BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5. REPORT DATE: 7/13/2012 MEETING DATE: 7117/2012 REPORT WRITTEN BY: Pierce Macdonald, Planning Manager REPORT·REVIEWED BY: Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney \ SUBJECT: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Second Unit, Revocable License LOCATION: 16 Eucalyptus Road OWNER: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust APPLICANT: Sutro Architects ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolutions 4. June 19, 2012 Staff Report 2. Applications (with attachments) 3. Project Plans 5. Willis Land Surveying a. June 6, 2012 Plans Letter, dated July 2, 2012 b. July 12, 2012 Revisions 6. Correspondence received after June 19, 2012
CEQA STATUS: Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion APPROVAL Application accepted as complete on May 31, 2012. City action DEADLINE: must be taken by July 30, 2012 or the project may be deemed approved. ZONING: R-15 Single Family Residential, Belvedere Island ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED EXISTING PROPOSED Lot Area 15,000 23,401 s.f. No Change (24,451 s.f. total) Lot Coverage 30% 11.6% 19.2% - incl. decks 50% 11.6% 20.2% Total Floor Area 4,850 s.f. 2,658 s.f. 5,874 s.f. Front yard Setback Garage2 O' 12' 13' Residence 15' 28' 23' Side yard Setback (left) 10' 31.5' 12' Side yard Setback (right) Garage O' NIA 15' Residence 10' 63' 18' Rear yard Setback 20' 67' 58' Building Height1 36' 32' 36' Building Average < 28' < 28' <28' Parking Spaces 2 (+l for Second Unit) 2 3
1Where the average slope on the building site of a lot is thirty percent or more, a height of thirty-six feet is permitted. (BMC 19.56.060) 2Where the slope of the property exceeds 20% within the first 40 feet of the front property line, a garage may have a 0-foot setback. (BMC 19.48.190.F) Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a 24,451-square-foot, steeply down-sloping lot on Belvedere Island. The site is characterized by a failing single-family residence and mature Eucalyptus, Acacia, Cedar, and Oak trees. The existing residence has been uninhabitable for many years. A view easement belonging to the property at 14 Eucalyptus Road is located on the northwesterly side of the property. A road easement and approximately 1,050 square feet of Eucalyptus Road (a public roadway maintained by the City of Belvedere) encroach onto the property. The new property owners have filed applications with the City of Belvedere Planning Department to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence. On March 20, 2012, the City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister filed a report about the proposed design. The Tiburon Fire Protection District also reviewed the plans and the Fire Marshal's comments were forwarded to the project's design team on April 19, 2012. The proposed plans were revised to address many comments raised in the Fire Marshal's report and MacAllister's report, as well as to respond to the neighbor outreach conducted by the project's design team. The Fire Marshal's and Consulting Architect's reports are included in Attachment 4.
On June 19, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider applications for Demolition, Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License. The staff report prepared for the item was supportive of the proposed architectural design, colors and materials. The staff report explained that early comments from the Fire District regarding the proposed landscaping had not yet been addressed by the project designers. For these reasons, staff was unable to recommend approval because landscaping would be integral to the consideration of privacy, lighting and screening of the new residence. Staff also noted the correspondence received about the project from residents at 18 Eucalyptus Road, 14 Eucalyptus Road (residents and property owners), 77 Belvedere A venue, 29 Eucalyptus Road, 127 Golden Gate Avenue, and 17 Eucalyptus Road. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took public comment from the owners of 18 Eucalyptus Road, 29 Eucalyptus Road, and 26 Eucalyptus Road, and from Michael Heckman, an architect representing the property owners at 14 Eucalyptus Road. Most of the speakers praised the proposed architectural and landscaping design. The owners of numbers 18, 29, and 14 Eucalyptus Road raised concerns regarding light spillover, privacy, view obstructions, story poles, bulk and mass, narrowing of view corridors, and the colors and materials of the privacy screen. After the close of the public hearing, the Commissioners discussed the applications. They complimented the design and noted the importance of the Fire Marshal's review of the landscape plan. Most Commissioners directed the applicant to address the privacy wall facing 18 Eucalyptus Road and to continue to meet with adjacent property owners. At the close of the item, the Planning Commission directed staff to return to the July 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting with draft resolutions of approval. On June 26, 2012, Planning Commission Chairman Campbell and City staff met with the architect and landscape architect to review the Commission's direction. The design team representatives questioned staff and Chairman Campbell about the meeting. Staff noted the concerns regarding headlights directed toward 14 Eucalyptus Road, questions related to the effectiveness and design of the privacy screen, and the removal of additional trees in response to Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page 3 the Fire District's requirements. Staff suggested that the design team continue to meet with adjacent property owners and increase the number and sizes of proposed new trees. Staff noted the large amounts of glass and asked the design team to address questions related to light spillover and glare, including light projecting outward from the interior of the home.
On June 27, 2012, staff visited the property at 14 Eucalyptus-~oad. Staff noted the closeness of the proposed Second Unit and Carport to the deck of the residence there and the way that the existing path of travel directs the view from 14 Eucalyptus Road toward the new structures. Staff also noted that a large multi-trunk tree not identified on the plans will be removed at the footing of the new Carport and Second Unit.
One July 12, 2012, Chairman Campbell and City staff met with the property owner of 18 Eucalyptus Road and Architect Ron Wager to review changes proposed by the project design team. The property owner expressed concern regarding the privacy impacts to the guest house, entry and courtyard windows from the proposed deck at 16 Eucalyptus Road, which would not be screened by the proposed privacy wall. He expressed that the proposed landscaping would be inadequate to ensure privacy into the future. The property owner requested that the privacy wall height be increased by 18 to 24 inches to maintain privacy and screen light spillover; that the width of the privacy wall be extended toward Belvedere A venue by 18 to 24 inches to better screen the deck from the guest house and entry at 18 Eucalyptus Road; and that the surface of the deck at 16 Eucalyptus Road be replaced with a material such as a buiit-in landscape planter, "green roof' landscape area, a shallow water feature, etc., to limit gathering and entertaining in close proximity to the bedroom at 18 Eucalyptus Road. These suggestions were transmitted to the project design team later that day.
PROJECT ANALYSIS At this time the applicants have revised portions of the plans, including new sheets for the story pole plan, site plan, elevations, and landscape plans. The accuracy of the story poles was certified by Willis Professional Land Surveying on July 2, 2012. The project applicants continue to request Planning Commission review and approval of applications for Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Second Unit, and Revocable License. The staff report prepared for the June meeting (Attachment 4) described the Demolition, Second Unit, and Revocable License in detail. The following staff report addresses the landscaping and other changes in regards to the other requested entitlements.
DESIGN REVIEW The project architects continue to propose a two-story, 5,874-square-foot residence in a Contemporary architectural style. The new home would provide four bedrooms, three full bathrooms and a half-bath, as well as a study, gym, and independent second dwelling unit. The project's landscape designer proposes a comprehensive landscape plan to replace the existing mature stands of Eucalyptus, Cedar and Acacia trees and French Broom shrubs that would be removed. Four, 36-inch-box evergreen Strawberry Trees (Arbutus marina) would be planted in addition to evergreen trees and shrubs in 15 gallon sizes. The project's design team also proposes additional plantings of deciduous trees and shrubs including Ninebark, Western Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page4
Redbud, Kousa Dogwood, and Currant. Exterior landscape lighting consists of path lights and louvered wall lights at the proposed driveway wall. A 5-foot-tall fence consisting of free standing steel rods similar to the design at 17 Eucalyptus Road is proposed along the front of the property, and a 6-foot-tall cable rail fence is proposed along the sides and rear of the property. Project revisions in response to the Planning Commission direction submitted after the June 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting include the following: 1. A solid balustrade is shown adjacent to the car court on Sheets Al.2 D, A2.1D, and A2.4D. Staff supports this change and recommends that the number and size of plantings between the carport and 14 Eucalyptus Road be increased to provide an attractive feature and screen the cars and headlights in this area. Staff notes that no design has been proposed for the new vehicle gate at the driveway. Staff recommends that the final gate design be reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission Chairman and Planning Manager prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. The design of the privacy wall facing 18 Eucalyptus Road has been revised on Sheet AS.ID. The previously proposed black steel elements and random pattern have been replaced by a 5-inch-wide dark hardwood boards over a steel frame, similar to the treatment of the wall facing 14 Eucalyptus Road. Staff supports this change. The privacy wall has been included on the story pole plan. In addition, the applicant has provided Privacy Diagrams (Sheets PDOI and PD02) to indicate the site lines from the windows facing 18 Eucalyptus Road as they relate to the proposed privacy wall. The diagrams show how the privacy wall would partially screen the proposed windows from the courtyard, entrance and guest house of 18 Eucalyptus Road. The proposed deck at 16 Eucalyptus Road would not be screened from 18 Eucalyptus Road. Staff recommends that the Commission condition the project on the suggestions made by the property owner of 18 Eucalyptus Road on July 12, 2012. Staff recommends that the height and width of the privacy wall be increased by 24 inches and that the first 4 feet of the proposed rear deck surface at 16 Eucalyptus Road consist of a built-in landscape or water feature. 3. Two additional trees are shown as being removed on Sheet L4.0, south of the residence. These two trees are identified in the Tree Study prepared by Arborscience as 24-inch diameter Incense Cedars. Staff notes that after the French Broom, trees, and other plants are removed on the site per the proposed plans, the residence at 16 Eucalyptus Road may be very exposed to properties on Belvedere A venue. The removal of this screening may increase potential impacts related to light spillover, privacy and building mass. Staff recommends the planting of larger specimens between the master bedroom wing and Belvedere A venue in areas that would be outside of the view easement and also in the area between 16 and 18 Eucalyptus Road. Staff notes that the proposed Ceanothus ('Cliff Schmidt') reaches a maximum height of 15 to 20 feet. Additional taller Oak trees instead of some of the Ceanothus on the lower slope would benefit the project in the opinion of staff. Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page 5
4. The feeling of exposure at 14 Eucalyptus Road to the wall of the master bedroom and southwest-facing windows at 16 Eucalyptus Road was apparent to staff during the site visit conducted on June 27, 2012. The revised Sheet L4.2 indicates the removal of some of the Toyon trees previously proposed adjacent to the Second Unit. In addition, the revised plans indicate a new 48-inch-box size Azara microphylla tree at the comer of the master bedroom wing, at a point 35 feet lower than the street level (adjacent to story pole Bl shown as the tallest story pole in the photo below). According to Sunset Western Garden Book, Azara microphylla grows slowly to 12 to 18 feet tall and 8 to 12 feet wide and requires partial shade. Staff supports a new tree in this location. However, as shown in the photograph below, the new master bedroom wall would be over 35 feet tall. Staff recommends a taller and faster growing evergreen tree for this location, such as Podocarpus gracilior,, which may grow as tall as 20 to 60 feet and 10 to 20 feet wide and can be easily pruned and shaped.
5. The planting plan on Sheet L4.1 had been revised to show a 48-inch-size Strawberry Tree adjacent to the edge of the proposed new deck and the property line shared with 18 Eucalyptus Road. Other plantings in this area include 15-gallon-size Garrya eliptica which grow to a height of 20 feet tall. In addition to the new tree, staff recommends two larger plant sizes in this area to provide more immediate screening. An Oak tree may be a harmonious choice as the adjacent property also has Oaks in this area and several Oaks exist on the site. Design Review Findings: Pursuant to Section 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, there should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page6
natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. Landscaping should include elements to soften and screen structures as viewed from off-site locations, and lighting should be controlled to avoid glare and spillover. The City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister has recommended that the proposed architectural design is in substantial compliance with the Design Review Ordinance. With the conditions included in the draft Resolutions (Attachment 1) , staff recommends approval.
EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 5,874-square-foot (total) residence where a 2,658-square-foot residence exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is a ratio of .33 to the lot area or 4,850 square feet for properties over 15,000 square feet. The applicant requests an exception of 1,024 square feet of floor area. The proposed FAR would be 24% on this very large site. Pursuant to Belvedere Municipa'l Code section 19.52.120(A), in order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area, the Planning Commission must make each of the following fmdings: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area; c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The following table provides a comparison of surrounding properties to the subject proposal.
Table 1, Sizes and FARs of Residences* within a 100-Foot Radius Number Address Size/Lot FAR 1. 81 Belvedere Avenue 2,570 s.f. I 18,270 s.f. 0.14 2. 67 Belvedere Avenue 6,325 s.f. I 31, 730 s.f. 0.20 3. 77 Belvedere A venue 3,446 s.f. I 23,114 s.f. 0.15 4. 127 Golden Gate Avenue 5,539 s.f. I 20,320 s.f. 0.27 5. 129 Golden Gate Avenue 5,679 s.f. I 20,735 s.f. 0.27 6. 17 Eucal votus Road 6,611 s.f. I 24,108 s.f. 0.27 7. 14 Eucalyptus Road 4,052 s.f. I 18,204 s.f. 0.22 8. 12 Eucalyptus Road 5,241 s.f. I 28,658 s.f. 0.18 9. 18 Eucalyptus Road 3,653 s.f. I 23,808 s.f. 0.15 Averae:eFAR 0.20 (E) 2,658 s.f./24,451 s.f. 0.11 10. 16 Eucalyptus Rd. (P) 5,874 s.f./24,451 s.f. 0.24 Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page 7
*Approved per County Records In staffs opinion, privacy would be maintained and primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the proposed floor area. The majority of the proposed project would be constructed below the roadway and the homes along Eucalyptus Road have staggered street setbacks which maximize views and privacy among neighboring residences. The project's design team worked diligently with staff to maintain a view corridor of Sausalito between the carport wing and main living area and a view corridor over the proposed carport. The Golden Gate Bridge would remain visible to adults walking past the proposed carport and many individuals would continue to see portions of the waters of San Francisco Bay. Furthermore, additional square footage from the proposed project will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, since the project includes permanent physical screening of proposed windows and decks and provides side setbacks that exceed the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff believes that there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, such as the unusually large size of the property, and the opportunities it affords to install layered landscape screening, with few negative impacts to adjacent properties. Portions of the requested floor area are located on the exterior of the residence, beneath covered decks. Additionally, the proposed FAR of 24% may be found to be appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district because other homes in the vicinity have similar floor area to lot size ratios. The proposed floor area is not associated with an increased demand for parking or vehicle trips. A portion of the requested floor area would be dedicated to a second dwelling unit located on the lower level of the residence in conformance with the goals of the City's Housing Element. Lastly, staff notes that the proposed project does not require the granting of Variances for any nonconforming design elements. As conditioned, staff can make the findings that the project is consistent with the Design Review Ordinance and supports the Exception to Total Floor Area.
CORRESPONDENCE A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Copies of the correspondence received by staff at or prior to the June 19, 2012 meeting are included as Attachment 4. Correspondence received after June 19, 2012 is included as Attachment 6.
RECOMMENDATION MOTION: To adopt the draft Resolution granting Demolition Permit, Second Unit and Design Review for the demolition of an existing 2,658-square-foot residence and construction of a new 5,874-square-foot residence, carport, second unit apartment, fences, decks, driveway gate, privacy wall, exterior lighting and landscaping at 16 Eucalyptus Road, as conditioned. Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust July 17, 2012 Page 8
MOTION: To adopt the draft Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow a 5,874-square-foot residence where 4,850 square feet is permitted and 2,658 square feet exists at 16 Eucalyptus Road. MOTION: To recommend City Council approval of Revocable Licenses for private improvements within the public right-of-way adjacent to 16 Eucalyptus Road. CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DEMOLITION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SECOND UNIT APPROVAL TO REMOVE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,874-SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AT 16 EUCALYPTUS ROAD
WHEREAS, proper applications have been submitted for Demolition, Design Review, and Second Unit to demolish an existing 2,658-square-foot residence and to construct a new 5,874- square-foot residence, including carport, second unit apartment, fences, decks, driveway gate, privacy wall, exterior lighting and landscaping, at 16 Eucalyptus Road; and WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the requested applications on June 19, 2012 and July 17, 2012; 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 Demolition provisions specified in Chapter 16.28 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (B.M.C.), Second Unit provisions of Section 19.78.050 B.M.C. and Design Review criteria specified in Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.210 B.M.C. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant Demolition, Design Review, and Second Unit approvals to demolish an existing 2,658-square-foot residence and to construct a new 5,874-square-foot residence, including carport, second unit apartment, fences, decks, driveway gate, privacy wall, exterior lighting and landscaping, at 16 Eucalyptus Road, 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 of Fearon Hay Architects, Ltd., stamped received by the City of Belvedere on June 6, 2012 and sheets Al.5D, Al.2 D, A2.1D, A2.4D, A5.1D, LO.O, L4.0, L4.1, L4.2, PDOl and PD 02 stamped received by the City of Belvedere on July 12, 2012, unless modified herein. c) The applicant shall amend the design of the proposed privacy screen to show that it is 24 inches taller and extends south by an additional 24 inches, while meeting required setbacks. The applicant shall also amend the design of the rear deck to indicate a built in landscape or water feature in place of the first 4 feet of the main level deck, across the width of the deck, in the area closest to the bedroom of 18 Eucalyptus Road. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the final designs shall be filed with the City of Belvedere for the review and approval of the Commission Chairman and Planning Manager and story poles shall be constructed to represent the new privacy wall size and location. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road July 17, 2012 Page 2 d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a final landscape plan for the review and approval of the Commission Chairman, Tiburon Fire Protection District and Planning Manager. The final landscape plan shall indicate the design and dimensions of the proposed driveway gate. The final landscape plan shall include a taller evergreen tree to replace the proposed Azara microphylla. The final landscape plan shall include the addition of larger tree specimens, including one 48-inch-box fast-growing tree in the areas between the carport and entry deck of 14 Eucalyptus Road, two 48-inch-box fast-growing trees or Oak trees between the proposed residence and the entry courtyard at 18 Eucalyptus Road, and three 36-inch-box Oak trees between the master bedroom wing/dining room and the Belvedere A venue public right-of-way. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a refundable landscape deposit of 1% of the project valuation shall be remitted to the City of Belvedere as guarantee of the successful completion of approved project landscaping within the Construction Time Limit Ordinance requirements (Section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code). The final landscape plan shall include tree protection measures per the recommendations of ArborScience. e) All Public Works Department requirements shall be met. A final stormwater plan and site drainage plan shall be prepared by the project civil and structural engineers for the review and approval of the City of Belvedere City Engineer. The drainage plan shall include layout and outfall locations, including driveway profile, car court section and site sections. Energy dissipater shall be installed on Belvedere Avenue to the City's specifications. The stormwater plan shall show how run-off will be held and treated pursuant to the MCSJOPPP Guidelines for Applicants. Prior to work on any public land, the applicant or property owner shall obtain a Revocable License, lease, or equivalent legal instrument as determined by the City Council for all existing and proposed private improvements within the public right-of-way. f) Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained prior to commencing work in the City right-of-way, as required by the Public Works Manager. Obstruction or blockage, partial 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, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance is required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets will be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each work day. g) All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Soffit lighting over the decks and at the front elevation must be shielded so that the source of these lights is not visible from off-site locations. A final lighting plan shall be filed for the review of the Planning Commission Chairman and Planning Manager. Subsequent Design Review may be required on the type, number and location of proposed exterior lighting. h) Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction is prohibited on certain holidays. Written exceptions to the days and hours of construction may be considered by and obtained from the City Manager. i) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation, and final testing shall be reviewed and approved by the District Fire Code Official. Smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road July 17, 2012 Page 3 j) The plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be reviewed for conformance with the approved Planning Commission plans. These Conditions of Approval shall be printed On the Building Permit construction plan set of drawings. k) Design Review approvals expire eighteen (18) months from the date of approval unless extended in writing by City staff. 1) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Staging Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Public Works Manager and Police Chief. The general contractor shall submit a Construction Staging Plan, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles and timing and coordination necessary for the removal of trees and planting of new trees. The Staging Plan may include a bond to guarantee the protection and/or repair of the roadway. m) All Building Department requirements shall be met. Plans--'submitted for Building Permit must conform to the requirements of the 2010 Residential Code and the mandatory measures of the 2010 California Green Building Code. The slate roof must comply with California Energy Standards section 151(F)12 and California Residential Code section R905.6 (4 to 12 minimum slope). The applicant or property owners shall provide to the Building Department a report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Prior to completion of the project, the applicant or property owner shall obtain an address for the new second unit from the Building Department. The Building Department will notify all utility providers of the new address. Dwelling units shall be separated as required per California Residential Code section R302.3 and R302.4. n) Applicants shall comply with all requirements of all utility providers including, the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), Sanitary District 5, and PG&E. a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of MMWD for water service prior to project final, including compliance with any applicable MMWD landscape ordinance, backflow prevention requirements, and testing requirements. Prior to project final, the project landscape professional shall certify that the landscaping and irrigation were installed in accordance with the approved plans. b. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain and satisfy any conditions required by the utility provider for utility connections to the second unit. Water meter connection fee may be reduced by the Marin Municipal Water District if the applicant agrees to limit rental income for a period of time speCified by the Water District. o) The property owner and future property owners shall be responsible for any federal, state or local taxes applicable to the second unit.
p) Prio~ to the start of construction, all property lines shall be staked by a licensed surveyor. Prior to inspection of the foundation forms, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a survey of the corners of the residence, and prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an elevation survey indicating the height of the new residence at all roof ridges and eaves and decks. All surveys shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and provided to the Planning Department for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant must 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. Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road July 17, 2012 Page 4
q) The project colors and materials are integral to the Design Review approval for this project. Prior to commencement of stone work, the applicant or property owner shall prepare a 3- foot-square sample of the stone veneer for the review and approval of the Planning Commission Chairman and Planning Manager. , r) Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant must obtain public liability and property damage insurance, naming the City as an additional insured, pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 16.28.060. s) Construction shall be complete within eighteen (18) months pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.035 or shall be subject to significant penalties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on July 17, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: RECUSED:
APPROVED:
ATTEST: James Campbell, Chairman
Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road Exhibit A DEMOLITION FINDINGS The following sections are edited versions of Section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Demolition Findings. In order for an application to be approved, the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria. 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 is a 2,658-square-foot single family residence and associated decks, driveway, and fences on the property. The applicant will be required to meet the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department. As conditioned, obstruction or blockage, partial 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, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance is required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets will be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each work day. As conditioned, existing drainage structures and facilities will not be demolished without prior written approval from the City Engineer. The demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed. Staff has found no evidence of historic events, historic people, or significant architectural style associated with the residence. Therefore, the proposed demolition would not remove a building of historical or architectural significance.
The demolition plan presented by the applicant provides adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The proposed demolition will be required to meet the requirements of the Building Department. The applicant must address soil erosion, drainage requirements, and off-hauling of debris with the Building Department.
The time frame for the demolition is reasonable. The time frame for the demolition is estimated at three weeks for the residence and associated structures.
Preserve the number of housing units that exist in Belvedere. The proposed demolition is consistent with this Housing Element goal as the existing residence shall be replaced with a new residence on the subject property. Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road Exhibit A Page 2
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Design Review Criteria. In order for a design review application to be approved, the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria. 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 project will retain all trees acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Grading is minimized and estimated to be 15 to 20 truckloads over one week. Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. The design minimizes the impression of bulk and relates to the site by buildings into the slope, providing view corridors between building elements, and articulating the wall and roof elements.
Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings which 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 design minimizes the impression of bulk by breaking up the planes of the exterior walls with changes in wall direction, a rhythmic pattern of fenestration and doors, and other architectural details. The new building has been designed to relate 'to and fit in with the others in the neighborhood and is not designed to attract attention.
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 areas of wood siding, stone, decks, trim, windows and doors, as well as the proposed landscape features, add visual interest and architectural variety. Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impact, that blend with the existing land form and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone range are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road Exhibit A Page 3
The applicant proposes a paint scheme of white stone, dark hardwood sarking, slate roofing, and black trim. Because of the landscaping on the property and the generous distance separating 16 Eucalyptus Road, adjacent residences and Belvedere Avenue, the proposed colors and materials will blend with the existing landform and layered vegetative cover.
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. The applicant proposes a new vehicle gate and 5-foot-tall fencing to clearly mark the entrance to the property. The proposed structures will screen the entrance to the home and not significantly block views.
Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. As conditioned, the location of new windows and doors will not cause privacy impacts between adjoining dwellings because enhanced landscaping and expansion of the proposed privacy wall will maintain privacy.
Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off- street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. The parking area and entry gate have been designed to minimize interference with traffic flow. The vehicle and pedestrian paths of travel will be in harmony with the design of the proposed residence 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 colored exterior lenses. The finding above can be made because, as conditioned, exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.
Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities. The proposed construction is not associated with existing or proposed nonconformities. Resolution No. 2012- 16 Eucalyptus Road Exhibit A Page4
Landscape plans. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters. As conditioned, the landscape plan is compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native and natural appearing vegetation are 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. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. As conditioned, a variety of shrubs and trees are proposed at building features, all sides of the residence, and along Belvedere A venue to the south to soften and screen the appearance of the residence. C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings. As conditioned, a variety of shrubs and trees are proposed at building features, all sides of the residence, and along Belvedere Avenue to the south to provide privacy to the subject residence and neighboring residences.
D. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to repair, reseed and/or replant disturbed areas to prevent erosion.
Landscape plans include appropriate planting to repair, reseed and/or replant disturbed areas to prevent erosion. An erosion control plan will be required by the Building Department.
E. 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. As conditioned the final landscape plan shall include a mix of fast and slowing growing trees and shrubs, including a range of specimen sizes.
F. 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. As conditioned, water-efficiency requirements of the water utility provider shall be met. CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE PERMITTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 19.52.115 (MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA) OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 EUCALYPTUS ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 5,874 square feet where 2,658 square feet exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 16 Eucalyptus Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the requested Exception on June 19, 2012 and July 17, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code: a) That primary views from adjacent properties as well as from the street are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because the majority of the proposed project would be constructed below the roadway and the homes along Eucalyptus Road have staggered street setbacks which maximize views and privacy among neighboring residences; b) That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, such as the unusually large size of the property, and the opportunities it affords to install layered landscape screening, with few negative impacts to adjacent properties; c) That the proposed living space is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meets all Design Review criteria, as conditioned; and d) That the additional square footage will not reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties because, as conditioned, the project includes permanent physical screening of proposed windows and decks and provides side setbacks that exceed the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere, does hereby grant an Exception from the requirements of Section 19 .52.115. of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 5,874 square feet where 2,658 square feet exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 16 Eucalyptus Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on July 17, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED: RECUSED: ATTEST: James Campbell, Chairman
Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT CIT\' OF BF.LVEDEIU: • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL~\ VE • BEINEDERI~, CA 949i0-2336 Pn. 4 i 5-435-383'8 • FAX 415-435-0430 • "\vw\v~crfrOFllELVEDERE.ORG
Date: 2-Zo-f"J__ Rec'd. by: AJ~ Amountf'~ Receipt No.: '2f3 -"ii:.,""- Address of Property: I lo Bl tJ\:I· Y.p[Cb (2.0 • Type of Property: ,SJN.vAG 17ttl1.tLY lZC-siDEN.Ct-· Et- SEC.OMD \ tNTI .. Record Owner of Property: /fa·. a 2[A{...YPlt& 120A:E> ff<..1.5(: Mailing ({1JB.L1tt.:\fPfl4 £2.()f\[)_ Daytime Phone: e+i) S3J -{k) 0~ Address: BtL:~, CA Fax:------=---- 5(f-~~ ...... Email: ~flJ.,U-L /~ .~ owner~epre~ntative: &?ct2a' ffPLtHTPC.[5 I=~f~r'&fu ~~Sh. l.on1 . Mailing .q /S;r BttJ.Te!?i S.'1., td:floaytime'Phone: L}lS '19o 3<..JJ+S Address: ~ fl?lrNOSt:ii CAi Cf-H.l ( Fax: Lf '5 CJS{p ~ ------·---- Email: ,[email protected]:WtlV-Cl-iitea.&s<=h Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: ....z__, 1_(6::;..,,.o;...... 8..__S::.:•-1-f_._· ------ 1. Name of demolition contractor an<;I state.contractor license number: :f· g .p ~ 2. Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: SFG 3. Size, locatior:i, and duration for debr'is.boxes·to be placed on City streets: __\'------ 4. Route(s). to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: ----'-'------ Demolition Permit'Application • Page I of 2 • City of Belvedere U:\pl:mnin9manngef\?101U1in9 Fonm>\Pu\.NNIN9 FO~!·~S ~LATEST ED!j1~NW.PL16ATI~N FOR 0£M,OtfTION PERMIT.doc Rev. 9f23120M LC AITACHMENT 2- Project Address: I lo 6tJC/rLYPTv!------5. Sizeffype of trucks used to haul demolition material: ------ 6. Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: ------ 7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed: 8. Period of time demolition is expected to take:------9. Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in conjunction with the demolition:------10. Erosion, sedimentation, and /or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: _____ 11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished:------ 12. Year building to be demolished was constructed: ------13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any: 14. Other: Note: The demolition contractor will be required to provide the City with a certificate of worker's compensation insurance and may be. required to post a bond. The contractor must also secure a City of Belvedere business license before the actual demolition permit can be issued. by the Building Official. I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the demolition permit requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief ~ ...... ~ ~---- ""' ..1. Signature: /_,,.---- -~ 2> ,,,; ~~ Name: ~~06 Mtr~QV\6 Date: 3/wfio12 Project.Address: I~ fVOtLVITt J<; =RD APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CIT\' OF BELVEDERE • Pt;\1'NING.COMMISSION 450 SAN ll,._1;,\Et Av[·• BE~,\;EDERE, CA 94920-2336 rn. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435..:0430 • w\vW.CIT\'OJi°1rnLVEDERE.Ol~G . ' Date: 't-2£)-/L · Rec'd. by: _._#--"S/'f____ _ Planning Coi:nm. Approval ~ Design Review Exception D Amount: $')._s S-0 - Receipt No.:~ l.. O Staff Approval D /)/o_. //., - Parcel No.: _(..../=-_j<.e;____ r_ i<..,-'---<-- ___._'---- IP Zone: ____.:..,;2.._l_f ______ Does this project have an active building permit? N~ ~ Yes D Permit No.:---- Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No~ Yes D . Address of Property: (fr? EUC/tL \f PD/<;. J\OA{) - . Record Owner.of Property: l fe'BJCA--1 yp0/S Ro&Q Ti..;.c·f={~J-SI~--- Mailing (fp EUCJtLYPDJ~ 'ROA-D · Daytime Phone: ( 311) 3'a3- 5{06'0 Address: J:2A. VffietZE/¥\·. Fax:,.: ~ctll"'G.-wilkiASOO @.mY'l .U!Jrvl Email: 5fr1J;_;mtl·(fl U~@ W\S.n . U)Yl • Owner's Representative: Slff120 M ( #1 Texr~ \ · Mailing 41 s BATie RY· Sf. ( s.t· -:A . Daytime Phone: 4 ,, s . '1 'SC.P 3 4-'f-0 . Address: r Fax: 4 I 5 · 1 S f...t; 'S'-f S TOC2Y tnoifJ?I\/ S.T\fl.£ ,SJN(a\ e. ~A-mrLY µes.1 tef\.i-c:e w I ~em, --:wve:tZED 3-Cltf2.. cove..:r. I NC4@o. .ut1f;p ON. L.()wef?.. f.::6Je:L A- LOW I k.JWMO. 'Z1'l D Vt\)rI1NITH-1J.~Qf5Pe-Nf>F:NTeJJUA:N'C:e A=ND tPtteKfN0 ~· J.Ja.u f f.fi0blrl(oU£.F:f) i.ANDS£frPl~ DeTAI LED ltS .PeL I A:N·oscA:FE:= Pt.A-MS. DesighReviewApplication •Page I of9 •City of Belvedere U:\plnnning·mnnagcr\Plnnriing Foriris\PLANNING {ORMS - LA TI:ST EDITION\APPLICA TJON mR DESIGN REVIEW re\' 1-11 ·I I ,doc Project Address: llu 8i(ld.'frt\JS ~AP ZONING PARAMETERS: Required Existing Pro~osed Lot Area ...... \~.000 24l4S"I 24/fS"I Lot Coverage ...... _,D 0/o 7r;o0/o 1,&3CQ 1,00ftJ /1244 Total Floor Area ...... 4, ~S"O 2, '7S"9 s;1~1 Front Yard Setback .... l)'-o'' l3'~o II 23' ~S"'' Left Sideyard Setback ~) 1 to'-o" -41'-4'' 11'-1 ' Right Sideyard Setback~) 10 1-0 11 ~2 1-6'' IS-1-~" 1 11 Rear Yard Setback ..... 1~1 -0'' (or;'-2'' b7 -s- Building Height Maximum ... gb'-o'' 3J'-'f'' 3 s-'- S-'' Building Height Average ... ? 2ftJ 1-111 SO Ljlh, 11 · Parking Spaces ...... '2. 1- 3 'J.,O/tO/Z, .. (To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: ----=-'--=-'------() 3/ General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: ..['f;~G6 lv1/tft@l!l!S AND J'Afli Yfl'vll~/NfcN 2. Address of project: (loeuo+lYPru.J f?.oltD 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: 1i f." qS-f?.3'{4S NEPHEN .fvTRO) Sur?-o ~~t-f rrt;crs{ q IS' /5Arr6f. y Si; JS+Fl-~$ ot-11111 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 prWct, including those required by city,._regional, state and federal agencies: D™tJlm {JN ~Mt LFi?~ fX/ITI Nb ffY.SE 6. E~~ngzoningdi~rici:~~---'-~------~---~---~-~-~-~ 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): .f'r Nh(E rltM IL y ~GS IOCN~ R-3 tS'ElolJD VNIT 8. Year built: VN/ Design Review Application • Page 2 of 9 • City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc Project Address: \ (() 6XA\)f PWS POM 14. Proposed scheduling. fuiTV.?.~ ~ON -127 tJlOORti ~/~NI Nb fXT{)~ 'JOfZ . 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. __._N....,O'-N....:.....E_.______ 16. Anticipated incremental development. _,Nc...:.O:..c.N6--=---·~-\-~=f;_le_~;___: __ -______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$,..'-?, ,$\tJwlEfAMIW ~~\n:;NTlf\~ +it"COND VNIT- 18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. --'-'"+4"'------19. If the project involves a varia ce, conditional u the application is required. ---4..l!Vu,p.<....µL.L!.~..:..···...L..l....JL..l~-L:::..::..::.....L___!_.U...::~~~~....:...:..:~:1...... ------ Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of D ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. D 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. D 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing D drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ~Lof'e ~ lfl?fll4)( · t./(/ 1o. Jr 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or D explosives. 29. Subsianiiai change in demand for municipai services (poiice, fire, water, sewage, etc.). D 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D 32. Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value. D 33. Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. D Environmental Setting 34. 35. Design Review Application• Page 3of9 •City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-10.doc Project Address: l\o t\!A'WPWS fOft-D For Design Review applications not requiring a building 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: $._?:J_.'L_-_~_. S_M_l_L_u_o_tJ ______Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project: D 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. 'Is- 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. D 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 4of9 •City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Plannmg Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-I 0 doc Project Address: I(o6\KAV'/PtVl P.OA!) 1. Within twelve months following the original approval of Design Review for the construction, and provided that no construction activity has yet commenced on the project, the applicant may apply for an extension of the established construction time limit, not to exceed an additional six months. 2. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be accompanied by complete working drawings for the construction, a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension, and a fee, as established by City Council resolution. 3. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission whether to approve the requested extension. 4. The committee's recommendation shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and noticed as an amendment to the applicant's existing Design Review approval. Any modification by the Planning Commission of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the Design Review approval. 5. Administrative extension. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. The committee may recommend to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission may approve, an extension if it is determined that any one or more of the following factors presents an unusual obstacle to complying with the standard construction time limit: a. Site topography; b. Site access; c. Geologic issues; d. Neighborhood considerations; e. Other unusual factors. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a written recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve the requested extension and setting forth the findings it has made justifying its decision. The Committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines of Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, provided however that such extensions do not result in a construction time line exceeding 18 months. This Section advises you of the costs that may be involved in processing Planning-related applications and/or appeals. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to be responsible for all expenses incurred in the processing of your application(s)/appeal(s). As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the appiications(s)iappeais(s) referenced beiow. 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 U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3- IO.doc Project Address: \ ~ EVC.A.lN PTIJS ~AD 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 approved except by an amendment to the Design Review approval. It is the applicants' responsibility to assure conformance, and the failure of staff to bring nonconformities to the applicants' attention shall not excuse the applicant from such compliance. 2. Comments fiom City staff iegaiding the project shall neither be deemed official nor relied upon unless they are in writing and signed by the City Manager or his designee. 3. Without the prior written approval of the City, construction on the project shall not deviate in any manner, including but not limited to form, size or color, from approved construction plans. If at any time during construction, and without such written approval, construction on the project is found by a member of City staff to deviate from the approved construction plans in any manner, an official STOP WORK ORDER will be issued by the City, and there shall be a total cessation of all work on the project. 4. If such a STOP WORK ORDER is issued, the City may initiate proceedings to impose administrative penalties or nuisance abatement proceedings and issue an order to show cause, which will compel the undersigned property owner to appear before the City Council and show cause why the work performed does not deviate from the approved plans and why such work should not be condemned as a public nuisance and abated. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Chapters 1. 14 and 8. 12) Design Review Application• Page 6of9 •City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-10.doc Project Address: llo E\JC/tl-YP"'Wi PW\.D SECfIONJi. ADDITIONAL]N'FO:a,:MAT:iON FO Story Pole Requirement Preliminary Story Poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least twenty (20) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard. Final Story Poles must be placed at the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure. Limit on the Number of Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review Approvals Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.020(B)(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 this Section. Street address of subject property: __\l_D9JCAl __Y_fl11_V_C_P_O_A-=D~------ Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: -~ffN~~Q~{o~O..__-~\_ll_l-_\~------ ~ Properties Owned by Individuals 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 Design Review Application• Page 7of9 •City of Belvedere U \planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-10.doc Project Address: I~ 9JCl\'V'I P\V5 I, ~ f\!lAf 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. ln the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded. Signed this 11 ---'-'--'--~~-' 2012..: at Belvedere, California. Signature~~ ~ Signature ~~ ~ <::::::::_ Title(s) f:E;77Lo/2.. Title(s) f 677Ja/L_ 0 Trustee(s) 0 Partners: 0 Limited or O General 0 Corporation ){.other$}-~ Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: ~lb_BXA__L_~_PTu_S_~_A_D_tt_~_V_~T ______ )P- Properties Owned by Individuals ______,.,,,._. ______, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of · ornia that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property. I hereby make applic · n for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the st ments furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the ign review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements d information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief I agree to be responsible for all costs incurr in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by S ion 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities," above and representations one through four contained the ·n. In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree t, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license fted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded. Signed this ____ day of ______, 20_, at Belvedere, California. Signature______RECEIVED APR 25 2012 City of Belvedere Project Address: [lo 6lJC/\L'i~TuJ );.>- Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional) SVTJl:) Ail:ftffe(,T~ / ~ !, S~Ge M!t~GV(B , hereby authorize Sfli?PlteN S,lJT.2.0 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 de ·g ation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and finaled or until the de , tion is rescinded in writing. Date: 3/2-0f2.P Ii. Date: 5--/1...zDJz RECEIVED APR 25 2012 REDHDRSE City of BelVedere C 0 N S T R U C T 0 R S I N C . April 24, 2012 To: City of Belvedere City Manager Re: Staging & Traffic Control Plan 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere OVERVIEW In executing the build out of the project proposed project located at 16 Eucalyptus Road we will maintain a premium on adhering to the City of Belvedere's staging and parking requirements as well the safety for persons working on site, neighbors and the public. In doing so we are proposing the following: We will utilize the City allowed three (3) on-street parking spaces for our site superintendent and site foreman and maintain one (1) open space for project related consultants as needed. For the remainder of the persons working on site we have arranged for off site parking with St. Stephens church where we will shuttle parties to and from site. The on site staging area's are limited and will be maintained to ensure that the execution of our construction activities for the project build out including material deliveries are able to take place on site and not in the public right of way. At the times that vehicles are entering and/or leaving site we will ensure that proper signage and location of same, flagmen, traffic control persons, etc ... are in place to ensure and maintain the free and safe flow of pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic in the public right of way. The anticipated off haul of materials during the grading phase will be 100 +/- yards total (15 to 20 truck loads) in a concentrated time line (3 to 4 days). This work, along with any other project wide major concrete and/or material deliveries, will be performed after the morning commute hours and prior to afternoon commute hours to minimize the effect on traffic. Our jobsite office trailer and temporary facilities will be located on site, out of the public right of way and will be situated in a manner that allows for our maximizing the on site vehicle staging for construction of the new structure as well as material deliveries for the same. The attached plan depicts the proposed on site office, temporary facilities and vehicle and staging location for reference. 36 Professional Center Parkway/ San Rafael, CA 94903 415-492-2020 I Fax: 415-492-2016 I License Number: 555394 On site temporary vehicle and material staging 12 f1'.__~ST~A~G~l ~N~G~A~N~D~T~R~A~FF~I C=--=C~O~N~T~RO=-=-.L ~PL~A~N.:.._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ V NTS DAIE: 04.2• .2012 SUTRO ARCHITECTS BELVEDERE RESIDENCE STAGING & TRAFFIC 415. 956.3445 ,,,. sutroarchltects.com 16 EUCALYPTUS RD. BELVEDERE. CA 915 Battery Street. F irst Floor San Franc isco, CA 94111 APN060-162-IO I PROJECT N0.2011.030 S-01 r -- .,.. Miniwoody Design Mano Cucinella iGuzzini RECEIVED May2012 MAY 3 1 2012 Miniwoody - LED projector with base equipped with electronic power supply 3W Warm White City of Belvedere Product code: B591 Technical description: Projector designed to use LEO light sources with medium optic. It is made up of an optical assembly and a component-holding base.The optical assembly, arm, base and frame are made of aluminium alloy EN1706AC 46100LF and are subjected to phosphochromatisation treatment with double primer and passivation at 120°C. The liquid acrylic paint is baked at 150°C and ensures high resistance to the external environment and UV rays. The hardened soda-lime closing glass (4 mm thick) is transparent and colourless. It has a grey customised silk screen printing and is fixed by captive screws. The 50/60 Shore A silicone gasket is subjected to post-cooling treatment (in the oven) in advance for 4/6 hours at 200°C. The LED supporting plate and the electronic ballast are made of black anodised aluminium. The optical assembly can be adjusted both vertically and horizontally. The aiming system can be locked in place and has slots In the frame for rainwater to run off. Optic with plastic-material lens - medium version 100 with spill ring for visual comfort. The cable clamp for connecting the wiring compartment to the lamp compartment is made ,___.... of nickel-plated brass M11x1. The fitting comes complete with a cable clamp for through earth wire and has provisions for through wiring thanks to two blac,k polyamide cable clamps PG11 suitable for cables 6.5 to 11.5 mm in diameter. All external screws are made of stainless steel A2. Complete with lamp. Red, green and amber LED available upon request. Installation: Application to the ground, wall (by Fischer screws) and tree branches. f----1 Dimension: 0100 100x85mm H 205mm Colour: Grey (15JIBlack (04) Weight [Kg] : 0,7 Mounting: Wail surfaceJCeiling surface Wiring: Built-in electronic ballast 3W, 220 + 240 V 50 + 60 Hz. Notes: Accessories available: refractor, wall-washer screens, spike for ground anchoring, and other installation accessories. Complete with lamp. On request available with LED red, green and amber. Product configuration: 6591 +LE45 B591: LED projector with base equipped with electronic power supply 3W Warm While LE45: LED warm white (nr.3) Characteristics of product: Total lighting Output (Lm]: 105.84 Total luminous Flux at or above an angle of 90° (Lm]: O Total power [WJ: 3.8 Emergency Luminous Flux [Lm]: I Luminous Efficacy (Lm/W]: 27.85 Voltage M:- Number of vani: 1 Characteristics of vano type 1: Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 47 Number of lamps for vano: 1 Lamp code: LE45 Socket: I ZVEI Code: LED Ballast Losses [WJ: 0.3 Nominal power [WJ: 3.5 Colour temperature [KJ: 3200 Nominal luminous [Lm]: 226 CRl:80 Lamp maximum intensity (cd): I Wavelength [Nm): I Beam Angle ["): 24° Duration [h): I Complies with EN605981 and pertinent regulations Miniwoody Design Mario Cucinella iGuzzini May 201 2 Mlniwoody - LEO projector with base equipped with electronic power supply 3W Warm White ii~~ He.I.mes Culley ~FAW,~~ ~~. Project Nome: ~~Gl\V1 ~ ~)\Q t=vd' RECEIVED HAY 3 12D IZ City of Belvedere 'N~~tt~~ ~~~"~~~ !?\ ~ ------~~t.l\wtt ' "ftWl\JH- ~~~ t:\11\VVW \'\W ~~ APPLICATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERMIT CITY OF BELVEOEIU: • Pl.;\NMNG DEI;ARTMENT 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • Bi;;L\'EDERE, t:A 94920-2336 P11. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430- • www.crrYOFBEL n:nrn1·:.0RG Date: Lf-1 /-t1._Rec'd.· by: f4'1 Amount: /7cJ c.l~1--Receipt No.: 11/~ Assessors Parcel No: O~c:::> ... /(, 2- - Zone: ZI) ¥2' ~~~,f--"'-:...... ~~~~~- Address of Property: f lo El 2C.Af ,Yffl& 'E'.D Record Owner of Property: I (o EUCA1 ·YPftJ!> JCOA=D Tl Zoning 'Parameters: Required Existing Proposed LotArea ...... Lot Coverage ...... ~~~\;?_ Total Floor Area ...... 21laS4z. Floor Area of.Second: Unit Front Yard Setback ...... ' ,/5i.:;::~ 13 1-0 11 • Left Sideyard Setback .... . --· f {) '-D_'' __ -~ - lf] I _:_q rt_· · Right Sideyard Setback... . 10 l~O ti - "?:IL_f ;...;;_cP'f' . Rear Yard Setback ...... ~S'-0 If _[pf:St-Z!' - Building Height ...... ~Io -qoe Parking Spaces ...... 2 2 Second Unit' Application • Page I of 6 •City of Belvedere t:·'pll1t1nm,,.,;maget\Mortning Fonm·J'LANNING FORMS'· L.>\ TEST EDfnOl\',>\PPUC A'l10~ FOR SffONU l'l'!T PERJ\lff m· -,·0· ! 