Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Microphone on. This special meeting is called to order. Item one on the agenda is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak during the open forum? Sure. We now have a full planning commission. Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom with their hand raised?

I see no one on Zoom with their hand raised.

Thank you. I'm proceeding to reports. Are there any commissioners who would like to provide a report?

Yes, I have a report. I actually had been intending to speak in the open forum, but since I'm sitting up here now, I'm giving a report. I wanted to talk about, to bring something to all of your attention, and that's the removal of trees in Belvedere. And you received several photographs in the packet. Some of these trees have been removed with approval and some have not. And there are a lot of different reasons for the trees being removed. But sometimes it just makes a 24-inch difference in decisions that you make that may impact whether a tree is removed or not. And the disappearance of trees deprives of all of their beneficial properties, shade, cools us, gives us oxygen, absorbs carbon, and redwood trees actually absorb much more carbon than a regular tree. Prevents soil erosion, and also that's because they absorb so much water and they give wildlife habitat. So it's just as important to replace a tree that has been taken out And so that's very important. If you are approving trees to take out, please replace them. And I just want you to give attention to this. It's very, it's, this is what in the photographs, that's what Belvedere will look like if this keeps on. Thank you.

I don't have, there's someone with their hand raised on Zoom, but I've been asked if you guys could bring your mics closer and really make sure they're on and speak into them. Thank you.

So there is someone with their hand raised for report.

uh maybe they have a public comment on the report i'm not sure i'm gonna promote this person susan mcintosh you should be able to um speak you are muted so you'll have to unmute yourself

Thank you very much. Thank you for everyone being here today. I wanted to address what the gentlewoman had just said about the trees, and I completely concur. I think that there's an over... I'm a resident of Tiburon. I've been so my entire life, except for stints and living in other cities. And it... I believe there's an overregulation in terms of fire safety that is to the detriment of the actual environment, both for health reasons and aesthetic reasons. I'd like to concur on what she had proposed, which leads me to my question of why are we using an environmental deregulation attempt with the new property? Why is that something that is moving forward in terms of the discussion? Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the consent calendar items. The consent calendar consists of items considered to be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council staff or public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence that they appear on the agenda. Would any member of the planning commission like to remove the consent calendar item?

Yes, I would like to remove item number two.

The Wells Fargo sign.

and speed to clarification. Shall I go ahead or?

Yeah, I'm supposed to ask you your reason for removing it. If you could explain it to us.

Excuse me, Chair. Before we enter into a discussion, I do have to publicly announce that I'm recusing myself from consent item number two. My wife is a Wells Fargo employee, so I will step out of the room for this discussion. Thank you. Thank you.

So the reason is that there are two items that is not quite clear. One is that, should I explain? So one is that the ATM, the larger ATM is being replaced by a smaller ATM. And on the images that is provided, it is showing that as if a panel is being replaced instead of matching the siding that exists. On the other side, ATM machine, it is showing that the gap is filled by the siding. So that is one. And then the other one is that the hanging sign, It is note that the whatever you are hanging the signs with is going to be painted with the color of the building. However, color of the building are two colors. There is one off white and there is one, let's say, off black. So with which color they are going to paint it. So these two clarification I'd like to do.

And so thank you. I think and Rebecca, you can. correct me if I'm wrong, then does that mean it comes off out of the consent calendar today and it comes back at another time?

Well, you can open the public hearing and if there's anybody here from the sign company, they could answer those questions for you. And if you're comfortable with their answers, you could move the project along or you could ask for them or have it continued.

Okay. All right. So do we do that right now while we're talking about it, or do we go on with the consent calendar and then go on to it?

You can make a motion on the consent calendar, except item number two, I believe it is, and then open a public hearing for the sign. Okay.

Do you have a comment, Jennifer? Okay. All right. So can I get a motion then on the consent calendar minus item two?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar, which is just the minutes of the prior meeting to approve the minutes. Second.

Please vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. I'm going to abstain since I wasn't here.

Okay. So we have, um, three votes and I think that passes muster. Right. Okay. Uh, so we will now, um, proceed to item two on the consent calendar. Is there anybody present either on zoom or here at city hall? Um, that is knowledgeable on the Wells Fargo signage program.

What's her name? Unfortunately, the person who was going to be on Zoom is not on Zoom right now.

Rebecca, I would say we could even if, I mean, all commissioners agree and if it is doable to approve it with condition that the siding to be replaced in kind by siding, and then the missing paint to match the overhang. If that's acceptable and if everybody likes it that way, we can condition it and approve it that way. That works.

Okay. Good idea. So do we need to discuss this further among the commissioners or?

No, I mean, my thought is that the signage is actually smaller than what's there now, especially with respect to the big hanging sign. And so I think that's fine, but I agree that we should have better clarity as to what the colors are actually going to be and the fact that the siding is going to look consistent with what's presently there.

So then in that case, I think since you've brought this up, maybe you could make a motion and if we get a second, we can attach those conditions.

Excuse me, Chair Seidel, if you could just open the public hearing on this item.

Good point. Thank you. Okay. I'd now like to open the public hearing on the Wells Fargo signage change. And do we need to go through, I've already asked if there's members of the public, should I go through the whole public hearing routine?

I don't think anyone in the audience is here to speak on Wells Fargo.

Okay. With that, I think we can construct a motion as lay.

Okay, I would make a motion to approve item number two with the condition that the restoration at the ATM machines to be matching the adjacent siding and the hanging sign to the color of the hanging sign to match the awning.

I second that motion. Please vote.

Approved.

Aye. Aye.

Passes.

Thank you.

OK. We have already opened the public hearing We're going to move on to item three of the agenda. If any commissioners had ex parte contacts, please disclose those contacts on the record when it's your turn to speak on any item. Item three is review and potential amendment of planning commission resolution 2024-12 for Mallard Point project. Can we have the staff report, please?

Yes, good evening Chair Seidel and commissioners. The item before you tonight includes amendments to conditions of approval for the Mallard Point project. On January 22nd, 2024, the City Council approved CEQA appeal resolution, determining that the project was exempt from CEQA. On March 19th, 2024, the Planning Commission approved the demolition and design review resolutions for the demolition of 22 units and construction of 40 units located at 1 to 22 Mallard Road. On May 13th, 2024, the city council approved the tentative map and revocable license for the project. On December 11th, 2024, the applicant submitted a building permit for the demolition of those existing 22 units and installation of infrastructure and a separate building permit for the bulkhead replacement along the lagoon facing lots. On January 22nd, 2025, the city issued an incompleteness letter that included comments from building, planning, public works, and the Tiburon Fire Protection District. On September 22nd, 2025, the applicant resubmitted plans and documents in response to the incompleteness letter. The same departments reviewed the second submittal and sent a second incompleteness letter on October 28th of that same year. Over the course of the building permit submittals, Planning, Building, Public Works, Sanitary District 5, Tiburon Fire Protection District have continued to meet with the applicant to review the project. The project is considered a large project for the City of Belvedere, and there have been many meetings with the applicants in each department to review the submitted plans. Tonight, the applicant is requesting two time extension modifications, one for the entitlements of the project and the second for the demolition. The complexity and size of the project understandably requires additional approvals and time on part of the applicant. Likewise, staff recognizes that extending the approvals for the triplexes and duplexes provides the applicant with additional flexibility. Staff is prioritizing the construction of the affordable units included in the apartment building and thus does not oppose additional time for the triplexes and duplexes. Additionally, given the size and complexity of the project, extending the time from 45 to 75 days for demolition seems to be a more reasonable timeframe. The third amendment tonight addresses the timing of certificate of occupancies. Condition of approval number 22 of the design review resolution currently reads, the affordable housing agreement shall require construction of the apartment building containing the four replacement housing units prior to the issuance of building permits for any other dwelling unit in the project. And the apartment building shall receive a certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable for any other dwelling unit in the project. The applicant would like to change the language to read, the affordable housing agreement shall require construction of four replacement housing units in the first phase of development to be made available and rented to low and very low income households for a term of 55 years. The applicant stated reasons for this modification is to ensure consistency with the tentative map and demolition resolutions. The applicant also states the existing language and condition of approval 22 may lengthen the construction period as prospective home buyers and or lenders will not want to initiate construction until this condition is met. Staff acknowledges that there are inconsistencies in the approval resolutions. The tentative map and demolition are consistent and the design review is different. However, staff notes that the existing language of Condition of Approval 22 provides stronger guarantees that the apartment building, including the affordable units, will be built earlier rather than later. Staff would continue to prioritize the sequencing, even if the construction period may be longer in total. The applicant has communicated to staff that the first phase of construction will include slot ones, two, three, and four. Lot two would include a triplex and duplex. Lot three and four would each include one single family home. Should the planning commission support amending the certificate of occupancy language, staff has suggested language that includes prioritizing the apartment building. And should the applicant be ready for a certificate of occupancy before the apartment building is constructed, they would need to return to the planning commission for review of the status of the apartment building. Staff has received numerous emails regarding the proposed project. Neighbor emails are generally not supportive of the condition of approval amendments. Neighbors are concerned about the environmental impacts of the elongated construction and the affordable units not being completed. Staff has received one email in support of the condition of approval amendments. The project was found to be exempt from CEQA under Class 32 categorical exemption in January of 2024. These amendments to the conditions do not alter the finding for the Class 32 exemption. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments to the conditions of approval, hold a public hearing, and adopt the design review resolution that reflects the proposed amendments for number one and three, and consider options for request number two. And I am available for questions should you have any.

Are there any questions from the commission of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Hello. Up here.

Make sure it's mics. Is your mic on Jay?

Is it green? Can you hear me?

You.

Excuse me, sorry about this. Yeah.

Here in the notes version.

Sorry for the technical difficulties. Hi, my name is Jay Lucchetti. I'm here with Thompson Dorfman Partners representing the Mallard Point project. Oh, there we go.

Okay, got to get really close.

