CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT"

Transcription

1 CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: January 10, 2018 MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 TO: City of Belvedere Planning Commission AGENDA ITEM: 2 FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner Irene Borba, Director of Planning and Building Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Floor Area, Variance, Second Unit and Revocable License requests to construct a new residence for the property located at 270 Beach Road RECOMMENDATION The applicant requests approval of Demolition, Design Review Exception to Total Floor Area, a Variance, Accessory Dwelling Unit and Revocable License applications to build a new singlefamily home, attached garage and other associated site improvements. The application is included as Attachment (6) and project plans are included as Attachment (7). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTIONl MOTION2 MOTION3 MOTION 4 MOTIONS MOTION6 Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing 4 story home and detached garage at 270 Beach Road (Attachment l); Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resource per CEQA at 270 Beach Road (Attachment 2); Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for the property located at 270 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 270 Beach Road. (Attachment 4); Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow 35% lot coverage where 30% is permitted at 270 Beach Road (Attachment 5); Recommend City Council approval of a Revocable Licenses for improvements located in the Beach Road right of way, the adjacent City lane (Lower Woodwardia) and in the Belvedere Land Company Tide Lot, "The Strip" at 270 Beach Road.

2 PROPERTY SUMMARY Project Address: APN: Project Applicant: Property Owner: GP Designation: Zoning: Existing Use: 270 Beach Road Aleck Wilson Architects James and Hollie Haynes 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 10,441-square-feet, steeply down-sloping, in the R-15 Zone. The site affords views of Belvedere Cove, Raccoon Straits, and Angel Island. The subject property is adjacent to one of the City lanes (Lower Woodwardia) and abuts City property the BLC "The Strip". ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED Lot Area 15,000 SF Total Floor Area 3,445 SF Lot Coverage 30% Structures 50% w/decks Left Side Yard Setback 7' Right Side Yard Setback 7' 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 10,441 SF 6,835 SF 24 % Structures 27% w/decks 2' 4' 73' 24' 51' 2 PROPOSED No Change 6,791 SF 35% Structure 40 % w/decks 7' 13' 43' 17' and 7' *Section (F) In the R-lC 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. 31' Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 2

3 PROPERTY HISTORY Approval of a Variance to add on to the existing non-conforming house and a Revocable License approval to convert the existing car port into a garage Planning Commission Design Review approval to replace the existing upper deck and sunroom with new deck and sunroom Design Review Exception approval to replace the existing garage door Design Review Exception approval of a hot tub and new wood deck Planning Commission Design Review and Variance approval for a garage expansion and new stair way City Council approval of a Revocable License for a garage, driveway apron, and stairs in the city right of way Staff Design Review Approval to replace the fallen oak tree with new Canary Island Palms City Council approval of a Revocable License for a retaining wall, fence, stone pillars with gate, stone stairs and landscaping in the Beach Road right of way. Stone stairs, landings, and landscaping were approved in the City's adjacent 10 foot lane Design Review Exception to install a 6 foot tall open metal gate between the existing 5 foot tall stone columns Planning Commission approval of Design Review, Demolition, and Conditional Use Permit to demolish and replace an existing pier, stairs, and floating dock located on a City-owned tide lots adjacent to the property City Council approval of a Revocable License for a new landing, new stairway, existing path and retaining wall in the City tide lot behind 270 Beach Road. PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, a Variance for Lot Coverage, Accessory Dwelling Unit, (which requires a Use Permit) and a Revocable License. The applicant proposes to construct a new 6,791-square-foot residence which includes an Accessory Dwelling Unit and attached garage. The project also includes site and landscaping improvements including new patio areas, fences, a hillavator, and a single car deck adjacent to the garage. A trash enclosure is proposed on the southeast corner of the lot at Beach Road, and behind it a hillavator is proposed. The hillavator is designed to provide pedestrian access to each level of the home including the pier and boat dock. Other proposed site improvements include new roof decks on the second, third and fifth floors, an outdoor kitchen with a trellis, a swimming pool on the second floor deck, and a fire pit. Landscaping is proposed throughout the property. The applications are included as Attachment 6. 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 with attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Variance to exceed the allowable lot coverage is part of the application. Because the standards for an Accessory Dwelling Unit are not satisfied here in that the project will exceed floor area and lot coverage requirements, a Conditional Use Permit is required the Unit. The CUP will return to the Planning Commission at a later date as it was inadvertently not included in the 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 3

4 Noticing for the project. In addition, a Revocable License is required for the improvements in the right of way on Beach Road, the City lane (Lower Woodwardia Lane) and the City property known as the Belvedere Land Company "The Strip". Project Plans are included as Attachment 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Arcltitectural Style, Colors and Materials The applicant proposes a new Contemporary style five story residence with an attached two car garage. The proposed colors and materials of the proposed residence consist of metal cladding, wood siding, glass guardrails, wood fencing, board form concrete and a green screen. The colors consist of browns and grays. The house walls are proposed in wood horizontal siding, with metal clad accent walls to add visual interest. The project proposed glass guardrails, roof planters, two different wall-cladding surface materials and window glazing, which also add to the architectural interest of the proposed home. Site and Floor Plans The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story, 6,781 square-foot residence stepped down the lot. The project, designed by Aleck Wilson Architects, also includes new site improvements including a hillavator, trash enclosure, an entry bridge, new fencing and entry gate retaining walls, planting areas, an outdoor kitchen and new plantings throughout the property. The floor plans include five floors, cascading down the hillside with patios outside of each floor. An attached two car garage is proposed to be constructed on the front portion of the property to provide parking and storage for the new residence. A single car parking deck is proposed at the front of the property, to the right of the proposed garage. The garage and parking deck would be accessed from Beach Road via a new concrete driveway. New steel fencing (4' in height), a translucent glass entry gate, painted garage door and trash enclosure are proposed at the front of the property, which are all visible from Beach Road. 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) & (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 28' from Existing Grade within the first 40' of the property and 36' 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 31' from Existing Grade. The first floor (starting at the bottom of the house) will be comprised of a studio, office, bathroom and gym. A small patio is proposed outside of the office and gym. The second floor includes an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a family room. A large patio is proposed that includes a pool and spa. The third floor consists of the main living area, the kitchen, dining room, 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page4

5 reading area and living room. A patio is also proposed off of the third floor. The fourth floor is comprised of the master bedroom, master bathroom, and four kids' bedrooms. Finally, the average height does not exceed 28 feet in height. Additionally, the project meets the setback requirements of the zoning district. The residence is proposed to have a 15 foot front yard setback and the garage a 7 foot front yard setback (BMC Section (F)), 7 foot north side yard setback, 13 foot south side yard setback and a 43 foot rear yard setback. A hillavator is proposed on the right side of the home, starting at the garage and ending at the pier (on City property). The hillavator is outside of the required setbacks, however, hillavators are not required to be constructed within setback areas. Roof Plans Only the 5th floor has an exposed roof (top of stair and garage) which is proposed in single ply TPO or PVC. The rest of the "roofs" are covered by wood decking or stone, which form the patios and decks for each level of the home. A small portion of the fifth floor roof behind the garage is proposed to be a green roof, planted with fems, geraniums, echovaria, and foam flower. The patio "roofs" are proposed with many planters to help soften the appearance of the "roofs." Landscaping There are 16 trees proposed for removal with the project: 1 Maple 1 Apple 1 Unknown 11 Australian Fem 2 California Fan Palm The remainder of the trees on the property will remain. The project proposes an extensive landscape plan for the entire property including the planting of four 36 inch box trees, which include 1 Brisbane Box, 1 Coast Redwood and 2 Water Gum and many shrubs and perennials throughout the property. The project also proposes to remove the failing retaining walls, which are old and constructed of stone on the lower portion of the lot, and construct new stairs to replace the existing stairs on the lower portion of the lot on the City owned Belvedere Land Company lot. The project proposes a new fence at the front of the property. A fence covered in ivy about 8 feet in height currently exists in the right of way and is proposed to remain. Additionally, the unlocked gate to access the public lane is proposed to remain, and the existing stone columns will be refaced with board formed concrete. A new fence is proposed in the right of way in the same location as the existing fence. The new fence is proposed in 4 foot vertical steel and will be lower than the existing ivy covered fence. The lower fence along with the lower profile home will open up the views from Beach Road. There are shrubs proposed on the house side of the fence and the intent of the shrubs is that they will grow and cover the front of the fence at Beach Road to help soften the appearance of the fence. The fence is proposed on the Beach Road right of way, the front of the lot drops very steeply from the road which necessitates the fence location in the right of way. New planting areas are proposed between the front fence and the entry of the home as well as planting areas along the left side of the property. 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 5

6 Exterior Lights On the front elevation, there would be two shielded down lights on either side of the garage door, one on the entrance gate, one on the entry to the home and one on the north side above the entry to the Accessory Dwelling Unit. There are 74 small wall lights proposed throughout the property. Many of the small wall lights are proposed to illuminate the stairs and patio areas. There are 6 in ground lights proposed in the front entry area. All lights have covered bulbs and are down lit. Cut sheets of the proposed exterior lights are included in the plans, sheet L2. l. Accessory Dwelling Unit The application includes a 374-square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the second floor of the home. Chapter of the BMC discusses the requirements for ADU's. The proposed ADU meets all of the requirements in , except in terms of the lot coverage and floor area requirements, (F)(l) and (2) below. The Code states, that if an ADU does not comply with the applicable Standards for Compliance and Approval then a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application is required. F. Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio, and Density 1. A newly constructed Accessory Dwelling unit shall not result in the total structures exceeding the applicable zoning standards for lot coverage and/or floor area ratio for the property on which the unit is located. 2. For the purposes of determining maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements, an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated as part of the primary dwelling unit on the lot. Inadvertently, the Notice for the January 16, 2018 meeting did not include a Conditional Use Permit, therefore the Conditional Use Permit required for the ADU will return to the Planning Commission at a later date for the Commission's review. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT REVIEW The proposed architectural design was reviewed by the City's Consulting Architect, Mark Sandoval who concluded that with a few changes, the project is in substantial compliance with the Design Review requirements of Title 20. The project architect made the changes recommended by Mark Sandoval and they are reflected in the attached plans. His comments are provided in a letter dated October 19, 2017 (Attachment 8) 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. 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. 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 6

7 Second, the proposed project will not result in the removal of a building which has been recognized as having historical or architectural significance. First, the property is listed only as having a "medium" likelihood of historic value per the City's General Plan historic resource survey map. Second, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page and Turnbull, which concludes that "the home does not appear to rise to the level of significance and integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The home is an example of a home constructed in a San Francisco Bay Area home subdivision. However, multiple additions and fa<;ade alterations have changed the historic appearance of the house and reduced its integrity to a degree that it is no longer able to convey its historic significance." Finally, the home is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. 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. Additionally, the project proposes an Accessory Dwelling Unit which will create an additional unit to what exists now. 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 ). IDSTORICAL/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 (±).) As explained below, staff suggests that 270 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 "medium" sensitivity in the 2030 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan, meaning that the property has a low likelihood of constituting a historical resource. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Second, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted on the home by Page and Turnbull. The report concludes that the home is not a historical resource. Based on the above information, staff suggests the required findings per CEQA Guideline Section (a)(3) that the property does not constitute a historical resource. 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 ifthe project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource. (See, Pub. Res. Code, ; CEQA Guidelines, (±).) However, if there are no Tribal Cultural Resources on site, a Categorical 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 7

8 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 of resources 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 "medium" in the Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels defined as having a "medium" sensitivity are those that: are located adjacent to parcels defined has having a "high" sensitivity; parcels with the potential for submerged prehistoric resources; parcels within 750 feet of a spring; parcels having less than a 30 slope over 50% or more of the area; and, parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Road when the adjacent slope is less than 30. An archaeological investigation completed September 22, 2017 by Holman and Associates Archaeological Consultants and resulted in a conclusion that no archaeological resources were identified on the site. 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 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page8

9 themselves. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a 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 the proposal of a new 6,791 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 step down the hillside, creating different living and outdoor areas working with the steepness of the land. The house as designed fits in and relates to the other dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed exterior materials will blend in with the neighborhood, as there is a mix of modern 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 and garage 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 6,791 square feet where 3,445 square feet is the maximum allowed and 6,835 SF exists. The total parcel is size is 10,441 square feet in area. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is 33% to the lot area. The proposed FAR would be 65% on this parcel. The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 6,791-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 four homes that have a floor areas in the mid 60 percentile. Attachment 9 is a table showing FAR's for 15 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 steps down the hillside and integrates well into the topography of the land. The home has been designed so that none of the windows will impact the neighbors' privacy. The 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page9

10 view from the street will not be blocked; in fact, the proposed home has a lower profile from the street as well as from the adjacent neighbors than the existing home. 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 additional square footage will be stepped into the hillside and 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 to step down with the slope of the land. Staff recommends that the findings for Exception to Total Floor Area can be made, as established in the Resolution included in Attachment 4. VARIAN CE - LOT COVERAGE The applicant requests Planning Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from Section of the Belvedere Municipal Code to exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 30%. As proposed, the applicant is requesting maximum lot coverage of 35%. First, the granting of a Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege to allow for a lot coverage of 35% because the project will allow the property owners to enjoy a home of similar size to those in the vicinity and the same zoning district. Given the substandard size of the lot, the funnel shape of the lot, and the fact that the lot is extremely steep the applicant is proposing to construct the house stepped down the hillside, which creates more lot coverage and more useable outdoor space. The roof areas are landscaped and provide usable space, creating flat areas for allow the family to enjoy outdoor space on this very steep lot. With stepping the home into the hillside, the minimal increase in lot coverage (5%), and granting a Variance is diminimus and would not be considered a special privilege. Second, as noted above, the unusual circumstances of the property include its steep slope, lot size and lot shape. Finally, the granting of the Variance for lot coverage will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, as all construction will be governed by the uniform Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts. Staff can make the required findings as included in the Draft Resolution (Attachment 5) for the Variance. 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 January 9, 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 Marcil 9, 2018, or the project may be deemed approved. 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 10

11 CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used ifthe 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 Medium Sensitivity site for Tribal Cultural Resources. Additionally, a Cultural Resources Evaluation was completed by Holman and Associates Archaeological Consultants, which concluded that there is a negative result for artifacts and potentially significant cultural resources. Therefore, there is no possibility that any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site would be adversely affected. 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; 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 & would serve as a safety measure for vehicles & pedestrians said fencing shall normally be avoided as this effectively turns public property into private property & potentially creates the unwanted image of a "tunnel effect" along our city streets. Currently, there are two Revocable Licenses (RL) for the property at 270 Beach Road. RL Number A0628 was issued in 2006 for a concrete retaining wall, fence, stone pillars with entry gate, portion of stone stairs and landscaping in the Beach Road right of way. Stone stair and landings and landscaping in the City's adjacent lane are also part of this RL. 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 11

12 RL Number was issued in 2017 for a new landing, fixed pier, new stairway and existing path and retaining walls in the City tide lot behind 270 Beach Road. The project proposes three new RL's as detailed below. Beach Road Right of Way The project proposes new improvements in the Beach Road right of way, including a steel fence to replace the existing ivy-covered fence from the right-hand comer of the lot to the existing stone pillar, pedestrian gate and walkway to create a new front entry to the home, new concrete driveway, new carport, new trash enclosure and a new green screen at the front entry wall. At Beach Road there are stone columns and a metal gate that provide access to Lower Woodwardia Lane, which is unimproved. The stone columns and metal gate will remain; access to the unimproved lane will not change. City Lane (Lower Woodwardia) All of the existing improvements in the lane will remain and are covered under RL A0628. The project proposes to construct a stair connection at an existing landing to access the second unit. The lane is an unimproved City Lane with the existing stairs stopping about two thirds down the property. There is no access to the water from Beach Road down the unimproved lane. The project is proposing to use the existing stairs on the lane to access the new home and second unit on the property. City Tide Lot (Belvedere Land Company, The Strip) There is an existing RL for the stairs, dock and pier on this section of the lot. The project proposed reconfiguration of the stairs, new retaining walls and the dock and pier will remain in the same place. The existing and proposed improvements seem reasonable given the steepness of the lot as well as the conditions of the existing improvements. The improvements in the Beach Road right of way will provide access to the home, garage and the City Lane. The City Lane improvements are also reasonable as they provide access to the home as well as down a portion of the Lane. The improvements on "The Strip" are also reasonable; access to the water on these steep lots is one of the benefits of living on Beach Road. 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 nine neighbors in support of the project. The addresses for the neighbors in support are: 499 Bella Vista Avenue, 219 Beach Road, 280 Beach Road, 350 Bella Vista A venue, 450 Belvedere A venue, 300 Beach Road, 404 Bella Vista A venue, 276 Beach Road and 210 Beach Road. Additionally, Staff has received letters of opposition to the project from Roxanne and Albert Richards (266 Beach Road), Sheila and Robert Golden (370 Beach Road), Ned Klingelhofer and Laura Alber (400 Bella Vista Avenue) and Jim and Katie Burke (334 Golden Gate Avenue). The Richards, Goldens and Burkes are concerned that the project will remove a home that has historical architecture and value and that the proposed lot coverage is too large. The Richards raised concerns with the height of the proposed fence at the front property line. The applicant, architect and the Richards were able to redesign the front yard fence, which is the fence that is proposed in the plans. Staff was able to visit 266 Beach Road and discuss the project with Ms. Richards and 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 12

13 view the story poles from their perspective. Staff also had the opportunity to go out on a boat and view Belvedere Cove from the water with Mr. Golden. The architect and the applicant have engaged with the neighbors many times with hopes to come to an agreement. 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 Variance for Lot Coverage applications and recommends approval of the Revocable License to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION MOTION 1 MOTION2 MOTION3 MOTION 4 MOTIONS MOTION6 Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing single family dwelling and garage at 270 Beach Road (Attachment l); Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resource per CEQA at 270 Beach Road (Attachment 2); Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for a new house and associated improvements at the property located at 270 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 270 Beach Road (Attachment 4); Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow 35 % lot coverage where 30% is permitted at 270 Beach Road (Attachment 5). Recommend City Council approval of a Revocable Licenses for improvements located in the Beach Road right of way, the adjacent City lane (Lower Woodwardia) and in the Belvedere Land Company Tide Lot, "The Strip" at 270 Beach Road. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Attachment 10: Attachment 11 : 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 Draft Resolution for a Variance for Lot Coverage Project Applications Project Plans Report from Mark Sandoval (Consulting Architect). FAR Chart Departmental Reviews Correspondence 270 Beach Road January 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting Page 13

14 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6,835 -SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 270 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 6,835-square-foot single family residence, with a detached garage built in 1892 at 270 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 January 16, 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 a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Permit on January 16, 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 of the 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 6,835-square-foot single-family residence with detached garage at 270 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

15 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page2 c) All work shall be completed within 45 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: Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009.pdf

16 Resolution January 16, 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 January 16, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

17 Resolution January 16, 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 not within an area of "High" historical value; but rather is designated as having "Medium" historic potential. Additionally, A Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page and Turnbull. The report concludes that "home does not appear to rise to the level of significance and integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The home is an example of a home constructed in a San Francisco Bay Area home subdivision. However, multiple additions and fa9ade alterations have changed the historic appearance of the house and reduced its integrity to a degree that it is no longer able to convey its historic significance." Also, the home is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. Moreover, in January 2018, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution Finding No Historical Resource under CEQA.

18 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Exhibit A Page2 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 45 days to complete. D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. The applicant's estimated 45-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. Moreover, to the extent an Accessory Dwelling Unit is planned to be demolished, a new Accessory Dwelling Unit will be constructed. 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 and Accessory Dwelling Unit 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. The project proposes a new single-family dwelling as well as a legal Accessory Dwelling Unit. The City of Belvedere would be gaining a unit with the approval of this project.

19 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY AT 270 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 6,835 square foot house and garage at 270 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 January 16, 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 "medium" sensitivity in the 2030 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan, meaning that the property has a low likelihood of constituting a historical resource; "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource; and WHEREAS, a Historic Resource Evaluation was conducted by Page and Turnbull that concluded the home does not have historic ingtretgy and therefore does not constitute a CEQA historical resource; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings stated above, the Historic Resource Evaluation conducted by Page and Turnbull incorporated herein, as suggested by staff in the staff report, and based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that 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

20 Resolution Beach Road January 16, 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 270 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 January 16, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: APPROVED:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

21 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW HOUSE AND GARAGE AT 270 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 270 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. A Cultural Resources Evaluation by Holman and Associates concluded that the project area does not contain traces of intact archaeological deposits. Therefore, there is no possibility that any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site would be adversely affected. Further, the property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Additionally, the residence at 270 Beach Road, constructed in 1892, 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 January 16, 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

22 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thatthe 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 Aleck Wilson Architects, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on January 9, 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 withmmwd. 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 The "green roof' plantings shall comply with TFPD Policy

23 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page 3 6. All requirements of Public Works shall be met prior to issuance of a building pennit 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 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: media/files/departments/pw /mcstoppp/guidanceforapplicantsv 2508.pdf

24 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page4 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. 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.

25 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page 5 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. 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.

26 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Page 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. 18. 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 corners 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 January 16, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

27 Resolution January 16, 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 preserved and is in keeping and harmony with the appearance of the neighborhood. There are 16 trees proposed for removal, and the remainder of the trees will remain. The house was designed so that the landscaping at the side property lines will remain, preserving the privacy for the adjacent neighbors. There is minimal cut and fill with the proposed project, as the project is designed to step into the hillside. The construction of the proposed residence, the removal of the trees and associated outdoor space complement 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 step down with the hillside which relates to the natural landforms. 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 and garage will read as a one story from Beach Road. The home is proposed in a different footprint than what exists now, reducing the bulk and mass from the street. The design of the home although modern, relates to and fits in with the others in the neighborhood as there is a mix of 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.

28 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Exhibit A Page 2 Although there are many older homes on the water side of Beach Road, there is a mix of modem 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. 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 modem design with many vertical and horizontal 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 the existing landscaping as well as the proposed new landscape plan. 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 metal cladding, wood siding, glass and steel guardrails, wood fencing, board form concrete and a green screen at the font entry to help soften the wall. 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.

29 Resolution January 16, 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. Given the adjacent property owner's proximity to proposed home, 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. Although the neighbor to the North will view the second story patio deck that contains a swimming pool, all reasonable consideration has been given to preserve privacy. The the project also proposes to plant a large tree to screen the pool from 270 Beach Road. 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 closer to the center 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. The driveway, garage, and deck will not intrude upon the neighbor's privacy. 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 and a Variance for lot coverage. Because the findings for both are satisfied, it is not reasonable or feasible to eliminate these nonconformities. The Floor Area Exception request is to allow an additional 3,346 SF of floor area to be constructed. The permitted floor area for the property is 3,445 SF and the proposed floor area is 6, 791 SF and the existing house contains 6,83 5 SF. The site is steep, and the home is designed to step into the hillside. Additionally, the proposed floor area is less than the

30 Resolution January 16, Beach Road Exhibit A Page4 existing floor area. The existing house also encroaches into the side yard setback and exceeds the allowable height limit. The project also includes a Variance for lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 24% and the proposed is 35%. The lot coverage is increasing because the home is proposed to step down the hillside, creating more coverage and less floor area and a reduction in height than the existing home. The new home although asking for a Floor Area Exception and a Variance for lot coverage will remedy some of the existing non-conformities, like the existing height of the structure and it encroaches into the side yard setbacks. Given that the Exception to Floor Area findings is satisfied as well as the Variance findings are satisfied, it is neither reasonable nor feasible to condition the project on the removal of these nonconformities. 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 to remain and new landscaping. 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. 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 4 new 36 inch trees 1 Brisbane Box, 2 Coast Redwoods and 1 Water Gum. The project also proposes many shrubs, perennials and vines. The plants proposed are low water use and include slow and fast growing species.