3-11 doc Project Address: ______ C. Floor Plans - At 1/8-inch or 1/4-inch scale, show floor plans of all floor levels. Indicate the gross square footage of each floor, including any unfinished space. Indicate the existing and proposed values for lot coverage and total floor area. D. Elevations - At 1/8-inch or 1/4-inch scale, show all existing and proposed exterior building elevations. E. Materials - Except for second units involving only an internal conversion of an existing structure with no exterior changes, indicate exterior building materials and colors of existing and proposed structures, submitting samples if different from the main dwelling unit on the site. F. Application Fee - Second Unit: There is no fee for Second Unit applications. In addition to the materials required above, the City Planner may require the fo!!o\Ning information to complete the analysis required by Section 19.78.080: Topographic Survey: Showing existing grade in area of development. Prepared by a licensed surveyor. Site Section Drawing: Shall correspond to section line shown on site plan. Existing grade shall be clearly labeled and identified and shall correspond to contour lines. Geotechnical Report: To determine if property boundaries include geologic hazards. Must include a records search and may require field analysis. After the Second Unit Permit approval, the applicant must apply for any necessary building or inspection permits. STATEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERSIDP, CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATION, & DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE All property owners must complete this Section. Street address of subject property: I (e e( l Ct+:Li Pn f) e.D Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: Alli - I hereby make application r approval of the second unit permit requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the s ements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the esign review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statemen and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Signed this ____ day of ______"20_, at Belvedere, California. I understand that the contents of this document are a Signature ______ Second Unit Application • Page 4 of 6 • City of Belvedere U \planmngmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNTNG FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLIC A TION FOR SECOND UNIT PERJ\UT rev I 0-13-11.doc Project Address: ______ )- Properties Owned by a Trust. LLC. Corporation, Partnership. or Other Entity For properties owned by a trust, please attach the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto. For an LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity, please attach proof of ownership and certification of the signer's authorization to enter into contracts on behalf of the entity. I, ~ /M A:lL CQl IF;. , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above-described subject property is owned by a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity and that my signature on this application has been authorized by all necessary action required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity. i hereby make application for approval of the second unit permit requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beiief I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record. Signed this ____ day of ______, 20_, at Belvedere, California. Signature. ______Signature ______ Title(s). ______Title(s), ______ D Trustee(s) D Partners: D Limited or D General D Corporation D Other ______ Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: )- Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional) I, csen hb: mA-l t'.DlJ LO . , hereby authorize ~ln1L I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record. Signature of Owner: ------w-rr------Date: oate:_Lf_/_0_1/~1,0-1L- ... I I cf,~ vYlftrzA. U Lt:::> ft-lJftt cJY2--l Z@ ~ 1!f /lJO -A~rfELf5 It~ dLVl\lt:::tL ~o~ffTlU-5 tf\:J· Af'ruurr1 aw -:fo\L t>eE~1co N R._~Le\.AJ .DffrID Second Unit Application• Page 5of6 •City of Belvedere l'YIA-1<..i::tt l"[} 2ol L, U \plannmgmanager\Planmng Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLIC ATION FOR SECOND UNIT PERJIUT rev I 0-13-11 doc 0 Project Address: I(.(' ELJ(A...( -~ED.h_RQJ\D • APPLICATION FOR EXCE·PTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREA CIT)'OF BELVl''.llERE • PLAN~ING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL,\ VE'• llELVEDEnE, CA 94920-2336 Pll. 415-435~3838 • FAX 415~435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFUELYF:DERE.ORG . . " t ' '. '· Date: J/z,o/rz_ . Rec'd. by:~ Amount: $yv() Receipt N~.:2.d DC:. b Assessor:r;ar~el No: ('.? 4- V -/G. 'L - I c) .Zone: _ ___.g<...=.;(:_LL______ Address of Property: I ( Q E:lJ{Al,,,YPflh f.Of\D. Type of Property: Sohl£. Ef\fYl ILY RBSiIJENCf; Record Owner of Property: JC~ a x:Al ..ypnh ROAP i-R.usr Mailing ){Q SX.lrLY<'/Zl.b ~ Daytime Phone: . (W1) 3.:SJ YQOB Address: 13 &1,,..V-F.;De;Q fz, CA Fax: foUV(f .\:M ll<:iVt ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 1-i({S')q. ft. YOURAPPLICATION HAS: ~;t. 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 lhe Planning .Commission make the foll6Wing fihc:lings of fact 1. That: primary views. from adjacent properties. as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the a9ditionalsquare footage, because: 1'LEA:>e Sff A1v\;Ctt£D Exception to Tota!Floor Area Application • Page I of 3 • City of Belvedere lJ''planningmanaged'lamiing Fonn:;IPLANNiNG FOR.\lS • LATf'ST EDfTIOS'APl'LICA TJON FOR EXCE?TIO:-.: TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Re\'. 9·'231:!008 LC Project Address: \ b 8JCAG1Pl\JS ~AD 2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greaterfloorarea, because:_~S\.,_-t-__/t.._~\_I~----'---·------ 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: _____ ~ ATI~t>- 4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because: ------~ MtctPD- 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: ______~ ~lTkteD· Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 2 of 3 • City of Belvedere U:lplanni"b~nanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: \b 6.JCA;~'{ PW~ ~AD (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: ------.SB;: f\Tf1\Ct\ED - 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 exc ·on as requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented e · and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Name: 67C,PHaJ !(U7R.."b • Date: :S-,!p- ?o!'Z. Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 3 of 3 • City of Belvedere U.\planningmanage1Wlanning Fonns\PLANNING FORl'v!S - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC 1. Primary views from adjacent properties are unaffected by the proposed design. Each adjacent house is oriented to take advantage of views of the Golden Gate Bridge, bay, and San Francisco skyline that lie almost directly to the South. The primary spaces of both neighboring houses are both forward of, or to the South of the proposed house, as is the existing house to be replaced. Views from the primary spaces inside the adjacent houses- the living room, dining room, and master bedroom- all are unaffected by the proposed design. Views from the homes above the subject property are not affected as the house does not daylight above the hillside, and the roof form is lower than the existing in all places along the house except for a very small portion. Replacing the low- slung peaked roof with a form that is compatible with the hillside in a much nicer and darker material will have appositive impact on the houses above. Views from the street are not significantly affected by the project. A significant portion of the proposed house is tucked into the hillside. If this square footage were to be removed, the house would conform to the allowable square footage without any change to its apparent form. The large Eucalypus trees at the front of the property are to be removed. The proposed roof is sloped with the hillside to fit well beneath the existing roofline, lowering the structure at most points. There is also a large gap in the proposed rooflines with a flat roof area. This provides a view corridor while breaking up the roof mass into two sections that are compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. The proposed house is set back from the side property lines further than required by the planning code. The required sideyards are each ten feet. The proposed design allows for 13'- 9" on one side and 15' -2" on the other side, specifically to allow for views between the houses along the street. 2. There are four characteristics unique to this parcel that very effectively minimize the impact of the proposed project: 0 Size- The parcel is 24,451 square feet. The proposed lot coverage is below the 30% maximum because the parcel is far larger than the minimum lot size for the Belvedere Island zoning. The proposed square footage of the house is 24% the lot area. The large lot size provides an appropriate context for the house. 0 Trees- The robust mature trees on the parcel mask the form of the house. The view of the house from Belvedere Road is almost entirely blocked " Slope- The steep slope of the site and the way the land slopes steeply down from the road allows for much of the mass to be concealed. The perceived height of the house from Eucalyptus is roughly six feet above the road surface, and the roof form is minimized as it sloped down parallel to the hill. " Orientation on hillside- Each house on this section of Eucalyptus Road is oriented roughly parallel to the contours of the hill. Because the hillside curves sharply in this section, it allows each house to face a unique direction away from one another. 3. The proposed structure is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood and the zoning district, and meets all design review criteria: 0 Parcel- The size of the house is appropriate for the size of the lot because the lot is such a large size and is steeply sloped. The house fits well within the setbacks. The house form is broken up into two sections, further reducing it's apparent mass and bulk. • Neighborhood and zoning district- The size of the house fits well within the context of the neighborhood and the island. Many houses nearby are of a similar or larger size on similar parcel sizes. The house is proportional to the lot size, providing for an appropriate ratio of open space. 0 The proposed house meets all design criteria in the planning code. The material selections are natural in appearance, dark in color or earth toned, and have been selected to blend in with the surrounding environment. 4. The additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining parcels. The curve of the hillside and orientation of the primary spaces within the neighboring homes has led to windows on each of the neighboring houses that primarily face South- a direction that is unaffected by the proposed house. In order to take advantage of the bay views the proposed house does have windows that partially face the neighbor at #18 Eucalytpus. With suggestion from the owner of #18, the proposed design includes two privacy landscaping screens along the East property line setback. These screens block all view from the subject house to the entrance of #18, and all interior spaces. #14 Eucalyptus, the neighbor to the West, has no primary windows facing the proposed house. Further, the West wall of the proposed house has been designed almost entirely solid to maintain privacy in this direction. Trees on the lower section of the parcel block all views from and to the homes below. Planting at the North side of the house is intended to screen neighbors above from views into the house. 5. The proposed new construction would not create a new or expand on an existing non-conformity on the property. The proposed project meets all applicable planning code. 6. The proposed new construction is not a continuation, expansion, or subsequent phase of a project for which any variances have been granted, which project was completed within two years prior to the floor area exception because the project will newly replace all structures on the parcel. APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE Cnv OF HEL.VlmEIU~ 450 SAN RAFAEL A,;,, • Bn\•1m~:.1u:, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415,435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 ° W\\'\\;.CIT\'OFBEL\'EDEHE.ORG Date: )/r~/ri-. Rec'd. by: LD Amount:~ Receipt No.:ZO'L.) / I Parcel No.: a GD (~ 1... f () Zone: .,..--_R_f_)____ ·___ '__ _ City property to be encroached upon:------ Address of Property: f.(£ Eura (i'fph~ J2& · Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): f0fl.TI6N o·F etJCAt,..'i.PTUS RD· ($ VUDE:/L ]'Q&. U NE - S:T~T. Record Owner of Property: Ha frl }Ct\-l YPrl JS Mailing /.(,p ®CAf ..VPfL:,( p D . Daytime Phone: cSc+ r) 3'a r .21-- no'[) Address: Fax: ______73EL.VEDf:.f.2.B. 1 (f\. --=------(Email: ~-WlaVL4.:Ue.,@ ltl-\SV\ .Q)n-. Owner's Representative:Sl!r@ Af.2.0tlWisJ £4( l~ .1M'lkl.Vl.Slh (i3\ Wt <;n · C~ty') Mailing qJS?~ Is+ .R, Daytime Phone Lj lS q7:ilz 3Y.=1:_t:;,. Address: ~~ , CA CJJJ, l ( Fax: Lf IS? • '1Sw34-t;,(.o... , ______.. ___ Email:5C,.ol:ro@. s\tfroaAAMcfS ~ Description of Encro.achment R·equested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both ex/sting and proposed. that wil/·encroac;h onto public property): :ff,2 ..tYPE:Aflf ( ING ~tturr5;, OtJrO E:lJCA-LYPf US 12.P . ALL 'hllPt2JLllfeivtf:tlf5 w1rut kl Ff2.GpEll11i . u r£: :f;=o1 r~rD& 6t.JCAYITL8 J<12. J fY\fYW\,tt-m~.rrs·. J\Jfj)J rtJR-~ l'LT i f'LA-HTiN~Sff.f.L-P~l -f"raJCfz • I . m Applicants, please attach a scaie diagram showing your property line and· the encroactiinents. Revocable License. Application• Page 1 of 7 ·City of Belvedere C:lplanningmamget\Pbnning Fonns\PLANNrNG FORMS - LA'fEST EDrTION\APPLiCATION FOR REVOCABLE LICDISE doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: ______ 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 ASSOC/A TED 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 I understand that the content o this document are a Public Record. Name: S/C--ftte,f\1 S"I JJJ2() Date: q/20/zo1Z- ' I Revocable License Application • Page 2 of 7 • City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE rev -3-24-12.doc New curb cut at driveway EUCALYPTUS PROPERTY ll"c- - . --"" s•1t__w00,. -oo·1.., . . -- . efROPF:RTY UNF: Low retaining ~ wa lls . \ p1 on 11ng PARTIAL SITE PLAN FOR REBOCABLE LICENSE i~~~~~~~~~~~~- CD NTS OAT f: 04.2•.201 2 SUTRO ARCHITECTS BELVEDERE RESIDENCE PARTIALSITEPLAN 415. 956.3445 sutroarchltects.com 16 EUCALYPTUS RD. BELVEDERE, CA 915 Battery S treet, First F loor San Francisco, CA 94111 APN060-162· l0 I PROJECT N0 . 2011.030 RL-01 BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7. REPORT DATE: 6/12/2012 MEETING DATE: 6/19/2012 REPORT WRITTEN BY: Pierce Macdonald, Planning Manager REPORT REVIEWED BY: Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Second Unit, Revocable License LOCATION: 16 Eucalyptus Road OWNER: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust APPLICANT: Sutro Architects ATTACHMENTS: 1. (Not Used) 5. City Architect Report, dated 2. Applications March 20, 2012 and May 24, 3. Project Plans 2012 4. Correspondence 6. Fire Marshal Report 7. Herzog Reports 8. Arborscience Report CEQA STATUS: Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Construction or Conversion APPROVAL Application accepted as complete on May 31, 2012. City action DEADLINE: must be taken by July 30, 2012 or the project may be deemed approved. ZONING: R-15 Single Family Residential, Belvedere Island ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED EXISTING PROPOSED Lot Area 15,000 24,451 s.f. No Change Lot Coverage 30% 11.6% 18.8% - incl. decks 50% 11.6% 19.8% Total Floor Area 4,850 s.f. 2,658 s.f. 5,874 s.f. Front yard Setback Garage2 O' 16' 23' Residence 15' 28' 23' Side yard Setback (left) 10' 31.5' 12' Side yard Setback (right) Garage O' NIA 15' Residence 10' 63' 18' Rear yard Setback 20' 67' 58' Building Height1 36' 32' 36' Building Average > 28' >28' >28' Parking Spaces 2(+1 for Second Unit) 2 3 1Where the average slope on the building site of a lot is thirty percent or more, a height of thirty-six feet is permitted. (BMC 19.56.060) 2Where the slope of the property exceeds 20% within the first 40 feet of the front property line, a garage may have a 0-foot setback. (BMC 19.48.190.F) Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a 24,451 -square-foot, steeply down-sloping lot on Belvedere Island. The site is characterized by a failing single-family residence and mature Eucalyptus, Acacia, Cedar, and Oak trees. The existing residence has been uninhabitable for many years. A view easement belonging to the property at 14 Eucalyptus Road is located on the northwesterly side of the property. A road easement and approximately 1,050 square feet of Eucalyptus Road (a public roadway maintained by the City of Belvedere) encroach onto the property. The property recently transferred ownership and the new property owners filed applications with the City of Belvedere Planning Department to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence. On March 20, 2012, the City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister filed a report about the proposed design to staff and the project's design team. The Tiburon Fire Protection District also reviewed the plans and the Fire Marshal's comments were forwarded to the project's design team on April 19, 2012. The proposed plans were revised to address many comments raised in the Fire Marshal's report and MacAllister report, as well as to respond to issues identified through the neighbor outreach conducted by the project's design team. The Fire Marshal's and Consulting Architect's reports ate included as Attachments 5 and 6. PROJECT ANALYSIS At this time the applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Demolition, Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License. Applications are included as Attachment 2 and plans are included in Attachment 3. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Herzog Engineering and found that the preliminary report does not recommend any extraordinary measures to overcome any hazards found on the property. The Herzog report is included as Attachment 7. The physical model of the proposal will be available at City Hall on June 18, 2012, starting at 1 pm. DEMOLITION PERMIT The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for Demolition of a 2,658-square-foot residence with attached garage built in 1956 for Rick and Flora Hopkins. The name of the original builder or architect is unknown. The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny any demolition application upon making the following findings pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 16.28.110: 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; 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; C. That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for adequate site protection during and following the demolition; D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable; E. That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining housing Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page 3 on the property have been thoroughly considered; F. The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere Housing Element. The City has reviewed the history of prior owners of the property, City building records, and databases of notable residences in Belvedere. Staff has found no evidence of historic events, historic people, or significant architectural style associated with the residence. Therefore, the proposed demolition would not remove a building of historical or architectural significance. The applicant has not estimated a time frame for the demolition. In staffs opinion, a typical timeframe for the demolition or dismantling of a residence of this size would be one month, and up to three months if dismantling techniques were to be used. A demolition plan addressing soil erosion, drainage requirements, and off-hauling of debris will be reviewed by the Building Department permit process. Additionally, the applicant would be required to submit for compliance with a City-approved Waste Management Plan (WMP) and record the estimated amount of debris by materials type that the project will generate and the amount of debris that can feasibly be diverted from the landfill via recycling or reuse. The applicant must maintain receipts from salvage yards, landfills, etc. for the purpose of verifying a minimum of 50% waste diversion. Staff can make the findings that the demolition would not have an adverse impact on public health, safety, or welfare of the City, as conditioned, because the contractor must participate in a pre-construction meeting with Public Works, Building, Planning, and Police department staff to review standard controls on dust, erosion, jobsite safety, parking, truck traffic, and other potential impacts. Additionally, the proposed demolition would provide for adequate site protection during work. The proposed demolition is related to the construction of a new residence on the property. The draft resolution authorizing the demolition permit can be conditioned to require that all conditions of the Design Review approval be met. Because the site will be developed again with a single-family residence and second unit, staff recommends that it is consistent with the goals of Belvedere Housing Element and no loss of housing in the Community will occur. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the requested demolition. SECOND UNIT Pursuant to Section 19.78.050 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Second units-Permit required, subsection B(3) states that a second unit may be created as part of the structure of a new main dwelling unit on a lot or building site, but the application shall be subject to all the requirements of Titles 19 and 20 otherwise applicable to the construction of the new main dwelling unit, and in addition, to the second unit development standards set forth in Section 19.78.080(D, limiting maximum size to 750 square feet), (F, requiring a third parking space), (G, limiting designs to one driveway access), (I, requiring privacy enhancements), and (R, limiting no more than one second unit on a property). Staff recommends that the criteria found in Sections 19.78.050 and 19.78.080 have been satisfied in the design of the proposed second unit. Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page4 DESIGN REVIEW The project architects propose to construct a two-story, 5,874-square-foot residence in a Contemporary architectural style. The new home would provide four bedrooms, three full bathrooms and a half-bath, as well as a study, gym, and independent second dwelling unit. The City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister reviewed the project plans and recommends that the design is substantially consistent with the findings of the Design Review Ordinance. Mr. MacAllister identified a potential problem with the initial design of the master bedroom wing. The plans have been revised in this area. Mr. MacAllister's comments are included as Attachment 5. Site Plan: The project would include a new residence, driveway, vehicle gate, three-car carport, second unit, perimeter fencing, trash and recycling bin, and privacy walls. Existing mature stands of Eucalyptus, Cedar and Acacia trees would be removed. The existing driveway would be removed and the curb and landscape area replaced where the driveway had been located. The ne'Y residence would provide two deck levels, the lower deck approximately 9.5 to 10 feet above the ground. Site steps and paths would allow access to the sides of the residence and to the second unit on the lower level. Approximately 750 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and 160 cubic yards off-hauled. This amount of off-haul is equivalent to approximately 23 dump trucks (7 yard size), in addition to the off-haul associated with the demolition of the residence. Floor Plans: The project plans include 480-square feet of floor area dedicated to a new second unit which is included in the 5,874-square-foot floor area total. Another 462 square feet of floor area dedicated to a mechanical chase and storage, with ceiling height of less than 6 feet, is not included in the total floor area size. The project is designed around an open floor plan with a semi-detached master bedroom and study wing. The interior of the residence would be illuminated by expanses of glass walls, doors and windows coordinated with areas of wood and stone siding. Adjustable exterior lighting is proposed in the soffits of the eaves and decks. Colors and Materials: The project architects propose a color and materials palette consisting of off-white Limestone panels and dark stained wood siding, dark grey slate and zinc roofing, black steel and aluminum frame glass windows and doors, dark grey railing, grey integral color cement paving, and grey granite landscape pavers. Wood siding would be utilized as vertical siding, as well as foundation skirting, a slatted privacy screen to the west and mixed with black steel panels to form the privacy wall to the east. Staff supports the requested palette without conditions. Landscaping: The project's landscape designer proposes a comprehensive landscape plan to replace the existing mature stands of Eucalyptus, Cedar and Acacia trees and Scotch Broom shrubs that would be removed. Four, 36-inch-box evergreen Strawberry Trees (Arbutus marina) would be planted in addition to the following evergreen trees and shrubs in 15 gallon sizes: 41 Silk Tassel Trees, 45 Ceanothus arboreus, and eight Toyon Trees. The project's design team also proposes additional plantings of deciduous trees and shrubs including Ninebark, Western Redbud, Kousa Dogwood, and Ribes (Currant), as well as smaller shrubs, flowers and groundcover. Exterior landscape lighting consists of path lights and louvered wall lights at the proposed driveway wall. A 5-foot-tall fence consisting of free-standing steel rods similar to the design at 17 Eucalyptus Road is proposed along the front of the property, and a 6-foot-tall cable rail fence is proposed along the sides and rear of the property. No design has been proposed for Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page 5 the new vehicle gate noted on the plans. The tree removal and appropriateness of proposed landscaping was reviewed by Kent Julin of Arborscience and found to be appropriate. Mr. Julin's report is included as Attachment 8. Design Review Findings: Pursuant to Section 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, there should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. Landscaping should include elements to soften and screen structures as viewed from off-site locations, and lighting should be controlled to avoid glare and spillover. The City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister has reviewed the plans and recommends that the proposed architectural design is high-quality and in substantial compliance with the Design Review Ordinance. Staff notes that the Tiburon Fire Protection District requires a IO-foot-wide defensible space zone around new residences and additions. Within the defensible space zone, hedges and trees are carefully controlled. At this time, the Fire Marshal has not approved the proposed landscaping, meaning that it could not be installed as shown in the landscape plans. Currently, certain trees and shrubs are grouped too closely to the residence. For example, the Fire Marshal would require a reduction in the number of Toyons adjacent to the second unit. Staff supports the quality of the proposed landscaping but cannot make the required findings for screening, privacy, or views at this time. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and continue the item to the July agenda to provide the design team with an additional opportunity to comply with Fire District requirements. EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 5,874-square-foot (total) residence where a 2,658-square-foot residence exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is a ratio of .33 to the lot area or 4,850 square feet for properties over 15,000 square feet. The applicant requests an exception of 1,024 square feet of floor area. The proposed FAR would be 24% on this very large site. Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code section 19.52.120(A), in order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area, the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area; c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The following table provides a comparison of surrounding properties to the subject proposal. Staff Report fo~ 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page 6 Table 1, Sizes and FARs of Residences* within a 100-Foot-Radius Number Address Size/Lot FAR 1. 81 Belvedere Avenue 2,570 s.f. I 18,270 s.f. 0.14 2. 67 Belvedere Avenue 6,325 s.f. I 31, 730 s.f. 0.20 3. 77 Belvedere A venue 3,446 s.f. I 23,114 s.f. 0.15 4. 127 Golden Gate Avenue 5,539 s.f. I 20,320 s.f. 0.27 5. 129 Golden Gate Avenue 5,679 s.f. I 20,735 s.f. 0.27 6. 17 Eucalyptus Road 6,611 s.f. I 24,108 s.f. 0.27 7. 14 Eucalyptus Road 4,052 s.f. I 18,204 s.f. 0.22 8. 12 Eucalyptus Road 5,241 s.f. I 28,658 s.f. 0.18 9. 18 Eucalyptus Road 3,653 s.f. I 23,808 s.f. 0.15 Average FAR 0.20 (E) 2,658 s.f./24,451 s.f. 0.11 10. 