That's better, okay. So wanted to provide an overview of where we're at here. As staff stated, Mallard Point is a 40 unit residential project approved in 2024. It includes four onsite replacement affordable units. Since approval, we've been working through agency approval, federal, state, and local. We've actually received some, agency approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and then continue to coordinate with both the city and the BLPOA as it relates to the bulkhead and improvement plans. Tonight, we're not proposing a redesign or new entitlements. We're here to ask for a small number of clarifications to existing conditions so the project can be constructed as approved and without unnecessary extensions to the overall construction timeline. I want to briefly orient the commission on how the project is organized. Phase one highlighted in yellow or orange, is phase one, which consists of lots one through four. Phase two in green is lots five through eight. And phase three in purple is lots nine through 12. The dots represent the different product types within the development plan. The yellow dot for the apartment building, the blue dot representing townhomes, and the red single family. The apartment building containing the affordable units or replacement units is located on lot one and therefore is a part of phase one. The purpose of tonight's request is straightforward. We're asking to align the approved conditions with the three realities, legislative tenant notice requirements, how construction actually sequences in practice, and then the lot-based phasing reflected in the tentative map approval. At the same time, we want to preserve the city's core objectives, especially delivery of the replacement units in phase one and set clear and enforceable conditions tied to that phase one delivery and minimize the community impacts by allowing parallel construction. The first request is about coordination of sequencing. State law requires that existing residents be provided 180 days notice prior to vacating their units. That legislative requirement conflicts with the current condition, which requires demolition permits to be issued and demolition to be completed on a timeline that can't be legally met at this current stage. Because of this notice requirement, the earliest feasible start for demolition would be summer of 2026. We are requesting two limited adjustments. First, a one-year extension to the COA 17 milestones so the dates reflect what is legally possible. Second, a clarification to COA 4 so the demolition completion window runs from commencement of work, not from permit issuance. These changes don't relax any requirements. They simply allow tenant notices, demolition, and infrastructure work to be coordinated responsibly and in compliance with state law. Request number two focuses on how construction and occupancy sequencing works among the phase one buildings. The apartment building containing the replacement units is already approved to be constructed as part of phase one. Our intent is that this building is constructed concurrently with the other phase one buildings. The issue we're trying to address is the current certificate of occupancy language treats the apartment building as a prerequisite to all other phase one buildings in practice that effectively forces sequential construction. When there is uncertainty around when certificates of occupancy can be issued, owners, builders, and lenders are unable to commit to moving forward with the remaining phase one buildings. As a result, construction activity pauses. That pause extends the overall construction schedule and prolongs disruption to the neighborhood. This slide shows that difference visually. On the top is parallel construction, which is how phase one is intended to function. The apartment building and the other phase one buildings move forward together. The replacement units are delivered during phase one and the project continues without interruption. On the bottom is sequential construction where the apartment building must be completed before certificates of occupancy for other phase one buildings can be issued. In practice, this effectively creates a new phase for lots two through four. That sequencing adds over a year to the construction timeline from the community's perspective. That means construction activity lasts longer, not shorter. The third request here is a minor design adjustment to the town homes. These are practical internal modifications to the floor plans to make them more functional for residents. There is no increase in unit count, height, or massing, and no change to affordability commitments. This sketch shows the shift on Lot 12. Building B on the right essentially becomes a reflection of Building A. And Building A, which has a narrower chassis, allows for the increased setback on Mallard Road, which is about five feet. In closing, the requests before you tonight are narrow and implementation-focused. You do not change the approved project. They do not reduce environmental protections. They are intended to ensure the replacement units are delivered during phase one while avoiding unnecessary extensions to the overall construction schedule, which we understand has been a key concern for the community. We appreciate your consideration and are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do members of the planning commission have any questions for the applicant?

I had a question. I'm sorry. I was wondering why you did not in the first phase do building A and building B with the apartment building, since it seemed like the infrastructure would all be together there. And in addition to that, by not doing building A and building B, you are leaving kind of an empty lot next to the apartment building for two years, possibly.

So how we've contemplated the phasing of the project is essentially to wrap around the point. And so understanding that we're beginning with the apartment building where our plan is to start otherwise on the northernmost portion of the project and then wrap around to lot 12. So that's currently how we've contemplated the phasing.

The proposal is to have all of the demolition done at the same time, correct?

That's correct.

So the demolition would not be done in phases?

That's correct.

So all the demolition will be done at the outset with only the construction done in phases?

That's right. So all of the demolition and horizontal improvements are contemplated to be done, call it phase zero, before any vertical construction begins. And so... Yes. All the horizontal improvements, all the demo will have taken place prior to vertical construction.

Sorry. So the phasing in essence is demolition first, and then what I'll call infrastructure in terms of, you know, roads, pipes, you know, utilities, et cetera. And then the vertical construction consisting of the apartment building and then the other buildings in phase one. And you're proposing that those all go concurrently instead of having the apartment building built first and then having the other buildings in phase one built next.

That's correct. So what we're requesting is that phase one, all the buildings in phase one, all the lots, that construction could proceed concurrently. And certificates of occupancy could be issued when they're requested for phase one.

Even though there are different types of construction?

Different products, yes. Yeah.

Have you obtained financing for the project yet?

That's currently in process.

So are you going to be doing construction financing in phases, a separate financing for phase one, phase two, and phase three?

In essence, yes. Yeah, I mean, I think each of these lots will be financed independently. Okay.

I imagine your lender probably has something to say about the phasing of your project then.

Yeah, this is an important point of which why we're here.

And just to build on that question, the phase one containing different products, as we might call it, do the different products have different financing or is phase one a unified financing package?

They would contain different financing vehicles. The apartments is different than the single family residence. And typically folks who are looking to finance those projects have different needs and different, you know, a box to fit, if you will, in terms of what they're willing to finance or lend on. Thank you.

Can you explain why the construction sequencing, if you start the phase one altogether, let's say, and if you have to get the certificate of occupancy for department building first and then the rest of them, if you are building them all at the same time, if it is the same phase, why does that add to the construction sequencing or timeline or any of those if they are all starting at the same time? And you finish them at the same time, you get the occupancy for the apartment building and the day after, let's say, in theory. So why does that add to the construction?

Sure. So the apartment building has... a different length of time, building time that would be associated with it than the townhomes or single-family buildings, right? Those typically, the apartment building, you know, we're told to take anywhere between 15 to 18 months to complete. And so we... believe that the single family and townhome product could be completed within 12 months. And so that would create a six month gap between when something could be occupied if we were waiting for the apartment building to be completed prior to occupying the other buildings. And then, you know, in a more practical sense, when we talk about them being financed independently, if someone is looking at the apartment building and saying, that needs to be complete before I can get a certificate of occupancy, it creates a, it causes them to pause on whether or not that project should be started until there's some level of uncertainty that it's being completed.

I mean, just so you know, I actually do this for a living. I finance multifamily affordable student and military houses for a living. I don't think it creates uncertainty. You just need to come up with a nice, tight construction schedule. I think what you're proposing on the demolition is good that you're starting to think about the actual time that you're going to need for demo and building, et cetera. I don't think it creates uncertainty. I just think that you need to come up with a real schedule that both you and your lenders and your builders can live with. And according to your schedule and budget, I don't think it creates uncertainty though.

And the schedule, it seems that you are saying it is about three months. You said your apartment building takes about 15 to 18 months, and then a single family, 12 months. So it could, if we go with the 15 months, it would be that three months difference, basically.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I don't see any questions. Do you have any questions?

I have another question, which is so the notice that you mentioned the 180 days notice. Why was it left to the last minute that now. is basically pushing your schedule behind. Are we expecting more of this to come or do you have a comprehensive schedule as when you start any of the phases or permits or whatever you need to obtain to basically build? Is there any actual schedule that you are looking at or you are just asking for another year to figure things out?

Yeah, no, I think we're here today to help us provide, give us some certainty as to what the schedule is, because this helps inform the conversations we're having and really put together that schedule. But we are, as we said, working with the city on our third submittal now of infrastructure and demolition plans. We're moving that forward. We're trying to get to that point where we have that certainty and can issue those notices and begin construction. And again, we're looking to do that this summer.

So you are not ready for those notices yet because your demolition permit is not quite ready, correct?

Yes, that and then amongst this conversation as well, right? Trying to get clarity on the phasing and those types of things and provide confidence to... the investment and group and buyers out there for the lots.

Thank you.

So just a quick question on the on the items you're working on with the the city and neighbors and so forth. Where is that exactly is the is the bulkhead settled at this point or no? Is it 75% of the way toward being settled?

I mean, we're waiting for them to resubmit. We've had many conversations and meetings, and I think we're getting close. I mean, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I think they're getting close to resubmittal.

Yeah, I would just say it's, you know, from our experience, it's not uncommon that there are three submittals of these types of projects, and that... we're continuing to coordinate and we're probably a week or two away from making that third submission. Our goal is to tie up as much as possible here with the outstanding comments and provide a complete package to the city that addresses all the concerns that have been raised.

Are there any other questions from commission? All right, I'll now invite members of the public who would like to comment on this application to come forward. Please limit your comments to less than three minutes. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on this item? Please introduce yourself.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Thank you. I'm not shy, so I'll go first. So I appreciate it. My name is Susan Clough. I live on Peninsula Road and I'm a member of BRIG, the Belvedere Residence for Intelligent Growth. So tonight, the Mallard Point developers are requesting to amend their March 2024 conditions of approval to extend the duration of their design approvals, delay delivery of the four affordable apartments in the project, and change the approved timing of demolition. proposed a design change to the apartment building in fourplex. But these requests made long after the project approval undermine the intent of the original conditions of approval, which were carefully crafted, discussed it and reviewed by planning commission after many public meetings. Perhaps most concerning is the request to change the condition of approval 22. I've already written you a long letter about this. It's very passionate. So I wanted to say that the key reason for approving this 330 project and granting it all sorts of zoning waivers and concessions was because it included those four small affordable apartments for low-income families. Now they're asking the city to give up its only real leverage, the certificates of occupancy in exchange for promise that they will get them done eventually as part of that first phase, while the developers focus on building and selling off the much more profitable Lagoon homes. My understanding is with the current conditions of approval, the developers can still build the other buildings in the project concurrently. They can get those building permits the next day, but they cannot occupy them until those four affordable units are complete. That's a real incentive to ensure they keep their obligations for affordable housing and deliver those units. with everything in our general plan and housing element about our goals for building affordable housing and housing equity, I feel this condition 22 must stand. I would also like to speak to condition four that would increase the time allowed for demolition and increase impacts on nearby residents and environment. That is seriously frightening. Many of the required CEQA mitigation measures for project impacts, particularly noise, soil stability, stormwater drainage, air and water quality are very vague and have no real performance measures or deferred to the later studies, final construction plans and agency permitting. This project isn't there yet. So I'd like to urge you to deny that request at least for now and leave condition number four as written. They've also requested design change to the fourplex and the apartment building and provided just a quick floor plan sketch. Planning Commission usually looks at after the fact design changes very carefully. There's also a request that the commission now give staff the authority to make more design changes like that. That seems unwise. So again, I suggest you deny those requests until you have complete building and structural plans for this project and know where it is. This large housing project is the biggest Belvedere has seen in decades. It needs to be reviewed and managed carefully and fairly and meet applicable zoning laws and codes. Thank you for your listening to me and thank you for your service. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Don't be shy. There's lots of here.

