Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission. We'll begin with open forum, which is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Planning Commission on any matter that does not appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak during open forum? Rebecca, is anybody on Zoom?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, thank you. Are there any commissioners who would like to provide a report? Does staff have a report?

I'll report that Sammy is going to the American Planning Association conference coming up soon. And so he will have a little synopsis for you guys at our next meeting.

Yeah, we'll look forward to hearing what's going on in the planning community. Where's the where's the conference, Sammy?

Monterey.

Okay, great.

I'm sorry, Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Okay. Close.

Okay, we'll move on to the consent calendar. Consent calendar consists of items considered to be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff, or public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence that they appear on the agenda. Would any member of the Planning Commission wish to remove a consent item?

I just have a question. I'm recused from second item there because I wasn't in that meeting. So how does that work?

Same here. Can we extract that so we can stay?

Yeah, and I'm on the May 19th. Oh, that's May 19th, so.

Same here. If there's any more questions.

Can I get some advice how to... Sure, let's take it one piece at a time, given that. We can just call each item in order, and I think we'll have enough votes to get it done. Okay.

I would like to move to draft the minutes of May 19th.

Okay, can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

I would like to point out that I'm abstaining from the vote as I wasn't at the meeting on May 19th. Thank you.

I believe the same for Commissioner Lunetsky. All right. Thank you.

OK. Next will be a motion on the draft minutes of July 21.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes of the July 21 to 2026 meeting as in our packet.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

And I'd like to point out that I'm abstaining from two .

Can I remind the commissioners to please turn their mics on? Sorry. Thank you.

I'll abstain from two of the items that was recused on for that meeting.

Same as me.

Well, then I'll vote aye just to get it done. But three votes, right?

That's correct. We need three votes. Okay, I'll vote aye. All right. Thank you.

And third on consent calendar is the demolition application. to remove an existing detached greenhouse at 107 Golden Gate. Can I get a motion on that, please?

Who else thought that greenhouse was incredibly cute? I moved to approve the demolition application for the 236 square foot.

a greenhouse at 107 i i will second it even though the greenhouse was ridiculous is ridiculously cute all in favor of demo thank you i think that that concludes the consent calendar items We're going to move on to item four, design review and revocable license at 68 Lagoon Road. Staff can have a presentation, please.

Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission for your consideration. This evening is an application for design review and revocable license for residential additions and a remodel at 68 Lagoon Road. The subject property is centrally located on a flat 7600 square foot parcel at the site is adjacent to single family homes to the north and south and Belvedere Lagoon to the west. The project proposes several additions totaling 607 square feet of new floor area, along with the removal of 32 square feet on the right side of the residence. The proposed additions comply with the required setbacks. The left side yard additions are located five feet from the side property line. The right side yard additions are five feet three inches from the side property line. And the front addition is set back six foot two inches from the front property line. The current garage Eve sits two inches from the front property line and the residences roof Eve on the left side sits four feet, eight inches from the property line. These existing structures were built in 1956 prior to the city's adopted municipal code and are legal non-conforming. The project proposes replacing the existing 13 foot nine inch tall composite shingle roof at the rear with a new 14 foot four inch tall standing C metal roof. The left and right side additions would have new low slope membrane roofs with the right side addition reaching 12 feet six inches in height. Existing windows and doors will be replaced throughout the residence and four new windows will be added. Here the front yard addition would receive one new window, one new fixed window facing Lagoon Road shown shaded in orange. Facing the lagoon at the rear yard, windows and doors will be reconfigured, providing a 10% reduction from the existing conditions. On the right elevation, one window that will replace a slightly smaller one. On the left side yard, two windows are proposed. Both would be screened primarily by the side yard fence. Materials and colors will include natural cedar siding on all four sides of the residence, metal windows and doors in a dark obsidian color, and metal roofing in a midnight bronze color. 35 light fixtures are proposed consisting of wall sconces, step lights, down lights, path lights. The fixtures are generally shielded and downward directed to minimize glare on adjacent properties. Staff recommends that three wall sconces within the entry courtyard circled here in red be replaced with fully shielded fixtures. The project proposes removing most existing landscaping except for shared vines along the side yard fence. Proposed tree removals include a citrus fern, camellia, rhododendron, and ornamental pear. Five existing olive trees within the Lagoon Road right of way would be replaced with five fruitless Swan Hill olives, which can reach approximately 20 feet in height. A new fruitless olive in a 48-inch box is also proposed at the rear yard. The applicant is required to obtain a revocable license for driveway, walkway, and landscaping improvements within the Lagoon Road right-of-way shown shaded. Staff recommends that the revocable license is a benefit to the public as a driveway creates two off street parking spaces which relieves potential parking congestion on Lagoon Road and the landscaping enhances the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape without impeding public views. Additional improvements include replacing the concrete patios with blue stone pavers, new wood decking set 18 inches off the ground, a recessed hot tub within the wood decking, and two new heat pumps within the side yards. A new cedar fence and pedestrian grate will be installed at portions of the front yard, and the existing side yard fence will be repaired as needed. The project is exempt from CEQA. And staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions granting design review and revocable license for 68 Lagoon Road. Thank you. And Rebecca and I can answer any questions you have.