16 Eucalyptus Rd. (P) 5,874 s.f./24,451 s.f. 0.24 *Approved per County Records In staffs opinion, privacy would be maintained and primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the proposed floor area. The majority of the proposed project would be constructed below the roadway and the homes along Eucalyptus Road have staggered street setbacks which maximize views and privacy among neighboring residences. The project's design team worked diligently with staff to maintain a view corridor of Sausalito between the carport wing and main living area and a view corridor over the proposed carport. The Golden Gate Bridge would remain visible to adults walking past the proposed carport and many individuals would continue to see portions of the waters of San Francisco Bay. Furthermore, additional square footage from the proposed project will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, since the project includes permanent physical screening of proposed windows and decks and provides side setbacks that exceed the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff believes that there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, such as the unusually large size of the property, and the opportunities it affords to install layered landscape screening, with few negative impacts to adjacent properties. Portions of the requested floor area are located on the exterior of the residence, beneath covered decks. Additionally, the proposed FAR of 24% may be found to be appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district because other homes in the vicinity have similar floor area to lot size ratios. The proposed floor area is also not associated with an increased demand for parking or vehicle trips. A portion of the requested floor area would be dedicated to a second dwelling unit located on the lower level of the residence in conformance with the goals of the City's Housing Element. Lastly, staff notes that the proposed project does not require the granting of Variances for any nonconforming design elements. Staff Report for 16 Eucalyptus Road Owner: 16 Eucalyptus Road Trust June 19, 2012 Page 7 However, at this time, staff cannot recommend approval of the requested Exception because the landscaping plan does not yet meet the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Staff cannot make the required findings for screening, privacy, or views at this time, and thus all of design review criteria are not satisfied. Proposed landscaping locations and plant types may need to be modified to meet the requirements, thereby affecting proposed privacy and screening. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and continue the item to the July agenda. CORRESPONDENCE A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Staff has received correspondence from the property owners of 18 Eucalyptus Road, 14 Eucalyptus Road, and 127 Golden Gate Avenue. Two of the correspondence raise concerns about the project design. Copies of the correspondence received by staff are included as Attachment 4. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: To continue the item to the July Planning Commission meeting to provide the project's design team an opportunity to address landscaping concerns and to respond to direction from the Planning Commission for the property at 16 Eucalyptus Road. 77 Belvedere Avenue June 1,2012 Pla.nn;n g Commission RECEIVED City of Belvedere JUN 0 4 2012 Qty of Belvedere Dear Commissioners, I live at 77 Belvedere Avenue directly below the property at 16 Eucalyptus. I will be on vacation when the Commission meets to discuss the design review of this property. Serge Marquie and Sally Wilkinson presented their plans for this project to me early in the year. At that time I also met Jenai Bourke Medina, a representative of Sutro Architects. Somewhat' later in the year I received an email from Ms. Medina asking if I could state my support for the project. In return, I stated that I couldn't comment on the project ,until the story poles were in place. Because of the heavy vegetation growth, I have no idea if the poles were ever erected. If they are in place, they are obscured. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine the impact of the proposed building on this site from Belvedere Avenue. If the new landscape plans include vegetation that will continue to hide the house, they'll be well hidden! Sincerely, // ~ l71i1 w~~ Diane M. Woodward ATTACHMENT L{ REC:E\VED ,,UI' 'N 0 6 ry(i1?ru 1£.. c;;ut:lfti \_;\t)/ U• .. ,...;:• Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:24 AM Subject: 16 Eucalyptus Construction - Comments from 14 Eucalyptus Dear Ms. Macdonald, Here are my key concerns with respect to the 16 Eucalyptus project: Privacy and Overlooking o On A 1.2 there is a comment "Glazed wall screened for 100% from No. 14 Eucalyptus Rd. " This is a overlooking/privacy issue. With any glazed wall, there is the possibility of future change which may compromise our desire to preserve our privacy. I do not believe it is possible to screen "for 100%." The fact that they have raised this issue means that they acknowledge the problem. I would recommend replacement with a solid wall so as not to compromise our privacy. They could gain a similar amount of light through skylights. I would suggest that 18 Eucalyptus request the same thing on the east side. While I have no issue with them having windows on the west side, we need to make clear that we do not want them to have windows on the west side that may compromise our privacy. o Propose that they should revise the angle of the master bedroom structure so that it is parallel to the angle of my house. The parallel angle would reduce the adverse impact to the view from my home which now contributes to a reduce line of sight. o As I look further at their "Planting Plan" I am increasingly concerned that this solution could be problematic. Landscaping feels like a quick fix/non permanent solution to a problem that has been created by overdevelopment and lack of consideration on window placement. There are too few mature trees. Conversely if the trees grow too tall, then the trees will be blocking the view even more than the house? I am not sure we can accept landscaping as a solution to their overdevelopment. Zoning Queries o When I review the Summary of Zoning Requirements, there is a maximum floor area constraint of 4,850 sq ft. The house they are proposing to build is close to 6,000 sq ft. This contributes to the overdevelopment along my property line and should be reconsidered. o This lot should be maintained as a single family home without an additional unit. The second unit is contributing to the overdevelopment of the property. • I see that they have a staircase built within the setback area. We need confirmation that the steps and stairs are built within the zoning codes. Access to Daylight o We need 16 Eucalyptus to provide us with a better idea if their new roof lines will not cause shadows on my house, and if their home will result in a decrease in access to daylight from my house. With their proximity to my house and their increased doubling of length, I would like to ensure that I will not be living in a shadow created by their new construction as the rotation of the sun goes around their-house on the east side. We should request a shadow study during winter and summer equinoxes during daylight hours. Light Spill • Regarding the glass facade on the south side of the construction, the existing structure will cause a significant lantern effect in the evenings. We would suggest that the solid to glass ratio should be 50/50. Additional tinting should be added and a specific number/percentage must be specified which can be verified against manufacturer of glass spec. Additional Information to Assess Impact of Project • From an additional drawing perspective, we would like to see the following: o A1.0 -A sectional drawing that cuts through the center of my house through the center of their house through the center of 18 Eucalyptus (must include 14, 16 and 18); o A 1.5 - 3D volumetric overlay of the existing house on the site and the proposed structure (comparing existing to new). This should include at a minimum 14, 16 and 18 Eucalyptus to put the proposal in context. o Additional site models and 3D renderings as you had suggested. • We would encourage the preparation of a site model that will include 14, 16, 18 Eucalyptus, three houses above on Golden Gate and three houses below on Belvedere (9 house grid). • Drawing A 1.0 should be expanded to include both plan, elevations and sections from both front and back to show relationships in 3 dimensions between adjacent properties sides, above and below. We would like to see plans and sections in addition to 3D drawing. Drawing A1.0 should be supplemented by elevations from front & back and should show relationship to houses on either side and potentially showing a section that cuts through my house, the construction and the 18 Eucalyptus. Queries • What is the rectangular structure in the center of the lot? L3.2 does not provide any details. They have not explained this properly. Recommendations • Increase Setback: While we appreciate the initial effort with the 3.5 foot adjustment, we believe that a further increase in setback would be required to address our privacy/view concerns. We would be amenable to accepting a 20 foot setback from the property line (10 foot setback from the setback line) as a consideration to our neighbors. o Reduce Roofline Height: A further reduction in the height of the roof will reduce the bulk/mass perception. May be achieved by cutting structure into the slope. As the project currently stands, we believe that the desire to construct too much floor area on 16 Eucalyptus is causing adverse impact to my home and possibly others in the neighborhood. And I do not feel that landscaping provides a long term solution to address these concerns. Please understand, however, that I have no interest to obstruct our neighbor's right to build a beautiful home. But I feel it is important to make clear our concerns and issues and am hopeful that the Planning Commission will work with the applicant to modify the project accordingly. Thanks, Shih-Wei Owner 14 Eucalyptus Road RECF::IVED Planning Commission, City of Belvedere JUN 0 6 2012 450 San Rafael Ave, Belvedere, CA 94920 City or ljeiveaere RE: Proposed Construction of New Residence at 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Dear Planning Commission Members, We cannot accept the proposed plan for the new residence at 16 Eucalyptus Road as currently submitted and would like to make the following observations. 1. The current story poles do not reflect the angle and placement of the screen wall as presented in the proposed plan. 2. The current story poles do not reflect the proposed shed roofline as presented in the proposed plan. 3~ The proposed screen wall is approximately 12' wide and 16' tall made of large vertical steel and dark wood and is an eyesore. 4. The proposed screen wall extends 5.5 feet above the main floor of the proposed house and any person who is more than 5.5 feet tall can see into ~he yard, bedrooms, hallways and bathrooms of 18E. 5. The oversized floor to ceiling window in the living area of 16E behind the screen wall faces directly towards the yard and bedrooms of 18E. The window will shed light into each and every room in the house located at 18E. 6. The proposed wall blocks 100% of the mount Tam views from the guest bedroom and the front yard of 18E. 7. The oversized floor to ceiling window should be in-filled and the inconsistent screen wall should be eliminated. 8. There is a 36" box Strawberry Tree which after being placed will block views of the bay and mountain from the guest bedroom and front yard of 18E. 9. The proposed large main living room deck looks directly on to 15 feet of the existing private master bedroom deck at 18E and eliminate privacy for the occupants of 18E. 10. The modern materials and hard colors used in the exterior of the house are not consistent with the natural look of the site or the neighborhood in general. 11. The proposed three car garage and the additional four car offstreet parking structure is more than what is necessary or consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood. The City of Belvedere has consistently denied other neighbors on the street any more than a two car garage. 12. The new higher roof line of the main house, the new living room, the screen wall, the gargantuan garage/parking area and the large master wing will block most if not all of the water views and light from an already dark part of the street. 13. The entrance of the driveway is proposed on a blind radius of the road and is dangerous for people coming from the east traveling down eucalyptus towards golden gate. 14. The size of the proposed house is approximately 25% beyond the allowed FAR for the lot and is entirely too large and too bulky for the neighborhood and surrounding properties. 16 Eucalyptus design Review Page 2 15. The project in its current form will adversely affect the privacy, light and sound of the occupants of the next door property at 18E. 16. Without an adequate parking and access plan for construction, this plan is incomplete as submitted. The property does not have any roadway parking in front of it for its materials staging and/or construction vehicles. 17. The roadway parking immediately in front of 18E is an integral part of the real property owned by 18E and we request that the 3 car spaces be reserved for the occupants of 18E. JOltN .AND I ARE- THE O\NNE:RS A~D RE:-Slt/CNTS Of 17 tVCALYP1vS RD. vJS v~ !SH TO CONVF.'< OJI<. SJprw:r OF n-tt=. PR.0'05E.p fLA.NS fOfZ BULLOiNG I \= fROf~t{ A\ l(o 13.JCAL"( pruS. 'N'e- wrtou=:-- 1-\EAIZTT:.DL'( WE.LC.OHE:- 114E- . PE.~E:LDPME.Nf OF 11 T1-llCJ l/AN RECEIVED JUN 1 2 7fH7 City u1 0~1veaeri:; . i Pierce Macdonald - Planning Manager From: Steve Silberstein [s-h .1111i!!;1r.u1. i,e ~ mhWAf·R·'il#iiilo] RFr.J=IVFO Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:39 PM To: Pierce Macdonald - Planning Manager JUN 1 3 ?~~? Subject: 16 Eucalyptus Road -- Jan 19 2012 City 01 t:ieweoere Pierce, I would like to add my concerns to the project being considered this coming Tuesday at 16 Eucalyptus Road. I would point out that almost ALL the houses on Eucalyptus Road (starting with 2 Eucalyptus Road, and continuing to 32 Eucalyptus Road) have roof lines whose highest point is BELOW the level of the street -- especially the immediate neighbors. This project seeks to have a roof line that is different, i.e. above the level of the street. There is absolutely no reason why the house could not be situated three or four feet lower into the site so that the top of the roof line is below the street level, thereby preserving the views of the water from the street, like there is from all the other houses on the block, especially the neighbors. Along those lines, the fence at the front of the house should be no more than five feet high (ideally less), as the neighboring house at 18, or the one at 14 (which has no fence at all). This project asks for a floor area (6,000+ sq feet) that is in excess of what is allowed in Belvedere ( 4850 sq ft). I would suggest that in order to grant the variance requested for this, the roof line must be lower, i.e. move the house down or into the hillside a little more -- otherwise we have too much mass, too much view blockage, too out of character with the neighborhood, etc. Thank you, Steve Silberstein 29 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere CA 94920 415-435-1692 resident for 16 years To : Town of Belvedere Planning Department From : Stephen Pasquan, Owner 18 Eucalyptus Re: 16 Eucalyptus, Belvedere - Proposed Plan Dated: 6/13/12 Dear Sirs/Madams: On June 12, 2012 at 11:4Sam, Ron Wager and I met with the Mr. Sutro, the architect representing the owners of 16 Eucalyptus at 18 Eucalyptus to discuss the points of our letter, dated 6-6-12 that was previously submitted to the City of Belvedere. What we discovered, as a result of that meeting, was that the architect tried to hide facts that would affect the privacy of our home, decks and yard by his proposed structure, screen wall and decks which face our home. We also discovered that the story poles had been incorrectly erected and then incorrectly erected for a second time, in the wrong locations. We have requested that all future proposed story poles for this project be certified by a licensed surveyor. We were surprised to find out that the same architect had not provided a color rendering to us or the Town of Belvedere, of the east elevation of the proposed structure and wall that would abut our property, as he had previously committed to provide, in our meeting of March 2, 2012. The bottom line is that the architect has proposed this behemoth steel screening wall 5 feet from our property line. Besides being unsightly, it does not address the light and view infringement from the rest of the structure including the massive living room deck that would overlook our front yard and windows that provide light and air to my home and our rear deck. In addition, the landscape architect has proposed a 36" strawberry tree that is placed in the middle of our bay and Mt. Tamalpais views to partially mitigate the privacy issue between the structures. In its current proposed form, the structure severely impacts the light, views and privacy of our home. The proposed str~m:l--warrafemassive·and they impact the light and views from the street aswell. ~ . s::·· Stephen s RECEIVED ,JU~l 13 Z01Z City of Belvedere RECFIVED JUN 15 ?n1? ... - ~ To: City of Belvedere City or o~i veoere From : Stephen Pasquan, Owner 18 Eucalyptus Date: June 15, 2012 Since we submitted our second letter to the City of Belvedere on June 13, 2012, the architect for the third time has modified the story poles. In addition, we are responding to the staff report dated June 12, 2012. 1. Setbacks - Section 19.78.080 Para B. of the municipal code states "Newly constructed second units shall be required to be setback a minimum of 20 feet from any rear, front or side property line." 2. Lot Coverage - Section 19. 78.080 Para C. of the municipal code states, "Newly constructed second units shall not result in total structures exceeding applicable zoning standards for lot coverage or floor area ratio for the property on which the second unit is located." This proposed house violates this rule. 3. Height of Proposed Structure - The sagging center of the streetside story pole rope appears lower than the roof line of the existing house. However, the corners, where the rope is attached to the story poles, is approximately 6-8 inches higher than the existing roof. This creates a further blockage of the view corridor from the street and adds even more bulk to the project. 4. Screen Wall - Steve Pasquan did not suggest a screen wall to preserve our privacy, but said that we would consider reviewing a color rendering of the proposed wall, which was never produced. Being good neighbors, we purposely constructed our home recently with the intent of preserving our east and west neighbor's privacy by having no top floor windows facing directly towards our side neighbors. The current proposed screen wall is an eyesore to the public views from the street. 5. Lighting - There has been inadequate documentation with regards to lighting to document that lighting will be controlled to avoid glare and spillover from the side windows. 6. Landscaping - The new proposed landscaping will block our views from the entry, yard and bedroom towards the Richardson Bay and Mount Tam. 7. Views and Privacy- Most importantly, the new residence and decks proposed at 16 Eucalyptus seriously interferes with the views and privacy of the decks, bedrooms, yards, of 18 Eucalyptus. See attached picture. We agree with the staff report that a full scale model of 14 Eucalyptus and 18 Eucalyptus be included in the proposed plan of the new construction of the house at 16 Eucalyptus. -----~----... ~---.. ····-. officer after the hearing, and such decision shall be final. (Ord. 2011-4 § 25, 2011; Ord. 2005-10 § 3, 2005; Ord. 2003-4 § 3, 2003; Ord. 90-4 §§ 9, 15 (part), 1990; Ord. 89-1§1 (part), 1989 .) 19.78.080 Second units-Location and development standards. A. Lot size. No newly constructed second unit shall be located on a lot having a lot area of less than 8,000 square feet. For purposes of this standard and the other standards in this Section, a "newly constructed second unit" shall mean a second unit created as part of the construction of a new strncture detached from the main dweiiing unii on the iot, or as part of an addition to an existing structure that would increase the floor area and/or footprint of the existing structure, but shall not include a second unit created or constructed by conversion of floor area completely within an existing structure ("a conversion"). B. Setbacks. Newly constructed second units shall be required to be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any rear, front or side property line. C. Lot coverage and floor area ratio. Newly constructed second units shall not result in total structures exceeding the applicable zoning standards for lot coverage or floor area ratio for the property on which the second unit is located. D. Unit size. No second unit shall exceed 750 square feet in floor area. E. Unit height. Newly constructed second units shall be limited to a height of one-story, and not more than 15 feet, as measured from existing grade. F. Off-street parking. ln addition to the off-street parking otherwise required for the parcel upon which the second unit is or is proposed to be located, the parcel shall also have a minimum of one parking space per bedroom in the second unit (in no case less than one additional parking space per second unit). These parking spaces may be located on a contiguous lot if that lot is owned by the record owner of the second unit, however, in such a case, a permanent parking easement or other deed restriction, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. G. Vehicular street access. Parcels with second units shall be limited to one vehicular street access per parcel, unless more than one vehicular street access already exists. 1-1. Architectural compatibility. Newly constructed second units shall incorporate the same or similar architectural style, details, colors and building materials as the main dwelling unit on the property. I. Privacy. Newly constructed second units and second units created by conversion of existing floor area where the existing floor area to be converted was constructed less than one (1) year prior to submittal of the Second Unit Permit application, shall include "privacy-enhancing techniques" for windows, doors, and openings that face an adjacent property line (examples: the use of translucent glass, solid doors, light-shielding elements, noise-reducing elements, and landscape screening). J. Primary views. No newly constructed second unit shall be sited so as to block to any extent the primary view from any neighboring property; provided that this standard may be waived if the applicant obtains the written consent of the owner of the property affected by the view blockage. For purposes of this Section, the "primary view" from a residence is a scene or vista from the primary living area(s) of a residence (i.e. the living room, dining room, or similar important common use room), and which includes, RECEIVED JUN l8 2012 City 01 ~g1veaere from: Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:42 PM To: Cc: Subject: 16 Eucalyptus City of Belvedere Planning Department Staff 450 San Rafael Ave. Belvedere, Ca 94920 Dear Pierce and Staff, We are writing this letter in support of the project at 16 Eucalyptus. We received the drawings from Fearon Hay Architects, Sutro Architects and Landscape Architect regarding the full demolition and the proposed new residence, via e-mail on March 1, 2012. After reviewing the drawings, we have no objection to the improvements as shown on the plans and fully support the project. Our names are Ralph and Clarrie Hanley, owners of the neighboring property at 127 Golden Gate. Thank you, Clarrie Hanley /~7 To: Belvedere Planning Commission and Ms. Pierce McDonald - Planning Manager From: Dawn Fuller Korinek and Jim Korinek (Long term tenants at 14 Eucalyptus) Re: 16 Eucalyptus Development Proposal·-· Item #7 on 6/19/12 Planning Commission agenda Date: June 18, 2012 I ,adies and Gentlemen - Thank you for the oppo1tunity to comment. Many good points have been made in the submissions to the Commission from 0ther neighbors. We fully agree with the comments submitted by Shih-Wei Peng (owner of 14 Eucalyptus) emailed to Ms. McDonald on 6/6/12 and contained in the Staff report. As year round residents with stay-at-home family members, we will be the most directly impacted parties on a daily basis by the proposed development. We recently invited the Planning Commission Members to come to 14 Eucalyptus so they could view the proposed site from both inside and on the decks of our home. One member has done so to date and we reiterate that offer. (We also just extended this invitation to Ms McDonald and any other staff so they can benefit from the insight a tour of# 14 would provide.). Please take advantage of this offer to assess the impact on 14 Eucalyptus from the perspective where we spend the majority of our time. Despite best intentions, there is simply no way to assess the impacts on sight lines and develop a feel for the floor and roof 1inc elevations from the 14 Eucalyptus perspectives unless you come on our decks and in our home. Only then can you begin to understand the magnitude of these impacts. While not repeating those comments of numerous others we ·d like to add and highlight the following: Privacy -There are several aspects of the proposed will impact the privacy 14 Eucalyptus as follows: Orientation - Contrary to the 3/20/l 2 Application for Exception to Total Floor Arca in the Staff Report (last dot point in section 2) the properties at 14 and 16 actually are actually angled significantly toward each other. This is inconsistent with the Application statement that "it allows each house to face a unique direction away from one another" and inconsistent with what most of us are used to ... houses that arc parallel to each other and perpendicular to a relatively straight street. The result is that our primary living area and decks look heavily at the proposed structure and visa versa. In addition, the elevations of the living areas on the proposed # 16 are at least 5 to 10 feet above our corresponding levels. The residents of#16 will clearly be looking down at our decks and living areas from close proximity (35 to 40 feet at some points). This is very clear on the model delivered (6/18) to the City Hall. The existing house has living and deck levels that are only about 2 feet above our house and it is set back 63 feet as opposed to the proposed 18 feet. The privacy issue could be much reduced by greater setback, a re-orientation of West fa<;ade to be parallel to that of 14 Eucalyptus, and excellent screening (vegetation and fencing or other aesthetic treatments). Lo-'vver level Unit Entrv. Windoi-vs, Carport Fa<;ade and Access Stairs on NW Corner of West Facade - Unfmtunately, what is totally secondary, service-oriented space for the proposed property and the public directly faces critical areas of our home. Both our front door and the open glass-walled foyer (which is the only way to and from the kitchen) are heavily impacted. This portion of# 16 is also directly in the path of our only means of ingress and egress which is a long catwalk that connects the carp01t stairs to the front door in front of that glass foyer. So, our glass foyer and only means of entty is now going to face directly at an amalgamation of the garage/concrete retaining walls/bathroom windows/ scre~~VED JUN 19 201Z City or !jetveciere and access staircase. This effectively exports the impact of the "service" and foot transit areas of# 16 directly onto the residents of# 14 while invisible from # 16. A review of the plans indicates that this corner of the project is extremely complicated and not at all clear on the plans submitted (or the model). At the scale it is currently available, it is not intelligible even to those of us with graduate design degrees who work with plans often. This includes the proposed metal and glass slat screening which is not at all well represented in the materials submitted. It also should include all levels of the carpo1t so that both the aesthetics can be reviewed and we can have assurances that lights from arriving vehicles will not hit any po1tion of #14. We request that that the plans be developed fu1iher and modeled at a larger scale as to this portion of the property. This extremely complicated portion of the fa9ade, with indentations and materials changes, is not readily represented in 2D. We'd also like to request that the Commission suggest that the applicant consider other approaches to accessing the lower level that do not exp01i the foot traffic, noise, and lighting onto to the abutter at# 14. This could likely be accomplished with stairs that come down from inside the carport area of the front of #16. Further setback should also be considered in this area. This represents a huge and unnecessary loss of privacy and aesthetic sensibilities. (We'd note that entire area discussed here is currently 100% densely wooded and provides an extremely soothing aesthetic for all foot traffic).We hope the commission will review this carefully. Views/Aesthetics- The only entry path to the house from the street and carport is do\vn the stairs that are perfectly aligned to provide all arrivals with a focused, unobstructed Golden Gate Bridge view. This view is framed by trees to the east and #14 to the west. The proposed site plan of#l 6 will convert this to a narrowing aperture and have a very negative effect on the arrival experience, especially with the removal of existing large trees to the east. This can be reduced materially by making the majority of the West fw;:ade of# 16 parallel to the EastWalls of# 14 and its carport. Additional setback will also help. FAR Variance/1~1ass To reiterate the concerns of many, the proposed FAR of 24 represents a 21.1 % increase above allowable levels. This expansion, combined with the very steeply sloping site, effectively make the site coverage feel like 85% or 90% FAR from the street because the house must be sited at that top of the slope and nearer neighbors on both East and West to control costs and keep other site lines open. Simply stated, the trade off justified by a tiny second unit is not reasonable and total footage should be reduced and pushed away from the setbacks to help make the mass more appropriate. Thank you very much for your consideration. We look forward to seeing Commission members and staff who come to study the facts from our site. Dawn Fuller Korinek and Jim Korinek Page I of2 Page 2 of~ Michael Heckmann @ • Regarding the glass facade on the south side of the construction, the existing structure will cause a significant lantern effect in the evenings. We would suggest that the solid to glass ratio should be 50150. From: Shih-Wei Peng ([email protected]) Additional tinting should be added and a specific number/percentage must be specified which can be Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 201·2 6:25 PM verified against nii_i,nufacturer of glass spec. To: Pierce Macdonald - Planning Manager Cc: Michael Heckmann; [email protected] Additional Information to Assess Impact of Project Subject: 16 Eucalyptus C"nstruction - Comments from 14 Eucalyptus • -From an additional drawing perspective, we would like to see the following: Dear Ms. Macdonald. ~ Here are my key concerns with respect to the 16 Eucalyptus project: o A 1.0 - A sectional drawing that cuts through the center of my house through the center of their Privacy and Overlooking house through the center of 18 Eucalyptus (must include 14, 16 and 18); o A 1.5 - 3D volumetric overlay of the existing house on the site and the proposed structure (comparing existing to new}. This should include at a minimum 14, 16 and 18 Eucalyptus to put the proposal in CD • On A 1.2 there is a comment "Glazed wall screened for 100% from No. 14 Eucalyptus Rd. " This is a over1ooking/privacy issue. With any glazed wall, there is the possibility of future change which context. may compromise our desire to preserve our privacy. I do not believe it is possible to screen "for o Additional site modelsand 3D renderings as you had suggested. 