Commissioner's title commission. Thank you for the efforts you're putting in many of us. I'm, my name is Tom price. My wife, Gwen, we've lived on lagoon for 49 years. We are currently under construction of a fourth building here. This will be the second we built, the first before FEMA, the second after FEMA. So having to deal with FEMA has been a very interesting and challenging position. We are building the first modular home in Belvedere. That will save us probably six months, and it's still gonna take us 13 months to build it. So to build homes in 12 months under a FEMA environment is very, very challenging. The previous commission, which reviewed this in depth, spent thousands of hours going through detail and the rest of it and listening to the citizens of Belvidere. This commission's purpose is to represent the citizens of town and we appreciate the fact that you do listen and do become a part of the community and go out and visit the different units. One thing that was very significant in our construction project here is demolition. And if you're going to open this for any adjustments, maybe this is an area you really need to think about. We asked for a demolition permit early on so we could get a head start on it. Belvedere's position has been for reasons being in the past that demolition was done and then the houses did not get built. We asked for a waiver, our permits were almost done. We got one waiver and that was to clean out the hazardous materials in the old building. Other than that, there was no exclusion on demolition. We had to have permits fully approved before we could actually start construction. It would be my recommendation that before demolition takes place across the street here, is that permits be issued and there'd be proof of financial viability on this before we take it down, leave this wasteland for numerous years, hoping to get financing in the future. There'd be a number of other comments made tonight talking about detail and the rest of it. Our recommendation would be you consider if they need another extension because they haven't put things in properly or made them incomplete, so be it. But defer, either defer, first deny the changes or secondly, defer your decision on that to a future date. And those of you who probably didn't go through the previous process, all these presentations are on tape. I would ask that you take a good look at them, listen to what the citizens have said in the past so we don't repeat. And we appreciate your service. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

They say it's a thankless task, so I'm gonna start by saying thank you. Jim Hornthal, resident on Peninsula Road for 15 years, and I'm a professional faculty member at UC Berkeley Haas School of Business. This hearing is not just about Mallard Point. It's about every future project that may come before you. If the city decides to accept after the fact revisions to court conditions of approval, it sends a very clear message that carefully negotiated project approvals are not binding commitments, but merely starting points for renegotiation once entitlements are secured. What incentive will the next developer have to comply early or to deliver affordable units at all if this project's allowed to unwind its obligations? specifically weakening the condition of approval number 22 or any other key conditions. That's a very dangerous precedent. Please don't open that door. There's also a very practical dollars and cents issue that can't be ignored. The city granted this developer valuable density increases, zoning waivers and concessions with a clear purpose. In exchange, the city was promised new infrastructure and four affordable units. That was the bargain. Now the developer is asking to alter the project timing and sequencing in a way that allows the most valuable single family lots to be built or sold first, while the apartment building and its affordable units are pushed later in the timeline. That raises a real and foreseeable risk that once those high value parcels are monetized, the city's leverage is gone. Think about it. If the affordable units are delayed, who pays to enforce compliance? If they're never built, who bears the consequences? The answer is not the developer, it's the city and its residents. That's why condition of approval number 22 exists. So both sides honor the agreement as approved. Please protect the integrity of the approval, the city's leverage and the public interest. And I think you should deny the requested amendments accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. David Kenneth Smith at 7 Leeward Road. Good evening. As a former public sector employee, I thank the members of the Belvedere Planning Commission and city staff for their service. As city staff and the Mallard Point 1951 developer aware, I also serve on the board of directors of the Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners Association, BLPOA. For tonight's meeting, however, I am speaking solely as a nearby neighbor to the Mallard Point site. Separate BLPI discussions with the developer on shared lagoon equities continue in good faith. Catherine and I support efforts to reinvigorate housing at Mallard Point for residents across income levels. The existing housing is roughly 70 years old and the designs we have reviewed with modernized Belvedere's housing stock. At the same time, we recognize the importance of preserving the community character that defines the city of Belvedere. As a developer is also where I bring a professional background in the geologic sciences relevant to the Mallard Point 1951 project. From my own geologic perspective, the development can be evaluated in two contexts. The first is near term, approximately one to two years during demolition and construction. Activities such as the emplacement of foundations will transmit mechanical energy into the underlying clay cap and deeper sediments. Careful geotechnical engineering is essential. A house, as we all know, is only as good as its foundation. The second context concerns longer term performance over the next 10 to 30 years. Issues including the liquefaction potential, drainage, and subsidence may affect the integrity of the completed housing. These risks warrant thorough geologic and geotechnical evaluation. I acknowledge the developer's engagement of Miller Pacific Engineering to conduct a site geotechnical assessment and provide design recommendation. Miller Pacific issued its most recent updated report in May 2025 to include new subsurface data. That said, the developer's own geotechnical consultants identify substantive issues that should be resolved prior to changes in demolition or construction plans. The May 2025 reports noted, and I quote, subsurface exploration and laboratory testing should be performed as part of a future design level investigation to confirm fill thickness, excavation conditions, and soil type classifications. On a preliminary basis, onsite fill and bay mud soils should be considered type C and will likely be prone to caving or collapse in open excavations. I would add that Type C soils are the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's least stable classification. Additional concerns include an elevated groundwater table six to nine feet below ground surface, susceptibility to sediment liquefaction, and the potential for up to nine inches of settlement over the next 50 years. For these reasons, I recommend the construction management plan be fully informed by the geology and engineering before project level adjustments are made. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Is there another member of the public that would like to address us? Hi.

I'll thank you too for your service. I'm a volunteer as well and appreciate what you do. So I'm Jill Barnett and I live at 50 Peninsula Road. And as a Belvedere resident, I have been monitoring the Thompson Dorfman Mallard Point housing development plan to replace the 22 homes with 40. Mr. Dorfman proposed this project using Senate Bill 330. When his project was approved, he got valuable density increases, zoning waivers, and concessions in exchange for affordable units. Two years ago, the Planning Commission set conditions of approval to the Mallard Point project. Because of the delicate nature of our environment on the lagoon, we requested CEQA review. A lot of time and energy was put into requesting that review to protect our environment. Unfortunately, we lost that battle. And Mr. Dorfman got his way. His project was approved without the important environmental review. However, the project was approved with careful, thought out conditions of approval to make sure affordable units came first that demolition was managed carefully and that infrastructure was done properly. So here we are again, trying to protect our community because Mr. Dorfman is trying to gain the system for his benefit and switch the order of construction, building affordable units last, if at all. So I urge you to deny the development's request for amendment changes. As I understand it, his application is incomplete. Reports are old, outdated, and nonexistent. This project is very technical. And two years ago, when the project was approved, we were promised an experienced project manager would be hired to oversee this project. It is time now for the city to hire that experienced project manager as promised, who will ensure this new housing project, the largest in Belvedere's history, gets the oversight and study it needs. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you again for your service. Andrew Barnett. I live on Peninsula Road. The discussion regarding the amount of time to build the project and saving six months here or four months here or three months here is almost a joke because we're gonna be looking at that project and there's gonna be construction going on there. I would guess for the next eight to 10 years between the apartment buildings and then all the private homes, it's gonna go on for a long time. So saving six months or eight months isn't the issue. The issue is that if we look at the number of homes that have been built against the RHNA mandates statewide, they're very low. And the reason for that is it's very difficult to get financing because it doesn't work out. The only way Mr. Dorfman can make this project possibly work is by selling the private homes, raising the money that way. And then hopefully from our standpoint, if that's the sequence that you guys decide to allow him to do, that he will in fact build the affordable housing. The only reason we're here and we're having this discussion is because the state has mandated we need to have affordable housing. That should be first and foremost on everybody's mind, because if we don't do that, we're going to have even additional problems with the state. We're demolishing units, and we don't have any guarantees that the units will be built. The only guarantee that we have is that Mr. Dorfman is looking right now at whatever his financing is, hasn't come through, and he's paying money on a monthly basis to keep this project alive. I have very strong concerns because we haven't seen the financing, a point that was already brought up, that we're gonna be stuck in a situation where the lots will be demolished. We'll be looking at a wasteland for the next decade without any guarantee. that the affordable units will be built. So I strongly recommend that you keep that first and foremost, we have to have those affordable units built before we allow anything else to get in the way and potentially allow an exit for Mr. Dorfman without the building of the affordable units.

Thank you.

There's still time in case anybody else would like to make a comment. We've had thoughtful comments so far. All right, I'm not seeing anyone. I wonder if the applicant has any further comments based on,

Before we move forward with that, thank you. We have a few people on Zoom.

Oh, I forgot to ask Zoom. Yeah, thank you. Let's have Zoom.

Jill, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak for three minutes.

Thank you. My name is Jill Nash. I live on Lourdes Road. So my background is corporate communications. And so I watched with great interest when this project was first proposed. And I watched how the developer basically conducted a PR campaign and reached out to a lot of local media emphasizing the urgent need for affordable housing. And at the same time, publicly characterized Belvedere residents that had concerns about the project as NIMBY resistance. And he used affordable housing as a component for the justification of approval. So my question is this, if the apartment building providing that affordable housing is financed separately from the single family homes, what specific recourse does the city have if the apartment financing is not secured, but the home construction is and those proceed? what binding conditions, phasing requirements, or enforcement mechanisms ensure that the apartment building and its affordable housing will be completed and approved? My concern is that if we change what was carefully thought through and approved the first round, we might find ourselves in a position where, as I think Andy Barnett said, we're going to be looking at this project for years and there's absolutely no guarantee that the apartment building will ever be completed. Thank you all for the work that you do in representing us. We appreciate you. And I urge you to reject the proposed changes.

Thank you. Do you see any other hands raised on Zoom, Rebecca?

Yeah, I have two more people on Zoom. Susan, you should be able to unmute yourself. There she is. Susan, you should be able to speak now.

Thank you. I appreciate all the work that has kept our little cities beautiful and pristine and environmentally safe and the work that you all have done have guaranteed that. My concern, and I understand the city's up against the wall with the state and that this is the compromise before something larger happens. I'm very concerned that the financing has been is coming in spurts, which means that, again, the construction sounds like a never-ending cycle. It's terrifying that he is dependent on the approval and based on The market value and based on the way that the world is working currently, I find that very unstable and very alarming. The lagoon is environmentally should have been absolutely, even possibly the idea of construction on the lagoon, the environmental safety having not been pushed through with that is outrageous. I find that really quite shocking. And I would really ask some questions concerning that, how that got approval without the environmental impact being looked at. Lagoon, at best, in the earthquake issues, I can't imagine were not considered. It seems outrageous. And I'm very concerned for the safety of the people of the lagoon. Thank you very much.

That was Susan Macintosh. Thank you.

I'm a resident of Tiburon. Thank you.

This is our last speaker on Zoom, Randy Binstock. You should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead and speak.

Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, this is Jeffrey Binstock and my wife and I, Randy, have been residents on the lagoon since 84. I'd like to thank you for your service and I support what my other neighbors have said. I'm actually asking for two points of clarification because my questions have been answered by my other neighbors. Does phase one, I'm assuming phase one needs to be absolutely complete before phase two is allowed to pull a permit. Is that true?