Hey, Sammy, I didn't see a lighting plan in the plans. Am I just missing it?

There was a sheet that had the lighting plans and the locations. in the same packet, there was cut sheets of all the lights.

Yeah, I saw the, I saw... Okay. Lots of... Ah, here we are, thank you, okay.

I have a question about FEMA regulation about the height adjustment and us as a city, what is our obligation? And if we miss our obligation, how negatively possibly could impact us as a community? If you can elaborate on that a little bit.

Yeah, so this project, has been evaluated and adjusted three times. When it first came in, it was over the 50%. The cost of construction was over 50% of the appraised value and therefore the house needed to be raised. So we have in our administrative policy manual, so we have Brian Vanson, who's our building official slash floodplain administrator. We route the plans to him before it comes to you guys. We've looked at it, we've worked with the applicant. He has a square foot multiplier that he can use that's in our administrative policy manual. um if there's a question about sort of the the applicant's cost of construction and sort of what we know how much construction costs here in the city of belvedere so it's been evaluated and looked at in terms of those costs this one is a little close and um we don't take that lightly we will you know, reiterate, we've already discussed this many times with the applicant, but in our pre-construction meeting with the contractor, because we all know during construction, people add things on, right? But in this case, they cannot. And let's say at the time of final they're added on 500 more square feet you know I'm making this up then in theory the the city would require the homeowner to raise the house so the finished floor meets those FEMA standards so we we are we're very sensitive to the FEMA regulations um And we would lose our flood insurance for the properties that are in the FEMA flood zone. So we are aware and sensitive to it. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Is your mic on? Okay.

Am I not doing it right?

Just pull it a little closer. Okay. Thank you. Otherwise, people on Zoom can't hear you.

All right. I can shout. Okay, good. Thank you. So the revocable license, there is currently a garage on the property, correct?

Okay.

And that would seem to cross the public sidewalk, right? So was there a de facto license or how did we get here?

because it says in the record that there's nothing that's been recorded.

Go ahead. It's common for some properties to not have a revocable license, even though they have private improvements in the right of way. This at 68 Lagoon, there's been very little improvements. This is an opportunity for the city to have a revocable license for those private improvements.

So just to make sure I understand, we basically had been granting revocable licenses de facto, not de jure, without actually noting them down and recording them, is that correct? I mean, that's what's going on here, right? Yeah.

bit of a historical artifact that some of the older houses, essentially ones that have not been renovated, essentially don't have any revocable license on record. I don't think the city would necessarily recognize them as having de facto revocable license, but it's simply just a matter of history.

Yeah, I mean, but you have decades and decades of use, so it's not like we can challenge them and say, sorry, you don't have access to your garage anymore. Let's just be honest. It's there. We wouldn't have grounds to challenge that at this point. So

I guess challenge can mean a lot of different things there. I don't think we would concede that is no longer public right-of-way or public property.

Well, you can concede public. We wouldn't concede public property. We'd still concede that they have some kind of rights over that land, given the use, right?

I think we understand the practicalities, of course. I mean, not to constrain this body's discretion or the city council's discretion. I think we still do have some ability to address things that are intruding in the public right away. And there's never been any express concession by the city. But I think people are sensitive that, yeah, if people have been essentially using it as a garage or sidewalk or driveway for decades and decades, people understand. And so it's not uncommon before this body and the city council for a lot of revocable license to be generated in the first census because we're simply something the city is just getting better at as we see more and more properties come up for approvals. So it's a bit of a process.

So my next question though is, and this is just the preliminary here, is what's our policy? Because quite frankly, let's just be honest. I mean, one, I have no interest in holding the landowner hostage here. They have a garage, they've been using this for decades. The house is from the 1950s, they have a right to this. But I do have a question, what is our policy? So that in the future, when we have revocable licenses, which are a lot more elective, aren't needed for access to the garage or critical infrastructure, what's the city's policy?

I think that's a good question. And it's something that is on our agenda for the council retreat in January and February. Is it in January? February. This year, because we have our revocable license. policies and the administrative policy manual. But as Andrew indicated, the city is catching up right now on a lot of these homes have improvements that do not have revocable licenses. And so we're looking at them sort of parcel by parcel. And in some instances, if somebody's asking for a fence and it looks like they can move the fence, they're building new fencing as part of their project, we'll ask them to move it. But a driveway, I mean, the practicality of it is people need to access their driveway.

