CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

REPORT DATE: 9/09/2016 AGENDA ITEM: 5

MEETING DATE: 9/20/2016

TO: City of Belvedere Planning Commission

FROM: Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building

REVIEWED BY: Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney

SUBJECT: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Demolition Permit, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License to Substantially Demolish, Remodel and Construct Additions to an Existing Single-Family Residence on Property Located at 9 North Point Circle RECOMMENDATION The applicant requests a Demolition Permit to demolish 64.8% of the existing 3,577 square-foot two-story residence (including a carport), and a Design Review Permit for renovations and 1,284 square feet of additions (including a 510 square foot garage) to the existing residence for a proposed 4,861 square foot home (including 321 square feet of covered exterior deck), and related site improvements, as described in more detail below. Additionally, an Exception to Total Floor Area is requested to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 4,744 by 117 square feet or approximately 0.8% over the allowed ratio of 33%. A Revocable License is also required for private improvements proposed within the 9 North Point Circle street right-of-way. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTION 1 Adopt Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program that addresses potential impacts of the proposed project at 9 North Point Circle (Attachment 1); MOTION2 Adopt Resolution granting a Demolition Permit (64.8%) for the substantial demolition of the existing residence at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 2); MOTION3 Adopt Resolution granting Design Review for proposed renovations and additions to the existing residence at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 3); MOTION4 Adopt Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area for the proposed project at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 4); and MOTIONS Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for private improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 9 North Point Circle. PROPERTY SUMMARY Project Address: 9 North Point Circle APN: 060-111-10 Project Applicant: Holscher Architects Property Owners: Bryan Lin and Patricia Seid GP Designation: Low Density SFR-1.0 to 3.0 units/net acre Zoning: R-15 Zone, Belvedere Island Existing Use: Single Family Residence

Site Characteristics: The parcel is a 14,375 square foot There are two public service easements on irregularly shaped property located within the property. One easement is 5' x 15' and the northwestern end of the single-family is half of a IO'x 15' easement that straddles residential area of Belvedere Island, the the property line in the southeast comer of oldest historical neighborhood in Belvedere. the site connecting to North Point Circle. The subject property consists of moderate to The other easement is a 5' easement that steep slopes (25-50%) descending down extends from North Point Circle to the rear slope toward West Shore Road and of the property and is half of a 1O' wide Richardson Bay. easement that straddles the property. It is developed with a two-story home built in 1958. The site is substantially covered with the structure and paving including a carport, fence, and swimming pool. Other properties surrounding the site are similarly developed. There are hedges and shrubbery at the front of the property and a line of dense bamboo along the westerly property line that screens the two abutting properties from each other. A variety of trees and ground cover have been planted around the site and the steep down sloping northwest comer of the property is fenced off. A small lawn area surrounds the pool in the rear yard. The remaining areas of the property are covered with an assortment of brick patios, brick steps, concrete, and stone pavers.

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 2 ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED EXISTING PROPOSED Lot Area 15,000 SF 14,375 SF No Change Lot Coverage 30% 2,885 SF (20%) 3,150 SF (21.9%) Total Lot Coverage (including decks over 4 ft. 50% 3,319 SF (46.6%) 3,464 SF (48.7%) above grade)

4,861 SF (including 4,744 SF 3,577 SF (including 321 sq.ft. covered Total Floor Area (0.33 ratio for lots 284 sq.ft. covered exterior; < 14,700 sq.ft.) exterior; 24.9%) 33.8%)

Setbacks Front @40' Bldg <15' = 10' 19' 11' Bldg> 15' = 15' Left Side (West) 9' (based on 10% of 3 '-2" 7'-1" the average width (overhang) oflot) Right Side (East) 9' (based on 10% of 3'-6" 9'-9" the average width oflot) Rear 20' (abutting another 7'-2" No Change lot) Building Height 28' 25' -4" 26' -3" average/maximum Parking Spaces 2 2 3

BACKGROUND/PROPERTY HISTORY A review of City records indicates that the subject property received the following prior approvals: Building- • 1957 - Building Permit issued for Residence (1957-48) • October 1964- Building Permit issued for Swimming Pool (1964-25) • October 1983 -Building Permit issued for Kitchen Remodel (1983-158) • October 1983 - Electrical Permit issued (1983-171) • November 1983 - Plumbing permit issued (1983-185) • July 1995 - Backflow Prevention Device (BF 95-148)

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 3 • August 1993 - Building Permit issued for Re-Roofing (1993-128) • November 2000-Construction Permit issued to Replace Deck and Railing (2000-269) • March 2004 -Construction Permit issued for Retaining Walls, Pool Deck and Fence Repair/Replacement (2004-028) • November 2005 -Construction Permit for Bath and Dressing Room Alteration/Remodel (2005-222) • January 2007 -Construction Permit for Furnace Replacement (2007-016) Planning- • August 2000 - Staff Design Review Approval for Deck and Railing Replacement • February 2004 - Staff Design Review Approval for Retaining Walls, Pool Deck and Fence Repair/ Replacement PROJECT ANALYSIS Applicant requests approval of the following changes and improvements: 1. Demolition of 64.8% of the existing exterior of the structure. 2. 22.0 cubic yards of cut and 27.5 cubic yards of fill and minor other site work. 3. Removal of an existing 469 square foot carport and construction of a two-car 510 square foot garage. 4. Addition of an uncovered off-street parking space in the southeast corner of the site. 5. Extensive interior kitchen remodeling and 1,247 square feet of addition to the upper and lower floors (existing: 3,293 square feet) and 37 added square feet of covered exterior (existing: 284 square feet). 6. Installation of a new roof over the existing upstairs bedrooms; Replacement of existing roofing with standing seam aluminum. 7. All doors and windows will be replaced and the siding will be comprised of new stucco and horizontal cedar siding. Project approvals required by the City of Belvedere include a Demolition Permit (Chapter 16. 28 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC), Design Review approval pursuant (Chapter 20.04 of the BMC), an Exception to Total Floor Area (Section 19.52.120 of the BMC), a Revocable License, and a building permit. Each of these requests is discussed in more detail below. The applications are included as Attachment 6 and project plans are included as Attachment 7. DEMOLITION PERMIT Given that 64.8% of the existing residence is proposed to be demolished, a Demolition Permit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.08.136 and Chapter 16.28. As conditioned, the proposed demolition would provide adequate site protection and would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare. Additionally, as discussed below and in the findings for the Demolition Permit, the demolition will not remove a building recognized as having historical or architectural significance, and the proposed demolition is consistent with the Housing Element goals of the City. Staff recommends that the findings for the Demolition Permit can be made as reflected in the attached draft Resolution and incorporated herein by reference (Attachment 2).

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page4 DESIGN REVIEW Residence The applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and a Revocable License. The applicants propose to demolish 64.8% of the existing 3,577 square-foot two-story residence and renovate the existing home including the addition of 1,24 7 square feet. When complete, the home would have 2,319 square feet on the main floor (street level) and 1, 711 square feet on the lower level. The property would also have a 510 square foot garage and 321 square feet of covered exterior (under the upper deck) and related site improvements. An Exception to Total Floor Area is requested to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 4,744 by 117 square feet or approximately 0.8% over the allowed ratio of 33%. A Revocable License is also required for private improvements proposed within the 9 North Point Circle street right-of-way. Though much of the existing landscaping at the rear and sides of the home would remain, the front of the site would be re-landscaped. A fountain in the northwest rear portion of the site would be removed to allow for a new stairway down to the pool and patio area. Three trees along the rear walkway would be removed. In the proposed plans, the main floor consists of a kitchen/pantry/dining/living area, a master bedroom and bath, a guest/office room, and a powder room. The lower floor consists of a second master bedroom and bath, two bedrooms each with a separate bath, a recreation room including a wet bar, and a laundry room. From existing grade the home would be 26' -3" in height, which is within Belvedere's. The existing home is 25'-4" in height. Parking is proposed in a two-car 510 square foot garage that includes a stairway into the home and a utility room. A third off-street uncovered gravel parking space is proposed in the southeasterly corner of the site. A retaining wall (42" max) and a landscape strip with Deer grass would separate the gravel parking space from the driveway to the garage. The existing low-hipped roof on the western end of the home would be replaced with several interlaced hip roofs at a 3: 12 slope. The existing hip roofs on the eastern end would be retained. The garage roof would be hip roof with a 1: 12 slope. All roofing would be changed to standing seam aluminum. The pop up over the kitchen area would remain. No skylights are proposed. The roofing material would be dark bronze standing seam metal. The fascia, gutters and downspouts would be painted "Dark Brown" (Sherman-Williams). The front and rear elevations would have a combination of clear stained horizontal channel cedar (Cabot Stain, "Burnt Hickory") and sandy tone colored stucco (ICI-"Sand"). The garage would also be sandy tone stucco with aluminum/opaque glass door. On the rear elevation, the support posts would be clad with dark brown wood and the railings around the balcony, decks and walkways would be glass with "Dark Brown" aluminum cap. Both the east and side elevations would be sandy tone colored stucco. The existing home is all stucco. All window and doorframes would be all weather "Dark Bronze" aluminum. A color and materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting.

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 5 Fences, Landscaping, Hardscape and Exterior Lighting A 6-foot tall clear cedar horizontal slat fence is proposed along a portion of the North Point Circle frontage replacing the existing light colored wood fence. Entry would be through a 6' opague glass gate framed on each side with the 6' cedar horizontal slate fence. In front of the fence, on each side of the walk, would be olive trees (Olea europaea, one on the left and two on the right; a condition is included requiring that the olive tree on the left be relocated outside of the Public Service Easement), Mondo and Deer grasses (Ophioposon japonicus and Muhlenbergia rigens, respectively), and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia). Inside the fencing, the "Mesa Buff' colored concrete walk and steps would be border by cedar planters stained to match the house and similarly planted with grasses and lavender. Off to the left of the entry walk/steps are a set of steps leading to a small patio with a built in BBQ, essentially where a patio currently exists. The existing side and rear property line fencing would remain and a new front yard fence is proposed. The steps and fountain on the westerly side of the house are proposed to be replaced with new railroad tie treads on grade leading from the front patio area to the rear pool and patio (a condition is included in the proposed Design Review approval stating that no new retaining walls or steps are allowed within the Public Service Easement). Colored concrete would cover the existing patio off the rear of the house and the upper decking would be replaced with new Ipe decking as necessary. The pool and stone paver patio would remain. A pittosporum hedge is proposed to replace the dense bamboo within 50' of the home (see discussion of the bamboo under the Design Analysis below). Three small trees around the rear upper patio would be removed. The shrubbery in the southeast comer of the site would also be removed to allow for a new uncovered off-street parking space on a gravel pad. The other mature trees and shrubs around the site would remain, including the natural lawn around the pool/patio. Proposed exterior lighting includes exterior step lighting in the front entry area, exterior sconces on each side of the garage and minimally placed around the home primarily near doorways and steps, landscaping along the exterior steps leading down to the pool/patio area, and Juno mini LED recessed downlights under the rear overhang. No skylights are proposed. Design Analysis First, it is important to note that the original design proposed by the applicants expanded less outward to the north, as they had initially planned to excavate more under the existing home. However, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the site, the plans were revised to minimize the amount of excavation in order to minimize any potential impacts on any CEQA resources present. Except for the proposed 1'-6" deep cut for the third off-street parking space, the proposed cuts are shallow at 0.5' to 1' in depth. The overall proposed cut to the site would be 22.0 cubic yards. The project proposes 27.5 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net fill of 5.5 cubic yards, less than one commercial truckload. The applicants are requesting an Exception to Total Floor Area of 0.8% or 117 square feet. Given the location of the site on a relatively steep hillside and its relatively low profile against the hill, the home is difficult to view from off-site below North Point Circle. Though the proposed design modernizes the appearance of the home and breaks up the stucco walls with wood siding and windows, the overall design is similar in shape and design as the existing house.

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 6 The existing home has a nonconforming side yard setback of 3 '-2" where 9' is required (westerly or left side of the home) and a nonconforming rear yard setback 7'-2" where 20' is required. The applicants do not intend to change the two comer walls that project into the side yard, but have proposed reducing the eave in that location to increase the setback to 7' -1 ". Except for changes in the windows and doors, the applicants are not proposing any changes to the wall in the rear yard setback. Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section l 9.76.030(B), "A nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended to occupy a greater volume of space or different area of land than is occupied at the time it first became nonconforming, or its exterior design altered, where such enlargement, alteration or extension conforms in its entirety to all current laws and regulations, so long as the total floor area added during any ten year period does not exceed fifty percent of the existing gross floor area of the building." The proposed addition is 1,284 square feet or 36% of the existing gross floor area, and there have not been any other additions in the last ten years. With approval of an Exception to Total Floor Area, the proposed project would conform to all current laws and regulations. Staff has some concern with the expanse of stucco on the westerly side of the house. This is the side where much of the additional square footage is proposed. The siding and massing, however, is not significantly different from the existing home, which is also stucco on the western fa9ade with no windows to breakup the massing. The proposed plan proposes several small windows on the westerly fa9ade. It is noted that originally the applicants proposed a larger bedroom window on the westerly fa9ade that would have helped to further break up the appearance of the stucco, but reduced it to minimize privacy impacts on the neighbors (see analysis by Mark Sandoval, Consulting Architect, Attachment 7). It is also noted that the westerly side is comprised of different wall planes and the side of the garage is setback much further and would not be very visible from the side due to the proposed entry improvements. It is also noted that the westerly side of the home is not visible from any off-site location and it is screened from the view of I 0 North Point Circle by the existing bamboo and eucalyptus trees. Initially, the Fire Department requested that the bamboo and eucalyptus trees be removed within 50 feet of the structure and the applicants complied with that request in the proposed plans by showing pittosporum as a replacement. However, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the site and the soil disturbance that would occur from the removal and replacement of the existing vegetation, the recommendation has changed to allow the bamboo and trees to remain but be trimmed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Design Review Findings The Design Review findings, specified in the Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 20, state that all new structures and additions should be designed to avoid excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and should not attract attention to themselves. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. Landscaping should soften and screen structures and maintain privacy. Based on the analysis above and as conditioned, staff is able to make the required findings for Design Review as stated in the draft resolution of approval (Attachment 3).

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 7 Architectural Consultant Review The City's consulting architect, Mark Sandoval, reviewed the project in its early stages and raised concerns regarding a large window proposed on the westerly side, the proposed uncovered off-street parking space, and the pool equipment. Several changes have occurred to the plans since his review, including: 1) the window has been significantly reduced in size and the bamboo is to be replaced with a pittosporum hedge; 2) the Fire Department has indicated that it prefers the off-street parking space to the current on-street parking at that location because a parked car at that location narrows the road and access to the court; a condition has been added requiring higher growing vegetation in that location to help screen the garage; and 3) the applicants propose a noise complying pool equipment/shed and a condition has been included requiring acoustical testing before and after construction of the new pool shed. Other than these concerns, Mr. Sandoval concluded that the project meets the general Design Revuew requirements outlined under Title 20 as submitted. Mr. Sandoval's comments are contained in the attached memo dated August 5, 2015 (Attachment 7), and have been incorporated into the Design Review findings, where appropriate. EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 4,861 square foot (total) residence. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is a ratio of 0.33 to the lot area. The proposed FAR would be 33.8% on this 14,375 square foot site. ETFA Findings In order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area for the 117 square feet that exceeds the maximum permitted, the Planning Commission must make the findings specified in the Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 20, Section 19.52.120. That is, relative to the additional square footage, primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not impaired, there are unusual circumstances applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of the additional square footage, the proposed structure is appropriate in mass, bulk and character to the neighborhood and zoning district, and the privacy of residents on adjoining properties will not substantially be reduced. Due to the downslope of the property, the location and orientation of the existing structure, the location of the additions primarily at the rear and lower level of the site, the project will not impact primary views or substantially reduce the privacy of adjacent neighbors, and the mass, bulk and character of the project is compatible with the neighborhood and zoning district. Based on the analysis in this section and above, and as conditioned, staff is able to make the required findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area as stated in the draft resolution of approval (Attachment 5). REVOCABLE LICENSE A Revocable License is required for new private improvements in the public right-of-way. For this project, the applicants are proposing concrete flat work for a driveway and curb cut in the public right-of-way for a new uncovered off-street parking space, removal of an existing retraining wall extendings into the narrow sidwalk/right-of-way. A Revocable License application and diagram is included with the applications in Attachment 6. In accordance with Section 272.05 the City's Administrative Procedures Manual, a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-way may be granted at the discretion of the City

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 8 Council, provided any proposed encroachment into the right-of-way complies with the design review requirements of Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the City to grant a Revocable Llicense for private use of excess street right-of-way include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Where necessary to provide pedestrian or vehicular access from private property to the adjacent public street; b. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit landscaping to be installed that the City determines will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape; c. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit the creation of an uncovered off-street parking area, and will thereby relieve parking or traffic congestion on the adjacent City street; d. Where the public right-of-way will be used to construct retaining walls, drainage structures or other facilities that the City considers necessary to protect or maintain the public infrastructure; and/or e. Where appropriate to validate already existing private improvements in the public right­ of-way for the purpose of shifting the City's potential liability for injuries and damages to the private property owners using the right-of-way for private purposes. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the Revocable License, including the removal and replacement of the Cypress tree, because the improvements proposed within the public right-of-way would enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape, and as conditioned, would not impede use of the public sidewalk. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a California law that applies to any discretionary project requiring approval by a state, regional, or local government agency. The purpose of CEQA is to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced, and to prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in projects through the use of feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. An Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 5) was prepared and circulated for public review and comment on August 31, 2016. The Initial Study/MND identifies mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. While the Initial Study addresses all topics required by CEQA, the focus of the study is on the potential impacts to cultural resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures are identified in the Initial Study that would reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant. The mitigation measures include the requirement for monitoring of the site during ground disturbance by both a professional archaeologist and a representative the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Staff recommends that the Initial Study/MND for the 9 North Point Circle Project - Partial Demolition, Renovation, and Addition to a Single-Family Home be adopted and recommends that the findings can be made as reflected in the attached draft Resolution, incorporated herein by reference (Attachment 1). City action on the applications is required by November 20, 2016, or the project may be deemed approved.

