Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission. We'll begin with item one, 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 hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak during open forum? Anyone on Zoom, Rebecca?

There's no one with their hand raised on Zoom.

Okay, thank you. We'll move on to reports. Are there any commissioners who would like to provide a report? Staff reports?

I just like to quickly introduce our new planning commissioner, Jacob Linetti. We are thrilled that you've joined us on the commission and look forward to your time on the commission. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any public comment and reports on City Hall? Well, probably not. So

Actually, I'll just do sorry, one more little quick update. We did. I know everyone's interested in the Mallard Point project. We did issue the demolition permit on July 15 last week for that project. Oh, thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Move on to 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 for the sequence that they appear on the agenda. I will request that we remove the approval of the minutes because we only have two commissioners here that were present at the last meeting. Does anyone else have any requests? So, yes. Sorry.

We received a letter from a neighbor with respect to number 28 Eucalyptus, which was the new garage, which was first approved in September of 2022. And I didn't know whether we wanted to reopen the design review for that based on the letter

staff is not familiar with this letter if you don't mind it is here on our podium is it for 34 eucalyptus maybe oh sorry never mind i'm fine okay 28 34 sorry sorry about that yes

I do words, not numbers. All right. Thank you. No need to remove number two from the consent calendar.

Thank you for that clarification. So with that, can I have a motion to adopt the items on the consent calendar with the removal of last meeting's minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve number two on the consent calendar. I'll second the motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt. I was wondering if there's any public comment on the consent calendar item.

Well, let's back up. Does anyone in the room have any thoughts on the consent calendar?

There's no one on Zoom either.

OK. All right. Thank you. So is the motion we made OK, or do you want us to retake it?

It's OK.

It's OK. All right. Thanks. We will now move on to the public hearing. I believe we're going to reorder the order that we hear the items in. We're going to begin with item five, which is design review and use permit for a dock expansion and boat lifts at 310 and 312 Beach Road. Can I have a presentation from staff, please?

Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration, this evening is an application for design review and use permit to construct a dock expansion, two boat lifts, kayak racks, and a shed. 310 and 312 Beach Road are located on steeply sloped lots on the eastern side of Belvedere Island. On July 1st, 1989, the city entered into a joint dock lease with the then owners of both properties to use and maintain their private docks. Historically, a deed gate fence and joint staircase provided access to the dock. The stairs which were in disrepair have since been removed due to safety concerns. In March of this year, the properties received planning commission approval to construct a shared elevator and landing within the strip to access the property shared dock. approval was also received to reconstruct the stairs and connect that connect to the existing pier. Staff has received many emails from residents both in favor of the improvements and not in favor of the improvements. Given the comments combined with the city's differing opinions on improvements on the strip, the applicant has decided to remove the plat the wood platforms from the project. The improvements that are under the Planning Commission review tonight are only the dock expansion, the kayak racks and the sheds. The revocable license has been removed from the project as well. The dock improvements are subject to design review and the use permit. The 270 square foot dock expansion is proposed on the southern side of the existing dock and will be constructed using composite decking materials. Two boat lifts are proposed on the eastern side of the dock. And the project proposes construction of a 36 square foot storage shed measuring 8 feet 2 inches in height and two kayak storage racks measuring 8 feet tall. The shed and kayak racks would feature brown composite shingle roofing and finish with vertical redwood siding to match the existing shed. The dock, boat lifts, kayak racks, and sheds are located on the water beyond the strip in the recreation zoning district. A use permit is required for these components in the recreation zoning district. As mentioned, the city and then owners entered into a dock lease agreement. The lease included several provisions regarding permissible uses of the dock. Relevant to this project, the dock lease states the dock may contain only facilities constructed for the docking and mooring of boats. For this reason, staff has advised the applicant that the proposed storage shed and kayak sheds are not allowed. because they are not directly related to the docking or mooring. However, staff advises that the project may include kayak racks since kayaks are considered boats and the racks are the equivalent of docking or mooring of kayaks. For the commission's consideration, the applicant provided amendments and additional information for the storage rack and platforms. First, the kayak storage racks would be located on the ends of the dock and rotated 90 degrees. The applicant has also provided two additional kayak rack options for the commission to consider in addition to the current shed proposals. And finally, the plans before you show the wood landings being removed from the strip circle here and right at the bottom of the screen. staff recommends granting design review and use permit approvals to construct the two boat lifts to kayak docks without their sheds. And the 270 square foot dock expansion all within the recreation zoning district, thank you and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Sammy. Commissioners, would you like to ask questions?

Yeah, I have a question. The second storage shed, that is still part of the application? Not the kayak storage shed, but the matching.

The 36 square foot shed. It is part of the application. Staff is not recommending approval. Okay, thank you.

And Sammy, when you said that the wooden platforms have been removed, what is going to, I mean, is there going to be any construction of anything on the strip and how does one get from the elevator down to the dock if the wooden platforms are not there?

Yeah. Good question, Commissioner Watson. If you remember in March of this year when the elevator got approved, they also received approval for a landing to get from the elevator down to the existing stairs. That stairs was also approved to be reconstructed in the same location. And so that's the design that our applicant is going to move forward with.

And one more question, the two kayak racks that are proposed for approval or recommending approval by staff, would that be the third option, the most open option?

That's right, the third option.

uh maybe uh sammy could you just go back to the um sort of the aerial that showed the parcels um so the yellow rectangle um is that that represents your understanding of what we call the strip that's correct okay yeah i just wanted to clarify that it's you know it's kind of hard when you're standing on site to tell There's no fences or anything. And water. Okay, thank you. Any.

Questions so just to clarify the improvements on this on the strip itself or not an issue here correct.

Correct okay.

And the reason the staff is not recommending the two sheds, one of which is already grandfathered and there is a kind of a shed there already, right?

There is one shed there right now, yes.

Okay. And the reason the staff is not recommending it is because it does not neatly fit into either the docking or the mooring definition. Is that correct?

That's exactly correct.

And without the two sheds recommended, would the landowner then remove both sheds or one of them is completely derelict or would he or both of them restore? What is the plan then?

Can you bring your mic a little bit closer? It's hard to hear you.

Sorry. Thank you. If the sheds are not approved, what is the plan to deal with the existing shed that is pretty derelict on the pier?

The existing shed can be repaired, but that would be the extent of the sheds that would be on the dock.

And if the owner were to build a second shed, that would increase the square footage of the dock, correct? Correct.

No, the dock is being proposed for an expansion. The shed would be on the dock, so it wouldn't increase the square footage of the dock itself.

Okay, so the dock is going to be increased anyways by that 270 square feet?

Yes, and that's primarily, well, partly for the boat lifts.

Understood. Thank you.

Sorry, one more question about the shed. You referenced in your report that there's a shed on a neighboring dock.

I'll have to, let me go back in.

Okay, thanks. There.

Okay, and I guess I was specifically wondering if the neighboring dock had one or two sheds on it. Thank you.

Another question. For a design review of the kayak racks, what's triggering design review? Is it because they're fixed or the height of them or what specifically? Why is it part of the design review?

That's also a good question.

I think it was part of the design review because it was more of a structure. At this point, you know, we require design review for permanent structures, so I would assume there's some permanency to a rack on a dock in the middle of the, or in the water.

Okay. Any further questions or shall we ask the applicant to present? Okay. If Mr. Conroe is Mark, are you ready to present?

Yes. Okay.

The one at 503, is that the right one? I think I said revised.

It's a sentence now. Mark, does this one look right? Does this one look right?

No. Why don't you go up to the guys and get the mic on so you're ready.

maybe promote me but make sure that mike's on push the button so it's great

Yeah, just start out with number one. I'll go in order.

Yeah.

Well, good evening, and thanks for the background music. And it makes me relaxed. My name is Mark Conroe. I live at 310 Beach Road. I'm representing the applicant. First of all, and foremost, maybe I want to thank planning staff. I don't know if planning commission knows, but you have some of the best planning staff probably in the country. I've dealt with a lot of planning commissions and planning staff, and they're right up there. So don't lose them. I think there's a couple of things in the staff presentation that I'd like to correct. The aerial is incorrect. So we'll get to that in a second. Where is the strip? So I'd basically like to address four questions. What does the general plan say about water usage in the docks? What are we proposing? What does the dock lease say about equipment storage? And where is that darn strip? The general plan consistently recognized as a Belvedere's unique identity drives from its intimate relationship with the Bay. It identifies maritime improvements, including docks, floats, and boat lifts as an important part of the hundreds of waterfront properties in town and recognizes a Belvedere Cove where we front as a important recreational resource and seeks to preserve the city's unique waterfront character. So what are we proposing? As staff pointed out, we had two pieces to our proposal. One was the dock and two was in the strip to add two platforms to as part of our elevator improvements. Clearly the whole issue of Making improvements in the strip is very political, politicized, and so we were advised a couple hours ago to pull that from the application, which we did. So the only thing we're discussing tonight are the dock improvements. So what are those dock improvements? And again, we'll get to where the strip is in a second. We're proposing to enlarge the existing dock that's been there for over 50 years by 270 square feet. This is only 120 square feet more than what was proved a couple of decades ago. This would result in the total dock area being 1,050 square feet. shared by two homes. This is probably, to my knowledge, the only dock in Belvedere which is shared with two homes. Otherwise, it's one dock, one home. So this results in a dock size per home of 525 square feet. And I would contend it's the smallest dock after we enlarge it in Belvedere, 525 square feet, including all walkways. We're also proposing a boat lift for each owner. Let's talk about those kayak racks and the boat equipment storage shed. There's one shed being proposed. If you can go to, actually, if you, are they seeing, what's in blue is what we're talking, you can leave actually that up for one second, Sammy, please. In blue is what we're talking about, in red is the strip, below that red line is the strip. and I'll get to the legal definition and our survey in a second. Let's go to the next definition, or sorry, next page. Page two of the plans there. Nope, that's not it. Oh yeah, okay, I've actually enlarged that a little bit. You had the old elevation, we were asked to provide an elevation. That was what was in the, if you can make it smaller so you can see, there's two parts of that elevation. Sammy, if you can, there you go, keep going. Okay, perfect. That's sort of the before and after. The before was a week ago. And the current is we turned the, only one change we made, we turned the kayak racks 90 degrees. One of the main reasons for doing this was to clarify this word structures. You can see that they're a single wall with a roof and they're see-through as you look from the beach or the bay. You can see the existing shed and a matching to be a proposed boat equipment shed. So that's what we'll talk about in terms of boat use. And we can talk about the kayak racks too. but they are covered and they match exactly what the neighbor has except about a quarter of the size. Let's go to the next slide. Okay. Let me make it a little bit smaller, please. Okay. Actually, that's not, I was looking in the plans. If you can go to the plans, the next slide in the plans. No, I just said plans, number one, sheet three of number one, yeah. Okay, if you can scroll through the pages. Okay, go back one page. This gives it, overall, you can see the strip, boarded in red. and what we're talking about in blue. And again, I'll substantiate the interesting on Sammy's slide, it showed the correct legal description on the left, but the incorrect area on the right. I talked to the title company why that is, and they said, it's pictorial. It's not meant to represent a legal description. The legal description represents the legal description, which is what we put on our survey, which is the line shown in red. Those are accurate to the edge. Let's go to the next slide in this package, please. Okay, this is on the left question about is there something like this nearby, this is a couple docs down that the two photos on the left photo from the front of it and the photo from the back of it. That in blue lines, it shows the size of our superimposed on the their existing shed you can see it's quite a bit bigger. On the right, just our pictures of the existing boat storage shed if you can go to the next slide please. Okay, and that's the elevation from the beach. Again, the package, the presentation that Sammy showed had the prior picture of what it looked like, but we just turned these racks to open the vista up. Okay, if you can go to the number two on my list of slides, please. That's all in that package there. Yeah. Okay. This is simply to make the point of the before and after of what the Vista looked. All we did is shift the outer two structures, which are kayak racks, 90 degrees. You can go to number three, Sammy, please. So again, we're trying to open it up. We're trying to address what we think might be concerns. So a couple hours ago, Sammy asked me, well, why don't you... Give me some examples of more open kayak racks. So this was done about two hours ago. The top is what we're proposing, and that's what's on the plans. And it has a single side to protect against wind and a roof. And again, that's what's a couple of doors down. Ours is much, much smaller than that, but same idea. There would be one for each user of the docks. Two alternatives, if you wanted to get rid of the roof, you would have a single wall without a roof. And then the third one down is a rack with no protection. The issue here is you get strong winds that blow across the bay and kayaks end up in the bay and create hazards in the bay. If we had to cut the baby in half, I would opt for the middle option. And that is with no roof, but just a wall to both attach stuff to and to protect against the wind. That would be perpendicular to the beach. So as you're standing in the beach, as our elevation shows, except you would get it rid of the roof. So you would just see this end of a wall and the kayaks itself. So it'd be virtually invisible, but it would help solve the problem. It also helps solve the problem where to put the oars because you'd strap those to the wall. On the bottom example, I'm not sure where they go. I know where they would end up in the bay on a strong wind. So we would prefer not to have the bottom option.