31 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 270 BEACH ROAD WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception to Total Floor Area from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 6,791 square feet where 6,835 square feet currently exists and 3,445 square feet is permitted at 270 Beach Road and WHEREAS, the project has been detennined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Floor Area Exception on January 16, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section (A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. Primary views from adjacent properties and the street are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The General Plan, p. 111, defines a Primary View as, "views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay and its environs, bridges, and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island as seen from inside the public or common areas of the home." The house reads as a one story home when viewed from the street, therefore the views from the street will not be impacted by the additional square footage. Primary Views from the adjacent neighbors will not be impacted. The adjacent homes are oriented towards Corinthian Island, and the views will not be impacted. The impact of the new home will be minimal from the street as well as from the adjacent properties. The new home conforms to the allowed height requirements for the R-15 Zoning district, and the home has been designed to follow the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area. The site has unusual characteristics that minimize the impact of the additional square footage is that the lot is very steep and has a unique "funnel" shape. The proposed house is built into the hillside and steps with the slope of the land, minimizing the floor area's impact. The steepness of the lot and the placement of the garage and house will minimize the impact of the additional floor area. ATTACHMENT 4

32 Resolution Beach Road January 16, 2018 Page2 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. The project meets all Design Review criteria and it fits in with the size, scale, and mix of classic and modern-style homes in the R-15 Zoning District. The new dwelling and garage fit in well to the character of the existing neighborhood. Although there are many older homes on Beach Road, there are also newer, more modern homes as well. The project proposes an attractive dwelling that is appropriate in tern1s of mass, bulk and character for the neighborhood. d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Specifically, the proposed singlefamily residence is designed to incorporate the existing, established landscaping to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors. The incorporation of new landscaping and fencing will not result in a substantial impact of privacy that otherwise would be available for residents of the adjoining prope11ies. Additionally, the project is designed to slope down with the land, ensuring privacy to neighbors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow a maximum floor area of 6,791 square feet where 6,835 square feet currently exists and 3,445 square feet is permitted at 270 Beach Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on January 16, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

33 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A VARIAN CE FROM SECTION OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 270 BEACH ROAD WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a total lot coverage of 35 percent where 24 percent currently exists and 30 percent is permitted at the property at 270 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Variance on January 16, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 1. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. Granting a lot coverage variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege to this particular lot because the project will allow the property owners to enjoy a home of similar size and similar area of outdoor space to those in the vicinity and zone. The house sits on a very steep and narrow, funnel shaped lot which makes it difficult to create useable outdoor space. The house is designed to step down the hillside and use the roof areas as landscaped and useable space, creating flat areas for the outdoor space. The design of the home stepping down the hillside creates more lot coverage however does not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the neighborhood. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss. The special circumstances applicable to the property are the significantly steep slope and that the lot is narrow and funnel shaped. Due to the special circumstance of the steepness and shape of the lot, the strict application of the lot coverage requirements would deprive the owners of useable outdoor space, given the design of the home. The strict application of the lot coverage requirements of the Zoning Code would deprive the owners of the ability to enjoy a moderate size home and useable outdoor space similar to that enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. 3. The granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises. The granting of the Variance for lot coverage will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, as all construction will be governed by the uniform Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts. ATTACHMENT 5

34 Resolution Beach Road January 16, 2018 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow lot coverage of 35 percent where 30 percent is permitted on the property at 270 Beach Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on January 16, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk

35 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Date: 2 -z_z -[! Amount: :j 3 3 l 0.tJ :LG Rec'd. by: _..,,...,A...,fd_/vl... Planning Comm. Approval 'Q' Design Review Exception tf Receipt No.: Ql Lf ~I Staff Approval D Parcel No.: {? C: o~?_ <.. 5-'-() / (} /L'---- Zone: '"' -, Does this project have an active building permit? No lid" Yes D Permit No.: Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No 121 Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Yes D Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: Em a i I: jhar~nes@gmail.com '-' Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: Em a i I: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Project Description: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 4 STORY HOME AND 2 STORY DETACHED GARAGE w/ 2ND UNIT. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 5 STORY HOME INCULDING A 2ND UNIT, PARTIAL NEW FENCE, LANDSCAPING AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS, DOCK (SEPARATE PERMIT), AND SOLAR PV SYSTEM (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) Design Review Application Page 1 < U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLI< ATTACHMENT6

36 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD ZONING PARAMETERS: Required Existing Proposed Lot Area ,000 SF MIN. 10,441 SF 10,441 SF Lot Coverage COVERED 30%, TOT AL 50% COVERED 23.6%, TOTAL 26.8% COVERED 34.84%, TOTAL 39.73% Total Floor Area ,445 SF MAX. 6,835 SF 6,791 SF Front Yard Setback '-0" MIN. 24'-1" 16'-10 3/8" Left Sideyard Setback... 6' 8 7/8" MIN.(20% AVE. LOT WIDTH) 1'-10 7/8" Right Sideyard Setback... 6'-8 7/8" MIN.(20% AVE. LOT WIDTH) 3'-10" Rear Yard Setback ' 0" 72'-7" Building Height Maximum... 28' MAX. (FIRST 40'), & 36' MAX. 25' (FIRST 40'), 44' Building Height Average... 28'-0" Parking Spaces ' 8 7/8" 12'-10" 42' 10" 27' 10" (FIRST 40'), 35' 3 1/2" 17'-11" 3 (To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES 2. Address of project: 270 BEACH ROAD 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ALECK WILSON, 26 O'FARRELL ST., SAN FRANCISCO, CA Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: DEMOLITION PERMIT. REVOCABLE LICENSE, FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION, COVERAGE VARIANCE, 2ND UNIT PERMIT 6. E~stingzoningd~~ct:_R_-_1_5 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): FAMILY RESIDENCE, 2ND UNIT 8. Year built: 1892 Project Description Site size. 10,441 SF Original architect: _U_N_K_N_O_W_N ~ 10. Square footage. PROPOSED RESIDENCE FLOOR AREA: 6,781 SF _;;;_~..;;;;_;;;...;...;;..;;,_ 11. Number of floors of construction. 5 FLOORS 12. Amount of off-street parking provided. _3.;;.._P A_R_K IN_G S_P_A_C_E_S 13. Plans attached? _Y_E_S Design Review Application Page 2 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-l l-i l.doc

37 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 14. Proposed scheduling. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. DEMOLITION, GRADING, STAGING, SHORING, LANDSCAPING 16. Anticipated incremental development. _N_O_N_E 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, HOUSEHOLD SIZE = If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,andloading~cilwes. _N_~ ~ 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning _aqplication, state this and indicate clearly_ why the application is required. LOT COVERAGE FOR COVERED STRUCTURES EXCEEDED, SEE ATTACHED VARIANCE APPLICATION FORM Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of 0 ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project Significant amounts of solid waste or litter Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0 drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or 0 explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) Relationship to a larger project or series of projects Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. 0 Environmental Setting 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 or Polaroid photos will be accepted. SEE ATTACHED HISTORICAL REPORT No ~ ~ ~ r6 fl( ~ Gt ~ ~ 0 lid fl( U( fl( 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, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. SEE ATTACHED HISTORICAL REPORT Design Review Application Page 3 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-1 I.doc

38 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 Time Limit Guidelines that are applied to all Design Review applications that require a building permit as prescribed by Section 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 such time limit shall become a condition of design review approval." The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed six months for additions and remodeling up to $100,000 in value; 12 months for construction up to $500,000 in value; and 18 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 $200,000 maximum penalty. Application for an extension of the prescribed time limit can be made providing certain conditions are met. The maximum extension is 6 months. The time for completion of the construction shall also be indicated on the building permit. In the space provided below please indicate the estimated project valuation. Estimated cost of construction:$ ~"-'-"-...;;...;;_,_.;;...;...;..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Based on the above estimated project 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 $500,000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. flf 2. 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 $100,000. Construction shall be completed six (6) 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 $500,000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) 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 more than $ Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Guidelines 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 - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

39 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 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 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 10 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 applicant's 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 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNfNG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-1 I.doc

40 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

41 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 for 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 valid 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 SiA.1'~~NTf)F~OP:J$~TY~~ERSBit>, ~~Jt'fJ;FI~A'l'ION: QFJ\j~LIGATIQN:,. ~ll:es,gn:,ation: OF REPm S.:ENTA1J:V~ All property owners must complete and sign the section below which is applicable to your property. Street address of subject property: _2_7_0_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: _0_6_0_-_2_2_5_-0_1 )- 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 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl doc

42 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 day of, 20_, at Belvedere, California. Signature Title(s) Signature Title(s), D Trustee(s) D Partners: D Limited or D General 0 Corporation D Other Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: I,, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 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 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 Z ( ~ay f Sc::> f /, 208.at Belvedere, California. Signature 1 ' t, es: Review Application Page 8 of9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev I-I I-I I.doc

43 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD resentative (Optional) l,, hereby authorize ALECK WILSON -to file on y eh any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the application{s) is completed and finaled or until the designation is rescinded in writing. Date: Signature of Representative: H-#-;-//7J75?'17'++fl~L\::=-==-::;::-- -~te:===1.=b=q=i=t=o=f 1==-=== Design Review Application Page 9 of 9 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11- l I.doc

44 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Date: Cf-~'J-f7 Assessors Parcel No: Rec'd. by: NW Amount: <l;µ.,1- Receipt No.:.J7"/l,/ /.A tj <-- v - ;7J..C-O I Zone:.!!:::::c ~;L... _... ;2 Address of Property: -=2::..:7...:0:...:B=E=A...:.C~H...:.R~O=A'-'=D Type of Property: _R_E_S_l_D_E_N_T_IA_L Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: Em a ii: jhayanes@gmail.com Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: Em a i I: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: _6_. 83_5_S_F 1. Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: TO BF DETERMINED A GENERAL CONTRACTOR HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED AT THIS TIME 2. Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: DEMO! ITION DEBRIS DISPOSAi SHALL BE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WHO IS YET TO BE DETERMINED 3. Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: Box size 16'x8' Boxes to be placed & loaded on temp platform of west side of residence (30 days) 4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: San Rafael Ave. to Golden Gate, to Beach Rd then back into temp area. Demolition Permit Application Pag U:\planningmanagerlPlanning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EOITION\APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT, ATTACHMENT 6

45 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 5. Size/Type of trucks used to haul demolition material: 2-Axle Bobtail. Smaller Roll Off or Hook bed style Debris Box Truck 6. Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: cubic yard per = 1500 cubic yards 7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed: THE DEMOLITION WILL BE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME 8. Period of time demolition is expected to take: APPROX. 45 DAYS, TO BE CONFIRMED 9. Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in conjunction with the demolition: 4 TREES (9" TO 11" TRUNK SIZE) TO BE REMOVED, SEE. d". d I dlq.1 FOR Loe, A,TION h. f II. d E ros1on, se 1mentat1on, an or ramage conlro pans fort e site o owing emo 1t1on: TO BE DETERMINED. NO RUN OFF OR DEBRIS WILL BE ALLOWED TO FLOW INTO OR BE DEPOSITED INTO THE BAY WITHOUT FILTERING 11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: N/A. THIS IS AN OWNER OCCUPIED HOME 12. Year building to be demolished was constructed: _1_8_9_2 13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any:._n_o_n_e 14. Other: THE EXISTING HOUSE IS OBSOLETE: FOUNDATION, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, WATEPROOFING, HEATING, AND STRUCTURAL STABILITY ARE ALL BEYOND THEIR USEFUL LIFE. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF MULTIPLE ADDITIONS AND REMODELS THAT ARE NOT STRUCTURALLY OR ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED, THERBY RUINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE HOUSE. Note: The demolition contractor will be required to provide the City with a certificate of worker's compensation insurance and may be required to post a bond. The contractor must also secure a City of Belvedere business license before the actual demolition permit 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 requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhib"t(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Demolition Permit Application Page 2 of 2 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc Rev LC

46 Project Address: 2_7_0_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Assessors Parcel No: Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Type of Property: Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: ~~~------~~~~ Em a i I: jhayanes@gmail.com Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: _4_1_5_-7_6_5_-9_0_9_5 Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: /J'Cj / c_ Rec'd. by: A& M...- Amount: <.:, l Receipt No.: r;) 7 Y Ld 0 l- o- 2 -z., o I Zone: f?--1 )-, ---""' ~~~- ~--~~~~~~~----~~~- Em a i I: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Description of project and variance(s) requested: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 4 STORY HOME AND 2 STORY DETACHED GARAGE w/ 2ND UNIT. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 5 STORY HOME INCULDING A 2ND UNIT, PARTIAL NEW FENCE, LANDSCAPING AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS, DOCK (SEPARATE PERMIT), AND SOLAR PV SYSTEM (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT). THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS FOR AN INCREASE IN EXISTING LOT COVERAGE. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE - TITLE 30% FOR COVERED 23.6% COVERED 34.84% COVERED (ORD STRUCTURES STRUCTURES STRUCTURES ~5. HJQ2; Qg[} gg ~ ~ (PART), 1989.) 50% INCLUDING 26.8% TOTAL INCLUDING 39.73% TOTAL INCLUDING ONC0\7ERED OOTDOOR UNCOVERED OU I DOOR UNCOVERED OU I DOOR DECKS DECliS DECKS Variance Application Page 1 of 2 City of Belvedere U.\plnnrnn9rnana9enPlanrnng Foinis\PLANN!NG FORMS LATEST ED!TlON\APPLlCATlON FOR VARIANCE doc Rev 9' LC

47 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD I hereby apply for a variance from the strict interpretation of the Belvedere Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction described on the previous page. I propose that the Planning Commission make the following findings of fact in order to grant the requested variance: A. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated because: SEE ATIACHED PAGE B. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss, as follows: SEE ATIACHED PAGE C. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises because: SEE ATIACHED PAGE 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 variance requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented h~rein an~ in th. e atta~chpd ~are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Signature. 1 ~ - ( <?Ii -- - :::~: 1;/_v;;t;} /-h r.j z LI_ Variance Application Page 2 of 2 City of Belvedere U.\pfmm1ngmon~get\P!nnt11n9 Fom1s\PLANNiNG FORt.~S - LATEST ED!TIONIAPPUCATION FOR VARIANCE doc Rov 0/ LC

48 270 BEACH ROAD A. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated because: The house sits on a very steep and narrow, funnel shaped lot which makes it very difficult to have usable outdoor space for our client's family with four children. The design principle of stepping down the steep site to reduce bulk and mass results in a greater building coverage. We have utilized most of the roof areas as landscaped and usable space, thereby creating flat areas to allow family enjoyment of outdoor space on this steep site. As a result of utilizing roof terraces for outdoor space, there is very little site terracing required with a resultant low total lot coverage. B. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss, as follows: A standard lot in an R-15 zone has a min. lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. with an average lot width of 75 ft. This property has a lot area of 10,441 sq. ft. The lot is narrow and funnel shaped with an average width of only ft. The property is very steep with an average slope of 49%. The site makes it difficult to build a home equal in floor area to the existing house while keeping it within the required height limit, setbacks, and lot coverage. The proposed design adheres to setbacks and height limits. While it is over the maximum covered structure lot coverage, it is still well under maximum total coverage. C. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises because: Unlike the existing house, the proposed house will comply with setback requirements and height limits. This will reduce its height and bulk, and will improve neighbors' views. To achieve this while keeping floor area and volume the same, the house had to take up a larger footprint. The house sits into the hillside rather than projecting out of the ground, and it steps down the slope working with the topogra.phy. These design principles reduce bulk and mass, with an associated increase in lot coverage. However, with the landscaped & usable spaces on roof terraces, the apparent coverage is reduced.

49 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Rec'd. by: N~/vi Amount: 1'6/.$3-- Receipt No.: JlyGr Date: Assess6f tp" ~~i'~6~3rn {! l: cj- "L <- 1- -u i Zone: /:Lt )- ---'-----"-----~--- Address of Property: Type of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL w/ A 2ND UNIT Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HA YNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: _4._.1_ _ _ Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: ~---- Em a i I: jhayanes@gmail.com Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: ~---- Em a ii: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 3,445 sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS: 6,791 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. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 1 of 3 City of Belvedere U:lplanningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITIONIAPPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9i23/2008 LC

50 Project Address: 2_70_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D 2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, because: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE 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: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE 4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE In addition, Section (2) includes guidelines that the Planning Commission must follow. 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: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 2of3 City of Belvedere U:lplanningmanager\Planning FonnslPLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITIONIAPPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC

51 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD (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: PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED PAGE 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 as 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 ~f / / ~ Signature: _ T ictr.. Name: ~r1a, tj'l l-l7 c-q ~ Date: // 21)/ f= 1, Exception to Total Floor Area Application Page 3of3 City of Belvedere U:lplanningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITIONIAPPLICA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev LC

52 270 BEACH ROAD The proposed house will be smaller than the existing house both in area and volume. Under B. item 1 and 4, this allows the house an exception to the maximum total floor area requirement as long as the following requirements below are met (from A.1): 1. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because: The new garage and garage stair is 4'-9" lower than the existing garage height. The new house is 11'-7" lower than the existing house in height. Primary views (out to the bay) of adjacent properties to the left and right are not impaired and remain unobstructed because these are waterfront properties. Their secondary/ oblique views are improved because the proposed house will comply with setback and height requirements. Adjacent properties across Beach Road are not significantly impaired because they are higher up the hill and the project's top floor is only 15 ft. in height above street level. Also, the proposed garage is set back further from the street compared to the existing garage. 2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, because: The site is steep, the proposed house will be built into the side of the hill and step with the slope of the land. Unlike the existing house, it will comply with height and setback requirements to reduce height and mass. Neighbors to left and right will have an improved view 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: The proposed structure brings the house into compliance with respect to setbacks and height. The project in general is less in height and bulk compared to the existing house, and it steps down with the slope of the land which is appropriate in character for the parcel and neighborhood. 4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because: The project will now comply with setbacks and height requirements, this will improve neighbor's privacy. Existing trees & vegetation will remain, providing significant screening between subject property and the adjacent properties as well as the street. Trees are also being added to further improve screening and privacy. 5. That the proposed new construction would not create a new or expand on existing nonconformity on the property, because: The existing home will be demolished, as a result, the approval of the new single family home will be reviewed on its own merits. The new house is smaller in area, and has less volume than the existing house. The existing house is over the side yard setback, and over the height limit. The new house respects the side yard setback and height limit. 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: The last significant work done to the property that added to its floor area was done 32 years ago (in 1985). See attached historical report.

53 Project Address: 27_0_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D APPLICATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX Date: 1(<--c..-/r) Rec'd. by:,a)bm Amount: _v7_,/ tt. I ~ Receipt No.: h...,.,/_tt..._ Assessors Parcel No: O(.,o ;...,..._._._., ;;;;..L_ -Z?:f;:-01 Zone: R.,_t-=J Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: Owner's Representative: Em a ii: jhayanes@gmail.com ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~----~~~- Em a i I: aleck@aleckwilsonarch itects. com Project Description: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 4 STORY HOME AND 2 STORY DETACHED GARAGE w/ 2ND UNIT. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 5 STORY HOME INCLUDING A JUNIOR 2ND UNIT, PARTIAL NEW FENCE, LANDSCAPING AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS, DOCK lsep.arate PERt MIT), AND SOLAR PV SYSTEM (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) Zomng Parame ers: Required Existing Proposed Lot Area ,000 SF MIN. 10,441 SF 10,441 SF Lot Coverage COVERED 30%, TOTAL 50% COVERED 23.6%, TOTAL 26.8% COVERED 34.84%, TOTAL 39.73% Total Floor Area ,445 SF MAX. 6,835 SF 6,791 SF Floor Area of Second Unit 150 SF MIN., 500 SF MAX SF SF Front Yard Setback ' 0" MIN. 24' 1" 16'-10 3/8" Left Sideyard Setback... 6' 8 7/8" MIN.(20% AVE. LOT WIDTH,_) 1_' 1_0_7/_8'_' -- 6' 8 718" Right Sideyard Setback... "6'-8 718" MIN.(20% AVE. LOT WIDTH.._) 3_' 1_0_" -- Rear Yard Setback ' 7" Building Height... 28' MAX. (FIRST 40'), & 36' MAX. 25' (FIRST 40'), 44' Parking Spaces Second Unit Application Page 1 of 6 City of Belvedere U:lplanningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION<APPLICATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT rev I doc 12' 10" 42' 10" 27' 10" (FIRST 40'), 35' 3 1/2" 3

54 ,. Project Address: 2_7_0_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D The following advises you of the development standards for Second Units. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to conform to the standards set forth in Belvedere Municipal Code Sections Second Units - Location and Development Standards, Conditional Use Permit, and Deed restrictions in their entirety. Key provisions of the City's Second Unit Development Standards include, but are not limited to: 1. Lot Size and Setbacks - Newly constructed second units shall be required to be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any rear, front, or side property line. With a Conditional Use Permit a side or rear setback of 15 feet may be allowed. Newly constructed second units shall not be constructed on lots of less than 8,000 square feet. 2. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio - Newly constructed second units shall not result in total structures exceeding the applicable zoning standards for lot coverage or floor area ratio for the property on which the second unit is located. 3. Unit Size - No second unit shall exceed 750 square-feet in floor area. 4. Unit Height - Newly constructed second units shall be limited to a height of one-story, and not more than 15 feet, as measured from existing grade. With a Conditional Use Permit, height may be allowed up to 17 feet from existing grade. 5. Off-Street Parking - In addition to the off-street parking otherwise required for the parcel upon which the second unit is to be located, the parcel shall also have a minimum of one parking space per bedroom in the second unit (in no case less than one additional parking space per second unit.) These parking spaces may be located on a contiguous lot if that lot is owned by the record owner of the second unit and a permanent parking easement or other acceptable deed restriction must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Vehicular street access - Parcels with second units shall be limited to one vehicular street access per parcel, unless more than one vehicular street access already exists. 7. Architectural Compatibility - Newly constructed second units shall incorporate the same or similar architectural style, details, colors and building materials as the main dwelling unit on the property. 8. Privacy - Second units shall include "privacy-enhancing techniques" for windows, doors, and openings that face an adjacent property line (examples: the use of translucent glass, solid doors, light-shielding elements, noise-reducing elements, and landscape screening.) 9. Primary Views - No newly constructed second unit shall be sited so as to block to any extent the primary view from any neighboring property; provided that this standard may be waived if the applicant obtains the written consent of the owner of the property affect by the view blockage. 10. Landscape Plan - A landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the Second Unit Permit application, demonstrating retention of existing landscaping and new landscaping proposed to complement and screen the second unit from adjacent streets and properties. Second Unit Application Page 2 of 6 City of Belvedere U:'planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT rev I.doc

55 Project Address: -=2'-'-7-=0--=B=E=A-'-=C-'-H""-'-'R'-=O'"""A""'""D=----- Without a second unit permit, a property is restricted under the applicable zoning requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to being improved with a single dwelling. If this second unit application is approved, the owner of record will be required to sign a Declaration of Restrictions setting forth as restrictions on the property those conditions which relate to the use of two dwelling units on the Property. These restrictions will be covenants running with the land and will be as follows: 1. The second unit on the property shall not be sold separately from the main dwelling unit on the property, and 2. The restrictions shall be binding upon any successors in ownership of the Property. A specimen copy of the Declaration of Restrictions is attached for your information. Upon approval of the application, the City will provide the owner with the Declaration document for signature. You are hereby requested to agree to execute the Declaration of Restrictions upon approval of your second unit application. The following items must be submitted as a part of your application for a Second Unit Permit. Please refer to the Belvedere Zoning Ordinance for a complete description of zoning requirements. The Planning Consultant will review the list to make certain that all items have been submitted and found adequate before the application will be processed. An application for a Second Unit Permit shall include the following: A. Application Forms - Application for a Second Unit Permit completely filled out, and signed by the property owner. B. Site Plan - Two sets of the site plan at 1/8-inch scale, or the approximate equivalent engineering scale, showing the following. 1. All property lines, setback lines, rights-of-way and easements, including the edge of the street pavement on both sides of the street frontage, as well as the high water line for properties along Belvedere Lagoon, Belvedere Cove, or San Francisco Bay, when applicable; 2. Outlines of existing and proposed structures; 3. Distances from existing and proposed structures to property lines, and dimensions of the parcel. A boundary survey may be required if the City Planner is unable to determine compliance with setback requirements; 4. Driveways and off-street parking spaces; 5. Existing and proposed contours in areas where they affect the placement of structures in any way; 6. A detailed computation table, indicating the square footage of the property and the square footage of the lot coverage of all existing/proposed buildings, including garages and all other covered structures, but excluding roof overhangs. Indicate the existing and proposed value for lot coverage; Second Unit Application Page 3 of 6 City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPL!CA TION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT rev I doc

56 Project Address: 2=7.;;_0.;;_;;;;B'""""E=A--'"-C~H'-'R-'-"-0.:;_A=D' C. Floor Plans - At 1/8-inch or 1/4-inch scale, show floor plans of all floor levels. Indicate the gross square footage of each floor, including any unfinished space. Indicate the existing and proposed values for lot coverage and total floor area. D. Elevations - At 1/8-inch or 1/4-inch scale, show all existing and proposed exterior building elevations. E. Materials - Except for second units involving only an internal conversion of an existing structure with no exterior changes, indicate exterior building materials and colors of existing and proposed structures, submitting samples if different from the main dwelling unit on the site. F. Application Fee - Second Unit: There is no fee for Second Unit applications. In addition to the materials required above, the City Planner may require the following information to complete the analysis required by Section : Topographic Survey: Showing existing grade in area of development. Prepared by a licensed surveyor. Site Section Drawing: Shall correspond to section line shown on site plan. Existing grade shall be clearly labeled and identified and shall correspond to contour lines. Geotechnical Report: To determine if property boundaries include geologic hazards. include a records search and may require field analysis. After the Second Unit Permit approval, the applicant must apply for any necessary building or inspection permits. Must All property owners must complete this Section. Street address of subject property: 2_7_0_B_E_A_C_H_R_O_A_D l I, lf\c, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cal ii rnia that I am the record ow er of the above-described subject property. I hereby make application for approval of the second unit permit 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 Signed this 9~- day of _... f\j o... d~- 2ol_Jat Belvedere, California. ent are a Public Record. Second Unit Application Page 4 of 6 City of Belvedere U:'planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT rev I doc

57 Project Address:..:2=7'-'0=-=B-=E:.:...A..:..oC:;...;H'-'--'-R-'-0-=-A=--==D---- > Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership. or Other Entity For properties owned by a trust, please attach the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto. For an LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity, please attach proof of ownership and certification of the signer's authorization to enter into contracts on behalf of the entity. 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 second unit permit 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. I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record. Signed this day of, 20_, at Belvedere, California. Signature Title(s) Signature Title(s). D Trustee(s) D Partners: D Limited or D General D Corporation D Other Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: > Desi (Optional) I, 6 \ \ \ :?, t V\ ereby authorize ALECK WILSON to file on my ehalf any applications: pla, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and finaled or until the designation is rescinded in writing. I understand that the contents of this document are a Publ' Signature of Representative: Second Unit Application Page 5 of 6 City of Belvedere U:'planningmanagcr>Planning FonnslPLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT rev doc

58 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450SANRAFAELAVE. BELVEDERE,CA D ~ RECEIVE PH FAX DEC Date: ;z...,jv/t? Rec'd. by: ;t/s/t:t Parcel No.: 1 tj '0.. 'l'-7)"-c)/ Amount: 1..'.39 2 Zone: f?.1 )- Receipt No.: '2PILI City property to be encroached upon: Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): TIDE LOT Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: ~ ~ w n er' s Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: ~ aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): NEW WORK AT Tl DE LOT: - NEW TREE FOR PRIVACY AND SCREENING FOR NEIGHBOR VIEW. - NEW STAIRS FOR ACCESS TO PIER - NEW WOOD LANDING, STAIRS TO BEACH, AND WOOD PIER (THESE ARE UNDER A SEPARATE APPROVED PERMIT) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. II Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 R~vocable License App_lication Page 1 of 7 ~ City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

59 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD IMPORT ANT! 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 ASSOC/A TED WITH THE LICENSE..... "'" -~... I, the ur.idersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hefleby niake 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 I understand thatj.fcontents of this document are a Public Record. /,,. Signature://~ 7-v Name: ~.lfjufl Wll74'f Date: {2-/ 'UJ /'2--t>I J t I Revocabie. License Application Page 2 of 7 City of Belvedere... U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICA TION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

