Belvedere Planning Commission Staff Report

BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

ITEM NO. 6. REPORT DATE: 5/13/2011 MEETING DATE: 5/17/2011 REPORT WRITTEN BY: Pierce Macdonald, Planning Manager REPORT REVIEWED BY: Riley Hurd III, Deputy City Attorney

SUBJECT: Appeal of staff-level decision concerning CEQA review for project involving Rezoning, Use Permit, Design Review, Retroactive Design Review, Revocable License LOCATION: 98 Beach Road OWNER: The San Francisco Yacht Club APPLICANT: John Swain

ATTACHMENTS: 1. (Not used) 2. Applications and Applicant Correspondence 3. Plans, dated May 4, 2011 (excerpted) 4. Staff Correspondence 5. TJKM Parking Study, dated March 19, 2010 6. Archeological Report 7. Historical Resource Evaluation 8. Plans, dated February 11, 2010 (excerpted) 9. Resolutions 2009-024, 2009-025, 2010-006 10. August 18, 2009 and February 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes 11. Correspondence CEQA STATUS: Undetermined. APPROVAL Application has not been accepted as complete. DEADLINE: ZONING: R - Recreation and R-3, Multi-family Residential

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is a 759,846-square-foot property, featuring a marina, clubhouse, accessory buildings, harbormaster building, and parking lot. Belvedere Cove is located generally to the east; Beach Road, the Land Company Park, and the Belvedere Land Company Building, to the northwest; and the Farr Cottages in the R-3C Zoning District, to the northeast. The Farr Cottages and the Belvedere Land Company Building are designated City of Belvedere Landmarks. Single-family residences are located to the west and south, multi-family residential to the east, and mixed-use commercial and multi family residential to the north. The site is the location of the earliest European inhabitant of Belvedere Island, Israel Kashow, and is the site of an ancient Native American midden deposit. According to City records, the San Francisco Yacht Club building was constructed in the 1930's and the last remodel occurred in 2007.

On August 18, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider requests for a Conditional Use Permit to establish the development standards for temporary tent and canopy structures, as well as Design Review for the design and materials of the tents. The draft resolutions prepared for the item included a number of conditions of approval Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club May17,2011 Page 2 related to parking, Fire Code regulations, amplified sound, hours of operation, and duration of use of the tents. The applicant explained that the SFYC is seeking to host a racing World Championship. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Use Permit and Design Review by means of Resolutions 2009- 024 and 2009-025 with modifications that included the exclusion of the largest of the tents requested by the Club (7,200 square feet), and a limit on the life of the Use Permit until February 28, 2010.

On February 16, 2010, Planning Commission held a public hearing on the extension of the Conditional Use Permit. The staff report explained that the prior Design Review approval remained valid. The staff report presented the number and types of calls for service to the Police Department for the project vicinity. Correspondence was received noting complaints regarding excessive noise at night, related to an outdoor fire pit and seeming changes to Club policies. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission discussed the project and a condition of approval limiting the amount of temporary floor area that could be used at one time (5,400 square feet) and setting a five-year lifetime on the permit. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2010-006 granting the continued use of temporary tent and canopies for special events at the San Francisco Yacht Club. Condition of approval D. included requirements for guest parking. In May of 2010, the San Francisco Yacht Club submitted applications for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to enlarge the existing clubhouse, enlarge the Cove House, and enlarge the Cove House deck. The applications were later expanded to include a rezone of the property from R-3 Residential to the R-Recreation Zoning District and for a Revocable License. As proposed, the main clubhouse building would be expanded by approximately 688.5 square feet and the Cove House (formerly 100 Beach Road) would be expanded by 1,033 square feet. In addition, the project would include a new 1,607- square-foot raised entertainment area/deck. Project plans include a new sidewalk and fence along Beach Road, new signage, fire pit, parking plan and landscaping. On February 28, 2011, the Traffic and Safety Committee reviewed the proposed design of the new sidewalk within the public right-of-way proposed by the applicant and recommended its approval, in concept. On April 22, 2011 staff forwarded the recommendations of the City's consulting architectural historians, Garavaglia Associates, to the applicant's representative. Garavaglia determined that the Cove House was a potential historical resource. Staff had communicated the possibility that the Cove House could have historical resource value at the initial contact with the applicant. Staff suggested amendments to the proposed design based on this potential. On April 29, 2011, staff forwarded staffs determination to the applicant's representative that the analysis of the traffic impacts of the project could not be completed based on the parking study submitted by the applicant. Staff had communicated the insufficiencies of the parking study at the initial submittal of the parking study. Staff requested additional information regarding the types and sizes of events held at the San Francisco Yacht Club and the measures that the Club takes to manage parking and traffic. Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club May 17, 2011 Page 3