100%." The fact that they have raised this issue means that they acknowledge the problem. I would •ecommend replacement with a solid wall so as not to compromise our-privacy. They could We would encourage the preparation of a site model that will include 14, 16, 18 Eucalyptus, three houses gain a similar amount of light through skylights. I would suggest that 18 Eucalyptus request the @)--· above on Golden Gate and three houses below on Belvedere (9 house grid}. same thing on the east side. While I have no issue with them having windows on the west side, we Drawing A 1.0 should be expanded to include both plan, elevations and sections from both front and back to need to make clear that we do not want them to have windows on the west side that may --®. show relationships in 3 dimensions between adjacent properties sides, above and below. We would like to compromise our privacy. see plans and sections in addition to 3D drawing. Drawing A 1.0 should be supplemented by elevations @ • Propose that they should revise the angle of the master bedroom structure so that it is parallel to from front & back and should show relationship to houses on either side and potentially showing a section the angle of my house. The pa~allel angle would reduce the adverse impact to the view from my that cuts through my house, the construction and the 18 Eucalyptus. home which now contributes to a reduce line of sight. @ • As I look further at their "Planting Plan" I am increasingly concerned that this solution could be Queries problematic. Landscaping feels like a quick foe/non permanent solution to a problem that has been created by overdevelopment and lack of consideration on window placement. There are too few mature trees. Conversely if the trees grow too tall, then the trees will be blocking the view even • What is the rectangular structure in the center of the lot? L3.2 does not provide any details. They have not more than the house? I am not sure we can accept landscaping as a solution to their explained this properly. overdevelopment. Recommendations Zoning Queries • When I review the Summary of Zoning Requirements, there is a maximum floor area constraint of 4,850 sq fl. The house they are proposing to build is close to 6,000 sq fl. This contributes to the overdevelopment along my property line and should be reconsidered. • This lot should be maintained as a single family home without an additional unit. The second unit is contributing to the overdevelopment of the property. • I see that they have a staircase built within the setback area. We need confirmation that the steps As the project currently stands, we believe that the desire to construct too much floor area on 16 Eucalyptus is and stairs are built within the zoning codes. causing adverse impact to my home and possibly others in the neighborhood. And I do not feel that landscaping provides a long term solution to address these concerns. Access to Daylight Please understand, however, that I have no interest to obstruct our neighbo~s right to build a beautiful home. But I feel it is important to make clear our concerns and issues and am hopeful that the Planning Commission will work with the applicant to modify the project accordingly. • We need 16 Eucalyptus to provide us with a better idea if their new roof lines will not cause shadows on my house. and if their home will result in a decrease in access to daylight from my Thanks, house. With their proximity to my house and their increased doubling of length, I would like to Shih-Wei ensure that I will not be living in a shadow created by their new construction as the rotation of the Owner sun goes around their house on the east side. We should request a shadow study during winter 14 Eucalyptus Road and summer equinoxes during daylight hours. Light Spill RECE\~ED JUN \:~ 1n~? -· ·1"eaere 6/J 9/2012 6119/2012 C\t)' OT t:le v N 0 """RE1iJI lO 10l'UllW"WClll SUIMr llUHf'tlltlXISlN:SlliftAMD llE1Dl:MtNCl&Cll'lt;llUidfQll ~PIMfllCNGwco::« -~MJ.uo: ..... MJ.l.Ml.J"JMllD.UHE10M -~~\Qfa,.QQW i=rt.""' ...... Notes - CD OET AILS OF GLASS WAU. • PFWA<::f ® ANGLE OF MASTER BEDROOM ROTATE010" Iii © RESTRICT LANOSCAF'ING CONCEPT; FLOOR AREA TOO GREAT. © DENY FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION © DELETE SECOND UNIT CLARIFY STAIR DESIGN · SHOULD SEE 12 © IT ON THE WEST ELEVATION 0 DOCUMENTATION: NEED SHADOW STUDY FOR MORNING HOURS YEAR ROUND ..- MmGATE THE SOUTH GI.ASS GLARE AT W• ® NIGHT - OOCUMENTA TION: ADDmONAL A1 .0 B © PERSl'ECTIVE EXHIBITS ARE NEEDED I =o ""c"1T1cT• I @ OOCUMENTA TION: SHOW NEIGHBORING HOUSES ON THE SITE MOOEl -..~ew;...-...... _ .. 11111 .. DOCUMENTATION: ADDmONAL SECTIONS ® ARE NEEDED TO SHOW 3-0IMENSIONAL RELATIONSHIF'S @ ct.ARIFICATION NEEDED OF THE SOUTH DOWN SLOPE TERRACE D -..-..~ ...... _. - ...... - --...... i . SCHEMATIC 3-D RENDERING OF 16 EUCALYPTUS ROAD VIEW FROM 14 EUCALYPTUS ROAD JUNE2012 Pierce Macdonald - Planning Manager From: John E. MacAllister [email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11 :46 AM To: Pierce Macdonald - Planning Manager Subject: Revised drawings 16 Eucalyptus Road May 24, 2012 16 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere, CA 94920 CITY OF BELVEDERE Design Review and Standards Back check/ partially revised drawings received May 22, 2012 Issues from Design Review Report dated March 20. 2012 Wood fence along street Changed to steel Details of privacy screens and timber screens Details provided South facing glass Low reflection glass specified Lighting Plan Site lighting shown/ catalog cuts Roof over parking court Revised lower than main house roof Privacy issues West setback increased Scale of West timber wall Wall has been reduced in size Items required for Planning Commission Presentation Scale model including portions of adjacent buildings Material samples Rendered site plan Rendered elevations The Planning Commission should evaluate the West elevation revisions and determine that the revised solution is acceptable. There are no other major issues with the design. 1 March 20, 2012 16 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere, CA 94920 CITY OF BELVEDERE Design Review and Standards Introduction The applicant and their three school aged children will make this house their permanent residence. The existing house is falling apart and should be demolished. It has no historic value and is very poorly sited. The house is cantilevered over the sloping site rather than working with the contours. This necessitated a very unattractive high screen under the building. The proposed house has been designed by one of the leading New Zealand Architects. It is a classic "Modernist" design. To understand the architecture of this firm it would be useful to visit their WEB site www.fearonhay.com The guest suite has been designed to function as a low-income unit with independent parking and entrance. 20.04.110 Preservation ofexisting site conditions A few trees to be removed on the street side of the house will be replaced with trees that are more appropriate for Belvedere and the neighborhood. All Eucalyptus trees will be removed. The larger trees on the down slope side are all preserved. There are no special existing conditions that deserve preservation. 20.04.120 Relationship between structures and the site The two levels of the proposed house are aligned with the natural contours of the site. The screen under the proposed house is approximately 8 feet high while the screen on the existing house is about 22 feet high. (See Section Diagrams on next page) The low street profile is consistent with the majority of houses on this section of Eucalyptus Road. The proposed house is set back from the road allowing for dense planting between the house and the street. 1 EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION DIAGRAMS 20.04.130 Minimizing bulk and mass The appearance of bulk and mass has been effectively reduced by: 0 Stepping the two levels down the hillside and into the slope 0 Recessing the lower level 0 Recessing the large deck on the Upper Level • Sloping roof parallel to the hillside rather than a peaked roof • Varying height of components 0 Articulating through form and materials the separate elements of the building • Colors that blend with the landscape 10.04.140 Materials and colors used All of the materials specified are natural materials that will age gracefully over time. Stone, wood, slate and Corten steel are all colors found in the surrounding landscape and will integrate the building and its immediate environment. 20.04.150 Fences and screening The street fencing shown on drawing LS.1 is very handsome. It is inspired by the fence designed in 194 7 by Luis Barragan at his Plaza of the Fountains in the Gardens of El Pedregal in Mexico City. Architects everywhere admire this fence. The Barragan fence is built of steel tubing while the fence shown in elevation on Drawing LS.1 and in plan on Drawing Ll.1 is proposed to be wood. Wood will rot at its base and should be reconsidered as a material for this fence. This fence should be shown in section drawings. Additional details are needed for the privacy screens and the timber screens. 20.04.160 Privacv The proposed second unit is within the setback but much closer to 14 Eucalyptus Road. A lot of attention has been paid to providing for the privacy of the neighbors. The West elevation has no openings and therefore no views of 14 Eucalyptus Road. 2 The living room and deck are screened from 18 Eucalyptus Road by site privacy walls. There is no indication of their material or detailed construction. There are no apparent privacy issues from either the North or South facing spaces. 20.04.170 Drives. parking and circulation Three parking spaces are provided in the car court. There is space for guest parking as well. The new driveway is an improvement over the existing one. A path with an intermediate landing provides access to Belvedere Avenue from both sides of the house. There are no other issues. 20.04.180 Exterior lighting. skylights. and reflectivity No skylights are proposed. The South facing fai;ade has a very large expanse of glass that will be highly reflective. Consideration should be given to using Pilkington Opti-view low reflection glass. This will reduce reflection to 2% from both inside and outside. It will also reduce heat gain that will be considerable due to the Southwest orientation. Other than window glass there are no reflective materials proposed. The lighting plan appears to be incomplete. The path lights that are shown are acceptable but no lighting on the decks and other outside spaces is shown. 20.04.190 Consideration ofnon-conformities There are no non-conformities. 20.04.200 Landscape plans-Purpose The landscape design is in scale with the proposed house and offers a variety of experiences. Landscape is used very effectively to increase privacy and visual separation from adjacent houses and the street. 20.04.210 Landscape plans - Materials The landscape plan should be reviewed by a landscape architect or botanist to confirm the suitability of proposed plant materials. 20.04.080 Application - Data to be submitted The following must be submitted to complete this application. A scale model must be provided that includes the end walls of the houses on both sides of this house. All fences should be shown. Windows and other openings should be indicated on all walls. Details of timber screens and privacy walls Demonstrate with the model or drawings how the privacy walls protect the activities at 18 Eucalyptus from view 3 Revised material and details for street fencing Actual material samples Complete lighting plan with catalog cuts Rendered site plan and all elevations Details of Stone Landing shown on Drawing Cl Summary This is a wonderful house designed by talented architects who have a portfolio of award winning contemporary homes. They have designed the house to take advantage of the sloping site, the extensive views to the South and West, and the local climate. Based on their previous work we can expect that materials will be of the highest quality and carefully and elegantly detailed. There are two areas that need further evaluation when the model is available. The West elevation with timber cladding appears to be very massive in the drawings. It might be worth considering a breakup of the wall into two elements in separate planes. He following diagram is only a suggestion. The architect should study this situation and present alternate solutions. Because of the frequency of strong wind driven rains from the South consideration should be given to designing these walls as "rain screens". The cantilevered roof over the car court seems inconsistent with the orthogonal geometry of the house. It might be a brilliant solution or it could be distracting. Review of the model will help to evaluate this feature. It would be helpful if the architects provided alternate solutions with the model. The architects should continue their efforts to get the support of all neighbors. This will help to avoid costly delays in the approval process and make for a happier neighborhood. 4 PROPOSED ALTERNATE WEST FACADE SCREEN Recommendation Every effort should be made to work with the architects to resolve all issues and approve this design. It promises to be a fine addition to the architecture of Belvedere. John E. MacAllister, FAIA 4G LYFORD DRIVE TIBURON, CA 94920 T 415 435-2640 M 415 497-9312 [email protected] 5 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION DIAGRAM 6 ,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: Apr. 2, 2012 FROM: Ron Barney, Fire Marshal RE: 16 Eucalyptus The proposed replacement of the residence at 16 Eucalyptus shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District: 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 Code Official. CFC 903.2 Note: this system shall be designed to NFPA 13R 2) The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2. The proposed plan does not comply with these requirements. There are prohibited plants on the proposed planting list, not all of the existing vegetation to remain has been identified, and the proposed planting within the 10 foot area adjacent to the home does not comply. Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans. cc: file ATIACHMENT __~ _ RECE\VED \"\A~ 3 1ZO\'l. HERZOG City of Se\veoere G EOTECHNI CAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS --..,)'-,- February 10, 2011 Project Number 2636-01-11 Mrs. Sally Wilkinson 145 Hudson Street, Apt. 13A New York, NY 10013 RE: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 16 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere, Califomia Dear Mrs. Wilkinson: This presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed residence at 16 Eucalypl11s Road in Belvedere, California. Our scope of work consisted of perfonning a site reconnaissance, reviewing selected geologic references, drilling five test borings, conducting laboratory testing, performing engineering analyses, and submitting this rep01t summarizing geologic hazards at the site, and containing our conclusions regarding the feasibility of the proposed project from a geotechnical standpoint. Our work was performed in accordance with the tenns and conditions outlined in our proposal dated January 26, 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of demolishing an existing house at the site, and constmcting a new single-family residence, swinuning pool, and landscape ten·acing. Project plans have not yet been developed. WORK PERFORMED We reviewed our previous work in the vicinity of the site and selected geologic references. A listing of the materials reviewed is attached to this rep01t. We explored the subsmface conditions at the site on February 1, 2011 to the extent of five test borings tanging in depth from approximately 5 to 10-1/2 feet, and extending into bedrock. The test borings were drilled with pmtable drilling equipment at the approximate locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 1. Our Consulting Pi·oject Engineer observed the drilling, logged the subsmface conditions encountered, and collected soil samples for visual examination and laborat01y testing. Samples were retrieved using Sprague and Henwood and Standard Penetration Test samplers driven with a 70-pound hammer. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping the hammer ATTACHMENT ----1 70 WOODSIDE LANE• MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941 •PHONE {415) 388-8355 •FAX (415) 388-9266 Febrnary 10, 2011 Page2 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01 -11 through a 30-inch free fall. The samplers were driveri 18 inches, and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. These blow counts were then correlated to equivalent standard penetration resistance blow counts. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of correlated standard penetration blows that were required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or fraction thereof. Logs of the test borings are presented on Plates 2 thmugh 6. The soils encountered are described in accordance 'vith the criteria presented on Plate 7. Bedrock is described in accordance with the Engineering Geology Rock Terms presented on Plate 8. The logs depict our interpretation of subsutface conditions on the date and at the depth indicated. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries bet\veen soil types; the actual transitions may be gradational. Selected samples were laboratory tested to determine their moisture content, dry density and plasticity. Laboratory test results are posted on the boring logs in the manner described on the Key to Test Data, Plate 7. The results of the Atterberg Limits plasticity testing are presented on Plate 9. FINDINGS Site Location The site conesponds approximately to 37.870 degrees 1101th latitude and 122.468 degrees west longitude. The site is located on the southwestern (downslope) side of Eucalyptus Road in Belvedere. The site is a hillside which slopes down towards the southwest at an average inclination of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical). The portion of Eucalyptus Road above the site was created by excavating into the hillside along the upslope side, and by placing fill beneath the downslope portion. The resultant roadway cut bank upslope of the site ranges to approximately 8 feet high, and generally exposes varying thicknesses of colluvial soils (slopewash) overlying highly weathered greenstone bedrock. The fill bank downslope of the roadway ranges to approximately 10 feet high, and is generally inclined at about 1: 1. The fills have settled and yielded, resulting in cracking of the roadway pavement and outboard curb. An approximately 3-foot high, failing wooden bulkhead supports cuts for a concrete driveway which accesses the existing residence. A concrete wall supporting fills along the downslope edge of the driveway has failed, resulting in settlement and cracking of the driveway slab. The existing residence is a two-story, wood-framed structure which is supported on continuous and isolated pad footings. Roof dovmspouts for the house discharge onto the ground adjacent to the structure. During our investigation we noted foundation movement and undermining as a result of downslope soil creep. Downslope of the residence, a tree-covered hillside extends down at approximately 2: l to the top of a 6 to 8-foot high vertical cut battle for Belvedere Avenue. The cut bank exposes a few feet of colluvial soils overlying highly weathered greenstone. Po1tions of the cut have experienced sloughing and erosion. HERZOG GEOTECHN1CAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 10, 2011 Page 3 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Subsurface Conditions The site is within the Coast Range Geommphic Province which includes San Francisco Bay and the northwest-trending mountains that parallel the coast of California. These features were fonned by tectonic forces resulting in extensive folding and faulting of the area. Previous geologic mapping by Rice (1976) indicates the site to be underlain by metavolcanic bedrock Franciscan Assemblage. Our test borings encountered fill, colluvium (slopewash) and residual soils overlying bedrock. The fill encountered generally consists of soft to medium stiff sandy and gravelly clay, and of loose clayey gravel. The qolluvium encountered generally consists of soft to medium stiff sandy and gravelly clay. The residual soils encountered consisted of medium stiff to stiff gravelly clay derived from the in-place weathering of the underlying parent bedrock. The soils encountered are relatively weak and compressible, and are subject to downslope creep on hillsides. In addition, portions of the soils at the site are expansive. Expansive soils undergo changes in volume with changes in moisture content, and can cause slabs and lightly loaded foundations to heave and crack, and can increase pressures on retaining walls. Bedrock encountered in the borings consisted of firm to moderately hard, highly weathered greenstone. The approximate test boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan (Plate 1). The test borings encountered the following profiles: Denth (feet} Boring Fill Colluvium Residual Soil Bedrock B-1 0-2.8 2.8-4.5+ B-2 0-2.0 2.0-3.0+ B-3 0-3.5 3.5-6.0 6.0-8.0+ B-4 0-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-3.0+ B-5 0-5.6 5.6-8.2 8.2-9.0+ Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater Free groundwater did not develop in the borings al the time of our investigation. Groundwater levels at the site are expected to fluctuate over time due to variations in rainfall and other factors. Rainwater percolates through the relatively porous surface soils. On hillsides, the water typically migrates downslope in the fo1111 of seepage within the porous soils, at the interface of the soilfbcdrock contact, and within the upper portions of the weathered and fractured bedrock. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGl!ff.ER.~ February 10, 2011 Page4 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Slope Stability Regional mapping by Rice (1976) does not indicate the presence of previous landsliding at the site, and a map by Davenport (1984) of slope failures resulting from the severe 1982 stom1s does not indicate that sliding was reported near the site at that time. The site lies within Slope Stability Zone 2 as defined in "Geology for Planning: Centml and Southeast .Marin County" (Rice, 1976). Zone 2 includes naiTow ridge and spur crests that are underlain by relatively competent bedrock, but which are flanked by steep, potentially unstable slopes. The zones range from 1 to 4, with Zone 4 being least stable. The Belvedere A venue cut bank at the base the site is overly steep and has experienced previous erosion and sloughing. \Ve judge that portions of this cut may be subject to larger scale instability which could encroach upslope, especially as a result of heavy rainfall and/or seismic ground shaking. We judge that the risk posed to proposed upslope improvements by bank instability will be mitigated by extending foundation supp01t well iilto bedrock below the influence ofunretained poliions of the cut bank, and by designing the foundations to resist lateral pressures imposed by the soils above the bedrock. If possible cut bank failure and upslope encroachment are not acceptable, it will be necessary to retain the cut bank. The fill bank downslope of Eucalyptus Road is overly steep and has experienced lateral yielding. \Ve judge that the risk of bank instability to structures founded on or below the bank can be mitigated by extending foundation suppmt well into bedrock, by designing the foundations to resist lateral pressures imposed by the soils above the bedrock, and by providing adequate slough catchment areas at or upslope of structures. Fault Rupture The property is not within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ), and we did not observe geomorphic featlfres that would suggest the presence of active faulting at the site. As such, we judge that the tisk of ground rupture along a fault trace is low at this site. Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic earthquakes from the San Andreas and associated active faults. Mapped active faults (those experiencing surface rupture within the past 11,000 years) nearest the site are summarized in the following table. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL COtiSULTltlG ENGINEERS February 10, 2011 Page 5 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Fault Distance Moment Acceleration (g)2 Magnitudc1 Miles Kilometers MJ M+1 3 I Sau Andreas (Nmihem) I 8.4 I 13,5 I 7.9 0.34 057 Seal Cove/San Gregorio 10.5 16.9 7.5 0.26 0.44 Hayward 9.7 15.6 7.1 0.24 0.41 ) Healdsburg/Rodgers Creek 16.7 26.9 7.0 0.15 0.26 (I) Estimated maximum magnitudes from CDMG ( 1996) Open File Report 96-08, and Cao et al. (2002). (2) Peak ground acceleration averaged from New Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships by Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), Chiou and Youngs (2008) and Idriss (2008). Estimated shear wave velocity (V530) = 525 mis. NGA values have been increased 16% to determine maximum.rotated ground motion component per ASCE-7-05 Revision #3 (2009). (3) M =mean value; M+ 1 =mean+ 1 standard deviation value. Deterministic information generated for the site considering the proximity of active faults and estimated ground accelerations are presented in the table above. The estimated ground accelerations were derived from the above-referenced mean attenuation relationships, and are based on the published estimated maximum earthquake moment magnitudes for each fault, the shortest distance behveen the site and the respective fault, the type of faulting, and the estimated shear \:Vave velocities of the on-site geologic materials. The deterministic evaluation of the potential for ground shaking assumes that the anticipated maximum magnih1de emihquake produces fault rnpture at the closest proximity to the site, and does not take recmTence intervals or other probabilistic effects into consideration. This evaluation also does not consider directivity effects, topographic amplification, or other phenomena which may act to amplify ground motions. Data presented by the Working Group on California Emthquake Probabilities (USGS, 2008) estimates the chance of one or more large ealihquakes (Magnitude 6. 