This one's completely crystal clear to me. What I'm taking issue is one, I think the reasoning is bootstrapping. I think we have to have a much clearer sort of bright line rules. And the bright line rule is if it's needed for access, if it's needed for critical infrastructure, the city should be granting it. If it's a much more elective, well, the fence could be two feet here or two feet there. That's a different story. I'd like to know why it is the move when we're then giving up public property for private use. So to me, this just kind of highlights the tip of the iceberg. Again, this owner, I have no issue with. I'd like to eventually try to understand a policy just as a commissioner so we can be guided by those decisions. Sorry to dominate the discussion on that.

they respond and we can certainly move on, but you know, commissioner, there is a current policy as cited in the staff report, you know, policy 11.7 of the administrative policy manner, which you obviously saw, but what I'm hearing is that you sort of view it, you view a desire for more of a bright line test than sort of the multifactor analysis, which is set forth in the policy.

I just think the multifactor analysis is, it's not applicable here. because you guys are talking about benefits that already exist, et cetera. I think we just, we can simplify it and we can make it easier. Like there are times when the multi-factor works. There are also times when there's just be really bright line rules. You could have both. They're not mutually exclusive.

I appreciate the point. Thank you, commissioner.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, I can open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to speak? Please come up.

I'm sorry, can you please turn the mic on?

It's a little button. It should be green. There you go.

Thank you so much.

Good evening. My name is Neil Peoples. I'm the architect on the project. The property owner, my client, wasn't able to attend tonight. She's actually out of the country. Thank you, commissioners, for being here and looking at our project. And I enjoyed meeting several of you over the last several days. I also want to thank Sammy for doing a good job on the presentation. I don't think there's much of anything that I need to actually kind of you know, reiterate. One thing that I would like to say is that the, one of the reasons that we tried so hard to stay within the FEMA rules is we really appreciate the situation of the building in relationship to the lagoon and the closeness to the water and the yard out in front. If we would have had to have raised this building, am I not doing enough? Oh, okay. There we go. If we would have had to raise the building, we would have been another four or five feet up above floor line. And it would have really changed that relationship. And it also would have had a big impact on the neighbors. And we really tried hard not to affect that. We like the quiet subtlety of the scale of the neighborhood. The one thing that I would actually like to ask is that it's been requested that we change the three fixtures in the interior court to purely downlight fixtures. If there's a venue, if there's an opportunity, I would like to request that we be able to use the proposed fixtures and that these three fixtures are basically contained by the building and not visible by any other properties. And we just would like to enliven that little entry court just a little bit. I can point out the fixtures I'm talking about and bring up a cut sheet for them if needed, but.

Yeah, I think that'd be helpful.

These are the ones marked as number two?

Yes. Sammy, can I get this up on the screen somehow? Yeah. I'm sorry. Still, okay. Can I project this somehow so everybody can see? Oh, you have.

Well, I'm having trouble finding it.

It's in those little sheets in the back. It's in the back. I got it. Yeah. I got it. Yeah.

I'm going to zoom up. There she is.

While they're doing that, Sammy and I were discussing the municipal code for lighting prior to this meeting. And the language in the code says lighting should be shielded and directed downward. So it's not a shall, it's a should. You know, the location of light is coordinated with the approved landscape plan. It should be low wattage, incandescent. They should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or passerbys. So it's not a shall that it has to be downlit.

Thank you. I think Sammy's going to bring the lighting plan back up.

I think we all have been able to see it up here on the dais. So it's probably OK if you don't bring it up. Okay, so we'll take that into consideration in our discussion.

Thank you. Thank you. Other than that, I'm open to any questions and I appreciate your review. and I probably still wasn't close enough to the mic.

Any questions?

Yes, many questions. OK. So let's start with, let me see, where do I start? Let me start by the inspiration image you put there. I think that inspiration image, I don't find it... First of all, it is a rendering, right?

No, it's actually an image that I found online that just kind of... worked with where we were going. And it was part of what we based our design off by sharing that image as our inspiration image. Myself, my client, and the interior designer.

I thought that is a rendering, and I was wondering, you have other renderings. Why not render the actual elevation that you did? Because I don't find this inspiration actually similar to what you are proposing. I don't know where you are using this, but I thought maybe possibly you are referring to the elevation, south elevation over the bedroom. Is that the inspiration you have over there?

Yes, part of it is over the bedroom and it's also the new portion of the building facing the street. where we are creating a dark frame that's the parapet and build out a little bit, and then infilling inside that with the cedar, similar to the inspiration image, and using dark window frames, window and door frames.

For that elevation, you have an actual rendering, right? Yes. So we see the actual, your design. So we don't need the inspiration there. the image you have, the inspiration, has a, you know, not as tall of the black band you're talking about, which goes from the side to the top, is equal in your inspiration image. When we go back to your... actual elevation, that band is very tall. the mass of it is very tall. You, you use the metal edging, the same size of that inspiration. However, the mass is way taller than the mass of what you see. And then it comes down, goes back in and goes down. Like there are a lot of it's not as clean as your inspiration. Now, the reason I'm bringing that up is that One is that I'm confused why we see an inspiration that has nothing to do with your design because that mass is not comparable. And then the elevation on your comes, it's basically in two plane. That one, the inspiration is one plane. That brings me back to wondering if you are preparing for, for your next addition to bring that wall, the window wall out to under the eve basically to match that inspiration later on. Is that a plan?