Okay, next slide.

So let me, I guess that is the, and I can entertain any questions about those improvements. So in summary, it's two kayak racks, one for each of us, and one boat storage shed. The boat storage shed seems to be on the endangered species list now in terms of keeping it. Staff's recommending not keeping it. The only thing I would ask is where do you keep all the stuff? life preservers, oars, anything you might want to use with the boat. So I guess it's either in our living room or garage, which is up the top of the mountain, or in the boat itself. So that would be because it's quite a trek to get down the mountain. So having a four foot by basically a storage shed that's smaller than a ping pong table out there is, and again matching the one that's already out there so it's easy to visualize is what we were asking for but I understand if that's controversial, and is foreboding, then we want to move forward. So I guess that means you take it off the list. Just real quickly about the dock lease. The dock lease is not specific as to structures on a dock. It says... really just two things in the lease in two sentences, that the dock is for private recreational uses and for docking of boats. And you heard staff say just a second ago that the docking kayaks is acceptable to them, not sure with or without walls or roof, but keeping boat equipment in a storage shed is not acceptable. So as I said, there's a practical issue, but I'm not really here to fight City Hall on putting a storage shed on this dock. So if that's considered precedent setting, then I think it comes out. So that is, I just want to have one last comment. If you could pull up the APN map for the, for the strip. There's two attachments, two PDFs. One's the APM map for the strip and one's our survey for the strip. Could you pull those up, Sammy, please? The first one you'll recognize. It's just a bigger version of what Sammy showed.

Is it in your presentation, Mark? Yeah. Yeah, go to the slide. It's probably never.

Let's go here. And it's under, go under extra.

That's a good point.

Yeah. Okay. Go for the APM map and then the second one. Let's show the third one. This is public information. It's the APN map. The thing to glean from this very clearly, it's a legal description. The strip is actually a legal parcel. It's parcel 06. Every parcel that the county has has a legal description. You can see meets and bounds on this legal description on this parcel. You can see the same where our houses are. It's actually very easy to plot the two. And so all I've done in the next slide is taken the survey that we did for both the strip and for the homes right here and overlaid that legal description, the piece that fronts us. Over there. And those are the green lines. So there's the strip ends just above the rip raft. There's no question about this. There's no evidence of anything else. Unfortunately, there's that misleading errant aerial, but that has no no legal evidence. bearing on anything it's the legal description for lots that dictate where lots are and that's where the strip is so um i don't think there's any question and i'm happy to entertain any other legal descriptions that may be found at the strip but that's the only one that exists So I'll end in this, and this was, I think, in the packages. We got letters of support from all the abutting neighbors, literally the ones that abut on each side of us, and then others on the street. So there is support for this, and I think that's an important part of the proposal. I think that's it, and I'll entertain any questions. Thanks for bearing with me.

Would any planning commissioner like to ask questions of the applicant?

Hi. Sorry to take us away from the thrilling conversation about kayak racks. Can you tell us about the lighting that's planned for the dock?

Sure. And staff made in their staff report of recommendation, which I'm fine with. And we have the most unobtrusive lighting you can put in those little puck lights that are, you know, one inch diameter that are flush mounted with the dock. So you'd, Don't walk off the end of the dock. And I think they said, hey, there's instead of 32, I think the numbers we put, the architect put 32 on there and they said, let's put 20 on there. That's not a key issue to us. So staff can adopt whatever they want with respect to the dock. Importantly, it's not light pollution. Other docks have basically searchlights out there and these are just puck lights so you can see where you're walking.

And they're shielded from the top. They're not shining straight up, correct? Like you see in the photo here?

Yes. Yeah, that represents what we're planning to do. So yeah, exactly.

Okay. So about how many feet do you have in between them?

Well, the architect put there, I would say there's about six feet or six or eight feet between them now. And if you reduce them by 40%, they'll be 10 or 12 feet apart.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Could I make one further comment? Oh, yes. Okay. And I'm not going to bore you with my pictures of high tide, and it's largely unrelated and irrelevant to the proposal. But just for the record, we support the public's use of the beach. And to the extent it's accessible, which it is in high tide, and we have some photographs that show the water against the riprap, we're all good for that. It's not on the strip. but it's um again there's been some talk about uh public use of the beach and and what we're doing doesn't change that at all thank you thank you go ahead mark so in terms of the rocks that kind of the three possibilities here um i understand

You know, your point about the third one, the lowest one being not ideal, but you could still do some kind of a strap-on system, right, where you strap in the kayaks and you could strap in the oars. Is that still possible?

Yes, that would certainly be the backup plan to, if you had an open structure like the bottom picture, then the wind, the problematic direction is north-south, basically north-south. 80% of the time, the wind comes from the Pacific Ocean and we're on the backside. I don't know, that's why Belvedere built their houses there first, because it was the better side without the view of San Francisco, of course. But the wind comes from Mexico or Alaska about 20% of the time or 10% of the time, and it can get howling. Someone asked what happened to our gangway. That was ripped off in a storm, and actually all the damage you see to the existing dock was done last November. So it actually looked much different before you had three-foot waves cresting and taking the walkway down. So that's the event that I'm trying to protect against, where you get 50-mile-an-hour winds blowing across the dock and taking things with it. but certainly we either go grab everything off and try to bring it up the elevator into the house up to the top of the mountain, or we strap it down and go fishing afterwards.

Thanks.

I think the commission is finished with its questions. So would any member of the public like to speak regarding this item?

Sandy Donnell 137 Golden Gate Avenue over there. And I guess I'm curious about what the point of like talking about the strip and the water and the water is not being part of the strip. That's one of my first questions. And then I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that not only if, if any of that land does become privatized in the agreement between the when the when the property was conveyed to the city of Belvedere by the land company in what 1896. It was if anything is, if we don't set up, live up to the covenants that they have agreed to, then it reverts to the Belvedere Land Company. So that is at risk that the Belvedere Land Company is entitled to take all that property back if the city abuses that. And then you spoke about the, so the revocable license. So how is the elevator coming down if there is no revocable license? um maybe staff can answer that i mean maybe you can't answer because i'm just a person talking but do you want me to yeah yeah okay yeah the uh planning commission approved those a few months ago and it has not gone to city council yet but so there is a revocable license

It has not gone to city council for a revocable license yet.

But that's possible.

Yes, it will go.

Okay, it will go. Well, I didn't bring my little picture here, but you've all had it where if you see, then it's giving away almost as much land to private parties as the land and their ownership and their own lots, existing lots. So I think that would be very irresponsible of the city, but a revocable license is still supposed to be open to the public. You can't privatize, you can't cut it off and make it part of your yard. It still is something that can be used by the public. That's my understanding. When I was on the city council, when we looked at revocable licenses, that was one of the strong findings. And I'm going to run back and get my little picture for you. Just a sec.

Sure. Can I ask a question? I had thought that there was a revocable license for the existing stairs that, or I guess the pre-existing stairs.

Yeah. In 2022, 310 Beach received a recommendation for approval for a revocable license for his own stairs to come down to the shared dock.

But I had thought that the stairs that used to be there had a revocable license associated with those stairs.

On 310 Beach or 312 Beach?

When we discussed this having to do with the hillivator, it was my understanding that there was a revocable license that was associated with the stairs that the hillivator was, in essence, replacing.

At Mr. Conroe's property, there was a revocable license on his property to get down to the stairs from his side of the property. That revocable license in March replaced all revocable licenses in the strip before that one. So any revocable license that was approved prior in the strip was no longer. And the one that went in 2022, it was recommended for approval by planning commission. Mark, I don't recall that it went to the city council. So he had a revocable license for that stairs.

Okay, thank you.

And back when it goes to the city council.

So if I can just clarify is there is there not a revocable license now.

You say you were you had it with you.

So if you could just give us one minute, I think we are just double checking our records down here. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Can I make, because this is, of course, I've researched it heavily, a couple quick comment on the revocable license, which, of course, the city council is their purview. But for 50 years, we had one for the stairs that were there. In 2022, that was a... I was granted one for the stairs, and that's in place now. If the one that's going next month to the council gets approved for the elevator, that would replace the one for the stairs. As far as the use of the strip, we're dramatically reducing what's been done historically. And I have an exhibit for this. I didn't think we'd be discussing this because it's a city council matter. But we were about 600 or 700 square feet for 50 years. The stairs are about 500 to 600 square feet of impact area on the strip. And currently, we're about 230 square feet for the elevator. And I have an exhibit that shows all this. So we've reduced in half our impact of what's been going on for 50 years. It's the exact opposite of what people are suggesting, that we're getting more land. We're actually giving up a lot more land. Even if we had the platforms approved, it would be 30% less than what I already have a revocable license for. Platforms don't get approved in a month. It's 50% less than what I currently have in my hand in terms of a revocable license. So again, we're trying to reduce our impact on the strip. We're giving back land that's been used for 50 years. So those are the facts around the revocable licenses.