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page9 CORRESPONDENCE A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of writing this report, nine "Neighbor Noticing Memos" have been received stating "no objection to the proposed improvements." The memos are from 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 North Point Circle and 5 Tamalpais Avenue. Additionally, staff spoke to the property owners of 4 and 10 North Point Circle and 8 West Shore Road. The property owners at 4 North Point Circle did not believe that they had any concerns with the project but were interested in seeing the story poles to ensure that there view was not going to be impaired. The property owners at 10 North Point Circle expressed a desire that the existing bamboo and eucalyptus trees be kept to continue to provide screening between the two properties; they have a kitchen, office, and two bathroom windows as well as a deck that looks towards 9 North Point Circle. The property owner of 8 West Shore Road stated that she could not see the house and did not have concerns about the project. CONSTRUCTION TIME LIMIT Pursuant to section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the applicant is required to file an estimate of the total project cost that will establish the time limit within which construction of the proposed project will be completed pursuant to the Municipal Code. Here, the applicant has estimated that the cost of construction for this project would be greater than $500,000. When applied to the above noted section of the Code, construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. CONCLUSION As conditioned, staff can make all of the required findings for the Demolition Permit, Design Review, an Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License. The proposed project complies with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan policies. RECOMMENDATION MOTIONl Adopt Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program that addresses potential impacts of the proposed project at 9 North Point Circle (Attachment 1); MOTION2 Adopt Resolution granting a Demolition Permit (64.8%) for the substantial demolition of the existing residence at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 2); MOTION3 Adopt Resolution granting Design Review for proposed renovations and additions to the existing residence at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 3); MOTION4 Adopt Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area for the proposed project at 9 North Point Circle, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned (Attachment 4); and MOTIONS Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for private improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 9 North Point Circle.

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 10 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 : Draft Resolution for Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration /Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachment 2: Draft Resolution for Demolition Permit Attachment 3: Draft Resolution for Design Review Permit Attachment 4: Draft Resolution for Exception to Total Floor Area Attachment 5: Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 6: Applications Attachment 7: Plans date stamped on front as Received Septembeer 12, 2016 by the City of Belvedere Attachment 8: Departmental Reviews and Consulting Architect's Report Attachment 9: Correspondence

9 North Point Circle -September 20, 2016 PC Meeting Page 11 CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO. 2016-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN PREPARED PURSUANT TO CEQA FOR AN ADDITION AND REMODEL AT 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE (APN 060-111-10)

WHEREAS, a proper application for Design Review has been submitted pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code for an addition/remodel on property located at 9 North Point Circle; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, attached and incorporated herein, have been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which determined that the mitigations, voluntarily agreed to by the property owner and incorporated into the project scope, reduce the potential enviromnental impacts of the project to a level of less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study, Draft Mitigated Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and finds that the mitigation measures effectively mitigate the project's potential environmental impacts to a level of less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan on September 20, 2016; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan dated August 2016. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on September 20, 2016, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: APPROVED:~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,577-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Pern1it pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to partially demolish (64.8%) an existing 3,577-square-foot single family residence built in 1958 at 9 North Point Circle; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2016, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held a public hearing and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which determined that project scope, as mitigated, would have a less than significant impact on the envirom11ent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Permit on September 20, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial confon11ance with the findings specified in section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the partial demolition, 64.8%, of an existing 3,577-square-foot single­ family residence at 9 North Point Circle, with the following conditions: a) The property owners shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to, or arising from, the granting of this Demolition approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. b) All requirements of the Building Official shall be met. A permit for demolition must be issued by the Building Department before the commencement of work. c) All work shall be completed within one month of the commencement of demolition unless deconstruction methods are used in which case 12 weeks is permitted. "Commencement of demolition" shall mean the date of the issuance of the building permit for demolition or a start date specified in written correspondence from the property owner and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit for demolition.

ATTACHMENT 2 Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page - 2 -

d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right-of-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager. e) Obstruction or blockage, partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, shall not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance shall be required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets shall be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each workday. f) Demolition shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Demolition is prohibited on City holidays except in special circumstances after obtaining written pem1ission from the City Manager. The City Manager is urged to impose a very high-level of scrutiny in the determination of "special circumstances." g) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work. h) All requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) shall be met. i) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations. j) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit for review and approval an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/ divisions/mcstoppp/ development/ ~/media/ Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009 .pdf k) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with State air quality requirements related to the control of dust generated by the demolition and construction, and prepare a plan for the re-use and recycling of demolition materials. 1) Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition, a detailed Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and, where required by City of Belvedere Municipal Code Section 8.26.090 D., permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be developed, submitted and implemented by the applicant. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show cut and fill earth volumes. The MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County shall be incorporated in the Grading and Drainage Plan and the SCP, as appropriate, including bio-swales and bio-planters, and shall follow the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual. Further, the Plan shall show Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page - 3 -

the size, layout, elevations and contours of the storm drain outlet dissipater or dissipaters. Tight-lined drainage systems that discharge at the site boundary are discouraged. The plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to building pem1it and be approved by the City Public Works Manager and City Engineer. m) Prior to issuance of a building pe1mit, applicants' project plans shall include identification of all title items (easements, etc.) and a statement that all have been identified on the project plans. n) Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit for review and approval a geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical investigation shall address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations for review and approval by the city Engineer. o) The project will require a Utility Plan (if not shown on the Site Plan) showing the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, irrigation, gas, electrical, telephone, cable TV, etc. p) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. q) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building. The Plan shall identify measures to protect existing trees/landscaping (i.e., bamboo) on the project site that are to be retained and existing trees on adjacent properties (7 and 10 North Point Circle) that may be affected by demolition and construction activities at 9 Nmih Point Circle. The plan shall be prepared by a ce11ified arborist, and shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Installation of orange mesh construction fencing or other protective barrier at the drip line of trees prior to commencement of demolition. 2. Adjustments to protective barrier/fencing anticipated during the different stages of demolition and construction. 3. Excavation and trenching methods used to avoid unnecessary root damage. 4. Communication and coordination with the adjacent property owners regarding tree protection measures, including obtaining consent of property owner, if required, to access property and perform these measures. 5. Monitoring by the arborist during work around the 18" liquid amber tree. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page - 4-

Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be printed on the Demolition Plan set of drawings if submitted separately from building permit plans: Mitigation Measure CR-1: Arcltaeological Mo11itori11g. Ground disturbance associated with this Project is minimal, as a result of changes to the project design to accommodate preservation in place of site CA-MRN-39. For the locations where minimal ground disturbances are necessary (such as preparing the surface for placement of piers, or installing landscaping), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the activity. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building pennits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to monitor ground disturbance necessary to prepare the ground surface for placement of piers or installing landscaping. The written verification shall indicate that the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to determine, though implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. The archaeological monitor shall be a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall complete a brief monitoring rep01i and a Depaitment of Parks and Recreation (DPR) archaeological site record upon the conclusion of the monitoring and submit copies to the California Historical Resources Information System and the City. Mitigatio11 Measure CR-2: Tribal Mo11itori11g. All ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by one tribal monitor representing the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). The tribal monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to determine, through implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources that are important to the tribe will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. A copy of the daily field monitoring logs shall be provided to the City as proof of compliance. Mitigation Measure CR-3: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures. In the event that either an archaeological monitor or a tribal monitor observe a historical, archaeological, or tribal resource, or bone that is human or potentially human, he or she shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The archaeological or tribal monitor shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The monitor shall use flagging tape, rope, or some other means, as necessary, to delineate the area of the find within which construction shall halt and the procedures below shall apply. Ground­ disturbing activities shall not take place within the delineated find area until appropriate treatment has been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page - 5-

a) After closer examination, if the archaeological monitor determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, and the tribal monitor detennines that the find does not represent a Tribal Cultural Resource, then work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required. b) If the archaeological monitor determines that the find represents a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, then he or she shall immediately notify the City and property owner. Based on recommendations from a professional archaeologist, the City shall make a determination of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not eligible for the CRHR; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction. c) If the find represents a Native American or potentially Native American or Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) that does not include human remains, then the tribal monitor or a representative of the FIGR shall immediately notify the City. The City shall consult with the tribe on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a TCR as defined by CEQA. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation with the FIGR, determines that the site either: 1) is not a TCR as defined by CEQA; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction. d) If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, then either the archaeological or tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641 ). The monitor shall notify the Marin County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner (or the Coroner's designee, such as the City of Belvedere Police Depmiment) dete1mines the remains m·e Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The identification of the MLD is the sole responsibility of the NAHC, but is expected to be identified as the FIGR based on previous unanticipated discoveries. If the NAHC identifies someone other than the FIGR as the MLD, then the City shall also consult with the FIGR on the disposition of the remains. The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the prope1iy owner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, then the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If no agreement is reached, the property owner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the prope1iy is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Reburial Location. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification to the City of Belvedere Director of Planning and Building that the property owner and the FIGR have consulted on, and agreed to, an appropriate reburial location on the property for any cultural materials or human remains that rriay be unearthed during minimal ground disturbing activities during the project. The location shall be one that will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. This location will be documented as a reintemment location, filed as such with Marin County, the City, and the California Historical Resources Information System. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Opportunity to Execute a Custody Agreement. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the property owner shall contact FIGR in writing to offer the opportunity for the Tribe to consult directly with the property owner to develop a custody agreement that allows for the property owner to maintain possession of Tribal Cultural Resources on private prope1iy, which includes the use of private prope1iy for temporary storage of excavated materials and/or repatriation of any encountered artifacts or materials. Should FIGR desire to enter into such an agreement, it must respond to the property owner within ten days after the property owner sent notice of the opportunity to develop the custody agreement. If no response is sent by FIGR to the property owner within this time, then the property owner may continue with the project, subject to the stipulations detailed below. Any custody agreement entered into by the property owner and FIGR shall stipulate that repatriation locations agreed to by the property owner and FIGR will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. A copy of the written notification, and a copy of the agreement (if one is executed), shall be filed with the City of Belvedere for proof of compliance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on September 20, 2016 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:

Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST: ~~~~~~~~~~~ Alison Foulis, City Clerk Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle EXHIBIT A Page - 1 -

DEMOLITION FINDINGS Given that the existing residence and associated site improvement are proposed to be demolished, a Demolition Pennit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.08.136 and Chapter 16.28. In order to approve the Demolition Permit, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. That the demolition, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City; The proposed demolition will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the demolition must satisfy the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department, and must also comply with all Building and Fire Code regulations. Additionally, as conditioned, obstruction or blockage (paiiial or complete) of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, will not be permitted without first obtaining a street closure pe1mit at least 24 hours advance. Twelve feet is required for debris boxes and/or building materials, and streets must be left clean and free of debris at the end of each workday. Fmiher, staff finds that, with a condition of approval stating that the applicant demonstrates compliance with State air quality requirements; this demolition project would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City. B. That the demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed; For the reasons below, the subject property does not constitute a building of recognized historical of architectural significance. In conjunction with the preparation of City of Belvedere General Plan 2030, a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map was created in 2009, which categorizes each parcel in Belvedere according to its likelihood to contain a historic resource. The map displays three levels of historic sensitivity: Low, Medium and High. The property at 9 North Point Circle was not determined to have a "High" historical resource value; therefore, it was designated as having "Medium" sensitivity. Parcels with this designation include those with structures between 45 and 100 years of age and those with an unknown construction date, and not previously listed as a historic resource. The residence at 9 No1ih Point Circle, constructed in 1958, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. In accordance with General Plan Preservation Policy 2.1.3, an assessment was completed to determine if there is any evidence to suggest that the property at 9 North Point Circle is eligible for listing. As part of this assessment, staff consulted the building records, which indicated the home has had a number of interior alterations. Staff also consulted with Mr. Roger Felton, Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). Mr. Felton Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle EXHIBIT A Page - 2- noted that the structure at 9 North Point Circle: (1) has no particular distinct architectural style; (2) has no special construction methods or materials; (3) was not the first, last or only property of its kind in the City; (4) was not associated with any significant person, group or event; and (5) does not contribute to the character of the street or the City. It is Mr. Felton's opinion that the property does not meet the criteria used by the HPC for designation, and it is unlikely that the HPC would consider 9 North Point Circle for designation as a local historic resource. Based on this assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that the residence at 9 North Point Circle is of recognized historical or architectural significance. Additionally, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed for the project, which found no historical significance in the property. C. That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The plan, as conditioned, would provide adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The demolition is expected to generate up to 290 cubic yards of mixed waste. The applicant states that this material will be hauled off site in a 1/2-ton flatbed truck. Demolition is expected to take one month to complete. Though the project is classified as a demolition due to its impact on 64.8% of the structure, it is also an alteration to an existing structure which increases the time for demolition as compared to a complete demolition. D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. While it is preferable to complete the demolition as soon as possible, the applicant's estimated one-month time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. E. That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining housing on the property have been thoroughly considered. A housing unit would not be removed as part of this application; the existing home would be renovated and expanded. Therefore, no reduction in housing units will result from this project. F. The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere Housing Element. The demolition of the existing residence will not have a substantial impact on the availability of housing units in Belvedere and is consistent with the goals of the Belvedere Housing Element. CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2016-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RENOVATI ON AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A 4,861 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to renovate and expand an existing residence to construct a 4,861 square foot residence and other associated site improvements at 9 North Point Circle; and WHEREAS, September 20, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which determined that project scope, as mitigated, would have a less than significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing September 20, 2016;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Design Review criteria specified in Section 20.04.005 and 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to construct a 4,861 square foot residence with the following conditions: a) The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. b) Construction shall conform to the drawings prepared by Holscher Architecture, stamped on the front received by the City of Belvedere on September 12, 2016 except as modified by these conditions. c) Plans shall clarify that all title items (easements, etc.) are identified on the project plans. d) Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. e) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right-of-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager. ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 2

f) An updated Revocable License shall be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way. g) Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants' project plans shall include identification of all title items (easements, etc.) and a statement that all have been identified on the project plans. h) Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit for review and approval a geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical investigation shall address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. i) Prior to issuance of a building pe1mit, a Utility Plan shall be submitted showing the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, irrigation, gas, electrical, telephone, cable TV, etc. j) Prior to issuance of a building permit, an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted, and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Erosion Control Plan shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects. http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/ divisions/mcstoppp/ development/ ~/media/F iies/Departments/PW /mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009 .pdf k) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and, where required by City of Belvedere Municipal Code Section 8.26.090 D., permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be developed, submitted and implemented by the applicant. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall show cut and fill earth volumes. The MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County shall be incorporated in the Grading and Drainage Plan and the SCP, as appropriate, including bio-swales and bio-planters, and shall follow the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual. Fmiher, the Plan shall show the size, layout, elevations and contours of the storm drain outlet dissipater or dissipaters. Tight-lined drainage systems that discharge at the site boundary are discouraged. The plans shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to building permit and be approved by the City Public Works Manager and City Engineer. l) Prior to issuance of a Building Pem1it, a final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. m) Skylights shall not have white or light opaque colored exterior lenses and shall not be up-lit. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 3

n) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a noise test and acoustical analysis of the pool equipment and shed shall be submitted including any mitigation measures necessary to ensure that the equipment will comply with comply with Chapter 8.10, Noise, of the Belvedere Municipal Code and with the General Plan Noise Element. Prior to an occupancy permit, a noise test shall be conducted to verify that the units comply with the City's Noise regulations. o) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. p) The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 q) Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 r) Vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2. s) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and the City Planner. The final landscape plan shall address any changes to proposed landscaping, including but not limited to changes to landscaping proposed in the public right-of-way, added landscaping to screen the easterly side of the garage from the street and the easterly side of the parking space from the adjacent property, relocation of a proposed olive tree to outside the Public Service Easement, and the trimming of the bamboo and eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line (in lieu of replacement with pittosporum) to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. The final landscape plan shall include an automatic drip irrigation system, screening for utilities, and one or two street trees. Proposed hedges and shrubs shall not exceed a height of six ( 6) feet unless agreed to in writing by adjacent property owners. t) The bamboo and eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. u) No new retaining walls shall be located within the Public Service Easement. v) The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) for conformance with the District's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) prior to issuance of the building pe1mit. Prior to issuance of a building pennit the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed landscape plans comply with MMWD. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 4

w) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Building. The Plan shall identify measures to protect existing trees on the project site that are to be retained and existing trees on adjacent properties (7 and 10 North Point Circle) that may be affected by construction activities at 9 North Point Circle. The plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist, and shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Installation of orange mesh construction fencing or other protective barrier at the drip line of trees prior to commencement of demolition. 2. Adjustments to protective barrier/fencing anticipated during the different stages of demolition and construction. 3. Excavation and trenching methods used to avoid unnecessary root damage. 4. Communication and coordination with the adjacent property owners regarding tree protection measures, including obtaining consent of property owner, if required, to access property and perfonn these measures. 5. Monitoring by the arborist during work around the 18" liquid amber tree. x) The project shall comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of MMWD District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation as a condition of water service. Indoor plumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements per MMWD. y) Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed per the requirements ofMMWD. z) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager, for review and approval, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official. aa) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans. bb) Design Review approvals expire eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. This Design Review approval expires on March 20, 2018. cc) Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established for this project. dd) These conditions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the prope1iy. ee) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall demonstrate compliance with state air quality requirements related to the dust generated by grading and construction. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 5

ff) Prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall provide an elevation survey prepared by a licensed surveyor to the Building Department indicating the height of the new residence. gg) Prior to approval of the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall stake the corners of the foundation (with offset) and shall submit a survey of the foundation stakes to include the boundaries of the property. hh) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings. Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings: Mitigation Measure CR-1: Arcltaeological Monitoring. Ground disturbance associated with this Project is minimal, as a result of changes to the project design to accommodate preservation in place of site CA-MRN-39. For the locations where minimal ground disturbances are necessary (such as preparing the surface for placement of piers, or installing landscaping), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the activity. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to monitor ground disturbance necessary to prepare the ground surface for placement of piers or installing landscaping. The written verification shall indicate that the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to detennine, though implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. The archaeological monitor shall be a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall complete a brief monitoring report and a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) archaeological site record upon the conclusion of the monitoring and submit copies to the California Historical Resources Information System and the City. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Tribal Monitoring. All ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by one tribal monitor representing the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). The tribal monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to dete1mine, through implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources that are important to the tribe will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. A copy of the daily field monitoring logs shall be provided to the City as proof of compliance. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 No11h Point Circle Page 6

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures. In the event that either an archaeological monitor or a tribal monitor observe a historical, archaeological, or tribal resource, or bone that is human or potentially human, he or she shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The archaeological or tribal monitor shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The monitor shall use flagging tape, rope, or some other means, as necessary, to delineate the area of the find within which construction shall halt and the procedures below shall apply. Ground­ disturbing activities shall not take place within the delineated find area until appropriate treatment has been completed to the satisfaction of the City. a) After closer examination, if the archaeological monitor detennines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, and the tribal monitor determines that the find does not represent a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), then work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required. b) If the archaeological monitor determines that the find represents a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, then he or she shall immediately notify the City and property owner. Based on recommendations from a professional archaeologist, the City shall make a determination of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not eligible for the CRHR; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction. c) If the find represents a Native American or potentially Native American or Tribal Cultural Resource that does not include human remains, then the tribal monitor or a representative of the FIGR shall immediately notify the City. The City shall consult with the tribe on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a TCR as defined by CEQA. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation with the FIGR, dete1mines that the site either: 1) is not a TCR as defined by CEQA; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction. d) If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, then either the archaeological or tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641 ). The monitor shall notify the Marin County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner (or the Coroner's designee, such as the City of Belvedere Police Department) determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 7

Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The identification of the MLD is the sole responsibility of the NAHC, but is expected to be identified as the FIGR based on previous unanticipated discoveries. If the NAHC identifies someone other than the FIGR as the MLD, then the City shall also consult with the FIGR on the disposition of the remains. The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the property owner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, then the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If no agreement is reached, the property owner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Reburial Location. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification to the City of Belvedere Director of Plam1ing and Building that the property owner and the FIGR have consulted on, and agreed to, an appropriate reburial location on the property for any cultural materials or human remains that may be unearthed during minimal ground disturbing activities during the project. The location shall be one that will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. This location will be documented as a reinternment location, filed as such with Marin County, the City, and the California Historical Resources Information System. Mitigation MeasureTCR-1: Opportunity to Execute a Custody Agreement. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the property owner shall contact FIGR in writing to offer the opportunity for the Tribe to consult directly with the property owner to develop a custody agreement that allows for the property owner to maintain possession of Tribal Cultural Resources on private property, which includes the use of private property for temporary storage of excavated materials and/or repatriation of any encountered artifacts or materials. Should FIGR desire to enter into such an agreement, it must respond to the property owner within ten days after the property owner sent notice of the opportunity to develop the custody agreement. If no response is sent by FIGR to the property owner within this time, then the prope1iy owner may continue with the project, subject to the stipulations detailed below. Any custody agreement entered into by the property owner and FIGR shall stipulate that repatriation locations agreed to by the property owner and FIGR will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. A copy of the written notification, and a copy of the agreement (if one is executed), shall be filed with the City of Belvedere for proof of compliance. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 8

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on September 20, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:

Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 North Point Circle Exhibit A Page 1 DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code and the Design Review Criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is in substantial conformance with all Design Review criteria as stated below: Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. The applicants propose to demolish 64.8% of the existing 3,577 square-foot two-story residence and renovate the existing home including the addition of 1,24 7 square feet. When complete, the home would have 2,319 square feet on the main floor (street level) and 1, 711 square feet on the lower level. The property would also have a 510 square foot garage and 321 square feet of covered exterior (under the upper deck) and related site improvements. An Exception to Total Floor Area is requested to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 4,744 by 117 square feet or approximately 0.8% over the allowed ratio of 33%. First, it is important to note that the original design proposed by the applicants expanded less outward to the north as they had planned to excavate more under the existing home. However, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the site, the plans were revised to minimize the amount of excavation. Except for the proposed 1 '-6" deep cut for the third off-street parking space, the proposed cuts are shallow at 0.5' to 1' in depth. The overall proposed cut to the site would be 22.0 cubic yards. The project proposes 27.5 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net fill of 5.5 cubic yards, less than one commercial truckload. Initially, the Fire Department requested that the bamboo and eucalyptus trees along the westerly side property line be removed within 50 feet of the structure and the applicant's complied with that request in the proposed plans by showing pittosporum as a replacement. However, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the site and the soil disturbance that would occur from the removal and replacement of the existing vegetation, the recommendation has changed to allow the bamboo and trees to remain but be trimmed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Though much of the existing landscaping at the rear and sides of the home would remain, the front of the site would be re-landscaped. A fountain in the northwest rear portion of the site would be removed to allow for a new stairway down to the pool and patio area. Three trees along the rear walkway would be removed. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 North Point Circle Exhibit A Page 2 Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balance and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural landforms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. Given the location of the site on a relatively steep hillside and its relatively low profile against the hill, the home is difficult to view from off-site below North Point Circle. The bulk of the proposed additions and alterations are at the rear of the property and integrated with both the existing home and sloping landform. Except for the proposed garage, entry improvements and the additional off-street parking space, the project will be minimally visible from North Point Circle. Also, as discussed above, the existing bamboo and eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line would continue to provide some screening of the project site from the adjacent property at 10 North Point Circle. Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves. The proposed project proposes renovations and additions that modernize the structure but are in keeping with the character of the existing structure and site improvements. Though an Exception to Floor Area has been requested, the bulk of the additions are at the rear of the home at the lower lever and essentially not visible from off-site. They, therefore, relate to and fit in with the neighborhood and are not designed to draw attention to themselves. B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. The proposed exterior materials include a combination of sandy tone stucco and horizontal cedar siding on the front and rear elevations. The sides of the home would be sandy tone stucco. Due to the slope of the hillside, the easterly side of the home is low in profile. The westerly side of the home, however, has a much higher profile. Though on the elevations the proposed stucco siding appears expansive it is not significantly different than the existing home, which is also stucco with no windows to break up the western most facades. Further, the stucco, as proposed, is on several different planes and is broken up with several small windows. Currently, this side of the home is not visible from any off-site location and is substantially screened from 10 North Point Circle by the bamboo and eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 North Point Circle Exhibit A Page 3 Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impacts, that blends with the existing landforms and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do no attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone ranges are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. All roofing would be changed to standing seam aluminum. The pop up over the kitchen area would remain. No skylights are proposed. The roofing material would be dark bronze standing seam metal. The fascia, gutters and downspouts would be painted "Dark Brown" (Sherman-Williams). The front and rear elevations would have a combination of clear stained horizontal channel cedar (Cabot Stain, "Burnt Hickory") and sandy tone colored stucco (ICI­ "Sand"). The garage would also be sandy tone stucco with aluminum/opaque glass door. On the rear elevation, the support posts would be clad with dark brown wood and the railings around the balcony, decks and walkways would be glass with "Dark Brown" aluminum cap. Both the east and side elevations would be sandy tone colored stucco. The existing home is all stucco. All window and doorframes would be all weather "Dark Bronze" aluminum. A color and materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. The proposed sandy tone stucco would not be dissimilar to the color of the existing stucco but would be broken up with the proposed horizontal cedar siding minimizing its visual impact and blending with the proposed fencing and landscaping. The proposed structure, colors and materials, would fit in with the neighborhood and would not attract attention to itself. Fences and screening. A. Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical, and should not significantly block views. A 6-foot tall clear cedar horizontal slat fence is proposed along a portion of the North Point Circle frontage replacing the existing light colored wood fence. Entry would be through a 6' opague glass gate framed on each side with the 6' cedar horizontal slate fence. In front of the fence, on each side of the walk, would be olive trees (Olea europaea, one on the left and two on the right), Mondo and Deer grasses (Ophioposon japonicus and Muhlenbergia rigens, respectively), and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia). Inside the fencing, the "Mesa Buff' colored concrete walk and steps would be border by cedar planters stained to match the house and similarly planted with grasses and lavender. Off to the left of the entry walk/steps are a set of steps leading to a small patio with a built in BBQ, essentially where a patio currently exists. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 North Point Circle Exhibit A Page4 Except at the front in the front of the new front fencing, the existing side and rear property line fencing would remain. The steps and fountain on the westerly side of the house would be replaced with new railroad tie treads on grade leading from the front patio area to the rear pool and patio. Colored concrete would cover the existing patio off the rear of the house and the upper decking would be replaced with new IPE decking as necessary. The pool and stone paver patio would remain. The dense bamboo and eucalyptus trees would be trimmed but remain. Three small trees around the rear upper patio would be removed. The shrubbery in the southeast corner of the site would be removed to allow for a new uncovered off-street parking space on a gravel pad. The other mature trees and shrubs around the site would remain including the natural lawn around the pool/patio. The fences and screening are compatible with the design of the site and structure as a whole, will screen utility areas, preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, and do not significantly block views. Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. The slope of the property and the orientation of the existing home and the homes on the adjacent properties are placed with consideration to the privacy of adjacent neighbors. The window size and placement also gives similar consideration. Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. Parking is proposed in a two-car 510 square foot garage that includes a stairway into the home and a utility room. A third off-street uncovered gravel parking space is proposed in the southeasterly corner of the site. A retaining wall (42" max) and a landscape strip with Deer grass would separate the gravel parking space from the driveway to the garage. A condition has been included requiring additional landscaping to soften the view of the garage from the street and of the parking space from the adjacent neighbor. The design of the driveway, parking, and circulation are complementary to the design of the proposed home and do not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan. Skylights should not have white or light opaque exterior lenses. Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 N01ih Point Circle Exhibit A Page 5 Proposed exterior lighting includes exterior step lighting in the front entry area, exterior sconces on each side of the garage and minimally placed around the home primarily near doo1ways and steps, landscaping along the exterior steps leading down to the pool/patio area, and Juno mini LED recessed downlights under the rear overhang. The proposed light will not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to people passing by. The existing home has a pop-up roof that will be retained. No skylights are proposed. Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities. The applicants are requesting an Exception to Floor Area of 0.8% or 117 square feet. Given the location of the site on a relatively steep hillside and its relatively low profile against the hill, the home is difficult to view from off-site below N01ih Point Circle. The proposed design modernizes the appearance of the home and breaks of the stucco with wood siding and windows. The existing home has a nonconforming side yard setback of 3 '-2" where 9' is required (westerly or left side of the home) and a nonconforming rear yard setback 7'-2" where 20' is required. The applicants do not intend to change the two corner walls that project into the side yard, but have proposed reducing the eave in that location to increase the setback to 7' -1 ". Except for changes in the windows and doors, the applicants are not proposing any changes to the wall in the rear yard setback. Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.76.030 B., "A nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended to occupy a greater volume of space or different area of land than is occupied at the time it first became nonconforming, or its exterior design altered, where such enlargement, alteration or extension conforms in its entirety to all current laws and regulations, so long as the total floor area added during any ten year period does not exceed fifty percent of the existing gross floor area of the building." The proposed addition is 1,284 square feet or 36% of the existing gross floor area, and there have not been any other additions in the last ten years. With approval of an Exception to Floor Area, the proposed project would conform to all current laws and regulations. Landscape plans -- Purpose. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters. B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls, that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of Resolution 2016- September 20, 2106 9 North Point Circle Exhibit A Page 6 landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings. The proposed project includes new landscaping at the front, the westerly side and for a portion of the rear property. The landscaping is in substantial conformance with this finding as it includes native or natural appearing vegetation, is compatible with the character of the site and the sun-ounding properties, and is designed to provide screening of architectural elements. Additionally, the plantings will not significantly obstruct views from nearby dwellings. Landscape Plans - Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turn areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. B. Landscape plans should include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age. C. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought tolerant, are encouraged. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turf areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. In front of the proposed front fence and entry way, on each side of the walk, would be olive trees (Olea europaea, one on the left and two on the right), Mondo and Deer grasses (Ophioposon japonicus and Muhlenbergia rigens, respectively), and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia). Inside the fencing, the "Mesa Buff' colored concrete walk and steps would be border by cedar planters stained to match the house and similarly planted with grasses and lavender. The dense bamboo along the westerly prope11y line would be trimmed. Three small trees around the rear upper patio would be removed. The shrubbery in the southeast corner of the site would also be removed to allow for a new uncovered off-street parking space on a gravel pad. The other mature trees and shrubs around the site would remain including the natural lawn around the pool/patio. The landscape plans include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials and the i1Tigation would be required to meet the requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District. CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2016-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 19.52.110 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception to Total Floor Area from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 4,861 square feet where 3,577 square feet currently exists and 4,744 square feet is permitted at 9 No1ih Point Circle; and WHEREAS, September 20, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which determined that project scope, as mitigated, would have a less than significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Plam1ing Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Floor Area Exception on September 20, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section 19 .52. l 20(A)( 1) of the Belvedere Municipal Code: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. Primary views from adjacent properties and the street are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The additions are primarily at the lower level of the property and located in such a location so as to protect the privacy between adjoining dwellings without obstructing important view corridors. b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel, which minimizes the impact of the greater floor area. The unusual characteristics of the parcel that minimize the impact of the greater floor area are the parcel location and steep downward slope of the property, which accommodates the architectural design of the home in a way that minimizes the impact of the greater floor area. The additional floor area is primarily located at the lower level and not visible from the street. Therefore, the additional square footage is not as noticeable. c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria. The project meets all Design Review criteria and it fits in with the size, scale, and mix of the contemporary and 1950s neighborhood. Though modernized, the proposed home is similar in style and massing as the existing home with an emphasis on simplicity and clean massing. The new home is appropriate in mass, bulk and character for the parcel, neighborhood, and zoning district.

ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution 2016- September 20, 2016 9 North Point Circle Page 2

d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The new home will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. Windows and other fenestration elements have been strategically placed and appropriately sized so that they are respectful of the privacy of the adjacent neighbors, and the fencing and landscaping are properly located to protect the privacy between adjoining dwellings without obstructing important view coITidors.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow a maximum floor area of 4,861 square feet where 3,577 square feet cuITently exists and 4,744 square feet is permitted at 9 North Point Circle

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on September 20, 2016, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:

APPROVED:~~~~~~~~~ Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE PROJECT Partial Demolition, Renovation, and Addition to a Single-Family Home

CITY OF BELVEDERE MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST2016

Prepared for:

City of Belvedere Planning Department 450 San Rafael A venue Belvedere, CA 94920-2336

Contact: Jayni Allsep, Planning Consultant 415.789.0459 or [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 5 City of Belvedere

(This page left intentionally blank)

August 2016 9 North Point Circle -Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act dB decibel EIR environmental impact report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIGR Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration MCSTOPPP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program

NAVD88 N01ih American Ve1iical Datum 1988

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board UBC Uniform Building Code USA CE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

I. Project Title: 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition and Remodel 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Belvedere, 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner - [email protected]

4. Project Location: 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, CA 94920; APN 060-110-10 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bryan Lin & Patricia Seid, 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, CA 94920 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density SFR: 1.0 to 3.0 units/net acre

7. Zoning: R-15 Zone

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if needed.) Applicant requests approval of the following changes and improvements: 1. Demolition of 69.2% of the existing exterior of the structure. 2. 19.6 cubic yards of cut and 76.8 cubic yards of fill and minor other site work. 3. Relocation and conversion of an existing carport to a two-car garage. 4. The addition of an uncovered off-street parking space. 5. Extensive interior kitchen remodeling and 1,284 square feet of addition to the upper and lower floors. 6. Installation of a new roof over the existing upstairs bedrooms and the roofing will be changed to standing seam aluminum.

7. All doors and windows will be replaced and the siding will be comprised of new stucco and horizontal cedar siding. Project approvals required by the City of Belvedere include a Demolition Permit (Chapter 16. 28 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC), an Architectural and Environmental Design Review pursuant (Chapter 20.04 of the BMC), an Exception to Total Floor Area (Section 19.52.120 of thE BMC), a Revocable License, and a building permit.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly The project site is located within the northwestern end of the single-family residential area < describe the project's surroundings: Belvedere Island. The subject property consists of moderate to steep slopes (25-50°1 descending down slope toward West Shore Road and Richardson Bay. It is developed wi1 a two-story home built in 1958, a carport, fence, swimming pool, and mature landscapin! Other properties surrounding the site are similarly developed. I 0: Other public agencies None. whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 City of Belvedere

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

D Aesthetics D Agriculture and Forestry Resources D Air Quality

D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology I Soils

D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Hydrology I Water Quality

D Land Use I Planning D Mineral Resources D Noise

D Paleontological Resources D Population I Housing D Public Services

D Recreation D Transportation I Traffic D Tribal Cultural Resources

D Utilities I Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D

I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially D significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 3 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further

Signature (Lead Agency) Date

Applicant's agreement to implemeut mitigation measures itlelltijied to reduce potential impacts to less than sig11ijica11t

Signature (Applicant) Date

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 City of Belvedere

has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, D because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature (Lead Agency) Date

Applicant's agreement to implement mitigation measures identified to reduce potential impacts to less than significant I!?--: 2.0\ \p S~oant) Date

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 City of Belvedere

(l

Exhibit 1 -9 North Point Circle - Project Location

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 5 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

Exhibit 2 - Existing and Proposed Conditions

Plans Prepared by Holscher Architecture, January 7, 2016

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 L,\\'\'RENCE DOYLE LAND SURVEYOR CIVIL ENGINEER 100~1.ENSl~E ~:~;~!~E~ .. ~u9!~'

©2014 fl.!ISOlU;.UCI$ Ttttl'f!OPOITYOF lAllRCICEP.OO'n.( U."1)$.llNtTl)A A.P. 60-272-04 CIW.[HQll«U .u;Q WAY NOT lltOUPl.ICATtD OltUSEOlllTH- OH ...... D

A.P. 80-111-10

HOUSE

A.P. 60-111-47

LEGEND ...... _0 TREE {AS INOICATtO) TOP or WAU. ELEVATION TOPOGRAPHIC ~ CONCRf:TE CRAOC BREAK SURVEY 'MR( FENCE WOOO n:NCE EOG! or PAVEMENT HOUSE ...A SIJl'N[Y COHTRO\. POINT """''POL(CONCR£T£ WAU. = ROCK WAU. """"""' ROCI( BOFWtR = .,.. ELECTR1C / CAS Mt:T[R OvtRHEAO LINES BACKn,ow PREVENltR CLEAN-OUT

NORlH POINT CIRCLE NOTES I. ONL'f SiCNl1'1CAHT TREES ~ GRAPHIC SCALE 2. LOT MAY SE SIJS£CT TO [ASEMEHTS wor SH(}';ffl 3. OATIJM IS P£R l.IARIH CIS WJ>f'1NC 4, BASIS Of" B(ARIWC IS P(R fl IU4. 77 ~ 5. A.P M0-111-10 IS LOT II PER 6 R.M 17 C-1

--~·"""SHEET I 01' J H0l:.SCHER..... CJ ARCHITECTURE

1550 Tiburon Boulevard AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATION: Belvedere, California 94920 SLOPE I· 6L8"·51= !Q_S' 108/40 .. 27/273 www, harch. com phone 415. 435. 5219 St0PE2· 62.5'·51•11.5' fax: 415.435,0312 115/<40• .2875/293

SlOPE3· 65.3'·62.8•2.5' 25/40= .06/63

AVG. SLOPE; 273~293•6%=623. 623/3• 20 73/21.3

Lin Res. Addition & Renovation

9 North Point Ctrcle Belvedere. CA. 94920 ...... APN: 060· 111·10

Existing & - Proposed Site Plan Scale 1/8"= 1"-0"

~;.~;.~~.~ SITE PLAN ·~.. -~.fl)- -$- 'J,,M.)"" r,~""'";H dare PROGRESS 01/05/2015 DESIGN REVIEW 02112/2015 DESIGN REVl£W112 OB/27/2015 DESIGN REVIEW113 09/2312015 DESIGN REYIEW#4 01107/2016

date Issued: 01/07/2016

drawn by: NL checked by: DH SITE PLAN {/) @\~:?x'..,S,~ED -4-- jobtt: 5520.2015 1«,, ... ,.,,,. y"'""°"'"

I ,_! AO.l @~~~r.ssED SITEGATE & FENCE @~~~~.,~.~~AINING WALL CopYJT911tQ 201• Hobetior Ate~eeiWe HQl:SCHE~ . ·.,. ... CJ ARCHITECTIJRE

1550 Tiburon Boulevard Belvedere, California 94920 WWW. harth, tOm phone 415. 435.5219 fax 415.435.0312 ~~~.$$:::-.~= ---.. -

NOTE;

1 NOIAMIOO Lin Res. t. THE VEG£1AROH ON THIS fAICEl SHAU. COMPU' Wfl'H JHE IEQW!M£HB Of fftO AND TH! UCOMMfNOARONS Ofl mt SAf! MARIN. CfC 304.1.2 Addition & Renovation 1-----mlNl-LED-DOWNl.IGHnt-T---; OUTDOOR/WET LOCATION MD l lWG2 RECESSED HOUSING AND TRIM LOW VOLTAGE JUNO ii 9 North Point Circle Belvedere. CA. 94920 APN:060·111~10 Proposed RECESSED CANS % DECK Vegetation Management/ Landscape Plan

StyleC Staff Star™ no. revisions elate PROGRESS 01/05/2015 DESIGN REVIEW 02/12/2015 DESIGN REVIEW#2 08/27/2015 DESIGN REVtfW1t3 09/23/2015 LANDSCAPE STEP LIGHTING DESIGN REVlfW#4 12/1.4/2015 . _'C: 0".::@blGWHJXTURES~ VOi SCAlE:N.l.S.