ANALYSIS At this time, the applicant requests Planning Commission review of an appeal of staff's determinations that the project's environmental impacts cannot be evaluated with the level of information available to staff. Most of the projects reviewed by City staff that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) end up being processed as a "Negative Declaration" or a "Mitigated Negative Declaration." These documents certify that the City is able to state unequivocally that a project will not have a potential adverse impact on people, plants, animals or places. At this time, staff is not able to make the finding that the proposed remodel and expansion of the Club will not have a potential adverse impacts on traffic and cultural resources. Staff's preliminary analysis is included below. The appeal letter is included as Attachment 2. Parking and Traffic CEQA states that a lead agency shall not prepare a Negative Declaration if it determines that there is "substantial evidence, in light of the whole record ... that a project may have a significant effect on the environment" (Guidelines Section 15064(a)(l)) or if it is presented with a "fair argument" that the project may have a significant impact even though it may receive information to the contrary (Guidelines Section 15064(±)(1 )). The Initial Study Checklist that is provided by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes a series of specific questions that are used to determine if a project may have a significant environmental impact on traffic and transportation, such as "Will the project:" d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? At this time, staff cannot rely on the project information to determine that there will not be a potential adverse impact associated with the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Yacht Club because there is substantial evidence that inadequate parking could impact area traffic circulation and emergency response. The basis for this determination is provided below. The applicant submitted a parking study prepared by TJKM, dated March 19, 2010, to support the proposed Club expansion. The report evaluated the parking associated with a single event held on Friday, February 19, 2010 for 24 people in the Cove House. The clubhouse was open to members while the event was occurring. According to the report, a minimum of 97 parking spaces of the 186 spaces provided on Club property were available throughout the evening. The analysis of the parking demand noted that over 20 public parking spaces also were available within a two-block radius of the Club and that the Club has an informal, on-going agreement with a private parking lot in Tiburon for increased capacity of 150 parking spaces. The TJKM parking study assumed a parking rate of 1.5 guests per vehicle. The 1.5 variable represented a typical scenario where half of the guests drove alone and half drove with another person. The parking study did not evaluate an event during the summer or the sailing season, a time when many people hold special events and when more residents and visitors are in Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club May17,2011 Page4

Belvedere enjoying the summer weather and the area's busy summer social calendar. The study did not include parking demand created by Club employees, special events such as The Leukemia Cup, The Kitchen Tour, weddings and regattas, or the added capacity represented by temporary tents. In addition, the Club is one use on several legal lots. TJKM did not identify the special parking needs of uses which provide facilities and parking on separate legal lots. TJKM did not find a potential for traffic congestion and so did not recommend measures to manage parking demand, maintain safe traffic flow or avoid roadway obstructions. At this time, staff cannot rely on the parking study and finds that there may be a potential adverse impact associated with the proposed expansion. The project represents an increase of approximately 688.5 square feet at the club house primarily in the kitchen area and an increase of 1,033 square feet at the Cove House in the kitchen and dining areas. This represents a doubling of kitchen capacity. At events held in the Cove House in the past, staff noted that the small Cove House kitchen was used as a server station and food was brought from the club house kitchen. The proposed project would create two full-size commercial kitchens. The project also includes a new 1,607-square-foot raised entertainment area/deck where a large tent was approved in 2010. On May 6, 2011, the Building Official established the approximate maximum building occupancies of the proposed new floor area and the existing Club buildings. As stated above, the March 19, 2010 TJKM parking study assumed a parking rate of 1.5 people per vehicle. The American Planning Association (APA) provides a report which includes sample parking standards for marinas. The maximum building code occupancies and the TJKM and AP A parking rates are provided below.