Thank you. We'll wait for a moment for staff to catch up with them.

There's an existing revocable license for 312 beach for landscaping. I'm pulling up in 2022. There is a stairs were part of a revocable license. I don't have that recorded, but I can go back to the minutes of that meeting and see if it was approved.

So will the landscaping license for 312 remain in place, or is that going to be replaced by this new.

Yes, my understanding of, okay, so we're talking about the revocable license now. My understanding of it, when it goes to the council, it will be for the landscaping for 312, the entirety of the strip. So both those property owners are willing to take on responsibility and liability for the entire strip. If you draw imaginary property lines down the hill towards the water at the edge, it would stop. And they both have communicated to us that they're willing to take on that liability and responsibility.

That may be, I mean, I'm not exactly sure how that dovetails into our deliberations tonight, but it's probably a very good point for us all to be aware of. And I think it'll be clarified when it goes, if and when it goes to council for consideration at the replicable license stage. I'll just note there haven't been any landscape proposals for either lot in front of either lot on the strip. And I imagine if there were an intention to do landscaping there as opposed to maintenance and debris collection, we would see a plan, but we haven't seen one to date. Are there any other comments from the audience? Please come forward.

Hello, I'm Charlie Harrington. Oh, should I wait for the timer? Anyway, I'll start. I'm Charlie Harrington. I'm chair of the Belvedere Parks Open Spaces and Lanes Committee. On this matter, I've been engaged with city staff. A couple months ago, I met with city staff, a council member, and a homeowner at the site. We reviewed and discussed what seemed like a great project, which was to add the elevator, repair the existing damaged dock, and improve pedestrian access on the beach underneath the dock, which was awesome. But the project has ballooned since then. I've written two letters. Hopefully you've seen those. Um, so I was going to talk about two things. It does look like the shoreline decks have been removed from this proposal. That was one of the things I was going to bring up, but, um, otherwise I'll talk about the building of the, uh, additional dock. So the Belvedere general plan was brought up earlier. I reviewed it when I joined parks, open spaces lanes, and there's an exhibit exhibit three is the land use map. This is colorful map showing what, what everything is. And the general plan, that map clearly shows that the waters of Belvedere Cove are open space. So in the staff report, they're contending the new dock would be in the R zone, city's recreation zone. So there's some ambiguity there. So I just highlight that for your attention. And then in the staff report, it talks about the term of private recreational land use as an acceptable way to get a use permit. And in that same map, which of course I don't have in color, I don't have a color printer, but there are three locations in Belvedere where you can have private residential land use. It's on that map. They are the two yacht clubs and they are the homes along the water on Corinthian. I think those homes interestingly own the water underneath or own the land underneath the water right there. But Beyond that, the general plan doesn't show any other private recreational land use. So I wanted to highlight that. Of course, there are the grandfathered-in private recreational docks. It's my understanding the city has not approved another dock being construction since the 80s. So I just reminding like what this project is, you know, repairing the existing dock is one thing, but expanding and doubling the size of that fixed dock, effectively building a new dock, which the city has, as far as I know, hasn't done in many years. So yeah, the original project of a hill elevator, existing dock repair and improving pedestrian access under the dock. No issues with that. And again, I appreciate the engagement that we've had so far. But I just think about the precedent of giving away the city's public zones open and recreation for private benefit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Seidel, just for your consideration, we did find the 2022 revocable license which was executed at 310 Beach Road and included a new staircase landing and landscaping.

Okay. And so is that already repealed or is that still in effect until something supersedes it?

That's still in effect.

revocable license is still recorded on the property. So it could be repealed, assuming this project goes forward to city council, but then there could be some potential for harmonizing the two revocable licenses, given this 22-1 references landscaping. I don't think that would be disturbed, but obviously the stairs and such could be impacted. So we would need to harmonize them, assuming this project goes forward.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, anyone else? I'm letting members of the public comment right now, Mark. Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom who would like to say anything?

There are no hands raised.

Okay. Okay. Mark, if you have one very brief comment, I'll let you say it.

There is the staff report correctly identifies recreation zone versus open space zone. The general plan is confusing, but Mr. Herring says that's because it shows open space all the way to Angel Island. So its logical conclusion is that parks and open space can regulate things all the way to Angel Island. If you look at the current zoning map, it clearly shows open spaces, the hillside, the strip, and recreation is the beach and the water. That's the zoning map. City staff presented that to me this week. So I think the general plan needs to be amended to be consistent with the current zoning map, which is the hillside is the open space, the strip, the beach, and the bay.

our recreation zone not review of the parks and open space people thanks okay thank you so I'm going to just give one more opportunity if anybody wants to say anything before I bring this back to the planning commissioners Having said that, I will now close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Jenna, could you please lead the discussion?

Sure, I'm happy to. With your permission, I'm going to stand up. I threw my back out this past week, and it's a little bit painful to sit, so I'm just going to do this. Sorry. It's much better. First of all, I want to say thank you both to the staff and to the homeowners and also to Charlie Harrington. This has been a project that we've discussed a couple of times, and I think there's a lot of real thoughtfulness that is all around on all aspects of it. As some of you know, I actually used to be chair of the Parks, Open Spaces and Lanes Commission. So I am very attuned to the public access issues, especially with the beachfront properties and some of the coordination that it takes with the homeowners and the commission. So thank you. One thing that I like about this project is that it's actually getting the homeowners to be able to use their waterfront. One thing that I find amazing about Belvedere is that we're surrounded by water, yet the access to the water is almost nil. I mean, when you think about the ways that the public can access the water, it's really difficult. I mean, for those of us who don't live on, and for those of us who live on the water. And the reason why I had asked about the revocable licenses, because I think that one of the things that makes all that you're so great is that we do have, um, as you know, we do have the strip is we do have access that's built into, um, our land, our land records for the, for the public. And that's something I'm very interested in, um, in, in, in keeping, um, one One thing that I want to point out is that there's two different sections to what we're looking at. There's the strip, which I appreciate that there's no building that's happening in the strip now, and that is in the... Other building that's being covered by it is already covered by revocable license, which is why I asked about that. And then the dock itself, which in looking at the plans, there are going to be six new pilings that are going to be dug. And I appreciate the amount of work that's been done by the seafaring agencies to approve that. I don't really have that much of an opinion with respect to the kayak racks. I mean, I've seen enough kayaks blown around. And I can't get that excited over whether a kayak rack has a wall or a roof or no roof and no wall. So I will leave that to other members to talk about. But I do appreciate that this is a unique project for the expansion of the dock because it is shared by two houses. And I think that the plan in its, even though it is enlarging the dock considerably, does serve to not require putting a new dock in for you know, for the other homeowner, and that they are sharing a dock. And I find it amazing that in this community that two homes next to each other have been able to share a dock for so long. I think that's a testament to our community, quite frankly. So what is the expiration of the lease?

About 25 years I think it's 39. 29? Yeah.

Okay. And there's no proposal right now to extend that?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay. Thank you. All right. That's my comments right now. Thank you. I'm just going to continue to stand. Okay.

Permission granted. Isola, please.

Yeah, thank you. I'd just like to thank the applicant and other members of the public who spoke. I really do appreciate your efforts in working with the staff on this project. I spent a lot of time reading through all the details and it's a very thoughtful application. And I appreciate the comments about the general plan. I think it's really important to open up access to the water and recreational uses. However, I do think that the planning or the city staff's interpretation of the lease terms is important. is something that is guiding this project as well in terms of the storage not really being allowed under the lease. The dock expansion, I think I agree with the recommendation that it's in keeping with other docks in the area. It's not oversized. The materials are all compatible. And I think it's consistent with the R zoning district as well. As far as the storage racks for the kayak, I do, again, think that while I appreciate the general plan provisions, I do think that the lease provisions are the more restrictive provisions. here. And I think that the more open kayak rack seems more appropriate. Otherwise, it becomes more of a storage structure, which, according to staff interpretation of the lease wouldn't be permitted. And again, I do think that the reduction in lighting on the dock as proposed by staff would be appropriate as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Jacob, can we weigh in on this now?

Yeah, I second the comments that have been made. And thank you to Mark and others who have expressed their views here as well. I come to it from, I guess, a very similar perspective, which is we have a pretty derelict dock right now. And it's really an eyesore for pretty much everybody involved. And there is a plan to fix it, to renovate it. slightly enlarge it in a way that I think will add to the aesthetic appeal and in essence, the public benefit there. So for me, that's an important factor. As regards the rack, I'm of the opinion that you should strike a balance between what's the most utilitarian but also provides for the safety. I don't think it's good for any kind of plastic debris to be blown away and floating in the bay. So, Mark, I think you've expressed the opinion that the second version is probably the one that will provide that medium of safety, but also least intrusiveness. I'm fine with that design. I think it strikes an appropriate balance. That's my opinion.

Thank you. There has been, I would say, a lot of work on this application. I appreciate staff. I appreciate the applicant and community members, parks, open space, and lanes input. I've tried to diligently read and reread it all and read the deeds. I think it's been an interesting process application to study because it really touches on four different parcels. And there's, you know, information going back all the way to the 19th century to take into consideration here. And I should disclose I've had numerous conversations with Mr. Conroe in the course of this, sort of trying to navigate the best course. I feel, I share with fellow commissioners, I think we're on a pretty good course here now. During my admittedly somewhat limited years on the commission, we have had several of these applications related to docks and transiting across the strip. And I think so far, my impression is that The idea, even though it's not specifically mentioned in the deed, that if you have a dock, you gotta have a way to get there. And so that's what this application has now. Not so clear that expansions beyond that within the strip are a good idea. So I feel it's a clean application now with the removal of the platforms. And then I go out to the dock. I feel this is probably a pretty unique situation in Belvedere where two properties are sharing one dock. I think given that it's a unique situation, I can understand why each homeowner would essentially wanna have a place for their own boat and lift. and I don't think the docks are excessively large. So I would be able to find in favor of the dock. So when you get to the discussion of, you know, the things on top of the dock, you know, I'm inclined to go with the staff interpretation, I think, but partly because in my own mind, given that the dock is in an open space zone, I think, Having less structures on it is consistent with the idea of an open space. I mean, it's basically a horizontal plane with a railing. You can more boat there. Um, it's not obstructing the views of the open space and there are people using the beach who want to look out. Um, so. Again, I appreciate the offer to remove the shed. So that kind of leaves us with the kayaks. I think it's got to be either image two or image three and bear with me for a minute while I vacillate here. I think that properly secured. It probably has to be significant strapping or something. I think that the kayaks themselves are weatherproof. They don't need cover. How a freestanding wall is gonna perform, it's a little hard for me to predict whether it's gonna add that much safety. So I guess I'm inclined to go with just the rack And I would add though, as far as I'm sensitive to what Mr. Conroe brought up about lugging everything up to the house, you do want to have storage for life preservers and paddles and so forth in a secure way. But there are prefabricated bins that are of a lower height that to me would be acceptable. They may not even have to be part of the you know, whatever findings we make today, because I think they're, you know, not necessarily a fixed structure. They would be attached to the dock so they didn't blow away. But to me, that would be acceptable because they would be sort of more in the height range of a railing. So less view obstructing, but sort of solve the storage problem, which I think is a legitimate desire. Um, so I, I think that's pretty much how I come down on it. Does, does anyone have anything further to say, or, um, are we, it sounds like we're relatively consistent as someone wants to take a stab at making a motion.