60 : (N) TREE - -- S.F. BAY I L-~~ ' ' "'""- I I --- -~ - WOOD STAIRS TO BEACH WOOD PIER NOTE: LICENSE AREA SHOWN SHADED REVOCABLE LICENSE EXHIBIT "A" SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 270 BEACH ROAO, BELVEDERE, CA 94920, APN NO

61 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE RECEIV CITY OF BELVEDERE ED 450SANR.AFAELAVE. BELVEDERE,CA PH FAX DEC 2 O 2017 Date: flj"t.p/t1 Rec'd. by: PVt Parcel No.: tjlt6-?..-2)~ / Amount: f'3<t"-- Receipt No.: Zone: (tt< City property to be encroached upon: Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, PUBLIC LANE, AND TIDE LOT Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: Em a i I: Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: Em a ii: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): NEW WORK AT PUBLIC LANE: NEW STAIR CONNECTION AT EXISTING LANDING SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. Ill Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 Revocable 1:-icense Application f age 1 of 7 City of Bdvedere U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

62 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 (o~ 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.. i I understand thatt~ ' contents of this document are a Public Record...../ Signature:,.- ( t{/ca Name:,/ A-ft?ll {Af tl/sl-1\,{ Date: r 1-/2-0/ Ml '1 Revocable License Application Page 2 of~ City of Belvedere : U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

63 (N}CONC. DRIVEWAY (N} GARAGE 1 w z :J ~ ffi I :: NONEWWORK@ (E} SIDE ENCROACHMENT, U.N.O. (N} STAIR (E} LANDING (E} TREES TO REMAIN NOTE: LICENSE AREA SHOWN SHADED REVOCABLE LICENSE EXHIBIT "A" SCALE: 1 /16" = 1, -O" 270 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA ~ APN NO

64 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE RECEJVED 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE BELVEDERE, CA PH FAX DEC 2 O Date: /~/u f c,7 I - ' Parcel No.: t!j <t o '--~ (J/ Rec'd. by: ArVt" Amount: Receipt No.: Zone: g.r< City property to be encroached upon: Address of Property: 270 BEACH ROAD Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Record Owner of Property: JAMES & HOLLIE HAYNES Mailing 270 BEACH ROAD Daytime Phone: Address: BELVEDERE, CA Fax: Em a ii: Owner's Representative: ALECK WILSON, ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS Mailing 26 O'FARRELL STREET, NO. 400 Daytime Phone: Address: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Fax: Em a i I: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): NEW WORK AT AREA OF ENCROACHMENT AT FRONT OF PROPERTY SHALL BE FOR PLANTING AREAS AND FENCE. IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE: FENCE, DRIVEWAY, CARPORT, TRASH ENCLOSURE, ENTRY GATE AND WALKWAY. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. II Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 R~vocable License Appiication Page 1 of 7, City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVeisions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

65 Project Address: 270 BEACH ROAD 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 repr~s~ntatiye, 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 I understand that t 1 e contents of this document are a Public Record..0 ~- Signature: ~~/l~-=--=- ;' Name: Date:,ku% c:.. l ~,/'U/{1 Reyocable License Appl~cation Page 2 of 7 pty of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITJON\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV docx

66 (N) PEDESTRIAN GATE & WALKWAY (E) EDGE OF ROAD (E) 17" ACER PALMATUM (N) LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREA (N) 5'-9" TALL, WOOD SIDING FINISH, TRASH ENCLOSURE (N) METAL CLAD FENCE (N)WOOD WAKLWAY (E) GATE TO REMAIN (N) CONCRETE CARPORT (E) FENCE/HEDGE (N) CONG. DRIVEWAY (N) GREEN SCREEN (N) GARAGE 1 st i c;j;;:,,,,, w :z ::i 0 NOTE: LICENSE AREA SHOWN SHADED REVOCABLE LICENSE EXHIBIT "A" //./... // SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 270 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA 94920, APN NO

67 I ~ I RECEIVED I City of Belvedere 270 BEACH ROAD HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA [ 13287] Prepa1-ed for JAY AND HO LLIE HAYN ES PAGE {-J TrIRNBIILL imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MAY 2, 20 16

68 Historic &so11rce Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Be!vedm, Ca!ifomia I. INTRODUCTION... 2 METHODOLOGY... 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES... 4 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES... 4 BELVEDERE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY AND LOCAL REGISTER OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES... 4 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE... 4 Ill. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION... 6 SITE... 6 EXTERIOR... 6 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT EARLY HISTORY OF BELVEDERE AREA THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUMMER SUBDIVISIONS IN MARIN COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY V. EVALUATION NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES INTEGRITY VII. CONCLUSION VI 11. REFERENCES CITED PUBLISHED WORKS PUBLIC RECORDS NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS... 3 I INTERNET SOURCES Aiqy 2, Page & T11mb11!/, Inc.

69 Historic Resource Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of Jay and Hollie Haynes for the property located at 270 Beach Road in Belvedere, California (Figures 1 and 2). This report was prompted by a request from the City of Belvedere for an analysis of the possible historical significance of the property, in advance of a proposed project at the site. 270 Beach Road is a Queen Anne-style residential building constructed ca for San Francisco attorney John Henry Miller. POR. RANCHO CORTE MADERA DEL PRESIDIO - -" ,_ NOl l-a1,._ 1 -.l,.._1~ I C A1w1- o,._,.. ~-.,C n'- "TY OF ULVEOlltl Aneuor's Mop l~. IO Pg. Z2 Couttly of Matin, Calif. Figure 1: Marin County Assessor's Parcel Map, Subject Property lot outlined in red. Source: / depts/ AR/MapBook/index.cfm, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 2: Bird's eye view of subject property from the east, marked with a red arrow. Source: Google Maps, edited by Page & Turnbull. MC!J' 2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

70 Historic Reso11rce Eva/11ation Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, California METHODOLOGY This report provides a review of the current historic status of the building, an architectural description, historic context, and a construction chronology using building permit records and historic photographs. The report also includes an evaluation of the property's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including the Marin County Assessor, the City of Belvedere City Hall Public Records Department, the Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society, the Marin History Museum Library, and the Anne T. Kent California Room at the Marin County Library. Research was also collected using online sources including the Online Archive of California, ProQuest historical newspaper database, and the United States Federal Census records. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, which are frequently used in Historic Resource Evaluations, are not available for the City of Belvedere. All photographs in tlus report were taken by Page & Turnbull in October 2013 unless otherwise noted. 1\1qy 2, Page & T11rnb11//, Inc.

71 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the building at 270 Beach Road. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation's most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 270 Beach Road is not currently listed in tl1e National Register of Historic Places. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in tl1e California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 270 Beach Road is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. BELVEDERE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY AND LOCAL REGISTER OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUCTURES The City of Belvedere maintains a Historic Resources Inventory list (HRI), which includes historical resources that have been identified through federal, state, and local government historic resource surveys such as the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Registered Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Determinations of Eligibility, and Historic Surveys. In 2009, 49 properties in Belvedere were listed in the city's HRI. 270 Beach Road is listed in the City of Belvedere HRI. It was placed on the HRI because it was included in a 1976 State of California Resources Agency survey conducted by members of the Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society. The City of Belvedere also maintains a Local Register of Designated Historic Structures, with the objective of protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating sites and structures having special historica~ aesthetic, or architectural value. 1 In 2009, there were 17 properties listed in the Local Register for the City of Belvedere. 270 Beach Road is not on the City of Belvedere Local Register of Designated Historic Structures. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of "1" to "7" to establish their 1 Belvedere :Municipal Code, Title 21, Historic Preservation, Section A. Mf!J 2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

72 Historic Reso11rce Evaluatio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a Status Code of "1" or "2" are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of "3" or "4" appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of "5" have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of "6" are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of "7" means that the resource has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 270 Beach Road is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with the Status Code 7R, which means that the building has been identified as a potential historic resource but has not been formally evaluated. Llfqy 2, Page ri,.,, T11mb11!/, Inc.

73 Historic Reso11rce Eval11alio11 Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, Califomia Ill. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE 270 Beach Road is a single family residence located on a 10,433 square-foot lot on the north side of Beach Road, between Bella Vista Avenue and Bayview Avenue. The Queen Anne style building has a compound roofline with nested hipped and gable elements. The primary fas;ade faces southwest onto Beach Road, and the building is set back from the lot line by approximately 50 feet. The building is located on a steep lot which descends to Belvedere Cove at the northeast lot line. As a result, the primary fas;ade of the building is below street grade approximately 30 feet; the primary fas;ade is one story over a raised basement, while the rear (northeast) fas;ade of the building is four stories over an exposed basement. EXTERIOR Primary (Southwest) Fa<!ade Figure 3: Primary (southwest) facade. The primary (southwest) fas;ade of 270 Beach Road is one story, clad in horizontal drop wood siding over a raised brick-clad basement. The fas;ade is organized into four bays, which recede in depth from left to right; each bay has its own hipped roof, giving the roofline a compound nested appearance (Figure 3). Each bay is further defined by bands of corner molding at the vertical breaks. The primary entrance, a paneled wood door, is located at far left, recessed within a paneled entry porch which is accessed via a straight eight-step brick stair with wrought iron rails. The entry porch has a brick floor, a flat roof, and is ornamented with a molded keystone arch and a molded frontgabled portico supported by carved brackets with floral detail. A plaque at the porch reads "c. 1894, The Miller House, 270 Beach Road [additional writing obscured]" (Figure 4). Mqy2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

74 Historic Resource Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Rnad Belvedere, Califomia _Figure 4: Detail, primary entrance and brick stair. Figure 5: Detail, bay at primary facade with gable dormer and ocular window. Figure 6: Detail, bay second from right, primary facade. Figure 7: Detail, far right bay, primary facade. The second-from-left bay includes a projecting square bay window with a recessed wood sash casement window at the basement level and three single-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs at the first story (Figure 5).The projecting bay is topped by a boxed front-gable dormer which includes a nine-lite ocular window and compound dentil molding. Above the first story windows, the facade terminates with a belt cornice, a band of panel molding, and a compound dentil molding; this threepart molding arrangement continues along the remainder of the primary fac;ade as well as to the secondary (southeast and northwest) facades. The second-from-right bay includes, at left, a narrow leaded-glass window, and, at center, two twoover-one fixed wood sash windows with wide wood surrounds (Figure 6). The far right bay includes an arched passage to a sub-grade utility shed at the basement level, and a 16-lite wood sash fixed window at the first story (Figure 7). A short stair at far right leads to an exterior porch at the southeast fac;ade. Northeast Fac;:ade The northeast fac;ade faces onto Belvedere Cove and is visible from the water as well as from points across the Cove (Figure 8). Because of the slope of the lot, the northeast fa<;:ade includes four stories over a partially exposed basement; the partially exposed basement level is concrete, includes no fenestration, and is largely overgrown with foliage. The first story of the primary (southwest) fac;ade aligns with the third story of the northeast fac;ade. The dominant feature at the northeast fac;ade is a five-sided four-story tower, which extends the full height of the building and is located at the far right of the fac;ade (Figures 9 and 10). The tower includes wood sash multi-lite windows at each story; at the first and fourth story, these windows are fixed multi-lite, and at the second and third story they are paired eight-lite casement windows with four-lite transoms. The first and second stories include panel molding, the third story terminates with a compound cornice molding, and the tower terminates with a compound molded cornice and a flat roof. MC!J12, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

75 Historic Resource Eva/11atio11 Fi11a! 270 Beach Ruad Belvedere, Califomia Figure 8: Northeast facade, with exposed basement and first story obscured by foliage. I " Figure 9: Detail, porches at the first, second, and third story of the northeast facade, with tower at right. Figure 10: Detail, first, second and third stories of the tower at northeast facade. The remainder of the northeast fac;:ade is characterized by porches at the first, second, and third stories. The first story has a contemporary wood patio with wood railings and balusters, which projects from the mass of the building in a semi-circular profile. The first story also includes an enclosed porch which spans the width of the fac;:ade and features two pairs of multi-lite wood doors at center flanked by paired three-lite wood casement windows. An additional set of fully-glazed paired wood doors and a fixed three-lite wood window are located at the far right of the enclosed porch, accessed via a short wood stair. The second story porch spans the width of the building, and includes a railing with turned wood balusters. It is supported by square posts with carved wood support brackets. Fenestration at this story includes a pair of fully glazed wood doors with six-lite transom windows at right, a single fully glazed wood door at center, and two fixed single pane wood sash windows with wide wood surrounds at left. The floor of this porch is covered with small hexagonal tile. The third story is organized into three areas. At center, there is an open balcony with a railing and turned wood balusters, and two single pane picture windows. At left, there is a sun room with a flat Mqy2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

76 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, Califomia roof which projects from the mass of the house and is enclosed by single-lite wood casement windows with single-lite transoms. At far left, an open porch extends beyond the mass of the house, with a railing and turned wood balusters. The sunroom has glazed wood doors that access the central and far-left balconies. The third story terminates with a band of panel molding and a compound dentil molding. The fourth story includes, at center, a large front gable dormer with a fixed 20-lite wood sash window and a leaded multi-lite ocular window. The dormer includes a band of compound dentil molding and projecting eaves. At left, the roof mass recedes and there is an open balcony with a low railing with short turned wood balustrades. Fenestration at this balcony appears to include two windows and two doors, although details are obscured by a contemporary wood view screen located at the far left perimeter of the fourth story. A chimney stack clad in horizontal wood siding rises above the roofline at this area of the fa<;:ade. Northwest Fac;:ade The northwest fac;:ade faces onto a narrow side yard which restricts visibility of the fac;:ade (Figures 11and12). A path from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot goes through the side yard. The slope of the lot makes it so that the northwest fac;:ade includes one story at the right (southwest), and four stories at the left (northeast). Figure 11: Detail, northwest facade. Figure 12: Detail, northwest facade, porch at right, leaded windows at center, gable dormer and gable roof visible above. The northwest fac;:ade is visually organized into four vertical bays. The far right bay is one story and includes the open primary entry porch (Figure 12, far right). The second-from-right bay includes two stories and a gabled dormer (Figure 12, center). At the first story there is a pair of wood sash windows with ogee lugs and wide wood surrounds. At the second story (which aligns with the primary entry porch) there is a tripartite, 72-lite, translucent glass leaded window with wide wood surrounds. The second story terminates with a belt cornice, a band of panel molding, a compound dentil molding, and a projecting boxed cornice; this molding arrangement continues to the bays to the left. Above the roofline, there is a front gable dormer with three multi-lite windows and a boxed gable front with fish-scale shingles. The second-from-left bay includes three stories (the third story aligns with the primary entry porch) and projects from the main mass of the building (Figure 11). A chimney stack, clad in horizontal wood siding, rises the full height of this bay and extends above the roofline. The first story includes six-lite wood casement windows flanking the base of the chimney stack. The second story includes Mqy2, Page & T11mb11I/, foe.

77 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California an eight-lite wood entry door at right, accessed via a wood stair and sheltered by a shed roof. The third story included a nine-over-nine double hung wood sash window at the right, above the entry door. The third story terminates with the typical multi-part molding arrangement. Above this bay, a gable roof is visible that appears to rise above the building's hipped roofline and span the width of the building (visible in top left of Figure 12). The far left bay of the northwest fa<;:ade is the four story tower, which is located at the northwest corner of the building and has been described above. Southeast Fac;ade The building's southeast fa<;:ade faces a narrow side yard with an extreme slope; views of this facade are limited. Similar to the northwest fai;:ade, the slope of the lot makes it so that the southeast fai;:ade has one story at the left (southwest) and four stories at the right (northeast).. ~~~iil! Figure 13: Detail, southeast fas;ade, enclosed porch at left. Figure 14: Detail, southeast fas;ade, enclosed porch at left, bay at center, and enclosed porch at right, with open porch visible. At the left, the southeast fai;:ade includes an area which projects from the main volume of the building and is capped by a hipped roof (Figure 13). This projection includes a 20-lite wood sash window facing southwest, as well as paired multi-lite wood doors and a five-lite fixed wood window facing east, which access an open porch with railing and turned wood balusters that spans the width of the fai;:ade at this story (this story is the first story at the left, the third story at the right) (Figure 14). At the center, an angled bay includes paired multi-lite doors at center and fixed multi-lite windows at all facets of the bay. At right, the enclosed sunroom which has already been described with the northeast fai;:ade includes paired doors as well as fixed windows and transoms. The left and center portions of this story terminate with the molding arrangement (panel molding, <lentil molding, and projecting cornice molding) already described at other facades. The enclosed sunroom does not include this molding arrangement. Below this story, the southeast fai;:ade includes two partial stories which include exposed utility pipes and several small utility windows, some of which have been replaced by aluminum sash. This area is accessed via an arched opening at the primary fai;:ade (visible in Figure 7) and is beneath the open porch described above. This porch is supported by square posts with carved wood brackets. Above this story, the southeast fai;:ade includes several nested roof elements, including, at center, a pair of three-lite casement windows, a chimney stack clad in wood siding, and an ocular window. At right, a contemporary view shade obstructs any additional upper story fai;:ade detail. Mqy2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

78 Historic Reso11rce E va/11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Additional Structures A garage clad in horizontal drop wood siding and capped with a hipped roof is located at the lot line at the southernmost portion of the lot. Due to the slope of the lot, the garage presents one story at the street fac;:ade (southwest)and two stories at the rear (northeast) fac;:ade (Figures 15 and 16). The street fac;:ade includes a multi-panel wood overhead garage door. The rear fac;:ade includes single pane fixed wood sash windows, two at street level and one at the basement level. The street level overhangs the basement level and is supported by square wood posts and carved wood brackets. The northwest fac;:ade of the garage includes a single pane fixed wood window, a recessed entry door accessed via a path from the house at 270 Beach Road, and a metal spiral stair that rises to access the street level area of the garage. The southeast fac;:ade of the garage abuts the property line and is not visible. Figure 15: Garage, street (southwest) facade. Figure 16: Garage, rear (northeast) facade. Landscape The property includes complex terracing between the street and the house and between the house and the shoreline. A curved stone stair leads frorri the street to the front of the house, as well as from the front of the house to the garage (Figures 17 and 18). Behind the house, there are several terraced areas, some with stone furniture elements (Figure 19). A winding stone stair leads down to the shoreline (Figure 20). MC!J12, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

79 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 17: Detail, stair from street to the front of the house. Figure 18: Detail, stair from the front of the house to the garage. Figure 19: Detail, terrace area with stone furniture in back yard (with contemporary children's toys). SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The neighborhood surrounding 270 Beach Road is uniformly residential, and was originally platted between 1888 and 1890 when the Belvedere Land Company terraced the hills to create an upperclass summer home subdivision. Houses are sited in response to steep topography and to maximize views (Figures 21 and 22), and are connected in some cases by small pedestrian lanes (Figure 23). Dates of construction in the neighborhood date from the early 1890s to contemporary construction, and architectural styles include Queen Anne, First Bay Tradition, Shingle, Greek Revival, Classical Revival, Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Craftsman, and Tudor. Master architects who are represented in this neighborhood include Albert Farr, Willis Polk, and Julia Morgan. The Valentine Rey House, located several blocks away at 428 Golden Gate Avenue, is a Willis Polk-designed house that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Mqy2, Page & T11mb11I/, Inc.

80 Historic &source E va/11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia Figure 22: Houses at Beach Road and Bella Vista Avenue. Figure 23: Woodwardia Lane, pedestrian passageway in Belvedere. A 2009 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map prepared by Archaeological Resource Service indicates that the area directly surrounding 270 Beach Road includes a concentration of structures of high historic sensitivity, defined as parcels which include a structure listed in the Belvedere HRI or any historic register, or that include a structure identified as more than 100 years old.? Figure 22: Belvedere Historic Resource Sensitivity Map, subject property indicated by red arrow. Red parcels are of historic high sensitivity, yellow are of medium sensitivity, and green are oflow sensitivity. Parcels with a dot are identified historic resources. Source: Belvedere Cultural Resource Survey, Archaeological Resource Service, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

81 Historic Resource Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia EARLY HISTORY OF BELVEDERE AREA This section of the HRE incorporates extensive information from the 2009 Historic Resources Survey conducted by Archaeological Resource Service and adopted into the City of Belvedere General Plan in The area that now includes Marin County and portions of Sonoma County was historically settled by native people of the Coast Miwok Indian tribe. Prior to European contact, native population in the area was relatively low, estimated between 2,000 and 5,000 people across Marin and Sonoma counties. 2 The Miwok organized themselves into smaller autonomous triblets; the area surrounding Richardson Bay, including Belvedere, was occupied by a triblet known as the Huil71en tribe. The Coast Miwok were hunters and gatl1erers and depended on local marine and terrestrial resources including acorns, nuts, berries, seaweeds, deer, elk, shellfish, and obsidian. There are five known archeological Miwok sites in Belvedere: four are shellmounds and the fifth is a shell midden site that includes human remains and a collection of obsidian arrowheads. First European contact with the Coast Miwok appears to have been in 1579 when Sir Francis Drake stopped in the Point Reyes area to repair his ship. Llmited contact under sinlllar circumstances occurred again several times prior to 1603; sustained contact between natives and Europeans did not arise until after 1775, when Captain Juan Manuel de Ayala sailed his ship, the San Carlos, into San Francisco Bay and anchored in the waters between Sausalito and Belvedere. Thirty years later, as a colony under Spanish control, the establishment of the mission system severely disrupted Coast Miwok culture in Northern California. The missions at San Rafael and Mission Dolores in San Francisco both counted Coast Miwok as their largest constituents, and by the turn of the twentieth century there were a scant handful of native Miwok tribespeople continuing to live in their historically traditional manner in Marin county.3 After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, ilie Mexican government secularlized the missions and began to grant large swathes of land, known as ranchos, to existing settlers and other applicants. In 1834, ilie Mexican government deeded a 4, acre land grant to John Reed, an Irish native who had been settled in tl1e area for nearly ten years. This land grant, known as R.ancho Co11e Madera de! Presidio, was the first in Marin County, and encompassed land iliat now includes Belvedere, Tiburon, Mill Valley, and Corte Madera. Reed cleared what would become the Belvedrere and Tiburon peninsulas for pasture land and established a lumber mill and a dairy. The second generation of Reed family ownership saw ilie arrival of a bustling codfish cannery in 1877 and by 1884 a railroad line iliat connected trains coming down from the north, carrying botl1 people and heavy commercial cargo to San Francisco via ferry. Social life in the area during the last decades of the nineteenth century was a mix of wealthy ranchers and landowners, rough and tumble rail and dock workers, those who passed through on ferries and trains, and, by the 1880s, an increasing number of summer vacationers. 4 2 Church of Saint Raphael & l'vfission San Raphael Arcangel, website, accessed October 2013, / 3 Sally Evans and William Roop, An Evaluation ef Cultural Resources and Legislative OvervieiJJfor the Ci!J efbe/vedere General Plan Update, Marin Cou11ty 1, California. (Petaluma, CA:.-\rcheological Resource Service, 2009) 5. 4 Evans and Roop, M0 2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

82 Historic Reso11rce Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Behedere, California THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUMMER SUBDIVISIONS IN MARIN COUNTY In the decades following the Gold Rush, San Francisco's wealthiest residents began to build summer estates outside of the city, driven both by foggy weather and the desire for larger, palatial plots of land on which to build. Most of these estates were located south of the City on the San Francisco Peninsula because of that area's year-round sunshine and moderate climate. In an effort to provide some of the amenities of the summer estate to those who could not perhaps afford to build their own, a variety of summer vacation and excursion destinations began to pop up in closer but similarly temperate nooks of Marin County starting in the late 1870s. These destinations were easily accessible to San Francisco's population by ferry and rail. Lavish hotels like the Hotel Rafael in San Rafael, rustic camping grounds in Mill Valley, and small houseboats moored in Belvedere and Sausalito offered a variety of accommodations for day-trippers, weekend excursioners, and those who were able to stay for weeks or even several months. As people became familiar with these formerly remote or rural areas of the Bay Area, and as transportation improved even further, the demand for more permanent summer accommodations increased. In response to this demand, land development companies formed, and land throughout Marin County was subdivided, platted, and improved to offer San Francisco's middle- and upper-class residents the opportunity to build their own attainable summer estates. Sausalito was platted in 1869 by the Sausalito Land and Ferry Company, and between 1869 and 1870 a concerted effort was made to attract San Francisco's business elite to buy and build in Sausalito. 5 Prospective buyers were ferried over on a private ferry from San Francisco to inspect lots. 6 By 1890, the slopes above Sausalito's waterfront were dotted with both summer and year-round residences, and the town was described as having a "rare beauty and attractiveness." Nearby Mill Valley became directly accessible by train in 1889, and in 1890, the Tamalpais Land and Water Company hired Michael M. O'Shaughnessy to plat over 200 lots, which sold briskly at auction that same year. These lots were improved to include graded roads and plumbing. The San Francisco Chronicle noted that this new subdivision, which was "most attractive" yet less than one hour's traveling distance from San Francisco, was positioned to become "one of the most popular summer resorts" in the area. 7 Similarly, the Belvedere Land Company also hired Michael O' Shaughnessy to lay out their new subdivision in By 1893, the vast majority of the lots facing Belvedere Cove had been sold. Construction over the next few years ranged from modest summer cottages to grand estates, and was undertaken by some of the Bay Area's leading architects, including Willis Polk (428 Golden Gate Avenue, ca. 1893) and Albert Farr (334 Golden Gate Avenue, ca. 1904, and presumed 296 Beach Road, ca. 1892). Down the San Francisco Peninsula, O' Shaughnessy went on to plat another subdivision, known as Burlingame Park (now part of Hillsborough and Burlingame) in In many cases, homes in these subdivisions that were initially intended to be used in the summer months were actually occupied from May tl1rough October, and by the 1890s, many areas tl1at had initially been advertised as summer subdivisions were occupied year round. In this way, summer subdivisions were the immediate precursor of suburban development that came to characterize the San Francisco Bay Area in the twentieth century. These early summer subdivisions were affected in their form and appearance by national trends in suburban land development. In response to urban crowding and industrialization, middle- and upperclass suburbs on tl1e East Coast rose in popularity after These suburbs incorporated Romantic 5 "Marin County" The San Francisco Chronicle, July 6, History of Sausalito, Sausalito Historical Society, accessed online, / sausalito-history / 7 ''l\fill Valley", The San Framisco Chronicle, July 6, Mqy 2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

83 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California design principles that differentiated them from the grid layout that characterized most urban neighborhoods and industrial suburbs. These Romantic design principles, such as street plans that responded to topography, large lots with generous setbacks, and picturesque elements like cul-de-sacs and fountains, had first been implemented in cemeteries, and were later incorporated into park design and middle-class suburbs. 8 Michael O'Shaughnessy may have been familiar with the Romantic design principles when he began his career in his native Ireland, and was certainly working with these principles when he laid out the subdivisions of Mill Valley, Belvedere, and Burlingame Park. These design principles became the standard for upper- and middle-class suburban development by the turn of the twentieth century. NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY The Belvedere peninsula was subject to an epic land ownership dispute between the descendants of John Reed and Israel Kashow, a squatter who had settled in 1855 on what he considered a deserted island, improved the land, built his home, started a prosperous codfishery, and raised a large family. Despite tireless resistance, Kashow eventually lost the battle for this land to the Reed family in 1885; partial ownership of tl1e land passed shortly after this decision to Thomas B. Valentine, the lawyer who had represented the Reed family in tl1eir legal dispute with Kashow. The Belvedere Land Company was formed in 1888 by Valentine and several other "men of wealth and enterprise" with the plan to subdivide and develop the island's steep slopes into a summer resort village for San Francisco's upper class. 9 To design their "residential park," the Belvedere Land Company contracted young civil engineer Michael O'Shaughnessy. O'Shaughnessy also platted nearby Mill Valley in 1890 and went on to serve as the city engineer of San Francisco starting in tl1e In Belvedere, O'Shaughnessy relied on Picturesque design principles to divide the land in relation to the topography of the island and maximize views of the surrounding water. Over 3,500 fast-growing eucalyptus and pine trees were planted, which turned what had been pastureland into a wooded retreat. Roads were graded and in some areas embanked with fine stonework. By 1891, 150 lots had been sold in Belvedere, mostly to wealthy San Franciscans. The earliest homes were small summer homes, as tl1e steep and modest-sized lots were not conductive to the construction of large estates. However, many people opened their homes in March and stayed tl1m1gh October, and the construction of larger houses intended for year-round use became more common after In a 1895 description of the celebration known as the Night in Venice, an anonymous author writing in the San Framisco Chronicle described the slopes of Belvedere as "full of architectural variety," with "castles, perched on the brow of the hill clinging hazardously to its profile, [and] nestling at its wave-washed foot." 1 2 In December 1896, the town of Belvedere incorporated, and by 1899, the population was 430 people. The civilized homes and wealthy residents of Belvedere existed in contrast to tl1e bustle of Tiburon nearby, which tl1rough to the middle part of the twentieth century was characterized by ferry and train traffic (Figure 23). 8 Phillip Pregill and Nancy Volkman, Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in Eastern and lf.?estem Traditions (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1992) Tiburon-Belvedere Landmarks Society, "Historic House Tour'', Richard Longstreth, On The Edge ef the lf7orld: Fo11r Architects in San Francisco at the Tttrn ef the Century (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983) Ibid, "Belvedere's Night in Venice'', The San francisco Chronicle, August 4, iwt!j 2, Page e'.-n Trm1b11/!, Inc.