Max. Max. Size Parking Demand Area Occupancy Occupancy - Seated or Parking Demand - Dining Seated Dining Standing

Club House 555 256 9,288.5 s.f. 370 ( 1.5 per space) 171 (1.5 per space) + 612 s.f. at kitchen Club House Deck 412 190 4,467 s.f. 275 (1.5 per space) 127 (1.5 per space) Cove House 212 98 2,678 s.f. 141 ( 1.5 per space) 65 (1.5 per space) + 372 s.f. at kitchen + 661 s.f. other Cove House Deck 230 106 1,607 s.f. 153 (1.5 per space) 71 ( 1.5 per space) Sailing Center 81 38 2, 158 s.f. 122 ( 1.5 per space) 25 (1.5 per space) Harbormaster 2 2 558 s.f. 2 2 (1 I 300 s.f. office) Boat Slips 198 50 (1 per 4 berths) 50 Dry Storage 36 9 (1 per 4 dry dock) 9 Temp. Tents (.75) 579 267 5,400 s.f. 290 ( 2 per space) 148 ( 2 per space) Total 2,071 people 957 1,412 spaces 668 spaces Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club May 17, 2011 Page 5

Based on occupancy and expected parking patterns alone, the San Francisco Yacht Club use could - in a worst case scenario - generate a parking demand of 1,412 spaces where the club provides 186 parking spaces. A driver's inability to find parking is a recognized factor in traffic congestion, which can lead to unsafe driving practices, obstruction of the roadway, and reduced response times of emergency personnel, as well as significant inconveniences to residents. The maximum building capacity reflected in the table above assumes the highest occupancy standard of one person per 7 square feet of net floor area (excluding accessory spaces such as passageways, bathrooms, coat closets, etc.). Even if the assumed capacity was half standing/seated and half dining (1 person per 15 square feet of floor area), the parking demand could still be more than five times the actual parking provided on site. Based on occupancy alone without the proposed expansion, the existing parking is already inadequate for the legal occupancy of the facilities. The project includes the doubling of the kitchen, storage and refrigeration facilities and the increased event capacity that represents. The information provided in the past by the Club concerning the management of parking and events is not conclusive. In a July 13, 2009 letter from . General Manager Dennis Conneally submitted in conjunction with the applications for a temporary tents permit, the General Manager states that for any events which exceed the occupancy limits, "valet parking would be provided." At the August 18, 2009 Planning Commission meeting for the tents, the General Manager stated that "There is no plan to bring in 300 additional persons on top of their regular business because they simply cannot handle that. The Club has a single very small kitchen and when there is another event they normally shut down the regular club operations and move out to the tented area." Lastly, the General Manager explained that the SFYC is seeking to host additional racing regattas such as the World Championships. City staff met with Commodore Heller on May 9, 2011 to discuss staffs concerns. The Commodore noted that the last Kitchen Tour generated 1,200 guests and the Club voluntarily decided to limit attendance to 700 people in the future. The Commodore explained that different Board Members have responsibilities for organizing events, such as the Race Committee and the House Committee. The Commodore and staff discussed establishing a protocol for special events which would include the measures that the Club would follow to manage parking and traffic congestion, communicate parking policies to the City, and inform guests and members of parking policies. The Commodore and staff agreed that a central Club representative should be responsible for parking policies, event planning and parking compliance. Staff asked that the Club's traffic engineers, TJKM, review the measures to be offered by the Club. At this time, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission submit additional information regarding the measures that the San Francisco Yacht Club will use to manage events at the property. A plan which includes detailed measures to manage traffic and parking associated with large events and a detailed schedule of the types of events held at the Club may reduce the potential impact to less than significant in the opinion of staff. Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club May 17, 2011 Page 6