Do you want the lawyer to do it?

I'd appreciate it.

All right. Like to propose a motion to adopt the resolution granting design review approval to construct two boat lifts to wood landings and a dock extension for the properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the excuse me.

Not the woodlandings.

Oh, sorry, not the woodlanding. Sorry. Yep. Adopt a resolution granting design review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the following requirements. There'll be a reduction in the number of lights as discussed. That the kayak racks be rack number.

Three.

be rack number three in the photos that were shown, that the new shed proposed is not approved, and that the public access is maintained along the beach in the same degree as currently exists.

If I could just clarify the motion, if you don't mind, Commissioner.

Go for it.

Yeah, so the shed is not before you. It's no longer part of the application, given the duck lease.

All right.

Right, and then I believe you at the end addressed maintenance. Is that what I heard?

No, no, public access.

Oh, public access. Okay. That's not part of design review.

Okay.

But if that's something that you nonetheless want to address, that's okay, but it's not technically a design review criteria. Okay. Right, we're on the design review resolution.

That's not part of the project. So do you have the peer? They're just rebuilding that. And that sort of relates more to the revocable license.

OK. All right, then we can take, we can, if that's not, if what's before us isn't covered by the area that the public

walks right we're not addressing any improvements on this track all right all right so we have lighting rack number three that's it yes thank you so much commissioner all right okay so do you want me to rephrase i think we have it unless anyone else up on the diets would like a read further read can it be read again of course

Right. I'd like to propose a motion to adopt the resolution granting design review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road. with the requirements that there be a reduction in the overall lighting on the dock as discussed in this meeting and that the kayak racks be of the sort shown as rack number three in the photos presented at this meeting.

Perfect, thank you so much, Commissioner.

Okay, we'll please vote all in favor. Aye. Thank you.

All right. And then we have another motion. OK. I would like to propose a motion adopting resolution granting the use permit approval to expand the existing fixed dock on the city-owned water parcel within the R zoning district adjacent to 310 and 312 Beach Road. And I'd like to add subject to the existing lease or something where I reference the fact that the use of the dock is covered by the lease with the city.

Yes, I think it's fine to reference or include subject to the existing dock lease.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the existing dock lease.

Yes, you can. Is the dock lease coterminous with a revocable license?

No, not necessarily. So that's a very good point. So the dock lease, as referenced before, is set to expire on June 30th, 2039. Revocable leases do not necessarily have a term. That's something that the city council could conceivably incorporate, but they don't always have a term.

So it is something that we should probably look into in that the two documents should be coterminous, right? Because you can't really have a dock without the revocable license that allows for the access to the dock, correct? So isn't the revocable license covering the strip of land? And the strip of land is where the elevator and the stairs are without the strip of land. without that elevator and the stairs, you cannot access the dock. Is that correct? Logically correct? Yes.

Yeah.

So therefore the two, the revocable license and the lease, the dock lease should have the same term, same length would be my advice on that. Otherwise you can have a situation where one expires or one is revoked, but the other one remains and the landowner may have other, other remedies for it, but I don't think the city would want to engage in those.

Yeah, that's a very good point, Commissioner. We can certainly raise that with the city council when they consider the revocable license. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we need a second. Second motion.

Please vote. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

And then we do not have a motion. We don't need this. Okay.

All right. I think that concludes this item. Okay. We are now going to return to our regularly scheduled program and I will open the hearing on item three, design review for additions to 34 Eucalyptus Road. Can we have a presentation from staff, please?

Yeah, we're ready. Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission again for your consideration this evening is an application for design review to construct two additions and a canopy at 34 Eucalyptus Road. The subject property is 22,000 square feet and on a steeply sloped lot on the southwest side of Belvedere Island. The parcel is located near the end of a cul-de-sac on the private Eucalyptus Road and is surrounded by single family homes in all directions. The site includes an existing 3,697 square foot residence and 600 square foot detached garage, which is screened by dense vegetation and mature trees along the property's western, southern, and northern sides. The applicant proposes two additions resulting in 289 square feet of new floor area to be located on the lower level of the existing residence. One addition, with total 55 square feet at the northern side of the property, 23 feet from the right side property line. The second addition consists of a 234 square foot addition beneath the footprint of the upper level deck at the rear of the residence. The 234 square foot addition will be 17 feet from the rear property line and 45 feet from the left side property line. The 55 square foot addition would include one sliding door and one fixed window. The 234 square foot addition would include one sliding glass door and two fixed windows. The additions would not increase the height of the home. The 55 square foot addition would be nine feet, six inches in height from existing grade. And the 234 square foot addition would be set into the sloping hillside, 15 feet above existing grade. The proposed exterior materials would match the existing residence, including dark flint rock, colored wood siding, and steel windows and doors in a matte dark bronze finish. The project proposes constructing a new 532 square foot steel canopy on the existing upper level deck. The canopy structure would be 11 feet tall and supported by four steel columns with a matte dark bronze finish. The existing deck would be renovated as well with the existing seating area to be removed and installation of new stone pavers and glass guardrails. Here are the rendering details, the look of the stone deck and canopy. The canopy would include motorized shades as well. exterior lighting is proposed on the new canopy and they would include six flush mounted exterior lights between the canopy steel slats. The project does propose landscaping that would include prairie drop seed grass within a 27 square foot planter on the entry level deck the grass would grow to a maximum height of four feet. For the commission's consideration, we did receive one letter about the project related to a previous approval in 2022, and that information was sent to you and on the dais for you as well. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Staff recommends that the design review process be granted and the Planning Commission adopt their resolutions for totaling 289 square feet and 532 square foot canopy on the existing upper level deck. Thank you and we're happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner's questions for staff?

You, for staff, you were not really counting the canopy as one of the additions, correct? Because it's open to the sky, correct?

Exactly.

Okay, thank you.

if the canopy were ever to be more completely covered, like more than 50%, then it would count as square footage and it would be noncompliant, I presume.

We would then count it as square footage, yes. Okay, thank you.

Regarding the letter that we have about the lighting that, I didn't look at the lighting when I was there. It seems like it may not be compliant with our existing lighting, may not be compliant with our guidelines. Is that something that we can think about here or is that something that should be handled through another process?

The design review findings do take into consideration all existing nonconformities. I remember that that lighting that was approved in 2022 it was incorrectly approved. So.

yeah.

It was subject to a final lighting and landscape plan by the chair at the time. The chair did not get an opportunity to review those lights. So it was approved and the building permit was issued, but there was no final lighting and landscaping plan that was approved by the chair in 2022. Okay.

So that's good history. Is it something that we could act on in this approval and ask for it to be rectified or do we need to separate them and do?

We have the points. I think typically it would be handled through a code enforcement action. I was involved with some of the complaints about the lights and I pulled up the plans and the lights that are my understanding in 2023 that the lights that are on there are the lights that were approved. So it sounds like amongst staff, we need to do a little more historical research into this.

Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm sympathetic to what the letter is expressing. However, I don't have information regarding the details of it. So like, for me, it would be kind of hard to, to say anything at this point. So I just, but I think maybe there's something that internally you could do in terms of rectifying this, the situation if it's non-compliant. Okay.

Yeah, can we, even though this was formally approved, can we encourage the applicant to change those lights?

Yeah, I think it's very good.

Yeah, Commissioner, yeah, certainly one of the options is to discuss the issue with the property owner, but it sounds like, again, that we also need to make sure that we understand the history as well.

All right, because I want to... I also noted there are six more lights under the canopy, which we can discuss with the applicant that I asked him to decrease.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. If we have no further questions, is the applicant here would they like to speak? Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for your time this evening. I met with Marsha on Sunday, and she had some very good ideas. We will reduce the number of lights in the canopy from six to three, and if the council would like me to replace the lights on the deck, I don't want it to be an issue with my neighbors, and I'd be happy to do that and make it conform. I want to be a good neighbor, and Also, Marcia had a very good idea about landscaping below the proposed addition. And the architects and landscape company sent a plan in this evening. I don't think it made it in time for the meeting. That includes landscaping all on the hillside and four oak trees, two 30-inch box oaks, and two 24-inch box oak trees. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant? She's got a lot of experience, right? Are there any comments from members of the audience regarding this item?

I have one comment. If it's in the planning commission's interest, we will pull up this landscape sheet because the additional landscaping would require design review. So if you can review it, on the dais, I think that would help the applicant out to not have to go through design review again. Okay, that's how I know that's putting a lot of pressure on you.

Yeah, well, I was going to make it a condition. Yeah, I was going to make the landscaping as a condition of approval.

That size have to be reviewed at a design review level. Okay.

So is this a revised plan that we're looking at?

So I think it's new.

Yeah, it was an addition. Oh, okay. But this represents the landscaping that you just discussed. Yeah. And so maybe you could just spend a minute describing what this is.

We just got it today. So it's, it's basically a variety of different shrubberies. And then the four oak trees that you see there, closer to the Belvedere Avenue. And we did that on Marsha's direction. And I did plan on doing some enhancement of landscape because there's been a lot of work done under the house, air conditioning and some shoring up of the foundation. And it's pretty much just bare land. And I wanted to bring it up to you. bringing it up to a higher quality look.

I think the biggest sort of impact here are these four oak trees. We don't have a size on it. I think that can be determined with the planning commission chair afterwards, if you're inclined to review this tonight. The other landscaping, the maximum height ranges from one foot to six feet. I think that's sort of what the planning commission tends to look at in terms of height and potential view impact and things like that. I think the biggest impact again are these trees here, which look like they're going on the lower side of the house. So I would assume it would be a while before. I know they're going here on the side. So I think that's a detail that can be determined with the planning commission chair.