84 Historic Resource Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 23: This 1921 photograph of Tiburon shows the active waterfront, with the comparatively bucolic hills of Belvedere in the background. Source: National Register Nomination, Peter Donohue Building, Tiburon, accessed online, / SITE HISTORY The subject property was part of the original Belvedere Land Company subdivision of the island. Its waterfront location was directly adjacent to a public pedestrian lane and very nearby to the ferry stop for the Man n, which provided access between Belvedere and Sausalito from a pier at 296 Beach Road John Henry Miller, a San Francisco attorney, purchased this lot from the Belvedere Land Company in 1891, and by 1893, Land Company promotional materials note that tl1e lot had been built on (Figure 24). Thus, the date of construction is noted as ca After extensive research, no architect of record has been identified for 270 Beach Road. No Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are available for Belvedere, altl10ugh historic photographs and building permits reveal that the footprint of 270 Beach Road has grown slightly, and the house has undergone several extensive fac;:ade renovations and since its 1892 construction, especially at the northeast fac;:ade, which is highly visible from Belvedere Cove (described further below). A garage was constructed on tl1e site in City of Belvedere Historic Landmark Designation Survey Form, 296 Beach Road ("Landfall"), November 10, 2010, prepared by George Gnoss, Diane Bradley, and Rafael Paniagua, accessed online, / / According to the current property owners, the pedestrian lane adjacent to the property has not been used for several decades. The public path is incomplete and ends midway along the site. 15 Marin County Assessor's Book, 1929, record for 270 Beach Road, states "garage under construction." Mqy2, Page & T11mb11/I, foe.

85 Historic Resource Eval11alio11 Final 270 Beach Rnad Belvedere, Califomia -7-Be&utiful Belvedeire~ A l'ima,.,.1c Situlioa for r is.-- - r IUf"(U YHWI or... ~...? ANO" """... Figure 24: Detail, Michael O'Shaughnessy's subdivision plan for the Belvedere Land Company, created 1890, annotated by the Land Company ca to show lots sold, including buyers' names, in orange. Subject property noted with orange arrow, owner J. H. Miller, Esq. Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS John Henry Miller John Henry Miller was the first owner of the property 270 Beach Road, having bought it in 1891 and commissioned the construction of what appears to have been used initially as a summer cottage the following year. Miller was born in Lynchburg, Virginia on August 26, 1854, as was the maternal great-grandson of Patrick Henry, advocate for independence in Virginia leading up to the Revolutionary War. 16 After graduating with an M.A. from Richmond College in Richmond, Virginia, Miller moved to California in 1875, taught public school in Shasta County for a few months, and then went to San Francisco and began the study oflaw in the office of Pringle & Hayne. Miller was admitted to the bar by the Supreme Court of California in January After several years in private practice, Miller adopted a special practice in patent law and went on to conduct patent litigation in 24 states. Miller's first marriage to a Virginia-born woman produced a son, Hamilton E. Miller, born in In 1891, it was noted in a local newspaper that Miller had taken rooms with his family in Belvedere at the Elliott Villa for a portion of the summer season. 17 It is likely during this time that he purchased his lot from the Belvedere Land Company. Prior to 1900, Miller was widowed, and he does not appear to have used his Belvedere home as a permanent residence during the first eight years of its existence, residing instead at several different residential hotels in San Francisco, including the Cosmos Club and the Maison Riche, an exclusive club on Grant Avenue that catered to the city's international and business elite. Beginning in 1900, Miller is listed in San Francisco City Directories as a resident of Belvedere, along with his son Hamilton, a housekeeper, and her young son. In 1906, Miller married Susie Miller (nee 16 Franklin Harper, ed., lf7ho '.r Who on the Pacific Coast (Los.Angeles: Harper Publishing Company, 1913) Hillary Don, ed., Llje in Belvedere and Tiburon, 1890 to 1900 (Belvedere, CA; Bella Vista Publishing, 2003) 284. Mt!J' 2, Page & T11mb11I/, Inc.

86 Historic Resource Eva/11a/io11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califamia Jones) in San Jose, California. From 1908 through 1911, the Millers resided in New York; by 1913 they were back in California, although they were no longer listed as residents of Belvedere. The J'viillers continued to live at various residence hotels in San Francisco before settling in the mid-1920s at 1055 California Street. Miller continued to practice patent law; his firm had several iterations, including Estee & Miller (1893-ca. 1908), Miller & White (ca ) and Miller & Boyken (ca. 1923). Miller passed away at age 81 in 1935, residing at that time on Sacramento Street. Thomas Drayton Parker and Florence Parker Sometime between 1908 and 1920, ownership of 270 Beach Road passed to Commander Thomas Drayton Parker and his wife, Florence Parker. Thomas Drayton Parker was born in 1872 near Charleston, South Carolina, and attended military school at Annapolis, Maryland. 18 In 1899, Parker married Rose Florence Parker (nee Bland) of Pasadena, California, in Pasadena. In 1900, Parker was stationed in the Philippines. In 1910, Parker was a commanding officer stationed at Mare Island Naval Reserve in Vallejo, California, and in 1920 he was stationed in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Parkers appear to have used their Belvedere home as a part-time residence; in 1921, the San Francisco Chronicle described the Parkers as "back in Belvedere" after "sixteen months devoted to work and pleasure in various European countries." Florence Parker studied music both at home and abroad. In 1920 she gave two concerts in Geneva and Paris and one concert at the Hotel St. Francis in San Francisco, singing opera under the name "Rose Florence." In 1922, she performed to scathing negative review at the Aeolian Hall in New York City. 19 The Parkers appear not to have had any children. Thomas Parker retired from military service shortly after the end of\x'orld \Var I and began a career as a w11.ter for newspapers and children's books about nautical topics. It is unclear when the Parkers left Belvedere, but after 1930 they were not listed either together or separately in Belvedere. Thomas Parker returned to South Carolina in his later years and resided in Asheville, Nortl1 Carolina for several years prior to his death in January 1950 at the age of Robert S. Sitkin By 1959, ownership of 270 Beach Road had passed to Robert S. Sitkin. Sitkin was born in Illinois and served as a captain in the U. S. Army prior to receiving a physician's degree from Stanford University. Sitkin and his wife Barbara lived p11.marily on the Sa_n Francisco Peninsula though the 1930s and 1940s, and Sitkin practiced internal medicine in San Francisco tl1rough the 1970s. The house at 270 Beach Road is not listed as their primary address and it is not clear if they used it as a summer home or for rental income. The Sitkins appear to have retired in Hawaii; Robert Sitkin passed away in 1995 and is buried with his wife in a military cemetery in Hawaii. Recent Owners By 1972, ownership of 270 Beach Road had passed to Thomas Lewis Pierce Corn, originally of Macon, Georgia. After Corn's death in 1981, ownership passed to Lewis and Abigail Seiler. The Seilers retained ownership of the house until 2010, when ownership passed to tl1e current owners, Jay and Hollie Haynes. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following chart provides a timeline of all known exte11.or repairs and alterations at 270 Beach Road. 18 "Only Two Families Have Lived in 91 Year Old Abbev1.lle Home," The Charleston News and Courier, March 5, l 9 "Rose Florence Soprano, Sings," The New York Times November 22, "Retired Naval Officer Dies," The Spartanburg Herald, January 6, Mqy 2, Page & T11mb11!/, Inc.

87 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia Year Permit Number Description of Action Remove and repair all foundations, alter floor at southwest corner of the house to provide 8' headroom in the rooms above, remove and repair all wood stairs. No exterior changes, but existing service porch at the south of the house is renovated to become a kitchen. Variance granted to make additions to a non-conforming structure. Kitchen remodel with no listed exterior changes. New sunroom at third story of northeast (rear) fac;:ade, with skylight, to replace existing enclosed porch, deck enlarged at the back to the house, deck tiled. Plans approved by design review, March Approval for installation of garage door. Installation of wood deck and hot tub at first story of northeast (rear) facade. Plan approved by design review, July Deck repair. New bay window to replace two smaller existing bay windows at the southeast facade of the house, new deck at the southeast of the house, new French doors, kitchen addition at the southeast of the house, new hip roof under existing dormer, new casement windows at roof. Square foot increase of 183 interior, and 280 at the deck. Plans approved by design review, May Garage modifications and installation of spiral stair approved. Plan approved by design review, October Work at entry (no further information). Removal and replacement of hot tub deck. Repair dry rot (no further information). Replace car deck in kind. Additionally, information about changes made to the house that do not show up in the permit record can be ascertained by reviewing historic photographs. Mf!J2, Page & T11mb11/I, I11c.

88 Historic Resource Eval11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 25: This 1894 view from the south shows the tower at the northeast comer of the house with a faceted witch's cap roof. The house also has a hipped roof with cresting ornament, not the rear-facing gable dormer currently extant. Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Socie. Figure 26: Detail, showing roofline features. The cross gable roofline and curved tower cap of the adjacent property (276 Beach Road) are also visible. Figure 27: This ca illustration of a view from the northeast shows the rear (northeast) fa~ade of the house, including the faceted witch's cap roof of the tower. The rear-facing gable dormer and the enclosed sunroom at the third story that are currently extant did not exist at this time. Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. Mqy2, Page & T11mb11!/, Inc.

89 Historic ResoHrce Eva!Hafio11 Fi11a/ 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 28: An assessor's report from 1929 sketches the footprint of the building, which appears to have included a recess at its east comer. A notation describes a double (rather than triple) porch at the rear (northeast) facade. This sketch also suggests that the current projecting porch over the primary entrance may not have been extant in Source: Marin County Historical Society Archives. Figure 29: This 1931 photograph from the northeast shows the rear (northeast) fa~ade of the house. The faceted witch's cap roof of the tower is gone and replaced with a flat roof. The house retains its original hipped roofline, and the third story porch has been enclosed. The garage is also visible for the first time (at left). Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. Mtfy2, Page & THmb11//, Inc.

90 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Fi11al 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 30: This 1950 aerial photograph shows the roofline of the property, which retains its original hipped form, and the third story porch is still enclosed. The building remains similar in form to its 1931 appearance. Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. Figure 31: This ca photograph shows the southeast facade of the house. The roofline has been changed to include a small shed dormer (no longer extant, replaced with rear-facing gable dormer). The enclosed third story porch is no longer extant, replaced with a smaller enclosed sunroom with a flat roof. The southeast facade includes two small bays (no longer extant, replaced with a single large bay). The southeast fas:ade does not include the kitchen addition or the deck that now spans the width of this fas:ade. Souce: Belvedere Tiburon Building Records Department files. Mf!J12, Page & T11mbul/, Inc.

91 Historic Resource Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California Figure 32: This 1980 image shows the house largely as it appears today, with a large rear-facing gable with windows, new sunroom with hipped roof at the third story, open second and third story decks, and additional windows at the south side of the fourth (or gable) story. Source: Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. Mf!J12, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

92 Historic Resource Eval11atiot1 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of "exceptional importance," or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register B1tlletin N11mber 15: Ho1v to App!J the National Register Criteria for Eva/11ation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. These criteria are: Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/ Constmction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Cnte1ion D (I.riformation Potential).;. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A resource can be considered significant on a national, state, or local level to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Criterion A (Event) 270 Beach Road is representative of the development of summer home subdivisions in Marin County, and in the City of Belvedere specifically. These subdivisions were the precursors to yearround suburban housing developments that came to characterize the Bay Area in the twentieth century. This pattern of suburban land development had been popular on the East Coast beginning in the 1850s. However, the property was not the earliest home constructed in the subdivision, nor was tl1e subdivision itself the earliest summer subdivision in Marin County (Sausalito was platted 20 years earlier than Belvedere). Therefore, the property's association with this context does not rise to a level such that it meets the threshold for individual significance for inclusion in the National Register. It is therefore not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A (Events). Criterion B (Persons) 270 Beach Road is not associated with any persons significant at a national level and therefore is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B (Persons). The original owner who commissioned the residence, John Henry Miller, was a prominent San Francisco attorney, but neither Miller nor his spouse Susie Miller were found to have made significant lasting contributions to local, state or national histo1y. Likewise the contributions of property's next owners, Commander Thomas Drayton Parker and his wife Florence Parker, to local, state or national history do not meet the Mqy2, Page & T 11mb11//, Inc.

93 Historic Reso11rce Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, Califomia threshold for significance that would qualify the property for inclusion in the California Register. Subsequent owners Robert S. Sitkin, Thomas Lewis Pierce Corn, and Lewis and Abigail Seiler similarly do not meet this threshold for significance. Therefore, 270 Beach Road is not individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion B (Persons). Criterion C (Design/Construction) 270 Beach Road is a Queen Anne residence constructed ca by an unknown builder. The building exhibits some design features that embody the distinctive characteristics of the Queen Anne cottage type, including an asymmetrical fai;:ade, hipped roof with gabled dormers, areas of shingle siding, broad open porches, paneled moldings, <lentils, carved brackets, floral molding details, and a corner tower (formerly with witch's peak roof). However, the building's historic massing and appearance have undergone alterations which have diluted its ability to embody the Queen Anne cottage type (alterations discussed further in the Integrity section). Originally constructed as a smaller summer home, the alterations and additions have changed the scale of the house, rendering it no longer representative of a modest Queen Anne cottage. Therefore, the building does not appear to be individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion C (Design/ Construction). Criterion D (Information Potential) Criterion D (Information Potential) is primarily used to assess archeological resources. Analysis of 270 Beach Road for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion Dis beyond the scope of this report. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns oflocal or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architectttre): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Cnrerion 4 (11!formatio11 Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Mqy 2, Page & T11mb11!/, foe.

94 Hist01ic Resource Evaluation Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califomia Resources eligible for the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. 21 Criterion I (Event) 270 Beach Road appears to be significant under Criterion 1 (Event) as a property that embodies the pattern of summer subdivision development in the San Francisco Bay Area in the decades prior to the turn of the twentieth century. 270 Beach Road was constructed for prominent San Francisco attorney John Henry Miller ca. 1892, and was one of the first homes constructed in a subdivision platted in 1890 by the Belvedere Land Company. The Belvedere Land Company, and other land development companies including the Sausalito Land and Ferry Company and the Tamalpais Land and Water Company, subdivided formerly rustic land in Marin County, improved lots with road access and plumbing, and actively sought buyers from San Francisco's upper and middle class. These buyers were often already familiar with the area through weekend and summer excursions to resorts and more rustic campgrounds that had been popular destinations in Marin County starting in the 1870s. The form of these summer subdivisions was based on Romantic suburban design trends that had been rising in popularity on the East Coast since the 1850s, and was executed in Belvedere and Mill Valley by Michael O'Shaughnessy, a young civil engineer who would go on to serve as San Francisco's city engineer after Houses in summer subdivisions often became used year-round as primary residences, and in this way served as the precursors of the suburban development that came to characterize the Bay Area in the twentieth century. As an early example of a house built as part of summer subdivision in Belvedere, 270 Beach Road embodies this pattern of summer subdivision development in the San Francisco Bay area, and is therefore significant under Criterion 1 (Event). However, the property does not appear eligible for listing due to lack of integrity (see Integrity section, following). Criterion 2 (Persons) 270 Beach Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The original owner who commissioned the residence, John Henry Miller, was a prominent San Francisco attorney, but neither Miller nor his spouse Susie Miller were found to have made significant lasting contributions to local, state or national history. Likewise the contributions of property's next owners, Commander Thomas Drayton Parker and his wife Florence Parker, to local, state or national history do not meet the threshold for significance that would qualify the property for inclusion in the California Register. Subsequent owners Robert S. Sitk:in, Thomas Lewis Pierce Corn, and Lewis and Abigail Seiler similarly do not meet this threshold for significance. Therefore, 270 Beach Road is not individually eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Criterion 3 (Architecture) 270 Beach Road is a Queen Anne residence constructed ca It does include some character defining details of that building type, including an asymmetrical fac,:ade, hipped roof with gabled dormers, areas of shingle siding, broad open porches, paneled moldings, <lentils, carved brackets, floral molding details, and a corner tower (formerly with witch's peak roof). However, the building's historic massing and appearance have undergone alterations which have diluted its ability to embody the Queen Anne cottage type (alterations discussed further in the Integrity section). Originally constructed as a smaller summer home, the alterations and additions have changed the scale of the house, rendering it no longer representative of a modest Queen Anne cottage. Therefore, the building does not appear to be individually eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture). 21 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to the Califomia Register of Historic Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001) 11. Mqy2, Page & T11rnb11ll, Inc.

95 Historic Reso11rce Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, Califomia Criterion 4 (Information Potential) Criterion D (Information Potential) is primarily used to assess archeological resources. The analysis of 270 Beach Road for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity-location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association-are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. According to the National Register B1t!leti11: How to Appfy the National Register Criteria for Evalttation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building. Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 270 Beach Road has not been moved since it was constructed, and the topography and landscaping of the lot on which it sits likewise has not significantly changed. The surrounding neighborhood remains uniformly residential. Therefore the building has good integrity of location and setting. 270 Beach Road's integrity of design is poor, due to multiple alterations to the building. Original design features that characterize the Queen Anne cottage have been altered, including the removal of the witch's peak roof on the tower, the addition of a large gable at the northeast fa<;:ade, the addition of a new mass at the southeast corner of the house, the addition of a wide bay window at tl1e soutl1east fas:ade of the house, and the addition of an enclosed sunroom at the northeast corner of the house. These alterations have severely dinlinished the building's ability to transmit its original design intention. The alterations to 270 Beach Road have also diminished its integrity of feeling. Originally constructed as a smaller summer home, the alterations and additions have changed the scale of the house, rendering it no longer representative of a modest Queen Anne cottage. ilfqy 2, Page & T11mb11/I, Inc.

96 Historic Reso11rce Eva/11atio11 Final 270 Beach &ad Belvedere, California Integrity of materials and workmanship is moderate. Some areas of original materials and some elements of original workmanship are still extant at the building, but multiple alterations have removed a significant percentage of original materials and workmanship. Integrity of association is likewise moderate. The property has an association with the earliest era of construction in Belvedere, but its ability to transmit that association is diminished in that it only partially retains its appearance and original design as a modest Queen Anne summer cottage. In summary, 270 Beach Road has good integrity of location and setting, moderate integrity of association, materials, feeling, and workmanship, and poor integrity of design. The building's level of integrity is not high enough to allow it to convey its individual significance under Criterion 1 (Events) for inclusion in the California Register. M'!J'2, Page & T11mb11//, Inc.

97 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Rnad Belvedere, Ca4fomia 270 Beach Road does not appear to rise to a level of significance and integrity to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The property appears to be significant under California Register Criterion 1 (Event) as an early and representative example of a home constructed in a San Francisco Bay Area summer home subdivision. These subdivisions became common in the last decades of the nineteenth century and were the precursors to the pattern of suburban development that came to characterize the Bay Area in the twentieth century. However, multiple additions and fas;ade alterations at 270 Beach Road have changed the historic appearance of the house and reduced its integrity to a degree that it is no longer able to convey its historic significance. Therefore, the building is not eligible for listing in the California Register. Mqy2, Page & T11rnb11/I, Inc.

98 Historic Resource Evalttatio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, California PUBLISHED WORKS Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. "Historic House Tour." California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant S en'es No. 7, Hmv to Nominate a Reso11rce to the CalifOrnia Register of Historic Reso11rces. Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, Don, Hillary, ed. Life in Belvedere and Tiburon, 1890 to Belvedere, CA: Bella Vista Publishing, Evans, Sally and William Roop. An Evaluation of Cttlt11ral Reso11rces and Legislative Overoie1v far the City ef Belvedere General Plan Update, Marin Cottnty, CalifOrnia. Petaluma, CA: Archeological Resource Service, Harper, Franklin, ed. lf/ho'.r Who on the Pacific Coast. Los Angeles: Harper Publishing Company, Longstreth, Richard. On The Edge of the World: l'ottr An-hitects in San Framisco at the Turn ~f the Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, Pregill, Phillip and Nancy Volkman. Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in Eastern and Western Traditions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, PUBLIC RECORDS Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 21, Historic Preservation, Section A. Marin County Assessor's Book, San Francisco City Directories United States Federal Census Records NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS "Marin County" The San Francisco Chronicle, July 6, "Mill Valley", The San Frmtiisco Chronicle, July 6, ''Belvedere's Night in Venice", The San Francisco Chronicle, August 4, "Rose Florence Soprano, Sings'', The New York Times November 22, "Retired Naval Officer Dies", The Spartanbmg Herald, January 6, "Only Two Families Have Lived in 91 Year Old Abbeville Home", The Charleston News and Cottrin~ March 5, Mqy2, Page & T11mb11/!, Inc.

99 Historic Reso11rce Eval11atio11 Final 270 Beach Road Belvedere, Califamia INTERNET SOURCES Church of Saint Raphael & Mission San Raphael Arcangel, website, accessed October 2013, = 5 7. City of Belvedere Historic Landmark Designation Survey Form, 296 Beach Road ("Landfall"), November 10, 2010, prepared by George Gnoss, Diane Bradley, and Rafael Paniagua, accessed October 2013, / / History of Sausalito, Sausalito Historical Society, accessed online, / sausalito-history /. Mt!J2, Page & T11mb11/I, Inc.