OK, so perhaps.

And let me continue, because then you can respond to both at the same time. Because another thing that I find in your drawings is that parapet wall that goes, Sammy did not highlight it in his roof plan, but there is a parapet wall running over the existing roof so long for no reason. That one is also suggesting maybe you are preparing for another addition. otherwise I cannot find out what is the reason for that parapet. So these two were confusing a bit. So I wanted to bring these two so then if you can respond to those two at the same time, because I'm a bit concerned about FEMA and if we are taking it very seriously, which is important for our community not to lose their insurance. I understand the closeness to the water that is nice, but emergency situation, if we lose our insurance, we are basically putting all our community in not a good position. And I think it is our responsibility to take everybody's, our community's interest. And for that reason, if you can answer these two questions, and if this is a final project for you or is this, there is another addition to these which would basically suggest that maybe we should raise the building altogether.

Certainly, thank you. Perhaps the inclusion of the inspiration image was a mistake. It was simply an image that myself and the client and the other designer involved used as a starting point for our overall design. Similar materials, similar, particularly on the front of the building, a similar situation. it just seemed like a nice clean way to explain things. As far as the parapet, yes, you're right. We are preparing for a future addition. We have, through the process that we went through to get here, we've been coordinating with the building official, Brian Vanson, and he expressed to me that it's, that the policy of the city of Belvedere is that we cannot improve more than 50% of the value of the building without raising the building based on FEMA regulations. We've worked with the departments to bring our project down to below 50%. And within the city of Belvedere's policies and as shared by Mr. Vanson, Once we complete the scope of this project, we need to wait one more year, then we can do more. We have the FAR available, but we basically start over with the 50%. I have to be honest, that is our intent. We have the FIR to work with. We want to be able to add an additional bedroom to the house. And we were to a certain extent following how we were told it works and that it can work. So as far as I understand, we're following the city's regulations and guidance.

Can I just clarify one thing? You're correct. However, the scope of work does not have to be finished. The project has to be finaled. And I know that's splitting hairs, but I just wanted to clarify. The project has to be finaled by every department and then one year, and then they can have a new appraisal done. Right. So then they take the existing, you know, all these improvements presumably are added into the the it's still based on depreciated value of the structures, but the structures are now, you know, they've been renovated.

And if we continue doing that, we would not have any issues with FEMA.

no right but they still have to comply with the with the zoning and the setbacks and you know other other other requirements right um and then the city is getting increased tax revenue from the increased appraised property and and if i may the the reason for for extending the parapet

under the understanding of that as a process was so that we wouldn't have to basically remove the new roofing that would be over the garage area that we've put on. We wouldn't have to remove that, re-slope it, rework it in order to put this addition on.

Right, you are preparing for the future. Yes. So maybe this, in a way, answers my question, in a way not. The second thing I wanted to bring up is the void and mask. If we look at the... the site plan, the Google map of the property that you had, Sami, in your presentation. Basically, the neighborhood works in a way that see the two in the front on the lagoon road. There are two kind of courtyards at each side of the entry. Majority of homes in that neighborhood keep one of those and then filled the other one. And it goes side by side. Basically, each neighbor kept one courtyard where the other neighbor has a full building and vice versa. That creates a bit of a privacy for each courtyard. So when you are in your courtyard, the other neighbor is not in their courtyard and then they each have their privacy, which is a beautiful thing. And also it creates that void and mass in the street when you walk. now you are feeling the side that your neighbor has also filled versus the other side that you left the the courtyard your next door neighbor has the the yard so um I was wondering why didn't you start with that side? Well, when eventually both of them filled, it's not any more feeling that void and solid of void and mass. But if you were feeling both, I would have thought that this wouldn't basically comply with all the neighborhood. You know, they all have one courtyard, one mass. And eventually, if you want to fill both those courtyards, I don't think it is a good idea for the neighborhood. It would basically... create too much mass on the street side. So can you elaborate on that, why you did not put your mass on the other side, where you have to basically have the parapet, have to prepare? Why don't you finish that side with the mass and keep this side as a void where the other neighbor has the mass?

Sure. I'd like to start with a couple of observations. One is when I'm on that street, I don't feel those courtyards. The neighbors may have the courtyards, but they all seem to be behind fences and hedges. And one doesn't know that that's the rhythm on the street for the most part. The other thing I'd like to point out is that both of the houses on either side come all the way out to the waterline. The yard we have behind the house is our courtyard. where I would venture a guess, just a guess, that probably both the houses on either side exceed today's FAR allowance. So we're trying to comply with the FAR and not encroach out onto the lagoon the way that so many of the other properties along the property already have.