Historic and Cultural Resources A February 28, 2011 report prepared by ARS for the San Francisco Yacht Club expansion project recommended that the City of Belvedere evaluate the historical value of the Cove House, formerly a private residence at 100 Beach Road. In March of 2011, Garavaglia Architecture began careful research and analysis to evaluate whether or not the Cove House could be "an historical resource" as defined in 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Research included review of Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society archives and publications, City of Belvedere records of planning entitlements and building permits, the San Francisco History Room archives at the Public Library, the Environmental Design Archives of the University of California, the California Historical Society, Online Archive of California research databases, and family records. The analysis and recommendations are included in the report dated April 22, 2011. The Cove House was built in 1916, the year after the Panama Pacific Exposition in San Francisco. Family and San Francisco Yacht Club records indicate that the Cove House was constructed of materials removed from the Exposition when it ended. Remnants of the Exposition can be found today in Sausalito (elephant sculptures and fountains re-cast in concrete), San Francisco (the Palace of Fine Arts, re-cast in concrete, the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, and the Japanese Tea Garden structures), and San Rafael (Improvement Club). When it was constructed, the Cove House featured many of the innovations presented at the Exposition, including classical architectural features and electrified exterior lighting. The residence was built for Dr. Clyde Payne and his family. Dr. and Mrs. Payne, Dolly Madison Payne (daughter), and Clyde Payne, Jr., (son) were active members of Belvedere and San Francisco society, as accounted in newspapers of the time. Dr. Payne was responsible in small part for the rebuilding of San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake, financing at least two apartment buildings after the earthquake and fire destroyed most of the city. Dr. Payne was also Commodore of the Pacific Motor Boat Club. A summary of the family's history is included in the April 22, 2011 report. The family left the house in 1982. The Cove House was purchased by the San Francisco Yacht Club and incorporated into the club complex in 1984. On May 3, 1988 at 8:47 pm, the Fire District responded to a fire that seemed to have begun by a plumber working in the subfloor area. The fire spread up the exterior wall and into the attic and roof area. The repair was completed with City permits which can be found in the City records. The Garavaglia Architecture Report concluded that the Cove House retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling, and is significant as a notable example of the Italian Renaissance style in Belvedere. Therefore, the property appears to be eligible for listing on the CRHR at the local level. CEQA provides many of the same protections for structures deemed eligible for historical registers as it does for structures on national, state or local registers. At this time staff is unable to find that the extensive work proposed to the Cove House, which includes removal of all doors and windows, removal of stucco exterior, enclosing of the covered portico area, and addition of shingle siding, combined with the reframing that will be necessary to meet current building and Staff Report for 98 Beach Road Owner: The San Francisco Yacht Club Mayl7,2011 Page 7 seismic codes, will not be a potentially adverse impact to an historical resource as defined in 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Staff recommends that minor changes to the project, including retention and repair of stucco siding, retention and repair of original exterior doors, windows and trim detail, as well as avoidance of demolition of the structure, would make the project less likely to cause a significant impact under CEQA, while allowing the addition to the rear of the building and the addition of the large entertainment/dining deck to continue. In the alternative, the applicant could submit its own historical analysis for the record, thereby giving the Commission the ability to compare and contrast that analysis with that of Garvaglia, and make a decision about the historical importance of the Cove House. Correspondence from Keith Bartel, a family member is included in Attachment 11.