I was thinking that perhaps the landscape plan could be, it could be conditioned, but then it could be approved by the chairman and planning staff.

Yes. Okay. And Rebecca, if you just scroll this up a little bit, the area on the right, uh, no, uh, move the image up. The deck with the canopy is above that rectangle there. And there's planting that's going under the deck, I guess, if I understand that correctly. Yes.

So that way, when people are looking up from the street, they'll see the planting?

Yes.

Yeah, here's the deck area. These plantings are Some type of rosemary.

But they're at ground level. They're ground, they're two feet. Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Yeah, you can't, I don't think we, they're allowed to plant rosemary. They're with stringia, which is a different, yeah, that's fine.

Okay. Thank you. Catch on fire.

Yeah, yeah.

And are these the kind of oak trees that grow to be 30 to 50 feet high?

I'm sorry? The oaks.

Are these the kind of oak tree that grow to be 30 to 50 feet high?

No, that's not the plan. I think they're slow growing. I talked to the owner of the landscape company. I think The 30-inch box trees are maybe 12 feet high when you plant them, and they're pretty slow growing.

They are coast live oaks, so I think they have the potential.

But it would take longer than for me to be here. We'll be dead. Okay.

Okay. Does everyone feel like they got a good look at that?

Just in all seriousness, once we get that final landscape plan, we would put a max height on them.

Yep. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for that. I don't think I asked, was there anybody on Zoom that wanted to, hands raised, say anything here?

No hands raised.

Okay. Do you have anything further to add to your presentation?

No, sir. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. I'll now close the public hearing and bring this. People in the audience. Oh, I didn't. Come on up.

You've brushed so quickly past anybody in the audience, so I didn't have time to stand up.

I apologize.

I want to put a face to the letter, and I wrote it because I was really involved in the first permit and all that with this wonderful house, and I want to say I really think you're doing something smart. It looks like really thoughtful stuff, but your comment that you would definitely think about taking away these lightsabers. It warms my heart, and I'm really grateful, and I just want that to go on the record, that I just don't want to complain, but I also want to congratulate and thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nana. Nana Hart, 26 Eucalyptus Road.

Okay, I'm gonna bring this back to the commission for discussion. Ms. Zola, could you start us off, please?

Sure, I want to thank the applicant for the changes in the landscaping. I think it'll be a nice addition. Yeah, I would like the staff and the commission chair to review the plans finally, but I think it'll be a nice addition. I also appreciate the reduction in the lights. That was sort of my main concern about the project was whether or not there was too much lighting. Otherwise, I do think the small additions are compatible with the existing structure and don't impact the neighborhood. And obviously the canopy is quite attractive and a nice addition as well. Thank you.

Jenna.

I also appreciate the project and also your willingness to add some softening with landscaping and reduction of lighting, both existing lighting and the proposed lighting. And I think that with... with having Chair Seidel be able to approve the new lighting to replace the existing lighting and also the final landscaping plan. I think I can support this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Marsha? Mm-hmm.

I really can understand why the applicant would like this awning because they face Southwest and they get, which I also do, which I like, but you get a lot of sun and there are no overhangs on this house. So I think that will really help him, especially today. I'm sure you felt it. Yeah. So I can make the findings for design reviews for this project. But with the condition of the additional landscape below the house, when I walk by Belvedere Avenue and look up, Even now the deck seems to be very close, even though it's, I guess, 17 feet. And so I think having additional trees and landscape there will screen the street and also screen the house, give some screening to the new addition, which is on the lower level, which I think will really help. um and also i think we need to have a condition of reducing the um lights from six to three and if you are willing it would be great to take out the the tall the linear lights that are on the deck and replace those if that can be part of the condition That would be great. Thank you. So I can make the design review findings and I think it's a great project and hopefully it'll keep you a little cooler.

Thank you. If I may just chair for the record, I do want to, I just do want to document for the record that the applicant did say yes in the audience. And when Commissioner Lasky read out the condition regarding the linear lighting. Thank you.

So I just want to start by saying, you know, kind of one of the interesting things about being in this position on the Planning Commission is getting around and seeing all these interesting homes and properties in Belvedere. And I actually think you have a really attractive home. I think that the additions you're planning on making are very consistent with the character of the home. I think it'll be attractive. Like my fellow commissioners, I'll be able to make the design findings. And I appreciate the additional landscape and lighting changes that you're offering. So any further discussion with within the commission or I was wondering if Commissioner Lasky would like to make the motion given that you have some additions and you've been involved in the evolution of the design.

I moved to adopt the resolution granting design review for two additions totaling 289 square feet and a 532 square feet canopy on the existing upper deck at 34 eucalyptus with the two conditions of reducing the lighting from six to three to replace the existing lights on the deck and also to add the, there are three conditions, sorry. to add the landscaping below the deck under the new addition with oak trees.

Can I make a comment? Just that I don't know. I wonder if it's better to not be too prescriptive about the landscape proposal because it still needs to be reviewed by staff. Right.

So we could say that the replacement lighting and the final landscape plan is it best to have it to have it approved by by chair Seidel or by staff both all right yeah both so I guess that would be conditions two and three both the replacement lights and the final landscaping plan to be reviewed by staff and approved by both staff and chair Seidel

Thank you. Prior to issuing the building permit.

Prior to issuing the building permit. Thank you, Rebecca. And I'll second that motion.

OK. Then please vote. Aye.

Aye.

Yeah. Take care. We will now move on to review item number four, which is design review, demolition, and floor area exception at 135 Belvedere Avenue. Staff, report, please.

Thank you again, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration, here is an application for design review, demolition, exception of total floor area, and revocable license to construct a new single-family home at 135 Belvedere Avenue. Project site is on a steeply sloped 52,000 square foot lot. The site received a lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three parcels. The site is developed with an existing dilapidated residence and wooden staircase. The existing structure is centrally located on the lot and surrounded by mature, unmaintained vegetation. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,764 square foot residence and construct a new 11,223 square foot residence and 495 square foot junior accessory dwelling unit. The residence will be located on the upper third of the site where the existing home currently sits. The home would be developed in two floors including a 4,761 square foot first story, 4,912 square foot second story, and 1,250 square foot attached garage. 16 feet and five inches from the rear property line, the project proposes a 300 square foot boathouse. The proposed residence will be set back 14 feet from the right side yard, 32 feet from the left side yard and have a zero front yard setback for the garage. For transparency, the applicant is including plans to construct a detached ADU on site. The ADU would be reviewed under a separate permit and it would not be subject to design review. The front of the home would include a seven foot 10 inch wide by 11 foot eight inch tall glass entry door between two fixed windows. Because Belvedere Avenue would be 20 feet below above the second story's finished floor, the 17 foot eight inch tall roof and 12 foot eight inch tall garage would be below street level. Floor to ceiling exterior windows and doors are proposed on the right and left side of the house. Measured from existing grade, the residence is proposed to be 32 feet tall. And viewed from the rear, the project proposes a series of floor to ceiling glass windows and glass guardrails. The project proposes a contemporary design with sharp vertical and horizontal elements, glass guard rails and windows, and cantilever roofs. The color palette consists of soft and muted wooden earth tones, including board form concrete siding in a warm white color, a tar and multicolored gravel flat roof, Western red cedar wood siding, and aluminum windows and doors trims in a dark bronze or black finish. The proposed materials add architectural variety and help to break up the building's massing. Access to the residence will be via a new 16-foot, 8-inch wide paved driveway and 15-foot wide, 6-foot tall steel automobile gate on the left side of the property, which would lead to a new auto court and garage. The entry gate would be made of dark metal horizontal rails and bordered by a six foot tall concrete freestanding wall on both ends. New fencing is proposed, including a six foot tall vertical bar metal fence along the front property line, a six foot tall wood fence along both side property lines, and a galvanized steel fence that would be painted black along the rear yard. Additional improvements would include a new 16 foot by 48 foot in-ground swimming pool and spa on the rear patio. Left of the pool, the project would include a 12 foot by 24 foot trellis structure standing 10 foot four inches tall that would accommodate outdoor seating, a stone countertop and a barbecue. Because the home is proposed to be stepped back and into the hillside, it would reduce the structure's perceived mass and bulk. Doing so, however, would result in extensive concentrated grading at the upper portions of the property. Up to 20 vertical feet of soil will be excavated below Belvedere Avenue to construct the proposed autocorp. and up to 13 vertical feet of soil excavated to construct the residence's first story. The project estimates 2,500 cubic yards of excavation and 1,700 cubic yards of fill. While the proposed grade changes are significant, constructing the home at the upper portion of the lot will preserve much of the site's natural grade and vegetation below. The project proposes a series of path lights, wall lights, in-ground lights, handrail lights, and wall sconces. 62 wall lights are proposed around the driveway and stairs, and 36 recessed downlights and wall sconces are proposed throughout the residence. Staff suggests the fixture quantities are modest given the size of the home, but recommends the micronite star downlight by BK Lighting be replaced with a fixed downward facing option. The project proposes removing 54 trees, including multiple 30 to 60 foot tall Monterey pines, 15 to 30 foot tall coastal live oaks, and one 67 foot tall cypress, as well as one 70 foot tall eucalyptus. The trees are generally within the footprint of the proposed home and hardscape. New landscaping would include a variety of shrubs and perennials within the front side and rear yards of the home to screen the proposed front yard fencing, retaining walls and stairs. The project would include planting eight Southern live Oaks and 36 inch boxes, which are listed to grow to 20 feet tall. Eight Chinese Elm are also proposed in 36 inch boxes along the Southern end of the right side property line. The applicant requests an exception of total floor area approval for the 11,223 square feet, where 4,850 square feet are permitted. In order to grant the exception, the Planning Commission must be able to make each of the following findings. These include that primary views will not be significantly impaired, that there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel, which minimize the impact of the greater floor area, that the structure is appropriate and mass bulking character of the neighborhood, and that the additional square footage will not substantially reduce privacy on adjoining properties. Here, staff recommends the findings can be made. Primary views from adjacent properties will not be significantly impaired as the subject property is above the adjacent 125 Belvedere and 2 Cliff Road, Views from Belvedere Avenue and uphill neighbors will not be impaired as the residence is set below the street line and tucked into the hillside. The site is unusual in that it was historically three separate parcels until 2019. The larger lot size and steeply sloped nature of the site minimize the buildable area and impact to the additional floor area. The project is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the parcel and in the neighborhood and meets all design review criteria. The 23 foot six inch average building height helps decrease the appearance of mass and bulk on the site. And the 32 foot tall max height is consistent with adjacent properties. With respect to size, The proposal is not unusual in the neighborhood. In 2016, Two Cliff Road was approved for a 12,000 square foot residence. In 2009, 425 Belvedere received approval to construct a 15,555 square foot residence. And 337 Belvedere, 255 Golden Gate Avenue, and 345 Golden Gate Avenue are examples on the western side of Belvedere Island where the floor area permitted is exceeded. Finally, the project does not substantially reduce privacy of adjoining properties as the proposed windows are not within neighboring sightlines, and landscaping screening will provide an additional buffer. The applicant requests a revocable license for a wood fence, gates, driveway, parking, and landscaping all within the Belvedere Avenue right-of-way. On the right side of Belvedere Avenue, a six-foot-tall wood fence and access gate are proposed. The fence would encroach seven feet nine inches onto city property and would be set one foot below the edge of pavement and would appear five feet tall at street level. Also within the right-of-way, the applicant proposes to plant coffeeberry, dwarf matrush, fortnight lily, and razzleberry fringe flower. These shrubs and perennials are listed to grow no taller than four feet in height. Additionally, the applicant would widen Belvedere Avenue from 17 feet to 24 feet 9 inches by relocating the existing street parking seven feet closer to the front property line. Staff recommends that these right-of-way improvements provide a public benefit. Widening the roadway serves pedestrians and vehicles on a currently narrow road. The parking spaces are entirely public and serve as a public benefit. Landscaping will enhance the aesthetic quality of the streetscape and the fence will serve as a safety barrier and delineate the roadway from the hillside for oncoming vehicles. The project is exempt from CEQA. And staff recommends the findings for design review, demolition, exception of floor area and revoke license can be made, recommend adopting the resolutions before you tonight. Thank you. And we are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Sammy.