Yeah, we can address his questions after he's finished.

Okay. And then the second question is, my understanding was the intent of the community was to see a new bulkhead around the entire periphery of the project before the demolition was undertaken. Is that the intent of the planning commission to seek that before they approve the demolition permit?

Yes, we have the application for the new bulkhead and as part of the demolition permit.

Okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

And to answer your first question, the answer is no. They can apply for building permits for phase two during phase one.

Then I would absolutely suggest you don't change the requirement that the four units low income be fully built before you allow occupancy of any other unit on that property. So the apartment building goes up first before the private homes. Thank you. Thank you.

I have one comment. I'm Sandy Donnell. Excuse me, I live at 137 Golden Gate Avenue, not on the lagoon. But there's a house, there's a property up on Crest Road, I think it's 12 Crest Road, that was approved to have demolition. And that might have been 10 years ago. And that property is still empty. The house came down. It was actually a very nice house suited to the property. It's gone and it's just a... lot that provides some parking for people on crest road so i really think you need to think about demolition without approvals and without a project going on dangerous thank you sandy all right any further public comments

All right, thank you, everybody. I'd like to offer an opportunity for the applicant to address anything he's heard or make a further comment.

Good evening, commissioners, Bruce Dorfman, representing Mallard Point. I want to clarify what seems to be some misinformation that's been percolating here, and that is that the apartment is not going to be the first thing that starts construction. It is. The issue is whether or not the apartment needs to get built first before the other units in phase one. And we're only talking about lots two, three, and four are started because implicitly with this requirement, which again, conflicts with the discussion that we had at the city council and the city council again, concurred that phase one would include the apartments and the other units that we've demarcated as phase one would be completed simultaneously as the first phase. Nothing else on the project would get permitted or not permitted, we get our certificate of occupancy until the apartments were complete in phases two and three. So two thirds of the project effectively will be completed conditioned upon the completion of the phase one apartments. And why that's important to have all of phase one moving forward is again, sequentially due to the financing, you've heard quite a bit about people saying about the condition of the financing market right now. If we have an additional condition, it jeopardizes the ability to move forward with lots two, three and four, which will extend the construction timeframe. Everyone seems to be concerned about the length of construction. I certainly am. And what we would like to do is move forward with all of phase one simultaneously. I would also note that the city council that reviewed this and agreed with this condition and hence there's a different condition in the final map requirements that we're trying to make consistent with this condition allows for all of phase one to be completed simultaneously and basically says that nothing else can be finalized until phase one apartments are complete. So I think that there is a lot of leverage that the city maintains relative to that. I would also note that there's primacy of the city council. The city council, you know, is senior to the planning commission. They've reviewed this and that was the direction they went in. So with that, I'd like to, again, clarify that the apartment is the first project that we'll start construction on, has a longer construction timeframe than the single family or townhome projects. The issue will be one that a lender investor or builder will not want to be in a situation where he's waiting for the apartment building to be built or completed prior to, I mean, he could have a completed home. There are shorter timeframes. So he's got to wait until the apartment building is complete in order to move forward. I would think everyone in this room would be sensitive to moving this forward as quickly as possible. This modification to that condition will allow us to do that. So for your consideration. The other comments or the other issues related to I guess a lot 12 in townhomes. We're basically repeating a townhome design that you already reviewed and approved. I think it's an attractive townhome. The apartments from the exterior would have no different look to them. And so consequently, I think that that's a win-win situation for everyone involved as well. So with that, I'm here for any questions that you may have, but I don't think this should be particularly controversial, and I would think that it's in the city's, the neighbor's, and everyone's best interest to make this change. Thank you.

Thank you. While Mr. Dorfman is there, do any commissioners have any questions they want to ask him?

And in regards to lot 12 that you mentioned it, the change is basically making it identical to other building. And that's correct. But one unit is being added to the apartment that we don't know how is that going to play along?

I think it actually is shown in the staff report that there was one unit that was around 1900 feet. And that unit is going to be divided into two units. So in the same mass in the same shape.

But the divided unit is not one of the affordable units, correct?

Correct. And none of the affordable units are being impacted by this.

Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Okay, I am going to close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the commission for discussion. Um, commissioner Watson can, can you start the discussion please?

Happy to. All right. So we have a couple of things going on here. The first thing I'd like to state for everyone is it's really normal to have construction of large multifamily projects in phases. It's really normal to have multiple phases, to have construction done in different phases, especially when you're dealing with different types of construction. So that's whatever people are thinking, it's really normal. You see it all the time. And it's done both for financing purposes, it's also done for, if you're using the same construction crew, you can sort of do things seriatim. One of the things that this commission and the city council did very intentionally, as we've heard many times tonight, is to make sure that the apartment building, with its four affordable units and providing many housing units, which are very important to our housing element for this city, were done in the first phase. Now, when I say phase to someone who doesn't work in my industry, you think beginning and end. That's a phase, right? Well... I think where we're talking across purposes a bit is they're thinking phase means the beginning, not necessarily beginning and end. And so all of phase one means you begin it sort of all at the same time, but they're proposing that the non-apartment pieces of their phase one begin at the same time, but end sooner. I think the intention of our city council and of the planning commission that sat here before us was exactly the opposite, which is that the apartment building, which is replacing the units that are being demolished in our community are actually completed first. and that that was very intentional that those units which are replacing 22 units of housing that are disappearing were being replaced first. And if you look at the language in the city council resolution, they speak about the construction of the four replacement housing units in the first phase of development to be made available to and rented, et cetera, et cetera. And when they talk about the first phase of development, they really mean the first phase of development, the first phase of construction. meaning beginning and end. And I do think that the apartment building is why we're all here. If they were building 22 single family houses, Okay, great. But we wouldn't, we wouldn't all be here. This building, as many people point out, is the largest thing to be built in Belvedere in decades, and is very important to our to our housing element. It's very important to our community. And, you know, it's, it's going to make going to make an impact. In Do we want to talk about this point? Or should I bring up my demolition points? Oh, okay, sorry. The other thing I want to bring up is I think everyone in this room has the goal of trying to make demolition as least disruptive as possible. But at the same time, I do recognize that we're dealing with older buildings, and I Even the residents don't necessarily know what's in the walls and in their ceilings. I am not opposed to having the extra time for the demolition from the point when demolition actually begins. I think that's actually a good change that they have made, as opposed to having the time period run from the time that the permit is pulled. I don't think that the ability to get a demolition permit should be changed at all from what's being required right now. But I do think having the actual time of demolition, starting with the first day that there are shovels in the ground, and having the last day that they're able to clean up, having that time be carefully circumscribed is actually a very good idea. Because that's the time period that people are impacted, not the time where there's a permit. And then I also like the idea of a construction management plan. One aspect of most commercial construction projects is that there's a construction monitor that's onsite. The construction monitor generally provides a monthly report, both to the sponsor, to the architect, to the lenders. And I would like for the construction monitor to also provide a report to the city. This will provide a report as to how the construction is progressing. Is it on budget? Is it on schedule? Are there any issues that they've run into? So that we know, if there's issues with their financing, if there's issues with their construction process, and if we're at risk of having a half-built project or a non-built project in our community. And then that's it. That's all I've got.

Thank you. Commissioner Shunsky.

Excuse me, Chair. My apologies. If I could make one suggestion, it would be helpful if all the commissioners could address all of the requests at one time. So there was other timing requests obviously included in the request, and then also the design change. There was no need.

Janet, do you want to weigh in on the design change? I have no issues with the design change.

Okay. And then the other request for an extension, the very first part of the request?

The request for the extension of the design review? Yes.

Yeah, the one you're essentially pushing out that timeline.

I mean, given how many design review extensions we see, I actually do not have an issue with that either. I also appreciate the fact that it is conditioned upon the apartment building being first and then having the other units be second. So I also do not have an issue with that one.

All right, thank you very much. It's very helpful for us down here trying to keep track of things.

Thank you. Thanks for that. Okay, Commissioner Shinske, please.

Yeah, thank you. Having not taken up Mallard Point before, I thought I timed my tenure just right so as I'd be able to miss that, but apparently not. And it is. A couple points. One, for the applicant's sake, just know that by nature, I'm more of a Yimby than a Nimby. Easy for me to say. I live over on West Shore Road, so it's fine. But there's some challenges here, I think, that... make me kind of unable to proceed. I do like the conditions that Commissioner Watson put forth, and I'll have to decide at the end of our discussion whether I can get there on even those, because part of my challenge is I'm coming in late to the game. This project, as we all know, has been well debated, well litigated, and now tonight, we're extracting two of the conditions of approval to tweak them a little bit. When my general sense is here, a lot of this has been fairly well balanced on the pin. You know, I believe that the, the, The condition of approval 22 sort of means what it said. I'm not sure I would have gone that far, but it's also not unusual for any kind of mixed affordable housing project in the state of California. It's not unusual at all, as you know, to require that the affordable elements of the project get built first, followed by the rest of it. I'm sensitive to the issue there with the financing, and maybe I see that condition as being a little bit strong, that is not even be able to pull the permit for the other parts of even phase one ahead of a certificate for the apartment building. But I don't see a reason for me personally to unpeel what my predecessors were trying to accomplish in seven. So at this point, I'd be, for my part, I don't feel an urgency to come forward and say something profound simply because I have not had access to all the tapes yet. I haven't done my due diligence. I'm not prepared to do an intellectually honest job of deciding on your request. But I'll wait to hear what some of my colleagues say. And as I said, I'm inclined to support Commissioner Watson's suggestions.

Don, in terms of, we have three COAs here. In terms of the extensions, the time extensions, are you?

As a general rule, I don't have an issue with extensions, but I'm not prepared to say yet that I can support.

And what about the design modifications? Did you have any opinion on that? I have no opinion. Okay. All right. Commissioner Lasky, could you go next, please?

Marsha, will you get closer to the mic? Thanks.

Commissioner Lasky, can you pull your mic closer to your mouth? Sorry. Thank you.

I thought I turned it on. Sorry. Thank you. I can go along with providing extensions of the design review and the additional time for demolition. You know, I understand that and the timing for notifying people that has come up, even though perhaps you've had some notice, you could have done this already. And I also can go along with the design adjustments for lot one and 12 to remove one unit from the fourplex and adding one unit to the apartment building. I didn't really go through and ask you this, but it wasn't, I think the city needs to see elevations of building A, because the windows and the exterior still look the same. And I think you probably will have changes on some of that after you take out that one apartment. On the modifications to the COA 22 to address the timing, I really, There's a real sensitivity about this apartment building. And I think it should be done first. I don't think it's a problem to also build at the same time with one to do two, three, and four all at the same time, but the certificate of occupancy or final inspection on the apartment building can be prior or at the same time as two, three, and four. So that assures that the apartment building will be completed first or at the same time as two, three and four, which I think the city should really stick to because that was the original intention to get that done. So I, I have just also seen University High School in San Francisco, I think was completed in one year. It's on California Street. And they have cranes and they're on a busy street. So I think it can be accomplished. So those are basically my comments.

