Attachment 2 August 28, 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ATTACHMENT 2 Appeal ATTACHMENT 2 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND LETTER OF APPEAL FILED BY DANIEL RUARK DATED AUGUST 28, 2017 RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2017 APPEAL OF City of Belvedere PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITYOFBELVEDERE •CITY COUNCIL 450SANRAFAELAVE • BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336 PH.415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG FORSTAFF USE ONLY Appeals must be checked for sufficiency by the Office of the City Attorney before they are accepted by Staff. oate: 8/ae/ 11- Rec'd. by: AeF Amount: §\:: 6ci-3' C:-0 Receipt No.: d,[email protected] APPEAL PROCEDURE Appeals of actions taken by the Planning Commission are governed by Section 20.04.070 of the Belvedere Municipal Code and must conform to the provisions thereof: The applicant or any interested person may file an appeal with the City Council from any denial, approval or conditional approval of any application by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Chapter. Said appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk not later than the tenth calendar day after the Planning Commission's action. Appeals shall set forth the alleged inconsistency or nonconformity with procedures or criteria set forth in this Chapter, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as is hereafter fixed from time to time by City Council resolution. The City Clerk shall, not less than ten calendar days prior to the date set for the Council hearing on the appeal, give written notice to the appellant or his representative, and to the property owner, of the date, time and place of the hearing. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, at all times being guided by the criteria set forth in this Chapter. The Building Official, Planning Consultant, and Planning Commission shall each be advised of the Council decision. The appeal fee is currently set at $523.00 and is nonrefundable. To protect the rights of all parties, the appeal will normally be scheduled for hearing at the next available City Council meeting occurring not less than two weeks after the appeal is filed, providing that the necessary noticing requirements can be met. Any request for delay or continuance of the hearing is subject to approval by the property owner and the City Council. APPELLANT INFORMATION Appellant is: 0 Property owner MOther interested party Name of Appellant: t2A.N. H::L F-ilAF:"'- Mailing (.Q l SUC\LE bti:W '11:. Daytime phone: (4<-s)::Zo9.- -J.,-;2- Address: ~AUS6..LtJ0 1 CA C):f5Gz15 Appeal of Planning Commission Action • Page 1 of 2 • City of Belvedere P:\Planning FormslPLANNING FORMS· LATEST EDffiONIWordVersions\APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONrevB-12-16.doc Appellant's representative (Optional): _.byi....,...=------------------- Mailing Daytime phone: ----------- Address: Fax:--------------- Email: ______________ BASIS. OF.APPEAL Date of Planning Commission action: AU&Ut;;T l St 2-o lJ= Agenda Item No.: _'5=---- Address of property: 1 f,15 i... v~ p.e. RE A'/ti:. f.J.U.(i:. Action you are appealing: A!d--c;l'll'.. AC...\lo...J..?~qoL(..l\!ON<i> 1 A~o 1f.S..j>A-J3Itc.u~: ~LIT1ot.J.~1.-_!Ho H\~ToF;\C.AL-Of<=.Th1eAJ... R=eso<s.\2-C.£ f&f2=- t.!.ji,QA" ~~<oN.it z_-1'b&MoJ-tT1ot-l °[1Ht:i. ~){{q,~O·J,~ f=MtL)!: 12,r;c;. Ji.N.P i::::ra1Ae~~... ~ v I 1.:7'-i~w. State the inconsistency or nonconformity you are alleging with procedures or criteria set forth in Chapter 20, Architectural & Environmental Design Review, and/or Chapter 19, Zoning, of the Belvedere Municipal Code (you may attach additional pages and/or exhibits in support of your appeal): • bAN.ti;;L ~~~la ['t.Af.11-.itNt::s- ~MM!-St>lbN.£ PA."teD 8/'o/1r r I l1 • t'.XC~~2cJ£1 &.c>0~~6. ~f..\.: ~tC-AJZ.qJfCG'C'.'NPii f?\::fONO r~ ],..J P,.f:4!T" ·'=·==~~~CNR<~ ~'Ct1:=rr;o;:"fA+,~tN ~~N~c<~co' .;Bli AA~c?f~~~/~ll 1 • tJ.o'tlc;; <$ '2c:iif-l?¥H\.S.q!Otl ll~ 6--.<$.Etiit'-J. .AN.O <;Al.-\f~"11A ~~~ ' • 'loft:rrrof!Jl..c:?f=SHC;rp1Ak: 80T~f1AA11'*1 UiDlJO:U~6-i~~N, ~ ~\Lc;t' kt.\N~r:z_ 11 •Jc.uy 2&12.c.i<f Mff..1N. l.J .Aja-T\C(,.fi fJ!fOft=.lh{,§.. TH-. J..iaM~"Tl<?l':l or 1HP' AA(lcf.l 6SU-Sfl! ~t~D U lC... ~l '!Rts ~ ~ a { c.. ~ • voc.U./"'El'll~J;N; rJES-Pf..loroi <f 1.-BEJ.M?t:'€1UlA\li\.;.&.!t;. l~ \':'b~ bNP 1~ '.:2oo~ • ~~ l"-' S.uf~o\:it::t" ~ e~Sfl-Vt.qc.o"-l: f:\.i:~ 1 Wf!!tN~"{li!.fN( ~\Wf'.1 Al&NN-!JJ.