Pl.ANIS UST; LEGEND: UGH! FIXllJ!lfi datelSsucd: 12/14/2015

drawn by: NL checked by: DH

.•. job#: 5520-2015 .HdLSCHER ~ i=i ALUMINIUM WOW. All Wealher-Alumlnum Window; STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF GSM. GUTTER AND D.S . . ARC!:ilTECTURE '"Dork Bronze" "Medium Bronze" SHERMAN WILLIAMS "Dark Brown" 1550 Tburon Boolevard Belvedere. Califomla 94920 www. harch. com phone 415. 435. 5219 lax 415. 435.0312 ALUMINIUM DR . w/ ALUMINUM & GLASS OPAQUE GLASS DR. GARAGE DOOR Weslern-'"Dori< Bronze" w/ OPAQUE GLASS "Dark Brown"

Lin Res. Addition & Renovation ·t----/-,--..... _,..· ··. .

/ 9 North Point Circle r·······-i:=•----..____ ..;;.1::0 __ _ Belvedere, CA. 94920 i APN:060·111·10 I i ! Proposed Material Board Scale 1/4 ~ = l '-0"

~ ~ no. revisions date PROGRESS 01/05/2015 OE.SIGN REV IEW 02/12/2015 DESIGN REVIEW#2 08/27/2015 fi\OeSIGN REVlfWillJ 09/23/2015 DESIGN REVIEWU 01/07/2016 (NJ 1x4 HORIZONTAL ALL (NJ STUCCO SIDING­ CLEAR STAINED CEDAR WOOD SMOOTH FINISH SIDING tCl-"Sond" Cabot Stain "BurnlHiclcory" dale ISsucd: 01/07/2016

@~~~,~-?..~ED MATERIAL BOARD drawn by: NL checked by: DH

}ob•: 55~20 1 5

dr.Mi1"19numbtt MBl ..c... ,-,.., ... ,...... ,,.. ,...... ,:~k,"::. I City of Belvedere

I. Aesthetics

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic D D ~ D vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D D ~ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual D D D character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare D D D which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion The project site at 9 No1ih Point Circle is located within an established residential area known as Belvedere Island. The property has a slope of 25-50% and is developed with a single-family two-story residence, carport, swimming pool, fencing, and landscaping. The surrounding homes are similarly developed with single family homes and site improvements. Chapter 20.04, Design Review, of the Belvedere Municipal Code contains criteria and standards with the purpose of encouraging the maintenance of a scale and character of individual buildings consistent with the overall scale and character of the community, discouraging development that will dominate the Cityscape and attract attention to itself, and maintaining and improving the quality of, and relationship between, individual buildings and their sites. Prior to approval, the Planning Commission must make findings regarding the preservation of existing site-conditions, relationship between structures and the site, the mimization of bulk and mass, that the type and color of materials used will minimize the structure's visual impact, and that exterior lighting, skylights and reflectivity will not create glare, hazards, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or passers-by. The proposed project includes the replacement of an existing carport with a garage, addition of an uncovered off-street parking space, replacement of the roof, a down-slope rear addition, new site improvements, and new landscaping. The proposed improvements would be consistent with the existing development on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood including the lighting that would not create glare, hazards, or annoyance to others off-site. The proposed improvements would be minimally visible from neighboring properties.

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 City of Belvedere

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In detennining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or D D D Farmland of Statewide Impmtance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural D D D ~ use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause D D D ~ rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 1104(g) )?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of D D D forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location of D D D nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 11 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

Discussion No agricultural uses or activities will be adversely affected by the project as there is no Prime Farmland nor are there any agricultural uses within the City of Belvedere. The project site is a residential parcel, and would continue to be utilized as such after project completion. Therefore, the project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.

Ill. Air Quality

Less Than Potentially Less-Than- Significant With ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the D D D applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute D D D substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net D D D increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D D D pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D D D substantial number of people?

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 City of Belvedere

Discussion The proposed project is consistent with the June 2010 Belvedere General Plan 2030. Operation of the land uses anticipated by the General Plan were found to be at a level of development already anticipated by the Bay Area Clean Air Plan and the Ozone Attainment Plan. 1 As such, the General Plan does not conflict with or obstruct either of these plans. The General Plan also contains Policy SUST-13.1, which requires construction to utilize Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) performance­ based best management practices. Partial demolition, renovation and addition to a single family home in accordance with current building regulations and requirements is not associated with any significant source of construction- or operation-related air pollution or odors. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan, result in a violation of air quality standards, result in a significant increase in criteria pollutants, result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants, or result in the creation of objectionable odors.

IV. Biological Resources

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than· ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IV. Biological Resources. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly D D D or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special­ status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian D D D habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally D D D protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of

1 Operational emissions, including mobile and area sources, typically represent the majority of a project's air quality impacts. After a project is built, operational emissions are anticipated to occur continuously throughout the project's lifetime. Operational -related activities, such as driving, use of landscape equipment, and wood burning, could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants, GHG, TACs, and PM. Area sources generally include fuel combustion from space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment, and fireplaces/stoves, evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and consumer products and unpermitted emissions from stationary sources.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 13 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any D D D native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances D D D protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted D D D Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion The project site is on Belvedere Island, the oldest historical section of Belvedere. As noted in the Sustainability and Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan, the City, including Belvedere Island, is urbanized and does not contain large expanses of open space that could be used by special status and wildlife species. Native vegetation and habitat is very fragmented and has been altered with much of the area covered with structures, paving and ornamental landscaping. Therefore, there are no impacts to biological resources as a result of this project. v. Cultural Resources

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated v. Cultural Resources. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D [8] D D significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D D significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those D D D interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Regulatory Context Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and historic structures, and generally consist of artifacts, food waste, structures, and facilities made by people in the

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 City of Belvedere past. Prehistoric archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities caiTied out by the native population of the area (Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in southern California. Artifacts found in prehistoric sites include flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, scrapers, drills, and the resulting waste flakes from tool production; ground stone tools such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles for grinding seeds and nuts; bone tools such as awls ceramic vessels or fragments; and shell or stone beads. Prehistoric features include hearths or rock rings bedrock mortars and milling slicks, rock shelters, rock art, human bone, midden deposits, and intact burials. Places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people during the period when written records were produced after the arrival of Europeans ai·e considered historic archaeological sites. Historic archaeological material usually consists of domestic refuse, for instance bottles, cans, ceramics, and food waste, disposed of either as roadside dumps or near structure foundations. Archaeological investigations of historic-period sites are usually supplemented by historical research using written records. Historic structures include houses, garages, barns, commercial structures, industrial facilities, community buildings, and other structures and facilities that are more than 50 years old. Historic structures may also have associated archaeological deposits, such as abandoned wells, cellars, and privies, refuse deposits, and foundations of former outbuildings. The CEQA Guidelines state that a project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a "Historical Resource" is considered to have a significant effect on the environment unless mitigated. Historical Resources are buildings, structures, districts, sites, areas, places, manuscripts, or objects that are listed in or considered eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or is on a local (city or county) inventory of historical resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5). A resource is eligible for designation in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria (CCR Title 14, Section 4852[b ]): 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; and/or 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; and/or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and/or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852[ c ]). This means that the resource must possess qualities that convey the significance; absent those characteristics, the resource would not possess significance. Therefore, impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA, are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5[b]). Demolition or alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features to the extent that they would no longer be eligible would result in a significant impact. Whole or

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 15 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would result in a significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed "visual impacts") of eligible buildings and above-ground structures and facilities in the Project area could also result in significant impacts. According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a); b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a); or c) Disturb any human remains, including those inteITed outside of formal cemeteries.

Identification of Cultural Resources For the proposed project, impacts to Historical Resources, archaeological resources, and human remains were evaluated based on pedestrian surveys by qualified professional archaeologists, subsurface exploration, prior encounters with archaeological materials during earlier projects, and review by the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, as summarized below. The technical reports prepared for this project are hereby incorporated by reference. However, cuITent state and federal law prohibit the disclosure of certain cultural resources infonnation that, if released into the public record, would jeopardize the resource. Sections 6253, 6254, and 6254.10 of the California Code authorize state or local agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (Government Code §6250 et seq.) and California's open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government Code §54950 et seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information. Under Exemption 3 of the federal Freedom of Info1mation Act ( 5 USC 5), because the disclosure of cultural resources location information is prohibited by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470hh) and Section 304 of the NHPA, it is also exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In compliance with these requirements, specific descriptive and locational information has been redacted from this Initial Study. A copy of the technical inforn1ation cited herein is on file with the City and available for review by qualified cultural resources professionals who meet the professional qualifications standards established by the US Secretary of the Interior and recognized by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

Discussion The property was first surveyed by a professional archaeologist in March 1999 by Archaeological Resource Service (ARS). At that time, indicators of a previously recorded site (CA-MRN-39) recorded in 1907 were observed, and archaeological materials were encountered during remodeling activities on adjacent properties. Given the nature and depth of archaeological deposits, ARS concluded that CA­ MRN-39 largely lies undisturbed beneath the layer of 20th century construction. In August 2015, ARS

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 City of Belvedere conducted a second pedestrian survey of the Project site, in association with the current proposed project, and re-confirmed that a portion of site CA-MRN-39 is present and intact. The potential for subsurface deposits associated with site CA-MRN-39 warranted monitoring by tribal and archaeological monitors during subsurface probing for geotechnical studies. In September 2015, P JC & Associates conducted a geotechnical investigation to observe the soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions to develop geotechnical recommendations for site preparation, foundation, and other engineering design elements (PJC & Associates 2015). During the geotechnical investigation, four exploratory boreholes were drilled to depths of 8 to 14 feet below ground surface, while monitored by a representative of the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and a qualified professional archaeologist. These soil bores were taken with a 4-inch diameter screw type auger. Soils were observed as they were removed from the ground and any soil not retained for analysis was passed through a 0.25- inch mesh hand screen to check for the presence of artifacts or other cultural constituents. No tools or functional artifacts were observed; however, faunal material (animal bone) and a variety of shells were observed in all four augers. Two small artifacts were found in Auger 2 and cultural soils were observed in Auger 4. Midden fill deposits consisting of organic sandy silt material comprised of shell fragments, rootlets, and animal bone remnants were encountered from 7 .5 to greater than 14 feet below the ground surface (PJ&C Associates 2015). Although the use of the screw auger may have prevented observation of more subtle features within the deposit, three of the augers had no indications of archaeological features. A feature encountered at about 7 to 9 feet of depth in Auger 4, along with an increase in shell density, was the only archaeological feature encountered during geotechnical testing (ARS 2015b). Because of the potential for human remains within the Project area, Sonoma State University conducted an additional pedestrian survey in June 2016 to identify any potential human bone. During the survey, Sonoma State University identified animal bone and aiiifacts on the surface. One piece of possible human bone was found on the property. In accordance with state law, the property owner contacted the Marin County Coroner, which notified the City of Belvedere Police Depaiiment, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and California State Univeristy-Chico. The NAHC identified Gene Buvelot of the FIGR as the Most Likely Descendent, who dictated the treatment and disposition of the bone fragment. Subsequently, another potential piece of human bone was observed and the FIGR and Coroner were again contacted to coordinate the disposition of the fragment. Site CA-MRN-39 is significant under the guidelines of the City of Belvedere General Plan (Archaeological Resource Service 2015a). It also possesses archaeological data that could be used to answer important questions about prehistory and retains integrity of materials, location, and association, and as such, is eligible for the CRHR under criterion 4. Additional archaeological excavations and further analysis are not necessary to confirm this because the significance of the resource can be reasonably determined based on surface-level data alone, and through consultation with the FIGR. Any additional analysis would only unnecessarily impact the site. Therefore, Site CA-MRN-39 is a Historical Resource under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, this site is considered a Tribal Cultural Resource by the FIGR and is addressed as such, separately, in Section XVIII of this Initial Study.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 17 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

Finally, the Project site also contains one historic-era building: the existing residence at 9 North Point Circle, which was constructed in 1958. Review by Roger Felton, Chairman of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee (July 16, 2015), concluded that the existing residence does not possess the characteristics that would qualify it as historically significant, and changes to the structure would not result in a significant impact to a historical resource. The structure is also not listed on the local historical registry. Therefore, the existing residence is not a Historical Resource as defined by CEQA.

Potential Impacts Based on surveys and investigations summarized above, there is one Historical Resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, present on the Project site: Site CA-MRN-39. In an effmi to reduce, minimize, and avoid impacts to CA-MRN-39 to the greatest extent feasible, and following consultation with the FIGR, the project proponent and City undertook several measures to redesign the project. The original Project design included an addition to the residence that extended the lower floor into the slope beyond the existing retaining wall. The proposed area of excavation with this design was 8 feet, 4 inches wide and 46 feet, 8 inches deep. As a result of the archaeological and geotechnical investigations, as well as consultation with the FIGR (see Section XVIII of this Initial Study), the Project was redesigned to minimize the effects to Site CA-MRN-39. The project design was modified so that the proposed addition no longer requires excavation into the sensitive areas containing confirmed and intact archaeological deposits. Instead, the addition is now proposed to be located below the existing deck, and a pier foundation system would be used in order to minimize soil disturbance. This revised Project design would be much less invasive, and would require only minimal surface soil disturbance to prepare the surface for the placement of piers and surface work to accommodate landscaping and utility lines. Existing foundations and walls will either not be removed or will be demolished only to the existing ground surface. The existing bamboo will be maintained and will not be removed, as originally proposed. As a result of these project modifications, the site can be feasibly preserved in place. Although Project impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible through project redesign, there remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose and disturb archaeological deposits associated with Site CA-MRN-39 that are located below the ground surface. With the implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures CR-1: Arcltaeological Monitoring. Ground disturbance associated with this Project is minimal, as a result of changes to the project design to accommodate preservation in place of site CA-MRN-39. For the locations where minimal ground disturbances are necessary (such as preparing the surface for

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 City of Belvedere placement of piers, or installing landscaping), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the activity. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building pennits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to monitor ground disturbance necessary to prepare the ground surface for placement of piers or installing landscaping. The written verification shall indicate that the archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to determine, though implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. The archaeological monitor shall be a qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall complete a brief monitoring report and a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) archaeological site record upon the conclusion of the monitoring and submit copies to the California Historical Resources Information System and the City. CR-2: Tribal Monitoring. All ground-disturbing activities shall be monitored by one tribal monitor representing the FIGR. The tribal monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction operations to determine, through implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, if significant or potentially significant resources that are important to the tribe will be adversely affected by continuing construction operations. A copy of the daily field monitoring logs shall be provided to the City as proof of compliance. CR-3: U11a11ticipated Discovery Procedures. In the event that either an archaeological monitor or a tribal monitor observe a historical, archaeological, or tribal resource, or bone that is human or potentially human, he or she shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The archaeological or tribal monitor shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The monitor shall use flagging tape, rope, or some other means, as necessary, to delineate the area of the find within which construction shall halt and the procedures below shall apply. Ground-disturbing activities shall not take place within the delineated find area until appropriate treatment has been completed to the satisfaction of the City. a) After closer examination, if the archaeological monitor determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, and the tribal monitor determines that the find does not represent a Tribal Cultural Resource, then work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required. b) If the archaeological monitor determines that the find represents a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, then he or 'She shall immediately notify the City and property owner. Based on recommendations from a professional archaeologist, the City shall make a determination of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not eligible for the CRHR; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 19 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere c) If the find represents a Native American or potentially Native American or Tribal Cultural Resource that does not include human remains, then the tribal monitor or a representative of the FIGR shall immediately notify the City. The City shall consult with the tribe on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a TCR as defined by CEQA. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation with the FIGR, determines that the site either: 1) is not a TCR as defined by CEQA; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction. d) If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, then either the archaeological or tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641 ). The monitor shall notify the Marin County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner (or the Coroner's designee, such as the City of Belvedere Police Department) detennines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The identification of the MLD is the sole responsibility of the NAHC, but is expected to be identified as the FIGR based on previous unanticipated discoveries. If the NAHC identifies someone other than the FIGR as the MLD, then the City shall also consult with the FIGR on the disposition of the remains. The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the prope1iy owner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, then the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If no agreement is reached, the prope1iy owner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the City's satisfaction.

CR-4: Reburial Location. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the project sponsor shall submit written verification to the City of Belvedere Director of Planning and Building that the property owner and the FIGR have consulted on, and agreed to, an appropriate reburial location on the property for any cultural materials or human remains that may be unearthed during minimal ground disturbing activities during the project. The location shall be one that will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. This location will be documented as a reintemment location, filed as such with Marin County, the City, and the California Historical Resources Information System.

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 City of Belvedere

VI. Geology and Soils

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as D D D delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D [2J D iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including D D [2J D liquefaction? iv) Landslides? D D [2J D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of D D [2J D topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D [2J D unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table D D D 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting D D D the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion The proposed project includes the partial demolition and addition to an existing single-family home. No known faults pass through the site and Belvedere is not included in Table No. 4, Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999, published by the California Geological Survey. This is an updated version of Table 4 from the 1997 edition of Special Publication 42 (Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, by Earl W. Hart and William A. Bryant). The list is current as of May 1999.