Great. Thank you. As am I.

I think I'm on the same page almost with Marsha on the certificate of occupancy. So start of the project of phase one to happen at the same time is fine basically where it says the building permit for any other units to be issued after the completion of the apartment building, they could start that project at the same time. However, the certificate of the occupancy for the apartment building to be issued prior to the certificate of occupancy for the rest. I think that would address the concern of our community. And then there is a discrepancy between this and the prior one that wasn't noting that the building permit should be applied after the completion, which I think this would address that, that they can apply for the permit at the same time, but the certificate of occupancy for the apartment building would be issued prior to any others. That is my take on that one. As far as the extension that they are asking for one year, I think... I agree with everyone else. I think we should extend. And then on the design adjustments, I agree that there are minor and there are no negative impact on the exterior, if any, the additional setback would be a positive thing for the neighborhood. So I have no objection to that. However, at the same time, they were asking for city staff approval on other changes similar to this. On that one, hearing our community, I think they want transparency and they want to see what other changes will be proposed and get a chance to comment on that. I think we need to have those come back to the planning commission for review.

Thank you. I had not addressed that your last point in my comments and I can I agree with you. Thank you.

Oh, and on the extension of the demolition, I think the applicant is not asking for extension. So staff suggested 75 days instead of 45 days. I think they are not asking for additional, but they just want the startup, as you mentioned, they just want the extension. basically duration of that to start at the time that they start the demolition. At the same time, I felt maybe on the staff side, you might or might not, I need your, how to enforce that? How do you know when they really started the demolition? And I think for that reason, maybe you added the 75 instead of the 45. I think that might, although it is adding to the demolition duration, which is not, you know, desirable for our community. But I think that would address the the debate that when that demolition really started and might contribute to extension of that demolition in reality. And 75 versus 45 is one month. I know it is hardship, but in reality, it might limit the demolition. Hoda Hatoum, activity in the neighborhood that is, is it called as demolition or is it not like. Hoda Hatoum, So, for that reason, maybe 75 is. Hoda Hatoum, easier on the neighborhood, although it is longer, but it is. Hoda Hatoum, More contained maybe. I don't know. I'd like to hear other people's opinion on that.

So the applicant asked for 45 days from commencement of demolition. We don't have a way of defining commencement. Typically here, projects have construction time limits. So we're not going to issue the building permit until they're ready to start demolition. construction. In this case, we don't have a construction time limit. So we thought that we'd have a better way of defining what demolition is by giving them 75 days from building permit issuance as opposed to 45 days from commencement of demolition. Does that make sense?

Right, because there's no way for the staff to know when demolition actually starts.

Besides looking out the window.

Right.

But what does that mean? Are they going to bring in trucks? Are they going to bring in equipment? Does that commence the demolition?

It's staging the beginning of demolition. Or is it when the wrecking ball comes out?

Right. And we don't have a definition in our code of what commencement actually means. So we thought it would be easier to define by the date of the building permit issuance.

And that might be open to interpretation that we haven't demoed yet, but the trucks are in the neighborhood. People are disturbed already with all the, yeah.

Okay, thank you for that clarification, Rebecca. So I'll make some comments here. I wanna disclose, I did meet with the applicant last week I'm gonna go through the three modifications, not necessarily in order though. I agree with what Commissioner Watson said. We routinely get requests to extend design review and timelines. In fairness, I think we should treat this applicant like we do everyone else. At least here we have a project where there's activity on the design side and submissions being made. A lot of times the projects are just sitting dormant. So I'm comfortable making the findings for COA 17. I also had a chance to discuss the design adjustments and learn a little bit more about those. I'm comfortable that they're minor adjustments. They're not going to... really have impact on the character of the project or the scale or size of the project. I feel it's okay to have those design adjustments reviewed by staff. I know staff has experience in determining when something comes to a threshold where it needs to come back to the planning commission, so I'm comfortable relying on staff for that. So I'll be able to make findings regarding that. The more complicated item, the modification to COA 22 seems to be probably the major topic of discussion here tonight. From where I stand, it's somewhat of a balancing act. We're several years out from the time of approval. There's dynamic conditions in the economy and the development community and financing. So my balancing act is the assurances that the city is gonna get what it expects out of this, including the four affordable units in the first phase. But with the caveat that I don't really want to do something here that will slow the project down or make the outcome less advantageous. I think it's a challenge to develop housing in California. If it were less of a challenge, we might have more of it. So You know, staff has offered some language that would give a little more flexibility to the developer, not that the apartments wouldn't be in phase one, but my interpretation of what they've offered is that if the simpler projects finish up quicker, the applicant can come back to the commission and we can make a determination whether sufficient progress has been made on the apartment building to allow the certificate of occupancy to be had on the other lots in phase one. So I could be okay with that. I'll just put that out there. I think giving the developer a little bit of flexibility while still understanding the apartments are being constructed as part of phase one. It doesn't seem like an undue risk to me and it might speed the project along, which is something I think that is also an interest of the community. So that's where I am on this. So I think maybe we need to sort of hone in on COA 22 and see what the consensus of the planning commission is.

So I have to say with respect to COA 22, I really liked my fellow commissioner's suggestion that while construction could commence on December, the other buildings in phase one at the same time as construction commenced on the apartment building, that no certificate of occupancies could be given for the other buildings until there was a certificate of occupancy for the apartment building. I think that's a nice balance of being able to manage construction schedules and providing more certainty for budgeting and other purposes, but at the same time requiring that the completion of the apartment building happen first.

I think, isn't that the way it currently reads?

Yes. No. Yes.

Yes.

No, currently it reads that you can't get a construction permit until the construction on the apartment building is completed.

You can't pull a permit on anything else?

You can't pull a permit on anything else until the construction on the apartment building is completely completed. What we're proposing is that the construction on the apartment building must be completed before any other building, even if it's magnificently and perfectly built, can be occupied or sold. That's what we're proposing. Hasn't passed yet. Don't say anything. But I think that's a very elegant and lovely solution.

And that I think also addresses chair's concern. I think maybe staff can clarify that. I think at any given point, they can come back with the same, with a new proposal, right? They can go to what you mentioned that they, if they, certain amount of the apartment building is built and we are confident that it is going to be done and then issue the certificate of occupancy for whatever they have already built, they can come back to planning commission to request that. So I don't think we necessarily need to give that away now or not, right?

I would prefer not to have that they can come back to us written into whatever we're doing, because Lord knows, as we've seen tonight, they can always come back to us.

Right, no, I agree. Basically, I'm saying... That door is never closed. I mean, we cannot even close it.

And also, let's be clear that other than the apartment building, which we've written into our approval as that it must be done first, the other phasing that we see in the plan is all of the developers devising. It's their phasing. It's not our phasing. So... what we've seen in the maps in terms of phase one, phase two, phase three, that's not something that the city is requiring or consenting to or anything like that. The one requirement that we have is that the apartment building be completed and have a certificate of occupancy before anything else can be occupied.

Excuse me, Chair. I just want to clarify, thank you, Commissioner Watson, that the The current condition says construction of the apartment building containing the four replacement housing units shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for any other dwelling unit in the project. And the apartment building shall receive a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of a CFO for any other dwelling unit in the project. And I guess I just want to clarify, if you don't mind, Commissioner Watson, whether you're proposing a change to that or confirming that you want to continue with the existing language.

I had put in there. Their certificate or occupancy or final inspection prior to or at the same time. So therefore, the apartment building will have to be before or at the same time. In other words, two, three and four will not be getting their certificate or occupancy before the apartment building. And so where it says on the second line on page four, where it says prior, after prior, prior to, or at the same time, I think, and also it has to be input in there. The first phase will include one, two, three, and four, which is not in that auto.

Yeah, I'm not sure per Commissioner Watson's point. I'm not sure if we need to write in the phasing into the condition. But I hear your comment, Commissioner Lasky, about inserting or the same time or at the same time.

Right, I don't think we need to address phasing at all, so long as we require that the certificate of occupancy for the full apartment building with all of the units, including the affordable units, be issued prior to, or at the same time, as the certificate of occupancy of any other dwelling built in the entire project.

Okay, thank you.

Mm-hmm. So that way, if they build nothing else, they'll build our apartment building. Although we need the other units for our housing element.

Yeah.

Can I ask a question, Commissioner Watson?

So are you are you stating that the as written that the They can apply for construction building permits of phase one. So as long as whatever happens in phase one, the certificate of occupancy is issued for the apartment building prior to any other dwelling unit in the project.

Correct.

Thank you.

There are other market forces at work that will spur them to complete other other dwellings on this project.

So I feel like Commissioner Lasky, Jimmy, and Watson, you're all pointed in a similar direction, I believe, on 22.

The other thing that I would like to introduce in terms of a condition for 22 is having the construction monitor or independent construction consultant or whatever you wanna call the independent company that's gonna be overseeing your construction. provide a monthly construction report to the city to the city so that the city can can monitor the construction schedule and budget and process and progress.

Okay, so thank you, Commissioner Watson, I don't think we are discussing a different condition tonight, but I can reassure you that we are working and have talked to potential project managers for this project and what you're suggesting is already on our list of their tasks. Okay, thank you.

I see the commissioner's reading. I'm just gonna give them a moment. This is a lot of information to process, so I don't wanna rush it along. Don, you've listened to the discussion. Did you have any further observations after listening to the rest of the commissioners?

I'm grateful to Commissioner Lasky for threading the needle in a way that I should be able to get to support on that.

Well, I want to ask then among the commissioners, does any one of you feel like you want to take a stab at making a motion at this point? And take your time if you need to.

I can do it. All right. I move to adopt the amended Planning Commission Resolutions COA 17 and COA 4 to provide extensions of design review approval and additional time for demolition. And I'll come back to two. I move to amend the Planning Commission Resolution 202.4.12. Sorry, that's not right. I move to approve the design adjustments for lot 1 and 12 to remove one unit from the fourplex lot 12 and adding one unit to the apartment building lot 1. And then I move to make changes to COA 22, which is 2024-12 to address the timing of the certificate of occupancy for the apartment building, which includes the four replacement affordable units. And it should read that the apartment building should receive a certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable prior to Or do you want to say and at the same time, as in prior to at the same time as two, three and for the apartment building, I'm sorry, department building number one, and we'll also at the same could include at the same time, two, three and four.