Yes, that's a beautiful feature you have on the other side with the big backyard. It's beautiful. However, I disagree with you. When you walk in the street, you don't see those. They have fences. But when you walk in that street, you even see the Belvedere Island from those windows. courtyards, because there is no mass. The mass is behind, it is open. You see the openness, you see the greenness, and you can realize these masses. And there are a couple of exceptions, I should say, that they overbuilt. They came all the way to the street. It's huge, and it's not as attractive as these ones that have courtyard and mass. But you answered my question. I think that's all my question.

Yeah, Neil, I know we talked about a, you know, you get gold stars here when you can add a ADU or a JADU. Yeah. And so what was your thinking on not including a JADU?

What we did look at... either an ADU or a JADU. And I had conversations with the building official about it. And I had conversations with Sammy about it as well. My understanding of if we were to add an ADU, kind of the limiting factor is that it would have to be constructed above the flood line, above the floodplain level. So that would have put any addition that we would have put, which is an ADU, somewhere between four and five feet higher than the house's current floor. And that would have made an even, shall I say, bigger impact on the massing of the building. It's also a rather, on a small lot like that, it's a rather inconvenient process to have to get four feet higher than ground level to get up into a unit. The junior ADU, is only allowed within the existing footprint of the building. You can't add additional square footage and put the junior ADU in that. So the only way that we really kind of could have put a junior ADU in this would have been to turn the primary bedroom on the back of the house into the junior ADU, because that's really the only viable space in the house. So just based on both of those, we kind of chose not to.

Okay, thank you, and I wanted to ask staff, because this is kind of new territory for me, and so a new ADU would have to be up in the air? Is that how it works?

If it was detached, it would, but if it was... I'd have to actually ask Brian. I don't think it would be, but I... Okay. I don't see why it would have to be, if it was attached, I don't see why it would have to be unless it pushed the project over that 50% threshold. I don't know what the plan is for.

No, presumably it would have been done with some of the space that they're adding, not, not more. if they converted part of the existing structure into an adu then they could bank that floor area and maybe that's what phase two is well or i guess my question is this addition that they're putting on which is uh i'm having trouble it's a it's a second bedroom and like a library i mean that if it could be an adu at grade But it's new construction, but it's attached. That would be a very good outcome. But again, I guess sitting here right now, you can't say whether that's permissible or not.

Do you talk to Brian about that?

I did. Did you talk to him about detached versus attached? And quite frankly, it was long enough ago that I couldn't quote the conversation one way or the other on that. ADUs are not allowed to communicate with the interior of the building. So if it's attached, it simply means it's sharing a wall. It's not actually sharing the space. A JADU can communicate with the interior.

No, I think both ADUs can communicate with the building, can't they? Different communities have different things. And like I know in Tiburon, it used to be that way. And then they changed it. They can both communicate. And I think that's consistent with what we have here. But it's important for us all to kind of know the rules of the road when we get applications like this. And it's complicated and there's not necessarily a lot of precedent yet.

Well, yeah. If you converted part of your house to the ADU, it would not be required to be Raised per FEMA. I don't know. I'll find out for you.

Okay.

I know it's not helpful now.

Okay. Thank you.

Right, because I also wasn't sure whether the ADU space counted towards the 50%.

For FEMA purposes, yes. Okay. 100%.

Because it's federal.

Because it's habitable area.

But I just know that ADUs are exempt from also the height and the size and the mass.

But yeah, that doesn't travel with FEMA regulations.

In 2024, we had on Hillerita Circle an attached ADU that did not need to be raised.

So maybe there's .

2024.

Sammy, may I ask if the ADU counts towards the floor area site coverage?

It would not.

It would not.

So long as it meets the requirements for the ministerial ADU, it would not. Thank you.

OK, any other questions for the applicant?

I just wanted to confirm that the report had said that it's a concrete, hardy, plank siding, but it's actually going to be real cedar.

The portions that are rendered as wood are real wood, not a composite blank. The painted portions will be a composite.

And just for my edification, so the ADUs can exceed both the side coverage ratio and the FAR, is that correct?

That's correct. It would not count towards the existing floor area right now. And the maximum size of an ADU is what, a thousand square feet or? It depends on if it's detached or attached, but yes, a thousand. And then we also offer a size bonus to if the property goes into a regulatory agreement that if they were to rent the ADU, they would rent it to low or medium level income. And then it would be a size bonus for that as well. Got it. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. First, I wanted to ask where the hot tub mechanics are going to be kept.

So that hot tub actually has the mechanics contained. within under the deck of the hot tub. And the hot tub is going to be recessed into a well below grade. So it's all gonna be contained. They're going to be contained below the surface of the hot tub.

Okay.

And then, I think I know the answer to this is, but why are five olive trees being removed and five olive trees being planted? Is it just because the existing olive trees look terrible?

That's part of it. That's part of it. Two of them aren't in very good health. Also, we're replacing with non-bearing. The Swan Hills don't drop fruit. The current ones do. So we're trying to avoid the mess of the fruit.