7 or greater) in the San Francisc.o Bay region within the next 30 years to be 63 percent. Consequently, we judge that the site will likely be subject to strong earthquake shaking during the life of the improvements. Liquefaction During ground shaking from emthquakes, liquefaction can occur in saturated, loose, cohesionless sands. The occunence of this phenomenon is dependent on many factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, soil density, patticle size distribution, and position of the ground water table (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). The soils encountered in our test borings contained a high percentage of fine grained materials (silt and clay). Thus, we judge that the likelihood of liquefaction during ground shaking is low. HERZOG GEOTECH.N1CAL COllSlJLT!liG ENGINEERS February 10, 2011 Page6 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Densification Densification can occur in low density, unifonnly-graded sandy soils above the groundwater table. We judge that significant densification is unlikely to occur in the areas explored because of the high silt and clay content of the soils encountered in the test borings. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our preliminary evaluation, we conclude that the proposed project is difficult but feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical concerns are discussed below. Foundation Support Our test borings indicate that the project areas are underlain by varying thicknesses ofrelatively weak soils which are subject to settlement under foundation loads, and to gradual downslope creep. In addition, portions of the soils at the site are expansive. We therefore conclude that the new residence and proposed improvements should be supported on drilled piers and/or spread footings which extend into undisturbed bedrock, and which are designed to resist lateral forces imposed by creeping soils above the bedrock. Spread footings will be feasible in areas where level cuts expose bedrock well away from slopes, while drilled piers could be used everywhere. Hard drilling or coring may be required to achieve required pier embedments into bedrock. Following determination of the layout of improvements, gcotechnical design criteria for foundations should be developed based upon a design-level investigation. Slab and Pavement Support To reduce differential settlements, slabs-on-grade and pavements should be either founded on bedrock, or on properly compacted, non-expansive fill founded on bedrock. Alternatively, slabs should be designed to structurally span between foundations supported on bedrock. Grading and Retaining Walls Existing fills at the site are subject to instability and should be removed, or retained and recompacted. Due to the steepness of the slopes and the presence of relatively weak soils, it will be necessary to fully retain ali cuts and fills with engineered retaining walls. Retaining walls should be supp01ied on foundations which extend into undisturbed bedrock, and which are designed to resist creep forces imposed by the soils above the rock. Walls should be provided \Vith adequate backdrainage to prevent hydrostatic buildup. In order to reduce expansive soil heave against retaining walls, wall backfill should consist of approved non-expansive fill. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS .• February 1O; 2011 Page 7 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Swimming Pool Where pool excavation does not extend into bedrock, it will be necessary to support the pool walls and floor on drilled piers extending into bedrock, and to separate the pool bottom from the underlying expansive soils with an approved void forming product. Unless the portions of the pool wall in soil are backfilled with non-expansive material, the pool walls will need to be designed to resist the high lateral pressures imposed by expansive soils. It will be necessary to provide a drainage blanket beneath the pool in order to allow the pool to be drained without floating out of the ground. The drainage blanket should be provided with a gravity flow outlet or with a hydrostatic relief valve to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. To allow for soil creep away from the pool, it will also be necessary to design the portions of the downslope pool walls located in soil to resist inward soil pressure and to be free standing when the pool is full of water. Geotechnical Drainage It is important that surface and subsmface water be controlled to reduce future moisture variations in the weak and expansive on-site soils. Perimeter subdrains and slab underdrains should be provided to reduce water infiltration beneath the structure, and the roof should be provided with gutters and downspouts. In order to avoid exacerbating the risk of instability, it will be necessary to extend drains to a storm drain or to an approved erosion resistant outlet at Belvedere A venue. SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES Prior to design of improvements at the site, Herzog Geoteclmical should perfom1 a design-level geoteclrnical investigation with additional subsurface exploration to evaluate subsurface conditions and to develop appropriate geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. In addition, we should be retained to review the project plans and specifications to evaluate if they are consistent with our recommendations, and to provide intermittent observation and testing during geotechnical-related construction. We cannot comment on the adequacy of items we are not notified to observe and test. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mrs. Sally Wilkinson and their consultants for the proposed project described in this report. Services performed by Herzog Geoteclulical have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing in the same locality under similar conditions at the time the services were provided. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no \Varranty or guarantee is included or intended in this HERZOG GEOTECHNJCAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS --->., December 19, 2011 Project Number 2636-01~11 Mrs. Sally Wilkinson 145 Hudson Street, Apt. 13A New York, NY 10013 RE: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation 16 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere, California Dear Mrs. Wilkinson: This presents the results of our design-level geotechnical investigation for the proposed residence at 16 Eucalyptus Road in Belvedere, Califomia. Herzog Geotechnical previously perfmmed a preliminary geoteclmical investigation for the project, and presented results in our report dated Febrnary 10, 2011. Our cunent scope of work consisted of reviewing the results of our previous subsurface investigation at the site, performing engineering analyses, and submitting th.is rep01i summarizing observed geologic hazards at the site, and contaifling geotechnical recommendations for the project. Our work was performed in accordance with the terms and conditions m1tlined in our proposal dated January 26, 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of demolishing an existing house at the site, and constrncting a new single-family residence, swimming pool, and landscape terracing. Project plans are Ctlll'ently being developed. WORK PERFORMED We reviewed our previous work in the vicin,ity of the site and selected geologic references. A listing of the materials reviewed is attached to this rep01t. We explored the subsurface conditions at the site on Febrnary 1, 2011 to the extent of five test borings ranging in depth from approximately 5 to 1O~1/2 feet, and extending into bedrock. The test borings were drilled with portable drilling equipment at the approximate locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 1. Our Consulting Project Engineer observed the drilling, logged the subsmface conditions encountered, and collected soil samples for visual examination and laboratmy testing. Samples were retrieved using Sprague and Henwood and Standard Penetration Test samplers driven with a 70 WOODSIDE LANE• MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941 •PHONE (415) 388-8355 •FAX (415) 388-9266 December 19, 2011 Page2 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 70-pound hammer. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping the hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The samplers were driven 18 inches, and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. These blow counts were then correlated to equivalent standard penetration resistance blow counts. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of correlated standard penetration blows that were required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or fraction thereof. Logs of the test borings are presented on Plates 2 through 6. The soils encountered are described in accordance with the criteria presented on Plate 7. Bedrock is described in accordance with the Engineering Geology Rock Terms presented on Plate 8. The logs depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions on the date and at the depth indicated. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the actual transitions may be gradational. Selected samples were laboratory tested to dete1mine their moisture content, dry density and plasticity. Laboratory test results are posted on the boring logs in the manner described on the Key to Test Data, Plate 7. The results of the Atterberg Lin1its plasticity testing are presented on Plate 9. FINDINGS Site Location The site con-esponds approximately to 37.870 degrees north latitude and 122.468 degrees west longitude. The site is located on the southwestern (downslope) side of Eucalyptus Road in Belvedere, and slopes down towards the southwest at an average inclination of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical). The pmtion of Eucalyptus Road above the site was created by excavating into the hillside along the upslope side, and by placing fill beneath the downslope portion. The resultant roadway cut bank upslope of the site ranges to approximately 8 feet high, and generally exposes varying thicknesses of colluvial soils (slopewash) overlying highly weathered greenstone bedrock. The fill battle downslope of the roadway ranges to approximately 10 feet high, and is generally inclined at about 1: 1. The fills have settled and yielded, resulting in cracking of the roadway pavement and outboard curb. An approximately 3-foot high, failing wooden bulkhead supports cuts for a concrete driveway which accesses the existing residence. A concrete wall supporting fills along the downslope edge of the driveway has failed, resulting in settlement and cracking of the driveway slab. The existing residence is a two-story, wood-framed structure which is supported on continuous and isolated pad footings. Roof downspouts for the house discharge onto the ground adjacent to the structure. During our investigation we noted foundation movement and undermining as a result of downslope soil creep. Downslope of the residence, a tree-covered hillside extends down at approximately 2:1 to the top of a 6 to 8-foot high ve1tical cut battle for Belvedere HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS December 19, 2011 Page3 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Avenue. The cut bank exposes a few feet of colluvial soils overlying highly weathered greenstone. Portions of the cut have experienced sloughing and erosion. Subsurface Conditions The site is within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province which includes San Francisco Bay and the northwest-trending mountains that parallel the coast of Califmnia. These features were formed by tectonic forces resulting in extensive folding and faulting of the area. Previous geologic mapping by Rice (1976) indicates the site to be underlain by metavolcanic bedrock Franciscan Assemblage. Our test borings encountered fill, colluvium (slopewash) and residual soils overlying bedrock. The fill encountered generally consists of soft to medium stiff sandy and gravelly clay, and of loose clayey gravel. The colluvium encountered generally consists of soft to medium stiff sandy and gravelly clay. The residual soils encountered consist of medium stiff to stiff gravelly clay derived from the in-place weathering of the underlying parent bedrock. The soils encountered are relatively weak and compressible, and are subject to downslope creep on hillsides. In addition, pmiions of the soils at the site are expansive. Expansive soils undergo changes in volume with changes in moisture content, and can cause slabs and lightly loaded foundations to heave and crack, and can increase pressures 011 retaining walls. Bedrock encountered in the borings consist of fim1 to moderately hard, highly weathered greenstone. The approxinmte test boring locations are shown 011 the Boring Location Plan (Plate 1). The test borings encountered the following profiles: Depth (feet) Boring Fill Colluvium Residual Soil Bedrock B-1 0-2.8 2.8-4.5+ B-2 0-2.0 2.0-3.0+ B-3 0-3.S 3.S-6.0 6.0-8.0+ B-4 0-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-3.0+ B-5 0-5.6 5.6-8.2 8.2-9.0+ Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater Free groundwater did not develop in the borings at the time of our investigation. Groundwater levels at the site are expected to fluctuate over tin1e due to variations in rainfall and other factors. Rainwater percolates tlu·ough the relatively porous surface soils. On hillsides, the water typically migrates downslope in the fo1m of seepage within the porous soils, at the inte1face of the soil/bedrock contact, and within the upper portions of the weathered and fractured bedrock. HERZOG GEO'rECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGlNEliRS December 19, 2011 Page4 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Slope Stability Regional mapping by Rice (1976) does not indicate the presence of previous landsliding at the site, and a map by Davenpmi (1984) of slope failures resulting from the severe 1982 storms does not indicate that sliding was repo1ied near the site at that time. The site lies within Slope Stability Zone 2 as defined in "Geology for Planning: Central and Southeast Marin County" (Rice, 1976). Zone 2 includes nan·ow ridge and spur crests that are underlain by relatively competent bedrock, but which are flanked by steep, potentially unstable slopes. The zones range from 1 to 4, with Zone 4 being least stable. The Belvedere A venue cut bank at the base the site is overly steep and has experienced previous erosion and sloughing. We judge that portions of this cut may be subject to larger scale instability which could encroach upslope, especially as a result of heavy rainfall and/or seismic ground shaking. We judge that the risk posed to proposed upslope improvements by bank instability will be mitigated by extending foundation support well into bedrock below the influence ofunretained po1iions of the cut bank, and by designing the foundations to resist lateral pressures imposed by the soils above the bedrock. Ifpossible cut bank failure and upslope encroachment are not acceptable, it will be necessary to retain the cut bank. The fill bank downslope of Eucalyptus Road is overly steep and has experienced lateral yielding. We judge that the risk of bank instability to structures founded on or below the bank can be mitigated by extending foundation suppo1t well into bedrock, by designing the foundations to resist lateral pressures imposed by the soils above the bedrock, and by providing adequate slough catchment areas at or upslope of structures. Fault Rupture The prope11y is not within a current Alquist-Priolo Eaiihquake Fault Zone (EFZ), and we did not observe geomorphic features that would suggest the presence of active faulting at the site. As such, we judge that the risk of ground rupture along a fault trace is low at this site. Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Region has experienced several historic eatihquakes from the San Andreas and associated active faults. Mapped active faults (those experiencing surface rupture within the past 11,000 years) nearest the site are summarized in the following table. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENOiNEERS December 19, 2011 Page5 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere· Project Number 2636-01-11 Fault Distance Moment Acceleration (g)2 Magnitude1 Miles Kilometers MJ M+l3 San And1·eas (Northern) 8.4 13.5 7.9 0.34 0.57 Seal Cove/San Gregorio 10.5 16.9 7.5 0.26 0.44 Hayward 9.7 15.6 7.1 0.24 0.41 Healdsburg/Rodgers Creek 16.7 26.9 7.0 0.15 0.26 (1) Estimated maximum magnitudes from CDMG (1996) Open File Report 96-08, and Cao et al. (2002). (2) Peak ground acceleration averaged from New Generation Attenuation (NGA) relationships by Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), Chiou and Youngs (2008) and Idriss (2008). Estimated shear wave velocity (V 530) = 525 mis. NGA values have been increased 16% to detennine maximum rotated ground motion component per ASCE-7-05 Revision #3 (2009). (3) M =mean value; M+ 1 =mean+ I standard deviation value. Deterministic infonnation generated for the site considering the proximity of active faults and estimated ground accelerations are presented in the table above. The estimated ground accelerations were derived from the above-referenced mean attenuation relationships, and are based on the published estimated maximum eaiihquake moment magnitudes for each fault, the shortest distance between the site and the respective fault, the type of faulting, and the estimated shear wave velocities of the on-site geologic materials. The determin.istic evaluation of the potential for ground shaking assumes that the anticipated maximum magnitude emihquake produces fault rupture at the closest proximity to the site, and does not take recurrence intervals or other probabilistic effects into consideration. This evaluation also does not consider directivity effects, topographic amplification, or other phenomena which may act to amplify ground motions. Data presented by the Working Group on California Eaithquake Probabilities (USGS, 2008) estimates the chance of one or more large earthquakes (Magnitude 6.7 or greater) in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years to be 63 percent. Consequently, we judge that the site will likely be subject to strong emihquake shaking during the life of the improvements. Liquefaction During ground shaking from earthquakes, liquefaction can occur in saturated, loose, cohesionless sands. The occmTence of this phenomenon is dependent on many factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, soil density, particle size distribution, and position of the ground water table (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). The soils encountered in our test borings contained a high percentage of fine grained materials (silt and clay). Thus, we judge that the likelihood of liquefaction during ground shaking is low. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS December 19, 2011 Page6 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Densification Densification can occur in low density, uniformly-graded sandy soils above the groundwater table. We judge that significant densi:fication is unlikely to occur in the areas explored because of the high silt and clay content of the soils encountered in the test borings. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our preliminary evaluation, we conclude that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical concerns are discussed below. Foundation Support Our test borings indicate that the project areas are underlain by varying thicknesses of relatively weak soils which are subject to settlement under foundation loads, to gradual downslope creep, and to possible instability as a result of failure of the unretained Belvedere Avenue road cut. In addition, portions of the soils at the site are expansive. We therefore conclude that the residence and proposed improvements should be supported on drilled piers and/or spread footings which extend into undisturbed bedrock, and which are designed to resist lateral forces imposed by creeping soils above the bedrock. Spread footings will be feasible in areas where level cuts expose bedrock well away from slopes, while drilled piers could be used everywhere. Hard drilling or coring may be required to achieve required pier embedments into bedrock. Slab Support To reduce differential settlements, slabs-on-grade should be either founded on bedrock, or on properly compacted, non-expansive fill founded on bedrock. Alternatively, slabs should be designed to structurally span between foundations supported on bedrock, and which are separated from the expansive soils by an approved void forming product. Grading ancl Retaining Walls Existing fills at the site are subject to instability. In order to protect against sloughing of the roadway fill, it will be necessary to provide adequate slough catchment areas at or upslope of strnctures. Remaining fills on the site should be removed. Due to the steepness of the slopes and the presence of relatively weak soils, it will be necessary to fully retain all cuts and fills with engineered retaining walls. Existing retaining walls should be removed. New retaining walls should be supported on foundations which extend into undisturbed bedrock, and which are designed to resist creep forces imposed by the soils above the rock. Walls should be provided with adequate backdrainage to prevent hydrostatic buildup. In order to reduce expansive soil heave against retaining walls, wall backfill should consist of approved non-expansive fill. HERZOG GEOTECHNlCAL CONSULTING ilNO!NEERS December 19, 2011 Page? 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Swimming Pool Where pool excavation does not extend into bedrock, it will be necessary to suppo11 the pool walls and floor on drilled piers extending into bedrock. Unless the pmiions of the pool wall in soil are backfilled with non-expansive material, the pool walls will need to be designed to resist the high lateral pressures imposed by expansive soils. It will be necessary to provide a drainage blanket beneath the pool in order to allow the pool to be drained without floating out of the ground. The drainage blanket should be provided with a gravity flow outlet. To allow for soil creep away from the pool, it will also be necessary to design the portions of the downslope pool walls located in soil to resist inward soil pressure and to be free standing when the pool is full of water. Geotechnical Dtainage It is impo1tant that surface and subsmface water be controlled to reduce future moistme variations in the weak and expansive on-site soils. Perimeter subdrains and slab underdrains should be provided to reduce water infiltration beneath the strncture, and the roof should be provided with gutters and downspouts. In order to avoid exacerbating the risk of instability, it will be necessary to extend drains to a storm drain or to an approved erosion resistant outlet at Belvedere Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Design Based on the results of our investigation, the following seismic design criteria were developed in accordance with the California Building Code (2010) and International Building Code (2009): Site Class c Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv 1.3 0.2 sec Spectral Acceleration Ss 1.50 1.0 sec Spectral Acceleration S1 0.61 0.2 sec Max Spectral Response SMs 1.50 1.0 sec Max Spectral Response Sz..n 0.80 0.2 sec Design Spectral Response Sos 1.00 1.0 sec Design Spectral Response S01 0.53 Site Preparation and Grading Clearing Existing slabs, foundations and retaining walls should be removed. Areas to be developed should be cleared ofbrnsh and deleterious material, and then stripped of the upper soils HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSU!.TINO ENGINEERS December 19, 2011 Page 8 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 containing root growth and organic matter. The cleared materials and strippings should be removed from the site. Vaults, pipes, septic tanks, leach fields, old foundations, and other buried objects should be removed, and the resultant voids cleaned and backfilled with approved fill which is placed and compacted as outlined below. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes should be laid back or shored in conformance with OSHA standards. All temporary slopes and shoring should be contractually established as solely the responsibility of the Contractor, and design and inspection of temporary slopes and shoring are specifically excluded from our scope of work. Ovcrexcavation Existing fills at the site should be removed to their full depth. In areas of planned fills, pavement, and slabs-on-grade (except where structural slabs underlain by void forms will be used), overexcavation of on-site soils should be performed as necessary to expose bedrock. Overexcavation should extend at least 3 horizontal feet beyond the edges of plam1ed slabs. The depth and extent of required overexcavations should be approved in the field by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill or improvements. Expansive soils should be segregated during excavation, and not used in Select Fill zones. Material for Fill All fill material should be free of organic matter. The fill material should not contain rocks or lumps larger than 4 inches in greatest dimension, and no more than 15 percent should be larger than 2 inches. The upper 18 inches of fill beneath and within 3 horizontal feet of proposed and/or within 3 feet of the faces of fill slopes should consist of approved clean well-graded Select Fill material with little or no potential for expansion. The Select Fill material should have a plasticity index of 15 percent or less, and a maximum liquid limit of 40 percent. Expansive on site soils should be segregated during excavation and not used in Select Fill zones. Herzog Geotechnical should approve all imp01ted fill prior to it being brought to the site, and all segregated Select Fill. Compaction of Fill The portions of fill extending more than 18 inches beiow pianned slab or pavement subgrade and at least 3 feet below the face of fill slopes may consist of excavated material placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness, moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent over optimum moisture content, and recompacted to between 90 and 93 percent relative compaction. Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of a soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material, as dete1mined by the ASTM D1557 test procedure. Optimum moisture content is the water content of the soil (percentage by dry weight) HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTUIG ENGINEERS December 19, 2011 Page9 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 corresponding to the maximum diy density. Within 18 inches of slab or pavement subgrade, and within 3 feet of the surface of fill slopes, only non-expansive Select Fill should be used. The Select Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. As the fill continues upslope, it should be continually benched and keyed into bedrock as recommended by our representative in the :field during constrnction. Finished Slopes All cuts should be supported with retaining walls. Finished backfill slopes should be constructed at an inclination no steeper than 2: 1. The outer 3 feet of fill slopes should consist of 11011- expansi ve Select Fill to reduce sloughing. Fill slopes should be overbuilt, and trimmed back as necessary to expose a well-compacted surface. Routine maintenance of slope sloughing and erosion should be anticipated. Fill slopes and areas disturbed during construction should be planted with vegetation to reduce erosion. Surface water runoff should be intercepted and diverted away from banks and retaining walls. Foundations Drilled Piers Drilled piers should be at least 18 inches in diameter and should extend at least 8 feet into bedrock. Design pier depths and diameters should be calculated by the Project Structural Engineer using the criteria presented below. The materials encountered in the pier excavations should be evaluated by our representative in the field during drilling. Piers should be intercom1ected with grade beams to support structural loads and to redistribute stresses imposed by the creeping soils. Piers and grade beams should be designed and reinforced to resist creep forces acting from the ground surface to the top of the rock, and exerting an active equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pc:f). For piers, this pressure should be assumed to act on 2 pier diameters. The p01iion of the piers extending into bedrock can in1pose a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 400 pounds per cubic foot (pc:f) acting over 2 pier diameters, and ve1iical dead plus real live loads of 1000 pounds per square foot (psf) in skin friction. These values may be increased by 1/3 for seismic and wind loads, but should be decreased by 1/3 for determining uplift resistance. The p01iion of piers designed to impose passive pressures should have at least 7 feet of horizontal confinement from the face of the nearest slope or wall. End bearing should be neglected due to the unce1iainty of mobilizing end bearing and skin friction sinmltaneously. If groundwater is encountered, it may be necessa1y to dewater the holes and/or to place concrete by the tremie method. If caving soils are encountered it will be necessary to case the holes. Hard drilling or coring will likely be required to achieve the required penetrations. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSWi1NG ENO!NEERS December 19, 2011 Page 10 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 Spread Footings Spread footings should only be used where level cuts expose bedrock located at least 7 feet from downslopes steeper than 5: 1. Spread footings should be at least 16 inches wide, and should be bottomed at least 12 inches into competent bedrock. Footings should be stepped as necessary to produce level tops and bottoms, and should be deepened as necessary to provide at least 5 feet of horizontal clearance in rock between the portion of footings designed to impose passive pressures and the face of the nearest slope or wall. Spread footings extending into competent bedrock can be designed to impose dead plus code live load bearing pressures of 4000 pounds per square foot (psf), and total design load bearing pressures of 5300 psf. Resistance to lateral pressures can be obtained in rock from passive pressures against the sides of footings poured neat against rock and from friction along the base of footings. We recommend the following criteria for design: Passive Pressures* 400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) equivalent fluid pressure Friction Factor 0.40 times net vertical dead load *Neglect passive pressure in the top 12 inches where the surface is not confined by slabs or pavements. Slab Support In areas where slab subgrade excavations for interior, garage and other settlement sensitive slabs do not expose bedrock, slabs should be stmcturally supported, or else underlain by compacted non-expansive fill which is founded on bedrock as outlined previously. Slab subgrade within living and garage areas should be sloped to drain into a 12 inch deep trench excavated in the downslope direction beneath the middle of each slab. The trenches should be lined completely with a filter fabric such as Mfrafi 140N, or equivalent. A 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC or ABS (Schedule 40, SDR 35 or equivalent) pipe should be placed on a 1-inch layer of drain rock at the bottom of the trench with pe1forations down. The trench should be backfilled with drain rock up to slab subgrade elevation. The filter fabric should be wrapped over the top of the drain rock. The pipe should be sloped to drain by gravity to a non-perforated pipe which discharges at an approved outlet. The trench for the non-perforated pipe should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. Interior and garage slabs should be underlain by a capillary moisture break consisting of at least 4 inches of free-draining, crushed rock or gravel (slab base rock) at least 1/4 inch, and no larger than 3/4 inch, in size. Moisture vapor detrimental to floor coverings or stored items will condense on the undersides of slabs. A moisture vapor barrier should therefore be installed over the capillary break. The barrier should be specified by the slab designer. It should be noted that HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING El\OINEER$ December 19, 2011 Page 11 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 conventional concrete slab-on-grade construction is not waterproof. The local standard under slab construction of crushed rock and vapol' barrier will not prevent moisture transmission through slab-on-grade. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be installed, a waterproofing expert and/or the flooring manufacturer should be consulted for their recommended moisture and vapor protection measures, including moisture baniers, concrete admixtures and/or sealants. Strnctural slabs should be underlain by an approved void forming product for protection from expansive soil heave. The void forms should consist of at least a 2-inch thick degradable and compressible paper product (SureVoid®, or equivalent). The capillary moisture break should be installed beneath the void form, and the moisture ba11-ier should be carefully installed over the top of the void form. Non-structural slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick, and should be reinforced at least with #4 reinforcing bars spaced at 12 inches on-center each way to control cracking. All slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be supp01ied in rock on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this repo1i. Free-standing retaining walls should be designed to resist active lateral ea1th pressures equivalent to those exerted by a fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where the backslope is level, and 60 pcf for backfill at a 2: 1 slope. Retaining walls restrained from movement at the top should be designed to resist an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf for level backfill and 75 pcf for backfill at a 2: 1 slope. For intennediate slopes, interpolate between, these values. A minimum factor of safety against instability of 1.5 should be used to evaluate static stability of retaining walls. Seismic wall stability should be evaluated based on a unifonn lateral ea1ih pressure of 12xH psf (where His the height of the wall in feet). This pressure is in addition to the active equivalent fluid pressures presented in the report. For restrained walls, seismic pressures may be assumed to act in combination with active rather than at-rest eaith pressures. The factor of safety against instability under seismic loading should be at least 1.1. The upslope wall of the strnctures located on or below the roadway fill bank should be provided with at least 2 ve1iical feet of slough catchment. The wall should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure on the catchment area of75 pcf. In addition to lateral eaiih pressures, retaining walls must be designed to resist horizontal pressures that may be generated by uphill retaining walls and foundation loads. Where an imaginary 1-112: 1 (horizontal:veliical) plane projected downward from the base of an upslope retaining wall intersects the downslope wall, that po11ion of the downslope wall below the HERZOG GE01'!WHNICAL CONSULTING ENG!llEBRS December 19, 2011 Page 12 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 intersection should be designed for an additional horizontal unifonn pressure equivalent to the maximum calculated lateral eaiih pressure at the base of the upslope wall. Retaining walls should be fully backdrained. The backdrains should consist of 4-inch diameter, rigid perforated pipe surrounded by a drainage blanket. The top of the drain pipe should be at least 8 inches below lowest adjacent downslope grade. The pipe should be PVC Schedule 40 or ABS with an SDR of 35 or better, and the pipe should be sloped to drain at least 1 percent by gravity to an approved outlet. Accessible subdrain cleanouts should be provided, and should be maintained on a routine basis. The drainage blanket should consist of clean, free-draining crushed rock or gravel wrapped in a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N. Alternatively, the drainage blanket could consist of Caltrans Class 2 "Permeable Material", in which case the filter fabric may be omitted. A prefabricated drainage strncture such as Mirafi Miradrain may also be used provided that the backdrain pipe is embedded in permeable material or fabric-wrapped crushed rock. The drainage blanket should be continuous, at least 1 horizontal foot thick, and should extend to within 1 foot of the surface. The uppe1most 1 foot should be backfilled with compacted soil to exclude surface water. Where migration of moisture through retaining walls would be detrimental or undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed as specified by the Project Architect or Strnctural Engineer. In order to reduce expansive soil heave against retaining walls, the zone located above a 1: 1 plane projected up from the base of the wall should be backfilled with approved non-expansive Select Fill. Wall backfill should be spread in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, brought to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Retaining walls will yield slightly during backfilling. Therefore, walls should be backfilled prior to building onto or adjacent to the walls, and should be properly braced during the backfilling operations. Backfilling adjacent to walls should be performed only with hand operated equipment to avoid over-stressing the walls. Even well compacted backfill will settle about 1 percent of its thickness. Therefore, slabs and other improvements crossing the backfill should be designed to span or to accommodate this settlement. Swimming Pool Where the swimming pool excavation does not extend into bedrock, the pool walls and floor should be supported on deepened footings or drilled pier foundations founded in rock and designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The pool should be underlain by a 6 inch thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material. A four inch diameter perforated pipe sloped to drain to an approved outlet by gravity should be HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL OOllSUL'lllW &NGINEERS December 19, 2011 Page 13 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 installed in the permeable material. The pipe should be rigid PVC or ABS (Schedule 40, SDR 35 or equivalent). The pool walls should be designed to resist an inward soil pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting in a triangular pressure distribution provided that soil located above a 1: 1 line projected up from the base of the pool walls is non-expansive. Otherwise the pool walls should be designed to resist an inward soil pressure of 60 pcf. To allow for soil creep, the po1tion of the downslope pool wall in soil should also be designed to be free-standing when the pool is full of water. The pool should be designed by a strnctural engineer. Utility Trenches Trenches should be backfilled with material that is mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Uncompacted lift thicknesses should not exceed 8 inches. Compaction by jetting should not be permitted. In order to prevent utility trench backfill conducting water into the expansive soils beneath the building or flatwork, granular backfill should not be used beneath the building or flatwork. Governmental or public utility requirements exceeding those listed above should govem where applicable. Geotechnical Drainage Positive drainage should be provided away from strnctures and slabs. All roofs should be provided with gutters and downspouts. Drop inlets should be provided at low points as necessary to prevent ponding of surface water. All downspouts and smface drains should be connected to non-perforated conduits which discharge into a storm drain or at an approved erosion resistant outlet at Belvedere Avenue. New conduit should consist ofrigid PVC or ABS pipe which is Schedule 40, SDR 35 or equivalent. Downspouts, surface drains and subsmface drains should be checked for blockage and cleared and maintained on a regular basis. Surface drains and downspouts should be maintained entirely separate from retaining wall backdrains, slab underdrains and foundation drains. Foundation drains should be installed adjacent to all perimeter foundations. Perimeter retahtlng wall backdrains may be substituted for foundation drains. The drains should consist of trenches which extend 18 inches deep, or 12 inches below lowest adjacent interior or crawl space grade, whichever is deeper, and which are sloped to drain at least 1 percent by gravity. The trenches should be lined completely with a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent. A 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC or ABS pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35 or equivalent) should be placed on a 1-inch thick layer of drain rock at the bottom of the trenches with perforations down. The pipes should be sloped to drain at least 1 percent by gravity to a non-perforated pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35 or equivalent) which discharges at an approved outlet. The trench for the perforated pipe should be backfilled to within 6 inches of the ground surface with drain rock. The filter fabric should be wrapped over the top of the drain rock. The upper 6 inches of the HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING E!IOlliEER$ December 19, 2011 Page 14 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 trenches should be backfilled with compacted clayey soil to exclude surface water. The trench for the non-perforated outlet pipe should be completely backfilled with compacted soil. Water will accumulate in depressed crawl spaces. Crawl spaces should be graded to create a smooth surface, and covered with an approved pre-fabricated drainage material such as Mirafi Miradrain 6000. A 4-inch diameter, perforated Schedule 40 or SDR 35 pipe should be provided in a trench at the base of the crawl space. The trench should extend 18 inches deep or 12 inches below lowest adjacent interior grade, whichever is deeper, and should be sloped to drain at least 1 percent by gravity. The trench should be completely lined with Mirafi 140N filter fabric, or equivalent. The perforated pipe should slope to drain at least 1 percent to a non-perforated Schedule 40 or SDR 35 pipe which discharges at an approved outlet. The slope and trench should then be covered with reinforced gunite. Supplemental Services Our conclusions and recommendations are contingent upon Herzog Geotechnical being retained to review the project plans and specifications to evaluate if they are consistent with our recommendations, and our being retained to provide intermittent observation and appropriate field and laboratory testing during demolition, site clearing, site grading, pool excavation and underdrain installation, pier drilling, footing excavation, slab subgrade overexcavation, and backfilling, void form installation, fill and backfill compaction, retaining wall backdrain installation, wall backfilling, utility trench backfilling, and subdrainage installation to evaluate if subsurface conditions are as anticipated and to check for confo1mance with our geotechnical recommendations. We should also be notified to observe the completed project. Steel, concrete, slab moisture ban'iers, shoring, surface drainage, and/or waterproofing should be inspected by the appropriate pruty, and are not pa1t of our scope of work. If during construction subsurface conditions different from those described in this report are observed, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we should be advised at once so that these conditions may be reviewed and our recommendations reconsidered. The recommendations made in this report are contingent upon our being notified to review changed conditions. If more than 18 months have elapsed between the submission of this repmt and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, the recommendations of this repo1t may no longer be valid or appropriate. In such case, we recommend that we review this report to detennine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the time elapsed or changed conditions. The recommendations made in this report ru·e contingent upon such a review. We should be notified at least 48 hours before the beginning of each phase of work requiring our observation, and upon resumption after intenuptions. These services are perfo1med on an as" requested basis and are in addition to this geotechnical recomiaissance. We cannot provide comment on conditions, situations or stages of construction that we are not notified to observe. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSIJLTINO ENGillEERS December 19, 2011 Page 15 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belved.ere Project Number 2636-01-11 LIMITATIONS This rep01t has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mrs. Sally Wilkinson and their consultants for the proposed project described in this repo1t. Our services consist of professional opinions and conclusions developed in accordance with generally-accepted geotechnicai engineering principles and practices. We provide no other wal1'anty, either expressed or implied, Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the information provided us regarding the proposed construction, the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing programs, and professional judgment. Verification of our conclusions and recommendations is subject to our review of the project plans and specifications, and our observation of constrnction. The test boring logs represent subsurface conditions at the locations and on the dates indicated. It is not wan·anted that they are representative of such conditions elsewhere or at other times. Site conditions and cultural features described in the text of this repo1t are those existing at the time of our field exploration and may not necessarily be the same or comparable at other times. The locations of the test borings were established in the field by reference to existing features, and should be considered approximate only. There is an inherent risk of instability associated with all hillside construction. For improvements constructed on hillsides, we recommend that the owner obtains the appropriate landslide and earthquake insurance. Our investigation did not include an envirorunental assessment or an investigation of the presence or absence of hazardous, toxic or conosive materials in the soil, smface water, ground water or air, on or below, or around the site, nor did it include an evaluation or investigation of the presence or absence of wetlands. Our work also did not address the evaluation or mitigation of mold hazard at the site. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, please call us at (415) 388-8355. ~,...n'l~rzog, G.E. Principal Engineer Three copies submitted Attachments: References Plates 1 through 9 HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CONSU~TINO ENGiNEERS December 19, 2011 Page 16 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere Project Number 2636-01-11 REFERENCES Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J., 2008, Summmy ofthe Abrahamson and Silva NGA Ground Motion Relations, Earthquake Spectra, Febrnary, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 1. ASCE-7-05, 2009, Proposal 2-8, Revision #3, SCOPE: Revise Sec. 16.1.3.2. Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Horizontal Component ofPGA, PGVand 5% Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 to 10s, Eaithquake Spectra, Febrnary, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 1. Cao, T., et al., June 2003, The Revised California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geological Survey. Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA Ground Motion Model for Geomeh·ic Mean Horizontal Component ofPGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra/or Periods Rangingji·om 0.01 to JOs, Earthquake Spectra, February, 2008, Vol. 24, No.1. Chiou, B.S.J., and Youngs, R.R., 2008, Chiou-Youngs NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component ofSpectral Ground Motion Parameters, Eaithquake Spectra, February, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 1. Davenport, C.W., 1984, An Analysis ofSlope Failures in Eastern Marin County, California, Resulting From the Janumy 3 & 4, 1982 Storm, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology DMG Open-File Report 84-22. Idriss, 2008, An NGA Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Values Generated by Shallow Crustal Eal'thquakes, Earthquake Spectra, Febrnary, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 1. Idriss, l.M., and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Ea1thquake Engineering Research Institute, Monograph No. MN0-12. Petersen, et. al., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Depa1tment of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Repo1t 96-08. Rice, S.J., Smith, T.C., and Strand, R.G., 1976, Geology for Planning: Central and Southeastern Marin County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 76-2. U.S. Geologic Survey, 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), by 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USGS Open File Rep01t 2007-1437. HERZOG GEOTECHNICAL CO!ISUL11NG ENG!NEERS LEGEND Herzog Geotechnical Boring n: < / /-9 \ 30 15 0 30 scale re et Reference: Topographic Survey by William Anrlg & Associates, dated 4l7/99. PLATE Job. No: 2636-01-11 SITE PLAN Appr: ~ HERZOG 16 Eucalyptus Road 1 GEOTECHNICAL Drwn: LPDD CONSULTING ENGINEERS Dote: JAN 2011 Belvedere, California VJ ~ EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger ELEVATION: ** Other >- LL=53, Pl=33, 18.7 102 see Plate 9 2 . ·····yE[[oW~'i3R6WN'''(i'RE·E·NstoNt••·flrn1;·--friahie;·················· .. - 3 highly weathered .... · ..... ::::.·::::_ 12.4 118 BOTTOM OF BORING 1 4.5 FEET No Free Water Encountered Converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts. Existing ground surface at time of investigation. Job No: 2636-01-10 LOG OF BORING 1 PLATE Appr: 16 Eucalyptus Road 2 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California ..... (ll ~ EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger ELEVATION: ** Other >- +-' DEPTH e .t: 0 IJ) c .,"'> Laboratory g c °' 0 (FEET) LOGGED BY: G.M. START DATE: 2-1-11 "' :: Q) -~ ·w !!: ., .... * IJ) Tests ~ Q) z ~ Ci IJ) f-' 0 ~· roo -" ~ Cl.-0 ~ FINISH DATE: 2-1-11 0 c ·- c 0 E 0 ... 0 0 c't ~<'I co 0. 0. ~ () oB- 0 ~ ii) (/) 0 ORANGE-BROWN GRAVELLY CLAY (CH), soft, moist 10.6 106 2 . ·····a·RAt\i'Gt:·G·RAY::si'towN··GFfEti\fst'6N'E';··ffrm"fo ...... moderately hard, weak to moderately strong, highly :::>:::. weathered 33/6" .....····. ::~~-·::::_ 1--~~~~_._~_._~_J_~_._~___.__~-="'- 3 -----"''--'--'~B~O~T=T~O-M~O~F~B~O~R~l~N~G-2~~3-.0~FE=E=T~~~~~----l No Free Water Encountered Converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts. Existing ground surface at time of investigation. Job No: 2636-01-10 LOG OF BORING 2 PLATE Appr; 16 Eucalyptus Road 3 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD GEOTECHNICAL CONSUl,TING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California 'ti EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger ELEVATION: ** =- DEPTH Other > Q) ... e i. .~ Ol > 0 U) c Q) 0 LOGGED BY: START DATE: 2-1-11 Laboratory "'E ~:: c (FEET) G.M. :;;) c Q) ·~'iii !:!::. Q) Tests ... e ... Q) U) (lJ ... Cl ~ cu 0 a. -"' "' 0.. 0 :,: FINISH DATE: 2-1-11 u c ·- ...c 0 E 0 "'., 0 0 c:-o cu a.. a.. ~u o.9- ~~ 00 (/) 0 ORANGE-BROWN GRAVELLY CLAY (CL), soft, moist (Fill) 16.0 105 2 3 ····vEII6Vi.C886Wi\f'c3'RAYE[['{··cci\'/TcLf,'""iTiE:iCiium"" ...... stiff, moist, with roots (Residual Soil) 4 19.4 103 5 23 6 ,,,,ii, 32 7 l. ~ 8 Converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts. Existing ground surface at time of investigation. Job No: 2636-01-10 LOG OF BORING 3 PLATE Appr: ~ 16 Eucalyptus Road 4 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California ~ ~ EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger ELEVATION: ** Other ..,~ ?; lll .... DEPTH lll ~ Cl > 0 Laboratory -~ c lll 0 LOGGED BY: START DATE: E lll :: c lL m (FEET) G.M. 2-1-11 .... c lll ·w ·u; Tests ... e lll V; p o_ Kl 0 0. -"'"'"' ... ·-"' ....c 0..0 5: FINISH DATE: 2-1-11 0 c 0 0 ~n 0 E n.0 n."' ::Eu o.9- ~~ iii (/} "' 0 RED-BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), soft, moist (Fill) ..... REb.~'E~itdWiif"G•RAVti.IV""cfAV''('c[f; ...medh.i'm""stlH;········· moist 2 9.3 111 ...:. ·····o·R'AN"G"E:·sR'C5WN"'GFfE"E'N'Sf'O"t~·E·;··1rr·m··to····· ... ························· ~::>::. ~~~:~:::~ hard, weak to moderately strong, highly ..... ···:· f--~~~~-'-~_._~_,__~_,_~_.__~_,__,__ 3 ---'-':::~>~~·'--=s~o~T=T~O~M~O~F~B~O~R=r~N~G~4~~3-.0~F~EE~T~~~~~~~ No Free Water Encountered Converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts, Existing ground surface at time of investigation. Job No: 2636-01-10 LOG OF BORING 4 PLATE Appr: ~ 1 6 Eucalyptus Road 5 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California .... ~"' EQUIPMENT: 4" Flight Auger ELEVATION: ** DEPTH Other ?;- QJ .., "' Ol > 0 ~ ·;;; QJ 0 LOGGED BY: START DATE: 2-1-11 Laboratory QJ -;:; c ., (FEET) G.M. E c., ·~ ·;;; !!:: Tests ... ~ ~ *~ Q) ... ti .... o_ mo 0. .:£., ·- c o..o "'$: FINISH DATE: 2-1-11 0 c 0 0 ~o 0 E n..0 CL"' 2u DE: ~~ [ii U)"' 0 RED-BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL/CH), soft, moist 19.0 105 7 ,,,; r_,_~ :~~·": ¢',:"' 2 ·····O"i:tt\N«3·E"~·si=r<5W·r~rsAN'DY··cr/\v···icAt···01ecffi.im·········· .. ······ stiff, moist 3 18.3 116 4 5 ·····vEU:ow::I3R6WN... cHiAVE[[Y"""tLAV.Tt"f'.ff;··medlum········· stiff to stiff, moist (Residual Soil) 6 18.8 114 1 7 ,~~" :~~;: 7 28 8 .·· ::::· """"YELU5W.'.°f3R6Wf,J""d"RE"E"NSTONE·;··flrm;··"frfa'bie;····················· :/:::: highly weathered ··~~ ... ·.. ·~it :::>···.·.. f---~~~~~-'-~-L.~--1~~-'--~--'-~~""""--9-'";:..._.,:,..J.._~~-,--,-~~~~~~-=-~~-::-:=-~~~~~~--1t~ BOTTOM OF BORING 5@ 9.0 FEET No Free Water Encountered Converted to equivalent standard penetration blow counts. Existing ground surface at time of investigation. Job No: 2636-01-10 LOG OF BORING 5 PLATE Appr: ~ 1 6 Eucalyptus Road 6 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES ~o ~ CLEAN GRAVELS GW )Q WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND ~ t GRAVELS WITH LITTLE OR Q} NO FINES GP ':.: POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES (/) 5; MORE THAN HALF 1>• -1 ·- I~ - I/) COARSE FRACTION • Oo I~ I: SIL TY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILT Cl)o IS LARGER THAN GM MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH I> 'Ii> 0N NO. 4 SIEVE . w"* OVER 12% FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND·CLA Y ~ /\ GC MIXTURES a::<( .....- ~ (9~ CLEAN SANDS SW }~:: WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS w c ·:··~. Cl) ro SANDS WITH LITTLE a:: .I:: OR NO FINES SP. POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS <( +""' MORE THAN HALF ... . 0 (!) ; Uo COARSE FRACTION ~... :2: IS SMALLER THAN SM . . SIL TY SANDS, POOORL Y GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES SANDS WITH • ... < NO. 4 SIEVE OVER 12% FINES >"•-'/ SC .i"/r CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ~.I.¥.· (!) INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, > SIL TY OR CLAVEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH Q} SLIGHT PLASTICITY (/) "iii SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, :::!o L GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, oo LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LEAN CLAYS (f)N '11: ElOL lllil ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW @v PLASTICITY ~ ..... <(ro INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINE a:I MH SANDY OR SIL TY SOILS, ELASTIC SIL TS (9 c w ro SIL TS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS z£ CH ~,~; u:: ~ LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 0 /}/ OH (!/} ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, :2: tf/ ORGANIC SILTS ~~ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt !.!. ,,,, PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM r-- Shear Strength, psf I I Confining Pressure, psf Consol Consolidation Tx 2630 (240) Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial LL Liquid Limit (in %) Tx sat 2100 (575) Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial, saturated prior to test PL Plastic Limit (in %) OS 3740 (960) Unconsolidated Undrained Direct Shear Pl Plasticity Index TV 1320 Torvane Shear Gs Specific Gravity UC 4200 Unconfined Compression SA Sieve Analysis LVS 500 Laboratory Vane Shear rn Undisturbed Sample (2.5-inch ID) FS Free Swell ca 2-inch-ID Sample El Expansion Index hi Standard Penetration Test Perm Permeability ~ Bulk Sample SE Sand Equivalent KEY TO TEST DATA Job No: 2636-01-10 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PLATE A ppr: C::::· AND KEY TO TEST DA TA 7 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD 16 Eucalyptus Road GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California 100r--~-,-~~,-~...... ,...~~~~~~~~~--,.~~~~---.,.~~~~~.--~~~---. 80 • r :J-: : T ;-,~~ r · :-_r ...... ~-· ...... ·f ...... ····· .... j·· ·•···...... +...... ··~ ...... ·1· ...... -~ ...... ; ...... ··:.