I had a couple of questions. Does this property have an existing revocable license now? And what is that for?

It does. I could look in the records to the year, but it is for the frontage improvements. And that was recorded. It includes, I don't want to speak out of turn. I believe it includes a trash enclosure, but I'll double check.

So it includes the trash enclosure. So they don't need another revocable license for the trash enclosure that it already has one.

It has one. This one would be a new revocable license that includes landscaping. So this would be a brand new revocable license taken to the council.

Is it replacing the old one or it's an additional one?

It would replace the current one.

Oh, so it's replacing. Okay.

Because we reviewed the fence here not terribly long ago. That's right. Right.

One other question. There's an additional five parking places near the property. But is the parking, there's a parking place across the street. Is that coming out? That's against the hillside?

I don't believe it's coming out. So it's staying. Yes.

Okay. So then, and there are two places near the property. So that means five, six. Okay. I was trying to see how many new parking places they would be. Okay. Those are my questions.

I think you do any other commissioners have any questions.

Well, I recognize that this is a piece of property that hasn't been touched other than by coyotes in decades. I do appreciate that there's a lot of big old trees that are coming out, especially cypress trees, which are native. Are there any of the big trees that are able to be saved? I mean, that are not under where the the building is currently going to be.

I think that's a better question suited for the landscape architect.

Okay.

Thank you. Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you. Did you have any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

And with your permission, I'm going to stand up as well, but it's just for my back. Thank you.

Yeah, my name is David Kotzebue, and I'm the architect for the project. We also have John Merton here at Studio Green, and he can get into the landscaping, all those tree questions. So I just wanted to point out, and you probably already know, but I just wanted a record to show that this is the exact design that was approved in June of 2017. So we have not made, other than the hillivator, the hillside lift, we have not made any changes to that approval. So Sammy made a great presentation. He stole all of my thunder. But this is the drone shot we took back then. And the idea was is that we're going to position the house where the existing one is. And it is sort of upper, from the midpoint of the lot, just above the midpoint. And what it does is it orients the house in the negative space of 125 Belvedere and a little bit of Two Cliff Road. PB Harmon Zuckerman, So in elevation what's important to this design is the fact that we keep it as a two story residents versus maybe a three or even a four story. PB Harmon Zuckerman, And so the the aspect ratio will be horizontal, which I think is consistent with the neighborhood and also appropriate for this whole side that's. PB, David Ensign & So here's the site plan. PB, David Ensign & We picked the access point, and I think others that have worked on this property have. PB, David Ensign & Where belvedere avenue is the lowest and what we're trying to do is we're trying to get down as soon as we possibly can to get on grade with the main level for this two story design. PB, David Ensign & And so, once we arrived at the motor court we basically established on the second floor, which is the main floor and there aren't any level changes in that within that floor. So this is a graphic I did to try to explain in my mind, it's nothing in the ordinance or code, but what I did is I took a contour that was seven feet above the lowest floor. So I took contour 104, which is the lowest floor is 97. And that yellow area is the amount of floor area that's cut into the hillside, which reduces greatly, I think, the effect of the 11,000 square foot house. And that yellow area totals out to be about 3,100 square feet. And the other thing that we're doing, because the roof is below Belvedere Avenue and they are flat, we are incorporating quite an extensive green roof system. So those green pocheted areas indicate that. And then this is the upper level, the main level. So just, you know, in showing the organization of the house down the center spine, you peel off to the west or you peel off to the east to the private bedroom or go downstairs, which is the next slide. And in the downstairs, you can see where the... The part that's really up into the hill towards Belvedere Avenue, it's rendered out as a home theaters, a gym, and some utility. And then on the west side, it's utility, laundry room, and mechanical. And the orange shaded area is the junior ADU, and the purple is the detached ADU. And this is the section that Sammy showed, which indicates how it is cut into the hill to create this two-story design. I threw in a couple of oak trees after I talked to Marsha on the bank. I'll have John talk about that. And so what we think we're doing here is we're opening up Belvedere Avenue. I mean, it's already opened up after we put in that fence, which is a temporary fence, but it indicates the height of what our permanent fence will be. And it really opens the view up. And removing the existing garages, I think, had a major impact for the better. So this is the main motor court. You get down and we're framing the Golden Gate Bridge. And I got a little water feature. that I'm gonna try to match the Bay color and the great room, if you will, is a bridge between the water feature and the Bay. And I think this view is a good indicator of the articulation of the walls, both in horizontal and vertical planes, and also the composition of the materials and the juxtaposition of the softer warmer wood against the darker steel and the natural concrete. And this shows the ADU, which I guess isn't under your purview today, but I just thought it was a cool rendering. And this finally at the bottom, we are able to get some level outdoor space, which I think is extremely valuable on the island, especially on a site that slopes this steeply. And this is the last view. And so I hope that this presentation tells the story of how we started and how we ended up here. And if we have some more time, I think John's ready to talk about the landscape.

um the drive with the driveway is um when you're coming from the south on belvedere avenue you are able to turn right and go in without coming from the other direction correct okay and one more question um on the um cubic yards it's about Well, the demolition is about 50 cubic yards. And does that mean when you say you have the truck is 10 cubic yards per truck?

Those are those small trucks. So that's a small truck. Yeah, I think that's the maximum allowed by the ordinance. I'm not sure.

So that would be five trips for that. But then on the other cubic yards, it's about 775 is the difference. Are you able to use any of that more? That's a lot of truck.

Yeah. I mean, obviously, we can look into it further in detail. Those figures came from the civil engineering that was done nine years ago. It's something that we definitely want to use as much as possible on site.

because I know you have to fill up the road to make it level two. We also were trying to decrease the amount of truckloads on the roads and traffic, et cetera.

This is kind of almost the last lot, or at least in my opinion. You're on Belvedere Avenue, and then you start to get into it. It gets tighter, and you get around the point. This is before that. So the one benefit, I realize it's a lot of trucks, is we're closer to Britain and way down.

Yes, five corners, yes. And did you bring color samples of the concrete and the wood?

I don't have actual physical samples here today. It's more of the photographic.

All right. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm John Merton with Studio Green Landscape Architects and excited to really work on this project. I never thought it was going to come back and, you know, other house got approved. Now this one's back and it's fantastic because I really was excited about it way back when. We can go to the next slide, which is a site plan. Wait, I guess that's not the next slide. We can go back to this. So this is a plan view site plan. Because the house sits down and we really can open up the front from the street, we feel like there's a huge advantage here and a great benefit for the community. Previously, it was a fence right along the whole street and you really didn't have a view and now it really is opened up. The majority of the trees in the center portion of the property are Monterey Pines. I believe there's one Cypress, which the WRA report recommended removal because of its condition, but also it's a fire hazard. But in any case, and three or four of the current large Monterey Pines that were in the center of the property have actually collapsed and fallen down since we did this project. some years ago. And I think one even went through the roof of the current house. And you can see them. They're sitting on the ground. As David was saying, how the house is developed in this layering down into the... There is sort of a flatter area, 23 feet below the street. And that's the opportunity spot to capture some flat space. And also... for the landscape exterior uses to be associated with the house in a really tight and compressed way. So we really, when we do utilize some open space, we're maximizing the benefit of that and not stretching out further than we have to. But we really are trying to also provide for some exterior uses. Color, as you can see in the slides, I think the renderings represent the color and the feel very well, being that it's warm tones. You know, we're thinking of a warm concrete, like the buff tones and the stone being in a warm gray. Very neutral, contemporary colors. simple compositions, so it's not complex patterning, more grid-like, very restrained, almost like museum quality kind of sense, also very high quality materials. So it's not, there's no compromise in finishes and glass rails and stainless steel and other finishes that will hold up in this setting. The lighting for the exterior, has been commented on. And, you know, we were concerned about, I mean, one of the things I hear about on every project we ever do is like, there wasn't enough light, you know? So, you know, sometimes we, we go a little heavy and there's areas that we can work on and I'll get back to that in a minute. But we were looking primarily downwardly oriented for safety, for navigation. There's no up lights. There's no drama moments. But still, even within that, there's room for maneuvering, I think. As far as the plant palette goes, we were really focusing on evergreen, screening for the neighbors, so having the landscape that has some presence, really mitigating a lot of the walls any architectural features that you might see from off site, which there isn't much because of the way it's positioned really well. Concern for fire resistance, drought tolerance, and also size appropriateness. We haven't planted, say, things that are going to get 75 feet tall under the eave of the house, that kind of thing. It's kind of scale appropriate. And we can jump back to the previous slide. I did have a conversation with Chairman or the Commissioner Lasky about the various things. So what this slide represents is some of the areas that we've already now given some thought to in terms of modifying this project. So, for example, in the driveway, we've taken out every other wall light in the connection from the main house down to the ADU. We've taken out every other in-wall light. In the service area, we've taken out the five of the in-wall lights on that retaining wall. We did add two pathway lights back because they're just more general light, less focused on the staircase because those tend to have a small pool of light. The other one has a little broader We have removed the in handrail light system that was incorporated into the entire staircase going down to the dock below, which obviously from the water looking up, you had the chance of seeing kind of like a, you know, kind of a disco runway kind of thing going on. So we don't agree with that. And, and so that's gone and we, we, but we do want to have enough light that you could at least navigate down without headlamp or flashlight necessarily. So we're proposing the C, it's a brand from Hawaii. Anyway, it's a very, very rugged coastal product. product that um it's a two inch diameter base and it's a downward oriented light so it's very small that we can be mounted on the post so it's very very inconspicuous and it's set on the base side so the post itself would mask the light source from below so it would be pretty uh uh Nearly invisible, we think.