A Design Level Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project by PJC & Associates, Inc. (October 6, 2015). This investigation found that eaiihquakes with significant ground shaking are expected to occur in the region within the next several decades and it is assumed that the site will be

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 21 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere subjected to strong ground shaking during the design life of the project. The project is located on relative shallow bedrock and the soils on the property are not considered to be prone to liquefaction or densification. Therefore, the risk of liquefaction or densification is found to be low. The risk of lateral spreading and lurching is considered moderate due to the steep sloping topography and the bedrock is not considered to be expansive. The midden soil is considered to have low expansion potential.

The investigation also found that the area contains few, if any mapped landslides, but due to the relatively steep slope gradients, the site could potentially experience shallow slump and debris failure and soil creep all of which would be considered during the design, building permit, and construction of the foundations.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project design must be found by the Building Department to conf01m to the current standards for earthquake-resistant construction and other potential hazards, including the UBC, for seismic safety. Conformance with the UBC would reduce any potential impacts from seismic events, unstable, soils, and other hazards to a less-than-significant level.

The project would not involve the use or addition of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact to geology and soils.

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less-Than­ ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporate d VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either D D D directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or D D D regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion The proposed project would demolish 69.2% of the existing single-family residence, renovate the remaining portion of the residence, and build an addition. The project also includes new site improvements and landscaping. The new landscaping would contain drought-tolerant species and will require less water use and associate greenhouse gas emissions than the existing landscaping. The proposed renovated residence would comply with current energy efficient requirements in Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations, including the use of energy efficient windows. For these reasons, the new residence will be more energy efficient and would have less associated greenhouse gas emissions than the existing residence that was built in 1958. The land use for the subject property would not

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 City of Belvedere change with the proposed project, and as such would not increase vehicular trips or other land use related greenhouse gas emission sources.

The proposed project is consistent with the June 2010 Belvedere General Plan and the greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from implementation of the General Plan fall below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the General Plan incorporates provisions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In April 2011, the City of Belvedere adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which focuses on the efforts Belvedere can take to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate, to the extent feasible at the local level, the potential impacts of climate change. Most of the policies in the CAP are related to transportation, "green building'', energy efficiency and renewable energy. The CAP is not included in the General Plan itself, but integrates the strategies and actions identified in the relevant elements of the General Plan.

Of the many GHG reduction strategies identified in the CAP, the only strategy that is potentially applicable to the proposed project is Goal 3.5.C2, which calls for reducing solid waste disposal to landfills by 25%. For projects that involve demolition of structures or substantial renovation of an existing building, the City requires that contractors demonstrate how this target will be met for construction waste and debris.

The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the environment, would result in improved greenhouse gas emission conditions compared against the existing development, and would have no impact on implementation of plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than­ ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous D D D or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list D D D of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 23 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Belvedere

to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use D D D plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically D D D interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk D D D ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion Other than small quantities of typical household goods, the project site is not known to have any hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. No airports, p1ivate airstrips, or schools are within Y4 mile radius of the site. The project site is not in a wildland fire hazard risk area. The project would not involve the transportation of hazardous materials or create foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Any request for road closure would be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Manager, to ensure that no interference with emergency response vehicles would occur. Therefore, implementation of the project would not cause a significant impact related to hazardous materials or hazards.

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than­ ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste D D D discharge requirements?

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 City of Belvedere

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than· ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or D D D interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern D D D of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern D D D of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would D D D exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D igi D g) Place housing within a I 00-year flood hazard D D D igi area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a I 00-year flood hazard area D D D structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk D D D of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or D D D mud flow?

Discussion The proposed project would not violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements. The demolition and construction are subject to review by the City Engineer and Public Works Department, and are subject to the requirements of the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP). City building pe1mit standard requirements include the submission of an erosion control

August 2016 9 North Point Circle -Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 25 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere plan, which includes the measures that would be taken to prevent loose dirt and soil from washing into Richardson Bay. Implementation of standard requirements from the City of Belvedere, MCSTOPPP, and RWQCB would ensure that the project does not violate any water quality standards or impair water quality. Therefore, any potential impacts on water quality and water quality requirements attributable to erosion of soils would be less than significant. The proposed project would not impact groundwater or recharge, as the subject property does not utilize groundwater for potable water or landscaping and is not located in a significant groundwater recharge area. According to the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FEMA), the property is located outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard areas as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map, nor would the proposed project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structure which would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the surrounding area, but would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site due to the proposed cut and fill. The home and site is proposed to have both 4" solid and perforated drainage pipes around the perimeters leading to an outlet dissipator onsite at the northwest comer of the property with eventual drainage down to West Shore Road. As noted above, however, the project is required to incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County, which will minimize overland runoff through bio-swales or bio-planters before being dissipated off-site. The size, layout, elevations and contours for the proposed storm drain outlet dissipator location(s), including a connection via the 10' Public Service Easement to the City's storm drainage system on West Shore Road, if appropriate, would be required to be designed by a registered civil engineer. Based on the project meeting the City's requirements, the on-site drainage and landscaping will be custom designed for the project site and will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A drainage system specifically designed for the site to meet current stormwater management standards will improve the current stormwater flow from the site. The subject property is not located in an area susceptible to seiche or mudflow. The subject property is located high enough on a hillside, and as such would not be subject to inundation by a tsunami. (Belvedere General Plan 2030, June 2010) x. Land Use and Planning

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated x. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D D

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 City of Belvedere

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, D D D policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat D D D conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion The project site is comprised of a privately owned residential property located within an established residential area and it would not physically divide an established community. The property would continue to be utilized as such at project completion. If approved, the project design would comply with all City of Belvedere Zoning Ordinance and Design Review regulations. The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community environmental plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts from the proposed construction on land use planning.

XI. Mineral Resources

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XI. Mineral Resources. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral D D D resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important D D D mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion There are no known mineral resources in the City of Belvedere, and therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.

XII. Noise

Less Than Potentially Less-Than. Significant ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 27 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

Incorporated XII. Noise. Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in D D D excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive D D D groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels D D D in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient D D D noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, D D D where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpo1t or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would D D D the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion The maximum noise level standard established in the Belvedere General Plan is 65 Ldn, average day­ night weighted noise level. The sounds associated with construction will create a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. All construction would be subject to standard conditions of approval limiting hours of construction. Hours of construction are limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and no work on City holidays. Application of these standard limitations on hours of construction would ensure that any temporary and/or periodic increase in noise from project construction would be limited to less noise-sensitive times of day. However, project construction would still create a temporary and/or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project during construction activities.

9 North Point Circle -Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 City of Belvedere

XIII. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Environmental Issues Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation

XIII. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

a) directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site D D D or unique geologic feature?

Regulatory Context City of Belvedere General Plan 2030 Chapter 6 of the City of Belvedere General Plan 2030 contains the Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resource Preservation Element by which future projects and developments, including this project, will be guided. This includes the following goal, policy and objectives, related to protection of paleontological resources: Goal Pres-3: Demonstrate sensitivity to Belvedere's prehistoric past by establishing formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeologically and culturally significant resources. Policy Pres-3.1. Continue to protect cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Actions: Pres-3.1.6: In the event unanticipated paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified paleontologist to identify the appropriate mitigation for the feature.

Discussion Paleontological resources are the recognizable remains of once-living, non-human organisms. Identified as fossils, these resources represent a record of history of life on the planet dating back as far as 4 billion years ago. Paleontological resources can include shells, bones, leaves, tracks, trails, and other fossilized floral or faunal materials. Paleontological resources do not represent human activity.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 29 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

A "unique paleontological resource or site" is one that is considered significant under cun-ent professional paleontological standards. An individual vertebrate fossil specimen may be considered unique or significant if it is identifiable and well preserved, and it meets one of the following criteria: • a type specimen (i.e., the individual from which a species or subspecies has been described); • a member of a rare species; • a species that is part of a diverse assemblage (i.e., a site where more than one fossil has been discovered) • wherein other species are also identifiable, and important information regarding life history of individuals can • be drawn; • a skeletal element different from, or a specimen more complete than, those now available for its species; or • a complete specimen (i.e., all or substantially all of the entire skeleton is present).

The value or importance of different fossil groups varies depending on the age and depositional environment of the rock unit that contains the fossils, their rarity, and the extent to which they have already been identified and documented. "Value" also considers the ability to recover similar materials under more controlled conditions (such as for scholarly research). Marine invertebrates are generally common because the fossil record is well developed and well documented, and they would generally not be considered a unique paleontological resource. Identifiable vertebrate marine and ten-estrial fossils are generally considered scientifically important because they are, comparatively, relatively rare.

Local Geology According to a geologic map titled "Geologic Map and Map database of Parts of Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sononma Counties, California" prepared by Blake Graymer and Jones, the project site is mapped to be underlain by metamorphic rocks of the Cretaceous and Jurassic Franciscan Complex. The project site was found to be underlain by metamorphosed sandstone bedrock. However, as described in Section V, archaeological midden deposits were encountered to subsurface testing that overlay the bedrock. Paleontological Resources in tlze Project Vicinity A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology collections database identified 364 previously recorded paleontological resources, mostly microfossils and invertebrates, in Marin County, most of which located along the Marin coast. One of the 364 listed resources (an invertebrate) is recorded as being located in Belvedere, and two of the 364 listed resources were located on the Tiburon Peninsula: one microfossil found in a mudflat at California Point located on the north side of the Tiburon Peninsula in unincorporated Marin County; and the other (an invertebrate) found somewhere on the Tiburon Peninsula (no specific location identified).

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 City of Belvedere

Potential Impacts According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. A fossil may be considered significant if it provides data useful in determining the age(s) of a rock unit or sedimentary stratum, therefore contributing to an increased knowledge of the depositional history of a region and the timing of geologic events therein. A paleontological resource may also be considered significant if it provides important information on the evolutionary trends among organisms, particularly relating living inhabitants of the earth to extinct organisms or if it demonstrates unusual or specular circumstances in the history of life. The significance of a paleontological resource may also be determined by its relative abundance, or lack thereof, within a region. For example, if a fossil type is in short supply or is not found in other geologic locations and it is in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, the resource is likely to be considered significant. The project site does not appear sensitive for paleontological resources because of its location, local geology, and level of disturbance of the project area. However, it is possible that paleontological resources could be uncovered during construction. With implementation of the mitigation measure below, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measures PR-1: Unanticipated Discovery. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction supervisor shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered.

XIV. Population and Housing

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than­ ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIV. Population and Housing. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D area, either directly (for example, by proposing

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 31 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion The project site is a residential parcel that would continue to be utilized as such at project completion. The single family home would remain; therefore, the project would have no impact on population or housing.

xv. Public Services

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated xv. Public Services. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? D D D ~ Police protection? D D D ~ Schools? D D D ~ Parks? D D D ~ Other public facilities? D D D ~

Discussion The project site is a residential parcel that would continue to be utilized as such at project completion; therefore, the project does not require increased fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities and would have no impact on public services.

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 City of Belvedere

XVI. Recreation

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVI. Recreation. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and D D D regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the D D D construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion The project site is developed with an existing single-family residence. The proposed project would continue this existing land use and would not generate additional demands on recreation facilities. Therefore, there would be no new impacts on recreational facilities.

XVII. Transportation/Traffic

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than· ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVII. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or D D D policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the perfonnance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion D D D management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, D D D including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 33 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design D D D feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or D D programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the perfo1mance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion The project site is a residential parcel that would continue to be utilized as such at project completion. The project does not bear influence upon a congestion management program or air traffic patterns. The project does not generate any conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the perfo1mance or safety of such facilities. Any staging that would be necessary for project construction will be addressed at the preconstruction meeting between the project contractor, City Building Official, City Public Works Manager, and City Engineer. While road closure is not expected, any requests for road closure would be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Manager, to ensure no interference with emergency response vehicles. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on transportation and traffic.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Environmental Issues Significant Significant No Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal D D D cultural resource as defined in §21074?

Regulatory Context Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to dete1mine whether or not the proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as "a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004." This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQAas:

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 City of Belvedere

1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: a. included or detennined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or c. a resource dete1mined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria A and B also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA (see Section V of this document), a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional (and separate) consideration as a Historical Resource. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their Tribal Cultural Resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Consultation is concluded when either the lead agency and tribes agree to appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, or when a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (21080.3.2[b], whereby the lead agency uses its best judgement in requiring mitigation measures that avoid or minimize impact to the greatest extent feasible.

Discussion Ethnography. Ethnographically, the Project area is in the southern portion of the territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Coast Miwok. Coast Miwok territory stretched from Duncan's Point (in Sonoma County) in the north to Sausalito (in Marin County) in the south and from Sonoma in the east to the Pacific Ocean (Kelly 1978). The Coast Miwok language is considered one of the California Penutian languages. Several places in the area derive their names from Coast Miwok language. Cotati, meaning "to punch", and Tamalpais, or "coast hill" both come from the Coast Miwok language. Coast Miwok lived in permanent, often large, villages. Typical Coast Miwok houses were conical structures with grass covering a framework of interlocking poles. Larger villages contained sweathouses, which served as a center for social and religious activities. The Coast Miwok had a highly developed monetary system based on clam shell beads and had strong property systems in place. Large villages had a non-hereditary Chief whose job was to oversee the village and give daily speeches to residents. There were also two important female figures in the village; the Woman Chief was involved in religious

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 35 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere ceremonies and cult activities and the second figure, the Maien, organized the construction of the ceremonial house and the preparation of festivals (Kelly 1978). Subsistence of the Coast Mi wok consisted of a wide variety of plants, seafood, and game found near the sea as well as inland. Due to the Miwok's diversified terrain, they were well-rounded in game hunting, fishing, and foraging, adapting to what was plentiful at different times of the year. During the winter months there was a heavy reliance on geese and dried stored foods such as acorns, kelp, and seeds. Salmon running in the winter were also caught using circular dip nets, weirs, and spears. During the summer, larger game such as deer, bear and elk were hunted in the hills. Summer also gave way to plant gathering, which was used to offset the winter months when large game was scarce (Kelly 1978). The Coast Miwok population, according to Kroeber, has always been small, at an average of 1,500 during aboriginal times. By 1851, however, their population had plummeted to about 250 and by 1920 it was down to five. The drastic population decrease coincided with the decreases in all California Indian populations during early Euro-American incursion. Today, there exist remains of several hundred Coast Miwok sites located throughout Marin and southern Sonoma County, most of which have been identified through archaeological surveys. The material remains at a site are instructive as to the types of activities carried out there. Long-term habitation sites found throughout most of this area are marked by the presence of well-developed midden deposits, which are unusual soils that have resulted from the long-term buildup of organic materials and prehistoric human activity. In Belvedere, there are several recorded prehistoric sites. Prehistoric sites are capable of yielding a variety of information about the early peoples of the region. Such sites may include locations of cultural, social, or economic importance and may also have spiritual significance to the ancestors of these peoples or to living Native Americans. Archeological discoveries in the City of Belvedere are remarkable for the great quantities of traded and local items, such as large caches of abalone beads, pendants, and ceremonial objects. They are also remarkable for the information they provide about what transpired in Belvedere long ago. Recent construction has uncovered archeological sites that dated to 39 A.D. Investigations of the sites and salvage recovery has resulted in the discovery of hundreds of significant artifacts, including dozens of human burials, some appearing to be of high­ status individuals, as well as hemihs, cooking features, ash lenses, and other artifact concentrations. Archeological research estimates that some of the artifacts and burials are more than 1,000 years old (City of Belvedere 2010). Project Co11su/tatio11 History. Given the known sensitivity of the site, the tribal consultation process began in March 2015, prior to the official implementation of AB 52 on July 1, 2015, which requires the City to notify interested California Native American tribes of the project and to offer them an opportunity to consult with the City regarding potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may be affected by the project. A summary of the project consultation is provided below. • Mm·ch 3, 2015: The City began the consultation process by requesting comments on the proposed Project from the FIGR.