Commissioner Lasky, I think I'd like to make a little bit more on the nose and say the apartment building, including all units, including the unit set aside for the affordable units, must receive their- Well, they're in the apartment building. Right, but I want to make sure that...

all units get all certificates of occupancy and that none of them none of them are are down okay did you get all that rebecca yeah how about don't mind commissioner could i clarify one aspect of your motion of course um regarding uh the the i hear the extension of design review approvals I hear that you're in favor of extending the design review approvals. Likewise, the design adjustments. I do just want to clarify a little bit the last two parts of your motion. The first is with respect to the potential extension of the demolition permit timeframe or demolition for timeframe after permit has been issued. I think it'd be helpful to know whether we're going with their request that is again keyed off the commencement of demolition activities or staff suggesting that it stays keyed off of issuance of a demo permit, but providing additional days.

So the additional time would be 75 days.

That was staff's recommendation that there would be additional days, but it's keyed off against demo permit issuance for sake of transparency and certainty as opposed to commencement of demolition activities. Okay. Okay, so that's part of your motion. Thank you for clarifying. And then I think your suggestion is to add insert or at the same time, right, after prior to. Is that correct in condition of approval 22? Prior to...

or or or two, three and four at the same time as number one apartment building and Commissioner Watson wants to include the fact that before affordable units are included in the apartment building.

And can we include that in a parenthetical?

Sure.

After imparting so apartment building per friend, including the 404 when it was closed for an include that small tweak.

Great.

And then per one of your earlier comments, Commissioner Watson, did you want to have explicit references to lots or sort of leave that phasing out of the condition?

As long as the apartment building is completed and occupied first, go with God.

So don't reference specific lots. Okay. That would be your preference. Okay. Right. So I just want to make sure that's acceptable to you. Not to reference specific lots in the motion commission. I don't know if that's acceptable to you as the mover.

No, that's fine. Because if those lots are finished, they're going to ask for a certificate of occupancy anyway. So you're just asking, you're only focusing on the apartment building. Right.

And if they decide to change their phasing and do lots 9, 10, and 11 instead of 2, 3, and 4.

So it's just the assurance that the apartment building is done first. Yes. That's fine.

Yeah. So chair, if it would be helpful, I'm happy to restate the motion as I believe it currently stands. Okay. So four pieces to the motion. So the motion would approve the requested extensions from the design review approvals. The motion would approve the proposed design adjustments, adding the additional unit to the apartment building. The motion would also as a third part would provide additional time for demolition, so that it would consume no more than 75 days from date of permit issuance demo permit issuance. And then fourth, make two small changes to condition of approval 22, that is to insert or at the same time after prior to, and also when referencing a certificate of occupancy for the apartment building also include in parentheses, including four affordable units or including the four affordable units. I hope that's accurate.

Can I ask one question? Sorry. So you would keep the first sentence of condition 22, the affordable housing agreement shall require construction of the apartment building containing the four replacement housing units prior to the issuance of building permits for any other dwelling in the project. I thought that you were saying something different. So I think that has to be struck through.

Well, half of it. Well, the very first sentence will remain. Yeah, prior to the approval of a final map or issuance of a building permit or demolition permit, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city as approved by the city attorney that shall be recorded in the official records of the county of Marin. That's not changing at all.

Can you continue?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then the next sentence, the affordable housing agreement shall require the construction of the apartment building, including the four affordable units. Oh, I'm sorry. It actually says that containing the four replacement units to receive a certificate of occupancy or or final inspection as applicable prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable for any other dwelling unit in the project that's what i was hearing thank you okay yeah

So are we taking those up as all as one motion or separate motions?

Sorry, just one second. We're just comparing notes down here.

Or why did he have to go there?

So maybe it'd be helpful if I just read it. Thank you. The affordable housing, and this is the second sentence of the condition of approval 22. The affordable housing agreement shall require construction of the apartment building containing the four replacement housing units and the receipt of... A certificate of occupancy or final inspection as applicable for such building prior to the issuance of services prior to. Or, at the same time, yes, all right, no problem prior to or at the same time, the issuance is terrific and rock and see or final inspection as applicable for any other dwelling unit in the project. And that is the proposed change condition 22, in addition to the other proposed changes I just mentioned. Yes, I see a lot of nodding heads. So that is the motion. Thank you.

And this is to supersede other discrepancies, right? Because there is another section that contradict this. There is another COA that is not aligned with this.

Yeah, the other ones would stay the same. Is that it? what you're saying or trying to clarify?

Oh, correct. Yes. That one stays. So this one, yes. This one is matching that. Right.

So we're changing this condition, condition 22, as I just read into the record. Thank you.

So somebody asked the question and I wanted you guys to answer it. Do we move this in one motion, but as amended, or is this three different motions for the

I think what we have right now is a single motion. But again, if you want me to try to summarize it again, I'm happy to try to do so.

No, I think we understood the summary. We could be done as a single motion. But when we make the motion, we just have to say, I think, as amended here. Thank you, Chair. So with that, we have one motion to make. Ben, would you like to offer a motion to approve?

I think the motion is still on the floor as initially proposed by Commissioner Lasky and as clarified by further discussion. So I think we just need a second.

I will second the motion as you read out.

Thank you, Commissioner Watson. Okay. Commissioners, please vote. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you.

Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

actually what we do thank you good job thank you marcia all right now we just now we just have one of one of five

Thank you.

Okay, we have another item on our agenda tonight that we're going to move on to. Item four. No, you can't leave. We need you. She came late and leaves early.

I couldn't get people to stop talking in this conference call. I'm like, guys, I told you 4.45, hard stop.

So just the reason we wanted to. That's what we're talking about. We need something that this.

I'm sure.

So if this was if this was.

All right, here we go with item four, extension of design review approval for 105 Golden Gate Avenue. Commissioner Watson.

I would like to announce that because 105 Golden Gate Avenue is within 500 feet of my house, I'm afraid that I am recused from this matter. So I bid all of you adieu.

So we're ready for the staff report.

Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission for your consideration this evening is an application to extend design review approval at 105 Golden Gate Avenue. So property history in 2020 improvements were made by a prior owner without planning approval These included a new retaining wall and lawn at the rear yard. In 2023, the planning commission granted design review approval to construct a residential addition, retaining wall, pool and landscaping. The approval remedied the unpermitted work. However, a building permit was not obtained and the unpermitted items were still outstanding. In 2025, the commission considered a one-year extension and continued the item to provide the owner time to submit a detailed reconstruction plan of the retaining wall. The applicant proposes a few modifications to the 2023 approval as well. The first would be at the rear patio, which would now consist entirely of artificial lawn, where the approved plans included a swimming pool, stairs, and hardscape. Second, the proposed retaining wall would be set back 15 feet from the rear property line where the approved retaining wall encroached into the setback. And third, landscaping would now be reduced. In 2023, the landscaping plans included 40 fern pine, three bay laurel, six cherry blossom, two fruit trees, and a variety of shrubs, as well as four coastal live oaks in the rear yard. The new proposal consists of the 40 fern pine in 24-inch boxes at the retaining wall and six cherry blossoms in 24-inch boxes along the left side yard. The new retaining wall would be six feet nine inches above existing grade along its left side and tapered at two feet nine inches at the right. The wall will be made of pressure-treated wood between steel soldier piles. The remaining components of the 2023 approval would remain. These include a 506 square foot residential addition and new siding, roof, window, and stair improvements. Staff has received two letters regarding the project. Comments centered around requiring the unpermitted structures to be rebuilt in a timely manner and are enforced by the city. The project is exempt from CEQA. Staff recommends that the proposed modifications are generally consistent with the design review criteria. The project will screen the left side of the property with the new six foot tall fence and landscaping to respect the privacy of the adjacent neighborhood to Eucalyptus Road. And the landscaping along the rear yard retaining wall will help minimize the structure's mass and bulk for neighbors along Belvedere Avenue below. staff recommends that for new trees are planted along the rear yard to help preserve the landscape in its natural state, as well as provide additional screening of the retaining wall. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the resolution granting design review as condition and happy to answer any questions.

I have a couple of questions. I actually called Sammy to learn more. And so we are not extending the previous approval anymore. We are just approving the new plans or we are still So basically the question, let me explain actually for everyone to know. The question was that in the packet that we received, there was a new set of drawings which proposed new design elements. And then also there is a request for extension of the previously approved drawings. So is that still the case? Are we doing both? which if that is the case, I think it is confusing because these two sets are proposing contradicting things. Like for example, the first set of drawings shows a swimming pool set of stairs that is different from the second set of drawings. The stair is different. There are two different designs basically. That's one question. And just to clarify, I also met with the architect and owner and visited the site and asked the same question. I think I let them explain later, but I think their intention is the second set of drawings. Basically, that's what they want to do. So I feel if that's correct and the case, maybe we don't need to extend the previous set of drawing that is in contradiction with the new one. And we are just approving or whatever people think or commissioners think, the new set would be the one that we are discussing tonight. And then that brings me to next question that I have, which is remedy of the unpermitted items, which again, it's not clear in any of these two sets, what are those that they are supposed to do? And discussing with the architect and owner, they weren't quite clear either that what is expected from them. So being in this, I think it's not, at least for me, let me not talk for others, at least for me, I'm not clear what are we approving, that there are remedies to get approval tonight. So these are my questions for the staff.

Thank you. I'll take a stab. So my understanding of it is we are looking at the extension with an amended set of plans and the amendments are reflected in the set of plans you have. Typically when we are continuing these items, we don't, we send you to hyperlinks of the previously approved plans. So in this case, and maybe once the applicant could answer this question better than me, my understanding was we're continuing the previously approved project as amended because we all understand the nature of the retaining wall out there. And I think the applicant wants to fix it and doesn't want to go forward with the swimming pool and all of that, the entirety of that landscape plan.

What was your other question? So, but with this one, nothing remains in the previous one. What remains in the previous set?

I believe all the stuff on the house, but maybe Sammy can take it over from here.

This new plan is specifically to address the unpermitted retaining wall. The other plans where we kept them in case the property owner wanted to do work on the house, that's what they asked and Rebecca and I said that that'd be okay. If they came to time to get a building permit and they wanted to do the portion of the house as well, we would look at those plans for consistency with what they're submitting to the building permit. If the commission is in a position to approve this, we should probably request a comprehensive set of plans that includes all the work as well as maybe circling the correction items that you all are aware of.

as planning or as building the comprehensive set that you were referring for?

Rebecca could add, I think it should go to planning and myself and Rebecca and maybe the chair, I'll review it for consistency as one. And here's a list of the correction items you can take a look at.

The original project that I worked on years ago with them corrected all of this, right, on paper. All of the items that were called in the residential building report were reflected in the, I don't know what year it was, in the 2022-2021 approvals. So we captured all of that thinking that the homeowners would go through with everything that's in the RBR based on the set of plans that was approved at the Planning Commission. And given the circumstances, nothing has happened now, but we've been discussing with the applicant that the retaining wall needs to be addressed, right? First and foremost, let's get that going. And then the remainder of the RBR items will be addressed.