RECOMMENDATION

MOTION: To uphold the City's determination that additional information will be necessary to complete the environmental review of the proposed project at 98 Beach Road. Project Address: ______

·: APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED 450SANRAFAELAVE. BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG MAY 1 3 2010

Planning Comm. Approval 0 .. \Ul-- Design Review Exception 0 Amount: ------Receipt No.: _ ___._n_____ ) _ Staff Approval 0 Parcel No.: r)l:O OY

Does this project have an active building permit? No IXl Yes D Permit No.: _____

Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No ~ Yes D Address of Property: 98 Beach Road Reco~Owner~Property: __T_h_e_S_a_n_F_r_a_n_ci_s_c_o_Y_a_c_h_t_C_lu_b ______Mailing 98 Beach Road Daytime Phone: 435 9133 Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: 435-8547 Email: Owne(sRepre~nt~~e: __J_o_h_n_S_w_a_i_n ______Mailing 89 Beach Road Daytime Phone: 435 0468 Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: 435 7636 Email: [email protected] Project Description: 1. An 688.5 sq ft addition to the main club building. 2. An 848 sq ft addition to the Cove House. 3. Increase the size of an existing deck at the Cove House from 542 sq ft to 1606.9 sq ft. 4. Eliminate door to kitchen at front elevation and reconfigure access to the trash area and kitchen from directly on Beach Road to a side entrance accessed by a new gate.

Design Review Application • Page 1 of 9 • City of Belvedere ~ U:lplanningmanager\Planning Forms\I'LANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-IO.doc ___ -~-g- __ _ ATTACHMENT2 Project Address: ______

ZONING PARAMETERS:

Required Existing Pro~osed

Lot Area ...... n/a 759,846 no change Lot Coverage ...... n/a 12,551.1 14,087.6 Total Floor Area ...... n/a 13, 199.1 14,735.6 Front Yard Setback .... n/a no change Left Sideyard Setback .. n/a no change Right Sideyard Setback .... n/a no change Rear Yard Setback .... n/a no change Building Height Maximum ... n/a no change Building Height Average ... n/a no change Parking Spaces ...... n/a no change

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed:------ General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: __T_h_e_S_a_n_F_ra_n_c_i_sc_o_Y_a_c_h_t_C_l_u_b _____ . 2. Address of project: 98 Beach RoaEl, Belvedere 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: John Swain 89 Beach Road, Belvedere, CA 94920, 415 435 0468

4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: ------5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: ------ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 6. Existing zoning district: ____R_-_R_e_c_r_e_a_ti_o_n ______7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): __N_o_c_h_a_n....;:g:..._e_-_Y_a_c_h_t_C_l_u_b_. ______

8. Year built: 1930's Original architect: _u_n_k_n_o_w_n______Project Description 759,846 9. Site size. ------10. Square footage. 14,087.6 11. Number of floors of construction ------one 12. Amount of off-street parking provided 186 13. Plans attached? ______,_-=oe-=os ______

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

U:\planningmanagerlPlannmg Forms\PLANNING FORMS. LATEST EDITION\APPL!CATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-IO.doc Project Address: ______

14. Proposed scheduling. Jan 2011 - June 2011 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. none

16. Anticipated incremental development. none 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of househo~s~eexpecied: ~~~~~~n-~-~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,and~ading~cililies. ~~n_/=a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application~ required. ~~n~/a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of 0 ~ ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 0 ~ 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. D ~ 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. . D !Kl 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D !Kl 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing D li:1 drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. D ~ 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 0 !Kl 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or 0 rg) explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). D rg) 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D lRI 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D DO 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. 0 rg)

Environmental Setting 34. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. A flat site used as a yacht club for 80 years with 3 sets of buildings: a main club building. a sailing center and a secondary building for club functions.

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

Residential 2 or more story apartment buildings. All built within setbacks. 2 historic buildings.

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

U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REYIEWrev2-3-IO.doc Project Address: ______

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:$ BOO,OOO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 8 ase don 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 b€ less than $500.000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

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

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

0 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.