100 1000 Sonsome Sfreet, Suite 200 Son Francisco. Colifornio I fox 2401 C Street. Suite B Sacramento. California fox 417 S. Hill Street. Suite 211 Los Angeles. California / fax

101 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. MEMORANDUM DA TE: 10/19/17 TO: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner, City of Belvedere PROJECT NO: MSA FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA REGARDING: 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum PROJECT DOCUMENTS Architectural Drawings: Prepared by ALECK WILSON ARCHITECTS INC., 26 O'Farrell Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94108, dated 9/22/17 and consisting of 18 individual drawing sheets 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: l.s048 San Francisco & North Bay Phone msa@msandovalarchitects.com W\VW. msandovalarchitects.com Landscape Drawings: Prepared by STUDIO GREEN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, 232 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., San Anselmo, CA 94960, dated 9/13/17 and consisting of 13 individual drawing sheets Topographic Survey: Prepared by LEA AND BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC., 2495 Industrial Parkway West, Hayward, CA 94545, dated 9/24/15 and consisting of 3 sheets Civil Engineering Drawings: Prepared by VIA ATELIER, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, 9 Brookside Ct. San Anselmo, CA 94960, dated 9/13/17 and consisting of 3 sheets Additional Documents and Related Application Material : Application For Demolition Permit, dated 9/22/17; Application For Design Review, dated 9/22/17; Application For Exception to Floor Area, dated 9/22/17; Application For Variance, dated 9/22/17; Application For Revocable License, dated 9/22/17; Application for Junior Second Unit Permit, dated 9/22/17; 270 Beach Road Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Page and Turnbull, dated 5/2/16 consisting of 33 printed pages REQUESTS The applicant is requesting the following permit approvals to allow for the demolition of an existing older four-story Queen-Ann styled home with a detached two-car garage and second living unit with an existing floor area of 6,835 square feet, and replacing it with a new five-story contemporary-style home with a second living unit. The existing home, although listed on the City of Belvedere Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and was included in a 1976 State of California Resources Agency survey conducted by members of the Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society, does not appear to meet the level of significance required for the property's listing in the National Register of Historic Places or 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page: 1 Arch i tecture Hi s toric Preservation-Design ATTACHMENT 8

102 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. the California Register due to the multiple additions and exterior alterations over the years, that have affected the building's historic integrity and significance. Along with the construction of the new home with second living unit, the applicant is proposing to make significant site and landscaping improvements to the property including adding new patio areas, fences, hill elevator, and a single open off-street carport. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new boat dock and add a solar photo voltaic system to the home which will be under separate building permits. The following is a summary of each application requested by the Applicant: Application for Design Review to allow the construction of the new 6,791 five-story contemporary residence with second living unit, attached two-car garage and open carport Application for Exception to Total Floor Area to allow for an increase in the permitted buildable floor area allowed from 3,445 square feet to 6,791 square feet Application for Demolition Permit to allow for the demolition of the existing 6,835 square foot home and the removal of 4 trees ranging from 9" to 11" in diameter, and the project's demolition material and debris 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera. CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@.msandovalarchitects.com Application for Variance to allow an increase in permitted lot coverage for structures from 30% to 34.84% as allowed under (ORD , 1992; ORD (PART), 1989.) 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 270 Beach Road is located on a steeply down-sloping lot positioned on the north side of Beach Road, between Bella Vista Avenue and Bayview. The lot is shown to be 10,433 square feet in size and descends downhill from the roadway to Belvedere Cove below, along the northeast lot line, with an average slope of around 49%. The site is occupied by an existing 6,835-square-foot Queen-Ann-style four-story home (reportedly built in 1892) with a detached two-car garage and a second living unit. The applicant intends to remove the structures and replace them with a new, 6,781-square-foot, five-story, contemporarystyle residence with a two-car garage and a second living unit. The property has a complex of terraces between the street and the house, as well as from the house to the shoreline below. Along the northeast side of the property, a curved, stone set of stairs leads from the street to the building below, and placed around the perimeter along the side yards of the property are numerous large, mature trees, which include coastal redwoods, Japanese maples, and southern magnolia. The applicant is proposing to keep and integrate all existing landscape features as part of the landscape design for the new, contemporary home. The applicant is also proposing to construct along Beach Road a new pedestrian gate and a bridge that leads to the main entrance of the home, located on the fifth floor. Two new 6'0" redwood fences, in addition to a series of steel fabricated retaining walls with various assorted plantings, are placed to the right of the existing stone stairs between the fifth and 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:2 Arch i tee ture H is tori c Preserv ation Desi gn

103 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: third floors of the home. A new concrete driveway and open carport are also proposed (providing off-street parking for three vehicles), in addition to a redwood-fenced trash enclosure that separates the new two-car garage from the parking pad of the open carport located along the southeast corner of the property. Placed behind the fenced trash enclosure is a hill elevator, which is designed to provide pedestrian access to each of the various floors of the proposed home, including the new pier and boat dock located at the water's edge. Other proposed amenities and features of the new home include new roof decks located on the second, third, and fifth floors, an outdoor kitchen/barbeque with a trellis, an aboveground swimming pool with a spa, a premanufactured fire pit, and additional landscape enhancements and general site improvements, including stairs, new stone-paved walkways, and a pier with boat dock. New Residence The primary floors of the new home are positioned directly behind the two-car garage and the street level bridge that leads to the entrance pavilion of the home. Although placed in generally the same location within the lot as the current home, each floor level has been expanded in length to accommodate the topography of the site, and to better fit the internal room configuration for this new multistory residence. Several large roof decks with planters have been added to the design which will provide additional open space needed for sunbathing and other outdoor recreational activities. The primary views are toward the western side of Belvedere Cove, Tiburon, and Point Lone on Angle Island. The new home is predominately clad in wooden horizontal siding, with metal-clad accent walls to add greater visual interest and definition to each of the building's exterior elevations. From the street, the new residence appears rather unassuming; however, if viewed from the side and particularly from the rear elevations, one begins to comprehend the actual size and overall scale of the new home. Despite having a slightly smaller proposed floor area than the existing home, the proposed lot coverage is much greater (34.84% compared to 23.6%). This is a direct consequence of setting the height of the new structure as much lower (averaging 17'11" in height) compared to the height of existing home-approximately 44'0" overall. In manipulating the building volumes so that they better follow the topography of the site, the architect has provided the opportunity to create three roof-deck elements, which continue to de-emphasize the vertical mass of the building. The architect has skillfully designed each of the building's elevations in an imaginative and compositionally pleasing way. With the exception of the large, multistory, vertical stair tower window located on the north exterior elevation, most of the windows that look outward toward the adjoining neighbors appear to be sized appropriately to capture desirable views yet still preserve the privacy of each neighbor. In examining the building's east, or rear, elevation using large areas of glass, staggered building volumes, and a rich combination of surface cladding materials (e.g., horizontal wood, metal, glass guardrails, etc.), the architect has succeeded in breaking up the mass of this multistory home without causing it to appear contrived, busy, or lacking in a compositional purpose. DESIGN ANALYSIS Preservation of Existing Site Conditions. 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:3 Arch itecture H i stori c Preservation Design

104 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. The applicant appears to be removing six trees (8", 1 O", and 11" Japanese maples and a 12" palm tree being the largest) and ten large ferns, which are all shown to have an overall diameter of 12". The applicant intends to retain all of the existing coastal redwoods and the large magnolia tree, and to incorporate them into the landscape design of the new home. The existing stone, curved staircase, which runs along the northeast property line, is also shown to be retained; however, it must be slightly modified at three connection points with the new residence because of the change in floor level as compared to the existing finish grade Relationship Between Structures and the Site. Although the new home exceeds the maximum floor area permitted under this zoning district, it covers less area than the existing home by replacing the detached garage and therefore continues to maintain the established relationship that the structure and its site have with the adjoining properties along this section of Beach Road Minimizing Bulk and Mass. 145 Corte ivfadera Town Center #40.t Corte Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@msandovalarchltects.com The architect has skillfully designed each fa9ade to be imaginative, compositionally pleasing, and cohesive. Each wall plane appears to be well articulated without being too excessive. The architect's use of other architectural details, such as the glass guardrails, roof planters, and two different wall-cladding surface materials, as well as the general placement and configurations of the structures' glazing and fenestration openings, all help enormously to break up the mass of the structure without rendering it contrived or without purpose. In short, the proposed design for this new, multistory residence avoids monotony and will likely not appear excessively bulky Materials and Colors Used. The proposed building materials depicted and their use and manner of application as illustrated render the home visually interesting and give it surface contrast. Although not completely consistent with the building materials used in the immediate adjoining neighboring properties, they are appropriate for the home's architectural style and should help the home recede and blend into its immediate settings over time Fences and Screening. All proposed glass and steel guard railings, fences, and site-retaining walls depicted in the drawings seem to be constructed from the highest-quality materials and are aesthetically attractive. They have been thoughtfully placed in a manner that optimizes privacy for the adjoining neighbors without significantly obstructing important, shared view corridors. Comment: Staff may wish to request the applicant's architect to furnish the details of the proposed roof glass, the metal guardrails, and the "green screen," which are depicted on Sheet A3. 1 and Sheet A3.2, respectively, to better understand their construction assembly 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:4 Arch itecture Historic Preservation Design

105 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. characteristics, their overall dimensions, and the materials proposed. Also, the South Exterior Elevation that appears on Sheet A3. 2, the guardrails depicted along the perimeter wall of the fifth-floor roof appear to be mislabeled and should be correctly identified Privacy. 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. Comment: Although the applicant's architect has arranged most of the windows to look out to each of the side-yard neighbors, staff may wish to ask the applicant's architect to revisit the current proposed sizes for the windows located on the north elevation for the stairs and master bathroom (at the tub). It is difficult to determine from the existing drawings whether the existing trees depicted in the landscape plans are adequate to reduce the glare of light at night, which could affect the neighboring property owner to the northeast. Staff may also wish to have the architect clarify the type of glass (clear or obscured) being proposed for the master tub area and whether the proposed new landscape design and the existing trees along the neighboring property are adequate to preserve each neighbor's privacy. 145 Corte Madera Town Center #40.J Corte Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: \V\vw.msandovalarchitects.com Drives. Parking, and Circulation. The applicant is proposing to construct a new concrete driveway connection to the street to allow for the placement of a new two-car garage along with a single-car open carport in the general location of the current garage but positioned at a greater distance back from the roadway. In doing so, the applicant has added one additional off-street parking stall and has also slightly widened this narrow section of Beach Road, which should improve both vehicular and pedestrian safety and improve the overall traffic flow of the roadway Exterior Lighting, Skylights. and Reflectivity. The proposed lighting fixtures shown on Sheet L2.1 all appear to be LED shielded-type light fixtures and seem to be placed in a manner that should not create excessive glare or light pollution that could annoy the neighboring property owners or passersby. Comments: The drawings are extremely vague and do not adequately provide enough information on the proposed hill elevator. Staff may want to ask the applicant's architect to provide information pertaining to the proposed manufacturer, the proposed cabin configuration and size, whether it is to be installed with a roof canopy, and whether there are to be any additional sources of illumination at night other than what is currently proposed, to ensure that the project satisfies the general objectives of this section of the city's ordinance Consideration of Nonconformities. The property at 270 Beach Street resides within the R-15 zoning district, where the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet with an average width of no less than 75 feet. This 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:5 Architecture Historic Preservation Design

106 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. property, however, is shown to be only 10,441 square feet with an average width of feet. The site is narrow and very steep, with an average slope of 49%. The current home, detached two-car garage and studio that are to be demolished have a lot coverage of 23.6% and a floor area of 6,835 square feet, which exceeds the maximum size permitted under this zoning district by 3,390 square feet. The current applicant is, on the other hand, proposing a new home with a floor area of 6,791 square feet and a lot coverage only 4.94% above the permitted maximum. Because of the configuration of the lot and the topography, as well as the desire to retain all of the large existing coastal redwood trees and to remain within the various building setbacks and height restrictions imposed, the proposed design does exceed the 30% maximum allowed for covered structures. 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Corte Madera, CA Pt!ninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: msa@msandovalarchitects.com W\VW.msandovalarchitects.com Since other homes within this immediate neighborhood appear to have similar square footage and coverage issues to the applicant's proposed project, there does not really seem to be a compelling argument to consider adhering to a strict interpretation of the provision of the ordinance because it exceeds the permitted maximum by such a small amount and is well under the 50% total coverage maximum allowed for both covered and uncovered outdoor decks and structures Landscape Plans-Pumose. 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 detail and general information shown on Sheets L4.0 through L5.3 indicate a landscape plan that is well conceived and utilizes the best-quality landscape products and materials. As for the specific planting materials proposed, the applicant's landscape architect has, for the most part, provided just the right number of trees, shrubs, and ground-covering plants needed to protect privacy without obstructing the views of the nearby neighbors. Comment: As mentioned before, the applicant's architect should provide further information and details on the proposed "green screen" that is illustrated around the side and back of the new carport next to the roadway. Furthermore, staff may wish to have the project's landscape architect provide additional information regarding the existing trees on the neighbor's side of the property and to review whether the proposed landscaping and trees shown in the landscape drawings can sufficiently protect the privacy of each of the property owners who share the adjoining property line with the subject property. RECOMMENDATIONS 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:6 Arch itecture H is toric Preservation Design

107 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC. Other than the concerns expressed above, it is my opinion that the proposed design for this new home located at 270 Beach Road generally complies with the design requirements outlined under Title 20, Architectural & Environmental Design Review, Section and of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code. 145 Cone Madera Town Cemer #404 Co11e Madera, CA Peninsula & South Bay Phone: San Francisco & North Bay Phone: alarchitects.com 270 Beach Road - Design Review Memorandum Date: 10/19/17 Page:? Arch i tecture H is toric Preservation Design

108 Address Lot Size Floor Area (SF) Floor Area(%) 266 BEACH RD 31,573 9,530 30% 270 BEACH RD 10,441 6, /o 276 BEACH RD 7,740 5,075 66% 280 BEACH RD 8,150 5, /o 290 BEACH RD 3,423 3, /o 296 BEACH RD 18,419 6, /o 300 BEACH RD 7,599 2, /o 288 BEACH RD 10,890 2, /o 322 BEACH RD 6,250 5, /o 310 BEACH RD 6,938 4,460 64% 312 BEACH RD 12,000 3, /o 370 BELLA VISTA AVE 4,464 3, /o 400 BELLA VISTA AVE 24,700 6, /o 404 BELLA VISTA AVE 6,655 1, /o 440 BELLA VISTA AVE 9,260 4, /o 450 BELLA VISTA AVE 3,800 2, /o ATTACHMENT 9

109 Tiburon Fire Protection District Occupancy: 270 BEACH ROAD Address: 270 BEACH RD BELVEDERE CA Inspection Type: PLAN REVIEW - PLANNING AND BUILDING Form: 2017 Tiburon Fire Protection District Plan Review Form V1 Inspection Date: 10/23/2017 Time In: 13:06 Authorized Date: 10/23/2017 By: Lantier, Michael (3806) Time Out: 13:23 By: Lantier, Michael (3806) See below Status: SELECTED 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 TFPD 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: Billable Amount: 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: Billable Amount: Knox Key Access Required. 'Knox' key access shall be installed at the premises conforming to TFPD Policy Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: Billable Amount: 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: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: Billable Amount: Other Information. See Below. Status: CONDITION OF APPROVAL Notes: The Green Roof shall conform to TFPD Policy For more information, please visit: Billable Amount: Printed on 10/23/17at1.3:23:49 ATTACHMENT 10 Page 1of2

110 Other Information. See Below. Status: SELECTED Notes: The demolition of the existing home presents a tremendous training opportunity for our Firefighters. Please consider permitting us to train on the structure before full demolition and an Agreement is available for your review for insurance purposes. Billable Amount: Notes: No Additional time recorded Total Additional Time: 0 minutes Inspection Time: 17 minutes Total Time: 17 minutes Overall Result: PRC - PLAN REVIEW COMPLETE Inspection Billable Amount: 0 Total Observations Amount: 0.00 Total Amount: $0.00 Inspector Notes: This plan is approved with Conditions. Name: Lantier, Mi9cael Rank: Fire lnspectm /vu Printed on 10/23/17at 13:23:49 Page 2of2

111 CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 San Rafael A venue 1, Belvedere, CA Tel: 415 / A Fax: 415 / Memorandum: Building Department comments for Design Review application Date: October9,2017 To: City of Belvedere Planning Dept. From: Brian Van Son, Building Official & Floodplain Administrator Project Location: Project Description: 2nd unit, and garage 270 Beach Rd. Demolish existing 4-story dwelling and garage. Construct new 5-story dwelling, The Building Department has the following comments for this project based on the information submitted or available at this time, for inclusion with the Planning Department Design Review: Comments related to the Planning applications: 1) The Building Department has the following comments regarding the Design Review application 270 Beach Rd. The Building Department has approved the current drawings submitted for this planning entitlement. Building Department I Comments related to the future submittal for the Building Permit: I) Plans commonly submitted for Design Review through the Planning Department and Planning Commission are typically not detailed enough to show full compliance with all the required California Building Codes. Therefore only cursory review for compliance is able to be done at time of Design Review. Full review of construction code compliance occurs when sufficiently complete "working drawings" and documentation are submitted as part of a complete building permit application. 2) The submittal for the future Building Permit must detail the construction of the proposed improvements, including compliance with relevant portions of the California Residential, Green Building, and Energy Codes, along with a possible geotechnical investigation report and detailed full engineering design and drawings if the carport retaining wall is replaced or removed. 3) The project has an estimated cost of over $500,000, and would therefore be assigned a maximum 18 month Construction Time Limit (CTL). However, this timeline may be increased or decreased based on the overall valuation of the project. Page 1 of2

112 4) The applicant will be required to obtain approval from Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQD) prior to the demolition of the existing structures. 5) Approval from Tiburon Fire Dist. and Sanitary Dist. 5 are required prior to building permit issuance. 6) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval is required prior to the construction of the proposed dock. 7) Improvements in City of Belvedere right-of-way will require an encroachment license. 8) No other Building Department issues are foreseen at this time. Full compliance with all relevant Codes, will be conducted during the thorough plan review process by all involved agencies, after submittal of application, plans and related documents for a building permit. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any concerns or questions regarding my comments. Thanks, Brian Van Son, CBO Building Official I Floodplain Administrator City of Belvedere bvanson@cityofbelvedere.org Page 2 of2

113 ARIN MUNICIPAL TE ISTRICT Rebecca Markwick Belvedere Planning Dept. 450 San Rafael Ave. Belvedere, CA Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA October 30, Service No RE: WATER AVAILABILITY-Accessory Dwelling Unit - Attached Assessor's Parcel No.: Location: 270 Beach Rd., Belvedere Dear Ms. Markwick: The above referenced parcel is currently being served. The purpose and intent of this service are to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new 5 story dwelling with attached Accessory Dwelling Unit will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property. However, there has not been a water entitlement established for the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Payment of a connection fee is required prior to granting (legalizing) water service to the accessory unit. The installation of a separate meter for the accessory unit is optional. Water service required for the 374-square-foot accessory dwelling unit will be available upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below. 1. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application. 2. Submit a copy of the building permit. 3. Pay appropriate fees and charges. 4. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. 5. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The following are required: Verification of indoor fixtures compliance 't' Landscape plan Irrigation plan.. Grading plan Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation should be directed to Water Conservation Department at {415} You can also find information about the District's water conservation requirements online at 6. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) The District has determined this project will not be required to install a gray water reuse system. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (415) Sincerely(9i«/«J f;;r Chris Borjian Engineering Technician CB:je Cc: Hollie Haynes, 270 Beach Rd., Belvedere CA recycled recyclable

114 NEIGHBOR NOTICING TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: _l:jd ~~fmo_. Project Description: ~Qk\f.JL o'f.\sd~ fu~-21!2~~--~ ful&~~-~mt._.. cl~ Jb~me JJlli~-$--G~---f:LbO'? ~-.~---fuisjjiyw~. I have reviewed the following item(s): D project proposal ' plan set }&( photographs 'pi cut sheets ' other documents (specify:_~n~f:iz{q?/{7 '(ifoo i, \ll~ ) _Al~ WllhtN.AftH---i- 71Vt7/0 ~and dated 8~J]_. I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovereferenced documents. D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents. Mv name is:,,,, and I own the neighboring property at: signature: Today's date: --~--~ Thank you for laking the time to review ;md comment on your neighbor's prqjccl ff you bave any questions, please reel free to contact us at 485-::3888. ATTACHMENT 11 U:\PLANNINGMANAGER\PLANNING FORMS\PLANN!NG FORMS MEMO HEV.DOC'

115 Rebecca Marwick, Planner Planning Commission Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA RE: 270 Beach Road, Belvedere Dear Planning Department, December 3, 2017 I am writing to express our concern about current plans for demolition of the existing residence at 270 Beach Road and the proposed construction at that location. We are neighbors, having lived above the site for 37 years. Our serious concern is that the new house, as currently planned, is inconsistent with our neighborhood. As it stands now, 270 Beach is a large house on a substandard lot This Victorian, whose charm has been remarked by so many people from the water, is designed so that the house allows a lot of space while still giving room for landscaping and greenery. Comparing the current and proposed lot coverage diagrams (see attached), it seems that almost every available square foot ofland in the new design is covered by house, garage, or deck, creating a massive presence with no room for the softening effect of greenery. Our house is also a Victorian (1892) and we are sad to see the loss of the current elegant structure, which fits so well into this area, to be replaced by such a boxy, modern structure. This area, more than any other in Belvedere, gives a sense of the city's historic past. Also, the new residence plans seem to continue to block off the city right of way along the north side of the lot. This used to be a public lane to the water. We are, of course, against giving away city property to private individuals. But more than that, in light of the Sonoma fires, we were happy to see the city plan to mark emergency evacuation routes in our heavily wooded area. The lane at 270 Beach would certainly be our nearest emergency evacuation route to the water. Hopefully, this lane could be developed more fully in the future, just as the city is now planning to do with an old lane on Golden Gate Avenue. Please note that this lane has been the source of tension for some time in the city as the previous owner of 270 Beach attempted to block it off. Thank you for your attention, ~P~ ~ )jjk_~j!k :~~-./ Sheila and Robert Golden.. / 370 Bella Vista Avenue

116 SlORY POLE SCHEOVl.e -jawaj Al.CCI( Wll.50N AACHITCOTS INC. a& o'"':~:;~i.!o':,ta'"" flan r'r:~r~:eo. t'!a ;!;; :! ~:~~i:~~~; ' -. w tj Zo w <( <( 0 0 (J - IX en :r ~ w (J w I! <( 0 rn WW UJ ID> w 0.J Z i:'w >- N ID <( I OATES STORY POL.E PLAN fhfft: A 1.2

117 I I I I I ALCCK Wll.. GON ARCHITECTS INC. :t4 O'F'AAl\ICU. S'tQel?T lluitc: o'ioo flla.n l'aancll!ico, CA 'J41CUl TE\.: 41S '1AS 9095 rao<t 1 "16fl l779 0 '.. \ \ w CJ Zo w <( <( oou - a'.uj Cf) :r Q'. wow 0:: <( 0 w w Cf) Ql ~ W aw z l' Ql >- ~ <( I OATES PRCPOSEO SITE Pl..AN 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN I ROOF PLAN "-t: A 1.1

118 CITY FBELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: E:ACH fo r\d Project Description: ~l.. zt\ tbac711 t\k,l \\]Wt:: J Y>ouQ rj~ ~ AW l}rrtef]jffi:' I\\~) \:\writ> W\\,L Htcl f-. -ate- 01\mE- flop\l-: AJU!?A f'5< f?l Voll~. I have reviewed the following item(s): D project proposal '. plan set ~ photographs ~ cut sheets }ti other documents (specify:!f-e~otfi?q 779 '/YlO{)t'.;L '{ l,fw;, ) prepared by A~ll- D wn,?qj ~ 1 '?TIOl" ~ l!:z. and dated 11 zz_ J'}.J>11. I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovereferenced documents. ~o not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents. Other comments: Pl45-G Se_,e_ a... J/-<Uit. d J~-H -Gr; A-l b.e.v+ w; l I SLnd 5:!{7weJe-: Go~. My name is: Roxa..Y\n.<..124'c.-h.~d<... 'ancv own the neighboring property at: z_ &; (p JSe:a..ck l'.::o~j. MY lrwa->b<m?j.4 J bu--l- 1 M1.of r: My signature:~. Today's date: /-2..s-..,;2-0 I T: -~h Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on your neighbor's project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at U:\PLANNINGMANAGERIPLANNING FORMSIPLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC

119 TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: 2-7 D ~met! &?Ao. Project Description: CITY OF BELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO ha...j\ u C-..r MiA U... v t'- 'V Q. I~,\ l.k.:= c _L,{) l' ~ar::.,vvvuol..\srr Vt-\STII w>\.ht-/ v L\- l\aian ~ D.r:'Y ~~ I have reviewed the following item(s): D project proposal ' plan set )ef photographs 'Ji cut sheets ' other documents (specify: )2.-~NlY~ 7?(7 r1f00 L. \lt.f2tp$. ) prepared by AL-~ Wll-4?t.i Afttl- i z}v(]jo ~and dated 8/z+/ lil I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovereferenced documents. D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents. My name is: Steven Johnson at: 499 Bella Vista Ave My signature: ~ Today's date; Dec ~~~~~~~~~~-, and I own the neighboring property Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on your neighbor's project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at U:\PLANNINGMANAGER\PLANNING FORMS\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC

120 E TO: 0 project y./. ix:-1 I other D to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovep1 oject as shown in the above-referenced documents. 5 Y p.f 9-~ t n ~-~--- l.q_.!1:'\_~_,, ' tt- -td~~ c.m_lf~ t(_---~ ~ 1 t- l I! ; I I! Thank yon for!akin;~!:he tin1c jo and. comnwnt on your neighbor's pn~jecl ff you have any qucs110ns, please lcdllrce to fx1fltact u~ al lh5-:i8.18. l l :, j j_j..; I :. U:\PLANNlNGMANAG~R\PLANrilNG FORMS\l'LANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\NEICIIBOR NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC i I.., I

121 HYN 280 Beach from David Dominick From: David Dominik sent: Tuesday, December 05, :18 PM To: Aleck Wilson subject: Re: 270 Beach road project Looked fine on Nov 30, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Aleck Wilson wrote: David Hope you had a great thanksgiving The story poles are up, and the most clearly visible ones are in the lower area, the poles you are likely most interested in. I looked at them yesterday and there are two poles and strings in the redwoods that need to be adjusted, which should happen tomorrow, so a look this weekend would be great. If you want to see them Jay and Hollies side please do, the gate is open but even better give them a call or and come visit. Please take a look and give us a call or Thanks Aleck Aleck Wilson Aleck Wilson Architects Ext 101 Please excuse the typos sent from my ipad on Oct 28, 2017, at 8:07 PM, David Dominik <ddominik@goldengatecap.com> wrote: Not sure I understand. The form seems me to either approve or not approve the project. As discussed, I wanted to see the story poles first. Maybe I'm mis-reading the document? on Oct 25, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Aleck Wilson <aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com> wrote: David It was great to meet with you last night, talk about the project and life on Beach Road Attached is a simple city document that states you have seen the drawings I had last night, that we met, and you can express your thoughts. Please it to me or the city as you prefer. I have also attached the renderings we saw last night. As a restatement, the current plan is to put the story poles up in late November and then the Planning Commission hearing is on December 19th we will keep you posted as the date comes closer or anything substantive changes. Please call or me or Jay and Hollie if you have any follow up questions Aleck Aleck Wilson AWA 26 O'Farrell Street, suite 400 Page 1