~',,_· c.. t...... t·· ...... ~ ~ : ->< w ············:··················i··············"'• c 2 i l >-1- 0 j'.: 40 (/) ·········+··············1······-··· 20 ...... ,...... ---·······r················:············r·········· ·················j··················~··· .. ············+····· o,,,._~----~,--..,.:,,,~~--,----...,.:,,,...... ~__._,.._~~~~---,..__,.,.,,,.._~__._~____,...... ,.._~.._~...,....,;,..,,...~_. 0 20 40 60 80 1 00 1 20 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY % PASSING SAMPLE SOURCE CLASSIFICATION LIMIT {%1 LIMIT(%) INDEX(%) #200 SIEVE 0 Bor. 1 @ 1 . 5' Brown Gravelly Clay (CH) 53 20 33 Job No: 2636-01-10 PLASTICITY CHART PLATE Appr: ~ 9 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD 16 Eucalyptus Road GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: FEB 2011 Belvedere, California ROCK SYMBOLS SHALE OR CLAYSTONE CHERT SERPENTINITE SILTSTONE PYROCLASTIC METAMORPHIC ROCKS I I I I I SANDSTONE VOLCANIC I I DIATOMITE I I I ~~~ CONGLOMERATE ~ PLUTONIC ~ SHEARED ROCKS LAYERING JOINT, FRACTURE, OR SHEAR SPACING MASSIVE Greater than 6 feet VERY WIDELY SPACED Greater than 6 feet THICKLY BEDDED 2 to 6 feet WIDELY SPACED 2 to 6 feet MEDIUM BEDDED 8 to 24 inches MODERATELY SPACED 8 to 24 inches THINNLY BEDDED 2-1 /2 to 8 inches CLOSELY SPACED 2-1 /2 to 8 inches VERY THINNL Y BEDDED 3/4 to 2-1/2 inches VERY CLOSELY SPACED 3/4 to 2-1 /2 inches CLOSELY LAMINATED 1 /4 to 3/4 inches EXTREMELY CLOSELY SPACED Less than 3/4 inch VERY CLOSELY LAMINATED Less than 1 /4 inch HARDNESS SOFT - Pliable; can be dug by hand FIRM - Can be gouged deeply or carved with a pocket knife MOD ERA TEL Y HARD - Can be readily scrached by a knife blade; scratch leaves heavy trace of dust and is readily visable after the powder has been blown away HARD - Can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visable VERY HARD - Cannot be scratched with pocket knife; leaves a metallic streak STRENGTH PLASTIC - Capable of being molded by hand FRIABLE - Crumbles by rubbing with fingers WEAK - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows MODERATELY STRONG - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking STRONG - Speclmem will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows and usually yields large fragments VERY STRONG - Rock will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments DEGREE OF WEATHERING HIGHLY WEATHERED - Abundant fractures coated with oxides, carbonates, sulphates, mud, etc., thourough discoloration, rock disintegration, mineral decomposition MODERATELY WEATHERED - Some fracture coating, moderate or localized discoloration, little to no effect on cementation, slight mineral decomposition SLIGHTLY WEATHERED - A few stained fractures, slight discoloration, little or no effect on cementation, no mineral decomposition FRESH - Unaffected by weathering agents, no appreciable change with depth Job No: 2636-01-10 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY PLATE Appr: ~ ROCK TERMS 8 HERZOG Drwn: LPDD 16 Eucalyptus Road GEOTECHNICAL FEB 2011 CONSULTJNG ENGJNEERS Date: Belvedere, California ARBORIST REPORT 16 Eucalyptus Avenue (APN: 060-162-10) Belvedere, CA Prepared for: Pierce Macdonald Planning Manager, City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue ' \ Belvedere, CA 94920 Prepared by: ARBORSCIENCE . ;\ ',; , Post Office Box 111 ~, ' Woodacre, CA 94973 June 2012 ATTACHMENT --- TABLE OF CONTENTS ASSIGNMENT ...... 1 SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS ...... 1 LOCATION ...... 1 PROJECT IMPACTS TO ESTABLISHED TREES ...... 2 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IMPACTS TO PROTECTED TREES ...... 2 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ...... 2 Mark and Cut Trees Designated for Removal ...... 2 Install Tree Protection Fencing ...... 2 Prune Exposed Roots ...... 3 Prune Damaged Branches ...... 3 Grade Outside Tree Protection Fencing ...... 3 Protect Roots Near Retaining Walls ...... 3 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUITABILITY ...... 3 CERTIFICATION ...... 4 Figure 1. Arborist Map ...... 5 Table 1. List of Subject Trees ...... 6 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 ASSIGNMENT ARBORSCIENCE was hired by the City of Belvedere to address tree-related issues associated with the proposed re-development of 16 Eucalyptus Road in Belvedere. Specifically, the City asked that the following four (4) questions be addressed: o Do the plans require the removal of valuable or long-established trees? o Will grading required for the construction damage the root zones of trees identified for rete.ntion? o What precautions should be taken during construction to minimize damage to trees identified for retention? o Will the proposed plants and trees be successful in this location? This report was prepared with consideration of Sutro Architects' project plans 1 and a field inspection of the site on May 29, 2012. SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS Information regarding property boundaries, land and tree ownership were obtained from Pierce Macdonald and verified using County of Marin Assessor record maps. I have neither personal nor monetary interest in the outcome of this matter. All determinations reflected in this report are objective and to the best of my ability. Observations and conclusions regarding the subject trees and site conditions in this report were made by me, independently, based on my education, experience, and inspection of the site. Unless expressed otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible tree components from the ground without dissection, root crown excavation, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not arise in the future. LOCATION The subject trees are growing on a developed parcel at 16 Eucalyptus Road in Belvedere, California (Figure 1, Table 1). The existing wood-framed house with attached garage on the 0.64-acre property was originally constructed in 1956 and is currently vacant and in disrepair. Existing landscaping consists of planted ornamental trees (e.g., eucalyptus, acacia, pittosporum, loquat, cedar, cypress, and plum), and native trees (oak and toyon). 2 The grounds are relatively wild with a significant French broom component and remnant landscaping perennials. 1 Sheets D 1.0 A, L4.0, L4.1 , L4.2, 16 Eucalyptus Road, Sutro Architects.· · 2 See Table 1 for species names. 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 PROJECT IMPACTS TO ESTABLISHED TREES Project plans call for the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a 5,87 4 square-foot modern style single-family residence. These plans would require the removal of eighteen (18) established trees (Figure 1, Table 1). Native trees removed would include two small oaks close to the edge of Eucalpytus Road (Trees 8 and 9) and two larger oaks near the southeast property line (Trees 15 and 16). A mature toyon (Tree 13) would also be removed. All of these trees are relatively young and could be replaced onsite within proposed landscaping areas. In addition, removing Trees 13-16 would reduce fire hazards near the proposed residence. The non-native trees proposed for removal (Trees 1-7, 10-12) are generally undesirable (fire-prone, weedy/invasive) and could be replaced with native trees suited to the site. I recommend that an additional bluegum eucalyptus (Tree 31) be removed and its stump treated to prevent re-sprouting. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IMPACTS TO PROTECTED TREES Grading required for construction would cause minor damage to the critical root zones of the trees identified for retention (Figure 1). The existing house foundation has probably limited the upslope development of roots on trees immediately below the house. If the existing foundation is shallow (i.e., less than 36" deep) then the structural roots of Trees 25 and 26 could be damaged by excavation for the new home foundation and their stability should be evaluated by an arborist. Critical roots for the other trees that are identified for retention (Trees 17-22, 24, 27-30, 32-35) would not be impacted by project grading. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES Trees to remain can be protected by using the following precautions: 1. Mark and Cut Trees Designated For Removal. All trees designated for removal should be spray-painted with a red "X" and a stump spot by the project arborist. After tree removal work is completed, the project arborist will inspect remaining trees for damage and provide recommendations for protected tree repair if needed. 2. Install Tree Protection Fencing. Protected trees should be fenced with 4'-tall orange plastic construction fencing to help guard them from construction impacts. Placement of the fencing is shown in Figure 1 and should be installed with oversight by the project arborist or City representative in consultation with the contractors. Heavy equipment has the potential to gouge surface soils and damage major roots. Protection fencing should be regularly checked to ensure that the tree roots are not damaged in protected areas. The contractor should be 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 2 responsible for maintaining the fencing and excluding construction activities from these zones unless it is supervised by the project arborist. 3. Prune Exposed Roots. Generally, cutting roots three inches or greater in diameter should be avoided. Roots one 1- to 3-inches in diameter that must be cut should be cut cleanly at a 45 degree angle with the cut surface facing downward. Exposed and pruned roots should be covered with loamy soils and mulch. The area should be kept moist during the dry season to avoid desiccation for the first year after construction. 4. Prune Damaged Branches. Branch pruning shall be done in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations, Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices. Protected trees may need special pruning to accommodate the construction. Only an experienced, licensed arborist should perform the necessary tree work, and all tree work should be overseen by the project arborist. 5. Grade Outside Tree Protection Fencing. Grading should be kept away from critical root zones. Unavoidable grading within critical root zones should be performed manually or with an air-spade and overseen by the project arborist. Holes for piers and posts in critical root zones should be excavated by hand to identify large roots so that piers can be repositioned if possible. 6. Protect Roots Near Retaining Walls. Retaining walls may be mechanically cut but should be hand or air-spade finished where significant roots of protected trees are encountered. The roots should be cut cleanly and protected from desiccation. Wood retaining walls near roots that are treated with phytotoxic chemicals (preservatives) should be pre-treated with exterior paint or sealant to minimize root damage. Backfill behind walls should be light and well-drained material to avoid water saturation around the cut roots. In most cases, drainage pipe should be installed. Soil fill should be avoided near trunks of protected trees. Where fill exceeds 1 foot in depth within 15 feet of a protected tree trunk, tree wells will be needed to protect tree health. Fill soils should be light and well drained. Depending on the depth and extent of fill, aeration or drainage pipes should be installed at the original grade and should be designed and inspected by the project arborist. PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUITABILITY The proposed planting plan identifies 20 species or cultivated varieties of landscaping plants for the site. All of these plants have the capacity to thrive in this location provided they are given adequate care during their establishment period (e.g., irrigation, deer browse fencing). They will also require long-term care and replacement if necessary. I recommend planting California buckeye and coast live oak be added to the palette of plants for the site. 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 3 My general impression is that planting could be less dense to promote greater fire safety. The Tiburon Fire Department should be consulted about the proposed planting plan and about the retention of Trees 25, 26, and 27 with regard to fire safety. CERTIFICATION I certify that the proposed project with prescribed tree-protection measures presented in this report will protect the systemic health and stability of trees identified for retention on the property. Sincerely, ARBORSCIENCE /;: -~~/ / • .;::y / Kent R. ulin, Ph.D. ISA Certified Arborist #WE-8733A ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #1392 California Registered Professional Forester #2648 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 4 Legend D Property Boundry Subject Trees ® Tree to Protect X Tree to Remove Crttlcal Root Zone x - x - Constructlon Fencing ARBORIST MAP 16 Eucalyptus Road, Belvedere, CA ARBORSCIENCE 0 2S 50 10()1 ---====------·.. ! PROVIDING SOUND TREE ADVICE Figure 1. Subject tree locations and their critical root zones in relation to the proposed project. Note that critical root zones for trees 25, 26, and 27 are limited by the foundation of the existing house. 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 5 Table 1. List of the thirty five (35) subject trees at 16 Eucalyptus Road .. Tree Common # Name ,:-1 '«' 10 Green Wattle Acacia Remove 2 10 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Remove 3 12 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Remove 4 12 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Remove 5 12 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Remove 6 6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp. Remove 7 6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp. Remove 8 4,4,4 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Remove 9 5 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Remove 10 3,3,3,3,3 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp. Remove 11 40 Bluegum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus Remove 12 8 Loquat Eriobotrya japonica Remove 13 6,6 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Remove 14 6,6,6,6,6,6 Bluegum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus Remove 15 3,4,6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Remove 16 10 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Remove 23 24 Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Remove 31 6,6,4 Bluegum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus Remove 17 12, 14 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 18 16 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 19 6,6 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Protect 20 8,6,8,8 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Protect 21 8 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Protect 22 8 Plum Prunus cerasifera Protect 24 6,6,6 Photinia Photoinia sp. Protect 25 24 Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Protect 26 24 Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Protect 27 36 Monterey Cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Protect 28 8 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Protect 29 8 Swamp acacia Acacia retinoides Protect 30 10 Green Wattle Acacia Acacia decurrens Protect 32 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 33 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 34 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 35 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia Protect 16 Eucalyptus Road Arborist Report 6/8/2012 6 Willis Professional Land Surveying 1656 Acapulco Court • Petaluma CA 94954 (707)529-5079 • (415)[email protected] 2 July 2012 City of Belvedere Planning Department · · • 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Attn: Pierce MacDonald RE: Story Pole Location, - 16 Eucalyptus Road Belvedere CA To whom it may concern, At the request of Jenai Medina Bourke of the Sutro Architects, Willis Professional Land Surveying Inc. performed a survey of the story poles in place at 16 Eucalyptus Road, in Belvedere CA. During the course of that survey, performed on 2 July 2012, the story poles were found in good condition in the locations and heights as shown on the plans, "Proposed Story Pole Layout & Schedule; Sheet A 1.5 Rev. D" et al; dated June 27, 2012, prepared by Fearon Hay Architects, 70 Sale Street, Freemans Bay, New Zealand. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing or require additional information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Randall T. Willis, PLS8118 ATTACHMENT 5 July 5, 2012 Pierce Macdonald and The Belvedere Planning Commission City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Subject: 16 Eucalyptus Road Dear Pierce and Planning Commission, As a follow up to the Planning Commission Public Hearing on June 19, 2012, Diana and I would like to make the following comments and observations in regards to the construction project next door. We are the proud owners of 14 Eucalyptus Road. We have two young boys, Jonathan (9) and Andrew (6). As I am currently on assignment in Asia for my work, we are all temporarily living in Hong Kong. However, we see 14 Eucalyptus as our home where we look forward to raising our children and to retirement. And it is because of our long term plans to reside in Belvedere that we felt it would be important to share our thoughts. The first point we would like to make is that consistent with the views of the Planning Commission, we are also very excited to see a beautiful new home next door to us. Having said that we continue to have significant concerns about the construction plans for 16 Eucalyptus Road as they do pose significant privacy and harmony issues that will affect the peaceful enjoyment of our home for many years to come as well as have a potential adverse impact to the value of our property and home. We sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will balance its desire to replace the current structure with the very real adverse impact to our home in Belvedere. Exception to Total Floor Area: While we have no concerns about exceptions to total floor area as a general rule, 16 Eucalyptus intends to-achieve this entirely along Eucalyptus Road running essentially from property line to property line. Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code section 19.52.120(A), we do not believe that the following points have been adequately addressed: RECEIVED JUL 05 2012 ATTACHMENT 6 City of Belvedere a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; Part of the experience of 14 Eucalyptus is the open expansive view as one walks down the stairs from the garage and along the walkway to the main entrance of the house. The bulk and mass of the new 16 Eucalyptus construction creates an adverse impact to the expansive openness due to the proximity and scale of the construction along the setback. The construction directly impacts views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco skyline for the street. b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area; The large lot size as an explanation for a floor area exception does not take into account the layout and site design. In this proposal the construction is entirely concentrated over a small parcel of the lot. The analogy may be made that a one storey 5000 sq ft building on a 20,000 sq ft lot is very different from a five storey 1000 sq ft building on the same 20,000 sq ft lot. The result is significant adverse impact to the privacy and expansiveness of 14 Eucalyptus. c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and The mass and bulk of 16 Eucalyptus is emphasized due to non proportional distribution of the mass across the property. While 16 Eucalyptus lot size is substantial, the entire mass of the property is situated on the northern end of the property. The result is a significant concentration of bulk and mass that cannot be explained entirely by quantitative analysis such as FAR. 14 Eucalyptus does not oppose a property that exceeds the zoning regulation subject to compliance. However, the construction is not adequately or sufficiently distributed over the entire lot resulting in an unacceptable mass immediately adjacent to 14 Eucalyptus. In short, the size of the construction is excessive relative to the confines into which the proposed construction will be situated. We would like to highlight that while 12 Eucalyptus is also a large construction, the impact to privacy and harmony is significantly lower because of a better distribution of construction across a larger portion of the 12 Eucalyptus lot. 12 Eucalyptus is also a big home, but you do not feel that it is overwhelming its neighbors. 16 Eucalyptus is not appropriate in mass, bulk and character for the parcel because the entire construction is concentrated on a very small percentage of the total lot. It is also not appropriate for the neighbourhood because it is not harmonious versus 12 Eucalyptus. d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The floor area exception when concentrated entirely along the northern end of the property results in substantial mass along the property setback of 14 Eucalyptus Road. The result is that the walkway to access the main entrance of the Second Unit encroaches into the setback area resulting in significant loss of privacy for 14 Eucalyptus. In addition, the main entrance and other views from the Second Unit directly overlook 14 Eucalyptus. The new construction substantially overlooks our home and therefore impacts our privacy. In fact, John MacAllister highlighted that the "West elevation with timber cladding appears to be very massive in the drawings." This bulk and mass becomes especially evident onsite. Story poles evidence a massive structure along the 14 Eucalyptus property setback creating the perception of a overwhelming structure looming over the property. Tiburon Fire Protection District Exceptions: The Fire Marshal of the Tiburon Fire Protection District has highlighted that 'The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire District and the recommendation of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2. The proposed plan does not comply with these requirements. There are prohibited plants on the proposed planting list, not all of the existing vegetation to remain has been identified, and the proposed planting within the 10 foot area adjacent to the home does not comply." In consideration of the bulk and mass of the construction along the 14 Eucalyptus setback, substantial "screening" has been proposed through the use of vegetation. This vegetation results in non compliance with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire District. Property is constructed so close to the set back that it does not permit a sufficent 10 foot wide defensible space zone when considering the extensive landscaping required to minimize adverse impact to the "balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site and those on adjoining properties." We note that 16 Eucalyptus has acknowledged that the bulk and mass of their construction results in significant adverse impact to the privacy of our home and has therefore proposed what appears to be a non permanent solution through the use of vegetation. The exceptions to the requirements of the Tiburon Fire District are results of a construction project that is admittedly too large to maintain a balance along the 14 Eucalyptus property line as indirectly but substantially acknowledged by the owners of 16 Eucalyptus. Therefore, a further setback from the current proposal through a reduction in the total floor area or a better distribution on other parts of the lot would significantly reduce the impact both to 14 Eucalyptus and to the concerns of the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Lantern Effect: Once again, Mr. MacAllister, Belvedere's consulting architect, highlighted in his report that the "South facing fac;ade has a very large expanse of glass that will be highly reflective." In addition to reflectivity during the day, consideration should also be made for the likelihood of a "lantern" effect in the evening resulting from artificial light emanating from the interior of the house through the "large expanse of glass." This will may substantially impact 14 Eucalyptus' privacy in the evenings as well as the enjoyment of the skyline and views in the evenings. This lantern effect is due to an excessive proportion of glazing to solid. Consideration should be made to minimize the leakage of artificial light in the evenings from south facing fac;ade. Design of continuous glazed areas of fac;ade should be reduced by increasing solid to glass ratio. Modifications should be permanent as opposed to changes in glass specification and /or shading which may be easily modified. Solid areas should be comprised of stone, wood, plaster or similar opaque material. Total Floor Area: We note that a decision was made to exclude the 462 s.f. area dedicated to a mechanical chase and storage due to the reasoning that the space has a head height of less than six feet and therefore is not considered as floor area. However, volumetrically this equates to an additional 346 s.f. of volume on the site of a space that is nine feet high. Given the already significant floor area concentrated in a small portion of the lot, the actual proposed s.f. increases from 5,874 s.f. to 6,336 s.f. or 6,220 on a volumetric basis resulting in an FAR close to 0.26. Once again, it should be noted that FAR is not an appropriate means to assess the impact of the total floor area relative to lot size due to the lack of distribution of construction across the entire lot. Second Unit: The Second Unit currently proposed contributes substantially to the bulk and mass of the construction and to the privacy impact to 14 Eucalyptus Road. With the main access to the Second Unit within the required setback of 16 Eucalyptus, the resultant use of vegetation to reduce privacy intrusion is only a temporary solution that can be modified easily and creates non compliance to the Fire District requirements. In conclusion, while we encourage the construction of a new home on 16 Eucalyptus Road, we encourage the Planning Commission to further consider the adverse impact to the privacy and harmony of 14 Eucalyptus Road. The decision to build a property that substantially exceeds the total floor area prescribed under the zoning parameters, and more importantly, to do so in an fashion that is not proportional or adequately distributed across the entire lot, results in a structure that significantly impacts the privacy, harmony and enjoyment to 14 Eucalyptus which was one of the key factors when we purchased our home. We sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will take these comments into consideration as the basis for further revisions prior to an approval of the 16 Eucalyptus construction. We encourage the Planning Commission to visit our home and the site to view the story poles in order to develop a better sense of the adverse impact to our home. With sincere gratitude and appreciation, Shih-Wei Peng and Diana Peng Owners of 14 Eucalyptus Road RECEIVED MARIN MUNICIPAL JUN 26 2012 WATER DISTRICT 220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169 www.marinwater.org June 20, 2012 Service No. 32180 City of Belvedere Planning Dept 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 RE: WATER AVAILABILITY - Second Unit Assessor's Parcel No. 060-162-10 Location: 16 Eucalyptus Rd., Belvedere Gentlemen: The above referenced parcel is currently being served. The purpose and intent of this service are to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new residence will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property. However, there has not been a water entitlement established for the proposed second living unit. Payment of a connection fee is required prior to granting (legalizing) water service to the second unit. The installation of a separate meter for the second unit is required should the second unit be a detached structure. Water service required for the second unit will be available upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below. Please note, the District owns and maintains water facilities running along the easterly property line. No construction shall encroach upon or encumber access to said facilities. 1. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application. 2. Submit a copy of the building permit. 3. Pay appropriate fees and charges. 4. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. 5. Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation. Plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to 'confirm compliance. The following are required: o Verification of indoor fixtures compliance o Landscape plan o Irrigation plan o Grading plan Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation should be directed to Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the District's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org. 6. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (415) 945-1531. Very truly yours, a h Joseph Eischens ui/J-& Engineering Technician JE: mp cc: City of Belvedere Building Dept recycled~~ recyclable ~ <;:T