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 City of Belvedere

• In a letter dated March 3, 2015, Mr. Nick Tipton of the FIGR's Sacred Sites Protection Committee responded to the City's letter requesting that an archaeological testing program of the site be conducted. City staff agreed with Mr. Tipton's suggestion, and requested this study from the Project applicant. Following the March 3 letter, the FIGR infonned the City that Ms. Buffy McQuillen, FIGR Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer, would be the City's contact regarding projects in the City of Belvedere. • March 24, 2015: The Belvedere City Manager, Mary Neilan, and City Planner, Irene Borba, met with Nick Tipton at City Hall to discuss the project and the FIGR's concerns. • July 1, 2015: FIGR sent a general request letter to the City, requesting formal notification of all projects in the City in accordance with AB 52. • July 7, 2015: An onsite meeting was held with City staff, Ms. McQuillen from the FIGR, the applicant, the project archaeologist, and the project architect. During the meeting, Ms. McQuillen, City staff, and the archaeologist discussed redesigning the project to minimize the amount of cut required and changing to pier construction to minimize ground disturbance. Ms. McQuillen requested a copy of the 2001 report documenting the cultural resources and human remains discovered during remodeling projects at neighboring properties. • Following the July 7, 2015 meeting, City Planner Irene Borba sent Ms. McQuillen a copy of the soils report for the project at Ms. McQuillen's request. • August 31, 2015: The City sent Ms. McQuillen a copy of the Cultural Resources Evaluation prepared for the Project (Archeological Resource Service 2015a). • September 6, 2015: Soil borings of the project site were conducted for geotechnical investigation to support the Project redesign (PJC & Associates 2015). During the soil borings, City Staff, Ms. McQuillen, and the project archaeologist were on the site, in addition to the project geologist. • September 30, 2015: Revised Project plans dated 9/23/15 were sent to Ms. McQuillen. • November 2, 2015 Revised Project plans dated 10/27 /15 along with a copy of the Design Level Geotechnical Investigation (dated October 6, 2015) were sent to Ms. McQuillen. • December 16, 2015: City Staff sent Ms. McQuillen the following documents, and again solicited input on the Tribe's concerns: o The proposed Program for Archaeological Protection and Preservation for the Project o The Draft Cultural Resources section of the Draft Initial Study for the Project o The Design Level Geotechnical Investigation for the Project o The Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Project o A copy of a letter from William Roop of ARS (the project archaeologist) to Ms. Debbie Pilas-Treadway of the Native American Heritage Commission o The Project plans revised as of December 14, 2015. • January 19, 2016: The City received a letter from Lorelle Ross, Vice-Chairperson of the FIGR, requesting formal tribal consultation and stating that the City of Belvedere had not met with Tribe representatives to discuss avoidance of Tribal Cultural Resources in the Project area.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 37 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

• January 22, 2016: The City sent a letter to Ms. Ross from Irene Borba responding to Ms. Ross' January 19 letter, listing the times that the City had met and discussed the project with the Tribe, including project alternatives. • February 25, 2016: Meeting between the City of Belvedere and the FIGR. Those present included Gene Buvelot, Maureen Geary, Peter Nelson, and Buffy McQuillen from the FIGR; Irene Borba, Nancy Kaufman, and Jayni Allsep from the City of Belvedere, Fire Marshal Jessica Powers from the Tiburon Fire Protection District; and the property owner. • March 10, 2016: A letter was sent from Ms. Ross to Ms. Borba summarizing the discussion points from the meeting and the agreements for actions and mitigations. • March 15, 2016: A letter was sent to Ms. Ross from Irene Borba, City Planner providing clarifications and/or questions regarding the March 10, 2016 letter. The latest Project plans were also submitted with this letter. • May 19, 2016: Meeting and site visit with the City of Belvedere and the FIGR. Those present included Gene Buvelot and Buffy McQuillen from FIGR; Irene Borba and Jayni Allsep from the City of Belvedere; and the property owner and project architects, who were present at the request Ms. McQuillen in order to walk them through the project. During this site visit, Ms. McQuillen recommended an additional survey of the site. • June 10, 2016: A study was conducted in the Project area by Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center (2016). • June 14, 2016: The City called Ms. McQuillen to confirm intent to provide a copy of the Sonoma State survey report and proposed mitigation measures. Ms. McQuillen confinned the FIGR's desire to avoid impacts to the site. • August 10, 2016: The City notified Ms. McQuillen that, as discussed during June 14, 2016 conference call, the City would be providing a copy of the proposed mitigation measures for FIGR review by August 17, 2016, and requested the Tribe's comments on draft mitigation measures by Wednesday, August 24, 2016. • August 10, 2016: Ms. McQuillen responded to City's email indicating that she would do her best to meet the City's deadline, but that it was contingent on the Tribal Council hearing the proposal by that date. • August 16, 2016: The City sent the proposed mitigation measures to FIGR for review and comment. A draft copy of the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the Initial Study were also provided. In the transmittal, the City requested that FIGR submit comments on the draft mitigation measures by Wednesday, August 24, 2016. • August 25, 2016: The City did not receive any comments or correspondance from FIGR on the proposed mitigation measures by the requested date. Therefore, the City used its best judgement on appropriate mitigation measures and concluded consultation under CEQA and AB 52 for this project and prepared a letter to FIGR concluding consultation. Tribal Cultural Resources. As discussed in Section V, the property was first surveyed by a professional archaeologist in March 1999 by Archaeological Resource Service (ARS). At that time, indicators of a previously recorded site (CA-MRN-39) recorded in 1907 were observed, and archaeological materials were encountered during remodeling activities in the Project area and in adjacent properties. Given the

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 City of Belvedere nature and depth of archaeological deposits, ARS concluded that CA-MRN-39 largely lies undisturbed beneath the layer of 20 111 century construction. In August 2015, ARS conducted a second pedestrian survey of the Project site, in association with the current proposed project, and re-confirmed that a portion of site CA-MRN-39 is present and intact. Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center conducted an additional survey in June 2016. Subsequently, consultation with the FIGR regarding the current project (summarized above) resulted in the identification of site CA-MRN-39 as a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in the CEQA Statute Section 21074. According to Section 21074, to be considered a "Tribal Cultural Resource," a resource must be either: (1) listed, or detem1ined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or (2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a Tribal Cultural Resource. Based on information presented by the FIGR, the City determined that substantial evidence exists to detennine that site CA-MRN-39 is a Tribal Cultural Resource.

Potential Impacts AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a Tribal Cultural Resource has a significant effect on the environment. In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a Tribal Cultural Resource would likely be significant if the project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR's significance. Site CA-MRN-39 possesses integrity of location, materials, and association. The original Project design included an addition to the residence that extended the lower floor into the slope beyond the existing retaining wall. The proposed area of excavation with this design was 8 feet, 4 inches wide and 46 feet, 8 inches deep. Under the original project description, the removal of large portions of CA-MRN-39 would have resulted in loss of integrity of location and materials, and would have been considered a significant impact. As a result of the archaeological evaluation and the geotechnical investigation, and in consultation with the FIGR, the Project was redesigned to minimize the effects to site CA-MRN-39. The currently proposed design has been modified to so that the addition no longer requires excavation into the slope. Instead, the addition would now be located below the existing deck, and a pier foundation system would be used. This revised design is much less invasive, and would require only minimal soil disturbance. Under the new project plans, which resulted in preservation in place of the majority of CA-MRN-39, the qualities that convey the significance of the resource will remain intact. Although Project impacts have been minimized to the extent possible through project redesign, there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose and disturb unknown Tribal

August 2016 9 North Point Circle -Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 39 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

Cultural Resources associated with Site CA-MRN-39 located below the ground surface. With the implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 through C-4 (see Section V), and the additional mitigation measure TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures TCR-1: Opportunity to Execute a Custody Agreement. Prior to ground disturbing act1v1t1es, the prope1iy owner shall contact FIGR in writing to offer the opportunity for the Tribe to consult directly with the property owner to develop a custody agreement that allows for the prope1iy owner to maintain possession of Tribal Cultural Resources on private property, which includes the use of private property for temporary storage of excavated materials and/or repatriation of any encountered artifacts or materials. Should FIGR desire to enter into such an agreement, it must respond to the property owner within ten days after the property owner sent notice of the opportunity to develop the custody agreement. If no response is sent by FIGR to the property owner within this time, then the property owner may continue with the project, subject to the stipulations detailed below. Any custody agreement entered into by the property owner and FIGR shall stipulate that repatriation locations agreed to by the property owner and FIGR will not be subjected to ground disturbing activities in the future. A copy of the written notification, and a copy of the agreement (if one is executed), shall be filed with the City of Belvedere for proof of compliance.

Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 in Section V Cultural Resources; and TCR-1 above would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIX. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of D D D the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new D D D water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new D D D storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to D D D serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 City of Belvedere

needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater D D D treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient D D D permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes D D D and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion The project site is a residential parcel that would continue to be utilized as such at project completion. The project involves the partial demolition, renovation and additions to an existing single family residence. See discussion and mitigation measures under Hydrology/Water Quality above. With mitigation, the project would improve the existing stormwater floow and not have significant impacts on the capacity of stormwater facilities. The project does not influence existing or proposed water supply and wastewater facilities, nor would the project generate significant levels of solid waste. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on utilities and service systems.

XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- ENVIRONMENT AL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the D [8] D D quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, eliminate tribal cultural resources, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually D D D limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects that will D D D cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,

August 2016 9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 41 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Belvedere

either directly or indirectly? Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference, Section 5088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 2111, Public Resources Code;; Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoffv. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Discussion The project, with proposed mitigation measures, would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, degrade, the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Although the Project has the potential to affect both historical resources and archaeological resources under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Tribal Cultural Resources as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21074, implementation of mitigation measures will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. With regard to potential cumulative impacts, the Project would affect Site CA-MRN-39, a site that is located partially in the Project area. The proposed Project's impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Building renovation projects on neighboring properties in 2001 encountered cultural materials, which were treated according to an approved treatment plan. No other projects within the boundaries of Site CA-MRN-39 that could disturb the ground surface are known by the City at this time, but it is possible that similar home renovation projects could be proposed by property owners in the future. These projects would require consultation with the FIGR and analysis of each project's impacts to both cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources within the CEQA process. If significant impacts are identified, these projects would be required to have similar mitigation measures as the proposed Proj~ct. For the reasons discussed in this document, and hereby incorporated into this discussion section, the proposed project, as mitigated, would not generate any significant direct, indirect, or cumulatively considerable impacts on human beings or the environment.

9 North Point Circle - Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition August 2016 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 City of Belvedere

REFERENCES Archaeological Resource Service. 2015a. A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed Improvements, 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, Marin County, California. August 10. 2015b. Archaeological Monitoring During Soil Testing at 9 North Point Circle. September 9 2015c. Program for Archaeological Protection and Recovery Before and During Excavation, Grading and Other Earth Disturbing Actions for the Remodeling of 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, Marin County, California. November 2015. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guidelines. June 2010. City of Belvedere. Belvedere General Plan. June 2010. ___. Belvedere Climate Action Plan. April 2011. ___.Belvedere Municipal Code. Title 19, Zoning. ___. Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 20, Architectural and Environmental Design Review. Felton, Roger, Chairman, Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, email July 16, 2015. Kelly, Isabel Truesdell, 1978. "Coast Miwok." In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 8., California. Edited by R.F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. PJC & Associates, Inc. Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Renovation and Additions, 9 North Point Circle. Belvedere, California. October 6, 2015. Sonoma State University Anthropological Studies Center 2016. Osteological Field Letter Report of a portion of CA-MRN-39, 9 North Point Circle, City of Belvedere, Marin County, California. June 22. University of California Museum of Paleontology Collections Database, accessed August 17, 2016. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/

APPENDICES Appendix A: Design Review Application and Plans, prepared by Holscher Architecture, revised January 7, 2016.

August 2016 9 North Point Circle -Single Family Home Partial Demolition & Addition 43 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION For Partial Demolition and Remodel of Single Family Residence at 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, CA (APN 060-110-10)

To: Owners of Property Contiguous to the Project Site From: City of Belvedere

Marin County Clerk 450 San Rafael A venue

Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies Belvedere, CA 94920

Interested Members of the Public

Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

The City of Belvedere is the Lead Agency and has prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described below. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and consideration of project applications are scheduled before the City of Belvedere Planning Commission on September 20, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. The public review period will last from September 1 to September 20, 2016.

Project Title: 9 North Point Circle Improvements, Belvedere, CA

Project Applicant, if any: Bryan Lin & Patricia Seid, owners; Holscher Architecture, architects

Project Description: The applicant proposes to make improvements to a private single-family residence located at 9 North Point Circle, including the following: • Demolition of 69.2% of the existing exterior of the structure • 19.6 cubic yards of cut and 76.8 cubic yards of fill and minor other site work • Relocation and conversion of an existing carport to a two-car garage • The addition of an uncovered off-street parking space • Extensive interior kitchen remodeling and 1,284 square feet of addition to the upper and lower floors • Installation of a new roof over the existing upstairs bedrooms and the roofing will be changed to standing seam aluminum • All doors and windows will be replaced and the siding will be comprised of new stucco and horizontal cedar siding.

Project approvals required by the City of Belvedere include a Demolition Permit per Chapter 16. 28 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC), an Architectural and Environmental Design Review pursuant per Chapter 20.04 of the BMC, an Exception to Total Floor Area per Section 19.52.120 of the BMC, a Revocable License, and a building permit.

A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is available at the City Hall and Community Center at 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Thursday. City offices are closed from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than September 20, 2016. Please send your response to J/ji Allsep at th~ address sho~n above. Date: September l, 2016 Signature: ~2&rL,,t Y--: /f!J;n,tf!:erJ Title: Director of Planning & Building Telephone: (415) 435-3838 Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 9492~~2..,. PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELYtDf.1~,:~RG

Date: __o_z/_1_~/i;.._. (_J_- __Rec'd. by: _.....,.A.....,./..-J._A!l...... _ __ Planning Comm. Approval D Design Review Exception D Amount: >f/~ Zy- oD Receipt No.: ------Staff Approval D Parcel No.: 6'o/// /u Zone: ------Rt)

Does this project have an active building permit? No [ZI Yes D Permit No.: ------Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No Ill Yes D Addressof Property:_9_N_o_rt_h_P_oi_n_tC_iro_l_e ______~ RecordOwnerof Property:_M_r_._B_ry_a_n_L_in______

Mailing Daytime Phone:------Address: 9 North Point Circle Fax: ______

Belvedere, Ca.94920 Email: ------~ Owne~sReprese~ative:_H_o_ls_c_h_e_rA_ro_h_~_c_~_r_e ______~

Mailing Daytime Phone: _(6_4_8_)4_3_5_-5_2_1_9 ______Address: 1550 Tiburon Blvd. Fax: (648) 435-0312 Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Email: [email protected] Project Description: The proposed scope of work for this project involves minor site work, conversion of an 469 sqft existing carport to a 510sf two car garage, extensive interior kitchen remodeling and a 1206 S.F. addition to the upper and lower floors, plus enlarge the decks from 284 sq to 321 sqft. According to our calculati1 we are demolishing approximately 64.8% of the existing structure, establishing the proposed design as a new home. There will be a new roof over the existing upstairs and the existing upstairs bedrooms, and new stucco siding and horizontal cedar siding. All doors and windows will be replaced. The existing asphalt shingle roof will be replaced with standing seam roof.

Design Review Application• Page 1 of 9 •City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICA TrON FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-1 I.doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

n1 16 ZONING PARAMETERS: ~euurriare Existing Proeosed

Lot Area ...... 14375 14375 No Change Lot Coverage ...... 4312 2531 s.f. 3150 s.f. Total Floor Area ...... 4744 3577 s.f. 4861 s.f. Front Yard Setback .... 10'-0" 19'-0" 11'-0" Left Sideyard Setback . . . . 9'-0" 3'-2" 7'-1" Right Sideyard Setback.... 9'-0" 3'-6" 9'-9" Rear Yard Setback . . . .. 20'-0" 7'-2" No Change Building Height Maximum ... 28 ft. 25'-4" 26'-3" Building Height Average ... 28 ft Parking Spaces ...... 2 2 3

,SECTION 2'. ENVIRONMENTAL lNFORMATlO

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: ------4-23-15 Genera I Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: _B_ry_a_n_&_P_at_ri_ci_a_L_in______2. Address of project: 9 North Point Circle, Belvedere, Ca. 94920 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ______David Holscher, Holscher Architecture 1550 Tiburon Blvd., Ste. V. Belvedere, Ca 94920 415-435-5219

4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: ------5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: _N_/A______

6. Existing zoning district: _R_-_15______7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): _R_e_s_id_e_nt_ia_I ______

8. Year built:_1_9_58___ _ Original architect: _u_n_-k_n_ow_n ______Project Description 4 9. Site size. _1__37_5_s_._f·------1o. Square footage. 4540 sq. ft. house and garage, 321 sq. ft. covered deck for a total of 4861 sq.ft. 11. Number of floors of construction. _2______12. Amount of off-street parking provided. _3______

13. P~nsattached? _Y_e_s ______

Design Review Application • Page 2 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\tlat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-1 I .doc n. ·rn Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

14. Proposed scheduling. 14 months, starting August 1st, 2015 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. There will be 22.0 cu.yd. of cut and 27.5 cu.yd. of fill. This will involve (1) truck of load of soil for fill purposes. 16. Anticipated incremental development. _N_o_n_e______17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. -'1'------18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. _N_/A______19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Existing house which will remain is in sideyard setback & requires a variance

Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of D Ill ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. D Ill 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. D Ill 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D Ill 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D Ill 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing D Ill drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. D Ill 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. D Ill 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or D Ill explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). D Ill 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D Ill 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D Ill 32. Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value. D Ill 33. Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. D Ill

Environmental Setting 34. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Single Family Dwelling. The site may contain Native American remains. Hillside sedtting.

35. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one­ family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Residential propoerties, single family. 2-story residence & single story

Design Review Application • Page 3 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-1 I.doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

For Design Review applications not requiring a buildi(lg permit this form does not apply. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval.

This Section advises you of the Time Limit Guidelines that are applied to all Design Review applications that require a building permit as prescribed by Section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. "As part of any application for Design Review, the applicant shall file a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, and based thereon, a construction time limit shall be established for the project in accordance with Section 20.04.035(b) of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Compliance with such time limit shall become a condition of design review approval." The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed six months for additions and remodeling up to $100,000 in value; 12 months for construction up to $500,000 in value; and 18 months for construction valued at more than $500,000. Failure to complete construction in the agreed upon time will result in fines ranging from $400 per day to $800 per day with a $200,000 maximum penalty. Application for an extension of the prescribed time limit can be made providing certain conditions are met. The maximum extension is 6 months. The time for completion of the construction shall also be indicated on the building permit.

In the space provided below please indicate the estimated project valuation.

Estimated cost of construction: $_6_4_0_·0_0_0 ______Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project:

0 1. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be less than $500,000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

D 2. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be more than $500,000. Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

D 3. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $100.000. Construction shall be completed six (6) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

D 4. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $500,000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

O 5. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at more than $500,000. Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Guidelines or wish to exceed the time limit that was approved by the Planning Commission, the following outlines the "Extension of Construction Time Limit" (20.04.0350) process:

Design Review Application• Page 4 of9 •City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-11.doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

1. Witnin twelve months following the original approval of Design Review for the construction, and provided that no construction activity has yet commenced on the project, the applicant may apply for an extension of the established construction time limit, not to exceed an additional six months.

2. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be accompanied by complete working drawings for the construction, a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension, .and a fee, as established by City Council resolution.

3. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission whether to approve the requested extension.

4. The committee's recommendation shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and noticed as an amendment to the applicant's existing Design Review approval. Any modification by the Planning Commission of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the Design Review approval.

5. Administrative extension. Within 1O working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. The committee may recommend to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission may approve, an extension if it is determined that any one or more of the following factors presents an unusual obstacle to complying with the standard construction time limit: a. Site topography; b. Site access; c. Geologic issues; d. Neighborhood considerations; e. Other unusual factors. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a written recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve the requested extension and setting forth the findings it has made justifying its decision. The Committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines of Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, provided however that such extensions do not result in a construction time line exceeding 18 months.

This Section advises you of the costs that may be involved in processing Planning-related applications and/or appeals. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to be responsible for all expenses incurred in the processing of your application(s)/appeal(s).

As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source: Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2008, (subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ 67.07 Assistant Planner $ 39.29 City Attorney $ 185.00 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead

Design Review Application • Page 5 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l I .doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

For all applications and appeals, an initial deposit is required at the time of submittal, with the amounts determined by City Council resolution. In addition to the initial deposit, the property owner/appellant may be required to make further deposits for anticipated work. Invoices are due and payable within 15 days. Application(s) /or appeal(s) will not be placed on an agenda until these deposits are received.

This Section applies to all projects that receive design review. It has been found that there are often misunderstandings regarding changes to building plans that receive Design Review. This occurs when construction plans are submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance after planning approval has been achieved. Another common occurrence is a change to the project while it is underway without first obtaining an approval from the City for the deviation from the original plan.

To help your project proceed in an expeditious and harmonious manner, the City of Belvedere wishes to inform you of several basic understandings regarding your project and its approval. By you and your representative signing this document, you are acknowledging that you have read, understand, and will comply with each of the points listed.