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

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

Design Review Application • Page 4 of 9 • City of Belvedere

U.\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNlNG FORMS - LATEST ED!TlON\APPUCATJON FOR DESIGN REVlEWrev2-3-10.doc Project Address: ~~~~~~~~~~~~-

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 applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source: Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2008, (subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ 67.07 Assistant Planner $ 39.29 City Attorney $ 185.00 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead

Design Review Application• Page 5of9 •City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITJON\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev2-3-10.doc Project Aaaress: ______

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 from City staff regarding the project shall neither be deemed official nor relied upon unless they are in writing and signed by the City Manager or his designee. 3. Without the prior written approval of the City, construction on the project shall not deviate in any manner, including but not limited to form. size or color, from approved construction plans. ff 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. ff 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 6 of 9 • City of Belvedere

U·\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDIT\ON\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REYIEWrev2-3- IO.doc Project Address: ~~~~~~~~~~~-

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 eiements of the structure.

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

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

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

All property owners must complete this Section. 98 Beach Road Street address of subject property:

Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property 060-094-01,02 and 060-261-02, 07, 08

);.> 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.

Design Review Application • Page 7 of 9 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNlNG FORMS - LATEST ED\TlON\APPUCATlON FOR DESIGN REYIEWrev2-3-lO.doc Project Address: ______

information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

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

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

Signed this ____ day of ______, 20_, at Belvedere, California.

Signature ______

)> 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 entfy.

1, Dennis Conneally, GM , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above-described subject property is owned by a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity and that my signature on this application has been authorized by all necessary action required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity.

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

Signed this ..z z. day of A ?Ru- , 201 o, at Belvedere, California.

Signature ______

Title(s) General Manager Title(s) ______

D Trustee(s) D Partners: D Limited or D General D Corporation o Other ______

Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: The San Francisco Yacht Club

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

U:\p!anningrnanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REV1EWrev2-3-I 0 doc Project Address: __9_8_B_e_a_c_h_R_o_a_d ___ _

~ Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional)

I, Dennis Conneally, GM , hereby authorize __Jo_h_n_S_w_ai_n ______to file on my behalf any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and finaled or until the designation is rescinded in writing.

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

U·\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDlTlON\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REYIEWrev2-3-l0.doc Project Address: ______

RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR MM ·13 2010GENERAL USE PERMIT City of BelvedereCITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

A J. (' . .. Date: _ ___,___....,,_____ Rec'd. by: /V ).;V{ Amount: _;:o..___ _ Receipi No.: /7 )f.J 2- Assessors Parcel No: __(_2 _Ce~-._a_0_7~c(~O~/___ _ f'0

Address of Property: ___9_8_B_ea_c_h_R_o_ad ______Record Owner of Property: The San Francisco Yacht Club Mailing 98 Beach Road Daytime Phone: 415-435-9133 Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: 415-435-8547

Owne~sReprese~~~e: ____J_o_h_n_S_w_a_in ______~ Swain Desian Associates. Inc. Mailing Daytime Phone: __4_1_5_-4_3_5_-_0_4_6_8 ____ Address: 89 Beach Road Fax: __4_1_5_-4_3_5_-_7_63_6 ______Belvedere, CA 94920 Email: [email protected]

Yacht Club 1. a. Existing use of site::------b. Proposed use of site: ___. _N_o_c_h_a_n_g_e ______2. Site area in square feet: ___7_5_9_,8_4_6 ______3. Floor area in square feet: 14,087.6 4. Number of employees for: a. Existing use: _4_0__ b. Proposed use: ----40 5. House of operation: 0700 - 0100 hours ------~ 6. Number of off-street parking spaces for: a. Existing use: 186 b. Proposed use: 186 7. Surrounding land use: North: multi family res and offices

South: ____s_i_n~g_le_f_a_m_i~ly_r_e_s ______~

East: San Francisco Bay west: multi and single fam res

do/a ..... General Use Permit Application• Page 1 of 6 •City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATlON FOR USE PERMIT doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______Text