But those are not in the set that we received. It's prior to that, the one that you mentioned. So do you need those to be reflected in any of these two? Because if not, I guess even I don't know how you would go to the next step, make sure those are happening.

I mean, the remainder of the items from the RVR?

Right.

Right. So that would be addressed. We have, I think we added, well, either it could be done through a condition of approval or we've talked to the applicant and that, you know, should they don't move, should they not move forward sort of in a good faith manner, then we would initiate a code enforcement case.

But what I'm trying to say is that the list is not clear. At least it wasn't clear for me when I went to site to see what are these items that they have to do. It wasn't clear exactly. Like basically reading this, you don't know exactly what they are doing. Like which one is that... retaining wall that on the east side which one is because in none of these drawings is noted that like this basically these items these 10 items item number one let's say is in this part of the drawing that one is it's not clear what are these items.

I think it was because the previous project just captured all of them. Yeah. And it was sort of, they went above and beyond this 10 list item. It was a major project.

So potentially in that comprehensive set that you mentioned would be presented to chair and those would be noted. Yes. Exactly on the plan, what they are and then.

Yeah. Thank you.

That's all questions I have.

I did have the same challenge with the plants, obviously, trying to sort out what actually happened, which I gather is not much based on the original proposal. But I'm left wondering, well, things like the plantings were decided based on what was being proposed back in 2023 or forever. And now they're dialing that back a little bit. And so we're making some adjustments based to the planting, you know, the recommendation based on their dialing back that little bit. And my thought is, well, what if we, you know, in a sense that looking at it for the first time, it's almost as if the 2023 approval, you know, doesn't matter. We're looking at a new proposal from our standpoint. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And like in the in the in some levels. HAB-Jacques Juilland- it's unclear to me whether I would going forward approve a planning plan exactly the same way that they did it back in 2023 based on what's now a little bit of a different design. HAB-Jacques Juilland- You know i'm generally unclear. What obligation the city has to try to even make that back illegally graded with the wall behind it? What obligation the city has even to try to make that work? Great if we can legalize it, but should we? And to me, that's a discussion that was probably had in 2023. And it was agreed that we probably should. HAB-Jacques Juilland, But I guess i'd like to know a little bit more. HAB-Jacques Juilland, That wasn't did did not jump off the page to be you know looking at either set of clients so. HAB-Jacques Juilland, What what was the discussion for me it kind of that back, you know graded and then fill platform. HAB-Jacques Juilland, That that the retaining wall would protect. Do we have any record of what the discussion was on that in 2023 like. By that was a value that we should. legalize. As opposed to.

yeah yeah.

There was a lot of discussion, but it would sort of circled more around the swimming pool and the impacts of the pool to the neighborhood and the retaining wall and the landscaping and privacy impacts and noise impacts. So there was a lot of sort of neighbor concern about what was approved or, you know, at the planning commission discussion, but What was there before, I don't know. Apparently, the work was done on the weekend, and then the house was put on the market. And they terraced that whole area. I don't know if you went to the site. I think I went to the site probably in 2021. And that whole stairway, I think, was... illegally constructed. So there was a lot of different components and the project that I was involved with took all of those things on the list and remedied them. And so now we're looking just at that sort of terraced area and retaining wall, which I believe is failing. And I think that we've had some neighbors concerned about the

stability of that wall and i think it's in the city's best interest to have that um repaired yeah and i i was present at the i can just build on what rebecca said i was at the hearing and spoke to the neighbors um and the focus at the time was on privacy landscaping the pool um i don't have a strong memory of the issue of the placement of the soil being a large if any part of the discussion at that time i think the assumption was that you know the the lot was going to be properly engineered the the project was going to move ahead um and the assumption was that you know it would be a better condition when it the project was done but the project hasn't happened. And people have more awareness. Maybe the conditions have changed over time. Maybe the slope has worsened. And I think I have heard there's concern in the neighborhood with the project not having gone ahead to get this condition stabilized. So the way I see it, this is an amendment to a previous approval that incorporates this solution and they're keeping open the prior design approval for the house in case somebody does it, be it the current owner or some future owner. I don't know if that's helpful, Don.

Yeah, it's just the challenge of you know, looking at specific tweaks now to something that in total has not occurred.

Right. Well, like the removal of trees from the landscape plan.

Yeah.

And we don't have to necessarily approve that. We can, I think we could say no to that, but I guess we should hear from the applicant. What's what's going on as far as why they're asking for the removal of those four trees. Do we have any other questions? Well, a little bit, um, Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation now?

I'm Sean Bailey.

the pool, the patios, there was JAU and AU replacing side windows, all that is no longer what Tim is trying to do. So what was submitted was the bare minimum of looking at the resale non-performing list that the building department put together. And there is a commitment from Tim to remedy all those.

I agree that

sending out the older set made a pretty good The cane wall has been the biggest issue for everyone for obvious reasons. It was built really poorly and the hillside stability is extremely legitimate. So the team's intention is to repair that. The old wall is slightly in the rear setback. That is going to be pulled back. We did slightly reduce the planting. It's just much more of a project in general. I think our logic in that is there's no longer a pool, there's no longer an outdoor kitchen, there's way less sort of gathering space that might create privacy concerns. There's quite a few existing trees right below the wall that planting new ones within that is as easy as it might seem. And I think the neighbor's concerns seem to be largely privacy related. Tim has pulled out a lot of those things that might create issues. So this is the list of stuff that was not informed. a couple months ago in May. We need to take care of all these Thank you.

That's actually helpful to know.

intent and why you're doing what you're doing.

So thank you.

Can you clarify something for me, Sean? I'm a little bit confused. Do you want the extension tonight? Or are you saying no, you do not want to apply for the extension and you only want this project?

But the intent is not to do any of the

Yes. So if it's just the plans for the wall, then that would be the only thing the commission is reviewing.

Does that include all the remedial work that is supposed to be done to the property? Or is that just an isolated wall?

That's an isolated wall. There's some siding work that I know is called out.

I think in 2023, If every little comment on that is a drawing, so there's a record set, then that's fine.

And the way I read the drawings, it was listed that in 2023 that that needs to be remedied, but it is not noted what it is. So basically, if you get rid of that set altogether and just move forward with the new set and note that the remedies should be done, you are not losing anything. However, those remedies are still unknown as to what exactly they are. but as you said, it is in the 2022 or 2021, it's clarified there. And I would say if they are, you would know, I don't know if you remember, but if there are not things that are planning commissions concerned really, so then we don't need to do it. But if there are things that are, basically exterior things that are affecting planning commission. It's a staff thing, then we don't need to talk about them if you would just add it there. But if there are things that is subject to planning commission review, then we don't exactly know what they are at this point.

I think if my memory serves me correctly, I don't think I was here for the 2023 one, but I was here for the previous two iterations under a previous owner. And there's some siding at the lower floor added that added floor area that was going to be turned into a JADU at one point. So there are some, I think a lot of it is building permit stuff, but there are some sort of significant planning commission items, or if it's a JADU, then it can be remedied that way. Right. So I think we have good record of it. And if it's conditioned that it is remedied with this project, we should be able to move forward with it.

I remember there was some kind of fill that was on the lower section where you were going to put the pool and it was unstable. So is that going to be remedied?

It will be, yeah. So that's where we got a bunch of boring on there.

So I'm going to refer to the building here.

So that would be really remedied when you do the new wall.

So is that soil that's that platform I guess or is it gravel or what is it?

so i want to go back to staff with another question so we have the plan for the wall in front of us tonight and then we have a list of other deficiencies and from the city's standpoint be it building or planning are are you wanting to see those deficiencies rectified as part of this process that we're talking about tonight, those things that are beyond the wall?

Not necessarily, no. I think a lot of them are building permit issues. And then the other, if there are other outstanding planning items, then we would just bring it back to you. But I think for the sake of simplicity with this project tonight, we should look at the plans in front of you, disregard the continuance of the previous set of plans and review the plans you have for the wall.

It seems like that's the real matter before us of some urgency, especially for the neighbors is to get this slope stabilized and properly engineered.

you know, I would also ask the commission to consider adding a condition of approval addressing the outstanding RBR items so that we so it so that they're addressed.

Okay. Thank you, Sean. Are there any comments from members of the public on this item?

Can you speak into the microphone?

Yes. A couple of quick things. Within a long project, you can probably tell what's going on. It's a little confusing for someone who finishes right out over a long time. Well, that's an example.

One thing I noticed is

I get that it's a smaller project, but the four trees along the perimeter, there's some of them that address a gap.

I think there's a

We put it in our email, one of the pictures where one of the trees would go in.

So then I guess there's a lot going on, but the staff had actually put in to approve the recommendation that they stay in.

In particular, one of them, there is just a pretty large gap for that tree to provide continuity. That's just one example of they maybe not need to stay in. I think also to put some boundaries around that set of timelines. It sounds like everyone wants to do that, but the numbers are getting worse and worse. In summary, three neighbors provided feedback.

I think one of that is about privacy, so there is some information.

Second is the landscape, let's say another look

Thank you.

Anyone on zoom Rebecca. Yes.

Deborah, you should be able to unmute yourself and go ahead.

Yeah, sorry, commissioners. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, this is John Wilton to Eucalyptus. So I want to thank the people that submitted the plans for respecting the request we've made to restore our privacy, because now we have a two fence, which is a platform, which is two feet above our six foot fence looking into our lot. So that seems good. The issue, I think, goes back to I was listening to the earlier discussion and I think comes back to trust and enforcement. You were discussing 24 months or X months for demolition. We've been six years with a structure that is not compliant with any of Belvedere's codes. Six years. Illegally built and the city's done nothing. So we don't have a lot of trust in our neighbour or anyone to make sure that this is fixed. And I share the Commissioner's views. It's totally confusing. What is the plan for the house? What is the plan for this thing? In my view, I'd like to see this thing fixed. Staff have not really clarified anything. They don't answer questions. So, you know, we just want an answer and we want it to be enforced. We've been waiting six years. We just heard other people talking about demolitions. We've been waiting six years for an illegal, 120 feet long, 10 feet high, full of gravel. So I just want some decision made that you can enforce. These plans are okay. But will they be actually followed? What will you do if they don't, if they sell the house? We've had it happen once. So that's our request. I'm sorry to be a bit blunt, but I just wanted to sort of draw it down to the nitty gritty. Thanks. Thank you.

I'd like to ask another question of staff if I can. The speaker brought up a timeline. Is there I think what I heard the the enforcement mechanism is, you know, some sort of condemnation or something if the work doesn't happen, but is there a timeline associated with this work? And you know, when does some other enforcement action get triggered?

Yeah, we have a condition of approval that we added to the resolution. It's at the top of page two that says, to rectify the unpermitted retaining wall in a timely manner, the applicant shall obtain a building permit before February 2nd, 2027. to demolish the existing retaining wall and construct a new retaining wall. If the building permit is not obtained before February 2, the city may proceed with noose and abatement, administrative remedies, and or administrative citation as outlined in the code. So that is in your resolution before you tonight.