1. Once Design Review approval has been granted, construction plans may be submitted to the City. The construction plans shall be identical to the plans approved for design review. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.010). Deviations from the plans approved for Design Review cannot be appreved except by an amendment to the Design Review approval. It is the applicants' responsibility to assure conformance, and the failure of staff to bring nonconformities to the applicants' attention shall not excuse the applicant from such compliance. 2. Comments from City staff regarding the project shall neither be deemed official nor relied upon unless they are in writing and signed by the City Manager or his designee. 3. Without the prior written approval of the City, construction on the project shall not deviate in any manner, including but not limited to form, size or color, from approved construction plans. If at any time during construction, and without such written approval, construction on the project is found by a member of City staff to deviate from the approved construction plans in any manner, an official STOP WORK ORDER will be issued by the City, and there shall be a total cessation of all work on the project. 4. If such a STOP WORK ORDER is issued, the City may initiate proceedings to impose administrative penalties or nuisance abatement proceedings and issue an order to show cause, which will compel the undersigned property owner to appear before the City Council and show cause why the work performed does not deviate from the approved plans and why such work should not be condemned as a public nuisance and abated. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Chapters 1.14 and 8.12)

Story Pole Requirement

Preliminary Story Poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least twenty (20) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard. Final Story Poles must be placed at the site at least ten (10) days prior to the firs~ meeting date and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the

Design Review Application • Page 6 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l I .doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.

Limit on the Number of Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review Approvals

Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.020(8)(1)(a), for a site or structure with no existing active.Design Review approval, during any twelve-month period, an applicant may obtain up to four administrative approvals, which may be in the form of either Staff Approval, Design Review Exception, or a combination of the two. However, there is no limit to the number of times an applicant may apply for Planning Commission Design Review. Any such administrative or Planning Commission Design Review approval(s) shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued for the project within said twelve (12) month period, in which case the Design Review approval shall be valid as long as there is an active building permit for the project.

Once a project has been approved by Planning Staff or the Planning Commission, administrative approvals to amend the existing active Design Review approval for that project shall be limited to three such approvals at any time during the lifetime of the underlying Design Review approval, plus one such approval during the process of obtaining final inspection approval of the project. Any such administrative approval(s) granted shall NOT extend the twelve (12) month term, of the underlying Design Review approval, or the building permit construction time limit if a building permit has been issued for the project.

All property owners must complete and sign the section below which is applicable to your property.

Street address of subject property: ..;;;9...;.N..;;..;o"-'-rt=h;...;P;_o;;;.;;i"""nt;;_C;;;..;i"'""rc"-'-le..;;;.______

Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: _o_so_-_11_1_-1_0______»- Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or Other Entity

Please provide proof of ownership and of the signer's authority to enter into contracts regarding this property. One of (or a combination of) the following documents may contain the necessary information. For trusts: the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto; property deed; certificate of title insurance. For other entities: articles of incorporation; partnership agreement; property deed; certificate of title insurance; written certification of facts by an attorney. Photocopies are acceptable. To ensure privacy, documentation will be shredded in a timely manner, or, upon request, returned to the applicant. I, Bryan Lin , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above-described subject property is owned by a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity and that my signature on this application has been authorized by all necessary action required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity.

I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the besf! pf my knowledge and belief ' Design Review Application • Page 7 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l I .doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities," above and representations one through four contained therein. ·

In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded.

I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record.

S1gne. d th·1s 12th d ay o f ___February. ___ , 2015_, at Beve I d ere, C a 1·f1 orma..

Signature ~ k Signature ______~I Title(s} 11&.., \_.e:e.. Title(s} ______

~stee(s) D Partners: D Limited or D General D Corporation D Other ______

Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: ~ P l-\N ~ lLY -r~71

.> Properties Owned by Individuals Bryan Lin . I, , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property.

I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities.'' above and representations one through four contained therein.

In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded.

I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record.

12 Signed this __ _th___ day of _F_e_br_u_ary____ , 20~, at Belvedere, California.

Signature.______

Design Review Application • Page 8 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l 1.doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle •-~ I

)> Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional) Bryan Lin h b th . David Holscher I , , ere y au orrze ______to file on my behalf any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and finaled or. until the designation is rescinded in writing . Date: ______

Date: o?'/l~(I<

Design Review Application • Page 9 of 9 • City of Belvedere

\\SERVER-PC\server\flat\A-FORMS\Belvedere\planning\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-I I .doc Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

Date: /£-J-/~l) Rec'd. by: Nf"/tt Amount: _j';_d-1../__?__ Receipt No.:23 \"73 Assessors Parcel No: _ __,,(.,...'?_..."_c?.._.(,_.f__,(,_._!_.O.______(ZtY-

Address of Property: _9_N_o_rt_h_P_o_in_t_c_ir_c_le______

Type of Property: Single Family Residnece

Record Owner of Property: _M_r_._B_ry_a_n_L_in______Mailing Daytime Phone: (510) 325-0771 Address: 9 North Point Circle Fax: ______Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Email: [email protected] Own~sRepre~~~~:_H_o_ls_c_h_e_r_A_r_c_h_i~_c_u_r_e______~

Mailing Daytime Phone: (648) 4345-5219 Address: 1550 Tiburon Blvd. Fax: (648) 435-0312 Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Email: [email protected]

Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: ------

1. Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: _T_._B_.D_.______

2. Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: _T_.B_.D_.______

3. Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: ------­ T.B.D., 3 WEEKS

4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: ------­ San Rafael & Golden Gate

Demolition Permit Application • Page 1 of2 • City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonms\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EOITION\APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

5. Size/Type of trucks used to haul demolition material: _1_12_T_o_n_fl_a_tb_e_d______

6. Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: 290 Cubic yards

7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed: 12 months

8. Period of time demolition is expected to take: _.,,_1 _,_m,_,,o_n.... t,.._h..______9. Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in

COnjUnCtiOn With the demolition: Site drainage will remain. Large shrubs will be removed @upper guest parking.

10. Erosion, sedimentation, and /or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: _____ Plans will be provided in Construction Documents

11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: _N_l_A______

12. Year building to be demolished was constructed: _1_9_5_8 ______13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any: _N_l_A______

14.0ther: ------~

Note: The demolition contractor will be required to provide the City with a certificate of worker's compensation insurance and may be required to post a bond. The contractor must also secure a City of Belvedere business license before the actual demolition permit can be issued by the Building Official.

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the demolition permit requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented Ii in and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief _ ~ (. Signatur ~==-_..::::;~J'-=_l _ _..:..-fil:.....=;.__;__...;;..:;:::::...... ,,,,,,______Name:])A\cf O fu/ SC~~­ Date: 5-21-15

Demolition Permit Application • Page 2 of 2 • City of Belvedere

U:lplanningmanager'Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS· LATEST EDITIONIAPPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc Rev. 9/2312008 LC Project Address: 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

2 - Date: d ('1 /tr:.,, Rec'd. by: /V'" a.M. ,_ If·., Receipt No.: F I Amount:-~-'""'--- 2) l3 Assessors Parcel No: ()~CJ I II /0 Zone: /2 f) -~------

Address of Property: 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

Type of Property: RESIDENCE

Record Owner of Property: BRYAN LIN & PATRICIA SEID City of r· Mailing 9 NORTH POINT CIR. Daytime Phone:------

Address: BELVE DE RE, CA. 94920 Fax: ______~ Email: ------0 w ner' s Representative: DAVID HOLSCHER- HOLSCHER ARCHITECTURE, LLC Mailing 1550 TIBURON BLVD. #V Daytime Phone: _4_1_5-_4_3_5-_5_2_19_. _____ Address: BELVEDERE, CA. 94920 Fax: ------Em ai I: [email protected]

ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 4744 sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS: 4861 sq. ft.

As provided in Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.52.120(1), I hereby apply for an exception to the floor area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. I propose that the Planning Commission make the following findings of fact:

1. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because: ------­ The site is downslope away from the street and is on a culdesac. The addition is below the street level and to the side, away from the view corridors of neighboring properties.

Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 1 of 3 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Fom1s\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLJCA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE JAN 19

2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, because: The parcel slopes down, away from the culdesac and becomes wider as it falls away from the street. The majority of the new massing is below the street level and to the side of the lot, in the wider part of the site. 1/2 of the new square footage is at the lower level, which is currently crawl space for the upper floor. 621 square feet is converted crawl­ space.

3. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all Design Review criteria, because: The new massing upstairs consists of a new volume(master bath) that is 173 square feet, a small 100 square foot addition to the right side of the kitchen/pantry, and the remaining 278 square feet of new space is on the backside of the house, away from neighbors and the street. The excess square footage includes exterior space under the upstairs decks. This exterior space is what is pushing the square footage over.

4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because: It is located away from neighbors and the street. The exterior decks causing additional square footage below them are existing off the living room and slightly pushed out at the new dining room and office. 1/2 the new space is carved out of the existing crawl space under the house.

In addition, Section 19.52.120(2) includes guidelines that the Planning Commission must follow. propose that the following guidelines can be met:

5. That the proposed new construction would not create a new or expand on existing nonconformity on the property, because: It is pulled away from setbacks and is under allowable lot coverage. There is no expansion of an existing non conformity.

Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 2of3 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNJNG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA T!ON FOR EXCEPTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE

(For purposes of this Section, floor area in the existing structure which is in excess of the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to be an "existing nonconformity" on the property, and the grant of a floor area exception hereunder shall not be deemed to create a "new nonconformity." Additionally, for purposes of this section, where an applicant proposes to construct new and additional parking spaces, construction of parking structure or spaces within a setback shall not be deemed to create a nonconformity.)

6. That the proposed new construction is not a continuation, expansion, or subsequent phase of a project for which one or more variances were granted, which project was completed within two years prior to the floor area exception application, because: Permits have not been issued for this residence in the last 2 years.

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for approval of the exception as requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented her. in and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge an

Date: 06/03/15

Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 3 of 3 • City of Belvedere

U:iplanningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITfON\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9123/2008 LC Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 I")" ')rrl;I· 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG t\PR t'...·~) Ll1\·)

Date: Rec'd. by: /VS;t1 Amount: ~} 7' 3 - Receipt No.: P 3 L 73 ParcelNo.: liV////O Zone:_~A_/_C..______City property to be encroached upon:------

Address of Property: 9 North Point Circle

Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot):

Reoo~Ownm~Property:_M_r_._B_ry_a_n_L_in______Mailing Daytime Phone: (510)325-07471 Address: 9 North Point Circle Fax: ______Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: _H_o_ls_c_h_e_r_A_r_ch_i_te_c_u_re______Mailing Daytime Phone: (648) 435r5219 Address: 1550 Tiburon Blvd, Fax: (648) 435-0312 \. Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Email: [email protected]

Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): Some concrete flat work for new driveway, curb cut for new guest parking, concrete curb for new driveway, landscaping

• Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments.

Revocable License Application • Page I of 7 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 9123/2008 LC Project Address: 9 North Point Circle

IMPORTANT! This application will first be reviewed by the City Staff and/or Planning Commission. If the application successfully passes this review, a revocable license agreement will be drawn up by City Staff and a formal recommendation will be made to the City Council to approve it. The property owner(s) will need to sign the agreement document and have the signature(s) acknowledged by a notary public or the Deputy City Clerk before the agreement can be ratified by the City Council. A specimen copy of the revocable license agreement is attached for your information. THE OWNER'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WILL PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE LICENSE.

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the revocable license requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

Signature:_...... ~.... ,=--· -++---1~1'---· ------­ Name: ~~.e>~~.;__;_~~~~'-'---~---'-1N_·~~~~~~~~~~- Date: 4-23-15

Revocable License Application • Page 2 of 7 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC ~, ,. y \

~-----1 EDGE O• GA"'GE 7

(E) CURB (N) CONCRETE (N) INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE (N) INTEGRAL CONCRETE FLATWORK

(N) CURB CUT FOR DRIVEWAY

.

(N) CONCRETE

REVOCABLE LICENSE 9 NORTH POINT CIRCLE 1----"C)-+-'-'EX_H_IBl_TA_" _____ fl) ~ BELVEDERE TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH APN 060-111-10 LICENSE AREA SHOWN SHADED CITY OF BELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Depti.t:tment Staff Regarding Project Address: _9_N_o_r_th_.. _P_oi_n_t _c_ir_cl_e______Project Description: 2 story single residential addition and renovation (see data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D project proposal

0 plan set

D photographs

0 cut sheets

0 other documents (specify: ______-/ prepared by David Holscher - Holscher Arch. and dated

~I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced doci.:1ments.

My name is: lJJLLt!(rx f>K!.i7[?[N' , and I own the neighboring property at: I rJd&/.l ft {i{(.L LE My signature: ~ Today's date: //z__1//6 ' .

Thank you for laking the time to review. and comment on your neighbor's pn~jcct. Ir you have any questions, please feel free to contact us

ll:\PLANNINGMANAGER\PLANNING FORMS\PLANNING FOHMS, LATEST EDITION\NEIGIJBOR NOTICING MEMO 1rnv.ooc .NE[iJHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The Cit)J ofBelvedere Pla1iningDepattment~taff Regarding Project Address: . . 9 ·r-10~ . \=bl~·· c.t~ Project Description:

"'). 4Cop~-''(· ·.. ""7t"'~ ~·~ ~-ni"T1',QJoJ Nr.P 126JVov}-:"TtoN.

I have reviewed the following iteni(s): D project proposal

r/'plan set

D photographs

D cut sheets

D other documents (specify:.~~..;...;..,....;...;..,..""""""'"___,....,..;...... ,..;.... ______,

0 prepared by __1/1"_~_. ,,,. __ M_ ~_._H_a_· ,....·.•·...... ,····,.-·.·.·+'o- .. •····,...... ••·~.....,?...... ·(,.f1_._~.....,· ·-~-~-· _. __ and dated _____ ~ I have no objection to thepropo$~tli~provements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

My signature: .,;..;:.,,, ~~--~,A.IJl....LMJ::.z::::::...... ,...~- Today's date:

Thank you for taking the fone 'oreview.aJ1d.(:nl)JIJ1erit Oll your neighhm.1s prqjcct. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact ns at 4313-3838...... Planning Department Staff

U:\PLANNINGl\i~NAt:;ER\PLANNINGFORMS\PL.i\NN°tNG;J;?ORMS ·LATEST EDITION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO REV 3-.23·1LDOC ...... CITY OF BELVEDERE ··NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff' Regarding Project Address: _9_N_o_rt_.h_P_o_i_n_rc __,_irc_l_e ______Project Description: 2 story single residential addition an.d renovation (see data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D project proposal

0 plan set

D photographs

0 cut sheets

0 other documents (specify: __-.,------~ prepared by David Holscher - Holscher Arch. and dated ----- ~ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents.

Other comments: ------'------~

My name is: --,--3-..,,...c+f..,.....~e_.As"'-t."'-'( ..... c_..,...... ,.... _____ , and I own the neighboring property at: 4 Nor t-t,. Po1 ....-+ e,~ ..,.,f,

~~:;::::~'--~~. ._f?i_· "'-//fa'-1,..1~+.-4/UD~ ...... •~~4~····_.;._ __

Th;mk you for taking the time to review

l!:\PLANNINGMAN;\(;ER\PL.'\NNING FORMS\PLANNING FOIL\'!S - L\TEST EDITIONl'\'Ef(;1rnon NOTICING MEMO REV.l>OC "-~-:;:-:::':---- ,~-- "' _-:- -:: _~~~·,·-;:~

TO: The City ofBelvedere Ptail~,'fi~D".~~ftmeJJt Staff Regarding Project Address: ._9_N.-..o.,...rt"""'l1_P...,,,o..;..Jn__J...;.C_ir_c_1e_"-- __-...,,, ____ Project Description: ~+r.'\_:<: -\_ - ' _": 2 story single residential addition al](:fr~novation (see.data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D projectproposal

0 plan set

D photographs

D cut sheets

o· other documents ( specify:_'---~..,...,.,------...,.----J

prepared by David Holscher - Hols~l'l$t~r~h, and dated ----- ~ I have no objection to thePl'.O,PQ$e!i improvements as shown in the. above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the projectas s}J.ownintlieabove-referenced documents.

My name is: _...... ,__---'-""--...... _-=--...;....,,,--- , and I own the neighboring property at: ~~~....L...:==:...:.-L--:-:::==~~~~~..c-·

My signature'-===-.....,,_-=====---1--,....,,,...,,,-__;_...;....,,,...,.:.,...;

Today's date: --"'-+---'---'--I'-..,..,___,,....__--'--'-""'"...;..

Thank you for taking the time to review

U:\PLANNlNGMANAGER\PLANNlNGMEMO REV.DOC . . . . FORMS\PtA;NNJNG...... FORMS. . - LATEST EDJTION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING CITY OF BELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The City ofBelvedere Planning l)r;partment Staff Regarding Project Address: ._9_N_o_r_th-".•_P_oi_·n_t....;.C_ir_cl_e ______Project Description: 2 story single residential addition and renovation (seei data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D project proposal

0 plan set

D photographs

D cut sheets

D other documents (specify:;.______,

prepared by David Holscher - Holscher Arch; and dated ----- $ I have no objection to the proposecl improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents.

Other comments: _n__.__-'-'1._.\-"""s<--..;,._\__;._...oo_\<_s;,.____,..:.J1:[_,.o"".~""'-""-'I---. _±_o_-.,=l.L_;_'S__,_, ___

My signature: Today's date:

'I'hcmk you for taking the time to review and commc11t qnyour neighbor's prqjccl. Ir you have any questions, pkasc fed free lo contact us al .tJ.:i5-:·l838.

ll:\PLANNINGMANAGEH\Pl.ANNING.FORMS\:PLANN'JNG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO nEV.DOC . CITY OF BELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: _9_N_o_;rt_h_P_o_i_n-'t_C_irc-'l_e ______Project Description: 2 story single residential addition and renovation (see data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D project proposal

IZI plan set

D photographs

0 cut sheets

0 other documents (specify: ______,

prepared by David Holscher ~ HolscherArch. and dated ----- l1J I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as. shown in the above-referenced documents.

My name is: Jr~ . j)&--?y , and I own the neighboring property at: 7 Al p?,t: (}r c. /< .· ·

~:d:~~:::'_-_ -_ -~,:,='i$2====·=.·:·. ~····-·_··_·.;._··. -··r-·. ·_.·-""'-~--- _ .....

Thank you for laking the time lo review .and con1mcn( on yom neighbor's prqjccl. Ir you have any questions, please fed free lo rnnlact us at 4i~5-:·rna8.

ll:\PtANNINGMANAGEH\PLANNING FORIVIS\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDlTION\NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC ~ ' ,

TQ: The City ofJJetvedere :Plah.nttcg D'i{JJ.'