8. Any other pertinent information:

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed:------ General Information The SanFrancisco Yacht Club l. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: ------2. Address of project: 98 Beach Road, Belvedere Assessor's Block and Lot Number: ------'------3_ Name"' address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: John Swain 89 oeach Road, Belvedere, CA 94920, 415 435 046.8 4_ Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: __n_la ______5_ List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: City of Belvedere BCOC, Sanitary

6_ Existing zoning district: __R_-_R_e_c_r_e_a_ti_o_n ______7_ Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): ______,Nuu....ouc...,hL.IJa ...... n~g .... e~-__._Y ....a .... c._.h"'-t_...C ...... l... !J...,h __ _ unknown 8. Year built: ___1H 9+..3'HO+-- Original architect:------Project Description 9. Site size. 759,846 10 Square footage. 14,087.6 11. Number of floors of construction. ____o_n_e ______12. Amount of off-street parking provided. __1_8_6 ______13. Attach plans. es 14. Proposed scheduling. Jan 2011 - June 2011 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. ____n_o_n_e ______

16. Anticipated incremental development. none 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household~zeexpected. _____n_/_a ______

18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. n/a - 19. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. __n_la ______20 If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. n/a 21. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. n/a

General Use Permit Application• Page 2 of 6 •City of Belvedere

1 J-lnl"nnin!!mana!!er\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATJON FOR USE PERMIT doc Rev_ 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 22. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of D ~ ground contours. 23. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. D ~ 24. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 0 ~ 25. Significant amounts of solid W":!Ste or litter. 0 liJ 26. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 0 !Kl 27. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0 1KI drainage patterns. 28. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity D ~ 29. Site on filled land or on slope of 1O percent or more. 0 ~ 30. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or D ~ explosives. 31. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). D 1KI 32. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 0 DO 33. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 0 1KI

Environmental Setting 34. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. ~.....-~-.---~-T'"'T"-.--r---.---..-..---~-...... --..-~--r---,.-r---..-~~~~~~~~~~- A flat site used as a yacht club for 80 years with 3 sets of buildings: a main club building, a sailing center and a secondary building for club functions.

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

Residential 2 or more story apartment buildings. All built within setbacks. 2 historic buildings.

As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source:

General Use Permit Application •Page 3 of 6 •City of Belvedere

U:\plannmgmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANN\NG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TJON FOR USE PERMlT.doc Rev 9/12/'2008 LC Project Address: ______

Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2008, (subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ 61.65 Assistant Planner $ 36.68 City Attorney $146.59 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead

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.

A. General Procedure. Applications for a Use Permit are acted upon by the Planning Commission at regular meetings which are held on the third Tuesday of every month. To be placed on an agenda, an application must be complete and on file with the Planning Department by the filing date (approximately 45 days prior to the meeting) which is posted several months in advance. Prior to the meeting, all property owners within 300 feet of your property will be sent a public hearing notice stating the nature of your request and the date of the Planning Commission meeting. B. Application Requirements. The following submittal requirements are for applications which propose a use not allowed by right in a particular zoning district but are allowed under permit. These uses are listed in Section 19.24.020, 19.28.020, 19.32.020, 19.36.020 and 19.40.020 of Belvedere's Municipal Code. General use permit procedures are provided fror in Section 19.80.010 through 19.80.030. All of the following are needed for a complete General Use Permit application: 1) Completed application form (front and back) 2) Filing fee. One full size plan and ten (10) reduced copies (8 1h x 11 or 14) of site plan showing: All proposed and remaining structures; all rights-of-way, setbacks and easements; all off-site structures within 100 feet of the property lines with approximate heights and distances; the location of off street parking and loading areas with dimensions, spaces, locations of entrances and exits and the direction of traffic flow into and out of the parking and loading areas shown; the locations and details of existing and proposed landscaped areas, walls, fences, driveways and walks; the location of mechanical equipment on the roof; the gross floor area of all buildings and setback lines and yard requirements. 3) One full size plan and ten (10) copies of elevations showing: Architectural drawings andior perspective sketches dra'Nn to scale showing elevations, with materials to be used, of the proposed structure (the location and height of any exterior roof, wall and pad) including any sign to be attached thereto, and showing their relationship to all structures within 100 feet. 4) One full size copy and ten (10) reduced copies of architectural floor plans showing each level with rooms, uses, floor level, doors, windows, etc. C. Before the Meeting. A staff report describing your use and recommending that it be approved or denied will be prepared and sent to you and to the Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staff will usually contact you informally if there are any major problems with your application.