Okay. But the proposed trees will grow to be about the same size as the existing trees.

Yes.

But hopefully look better.

That's the goal. Yes.

All right. And then I noted in the report that there's going to be a new sidewalk poured as well.

The sidewalk from which is the sidewalk that we want to pour goes from the building out to the back of the existing public sidewalk. The public works requirements have indicated that we need to meet current standards and our civil engineer hasn't been able to figure out what that really means, whether or not we're gonna have to replace the whole sidewalk and curb and gutter. We're still gonna work with them on what that scope, what the public works requirements requires.

Okay, great. I just know that there's a couple of portions along Lagoon that either don't have a sidewalk or don't have a very wide sidewalk. And so as a dog walker, I'm very concerned about the sidewalk.

My casual observation is everybody walks on the street anyway. But I understand a wide sidewalk is a nice thing.

Great. Thank you. All right. And then the lighting that's out by the little steps going from the backyard down to the deck, and then also the lighting that's by the hot tub, those are recessed in the deck itself? Yes.

The ones along the sides of the steps are recessed into the side of the wall, and they just shine down. They're hooded, so they shine down. The ones at the deck are recessed into the deck as well, and they stick up about this far and have light that emits around them.

So they're not shining up into the- They're not shining up, no.

They're not shining up. They're shining sideways.

So I want to make sure they weren't like the little pucks that like.

No, no, they're, they've got a little cap on them and there's openings on the sides and the light shines sideways.

All right. Lights, lights, a big issue on the, on the lagoon. Cause it, it reflects off of everything.

Yeah. Um, I was, um, PB, David Ensign he or he. : informed of that early on in the project and that's why we actually tried to turn the step lights sideways rather than even facing the lagoon, so they were coming down the steps this way, so that there wouldn't be the chance of it of the direction I now on to the little again.

All right. And then while we're talking about lights and the lagoon, what type, because it is a fishbowl and you're going to have a lot of, I mean, they currently have a lot of glazing on the back and they're going to have about the same amount of glazing on the back facing the lagoon. What types of, I guess, shades or privacy controls are they going to have in terms of making sure that the rest of the lagoon doesn't see a giant shining box with their bodies in it, like watching television?

The fishbowl thing, right? Yeah. Yeah. evidently Kathleen's already experienced that, being in the house and realizing, oh, there's somebody out there. I shouldn't be in front of the window. So we're aware of that. There is the intent to have roll-down shades in front of the glazing or behind the glaze down, the interior of the glazing.

Right. Okay. Thank you. As hill dwellers don't have to deal with these problems, but I know, I know.

The privileged people.

Yeah, those people on the lagoon. Those are all of my questions. Thank you.

Anything else? The applicant? All right. Does anybody present in the audience wish to...

Sorry, I do have one more. It's also lighting. The lighting that's on the paths on either side, those are low pathway lights. They're underneath the level of the fences.

Yeah, they'll be mounted 24 inches off the ground, and they're downward-facing path lights that are on the building.

Thanks.

OK, so does anyone in the room have anything they wish to say on this application?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

OK, thank you. I will close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Shinskey, could you start out, please? Sure.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IN GENERAL, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT. YOU KNOW, YOU STAY IN THE ENVELOPE. I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE AVOIDING THE FEMA LIFT. I THINK IT MAKES ALL HOUSES, NOT JUST THIS ONE, MUCH MORE ELEGANT WITHOUT THAT KIND OF ARTIFICIAL STEROIDAL INFLATION. It's a, you know, I think it presents well to the street. I think it presents well, according to the rendering, so it presents well to the lagoon. You haven't pushed it to the lagoon. Obviously, there's plenty of neighbors who kind of press right up to the lagoon sometimes, and you've left that clear. For that, I guess I'd be willing to sacrifice a little of the courtyard space that... Commissioner Janae was talking about. I'm sorry to see that established pear tree in the back go, but I understand based on the landscaping plan that it's going to be a different scheme and a different look. I like the fact that the glazing in the back facing lagoon is going to be going down by 10%. We don't see that a lot, so we do like that. Obviously, the 66 and 70 uh seem to be okay with the project which is uh pretty darn important as well uh so with that i would um i'd like to put in for my colleagues just open up the discussion of the three sconces in the front i'm personally okay with those sconces as proposed i looked it up they're a um uh uh whatever, you know, 784 lumens or something like that, it's equivalent, each one is equivalent to 15 watts, which ain't much, they really don't reflect out, they sort of glow almost. My reading of 4.18 oh, I guess in our code is that, you know, the reason you turn them downward and shield them is to prevent them from annoying your neighbors. It's not there as a you know, just sort of a free-floating thing that everybody has to do. There's a reason it's there, and it's to not annoy the passerby and your neighbor. I don't think they do. I think it's behind a solid gate in a private courtyard. The only people that are really going to see them are the homeowner and their guests. So I'm fine with the three sconces as proposed.