122 HYN 350 Bella vista from Loebs From: Aleck Wilson sent: Thursday, November 30, :39 PM To: Rebecca Markwick; Mark Fordelon cc: Hollie Moore Haynes; Jay Haynes subject: from Loeb's at 350 Bella vista regarding 270 Beach Road Rebecca Please see below from Deborah Loeb in regards to the proposed project at 270 Beach Road for Jay and Hollie Haynes. This came in today, Thursday November 30th. Thanks and please call or me with any questions Aleck Wilson From: DEBORAH Loeb Date: November 30, 2017 at 6:58:24 PM EST To: Hollie Moore Haynes Cc: DEBORAH Loeb Jay Haynes subject: Re: 270 beach project Hi Hollie, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'm building a house in Sonoma and well, are you SURE you want to put yourself through this??? Ahh, just kidding - sort of. we really don't need to see your plans. I'm sad that we will be losing one of the old Victorian's but respect your right and desire to have a more practical home for your family. I'm sure it will be beautiful. Make sure you both figure a way not to let the little things get to you, before they do. I hear it's a lot easier these days, but building a house is a challenge. All the best! Deb on Nov 15, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Hollie Moore Haynes <holliemoorehaynes@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Deborah - Hey wondered if you are back in town and interested in an update on our house project? Happy to come by with the plans. we go to Planning Dec 19. Page 1

123 Story poles go up soon. actually. HYN 350 Bella Vista from Loebs They'll be minimal. House will be lower H Hollie Haynes Holliemoorehaynes@gmail.com Aleck Wilson Aleck Wilson Architects Ext 101 Please excuse the typos sent from my ipad Page 2

124 FBEL DERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: --~ 7f?_-3trnct1 ~ :. Project Description: ~lq~tt. c'ffzd_~;---flv~i.-~--th&fu~--~mt. cl\av tipvi\'a WUl HM~~~ flbb1/?: ~A-.fil:~i't-"'1. I have reviewed the following item(s): D project proposal ~plan set )i photographs )i cut sheets ' other documents (specify:_fptviyf::?to??t?»[o(j L- \ll.f3v.>2 ) prep2redby At,,Pet: ~-t-'71valo ~anddated8/z4/ D ~ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovereferenced documents. I do not support the project as shown in the above- referenced documents. Other comments: Jt 1-0 t'.1-t "'-~ fh"-4 --=-~_. ~--MJJ 11cl.d ~L~t-~-- ~---- My name is: ft C\.Jyt'{ ~lj'l-"- ; and I own the neighboring property at:_jf_$12 k/v J~~ My signature: Today's date: - 1+-(,_tc-=<.._,./._r?t..,,._,, Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on your neighbor's project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at U:\PLANNINGMANAGER\PLANNING FORMS\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC

125 TO: The City of Beb 1 edere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: 2-70 :\?Met\ Project Description: CITY OF BELVEDE NEI9HBOR NOTICING MEMO EbAQ. j)~o L-~» C'f\S.TI ~ ~ 7 1W,Q ".'.ie;a) fu&~ jj..;..11,.ic i.a...t.l:~:u'.! N~J \\Dme Wlll f- Af?..fM Ns. ~"-bi. I have reviewed the following item(s): 0 project proposal ' plan set }8( photographs 'pi cut sheets )6 other documents (specify: )ie:ntj)n'f{2 :.?(t' \'if<l(j,e.t.. \ \l2tp$. ) prepared by A~~ Wtl4N Nat i 710alD ~and dated 8/t.4-/ lid/ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovereferenced documents. D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents. Other comments: ~~~~~~~~~~~~-, and I own the neighboring property Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on your neighbor's project. If you have any questions, please foel free to conlact us at 4~ U:\PLANNll'<GMANAGER\PLANNING FORMS\PLANNING FORMS. LATEST EDJTION\NEJGHBOR NOTICING ~1EMO REV.DOC

126 == TO: Regarding Project Address: Project Description: I have reviewed the following item(s): D project proposal plan set photographs ):S' cut sheets ' other documents prepared by -'-"--:...IE.~:::'.--~,,,~~~ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the abovedocuments. I do not support project as shown in the above-referenced documents. Other comments: name is: \fcjhn at_ lfo'i q)la Vi -, I own the neighboring property My signature: Today's date: --~~---''--~++-1-=!:W..-.f-- \ Thank you for taking the ti \e to review and comment on your neighbor's projecr. ff you have ;my questions, please feel free to cont.act us at U:\PLANNINGMANAGER\PLANl''HNG I ORMS\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST El.HTiON\NEIGHBOR NOTICrNG MEMO REV.DOC

127 Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Aleck Wilson Thursday, October 05, :53 PM Jean Fair; Irene Borba - City Planner Jay Hollie Skye Cayla Jamie Josie Moore Haynes; Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner; Jay Haynes; Nancy Miller - Secretary RE: 270 Beach Rd Design Review Jean Thank you and we look forward to continuing to work with you as the project progresses. Your notes below are items we have reviewed together or on the phone and indeed we have agreed and they have been included or will be addressed as we develop the design. Aleck Aleck Wilson AWA 26 O'Farrell Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA tel: ext eel: fax: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com From: Jean Fair [mailto:jeancfair@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, :50 PM To: irene Borba - City Planner <iborba@cityofbelvedere.org> Cc: Jay Hollie Skye Cayla Jamie Josie Moore Haynes <holliemoorehaynes@gmail.com>; Aleck Wilson <aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com> Subject: 270 Beach Rd Design Review Dear City of Belvedere Planning Dept and Planning Commissioners, Jerry and I have had on opportunity to review the plans for the demolition and rebuild of the Haynes home at 270 Beach Rd. Aleck Wilson, the Haynes' architect, has, on two occasions given us presentations and he, after comments, has made minor adjustments to the design. We thank them for communicating their intentions so clearly. We have asked and gotten agreement from the Haynes and Aleck Wilson on a few issues. The hedge adjacent to the existing garage at 270 will remain as will the redwood trees and the oak tree further down the property line. Additional protection will be incorporated in the final plans to protect the entry column at 276 that will be adjacent to the new parking pad at 270. A bollard and curb were suggested. The air conditioning compressor or condenser noise will not negatively impact our living spaces. Sound mitigation will be applied if the units must be installed near our side of the property. To be confirmed by the engineer. Exterior lighting will be directed down and away from 276 Beach. With these understandings, we have no objections to the proposed home at 270 Beach and support their current plans. 1

128 Thank you, Jean and Jeremy Fair 276 Beach Rd. Belvedere. 2

129 DEC Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner City of Belvedere, City Hall 45 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA December 7, 2017 Re: 270 Beach Road Project To the Commissioners and Staff, Jim and Katie Burke live at 334 Golden Gate Avenue right up the hill from this proposed project. We have lived here for over thirty years in a historic home. We love living in Belvedere because there are older homes, like ours, and we are sorry to see them disappear. California is so full of housing developments where houses are all modern and we love the fact that Belvedere has nineteenth century homes. Many of these older Victorian homes are built on very small lots. Victorians are built with a small footprint and many stories where the house to lot ratio is reasonable. We do not agree that they should be replaced with new construction of the same square footage which covers more than the allowed house to lot ratio. We would also like to point out that when we moved here in 1986 there was an overgrown public lane between 266 Beach Road and 270 Beach Road. Some time afterwards the former owner of 270 Beach Road, Louis Seiler, incorporated the lane into his landscaping and put up a fence and gate. We were annoyed by this at the time, as we were not notified and would have objected. We think the public footpaths should remain public and without gates in the hopes that the city will be able to repair them all some day. The access to the water for all to enjoy (or escape in an emergency) should be clearly public and not incorporated,jnto private house plans and landscaping. Other homeowners have also tried making public lanes look like their property in our thirty years here, and we think it is a practice that should be disco1.1raged. If 270 Beach road was a remodel, the existing landscaping would rem<:lin. Because this project is a tear down, we think it is a good time for ttte:t city to reclaim its public footpath and have it clearly designated as such for everyone's enjoyment and safety. ~ Yo~ly," 0 /, V /F~. ~~ Jim and Katie Burke

130 Roxanne Richards 266 Beach Road Belvedere, CA JAN f' 9?018 January 9, 2018 Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner City of Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA Re: 270 Beach Road Project - Follow up Comments To the Commissioners and Staff, With the Haynes's project extended from December to Belvedere's January Planning Meeting, I thought it best to provide a few additional comments. We've reviewed and approve the new fence design and we're grateful that our neighbors took the time to evaluate other options for fencing and screening at street level. We appreciate their effort to make that work for the neighborhood. Our other comments, as stated in our previous letters remain the same. We're basically OK with square footage as it is with the existing structure, but we think that the current lot coverage conditions succeed in a way that the requested additional coverage will not. The proposed development style is too massive for the lot. I would also like to apologize in advance that neither Bert nor I can be at the meeting on the 16 1 h. We appreciate the time and effort put into these decisions by owners, staff and Commissioners and we are sorry that we have another commitment. We all want what is best for our community. Thank you,

131 December 5, 2017 Roxanne Richards 266 Beach Road Belvedere, CA Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner City of Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA Re: 270 Beach Road Project To the Commissioners and Staff, My husband, Bert, and I live at 266 Beach Road and are immediate Beach Road neighbors to the north of the applicant property. We have had an opportunity to discuss and review the proposed plans with Jay and Hollie Haynes and their architect, Aleck Wilson. We have also had an opportunity to review the project's 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation and the City of Belvedere's General Plan I believe this application provides a seminal opportunity for the City to define just what is so special and revered about our community of Belvedere. Just how does one formulate a development decision that reflects the spirit of the City's General Plan? The Vision Statement can serve as a guide: "Preserve the special and unique sense of place while allowing changes that would enhance the community". We can be further directed by one of the Plan's guiding principles: "Preserve the identity of Belvedere as a unique community with a valuable inventory of historically, archaeologically, and culturally significant resources". The Place 270 Beach Road is located on Belvedere Island, which is the oldest historical section of Belvedere, and on one of only two Belvedere scenic community corridors. Importantly, the c.1894 house is one of the earliest, and one of the few, occupied "belles" predating the incorporation of Belvedere in Houses above Belvedere Cove were accessed via pedestrian lanes, as was 270 Beach Road which sits next to Lower Woodwardia Lane -- one of the City's lanes. While the original Queen Anne - style cottage has been added to over the years, enough of its elements remain to provide a glimpse of life in one of San Francisco's early summer home subdivisions. The house has a notable presence from both the water and the street. Viewed from the water and Beach Road, 270 Beach is nestled in an area dense with some of the oldest homes in Belvedere. (See attached map.) It could be safely said that, for many, it is this view that defines the special sense of history that is Belvedere. In fact, this is supported by the 2009 Historic Resource Sensitivity Map where the 270 Beach Road parcel is designated to have historic high sensitivity in an area that includes a concentration of structures similarly rated. The house is also one of 49 structures listed in Belvedere's Historic Resources Inventory. So while its merits may not make the house worthy of current Federal or State architectural distinction, I would argue that the character of the house and its parcel plays an important role in our local sense of

132 place and in the historical feel of our neighborhood and that any development decision should consider the impact of incongruent changes on the virtues of our greater community. I would further suggest that Belvedere consider designating a local historical district that would include this Beach Road/Bella Vista/Bay View/Golden Gate pocket, making the current project precisely the sort where the Plan's Preservation, Land Use and Community Design Elements need to be carefully applied. The Environment As noted in the Plan, Belvedere's special character comes from the blending of natural and manmade conditions that include distinctive homes and expansive views in a park-like setting. The Island is characterized by its dense, mature vegetation and narrow, winding streets that offer views of the water and surrounds. The R-15 zone is not as urbanized as the nearby Lagoon or Corinthian Island neighborhoods, and Island lots are harmonious in topography, views and vegetation - although the more-recently developed west side of Belvedere Island hosts a more-modern collection of homes. A walk around the eastern side of Belvedere Island is highlighted by numerous pedestrian lanes and streets featuring local serpentine stone walls, hedge screens, ivy-covered wooden or wrought iron picket fences and a multitude of tree and plant cover. Decorative details that may be of historical significance abound, including stone retaining walls, railings and gates. Almost all fences (with a few exceptions including a concentrated number on Golden Gate Avenue) are designed in a way that provides pedestrians at least a partial view at 4' and above. These features set the Island apart from other residential areas of Belvedere and any design proposals should continue to conform to guidelines that have so successfully preserved the inviting nature of Belvedere Island's streets and lanes. We were not able to resolve our differences with the Haynes's regarding street fence design and placement, and perhaps Planning can reach a better solution. We think a number of good examples of fencing and screening exist in the area and that an effectively-solid 6' wooden fence across the entire stretch of public right-of-way (including the City's lane) is not the answer. We also believe that Belvedere should retain its asset known as Lower Woodwardia Lane and that this proposed demolition project adjacent --and entwined-- with the lane provides the opportune time to remove existing encumbrances. The House The existing house has a number of issues that would prevent it from being built today in Belvedere. For one thing, its parcel size of SF does not meet the zone's minimum standard of SF. For another, the existing structure has a floor area of 6835 SF when the maximum standard is just about half that, or 3445 SF. And, for another, the existing house does not conform to the minimum setbacks and, indeed, encroaches on the public right-of-way known as Lower Woodwardia Lane. But somehow the existing house with its Queen Anne charm works. I suggest that the reason the house has fit into the neighborhood, and has felt as unobtrusive as it has, is because the existing covered structure does not take up too much of the lot. The green space around the existing structure helps. The existing house covers 23.6% of the lot, when the allowable coverage would be 30% for a much-smaller house of 3445 SF. (The overall existing coverage is 26.8%.)

133 The primary issue I have with the proposed development is that it is too massive for the lot. The applicants are proposing to increase lot coverage by almost 50% -- taking the over-sized structure from a lot coverage of 23.6% to a proposed 34.84%. {They propose an overall coverage of almost 40% of the lot.) We do not believe that a new house of 6835 SF should be allowed to increase its footprint on the substandard lot. The applicants also suggest that the community benefits from a less-vertical design. However, the street elevation will continue to have a two-car garage plus gated walkway and upper terrace walls {and 6' fence) so very little "view" will be gained from the street. In actuality, this trade in verticality amounts to a house that steps much further down the hill, creating a sense of bulk that didn't exist before. That theoretical community benefit leads to less privacy for us in our home at 266 Beach Road --with multiple open decks proposed-- and an architectural design that is not harmonious with the neighborhood. We would have preferred, as discussed early in the Haynes's planning phase, that the project preserve the existing "historical" character of the house, including incorporating some of its distinctive architectural features, while staying within the existing building envelope. Conclusion Belvedere's General Plan aptly notes that while our community's historical heritage is one of our most treasured assets, preserving those important elements has its challenges, including 1) recognizing and retaining those buildings and landscapes that add richness, history, distinctive architecture and features to the community and 2) allowing changes to homes and landscapes that improve the existing conditions without losing those recognizable features and spaces. We ask that Staff and Commissioners recognize the importance of this parcel in the historical context of Belvedere Island and consider the long-term consequences that the Commission's precedent-setting actions will have on future projects in this R-15 zone. For the sake of our unique neighborhood, I ask that the City of Belvedere Planning Department work with the Haynes's to come up with a project that is more suitable to this beautiful spot on Belvedere Cove. Thank you,

134 Previously Listed Historic Rc-=-burces City of Belvedere, Marin County, CA General Plan Update - Cultural Resources Legend C::J Belvedere City Boundary 0 Historic Resources /V Parcels Shipwreck Site 1 T Miles -- - This map is a parcel-based map that displays the previously listed historic buildings, structures, sites and objects in the City of Belvedere. These include properties listed on the local list and the Historic Resource Inventory list mainted by the Office of Historic Preservation. CRcsouhcc.QeMce Information available at lhe Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, lhe NWIC of lhe CHRIS as of 1/13/2009, lhe OHP's HRI list (11110/08). Projected Coordinate System: NAO 1983_HARN, StatePlane Cafifornla Ill Projection: Lambert Confonmal Conic Map created by Sal~ Evans, March For further Information contact Archaeological Resource Service, 122 American Alley, Suite A, Petaluma, CA or (707) \

135 Albert Richards 266 Beach Road Belvedere, CA DEC 0 7 Z017 December 7, 2017 Planning Department City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Ave. Belvedere, CA Dear Rebecca, Irene and the Planning Commission: I am writing to express my opinions on the proposed project at 270 Beach Road in Belvedere. My wife, Roxanne, has shared her thoughts in a separate letter. There are certainly many beautiful features of the proposed home, but there also seems to be a little stretching for sunshine, flatness and size/expanse (traditional west-side features) that I feel creates some tension between this east-side lot and the design. FAR and Lot Coverage The FAR of the proposed house is 64.8%, which is nearly twice the allowable figure but equal that of the existing house. We are sympathetic to homeowners wishing to retain existing square footage, hence we are not objecting to the size of the house per se. This said, as FAR increases over the permitted limits it becomes increasingly important as to how that FAR is distributed, and here we have concerns. The existing house "works" in spite of its size is because its structural footprint (lot coverage) is only 23.6%, nicely below the 30% maximum. This creates a good green space balance. The proposed increase is to 34.8%, which we worry is too much for the lot. Statutory limits aside, viewing the proposal from above (sheet Al.1 on the plans) gives the feeling that much of the lot is covered with house, decks or stairs (more like a lagoon lot than other island lots), leaving an unbalanced level of green space relative to other homes in the area. Hence, we would like a little less coverage and a little more green. The 2nc1 Floor Deck Part of the lot coverage issue is a large 2nd floor deck (with swimming pool) that extends out towards the Bay - essentially creating a large flat patio on an otherwise sloped lot. This deck has been pulled back somewhat in response to our concerns (the owners have been very engaging with their neighbors on this project, something everyone very much appreciates), but we feel it could be pulled back further to decrease the bulk and mass of this portion of the project and to increase the "green to non-green" ratio of the footprint. In the current proposal, over just a few horizontal feet the elevation changes from the forward-most patio at 52', to the very narrow first-floor patio at 60', to the second-floor deck at 70.7' - a vertical travel of nearly 20 feet, essentially all of which is above grade. This is a very significant height for a "near-wall" that isn't part of the core house. Note as well that the story poles don't indicate a "normal" roof, but instead indicate the floor of a deck onto which there will be railings, people, planters and patio furniture 1

136 - further increasing the sense of height in this area of the design and also giving this deck a bit of a viewing-platform feel. The height of this deck, combined with the narrow setback and proposed steps in the setback, makes it difficult to add appropriate screening (trees) on the 270 Beach lot. We can certainly add screening trees on our side of the property (some already exist), but in the R-15 zone we feel privacy screening should be a shared responsibility, not one which is imposed on one neighbor because of the design of another. We understand that the City encourages houses that step down the hillside, but we feel these steps should be balanced in terms of size and match the slope of the lot. Here, we worry that the 2nd-floor step is too wide and the 1st_floor step is too narrow, hence visually there is just one big drop. Widening the 1st-floor terrace would make things worse given the steepness of the grade (it would also make the coverage issues worse), so we feel scaling back the 2"d floor deck is the best option. Pulling back this deck would require a bit of rearrangement of the rooms under the deck, but there seems to be enough space to do this. Alternatively, the pool could be moved from the 2nd floor terrace to the 1st floor terrace, which would make the "step sizes" much more uniform and reduce the bulk and mass of the current design. The rooms would still nicely fit, but deck size and location would be more conforming with the slope of the lot while also addressing the bulk and mass issue. We would even be fine with moving these rooms to a partial extra story on top of the proposed house, and given a choice between the request for a lot coverage exception and the alternative of granting a lot height exception, we would certainly advocate the latter as this height exception already exists, and it also works quite harmoniously on this particular site. Fencing - Both Adjacent to the House and Adjacent to the City lane One aspect of the proposal is an "essentially solid", modern fence stretching along the road, not only in front of the lot but also in front to of the adjacent City Lane (see the west elevation on Sheet A3.1). We have two objections here - first to the solid design, and second to any change in the existing fencing in front of the City lane. It should be noted that the owners have kindly offered to work with us on the fencing, but we wanted to make these points with the City now as the Planning meeting is approaching. Solid fencing is appropriate when privacy concerns can't be addressed in other ways, as it creates a tunnel effect for the street. Most other houses in the neighborhood have addressed their privacy concerns with landscaping 1, and there is certainly plenty of room in the proposed street-side planters to do the same thing here. While some of the drawings have "wisps of ivy" showing through the wooden slats, in our view this is not enough to provide a pleasing streetscape, and we would prefer a lower, more open fence with height-limited greenery & hedges providing the desired level of privacy screening. We also strongly object to the proposed plan to continue this solid fence in front of the City Lane, as it creates a continuity problem for the fence extending to the south of our carport (leaving a "stub" fence 3-4 feet in length in front of our property). We believe the current fence should be left "as is" along the City Lane street frontage unless the City wishes to add a lane access point. The gate to the new house 1 Most of our streetscape at 266 Beach Road is open (with greenery providing privacy screening), although we do have a solid fence along the street to the north of our garage. It's not our favorite feature, but it was retained at the request of a very privacy-sensitive neighbor when we did our construction project 15 years ago. 2

137 (in the same place as existing) then provides a nice transition point for whatever fencing I greenery is approved in front of the 270 Beach property. One additional worry about the fencing is that a high fence may be needed to block the street view of the "outdoor kitchen" that is perched at the very top of the house. While we certainly understand the desire for a deck in this potentially-sunny spot, we aren't thrilled with the kitchen idea on this level - although we will yield on this issue if we are the only ones with concerns. The City Lane & Landscaping The proposed fence in front of the City lane also highlights the issue of the lane itself. This lane runs from Beach Road down to a rocky beach and it is the only public access point (although presently undeveloped) to this little cove. Landscaping for the existing house essentially incorporates this City Lane into the overall site plan (see drawing A0.2}, blurring the boundaries between public and private land. I'm not sure what the City's policies are with respect to lane/ lot boundaries, but avoiding features that straddle the property line while allowing entry and exit points along the boundary certainly seems reasonable. In the proposed plans (see Sheets LO.O and LO.OR) the entry gate at the street is in front of the lot, but the entry steps swing into the City lane as they traverse down the hill (as existing). In the past, this arrangement has created arguments between the prior homeowner and the City over whether this gate could be locked, as it essentially serves as dual private/public access (somewhat irrelevant, as the steps don't reach the water}. Since everything else on the lot is to be demolished and re-worked, including the terracing and landscaping by the street, shifting these steps such that they avoid the lane entirely and instead travel directly through the lot would seem to solve this problem. This said, this is "an idea without an opinion", as it is the City's property, not ours, that is affected. Conclusion The proposed design contains many worthy features, but there are a few places where it struggles to fit into the size, shape and slope of the lot. Numerous, often extremely clever, design features have been added to overcome many of the lot deficiencies, but in certain areas this has led to spreading too much of the square footage across the lot, insufficient green space, and an area of excessive bulk and mass. To summarize our main requests, we would like a smaller second-floor deck that is pulled back from the water to reduce bulk, mass and the viewing-platform feel (as well as having the structure conform better to the slope of the lot), a somewhat reduced footprint/ lot coverage in favor of some additional green space (including thoughts on additional screening of the decks from our view), a shift from solid fencing in favor of a more open design and hedges to provide privacy screening by the road, and the leaving of the fence in front of the City lane intact for the time being. I thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. Sincerely, (/) /) (} oj!fb9~ Albert Richards 3

138 Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner DEC From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Aleck Wilson [aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com] Thursday, December 07, :00 PM Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner; Jay Haynes; Hollie Moore Haynes Mark Fordelon FW: 270 Beach Road drawings HYN _HYN_Materia1Sheet.pdf; HYN rendered landscape plan.pdf; gate and fence from downhill.jpg; gate and fence from uphill.jpg Rebecca I wanted to forward this to you It is an exchange between me and The Richards in early October If you read her - below mine with red You will see as of early October that: We were working with her and meeting. She states that "We won't object to the plans as presented to us. Please keep us informed of any proposed future changes, and we hope Aleck's design and the build will hold its own for the next 100 years!" Please read it and call or me with any questions Tha nk you Aleck Aleck Wilson AWA 26 O'Farrell Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA tel : ext. 101 eel : fax: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com From: Aleck Wilson Sent: Wednesday, October 04, :14 PM To: 'Roxanne Richards' <roxrds@gmail.com>; Hollie Moore Haynes <holliemoorehaynes@gmail.com>; Jay Haynes <jhaynes@gmail.com>; Albert (husband) Richards <AlbertRds@gmail.com> Cc: John Merten (john@studiogreen.com) <john@studiogreen.com> Subject: RE: 270 Beach Road drawings HYN Roxanne We will certainly keep you in the loop for any future changes or evolutions as we go through the approval process., see below in bold red please confirm that the fence and green screen on the north side of the city gate is remaining as is, including the chain-link fence that runs on our property. Correct, we are not changing the fence on the side of the city stairs at your property. So all down the hill the fence and vegetation will remain intact. 1

139 We are proposing to alter the street face as you stand on the street and look at the gate. The Proposed project will alter the fence between the gate and your property - the stone wall See attached front elevation, and two snips from google earth - uphill view and downhill view Our thought was the view of the gate would be most appealing with the same fence type material to each side, a vine will be entrained into and along the fence, and the hope is the double sided, open nature of the fence will encourage vines, keep some of it out of deer reach and provide structure. the landscape plan appears to show stone slabs down at the bottom of the house where I believe you said we'd continue to see green. (At that base of Jay and Hollie's offices.) Can you clarify what you're doing with that space? Obviously we were under the impression that you're salvaging some green space. Correct, there are two landing patios stepped down the hillside the first one outside hollies office is really doubling as a landing for the side stair. We have surrounded it with a planter to soften the edges. See attached rendered landscape plan Stairs lead down past Jay's office to grade, then the stair winds away from your house as another landing patio as the stair meanders its way down the hillside. We can include John Merten the landscape architect in any further questions, I have copied him here. Our goal is to have the stairs step down and down the hillside as we have the stair meet the dock. John felt that a steep stair with no 'pause' would be a tiring and unpleasant experience, so the landing is a moment in the landscape to encourage a pause as they descend the hillside. We used the planted area to soften the retaining walls on the way down. We will confirm the planting on the north side of the stair, so that you see more canopy than stair, I think this is well worth confirming The material 'board' is attached, we have nor formally submitted the actual board, and indeed the salt air does present a challenge for materials. Please review and call or with further questions Aleck Aleck Wilson AWA 26 O'Farrell Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA tel : ext. 101 eel : fax: aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com From: Roxanne Richards [mailto:roxrds@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, :24 PM To: Aleck Wilson <aleck@aleckwilsonarchitects.com>; Hollie Moore Haynes <holliemoorehaynes@gmail.com>; Jay Haynes <jhaynes@gmail.com>; Albert (husband) Richards <AlbertRds@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: 270 Beach Road drawings HYN Aleck, Hollie and Jay, 2