But so that's a year away, February 2, 2027? Mm-hmm.

You think the question is how, to what extent is this a voluntary request for, you know, a change in landscaping versus, you know, a code violation that needs remediation. And at what point does it slip.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- We could certainly change the date. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I mean it's.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Well, I might ask the applicant if they feel that they could perform. HAB-Jacques Juilland- More expeditiously than that I thought I heard them say they wanted to start after the rainy season, so could you comment on that.

It's not very clear. I think it should be changed.

Yeah, because if you got a permit a year from now, and then I don't know how long the permit's good for, 18 months, this could go two and a half years before being rectified. And that seems counterproductive. I don't even think that the applicant necessarily needs that. So I think we should talk about rewording that if we proceed with this tonight.

There are no other hands raised on this.

OK. Oh, no other hands. OK. OK. So if there's no further questions of staff, I think I can close the hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Marcia, would you like to start the discussion, please?

I can make the findings for this, but I'm reassured from the architect that the back area would be repaired. I remember years ago, it was very unstable and it was filled with something that shouldn't have been. So I think the time is of the essence to fix the retaining wall. And most of this reduction is really landscaping. And they kept most of this landscaping is still on each side of the property to give privacy to number two eucalyptus and also for Belvedere Avenue was a bit of sporum. But I agree with the city that I think a condition of approval should be to add four oak trees. And Even if you add an oak tree into the, as I call it, fake grass, it will it will give some water retention to that because that plastic grass water just runs off of, it doesn't absorb anything. And so that will actually give it some absorption qualities for the hillside to put it in the grass. And of course, Oaks don't really need watering once they're in, but that would be my condition for approval. Those are really the only comments that I and I I assume you're leaving the cases I think you're leaving for privacy and over the revenue. That's the time to say it now.

Okay, thank you.

And do you want to make the condition Marsha that the oak trees to be on the lawn or wherever the applicant decides to be as long as they have for her.

I would encourage them to have at least one in the lawn.

I think I agree with everything Marcia said, except that I wouldn't know where the oak tree to be. I think we want the four oak trees to be and have the number of trees. I let them decide where those to go. OK.

Commissioner Shinsky.

Yeah, so I'm still back at the challenge of how to compel the work to be done in something less than two and a half years. And I haven't heard a way to address that yet. Is there one?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

I think the concern that... Chair Seidel mentioned is a good one. That is, how do we compel the project to be done sooner than two and a half years from now?

I think you can modify the language and the condition of approval.

We can look at changing the dates in this condition.

You can also consider the other items in the residential building report and add that in. Can I ask a clarifying question, please? So the resolution right now is for the extension So are we modifying the entirety of the resolution?

I think if possible to get it done tonight, not extension of the previous set, just the approval of the new one with whatever conditions commissioners would suggest. Is that doable as far as?

legality or I think it's either going to be that or they have to submit a consolidated set that

Yeah, I think I think we may be are trying a somewhat drastic surgery on a resolution that was a little more targeted on the extension. And I think that the Commission definitely seems like it wants to go direction of addressing some of the more substantive conditions for the project. And I'm not sure we can do that on the fly, frankly, at this meeting. But we can bring it back as a consent item at a future meeting if that's amenable to the commission.

Well, I, I, to me it would be acceptable. Um, they're not starting work tomorrow. They probably have a little window of opportunity here and just listening to my fellow commissioners, um, speak, um, some more clarity might be in order. Um, but I could, I could go either way. I could try to prove this tonight with some conditions. Um, but what, let me, let me pull them and see what their preference is.

I think I could also approve with conditions unless you think it's not doable.

Yeah, we can do our best if you want to start sharing the proposed conditions. And we'll see how much we can do here. It may be necessary to prevail on the chair to make sure that we have everything absolutely correct, reflecting the commission's intent. It is just a little difficult to do this on the fly, but we will do our best.

Hoda Hatoum, So, as far as the language of the timing that we are discussing what is realistic, as far as what staff thing so basically because. Hoda Hatoum, They have to provide. building permit drawings. They probably need some time to provide that. Then city has timing, how long it takes for the city to review, send the comments back. There is probably a set of comments that they receive, then they have to address those comments. So being realistic so that the neighbors Don't get frustrated again that some date would is suggested and is not meant to be realistic, what do you think is a realistic timeline as far as. Cities ability to review their drawings and.

I think it should be building permit submittal because I can't speak for the building official and how long it will take to review it. But I think the condition should have a date that the building permit should be submitted by.

So basically to change the language, the applicant shall submit a building permit before such and such date. Now, what that date is.

Well, maybe we can ask the applicant. He's probably the most familiar with the process. I have to reopen the public hearing, which I will do. I, in my mind, I came up with the date of July 2nd. That's five months. Would you be comfortable with that? I think it seems reasonable. And that's for the application of permit.

Yeah.

It still kind of leads open the question of performance, you know, as to, you know, then they get their permit and then when's the work. I don't know how to address that. Or if we can.

You could say to rectify the unprinted painting wall and the outstanding items in the residential building report.

Yeah, we could do that. That's fine. But I'm just thinking beyond the obtaining of a permit. I guess they get, for this kind of job, what do they do? They get a year to do it. You have timelines on these kind of projects, right? In terms of our processing? Yeah. I mean, don't you give a... I mean, there's basically, well, they start getting into some sort of additional fees if they run over the time limit.

For their construction? Yeah, for their construction. Oh, yeah, there'll be a construction time limit. So that depends on the valuation of the work, but I'm sure it'll be a year, 12 months, I'm guessing, based on our valuations.

Okay. Well, I feel like there's only so much... PB John Gerstle, We can do to encourage them and they sound committed to the project, and I think at some point if, for some reason there weren't performance it's going to be in the city's hands as far as code enforcement it's probably not an area, we can. PB John Gerstle, tread into at this point, but at least we can get that permit. PB John Gerstle, In quicker I think so. PB John Gerstle, All right.

anything um else or are we ready to make a motion on this those are our motion to approve the extension um under the condition that a building permit is applied for by july we say july 2nd july 2nd that was my suggestion and uh the addition of four oak trees

Yeah, you can come forward.

I also think there's another neighbor comment.

Oh, okay.

No, you're good.

I just want to say on extension, there were some COAs from the previous approval that no longer apply. I think there's one that was studying the garage.

I don't know how we get those

Right, I mean, if you're not changing the garage, I don't think the COA applies, but I defer to staff.

If you apply for the building permit, then the condition of approval applies. If you don't apply for the building permit for the garage, then the condition of approval is on paper only.

Oh, can I, I'm sorry, Sean, can I ask you one more question? Assuming we asked for four trees to be in the plan that aren't there now, do you think one or more of them could address the gap that your neighbor talked about? All right, thank you. Is there someone on Zoom that's trying to say something, Rebecca, at this point?

Sorry, do you want to open the public hearing again?

Well, not really. It's getting late.

It's the same person.

Oh, if it's someone who's already commented, I'm going to say no.

Already spoke. Roy Wickland does not have his hand up. Only Deborah Wilton does.

I can promote them to Matt. Sammy, we stopped sharing. Everyone, you can unmute yourself.

Hi. Thank you so much. My name is Roy Wickland. I live at 15 Belvedere, right below 105. And I submitted a letter a little late because I I didn't realize based on the initial announcement of the extension that there was going to be any changes. And the one thing that was taken out and removed that was not discussed by staff and was in the original 2003 permit that we spent considerable time with the commissioners both.

We can't hear you, Roy. I think something.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay. That the fence was intended to be a privacy railing, not an open railing. And it was discussed at length. The commissioners assured us that that would be incorporated when they submitted their landscape plans, which they never did. And so consequently, it's not showing up here. It's showing up as an open fence. And so for visual and sound purposes, considerations along Belvedere Avenue, both the residents and walkers. We feel strongly that fence needs to be a solid fence and not a open railing. And we were assured that was going to happen. And when it was resubmitted, the architect did not include that change. So we would respectfully like to see that change incorporated in the conditions that the 42 inch fence be a solid fence and also the retaining wall went all the way to the north property line and it no longer does that, it's shortened 20 or 30 feet and they did not extend it the rest of the way and that's important for both erosion and privacy. Thank you, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Sorry, Roy. Can you mention again what fence you are talking about? Where is that fence?

Yeah, there's a fence all along the retaining wall, on top of the retaining wall. They're calling it a a railing, I believe, and that fence is 42 inches. And there was significant discussion, I mean, hours and hours of discussions about that in 2023. And the conclusion was that needed to be solid, not a railing that was both visually and from a sound perspective open. So to provide privacies for people that lived along Belvedere Avenue and also the numerous walkers and bikers that use Belvedere Avenue. to tour the island.

Got it. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Chairman Siddal, it seems to me there are so many loose ends in this project that need to be addressed. I don't know if you want to consider continuing this.

Well, let me think for a moment here. new issue is cropped up here um i do remember the the discussion of the um fence on top of the retaining wall obviously i think its intent in the current design is a guard rail because there's a rather steep cliff there the rest of the the project's not going ahead i don't know if um Sean wants to address whether they'd be willing to make the fence a solid fence. Yeah, please come up.

Mm-hmm. Thank you.

Yeah, okay, thank you. So Marcia to respond to what you're saying. I don't think it's a... I'm not in favor of delaying acting on this over that particular issue. And I actually, I think that the guardrail is the main thing here for safety. I do remember there's a lot of education there. So in a lot of the use area is not going to happen. So I think, um, I'm comfortable with the other conditions that we talked about and try to get this thing rolling through the process. So with that. Are you looking for a motion?

Yeah, I'm looking for a motion. So I move that we adopt resolution to grant design review extension to 105 Golden Gate, conditioned on a building permit being applied for by July 2nd. 2026 and also the planting of four coast live oaks location to be determined by the applicant with the exception of we certainly like at least one of those to address the gap visible from Belvedere Avenue.

Well, you're going to have to ask.

Do we want to reference the, what do you call it, the RDR?

The Residential Building Report, the RBR.

RBR, yeah.

You could add it into that same report.

I mean, personally, I don't feel it's necessary, but especially if it is an extension, it definitely doesn't need because it is addressed in the previous one. However, if it is an extension is the timeline be set realistic, because then it's a bigger scope that they need to submit to building permit.

and if they don't do that they could still move forward just with the railing because they have approval for the rest of the things they don't want to do it they just do that part yeah if they don't we've seen it in other projects where the escape of work changes and they you know apply for a design review exemption stating that they're not doing you know a bullet point list of items that were previously approved

Okay. So, um, do you guys have the motion as Don recited it? Can I get a second?

Second.

Let's vote please. Hi. Thank you. I'll now adjourn the meeting.

And so.