been provided. Comment: Staff may wish to request that the applicant's architect furnish the details of all proposed metal guardrails and new stone walls that are to be placed along Beach Road to better understand their construction assembly characteristics and dimensions Privacv. Based on the proposed building's footprint, site orientation, and proposed window locations in relation to the adjoining neighbors, the design appears to be respectful of each adjoining neighbor's privacy Drives. Parking, and Circulation. The applicant is proposing to construct a new driveway connection to the street to allow for the placement of the new attached two-car garage and will be reconfiguring the existing stand-alone two-car garage into an additional guest parking structure. In doing so, the applicant has added two additional off-street parking stalls. This, along with removing the solid walls of the existing garage to allow for better visibility from the roadway, should 312 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 1/19117 Page:4 Arch i tee tu re Historic Preserv ation Design

97 M. SANDOVAL ARC CTS, IN improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety and the overall traffic flow along this section of Beach Road Exterior Lighting, Skvlights. and Reflectivity. The proposed lighting fixtures attached as part of this application appear to be LED shielded-type light fixtures or reflector baffle down lights; however, there are no plans identifying their placement locations. It is also unclear what fixtures will illuminate the various paths, walkways, and terraces currently proposed. Comments: Staff may wish to have the applicant's architect provide more information regarding the exterior lighting of this project, as well as more information on the Hil/avator, which could include the manufacturer, the proposed cabin configuration and size, whether it is to be installed with a roof canopy, and its source of illumination at night, to ensure that the project satisfies the general objectives of this section of the city's ordinance Consideration of Nonconformities. 145 Cone Madt!ra Town Center #404 Cm1e Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@msandovalarchitccts.com \VWW.tnsandovalarchitects.com The property at 312 Beach Street resides within the R-15 zoning district, where the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet; however, this is a steeply down-sloped property of only 12,250 square feet in total area. Because of the floor plan configuration developed for the new home, which allows a new two-car garage to be connected directly to the home while retaining the existing parking garage structure (albeit modified into a carport structure for the use of visitors to the home), the increase in the floor area requested is a direct result of better accommodating these features in a manner that also works with the many constraints of the site's topography. And since there are other homes within this immediate neighborhood that appear to be of similar overall proportional square footage size compared to their lot size, there does not seem to be a compelling argument to favor adhering to a strict interpretation of this provision of the ordinance for this project's application Landscape Plans-Purpose. The proposed landscape plans, which appear to incorporate a rich combination of trees, flowering shrubs, perennials, ground-covering plants, and vines, should complement the architectural style of the home Landscape Plans-Materials. Most plants and trees listed appear to be low-water-demand species and are a mix of both fast- and slow-growing types and species. The general level of information shown on Sheet 11 of this application-although more schematic in form without much detailseems, for the most part, to provide just the right number of trees, shrubs, and groundcovering plants needed to protect privacy without obstructing the views of the nearby neighbors. 312 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 1/19/17 Page: 5 ;\ r-:;h it ec t tire! list(> ri c Preserv at i o!1'de sign

98 M. SAN 0 L ECTS, INC. Comment: Staff may wish to have the applicant's architect better explain how both surface and subsurface water is to be collected, retained, and discharged. Also, there is no information to suggest that there has been any written agreement, or that any special access easement has been created, between the two property owners, who wish to share the use of the new Hil/avator, which will straddle their common property line. Staff may wish the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and in the form to the satisfaction of the city before allowing this part of the project's construction to commence. RECOMMENDATIONS Other than the concerns expressed above, it is my opinion that the proposed design for this new home located at 312 Beach Road generally complies with the design requirements outlined under Title 20, Architectural & Environmental Design Review, Sections and of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code. l 45 Cone Madera Town Center #40~ Corte Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@msandovalarchitects.com W\VW. msandovalarchitects.com 312 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 1 /19/17 Page: 6 i\ rch i tee! u re Hi~ tori c P rcscrv at ion Design