~7 J..i'.OVlts, 5CMw4p? ( Rr PliY::.p bN.9 HA)Yt>§..r>J I, the undersigned, hereby make appeal of the Planning Commission action cited, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature: ~..._~~:::::::::::.i~~::::!::::::!::::=====:__---- Name: b ~1 ~ '- l&.uA f4<-- Appeal of Planning Commission Action • Page 2 of 2 • City of Belvedere P:\Planning FO!Tns\PLANNING FORMS· LATEST EOITION\WordVersions\APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONrevS-12-16.doc 23 August 2017 City of Belvedere City Council Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Re: 1 Belvedere Avenue--Aaron Green-designed residence of historical significance Appeal of Planning Commission's Action on August 15, 2017 I am appealing all of the decisions and actions of the Planning Commission with respect to the subject property above, with particular focus on Resolution #1 regarding historical status, which is not supported by substantial evidence. Since the finding of no historic status is unsupported, a categorical and/or common sense exemption from CEQA and approval of demolition per Resolution #2 are also unsupported. The basis for the appeal is summarized below and will be supplemented prior to and at the hearing on appeal: • City's documentation regarding the historic significance of 1 Belvedere Avenue is considerably insufficient and incomplete. The City commissioned a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) in June 2012 {completed/submitted July 6, 2012) from the highly qualified Historic Consultant Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. The consultant researched and documented the property and its architect from sources available at the time--cited as fact with supporting bibliographic references. Only this document has properly evaluated the property on the State of California's standards and criteria required to assess its historical significance. Based upon this evaluation in 2012, the consultant determined that the property represented an architectural historic resource and was potentially eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. Please note that the HRE is the first step and springboard towards listing in the California or even the Federal register. However, in the case of a private residence it would require the approval of the private property owner to submit the nomination for listing purposes. This property had not reached the threshold of 45 years of age within the original commissioning family's tenure {the Eldreds)-as much as they desired to have taken this action towards nominating their residence to the California Register. 1 Belvedere Avenue was not eligible until 2008, and by that time the property had already changed hands twice-and the direction of its fate changed dramatically as well. • Now after more than five years have passed, significant new information has become available regarding the importance of architect Aaron Green and the historical significance of the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue (please see citations within and attachments to Daniel Ruark letter to the Planning Commission dated August 3, 2017, as well as letters of support for the preservation of the property, particularly from preeminent authors regarding Bay Area architecture, David Weinstein and Alan Hess, including a letter from Stanford Professor ofArchitecture and Art History and author Paul Turner). To inform its decision, the City should return to Garavaglia Architecture to update the 2012 report with the considerable amount of new evidence that has emerged in the last five years. The City's conclusion that Aaron Green is not a master architect and that 1 Belvedere Avenue is not historically significant are based on incomplete facts and analysis. • Preservation Architecture's (Mark Hulbert) letter ofJuly 31, 2017 lacks full analysis and is unsupported opinion that does not rise to the level of substantial evidence. The author criticizes portions of the 2012 HRE and opines on irrelevancies, such as the visibility of the house from outside the property. The author offers an opinion of the status of architect Aaron Green without supportive evidence. His short letter of opinion cannot stand up as a creditable "professional study," yet the letter is relied upon by Planning Staff and the Planning Commissioners. • The City should return to Garavaglia Architecture to update their 2012 Historic Resource Evaluation, rather than accept a applicant/owner commissioned letter as sufficient basis for such an important decision regarding a valuable asset to the City. Planning Commissioner Larry Stoehr expressed a similar sentiment in his comments at the meeting of August 15th, lamenting that the Commission could be rushing to judgment, that the Planning Staff report was "weak" with respect to proper evaluation of the property as a historic resource and believed the 2012 Historic Resource Evaluation should be updated. •The Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 21-Historic Preservation, Chapter 21.04 "Findings and Purposes" states that "the City Council finds that the Legislature of the State of California has recognized the value of protecting and preserving sites and structures of historic, aesthetic and architectural importance and has empowered cities to adopt regulations and incentives to achieve those aims.