140 Of course it was nice to see you on Friday night. We appreciate the time you've taken to keep us in the loop on your project, and truly appreciate the effort you've made to listen to our concerns and work with us on those issues. You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into the plans and, while we'll miss the traditional house currently on the site, we appreciate that the layout isn't ideal for modem family living. We won't object to the plans as presented to us. Please keep us informed of any proposed future changes, and we hope Aleck's design and the build will hold its own for the next 100 years! Our main issues are screening, noise abatement and preserving as much "green top" to the surface of the island as possible. To this end, we do have a couple of questions: please confirm that the fence and green screen on the north side of the city gate is remaining as is, including the chainlink fence that runs on our property. the landscape plan appears to show stone slabs down at the bottom of the house where I believe you said we'd continue to see green. (At that base of Jay and Hollie's offices.) Can you clarify what you're doing with that space? Obviously we were under the impression that you're salvaging some green space. One of the items on the noticing memo is cut sheets/materials. It would have been interesting to see that board and I suppose it's down at the city offices but rest assured we'll be happier with natural brown than lavender. It looks as though you're planning on siding. But as a tip, we had our shingles "dipped" rather than stained for color. The extra shingles that the contractor ordered and added later were stained and they haven't held up nearly as well. I'm sure you and Aleck have considered our proximity to the salt water and elements and hopefully your stained siding will be as durable as available. Once you're off island, we hope you'll continue to keep us updated on progress and activity and that your contractor and subs will be thoughtful of your neighbors. Don't enjoy Gilmartin too much... Oh, and also a favor... the deer seem to have found an entry again by the beach and our mutual boundary. Could you make sure that your deer fencing is as rigorous as possible? I know the slide was an issue for you but we're all dealing with erosion and the deer are really problematic for us. Thanks Roxanne Richards 3

141 Forwarded message From: Aleck Wilson Date: Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11 :08 AM Subject: 270 Beach Road drawings HYN To: Albert Richards Roxanne Richards Cc: Hollie Moore Haynes Jay Haynes Bert and Roxanne Thank you for meeting with us Friday night, we got a chance to show you the updated drawings and model views As we discussed we submitted these drawings to the City of Belvedere on 9/22/ If you have difficulty opening it please let us know and we can try another route. Aleck I have attached a link to the drop box so you can see the full set digitally. This is the same set we went through in paper form on Friday Please review further if you like and call or with any questions I have also attached the standard city of Belvedere neighbor noticing memo, noting the date of the drawings you saw. If you have any comments please let me, Hollie or Jay know, if you like the project or are ambivalent, please complete the form and it to me (Jay and Hollie) or print and drop it off at the city, 270 Beach or we can come get it as you prefer. Thanks Aleck 4

142 ,A.leek Wilson AWA 26 O'Farrell Street, Suite 400 San Francisco. CA tel: ext.101 eel: fax:

143 Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner From: Adam Gavzer Date: December 8, 2017 at 10:28:16 AM PST To: Subject: 270 Bayview- draft To Whom It May Concern: DEC QB 7017 I am writing in regard to the proposed project at 270 Bayview Avenue. As a Block Captain on Belvedere Island, I am acutely aware of our need to provide safe escape routes for our residents. I would like to request and strongly encourage that any approval for this project include full and unimpeded access to the public lane that sits between the subject property and its' neighbor to the west (266 Bayview). In the event of a fire, residents will be encouraged to evacuate down hill, on foot. These public access lanes have the potential to save lives and should be easily accessible. Thank you, Adam Gavzer Adam Gavzer cell BRE:

144 JAN Good afternoon: I understand that design review for 270 Beach Road was pushed back to January 16th. I can not attend the commission meeting in person but I would like to reiterate our opposition to the roof top deck in the proposed design of the new residence at 270 Beach Road. We have been in considerable discussion with Jay & Hollie Haynes and their architect, and they have made some landscaping changes to try to obscure the deck from our view, which is appreciated. Nevertheless, we still feel a deck on the roof of a house is completely out of character with the other houses on the east side of Belvedere island. Noise and privacy for all neighbors on Bella Vista Ave (above 270 Beach) will be an issue. Below is the letter I send in mid-december but I wanted to reiterate our feelings as the project approached design review. Than you so much for you time and consideration. Ned Klingelhofer & Laura Alber 400 Bella Vista Ave

145 December 10, 2017 Planning Department City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA DEC Re: 270 Beach Road project Planning Commission and staff: I live at 400 Bella Vista Ave, directly above 270 Beach Road. I would like to briefly express our concern with one aspect of the proposed design for the new house at 270 Beach. My family and I are concerned about the flat rooftop deck with kitchen and fireplace that will be directly below our house and in our line of view out toward Angel Island and Raccoon Straights. Our feeling is that having an outdoor living space on top of the house is problematic for several reasons. First, are privacy and noise concerns. Sound in this area carries incredibly well and having people on top of the house will change the character, peacefulness and privacy on the surrounding area. The outdoor kitchen aspect seems inappropriate for the top of the house and seems better suited for a deck off the side or back of the house, which would be much less impactful to the neighbors living above the property on Bella Vista Ave. Secondly, I can think of no other spot in Belvedere where a house looks down directly on an outdoor living area. The proposed design would change the feel of the neighborhood to be more "stacked" on top of each other, which works against the privacy and historic feel of this side of Belvedere Island. I would like to acknowledge that the Haynes family and their architect Aleck Wilson have been very responsive to our concerns and they have come up with a landscaping plan to attempt to shield the space to address privacy concerns. But with a flat rooftop deck, there is only so much they can do and the noise is still a major concern for us. Thank you for you consideration. We are confident that the modern design of the house and the square foot to lot size ratio will be appropriately vetted by the planning commission. But we wanted to make sure to express our concern about the deck, which seems inappropriate on top of the house given the area and the neighbors that live directly above the property. Sincerely, Ned Klingelhofer 400 Bella Vista Ave Belvedere, CA 94920

146 From: Deborah Loeb Sent: Thursday, December 07, :57 PM To: Haynes Hollie Moore Subject: Public lane DEC Hi Hollie, As part of the Belvedere Community Foundation my interest is focused on keeping and restoring the beautiful spaces that belong to the Belvedere community. I just learned that part of your new build will incorporate the lower Woodwardia path into your plans. It seems this would be a great opportunity to restore the path as a public access. I would hope your wonderful architect can find a way to accomplish this. At the very least perhaps a sign could be placed and the gate removed. Hope all is going smoothly, Cheers, Deb

147 Haynes Family 270 Beach Road Belvedere, CA January 8, 2018 JAN 0 B 2018 Planning Department City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA Dear Irene, Rebecca, and the Planning Commission, We appreciate the time that you have taken to review the materials that we have provided regarding our project at 270 Beach Road. Thank you. We are writing to express how much we truly love Belvedere and our neighbors, highlight the support of our project that we have received from the vast majority of our neighbors, and address some very recent comments from a small number of neighbors. Some History We have owned 270 Beach Road since the summer of 2010, having acquired it from Lewis Seiler, a long-time owner. We lived in San Francisco at the time, where Hollie had lived since 1995, and Jay since Hollie worked in Menlo Park at the time so we continued to live primarily in San Francisco, spending weekends, summers, and holidays in Belvedere. We got to know our Belvedere neighbors during this time, attending local events and hosting a number of gatherings. By 2014 we were able to move to Belvedere full-time. We have four young daughters. Our three school-aged kids attend Reed School. Our fourth is age 18 months and plans to attend. We plan on living at 270 Beach Road for the rest of our lives and hope that one day one of our daughters will live here in the home. We have many friends on Beach Road pre-dating our move, some of whom we convinced to move there! Jay attended graduate school with Doug Dillard {210 Beach), George Page 1of10

148 Jackoboice (219 Beach), and Bryan Meehan (450 Belvedere). Hollie worked with Doug Dillard 25 years ago right out of college. Jay convinced his cousin, Steven Johnson, to buy 499 Bella Vista. We had joined the Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC) around 2010 and joined the San Francisco Yacht club around Our kids use the playground, we attend the concerts in the park, and we have donated to Reed School. We love Belvedere. The House We weren't sure of our plans when we bought the house. The size of the house, the dock, and the views of the water were priorities for us. We have a boat, which we have kept at the dock or at a slip that we have in San Francisco. We love the water. As you know we are reinforcing our dock, which the neighbors have appreciated. We worked very constructively with the Richards (266 Beach) and the Fairs (276 Beach) on the dock design, making several adjustments to accommodate their feedback. Everyone has affirmed their satisfaction with this project, which we primarily undertook for safety reasons. The house itself has been victim to a series of badly coordinated remodels and additions over many, many years and several owners, resulting in an odd layout, safety issues, and no architectural integrity. Features of the house that might have been fun years ago now cause safety issues and or usability issues. Some of these issues are structural and some result from apparent poor maintenance of the house by the former owner. This is an old wood house on a hill in a damp climate. These houses aren't meant to last forever. The wood is rotting. We found mold when we bought it and there is likely still some. We have had rodents that have caused us to move out of the house at times. We have had leaks, cracked windows, cracked ceilings. The house has many issues. The house systems are very old and had not been well maintained, resulting in significant investments to make electrical systems safe (e.g., grounded) and make the HVAC and water systems functional. We have struggled to fix these systems as they have broken over the years. Page 2of10

149 The lower floor office is not insulated and is only accessible from the exterior of the house. The windows in the house are generally not up to code, resulting in us bolting shut almost every operable window when we bought the house to ensure that kids (and adults) do not fall out of the windows. (Most windows sit very low on the wall; one false move against an unlocked window and a one- or two- story fall is almost certain). The foundation of the house is deteriorating and the house has not been reinforced to withstand earthquakes. The wood siding is significantly damaged by age, water, and weather. Much of it is crumbling. We have investigated thoroughly the history of 270 Beach Road. We engaged an historic preservation consultant who conducted an extensive review of the property and created a long report on this topic before we began to consider any projects to make changes to the property. We have provided this report to you. As you can see in the report, the house has been modified significantly over the years, resulting in the above-described odd layout and limited architectural appeal. We have spoken to a number of people involved with the historical assessments of Belvedere houses. No one raised any objections to this project or suggested that this house has historical properties that should be preserved. The house had no historic designation when we bought it. We also investigated a major remodel as one way to address the above issues. This alternative likely would've been more time consuming and costly than building a new house and would not have addressed well many of the core issues with the layout and safety of the home. It's just not clear what of the house would even be salvageable given how extensive the issues are. We have been working on this project from the beginning with Aleck Wilson, who is a local Belvedere architect. We have worked hard with Aleck to design a house that would fit well into Belvedere. We have also engaged Hadley to be our contractor, very purposefully selecting the "most local" group we could find in order to ensure that we do our best to respect Belvedere Page 3of10

150 broadly and our immediate neighbors specifically as we engage in what we appreciate is a challenging process for everyone. We have spent multiple years thinking about this house, how it would best fit into Belvedere, how to make it livable, what the issues our neighbors might have would be, and how best to execute on the project. We have spent two years crafting and recrafting a set of plans with Aleck Wilson that we have been pleased to share with our neighbors and you. Discussions with Neighbors Along the way we have told our neighbors for years that we plan to do a major project. We have been updating them on our thoughts and beginning early in 2017 we started sharing plans. We received some questions from our immediate neighbors - the Richards and the Fairs - but they were generally supportive of the project so we proceeded with design work as we clarified their questions and edited the plans to address their concerns. The neighbors generally have been very supportive of the project from the start. As you know, we have provided letters and s of support from 10 neighbors to date, including: (1) Jean and Jerry Fair, our immediate neighbors at 276 Beach Road. Our house is currently physically the closest to the Fairs' home of all the neighbors, and is moving closer as part of the project. The Fairs have indicated in writing their support of the project. (2) David Dominick, our immediate "down the hill" neighbor at 280 Beach Road. Our house is moving closer to the Dominick house as part of the project. David Dominick has provided a written ( ed) indication of his support of the project. (3) John Lamar and Faith Wheeler, our "across the street" neighbor 404 Bella Vista. They have provided a letter of support. (4) George and Jenny Jackoboice, a Beach Road neighbor at 219 Beach Road. They have provided a letter of support. (5) Bryan and Tara Meehan, a "near Beach Road" neighbor at 450 Belvedere. They have provided a letter of support. (6) Michele Kyrouz, a Beach Road neighbor at 300 Beach. She has provided a letter of support. Page 4of10

151 (7) Doug and Michele Dillard, a Beach Road neighbor at 210 Beach Road. They have provided a letter of support. (8) Steven Johnson and Alexa Robinson, a "near Beach Road" neighbor at 499 Bella Vista. They have provided a letter of support. Steven is Jay's first cousin. (9) Deborah and Tom Loeb, neighbors at 350 Bella Vista. They have provided an of support. (10) Ned Klingelhofer and Laura Alber, neighbors at 400 Bella Vista. They have provided a letter, noting an objection to something (a roof top kitchen) that we immediately agreed to remove upon learning of their concern. We note that we have also updated Claire McAuliffe, a neighbor at 229 Beach Road, who has recused herself given her role in city affairs. After all of this support and ongoing updating of our neighbors for months and even years, to our huge surprise we received in December critical letters from 3 neighbors: (1) Bert and Roxanne Richards, our immediate neighbors at 266 Beach Road We met Bert and Roxanne Richards soon after we bought the house. We are friends. get along well and have treated each other with kindness and respect. We We have interacted many times over the years, with frequent mentions of our plan for a major project. Bert has said to us on a number of occasions, "we did our project and you're going to do yours." He provided advice to us on the cost of a completely new house build, how to think about the plans, whom to hire, pitfalls to consider. We have been clear with Bert and Roxanne for a while now that our plan is to construct a new house. Never did they suggest that either one of them would oppose this effort by suggesting that the house is historical and should not be replaced. The first we heard of this was December 4th when the city provided us with Roxanne's letter. Indeed, in an that we have provided you from early October, Roxanne provided written feedback supporting the project. To quote that Page 5of10

152 "We appreciate the time you've taken to keep us in the loop on your project, and truly appreciate the effort you've made to listen to our concerns and work with us on those issues. You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into the plans and, while we'll miss the traditional house currently on the site, we appreciate that the layout isn't ideal for modern family living. We won't object to the plans as presented to us. Please keep us informed of any proposed future changes, and we hope Aleck's design and the build will hold its own for the next 100 years!" It seems odd that the Richards would object to the tear down of a house after they did the same to their house in We have reviewed the plans and related landscaping drawings and other schematics with the Richards a number of times, in part to inform them and in part to address questions or concerns that they have had. We have made changes to our plans to reflect their concerns. Bert notes in his letter that we have been engaged with them to address these topics. The nature of the fence at the street They have focused their concerns on the fence between the lane and their carport, about which we were engaged in a productive discussion through the date on which Roxanne submitted her letter asking you to disallow the project. We had noted to them our flexibility here and simply pointed out some aesthetic issues about which we all might care if the fence here is left as is (e.g. ivy covered with deer fencing is pretty unattractive... ). This simply isn't a big deal to us though and we have expected to work this out. The other fence concern has been regarding what replaces the ivy-covered wire fence that stretches across much of our property. We have modified our original proposal and have provided for a lower, more transparent fence with which we believe they are satisfied. The view from their side window into our lower yard I lot "coverage" An issue that Roxanne has mentioned several times is her interest in seeing the small section of grass in our yard from her side window (where window shades are shut the vast majority of the time}. Our plans call for this grass to be substantially covered with a deck structure with office below, however this structure would also be heavily covered by landscaping as well as screened by trees from the Richards' view. Page 6of10

153 After our first meeting with the Richards, we edited our design at their request in order to reduce the depth of the deck so that it did not cover as much of the property. We have also provided landscaping plans and drawings showing the extensive coverage that exists today (which we are maintaining) as well as the significant additional landscaping coverage that we are planning. Bert's suggestion in his letter that we are somehow asking the Richards to provide coverage here or that we haven't been working actively to provide extensive coverage is simply not accurate. We have gone out of our way to address their concerns. Bert writes in his letter: "'We can certainly add screening trees on our side of the property (some already exist}, but in the R-15 zone we feel privacy screening should be a shared responsibility, not one which is imposed on one neighbor because of the design of another." In light of the conditions at the site and our plan, we don't quite understand this. Given the existing screening and the screening that we are adding, we expect the Richards to have a limited view of our property. We have certainly given them every indication that we are working to ensure that and thought we had a productive dialogue. Please note also that the Richards' house is separated from ours by a large side yard on their property. Their house is surrounded by landscaping including grass. While we have worked hard to address their interest in seeing our grass out of their mostly-closed side window, it is not clear to us why their view of our grass is so important to them given the extensive landscaping and grass they own themselves as well as their expansive primary view of the Bay. Indeed, their house is significantly farther from our house than those of Jean and Jerry Fair and David Dominick. We have endeavored to highlight to the Richards that this deck area is a key part of our project and our family life at 270 Beach Road, as it would be to any family there. Ours is a vertical lot. The "yard" that we have is unusable given the slope. We know this because in more than 7 years of having kids here they have almost never been out there. We would like to be able to be there. The water is the reason for our move to Belvedere. This deck connects the house and the water. And really doesn't harm anyone. It is not visible from the road. It is barely visible from the Richards' house. It blends in well to the Page 7of10

154 property. And it provides enormous benefits to our large family. The coverage that we are requesting seems to us to be extremely worthwhile. It would appear that the Richards' have decided to address these relatively minor design issues by now attempting to torpedo the entire project via allegations of our home being historic. We are happy to work with the Richards and the City on these design elements, but the specialized architect recommended by the City has already weighed in: this home is not historic. Attempts to make 11th hour claims to the contrary should not be entertained by the City in light of the clear conclusion reached by an objective expert. {2} Bob and Sheila Golden We do not know Bob and Sheila Golden. We have met them once or twice over the years at the Richards' annual parties. We did track down their address through a neighbor months ago in order to tell them about the project. Multiple times we tried to schedule a date to review plans with them. Our last went unanswered as far as we know. Since we did not hear from them, we reasonably assumed they were not particularly interested in learning about the project. Interestingly, in our first exchange with Sheila in June 2017, she replied and said, to quote her , "Our house is also a Victorian and we are quite sympathetic with modernizing." We therefore had no indication that they would oppose the project. We never heard anything from the Goldens after this exchange until they provided their letter to the city in December. They have never commented on the nature of the house or the lane to us and have never suggested any specific uses of the lane. The Goldens have commented that our lane provides an escape for island residents in the event of a fire. While we appreciate the need for fire safety, this is the first we have ever heard of this logic. The lane is very steep and the stairs do not currently reach the beach on the lane, so obviously the lane does not provide and has never provided fire safety access to the Bay. We strongly encourage City staff and the Planning Commission members to visit the site and observe the manner in which the lane terminates at the water. It is truly impassable. We have only enhanced residents' access to the lane since buying 270 Beach Road, of our own accord. Page 8of10

155 Our unlocked gate has been unlocked since 2010 when we replaced Lewis Seiler's long-time wood, opaque, heavy, locked gate. We did this without anyone asking us to do it- we just wanted to be more neighborly. Many neighbors on Beach Road have come to our house and seen clearly that this gate is unlocked. We do not recall anyone in 7 years requesting that we make any adjustments to the lane, nor ever using the lane. Nor have they commented on the benefit of the now transparent and unlocked gate. No one has seemed to care. Please note that the lane itself does not actually access the water, which is likely why it has gone unused. On paper, the city property goes to the water, but not in a way that is at all accessible. The only path to the water is through our property. The only thing the lane accesses in any reasonable way is our house and property. The gate at the street entrance to the lane also plays a role in keeping deer out of ours and other neighbors' yards. Both the Richards and the Fairs have asked us repeatedly over the years to be sure to shut the gate! I have received a number of friendly s over the years chiding us for leaving it open. We believe we have done our best to be good neighbors when it comes to the gate. We opened it up of our own accord. We have never once heard a concern about a "fire escape route" or a complaint about the gate. The people who are commenting on the lane and its access to the water simply are not well informed about the lane. And again, they have never asked us anything about the lane in an effort to become better informed. Nor have they commented in a positive way about us opening up the lane when we bought the house. (3) James and Katharine Burke We do not know the Burkes. We have not spoken to them. They have not asked to see the plans or to discuss them with us or our architect. We do not believe that they can see our house from their property on Golden Gate, though we are not certain of this. We have specifically designed our house to fit in with the neighborhood. We believe that our materials will fit in better with the landscape than the lavender and white house that exists today. We describe above the investigation that we did into the historical nature of the house and our views on the gate. Page 9of10

156 We do not understand what the Burkes hope to accomplish with their letter. They have shown no concern for these issues previously and have not registered any concern or questions with us. Summary We thank you again for the extensive time that you have spent reviewing this project. We believe that this house fits right into the neighborhood as do the vast majority of our neighbors. We have engaged a local architect and contractor to oversee this project. We are local residents and have found a house to live in nearby while the project is happening. We look forward to talking with you more. All the best, Hollie and Jay Haynes Page 10of10

157 AWA Aleck Wilson Architects, Inc. 26 O'Farre!f Street No. 400 San Francisco CA JAN January 8, 2018 Rebecca Marwick, Planning staff and the Belvedere Planning Commission Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA, Re: 270 Beach Road neighbor feedback To the Commissioners and the staff I have been working with Jay and Hollie Haynes at 270 Beach Road on a new home project for over 2 years. We began working with Staff and the neighbors early on in the process. We have been in regular communication with planning staff throughout the project, and have enjoyed the collaborative process. I met with Irene Borba and Rebecca Marwick in May of 2016 to review the historical report from Page and Turnbull, as well as our plans for the new home. On May 16th Rebecca confirmed that the historic report addressed all relevant aspects, came to a clear conclusion the home was not historic, and that staff had no issues or concerns. In addition Rebecca confirmed that the planning code section (Bl, B3, B4 and BS) can be applied to the FAR for a new home on the site. Jay and Hollie have lived at 270 Beach Road for a number of years and have enjoyed getting to know the neighbors and the neighborhood; we have kept this communication up with the directly adjacent neighbors for over a year, and reached out to the larger community over the last 6 months. Our communication with Jean and Jerry Fair began in January of 2016, and has continued regularly ever since. Our primary conversations have been about privacy and the screening between the properties. Jean wrote a letter of support December 6, 2017 with a few requests that my clients immediately agreed to and have been noted on the drawings. Since then, Hollie and I met with Jen and Jerry to review the story poles. After that meeting, Jay and Hollie have removed the outdoor kitchen, added an additional row of planters to the roof garden on the south (276 Beach) side, and relocated a window in the garage. Our communication with Ned Klingelhofer and Laura Alber at 400 Bella Vista was via in early 2016, followed by a meeting October 6th, Ned and Laura's concerns were primarily about greenery and construction. We confirmed that the Palm and Maple at the street would remain, as well as the Magnolia at the northwest corner of the house. These T F www aleckwilsonarchitects com

158 three trees combined with the greenery on the Richards property and the public lane, which will all remain, provide significant screening of the new house, which will be approximately one story lower than the existing home. The construction parking, hours, and street closure and material drop off were also of concern. Jay and Hollie explained that one of the important factors of choosing Hadley, as the General contractor was the valuable and positive experience they have of working on the island, respecting the City rules for construction and working with the neighbors. Hadley will have a dedicated site superintendent and he will introduce himself and make himself available as the primary contact for site conditions. Since that meeting, I have been in contact with Ned once the story poles went up, and we have worked with them to eliminate the outdoor kitchen and add more screening on the roof garden, with larger species, more planters and more plants. In addition, we have reiterated that those three primary screening trees will remain, and the line of redwoods to the south will remain as well. Our communication with Bert and Roxanne Richards began socially through Jay and Hollie in 2016, with multiple meetings at both their home at 266 Beach and the project site at 270 Beach Road. Each time, we walked them through the drawings and renderings, which they reviewed in detail. Early in the project, Jay and Hollie reduced the lower pool terrace by 7' to address one of Roxanne's stated concerns about greenery. In October of 2017 Roxanne wrote an expressing that she would not object to the project, but stating her general concerns about screening, noise abatement and preserving as much green top as possible. In response to those concerns, we reiterated that there are no changes to the fencing along the lane, the screening along the lane will all remain and we have planted strategically located trees on the lower north side of the property to screen the lower terrace. From the attached photograph, you can see that the two homes are relatively distant and heavily screened from one another. Jay has been in conversation with Bert Richards, and since that both Bert and Roxanne have submitted letters to the city, raising those concerns and others about the lane. Since that time, Jay and Hollie have removed the outdoor kitchen and added more planting on the roof terrace as previously noted in this letter. In addition, Jay and Hollie have changed the Beach road fence to be a 4' open metal fence, over time vines will trail through this fence as they do currently. In addition, the existing fence will remain at the top of the lane as requested by the Richards. Minimal work will occur in the public lane, leaving it intact as it is today, which is a lane that does not lead to the beach but instead culminates at a severe drop off. T F www aleckwi!sonarchitects com Page 2 of 3

159 A letter from the Burke's and the Golden's was also submitted to the city, both of which address the historical question and the lane. The historical report clearly concluded this home is not historic. Their notes about the lane are addressed below. Adam Gavzer, the local Belvedere block captain also addressed a letter to the city about the lane. Jay and I met with Adam on site to review the lane in December. Once Adam saw the actual layout and topography of the lane, he realized that he had misunderstood the possible utility of the lane, as it does not connect to the beach below, is very steep and would present severe challenges to make any future connection to the beach. In addition to this, Adam understood that the changes to the lane are very minor in nature and only address access from the lane to the Haynes' property at 270 Beach. A site visit is absolutely critical for understanding this component of the neighbor comments. The existing unlocked and open gate at the street will remain. Jay and Hollie replaced the taller, opaque and locked gate when they moved in The stair does not currently, and I do believe never did, extend the length of the lane to the beach. However, none of the work proposed by the Haynes precludes this possibility. In response to the concerns expressed about the lane, the Haynes have removed the request to change the fence at the top of the lane at Beach road, and have moved a new tree from the lower portions of the lane to be within the Haynes property. It appears that the suggestions the house is historic are only being made to further arguments about very minor design issues. The concerns about the lane are misplaced when the actual topography of the site, and minor scope of the plans, are both understood. Please review the above and the Haynes and I would both be pleased to meet and review the site, the project and the lane. Thank you, Aleck Wilson Attached: View from 266 Beach, and View from 266 Beach of proposed home CC: Jay Haynes and Hollie Moore Haynes T F www aleckwilsonarchitects com Page 3 of 3

160 VIEW FROM 266 BEACH ROAD - OF EXISTING HOME AND STORY POLES AT 270 BEACH ROAD HAYNES RESIDENCE DATE: 12/ 11 / 2017 AWA Al ec k Wil s on Arch i t e cts, Inc. 26 O'Farrell Street No. '100 Snn Fr:inclsco Cl\

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

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

More information

CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: 4/12/16 AGENDA ITEM: 5

CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: 4/12/16 AGENDA ITEM: 5 CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT DATE: 4/12/16 AGENDA ITEM: 5 MEETING DATE: 4/19/16 TO: FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: City of Belvedere Planning Commission Rebecca Markwick, Associate

More information

Chapter YARDS AND SETBACKS

Chapter YARDS AND SETBACKS Chapter 19.48 YARDS AND SETBACKS Sections: 19.48.010 Yards and setbacks Requirements generally. 19.48.020 Front yards Requirements generally. 19.48.030 Variable front setback lines. 19.48.040 Front yard

More information

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Coast Highway APN

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Coast Highway APN CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: October 13,2011 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE: Variance 7717 Design Review 11-163 Coastal Development

More information

14825 Fruitvale Ave.

14825 Fruitvale Ave. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 Application: PDR14-0017 Location/APN: 14825 Fruitvale Ave. / 397-18-028 Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Sin Yong Michael Fossati 14825 Fruitvale

More information

CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDINANCE NO

CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDINANCE NO CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDINANCE NO. 2012-4 AMENDING SECTION 27.38.090, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, OF CHAPTER 27.38, CBD DISTRICTS-CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SECTION 27.64.023, PARKING PROHIBITED ON LAWNS, FLOWERS,

More information

Roy L. Wickland 15 Belvedere Avenue - Belvedere, CA 94920

Roy L. Wickland 15 Belvedere Avenue - Belvedere, CA 94920 Roy L. Wickland 15 Belvedere Avenue - Belvedere, CA 94920 June 19, Ms. Irene Borba Director of Planning and Building City of Belvedere ~1anning Department 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 JUN.