Is that what the blue dots are?

Correct. So we went towards the top and towards the bottom of each landing and not in the mid-span so that you can at least find the first and last step. Then we've added five oak trees on the downhill slope. And we have inserted a tree into the turf area, kind of separating where the main public parts of the house are to a guest bedroom courtyard. And let's see. And then further, we did explore moving the trash enclosure, which the current house or the previous house had it up in the street. But by moving it onto the property, it's quite steep in that location. It turned out in order for you to take a can and roll it out to the street, that platform would be 10 feet above the ground. And so it would force us to build a very elevated structure. But from the property line to the street, you're getting to be at eight to 10 feet away from the ground in order for that to be a flat transition. So it was a lot of building for something that historically has already had a use. I think that's all I have to say for now. Thank you.

Since we're sort of asking questions during your presentation while you're there, I just wanted to verify or clarify. I think I recall that there was screen planting sort of continuous along that wall beneath the pool. And these trees aren't substituting for that. They're in addition. Is that a true statement? In addition to that.

Yeah. Yeah, this plan, we did modify it from the previous submittal to include taller shrubs at the base of that wall and also further extending in the direction to the east in order to give more vegetation. And I believe we incorporated the Loris Novalis shrub in that area, which is a really evergreen, takes a lot of sun, tough, rugged plant. Great, thank you.

I have some questions.

Thank you for doing that. I think it'll make a big difference in the property. I don't really want to go over every detail because I know on the lighting, because I know it can be gone over with the chairman and planning, but Thank you for decreasing those. But there also is, I think, an excess amount of lights on the stairs coming down below the driveway and over the barbecue. And so there are a lot of different places that the lights, I think, can be. But I don't want to go over every one. I think it can be gone over. to decrease that. And it's a big help that you put the laurel, where you put the laurel trees, that also will give a great screening. And thank you for the trees in the hillside. That'll make, you know, a huge difference too. I did want to ask you one, the green roofs are going to really make the whole project fit into the hillside, but I didn't know what experience you've had with them. We've had some in Belvedere actually farther on a Belvedere Avenue where there've been problems where they leaked and they actually ended up taking them out. And I didn't know what your experience with them has been.

Well, I've installed a design, maybe a dozen or something. We did a project in Ross with David and that had, I don't know, maybe a thousand square feet or 1200 square feet of roof. And that was primarily succulents. I have learned from and observed from other projects that use grasses that they didn't come back and perform well at all. And the ground dries out very, very quickly in those, especially here where you'll have this constant breeze and southern facing. So what we don't want to have is plants that once they dry out, they turn brown or go dormant or whatever. So this would be suitable for more of a coastal succulent kind of garden. And in that, we've had good success. In fact, Hal Blivis' house, we did a green roof off his bathroom terrace. And that was very successful.

Good. And next to the ADU is a Chinese elm, correct?

Correct.

Because there's a tree there. Good. I wanted to have a tree. Those are really beautiful. So all the addition of the trees you made, which you had actually added, uh almost 50 30 and so that's that's really um i was upset about seeing 60 trees taken out and 14 going in so i think you've remedied some of that um well i said i know because of the monterey pines there's just so many of monterey pines yes and they're so bad yes i know they are they're all past their climax yes um so they no matter what they should come out yeah anyway yeah Yes. And also the lights. I think you did decrease the ones on the boathouse. There were quite a few on that also. And the strip lights, thank you. We always discourage something to look like a landing strip. You may get unwanted visitors. And also noted in the staff report was already a condition to replace the micro... night, I guess it's called something like that. And that's already in the staff report in order to do that. And I have to say, many people are very excited about getting that horrible fence out of there. It's nice to have a good looking fence. We've been looking at that for years and years so that it's nice to get rid of that fence. Okay, those are all my questions for you. And you were gonna talk about the pool lights too, I think I mentioned that.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. On slide, if we wanted to go to the, I think it was nine, page nine, slide nine, it shows a section cut through the property. The sheet A4.2 on David's package the conversation about the pool is that we placed the lights on the house side such that if you walk to the edge of the deck and you look down at the pool you wouldn't see the individual lights in your eyes so you would only see reflection so then the concern would be if that's the case then what about light pollution going out well in this instance from the bay or from the adjoining properties they're slightly below and there's no possibility to be able to see the pool whatsoever and they looking at it from the other direction, the street view is entirely blocked by the whole house. So there's no possibility that any part of this swimming pool could be seen off the property. So therefore, a glow for the water, while visible from inside the property, is not visible from anywhere off the property.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of questions. I want to focus around the revocable license area for either of you. One is the garbage area. I've read through the policy for revocable license and it's discouraging things like the garbage enclosure. I know that John Merton talked a bit to how difficult it would be to build a structure up there. But just want to see if you would consider other locations for garbage.

Well, we definitely consider it. My question about the revocable license, though, I mean, I have the copy of the recorded one. Wouldn't it have been issued on the approval that we got before? Or did the project after ours into 2023, did it supersede what we did? Because I think they had a garbage enclosure.

There was a garbage in the previous project, and it's been recorded. But if we go in for a new revocable license, then previous RLs become null and void. So the garbage enclosure.

But we have, we have, we have, it doesn't sound like there's an enclosure in this one.

It's just a fence and then it's to screen the garbage can. So we didn't really call it a garbage enclosure. It doesn't have sides and doors. It doesn't have a lid.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I think we should look at this to see what the current revolt. I don't know. Or do you think that, that the city council wouldn't, wouldn't. I don't know. It's just that if we move the garbage enclosure down into the property, the slope is so steep, it's not practical. And the other benefit, by the way, and I don't know how much value this has, but when we built the new fence and we moved it onto the property, PB, David Ensign & Co- It revealed where 125 Belvedere has some utility hookups and stuff now if we keep our our garbage screening where we want it, we screen all of that utility. PB, David Ensign & Co- And so what happens is I think it's a benefit because we're also widening Belvedere avenue so much it's kind of a averaging where you I think you're getting more and it's a better design if we keep the garbage, where we were we propose it.

Okay. And then I wanted to ask too about the fence that's proposed up at the street level. I understand that the purpose of the fence is for public safety. I think it's super, it's very important because of the drop off there. I just wonder, the fence, it appears from grade level at the street, it's about four and a half feet high. I wonder if it needs to be that high to provide public safety. It seems a little high. It's six feet from where the grade is, where it's built. And then the section shows from the street level, it's about four and a half feet high. I just don't know if it needs to be that high.

I wish I included that graphic we had. Because the property line is... Can you get closer to the mic? Thank you. I think the property line is about seven or eight feet off the edge of the road, down slow. When you have this six-foot fence, we were... down where you could easily see over the top. And with the four-foot vegetation, it would nearly seem as though it wasn't there. But the design of it, and this is something that we have to work on probably a little bit, but is that the base of that would be very stout. There's a plate. And then we have these pickets that rise up. And the intention is that if a vehicle were to edge off the edge of the road, they couldn't make it past that barrier. This was just kind of a sketch study looking at moving a trash enclosure off right away and onto the property entirely. And what I was pointing out is that the contour line, say the midpoint contour line is around 130 and we're at 138.5. So it's eight and a half on average, eight and a half feet up in the air. And so that in order for you to then be able to roll a can, not going up or down stairs or up a ramp, more or less across and put it in the street for pickup. And so it seems like a lot of construction. It's making a lot of construction right there. And then since we already had the revocable license, we were hoping that we wouldn't have to build so much in that particular location.

Okay. And then to follow up too about the fence, you know.

The height of the fence, it's a six-foot fence. And it's the, you know, it's the fin style on metal pickets. And I suppose it could be a five-foot fence or something in that ballpark. But I would want, you would want it to be a certain height.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. No, and I was, you know, and preparing for this, I was looking around, you know, like guardrails on the freeway, which keep cars from going over. They're at about three feet high. But I... I was imagining cars at night coming around the curve. You definitely want a visual barrier. So I'm not saying the fence has to be from street level three feet high, but I don't know that needs to be four and a half feet high. It's pretty tall. I mean, it's probably about this height here. And my only point is with revocable license requirements,

is that there's an intent to really not have public land look appear to be privatized by things like fences or well this particular part of the fence is on the property line because the retaining wall for the driveways on the property line so this fence would sit on top of the that's why it's this style so the retaining wall curves and so these elements so it's really not in in the city property um is it portion of the revocable license for the fence It is for the wooden fence by the trash.

Okay, okay. The vertical picket style fence is entirely on the property. Okay, thanks, thanks.

And the plan is to screen the fence with vegetation as well, correct?

I don't think my intention was to screen the fence in particular, but to have vegetation in the front more for aesthetic PB, Harmon Zuckerman, purposes I didn't think that the I thought the fence would be attractive and it's sort of a definition of space so. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I didn't think that that was the purpose.

Did you have any additional questions?

Just had some questions about the amount of glass on the back of the house. I know that this is the glass and then the interior lights are not necessarily going to be seen by other members of the Belvedere community, but I want I guess I want to ask, is this house going to be a giant shining beacon for the people of Sausalito?

Well, what we've done is we've introduced wood lattice screening on portions of the glass, actually quite a bit. And the other thing I was considering, we'd use it in Lake Tahoe as non-reflective glass, which might be a consideration.

Yeah, I think that would probably be good just for the folks out on the water and for slightly farther away neighbors.

All right. No further questions from Planning Commission. Would anyone in the audience like to make a comment? Please come forward.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Steve Silberstein. I live at 1 Cliff Road. I'm a 30-year resident of Belvedere, and I have walked by this street hundreds of thousands of times, and I'm I am one of the people who is really excited that that fence has come down. Uh, it's just like a whole new world here. Like we, uh, I really appreciate the people behind this of moving the fence away from the street down, uh, down the hill. The top of the fence is below the street level. They did that for about three quarters of the fence. And then one quarter of it, they did it the way the old fence is, is it's closer to the street and it's that old tunnel effect. So you almost have the before and the after still there. I hope that in all our deliberations here that we make a condition that the top of the fence be below the street level. So I don't care if the fence is four feet, five feet, six feet, seven feet, just so long as the top of it is below the street level. I think they submitted in the architectural things that were submitted to the city. There's a shot here, it's in the lower right-hand corner You see a couple of people walking or running along the along the street. And you can see that there's no you can see the garbage container over in the back. But for the whole front of the property, there's no fences below the street level. So I hope that that's what is in the plans all the way up to the driveway, which is on the left side, as we know there. So that will be a great improvement. And I was so super pleased to hear that the roof is going to be green because you're going to look down on top of the roof and you're going to see some nice trees. plants there. It's going to be really, really beautiful with that. So I commend, this is like our fourth time on this thing here, that this one gets done and it gets done this way and we'll all be grateful for it. So just make sure that that happens. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else present in the room who would like to speak here? Any hands raised on Zoom?