ProjeytDescdpti~:mf · · . . .·. • .. . . . ; ,·. 2:story·. single :r~~!~e~ntl~i ·~~~.ltio.n.a~~:re~q\f.titlen '.(~~~·_:data'.p~:r3,lar.r$~tt -~~-' -,· ... ·:·: . .,, .. ' ' - ' ' '. :·~ . ' '~ : " :. ; - · ...... '. ','. . · ...... • :·-··..

. I h~ve:teview~4·;th¢ :f.~.Pow~ngfte.nt($)'.: ··-• .· ... ; .. ... -·;._,... ,·. .'·: ..··, .·, ...... ,: .. - . .r: . · lil ·plan set

photogr~phs .... _ tJ •. ,1 ·o cut sheets '

' ' ' ·.:.. . - D other documents. C~pecifY::"""'•. ..,...._ "'""""""....., .. .,,.,..f_.r-· ,· •.;.....-, -"~:.:,...... ___,...,.._=;··.,..;...;,,-...,..- .....:__,,,..---.....:.-·.;.,.;.· .,..,...... ,.,_;....,.;._,,_,...... ,_ ...... -..:.-"""" .. ""'"""') .. . ·...

~i~:e:::~ie.q~::Ko:r;;~;~~li;~p~n0~~e1~~s·.''_ ..... , •.:· s~o=;nd:::ve" ·· ...... teferetieed.4(?:cµfu:~n:ts.:";· - ·· · ·· · •' ' ' ,~ - .-; ... , . . . ~ .•~ ... " . . ·«-~ ..... [I I cfo not-support t:li~:proj~~f·i:\s>sho:Wu}µ.the-.a~oy_e~.r~f¢r~ri¢_ec1 qocume~ts.· · · · · ·, :, ..... Other cql11ments: ,.....,.,-...... ;;__-~-"---·.._. '---.....-.... :,;...;..· -.!..._....._.,-._-' ..... ·_.._.,__..,.______._.....__-.- .....:...,..:,_ ... _,_ , . ' .""!. ~' . . .-· .. .. "' ·.; ...... ~ ; · ·.. My name·is:.·6),.,ds, 'l(,K)c\~t ?;._·._;;:,c:<;~;· · ,;.-~~A~wn?t~~-h~i$fi~~dng·~rop~tty at:. fb·.·_·-~:Qo~~f:--:;~~. -~· :··::_ .. My_.l."~~A,·~~r My .. signature;' ~~ :- :... /\.·'..\ ... ::" ::·.. _·.. .. -.- . Today'~.CJ~t~K .··: ,-".//1 !tie.; ... :.'. d: ..<'·:;.,:.:;·:~ ·. , · .. ·· 111~'/ori for·~~~·l~fh;·i~a~~#iiilcQif~~~1'.~~f4ur >i~l~l~~i·;·1\i6J~d~;.JfY~U;1'i\i¢,a\ly.· · questions, please .feel fi:ee t0:c6ncicr\is:.ai::4~q:aa·~·a< : .· ·~ ·:: " ' · ·: · · · ·, " <: '' ·: ·.. , · · · ··· 1 .. ·-..,,:... : :'' ., . '• • ;··' ' • ~ :.,.,:.,•._,:··.r.-.:.',i... '.•> .. ::.-.::, I;'";.;'.~ :·.,-~' . '·." '.":.-. ,.,. •' .... :···.... , ' ... CITY OF BELVED~ERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: Tlte City ofBelvedere Planning Department Staff Regarding Project Address: 9 North Point Circle Project Description; 2 story single residential addition and renovation {see data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following item(s):

D project proposal

0 plan set

D photographs

D cut sheets

D other documents (specify: ______) prepared by David Holscher - Holscher Arch. and dated ----- !IQ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced doctiments.

My name is: )) Av' I 0 13 '?.J\ A'{ , and I own the neighboring property at: I C rJ • Pd 1 tJ T C. 11\ •

My signature: ~------·--..,..-trd. i....·.----=--- Today's date: f - I t - J b

Thm1k. you for taking the time to review and com1.11cnl on your neighbor's prqjcct. Ir you have any questions, please fod free lo contact us

ll:\PLANN.INGMANAGER\PLANNING FORMSWLANN.JNGFOfrMS. LATEST EDITION\NEIGHl30R NOTICING MEMO REV.DOC CITY OF BELVEDERE NEIGHBOR NOTICING MEMO

TO: The City of Belvedere Plantzing Depqdment Staff Regarding Project Address: _9_N_o_rt_h_•. ·._Po-'-i_n_ti_C_ir_cl_e ______Project Description: 2 story single residenti<:\I addition. and ren9.vation.(see data on plan set)

I have reviewed the following iterri(s}:

D project proposal

0 plan set

D photographs

D cut sheets

D other documents (specify:--'-____,______,, prepared by David Holscher - Holscher Arch. and dated ----- ~ I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above­ referenced documents.

D I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents.

My name is: Mf\1;( ce Q8 :J s, P''.f>Q '" . ' and I own the neighboring property at: '5 T9.£f\~CU:.s. A0t.. •· .. · ... •······· •.. . Mysignature:\fl~~ ·~ Today's date: \ { 11 JI 4 · · .

Thank you for laking the time to review

U:\PL;\NNINGMA~NAGEIHPLANN.ING FORi\'IS\PLANNJNG FORMS. LATEST EDITION\"iEIGllBOR KOTICING MEMO REV.DOC .. DATE: June 1, 2015

TO: City of Belvedere Planning Department

ATTENTION: Irene Borba - City Planner for the City of Belvedere

SUBJECT: Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle

PREPARED BY: Mark Sandoval, AIA

INTRODUCTION

1 On the morning of May 20 h a visit to the subject property was made to correlate the drawings prepared by Holscher Architecture (dated 4/23/15) with the actual conditions found at the site. During this visit, a general examination of the drawings was performed in an effort to evaluate if certain aspects of the project might have an adverse impact on the adjacent neighbors or other properties within the immediate vicinity. Notes and photographs were also taken at the time to assist in the development of the recommendations found at the end of this memorandum.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting to make significant remodeling alterations and room additions in an effort to expand and generally update, the existing contemporary styled home located at 9 North Point Circle. The current home (reportedly constructed in 1958), has a floor area of approximately 3,495 SF. which the applicant wishes to expand to a total floor area of 5,045 SF. The coverage is shown to be 2,860 SF. which will also increase to a total of 3,293 SF.; approximately 1,557 SF. under the maximum allowed under the R-15 Zoning District.

Since the proposed floor area for the new remodeled home exceeds the maximum allowed 30% square footage and a small corner of the existing structure currently encroaches within the required side yard setback (approximately 20.5 inches), the applicant must also be granted a. zoning variance by the city, to be allowed to expand the home in the desired manner illustrated in the proposed drawings.

DESIGN ANALYSIS

20.04.110 Preservation of existing-site conditions.

For the most part the applicant is proposing to retain most of the existing site features including all of the mature trees and established shrubs and bamboo along the side and rear property lines. A third open paved vehicular parking area is proposed to the right of the new garage next to Public Service Easement which will necessitate the removal of the current established shrubbery within this area.

Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle Date: June 1, 2015 Page 1

ATTACHMENT 8 The new driveway, garage, and other paved areas (with the exception of the upper third open parking area and the front patio area to the left side of the main entry below) have all been positioned within the areas of the lot where existing impervious paving is currently located. In doing so the architect has limited visually, the perceivable change to the overall appearance of the home as viewed from the street. With the exception of the new enclosed garage and the third off street parking area most of the remodeling alterations and additions are modest and should fit well within the context of the existing site.

20.04.120 Relationship between structures and the site.

The proposed remodeling improvements and additions mentioned earlier, are generally modest in size and scale and are tastefully integrated so that they harmonize with the building's existing forms. With the exception of the new garage and the modest expansions of the lower and upper floors, the majority of the remodeling alterations and changes to the home are predominately internal; utilizing the existing footprint of the structure.

At the front of the home facing the street the architect has placed a new two car garage and driveway in pretty much the same location as the existing carport however, it has been rotated so that it is now perpendicular and aligns with the front walls of the existing home. A paved walk leads the visitor from the street to a tubular steel set of gates with opaque glass interior panels which have been centered within a 6'-0" height stained cedar wood privacy fence. At each side of this walk, the raised planters are proposed to provide space for new planting material along with the placement of three olive trees as shown on the proposed Vegetation Management/Landscape Plan (Sheet V0.1)

From these gates, to the immediate right a small paved walk provides access to the new garage. Continuing the walk from this area downward to the entrance of the home is a series of paved steps which leads to a front paved patio area that extends along the entire front of the home. Along the upward hill edge of the patio, a series of raised walls with planters are proposed in order to retain the hillside and street above. Incorporated within one of these walls the applicant is proposing a built-in barbeque unit.

From this front patio to the west and along most of the side yard property line, a paved staircase provides the only outside access to the rear yard and existing pool below. The applicant is proposing to retain the current pool but to reconfigure the existing stairs that currently lead from the rear of home to the pool area.

Although these site alterations are clearly identified in the drawings provided, they are vague and don't provide any information as to what building materials or finishes are to be used or how they are to be constructed. In addition, no site development plan has been provided to show just how the surface water runoff and drainage from the new impervious paving areas is to be collected and distributed on the site.

20.04.130 Minimizing bulk and mass.

Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle Date: June 1, 2015 Page2 The proposed remodeling alterations and additions to the home are thoughtfully organized and well placed without appearing to be imposed on the existing home. They utilize simple volumes and forms to achieve architectural interest without drawing excessive attention to them. All roof elements are also kept simple and maintain a proportional relationship with the existing structure.

20.04.140 Materials and colors used.

The architect has selected a complementary material and color palette for the home. With the exception of the raised metal seam roof, most other building finish materials are found in abundance in this neighborhood. It should be stressed that although the standing seam metal roof system may not appear on the other homes in this area, it is an important and integral part of the proposed architectural style of the home. Since the color which is selected is in a dark bronze color finish, the new remodeled home should fit nicely within the rest of the homes on this street.

20.04.150 Fences and screening.

All the proposed fences and gates seem to be constructed of the highest quality materials and are aesthetically attractive. They seem to have been strategically placed to protect the privacy of the adjoining dwellings without obstructing important view corridors.

20.04.160 Privacy.

All windows and other fenestration elements seem to have been strategically placed and have been appropriately sized to be respectful of the privacy of each immediate neighbor. With the exception of the large side window in Bedroom #1 (Lower Floor) which faces the neighboring property to the west, most other windows appear to have very limited impact on the privacy of each neighbor.

20.04.170 Drives, parking and circulation.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new enclosed two car garage and driveway along the front of the home which at a distance from the street that is consistent with other homes in the immediate area. A third paved off street vehicular parking area is also proposed to the right of the new garage. Since there are no public sidewalks along the street in this area, these street alterations should not significantly affect the current pedestrian circulation. In addition, in providing the additional off street vehicular parking area, this would have little if any measurable impacts on the current vehicular traffic flow of the street. ·

20.04.180 Exterior lighting, skvlights and reflectivity.

All proposed exterior lighting that appears on Sheet A0.1 appears to conform with the requirements in this section of the Municipal Code.

Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle Date: June 1, 2015 Page 3 Skylights: There does not appear to be any skylights proposed by the applicant.

20.04.190 Consideration of non-conformities.

Floor Area and Side Yard Variance: As mentioned previously, the applicant is seeking a zoning variance to permit the home to exceed the maximum floor area allowed, and to encroach approximately 20.5 inches into the left side yard setback.

Since only a small corner of the existing home currently projects into the side yard setback at the front of the home, granting a zoning variance for this modest and innocuous nonconforming condition should be relatively straight forward based on other past applications where property owners faced similar existing nonconforming setback irregularities with their homes. As for the floor area variance, further review might be needed by the city to ensure that in granting this additional square footage would not set any special precedent; although it can be argued that the majority of the new floor area requested is placed within the current footprint of the building and is hidden from view.

20.04.200 Landscape plans-Purpose.

The landscape plans although not extensive in detail, appear to show that most of the existing established landscape, mature trees, and shrubs are to be retained. The landscape architect is proposing to add an appropriate assortment of low water use planting material and trees to enhance the current landscaping found at the site.

20.04.210 Landscape plans-Materials.

Most of the proposed landscape material seems to be compatible with the surrounding neighboring properties and seem to be mostly low water demand species; with a mix of fast and slow growing plants. The proposed planting should provide adequate screening for privacy without obstructing the views of the nearby homes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Areas of Possible Concern

Privacy: As mentioned above the window in Bedroom #1 which faces the side yard neighbor to the west may be of some concern. Given its size and close proximity to the immediate neighbor it is my recommendation that the applicant provide additional information if the placement of this window would cause any loss of privacy to the neighboring property even with the dense bamboo screening that currently separates the two neighbors. Even with this intense screening, it is unclear if the illumination from this bedroom space at night might produce some unwanted glare and light pollution because of the window's overall size.

Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle Date: June 1, 2015 Page4 Parking: Generally having more off street vehicular parking is a good thing however in this case; it is my belief that it would seriously change the general character of the streetscape. Most of the homes in this area have driveways that are no greater than 20'-0" in width and have mature and established landscaping and trees placed at each side which helps to screen the home from the street. Since all of the neighbors at the end of the street share the limited parking areas between each driveway for guest and visitor parking the removal of one of these parking areas (to provide the access to the new proposed off street parking area), would disrupt this current shared street parking arrangement. In addition, by the removal of the current established landscaping in this area where the applicant is proposing to create this.area, it would increase the exposure of the new two car garage as viewed from the street and the neighbors directly across the street from the subject property, and significantly change the overall appearance and character of this part of the street.

Pool Equipment: It is important to note that as part of this application the applicant is also proposing to move the current pool equipment to a distance of approximately 3'-0" from the north rear yard property line. It is unclear from the drawings, if the applicant is proposing any acoustical enclosure or blanket that might limit the noise that may be produced from this equipment. It is my recommendation that the applicant provide additional information to ensure that actual sound decibel noise levels generated from this equipment, will meet the permissible general objectives found under Section 8.10.010 of the Municipal Code.

Recognizing that there could be some future minor design alterations made to the current set of plans under consideration for the most part, it is my opinion that the proposed design for the residential project located at 9 North Point Circle generally complies with the design requirements as outlined under Title 20, Architectural & Environmental Design Review, Section 20.04.050 and 20.04.110-20.04.21 O of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code except as noted above.

Design Review Memorandum - 9 North Point Circle Date: June 1, 2015 Page 5 CITY OF BELVEDERE

450 San Rafael A venue '!.. Belvedere, CA 94920 Tel: 415 / 435-3838 '!.. Fax: 415 / 435-0430

Memorandum: Design Review comments from Building Department Date: March 9, 2015

To: Irene Borba, City Planner CC:

From: Eric Banvard, Building Official

Project Location: 9 North Point Circle

Project Description on Design Review application:

Addition and remodel of existing single family residence ... etc.

The Building Department has no comments directly related to the Design Review.

However we do have a comment related to the future submittal for the building permit: 1) As a reminder to the design team, a geotechnical evaluation (soils report) is required for this project due to the steeply sloping topography in the area of construction. (Reference: 2013 CRC R403.l.7)

No other Building Department issues are foreseen at this time, based on the information submitted for Design Review.

Full compliance with the Building Codes will be determined during the thorough plan review process of complete working drawings and documents at time of application for a building permit.

questions or informational needs we are here to help.

Eric Banvard Building Official I Flood Plain Administrator City of Belvedere [email protected]

Page 1of1 MARIN MUNICIPAL ATER DISTRICT

220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169 www.marinwater.org

March 10, 2015 Service No. 34551 Irene Borba City of Belvedere Planning Dept. 450 San Rafael Ave. Belvedere, CA 94920

RE: WATER AVAILABILITY - Single Family Dwelling Assessor's Parcel No.: 060-111-10 Location: 9 North Point Cir, Belvedere

Dear Ms. Borba:

The above referenced parcel is currently being served. The purpose and intent of this service are to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed remodeling and addition to the existing structure, including a new bedroom, two full bathrooms and a 2 car garage, will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property.

Compliance with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation is a condition of water service. Indoor plumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The Code requires a landscape plan, an irrigation plan, and a grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at {415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the District's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org.

Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed as a condition of water service. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415} 945-1558.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (415) 945-1531.

Chris Borj Engineering Technician

CB

recycled recyclable TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TELEPHONE (415) 435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205

RICHARD PEARCE, FIRE CHIEF

TO: BELVEDERE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 4, 2015

FROM: Jessica Power, Fire Marshal

RE: 9 North Point Circle

The propo~ed addition and remodel of the residence at 9 North Point Circle shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD):

1) The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2

2) Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907 .2.1 O

3) The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2

Note: Vegetation plan submitted to City of Belvedere 11/23/15 reviewed. Existing hedge to west of property at street shall be removed if pyrophytic. All other aspects of plan complies and is approved.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans.

cc: file

PROTECTING THE COMMUNITIES OF BELVEDERE AND TIBURON October 29, 2015

City of Belvedere Design Review Comments 9 North Point Circle

City Engineer - Review Comments

Review of the Lin Residence, Addition & Remodel, 9 North Point Circle plans - Stamped "Received, September 28 2015, City of Belvedere":

Should plans be submitted for Building Permit, the following conditions of approval shall be satisfied:

Conditions of Approval:

1. An Encroachment Permit is required for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right of way, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager.

2. An updated Revocable license may be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way and easements.

3. A Geotechnical Investigation is required. The geotechnical investigation should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review and approve the Civil Engineered proposed Grading & Drainage Plans.

4. The project will require a detailed Grading Plan & Drainage Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer showing cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County. This can be found at the following website: (http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/Files/Depa rtments/PW /mcstoppp/GuidanceforApplica ntsv 2508.pdf).

5. The proposed closed conduit systems, shown on the plan as 4" solid & perforated pipes (as shown on the application for design review - Sheet A0.6 - Proposed Site Drainage), shall be minimized to allow as much runoff to drain overland through bio-swales or bio-planters before entering the proposed Outlet Dissipater.

6. The size, layout, elevations and contours for the proposed storm drain outlet dissipater location shall be designed by a registered civil engineer.

7. The proposed drain outlet dissipater location shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to building permit approval due to the steep hillside location.

8. The proposed drainage pipes shall not be located within the 10' Public Service Easement. City Engineer Review Comments - 9 North Point Circle October 28, 2015 Page 2 of 2

9. The proposed olive tree (as shown on the application for design review - Sheet V0.1- Proposed Vegetation Management/Landscape Plan) shall not be within the existing Public Service Easement (PSE).

10. Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by City of Belvedere municipal code Section 8.36.090 D., permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual.

11. The project will require a Utility Plan (if not shown on the Site Plan) showing the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, irrigation, gas, electrical, telephone, cable TV, etc.

12. The project will require an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects (http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/"'/media/Files/Depa rtments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009.pdf)

End of comments.