More information

RESOLUTION NO

RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION NO. 2018- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING A SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR A VACANT LOT ON LOWER LOCK AVENUE (APN: 043-042-750,

More information

Design Review Commission Report

Design Review Commission Report City of Beverly Hills Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966 Design Review Commission Report Meeting Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 Subject:

More information

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G. 1 STAFF REPORT August 4, Staff Contact: Tricia Shortridge (707)

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G. 1 STAFF REPORT August 4, Staff Contact: Tricia Shortridge (707) CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G. 1 STAFF REPORT August 4, 2009 Staff Contact: Tricia Shortridge (707) 449-5140 TITLE: REQUEST: LONGS / CVS DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY & REMODEL TIME EXTENSION

More information

PC RESOLUTION NO

PC RESOLUTION NO PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-01-14-02 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP fttm) 17441. REZONE {RZ) 13-003, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 13-003, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 13-052. GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 13-002. CONDITIONAL

More information

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan for Villa Esperanza (VE), located at 2116

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan for Villa Esperanza (VE), located at 2116 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASADENA APPROVING A MASTER PLAN FOR VILLA ESPERANZA WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan for Villa Esperanza (VE), located at 2116 Villa Street

More information

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner FILE NO.: 160001710 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: A request for a

More information

CITY OF ZEELAND PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF ZEELAND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL LAND USE Date City Official App. Filing Fee Rec'd ($350) NOTE TO APPLICANT: Please submit this application for Site Plan Review along with twenty (20) copies

More information

Construction and Landscaping on Public Property

Construction and Landscaping on Public Property Construction and Landscaping on Public Property City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Department 1400 Highland Avenue 310-802-5504 www.citymb.info January, 2004 Construction and Landscaping on

More information

MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued.

MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued. N MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C- FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER 04-00 Project No. 496 Issued Revised SCALE: " = 0' N 0 0 0 40 RZ. c GENERAL PROVISIONS: a. SITE LOCATION.

More information

R E S O L U T I O N. Single-Family Residence/ Church. 2,488 sq. ft. 2,488 sq. ft. Area Parking Required: Church

R E S O L U T I O N. Single-Family Residence/ Church. 2,488 sq. ft. 2,488 sq. ft. Area Parking Required: Church R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George s County Planning Board is charged with the approval of Detailed Site Plans pursuant to Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Prince George s

More information

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.3 STAFF REPORT August 18, 2015 Staff Contact: Peyman Behvand (707)

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.3 STAFF REPORT August 18, 2015 Staff Contact: Peyman Behvand (707) CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.3 STAFF REPORT August 18, 2015 Staff Contact: Peyman Behvand (707) 449-5140 TITLE: REQUEST: VISTA CROSSINGS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT PLANNED

More information

Chapter RM MULTI FAMILY BUILDING ZONES

Chapter RM MULTI FAMILY BUILDING ZONES Chapter 19.17 RM MULTI FAMILY BUILDING ZONES 19.17.010 Established 19.17.020 Primary Permitted Uses 19.17.030 Accessory Permitted Uses 19.17.040 Secondary Permitted Uses 19.17.050 Conditional Property

More information

ARTICLE 9: LANDSCAPING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS

ARTICLE 9: LANDSCAPING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE 9: LANDSCAPING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS Section 9.01 Intent The intent of the landscaping requirements are to improve the appearance of lot areas and soften paved areas and buildings; to provide

More information

ATTACHMENT 2. Planning Commission Resolution with Clean Copy of Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 2. Planning Commission Resolution with Clean Copy of Ordinance ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Resolution with Clean Copy of Ordinance RESOLUTION NO. 1728 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT

More information

P.C. RESOLUTION NO

P.C. RESOLUTION NO P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 08-423 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALABASAS TO ADOPT A SIGN PROGRAM (PL0800543) AND APPROVE A VARIANCE (PL0800544) FOR INTERNAL ILLUMINATION OF THE MERCEDES-BENZ

More information

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. TO: Parking and Public Improvements Commission

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. TO: Parking and Public Improvements Commission Clay Curtin, Management Analyst (I the same walls at a maximum of 1 foot tall. Section 7.36.150 of the Municipal Code permits BY: Eric Haaland, Associate Planner right-of-way) between walkways leading

More information

Chapter PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL (PC) ZONING DISTRICT

Chapter PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL (PC) ZONING DISTRICT Chapter 11-17 PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL (PC) ZONING DISTRICT Sections: 11-17-01 GENERAL PURPOSE 11-17-02 PERMITTED BUILDING TYPES 11-17-03 USES PERMITTED WITH DESIGN REVIEW 11-17-04 USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL

More information

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN & UNIT PLAN)

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN & UNIT PLAN) Central Permit Center 555 Santa Clara Street Vallejo CA 94590 Business License Building Fire Prevention Planning Public Works 707.648.4310 707.648.4374 707.648.4565 707.648.4326 707.651.7151 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

More information

Project phasing plan (if applicable) 12 copies of site plan

Project phasing plan (if applicable) 12 copies of site plan SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION City of Grand Haven, 11 N. Sixth Street, Grand Haven, MI 49417 Phone: (616) 847-3490 Fax: (616) 844-2051 Website: www.grandhaven.org 1. Project Information Address/location

More information

WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing on January 27, 2011, the Prince George's County Planning Board finds:

WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing on January 27, 2011, the Prince George's County Planning Board finds: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George s County Planning Board has reviewed DDS-602, Kinder Explorers Children Learning Center, requesting a waiver of a landscape strip (26 feet long by 10 feet

More information

PRESENTED: April 15, 2008 FILE: DP No. 273/ Development Permit No Government Road Townhomes

PRESENTED: April 15, 2008 FILE: DP No. 273/ Development Permit No Government Road Townhomes DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH REPORT TO: Council FOR: Regular PRESENTED: April 15, 2008 FILE: DP No. 273/2007-26 FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Department Development Permit No. 273 40126 Government Road Townhomes Recommendation

More information

CITY OF PLACERVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

CITY OF PLACERVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PLACERVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.1 APPLICATION Special Temporary Use Permit (TUP) 17-04 PUBLIC HEARING DATE December 19, 2017 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Applicant seeks approval from

More information

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2012 TO: Chair Woollett and Members of the Design Review Committee THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan,

More information

City of Fort Lupton Administrative Site Plan Process

City of Fort Lupton Administrative Site Plan Process City of Fort Lupton Administrative Site Plan Process Purpose The Site Plan process is meant to promote orderly and sound development standards as they apply to the City. These site development standards

More information

Design Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees*

Design Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees* CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane, Eagle, ID 83616 Phone#: (208) 939-0227 Fax: (208) 938-3854 Design Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees* FILE NO.: CROSS

More information

STAFF REPORT FOR STANDARD COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #CDP FEBRUARY 26, 2015 CPA - 1 PO BOX 238 APTOS, CA 94001

STAFF REPORT FOR STANDARD COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #CDP FEBRUARY 26, 2015 CPA - 1 PO BOX 238 APTOS, CA 94001 STAFF REPORT FOR STANDARD COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #CDP 2014-0030 FEBRUARY 26, 2015 CPA - 1 OWNER/APPLICANT: AGENT: REQUEST: HANS HEIM PO BOX 238 APTOS, CA 94001 JAMES HAY PO BOX 762 MENDOCINO, CA 95460

More information

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2015 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair McCormick and Members of the Design Review Committee Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Kelly Christensen

More information

Bylaw A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 12800, as amended, The Edmonton Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 2239

Bylaw A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 12800, as amended, The Edmonton Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 2239 Bylaw 17672 A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 12800, as amended, The Edmonton Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 2239 WHEREAS City Council at its meeting of February 22, 2001, gave third reading to Bylaw 12800, as amended;

More information

RECOMMENDATION REPORT

RECOMMENDATION REPORT DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING RECOMMENDATION REPORT City Planning Commission Case No.: CPC-2012-1165-GPA-ZC Date: August 9, 2012 Time: After 8:30 AM Place: City Hall, Room 350 Public Hearing: Required CEQA

More information

ARTICLE V PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

ARTICLE V PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ARTICLE V PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A. Purpose and Objective The Planned Unit Development (PUD) procedure provides a flexible land use and design regulation through the use of performance criteria

More information

PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN. APPLICANT: Cedar Grove Hospitality, LLC HEARING DATE: December 18, 2014

PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN. APPLICANT: Cedar Grove Hospitality, LLC HEARING DATE: December 18, 2014 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: December 8, 2014 CASE: 19-PA-11-11-14 APPLICANT: Cedar Grove Hospitality, LLC HEARING DATE: PROPERTY OWNER: The Flats at Cedar APPLICATION DATE: Nov. 21, 2014

More information

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2012 TO: Chair Woollett and Members of the Design Review Committee THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan,

More information

DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016

DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: THE PLANNING COMMISSION LISA COSTA SANDERS, TOWN PLANNER REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL STRUCTURES PERMIT FOR A POOL IN THE SIDE YARD AND

More information

WHEREAS, a number of these buildings are potentially historic structures;

WHEREAS, a number of these buildings are potentially historic structures; ORDINANCE NO. 10-03 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MAYWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 45 TO TITLE 5 AND ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTARY HISTORIC

More information

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 16-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING

More information

Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan

Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan Implementation 114 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 OVERVIEW This chapter summarizes the administrative procedures necessary to implement the proposed land use plan, infrastructure improvements, development standards,

More information

TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 23,2009

TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 23,2009 Report TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 23,2009 FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PASADENA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AT 1515 NORTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE

More information

OCEAN BOULEVARD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-5)

OCEAN BOULEVARD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-5) OCEAN BOULEVARD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-5) Ordinance History: C-5562, 1982 The intent of the Planned Development Plan is to provide a framework to guide new development in a way that is sensitive

More information

Article 7.05 Manufactured Home Park Districts

Article 7.05 Manufactured Home Park Districts Article Manufactured Home Park Districts.01 Intent The purpose of the MHP Manufactured Home Park District is to give recognition to the fact that manufactured homes can provide satisfactory living conditions

More information

THE CITY OF VAUGHAN BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER

THE CITY OF VAUGHAN BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER THE CITY OF VAUGHAN BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER 123-2013 A By-law to designate the whole of the City of Vaughan as a Site Plan Control Area, and to adopt site development guidelines and rules of procedure for

More information

CHAPTER ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE NC, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE

CHAPTER ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE NC, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE CITY OF MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.31 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE NC, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE Sections: 18.31.010 Purpose 18.31.020 Minimum Lot Area 18.31.030 Setbacks 18.31.040 Maximum

More information

ARTICLE VI: SITE PLAN REVIEW

ARTICLE VI: SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 6.01 - Site Plan Review (All Districts) ARTICLE VI: SITE PLAN REVIEW Site plans give the Planning commission an opportunity to review development proposals in a concise and consistent manner. The

More information

Infill Residential Design Guidelines

Infill Residential Design Guidelines Infill Residential Design Guidelines Adopted March 23, 2004 Amended September 10, 2013 City of Orange Community Development Department Planning Division Phone: (714) 744-7220 Fax: (714) 744-7222 www.cityoforange.org

More information

RESOLUTION NO: WHEREAS, the subject property has a Public, Semi-Public (PS) zoning designation and a General Plan designation of Institutional; and

RESOLUTION NO: WHEREAS, the subject property has a Public, Semi-Public (PS) zoning designation and a General Plan designation of Institutional; and RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASADENA APPROVING A 14-YEAR, EIGHT-PHASE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LOCATED AT 100 WEST CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD

More information

280 Manse Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report

280 Manse Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 280 Manse Road - Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications - Preliminary Report Date: March 11, 2014 To: From: Wards: Reference Number:

More information

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of April 23, 2019 DATE: April 12, 2019 SUBJECT: SP #413 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT to permit a fixed bar in a private outdoor café space with associated

More information

C-I-10. The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: B. Reduce the cluttered aspects of current development by:

C-I-10. The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: B. Reduce the cluttered aspects of current development by: C-I-10 PART C SECTION I ARTICLE 10 GENERAL REGULATIONS PROJECT SITE REVIEW I. Purpose The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: A. Protect streetscapes from projects that

More information

Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY (518) Fax: (518)

Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY (518) Fax: (518) William Smith - Chairman Dave Bowman Kyle Kordich Roger Laime Jean Loewenstein John Viola David Wallingford Joseph Lopez (Alt) Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY 12020 (518) 899-2685 Fax:

More information

GENERAL INFORMATIONaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

GENERAL INFORMATIONaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: City Staff Date: November 15, 2016 Re: Case #16026 Raymore Activity Center Site Plan GENERAL INFORMATIONaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Applicant/ Property Owner:

More information

SUBJECT: PREDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF PROJECT LOCATED AT 2632 EAST WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ('ST. LUKE MEDICAL CENTER')

SUBJECT: PREDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF PROJECT LOCATED AT 2632 EAST WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ('ST. LUKE MEDICAL CENTER') TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning & Community Development Department SUBJECT: PREDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF PROJECT LOCATED AT 2632 EAST WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ('ST. LUKE MEDICAL CENTER')

More information

Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner

Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 13, 2017 Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner REQUEST The applicant requests a Design Review Permit Modification

More information

COUNTY OF EL DORADO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIAL USE PERMIT

COUNTY OF EL DORADO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SPECIAL USE PERMIT COUNTY OF EL DORADO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda of: November 14, 2013 Item No.: 8.c Staff: Aaron Mount SPECIAL USE PERMIT FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Sandra

More information

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George's County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530 Note: Staff reports can be accessed at www.mncppc.org/pgco/planning/plan.htm.

More information

CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS

CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California 90630 (714) 229-6720 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS 1. Discuss project with Planning staff to determine zoning regulations, any unusual characteristics

More information

5.1.1 The streetscape along US Highway 64 (Brevard Road); and, The built environment within new residential developments; and,

5.1.1 The streetscape along US Highway 64 (Brevard Road); and, The built environment within new residential developments; and, Article 5. Landscaping 5.1 Purpose The Town of Laurel Park s landscape standards are designed to create a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing built environment that will complement and enhance community

More information

Staff Report. Conditional Use PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Salt Lake City Planning Commission

Staff Report. Conditional Use PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Salt Lake City Planning Commission Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To: From: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner (801) 535-7660 Date: December 10, 2014 Re: Church of Scientology

More information

SECTION 39. Title V, Chapter 6, Article 2, added to the Zoning Code of Sacramento County shall read as follows: GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA

SECTION 39. Title V, Chapter 6, Article 2, added to the Zoning Code of Sacramento County shall read as follows: GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA SECTION 39. Title V, Chapter 6, Article 2, added to the Zoning Code of Sacramento County shall read as follows: GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA 506-20. INTENT. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors

More information

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 1241 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY APPROVING A SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT (Z-S-721) TO ALLOW THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

More information

KASPER. City of Georgetown, Texas PUD Planned Unit Development. December 30, 2015 Revised January 27, 2016

KASPER. City of Georgetown, Texas PUD Planned Unit Development. December 30, 2015 Revised January 27, 2016 KASPER City of Georgetown, Texas PUD Planned Unit Development December 30, 2015 Revised January 27, 2016 Applicant: Sentinel Land Company, LLC 4910 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA Prepared by: SEC Planning

More information

Request for Decision. Recommendation. Presented: Monday, Jul 07, Report Date Friday, Jun 20, Type: Public Hearings

Request for Decision. Recommendation. Presented: Monday, Jul 07, Report Date Friday, Jun 20, Type: Public Hearings Presented To: Planning Committee Request for Decision Application for rezoning in order to permit a place of worship on a vacant lot zoned for C1, Local Commercial uses, Cam Street, Sudbury Sitiri Investments

More information

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Planner Kristine Gay

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Planner Kristine Gay Applicant/Owner Ocean Rental Properties, LLC Public Hearing April 13, 2016 City Council Election District Beach Agenda Item 1 Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront

More information

Planning Commission Staff Report February 5, 2015

Planning Commission Staff Report February 5, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report Project: 99 Cents Only Store File: EG-14-018 Request: General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Design Review Location: 8945 Brown Road; northeast corner of Elk Grove-Florin

More information

Planning Commission Staff Report February 19, 2009

Planning Commission Staff Report February 19, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report February 19, 2009 Project: Warda Warehouse File: EG-08-051 Request: Design Review Location: 9260 Bendel Place APNs: 134-0660-004 Planner: Gerald Park Property Owner/Applicant

More information

MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES

MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES In addition to the development regulations contained in the Mixed-Use Zoning District, design guidelines are presented here to provide an added level of definition

More information

CHESAPEAKE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE

CHESAPEAKE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE CHESAPEAKE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE CONSERVATION PRESERVATION CZO 19-600 Effective October 16, 2008 BUFFER YARD C PARKING LOT REFORESTATION YEAR 1 REFORESTATION YEAR 4 BUFFER YARD F CBPA REFORESTATION Page

More information

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA DESIGN REVIEW REPORT : CPZ-3-1 : (S) Cynthia Lee-Sheng AT LARGE: A Chris Roberts B Elton M. Lagasse ADVERTISING DATES: 06/03/1 06/10/1 06/17/1 PAB PUBLIC

More information

Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, :30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL

Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, :30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2015 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 15-016; Final Planned Unit Development Arden Plaza;

More information

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE NO. 2016 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA AMENDING THE SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 11-08 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed

More information

SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS. An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation

SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS. An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS ILLUSTRATED WORKING FOR TEST IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW SMALL LOT CODE AMENDMENT & POLICY UPDATE

More information

At Your Disposal CUP Amendment, Lot 20, Village Service Commercial, at 128 Bastille Dr. (PLN17-208)

At Your Disposal CUP Amendment, Lot 20, Village Service Commercial, at 128 Bastille Dr. (PLN17-208) MEMORANDUM Archuleta County Development Services Planning Department 1122 HWY 84 P. O. Box 1507 Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147 970-264-1390 Fax 970-264-3338 TO: Archuleta County Planning Commission FROM:

More information

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Conduct Public Hearing to vacate certain public right of way adjacent to Sycamore Avenue and San Pablo Avenue

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Conduct Public Hearing to vacate certain public right of way adjacent to Sycamore Avenue and San Pablo Avenue STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: Adjourned Regular Meeting of December 16, 2014 TO: SUBMITTED BY: SUBJECT: Mayor and Members of the City Council Holly Smyth, Planning Director Conduct Public Hearing

More information

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED CRUMMER SITE SUBDIVISION FINAL EIR AND MAKING

More information

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Park Strip Raised Planter Boxes Minor Alteration PLNHLC2014-00603 163 D Street Meeting Date: November 6, 2014 Planning Division Department of Community and Economic

More information

8 & 10 Donalda Crescent Official Plan & Rezoning Application Final Report

8 & 10 Donalda Crescent Official Plan & Rezoning Application Final Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 8 & 10 Donalda Crescent Official Plan & Rezoning Application Final Report Date: July 26, 2010 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Scarborough Community Council Director, Community

More information

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action October 26, 2016 ITEM 10 Provo City Parks and Recreation Department requests a variance to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to grade within a hillside of 30%

More information

FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE Placer Hills Fire Protection District NEW PROJECT GUIDELINES

FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE Placer Hills Fire Protection District NEW PROJECT GUIDELINES Established 1949 FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE Placer Hills Fire Protection District NEW PROJECT GUIDELINES The following are guidelines for new development. Any submitted plans must comply with these guidelines,

More information

ARTICLE 17 SITE PLAN REVIEW

ARTICLE 17 SITE PLAN REVIEW ARTICLE 17 SITE PLAN REVIEW 17.01 INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent of this section is to provide for consultation and cooperation between the applicant and the township planning commission so that the applicant

More information

Chapter LANDSCAPE FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Chapter LANDSCAPE FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS Chapter 27.71 LANDSCAPE FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS 27.71.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to enhance the quality of life in San Mateo by the provision for appropriate design of landscaping and

More information

B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development

B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development Adopted June 18, 2009 This section of the Design and focuses on site planning and design guidance for new multi-family

More information

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.1 STAFF REPORT November 15, Staff Contact: Christina Corsello (707)

CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.1 STAFF REPORT November 15, Staff Contact: Christina Corsello (707) CITY OF VACAVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. G.1 STAFF REPORT November 15, 2011 Staff Contact: Christina Corsello (707) 449-5140 TITLE: VERIZON WIRELESS AT PEABODY ROAD REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE

More information

Planning Commission Report

Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Report To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting: September 16, 2015 Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager Agenda Item: 8-C Appeal 15ENT-0080 of

More information

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM NO. Consent (10) November 14, 2016 TO: FROM: City Council Department of Environmental Services SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO RATIFY VENTURA COUNTY FIRE

More information

Planned Development Review Revisions (Project No. PLNPCM )

Planned Development Review Revisions (Project No. PLNPCM ) Planned Development Review Revisions (Project No. PLNPCM2014-00139) Standard residential development Planned Development Example: Smaller lot sizes than what is allowed to create open space amenity. What

More information

Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator

Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator Agenda Item 3 Date Application Received: 10/21/15 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/30/15 120-Day Review Period Expires: 02/27/16 To: From: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members Jessica

More information

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Michael Klein, Planner FILE NO.: 150000780 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: A request for a Site Plan

More information

Duplex Design Guidelines

Duplex Design Guidelines Duplex Design Guidelines Adopted by Council May 29, 2006 Prepared By: Table of Contents 1.0 Application and Intent 1 2.0 Areas of Application 2 3.0 Design Principles 3 4.0 Design Guidelines 4 4.1 Site

More information

CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 Item 6, Report No. 31, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted without amendment by the Council of the City of Vaughan on September 26, 2017. 6 SITE DEVELOPMENT FILE DA.17.027 2523360 ONTARIO

More information

Architectural Review Board Report

Architectural Review Board Report Architectural Review Board Report Architectural Review Board Meeting: February 3, 2014 Agenda Item: 7.9 To: From: Subject: Architectural Review Board Steve Traeger, Principal Urban Designer Scott Albright,

More information

City of Fort Lupton Site Plan Process

City of Fort Lupton Site Plan Process Form WKBK001 City of Fort Lupton Site Plan Process Purpose The Site Plan process is meant to promote orderly and sound development standards as they apply to the City. These site development standards

More information

The purpose of the requirements in this Article is to provide for landscaping and screening of parking and other outdoor areas that will:

The purpose of the requirements in this Article is to provide for landscaping and screening of parking and other outdoor areas that will: XIII. LANDSCAPING & SCREENING A. Purpose The purpose of the requirements in this Article is to provide for landscaping and screening of parking and other outdoor areas that will: 1. Protect residential

More information

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission Michael Klein, Associate Planner FILE NO.: 120000890 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: Request for an Administrative

More information

CITY OF GILROY CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPING POLICY

CITY OF GILROY CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPING POLICY CITY OF GILROY CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPING POLICY Adopted by the City Council January 19, 1988 And amended September 17, 1990, October 18, 1999 THE PURPOSE OF THIS LANDSCAPING POLICY IS TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE

More information

Landscape and fencing requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all new landscaped areas.

Landscape and fencing requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all new landscaped areas. Chapter 19.06. Landscaping and Fencing. Sections: 19.06.01. Purpose. 19.06.02. Required Landscaping Improvements. 19.06.03. General Provisions. 19.06.04. Landscaping Plan. 19.06.05. Completion of Landscape

More information