No hands raised.

OK. I wonder, regarding the last comment, if I could have the applicant come forward and just talk about this idea that the top of the fence should be below street level. What would be involved in that? Is that possible?

I don't have that. Well, there's a vertical drop in it, so it has to be 42 inches above. So I don't know how that relates to street level. But it has to be 42 inches minimum.

Correct. Yeah. And so I sort of know when this question perhaps cannot be answered.

Yeah, right now it's 72 inches. It has to be 42. And it could be somewhere between 72 and 42. And the other thing I'd like to point out is the only reason that that existing part is still where it was before is a practical matter. And when the new fence is in, that is totally gone. And we're back to that line that continues.

Excuse me, but the new, the fence is metal, isn't it? The new fence that you can see through.

Right.

So it doesn't really block off any. So if you're walking by, you can see through it also.

And since it's curved in the way it's designed, it sort of changes as you move through the space. So that's why John was saying it's an architectural element. The planting is sort of a base or a foreground in front of this architectural element.

OK. Thank you.

I do think it's important.

In the picture, if it's a pit, you don't see the fence. The fence is part of a micropole.

in the picture that they submitted, you don't see the fence, okay? The top of the fence is below the street level, right? It's not a problem, okay? That's what they submitted. The site is vertical enough to do it. So let's just do it.

Did you have something to say?

I think the concern, I can't answer this question because I didn't memorize the question. grade location relative to the street. And perhaps as we get where the metal picket meets a wooden fence, there could be a zone in there where even 42 is higher than the street level. It's likely. Certainly not where the vehicle gate is. We know it descends down some distance. We're already going down the driveway. So this fence does have both a curve and a downward sweep as you come around. But I can't answer the question technically. But I also would like that fence to look kind of beautiful from above and below. In other words, having a gradation that is uniform. But we have no benefit for seeing the fence.

Okay, that's good. Thank you. I'm just trying to get the picture here. Um, if nobody here has any further comments, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Um, commissioner Lasky, would you like to begin the discussion please?

This is actually, as you mentioned in the audience, this is the third time that I have looked at a project for this site. So I think that I would be thrilled to see a house built there. And also, it really does, where you're siding the house below the hillside and also with the green roofs really makes it fit in. to the terrain and disappear, basically. And it's wonderful to be able to walk along now and look over the fence and where the story poles are, you can look over. So that's where the house is going to be. And The other advantage of having the garage below the road is you're not looking at garages and it's very attractive to have the garage below the road. So we're not looking at a garage sitting on the road. It doesn't, the home does not draw attention to itself at all because it's below the road. And the screening that are on both of the property lines give privacy. And I like the fact that the landscape architect added some podocarpus on the road that also will give some green and some tree and shade there. It will break up the view a little bit. The wood and the materials I think are really beautiful. The wood louvers that were added actually to some of the windows. So that would screen some of the light and the windows that you would look at from Sausalito and or from the water, it softens the house. So I can make the findings for you. design review. I would have liked to seen the colors of the materials tonight, especially the cement, maybe to be sure that the cement is not too white. I think the color was a, I can't remember now it was a buff, but to be sure that it's not, you know, white. And I can make the findings for demolition. There are no hysterical, not hysterical, but historical architect, maybe hysterical too, significance. It's really great to clean up the lots. I am concerned about the truckloads. So that's something I think the city can look at. Yeah, it's called buff or something, the concrete, I think. I can make the findings also for the revocable license. I was asking whether there is an existing one because I didn't know whether you could just add a new one for other parts that aren't included in the old one. I don't know how that you could do that, but it is practical to have the garbage container there. So I got that really is is an ease and that doesn't really bother me. And you are increasing the space of the road by seven feet nine inches, which is actually a great advantage to give more parking. And so that is really a public uh favor to add more parking and increase the size of the road otherwise you know it kind of drops off there um yeah and having the metal fence see-through i think is an advantage too because it gives air and um doesn't close off the whole property. I can make the findings also for the exception to floor area. This lot is three times the size of a normal lot size. The primary views are not impacted from adjoining properties, and it will also not reduce privacy in adjoining properties. It's in the way the house is set on the on the hillside, it really sits into the slope, which decreases the mass and bulk of it. And in the years after it will be completed, it certainly will improve the views from the street. And the new landscape screening also is good for the neighbors and good for the neighborhood all around. I do, I would like to add also a condition for tree protection because there are some trees that need to be protected during the construction, some of the old oak trees. And actually, I actually forgot to mention to John, but I can give the city, there are three or four trees I have the numbers of that look like things can be adjusted by a foot or two and you could keep these oak trees. So... They are number 28 and number 30. One's near a boathouse and one's near the ADU, but it would be good to take a look at some of these large oak trees that you are taking out. And sometimes it just means the difference of a foot on the building to be able to keep some trees and that should be looked at. Those are my comments. Thank you.

Thanks. Commissioner Wilson, please.

Thank you. I just wanted to say that I also can make the design review findings for this project. with the changes with the lighting that are proposed and the mention of the glazing that will be non-reflective. I think that will be very helpful. The project is compatible with the surroundings. And then as far as the demolition permit, I can also make the findings for that. The demolition of what's on the site will not be detrimental to the city. As far as adopting the resolution for the exception to total floor area, I also agree with the previous commissioner's findings that primary views are protected, privacy as well is not impacted, and the views from the street are also protected. And finally, for the revocable license, I would like to know if I would like the applicant to consider moving the garbage off out of the revocable license request. I don't want to make it a condition of approval. But on balance, I do think that the amenities that are being provided with the project support a revocable license as well. Thank you.

Commissioner Watson, please. Thanks.

I, too, think that this project, even if it wasn't replacing what is currently a coyote habitat, would be a great benefit to our community and to our island. I also walk past this lot all the time as I live on that side of the island. really appreciate the opening up of the view already. It's very nice to see something that you didn't know you were going to get, especially since it's a fantastic view. I can make the findings clearly for the demolition and also for the exception to total floor area. As other commissioners already pointed out until very recently, this was actually three lots. And if you assume that it is still three lots, it actually wouldn't have needed an exception to total floor area. And also the way that it's cited as does provide privacy and sort of a green look as well as providing views for the community. I also appreciate the addition of the ADU and the JADU so that there are still three housing units that are on this property. Okay. I can also make the findings for the revocable license, including the garbage enclosure. It looks as though it will have the lowest height practicable for actually hiding the garbage. um, my 16 year old son is supposed to be the one to take the garbage out of our steep, you know, fairly steep driveway. He does not, it is me. And so I, I will, I, I understand just what a pain it is to haul garbage around. Um, and then, um, I appreciate Commissioner Lasky's proposal of reviewing plans for the protection of trees number 28 and 30. One of the only things that I didn't like about this plan was the number of large old trees that are being removed, even though I understand that a number of them are both damaged disease past their prime and should be removed for fire purposes and also within the floor plan of the proposed house. I would like to condition the approval on for the design review on the reduction of the outside lighting, as you already discussed this evening, as well as the protection of the existing and remaining large trees during construction. This is something that we've provided on a number of new house builds. And also on having non-reflective glass on the large panels of glass on the house. And then the approval of the final lighting plan by the chair.

Lighting and landscape.

Yes, lighting and landscape. Thank you.

So I will echo my fellow commissioners feelings about this. I'll try not to be too redundant, but just highlight a couple of things that I observed. It was pretty interesting upon visiting the site to see the way the story poles situate themselves in the site and also the distance and the existing vegetation that's going to be between this rather large house and the adjacent neighbors. I very much appreciate the way the building has been designed and situated into the site. I think the colors and materials are good. I also think it's hard to design a really attractive, very large house. I guess that's speaking from as an architect. It's not an easy job. And I think that a very good job has been done here. So I'll be able to make the findings for design review. I'll also be able to make findings for demolition. Again, in terms of floor area exemption, the things I just referenced, the way the house relates to its lot, its neighbors, vegetation, all good. So I can make the findings for additional floor area. and I'll be able to make findings for revocable license. I appreciate Commissioner Lasky's input to the applicant on trees. I also had a concern about the number of trees being removed. I don't think we're looking for a one-to-one replacement at this point, but I do think the additional landscape improvements that you've described are good. I also want to say to the neighbor who's interested in the fence height, I think that can be a subject of review, which will landscape and lighting and fencing will come back to me. So at that time, I'm going to try to keep your comments in mind and HAB-Jacques Juilland, See what we can do and just urge you to do what you can to keep the fence as as minimal as it can be having said that I like the idea of what the fence design is with the see through slats. HAB-Jacques Juilland, So I think we'll end up at a good solution at the end of the day, and I appreciate your comments. HAB-Jacques Juilland, So with that I think we're ready to get. some motions on the floor and some conditions of approval. Anyone want to take a shot at that?

So I'm gonna go a little bit out of order just for the easy ones first. I'd like to propose a motion to adopt a resolution granting a demolition permit to demolish the existing 3,764 square foot single family dwelling unit at 135 Belvedere Avenue. I'll second the motion.

All in favor? Aye.

All right. I'd like to propose a motion to adopt a resolution granting an exception to total floor area to allow an 11,223 square foot house where a 4,850 square foot house is permitted at number 135 Belvedere Avenue. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. For the revocable license, this is just a recommendation. So I'd like to propose a motion to recommend the city council approval of the revocable license for the private improvements located in the Belvedere Avenue right of way at 135 Belvedere Avenue. Second. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. All right. Now for the motion for design review. I'd like to propose a motion adopting a resolution granting design review to construct a new single family residence and attached garage number 135 Belvedere Avenue with the following conditions. Number one is that the staff and Chair Seidel approve the landscape and lighting plan for the house prior to the building permit. Number two, to provide protection to call it the the old and larger trees during during during construction, and also to review the tree plan as to whether or not trees number 28 and 30 can be kept. And then number three is to have non reflective glass on the large panels of glass on the upper story of the back of the house. How's that sound? Good. All right. A second.

We're not I don't think we're finished yet. Are we?

That was that I only had 123.

Oh, do we need to say something about that light fixture that needs to be changed out?

I thought that was going to be under the lighting plan.

Oh, that's fine. Okay, then I can cross that off my list. So we have a complete motion.

I'll second the motion.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Hey, thank you, everyone. I'll now adjourn the meeting.