99 Address Lot size SF Fl Area SF FAR 266 BEACH RD 31,573 9, BEACH RD 10,441 6, BEACH RD 10,441 6, BEACH RD 7,740 5, BEACH RD 8,150 5, % cofb 290 BEACH RD 3,423 3, % unkn - Marin map 296 BEACH RD 18,419 6, % cofb BEACH RD 7,599 2, % 38.0% cofb 288 BEACH RD 10,890 2, BEACH RD 6,250 5, % 310 BEACH RD 6,938 4, % 29.3% cofb ' 312 BEACH RD 12,250 3, BEACH RD 12,250 6, BELLA VISTA AVE 4,464 3, BELLA VISTA AVE 24,700 6, BELLA VISTA AVE 6,655 1, % 440 BELLA VISTA AVE 9,260 4, % 450 BELLA VISTA AVE 3,800 2, % ATTACHMENT 8

100 Tiburon Fire Protection District Occupancy: 312 Beach Road Occupancy ID: 754 Address: 312 Beach RD Belvedere CA Inspection Type: PLAN REVIEW - PLANNING AND BUILDING Form: 2017 Tiburon Fire Protection District Plan Review Form V1 Inspection Date: 1/22/2018 Time In: 10:01 Authorized Date: 01/22/2018 By: Lantier, Michael (3806) Time Out: 10:09 By: Lantier, Michael (3806) Project scope See below Status: SELECTED Notes: DR for new covered entry with new shingled garage and entry. Modest additions with window reconfiguration. Area under garage will become a guest suite.- WITHDRAWN IN JULY /18 Submittal for total demolition of Existing SFR and increase to 6000 sq ft plus new SFR. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is required to be installed in all new residences including garages conforming to NFPA Std. 13D, TFPD Policy 429.5, and as modified by the Fire Marshal. Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District should an upgrade for the domestic water meter be needed. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire flow. Status: NOT OBSERVED Notes: Upgrade of Existing 3934 to 6495 pushes into NFPA 13R by Ordinance 128. Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler System Is Required per NFPA 13R. An automatic fire sprinkler system is required to be installed conforming to NFPA Std. 13R and TF.PD Policy Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District should an upgrade for the domestic water meter be needed. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire flow. Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: Separate submittal directly to TFPD for Automatic Sprinlker system. Smoke and Carbon Alarms. Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: Subject to City of Belvedere Building Division jurisdiction. Knox Key Access Required. 'Knox' key access shall be installed at the premises conforming to TFPD Policy Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: If gate for security, a Knox box shall be required for Emergency access. Printed on 01/22118 at 10:18:19 ATTACHMENT 9

101 Vegetation Management Plan - Non-WUI Areas A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) conforming to the policies of the Tiburon Fire District shall be prepared and implemented at the site. The VMP-Fuels Management Plan shall conform to Tiburon Fire Protection Policy The plan shall be incorporated into the landscape plan for the project and submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to implementation. The plan shall be implemented prior to building final. Status: OBSERVED Notes: Inspection will be required of all proposed vegetation indicated on the submittal before Fire Final inspection. Other Information. See Below. Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: Consideration be given to the Tiburon Fire District to utilize this Single Family Home for Training purposes before initiation of the demolition. Please Contact Deputy Fire Marshal Mike Lantier for further information. $ub~t11.oti(ll Renioper catcylati.ort. Substantial Remodel of Wall and/or Ceiling Coverings. When the wall or ceiling coverings (i.e. gypsum board, plaster, sheetrock, etc.) are removed, altered, modified or added to, a lineal foot calculation of existing versus improved coverings shall be completed. This lineal foot calculation shall be applied in conjunction with, or separate from, the floor area calculation noted above to determine substantial remodel. See Below: Status: NOT OBSERVED Notes: Your plan submittal is complete for the subject project and is subject to the conditions and notes indicated. Please contact the Tiburon Fire Protection District for all inspections at least 48 hours in advance. The Fire District will retain one set for our files. A reviewed stamped set of plans must be maintained on the project site for reference by District Inspectors at all times. To schedule appointments for inspections and tests, contact the Fire District Office at (415) during business hours and at least 48 hours in advance of the required inspection. Should you have any questions about your project please contact the Fire Marshal at (415) Thank you. Status: SELECTED Notes: Thank you for the opportunity to review this change of plans for this address. Notes: No Additional time recorded Total Additional Time: O minutes Inspection Time: 8 minutes Total Time: 8 minutes Name: Lantier, Michael Rank: Deputy Fire Marsh~ Printed on 01/22/18at10:18:19 Page2of2