Thank you, Commissioner Watson.

I also appreciate all the work that the staff has done and that you have done basically to keep this project at sort of a rational scale, even though I recognize that there is a phase two in the making. I have very confidence that that too will be a rational scale. I like the materials. I like how I like that looks natural. I normally love trees and love keeping trees and all things trees. But I also understand why trees. First of all, the trees in the front are going to be removed and also the pear tree. My one suggestion is that as this will be a very extensive landscape plan that like we normally do for a lot of projects that have extensive landscape plans, once we're getting to the building permit process, that at that point, we have the finalized landscape plan approved by our chair, if that's okay with you. That's fine. Okay. And I am also fine with the sconces in the entryway. I actually have lighting very similar to this next to my front door, which is also shielded from the street. So, yeah. and it does just sort of glow even though it's not technically downwards it's it's it's definitely it's definitely shielded um that's really all i have to say thank you

Let me start with that light fixture. I have no problem with the light fixture as well. I think nobody sees it and it's not an excessive amount of light. So I think that one is fine. The lighting from the back, the question that Jenna was asking about the, you know, curtains or shades or things like that sort. I just want to bring it up that The existing building, although it needs work and it's not in a good shape, but the rhythm of the windows and the size of the windows are elegant. It is all the same size. It's repeating. And then if I was living across the lagoon from this house, when you see at night when the lights are on, these windows would look, you know, elegant the the new design um changes that rhythm uh and then when at night you turn on those lights people from across the lagoon can see that the the windows are all different sizes and that um rhythm is not continuing um so i think this is not a very um positive change. But at the same time, I understand that your clients likes this and no neighbor objected to it. So I have no problem with it. It might be and not appropriate for me to decline it. It might come across personal opinion. I don't know if it is or not. But for that reason, I don't object it. Again, void and mass is important. I had a neighbor reaching out to me talking about a property that just recently was built on San Rafael Avenue and say, how could... such a massive house be built in Belvedere. And it was, you know, done before I was in planning commission. So I said, I have no guilt in that. But so our community are concerned about these masses. I want to say that and I and I feel that, you know, at this point, your project keeps one of the courtyards, propose one. So it is aligned with all others, although I wish the location was opposite. But at this point, I cannot object it because it is relatively aligned with other houses. So yeah, so I think that's all for me.

Thank you, Commissioner. Oh, sorry.

And the parapet. I want to know how everyone feels about the parapet.

You have a... You're talking about the one at the master bedroom?

No, no. The one that is above this one. What sheet is it on? And I can pull it up. It is on A1.2. This. Yes. Yes. On the right-hand side, where there is no improvement, it's just, yes, that one. That has a hatch, long, yeah.

Sammy, could you bring up the elevation that that parapet shows on, which I think would be the west elevation? So is it the height that you're concerned?

like if you're looking at this elevation it's um it's showing the mass coming up but if you're looking from the other side the street for example look at yeah when you when you look at it in 3d really right like in reality um look at the probably the north look at the north elevation exactly so that you can see it more or better realistic in the north elevation yeah

Just sort of like a two-dimensional plane coming up there.

So I think more... thoughtful way would have been to complete this side of the mass along with that, and then leave the other side alone for later on. But again, eventually, if you are going to fill the whole mass, avoid.

Any commissioners? want to comment on that while we're pausing on this image.

So if I understand correctly, the parapet is not a permanent part, right? No, it is. Is it not going to be changed once they do a phase two?

Yeah, I think a way of stating it's anticipating phase two, which would be at that height. One thing I note about it is it seems to be set back about maybe six feet from the front of the eave that runs in front of it. So it's not exactly at the face of the building. I think if you looked for it you could see it in the background but um i'm not sure it's going to bring that much attention to itself so um i mean potentially if we asked him to he could probably lower it at this phase and then build it up in the future phase um if we think that that's important um so i'll kind of leave my comment at that and see what other people think.

Does that jeopardize your planning if it is lower at this point?

I'm sorry, can you go to the mic? Thank you.

What it affects is how we address the roof of the garage and the spaces behind it, since we have to add slope to that roof and re-roof it. If we weren't to put the parapet in there now in order to get reasonable drainage, we would slope the roof in a very different way. And then once the addition was put on, we'd basically have to take off the roof over the garage and re-slope over the garage again in order to make this version of it work. So that's the, that's kind of a primary reason for it.

So sorry, can you explain again, if it is, if the parapet is above your roof, let's say whatever you want to be doing with your roof, you're going to do it, right? Like you... in that elevation that we were looking at. So you are gonna, I don't know, add insulation, whatever, but probably that height adds to the height of that existing roof. So you are gonna do all of that and plan your parapet based on that. Basically raise the parapet so you can do the installation, waterproofing, whatever you need to do, sloping, everything. But then now in this elevation, we see, I think I'm just ballparking, it's about three feet above all of that. Am I right? Correct.

Because it's the same height as the parapet behind it at the other portion of the building that's being created. Yeah.

So if that three feet, could that three feet happen later on? Or is that going to, do you have to redo anything if you do that parapet later on?

Currently, that area of the garage roof has an overhang that reaches out into the courtyard. If we don't remove that overhang now, we will have to accommodate that roof area and that overhang in figuring out how to drain that whole roof section. Our future addition is gonna come back to the building and the overhang, and we won't have had to address that existing condition. We can lower the parapet, but the, it would still make sense for the parapet to be there at just the height for the roofing work that we need to do.

Right, right. I have no objection to that. You are going to re-roof and whatever needs to happen to re-roof, I have no objection. But then that or overhang, whatever you want to do with the overhang is fine. But then not extending the parapet three feet above Is that gonna change your, I mean, redo? I know construction is very expensive. We don't want anybody to redo things. Do you have to redo anything if you do that? If you don't do it three feet above?

If we lower it, it allows us to do the roofing that we want to do, which is our primary concern. When we do the addition, we can extend it back up to where it needs to be to reach that height for the ceiling heights on the interior of the building.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Lenetsky, please.

I agree with the comments that have been made by my fellow commissioners. I don't have much concern about the lighting fixtures. I do like that there's less glazing. I think the massing and the scale are appropriate given the other homes and the lagoon, and therefore I have no other concerns here.

Thank you. I concur in general with my fellow planning commissioners. I think this is a thoughtful redo of a house that's somewhat dated is maybe even too light of a term for it. But I think the planning makes good sense. I think you've worked well with the house. I am sensitive to my fellow commissioners' comments about the window arrangements facing the lagoon and I also am sensitive to the the soffit over the master bedroom but you've explained why some of these things are and then as to the as to the parapet on the garage um personally I I think I could live with it as it is um but we'll see what the commissioners um say in our our final round um whether someone wants to attach a condition or not on that The lighting in the courtyard, I'm also fine with. It seems pretty muted and it's within a contained space. So I think it's actually consistent with the intent of our policy. And then two other things on the revocable license. Of course, I'll be able to recommend approval of that to the council. I do think we have had good discussion here and it's an evolving understanding about the revocable license. I feel like I'm learning as I go and on every case presents slightly different issues, but I think as we heard from the staff, this is something that's in the process of evolving to a higher level where at one time it wasn't even considered. It was just sort of, you know, you need to get from here to there and that's what you do. So I think there's more to learn. It sounds like council's going to be giving us some further guidance on it this year. That'll be great. And then I just, you know, Don raised the interesting thing about ADU. This project already has a lot of requirements meeting the FEMA. I've talked to various people who've been through that process. I wish you well, it's a lot of bookkeeping and whatnot. I don't think we need to burden this project with any kind of idea of requiring an ADU. I think where the ADUs really come into play is where people are putting more area on their site than the basic floor area allotment allows, and that certainly gives us leverage to discuss ADUs with them. Part of the beauty of this project is you're not even really anywhere near what you could do on the lot. Maybe someday you will be with future projects, but there's something I think nice about what I wanna call almost the modesty of this project at this point, the not raising it, not asking for, more floor area than the site can bear. So with that, I'll be able to make findings for design review. Do any other commissioners want to say anything else on any of those topics before we?

I just wanted to say that when you, assuming that phase two does occur, at that point, I think that you and the homeowners can think about the ADU question. But I agree that I don't think we need to require an ADU now.

Thank you. Are we ready to make some motions?

I was going to check with Commissioner Jumet. Are you preferring that we condition approval on a lower parapet?

Everybody else thinks that the parapet does not, I mean, eventually the whole mass is going to go up, unfortunately. So yeah, no. You know, there are a lot that it's out of our hands, really. I'm sensitive about these masses and making them, you know, not as massive as people like. I don't know why everybody wants massive houses, but, you know, the ADU eventually basically remove all these hard work. If we, if I sit here and talk about this parapet, like this three feet, let's not do it because it doesn't make sense. And if I create any hardship for the homeowner, because they have to redo this thing later on, and then basically they can go get an ADU, but no, like, I feel like I'm just not making sense really, because... It's just an hardship for no reason. So for that reason, although I disagree with all these masses, but because it is no point, right? Exactly. There is no point of doing it. So for that reason, I think we should not create hardship for the homeowner for whatever reason they want to do it now.

Do you want me to do the motions? Sure, if you could. Ready? Okay. All right. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution granting design review approval for the residential additions totaling 607 square feet and a remodel including new windows, siding, exterior lighting, and fencing at 68 Lagoon Road. subject to final landscape plan being approved by the chair of the commission at the time of the building permit.

All in favor? Second. Oh, sorry. Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Motion number two, I'd like to recommend that the city council approve a revocable license for an existing driveway, walkway, and landscaping located in Lagoon Road right-of-way at 68 Lagoon Road.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you all. This meeting's adjourned.

Thank you, Commissioner.