General Use Permit Application •Page 4 of 6 •City of Belvedere

U:\plannmgmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANN!NG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPL!CATION FOR USE PERMIT.doc Rev. 9/!2/2008 LC Project Address: ______

0. At the Meeting. You or your representative must be present at the meeting. The staff report is presented first. The applicant follows and may comment on the plan and staff report. Other members of the public may then speak. The Planning Commission will review the application to see if all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have been complied with and the. required findings can be made. Commission members will then evaluate the proposal and vote on it. E. After the Meeting. You or any interested parties may appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council within 7 days after the meeting.

If no appeals are received within 7 days, a building permit can be issued.

All property owners must complete this Section. 98 Beach Road Street address of subject property:

Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: __0_6_0_-0_9_4_-0_1,_0_2_a_n_d_0_6_0_-2_6_1_-_0_2_, 0_7_,_0_8 ___ _

) 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 t_he above-described subject property.

I hereby make application for approval of the use 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 use permit 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.

Signed this ____ day of ______, 20_, at Belvedere, California.

Signature ______

)> Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership. or Other Entity

I, , 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.

General Use Permit Application• Page 5 of 6 •City of Belvedere

U:lplanningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS. LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT.doc Rev 911212008 LC Project Address: ______

I hereby make application for approval of the use 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 use permit 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.

Signed this .2 Z... day of /..\ e ~' 1- , 201.Q, at Belvedere, California.

Signature ~//~ Signature __~------Title(s) General Manager Title(s) ______

0 Trustee(s) 0 Partners: 0 Limited or 0 General 0 Corporation 0 Other ______

Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: ______

> Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional)

I, Dennis Conneally, GM , hereby authorize .J o 1-1 .....J s v..1 /lr, -J to file on my behalf any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the application(s) is completed and finaled or until the designation is rescinded in writing.

Date: z z A1:::::>~ 11.... zo1 o

Date: 2 ~ AetZ1'- zo ro

General Use Permit Application• Page 6 of 6 • City of Belvedere

U.\p\anningmanage!\P\annmg Forms\PLANNrNG FORMS - LATEST EDlTlON\APPLICAT\ON FOR USE PERMIT.doc Rev 9/\212008 LC i.--f \ Project A_ddress: 98 Beach Road U ..-.vl2.fo IS l_;,\;C'--'') 3~3 APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 RECEl\lelDS-435-3838. FAX 415-435-0430. WWW.CJTYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

MAR 0 3 2011

Date: ;J~::, ~ ff Rec'd. by: AJS.11 Amount: ?300 - Receipt No.: I J' J1 ~ I Parcel No.:------ Zone:-L~"'"'--~------~ City property to be encroached upon: ------

Type ofCity Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): street right of way Record Owner of Property: Tue San Francisco Yacht Club Mailing 98 Beach Road Daytime Phone: _ _,4=3'""'5--9=-1-'-'3::;;..;3=------

Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: ______4~3=5~-=8=5~4~7-----~ Email:------

Mailing 89 Beach Road Daytime Phone: ___,4C>IC3"""5'--0><..4...._6x.8 ______

Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: _____---'4=3=5~-7~6=3=6"----~ Email: [email protected]::______Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): 1. Fence & Gate at 98 Beach Rd. 3. Fence at Cove House at Beach Road 4. Monument and sign

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

Revocable License Application • Page I • City of Belvedere

U lplanningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: 98 Beach Road

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

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

Name:~~Jo_h_n~S_w~a_in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 1 March 2011

Revocable License Application • Page 2 • City of Belvedere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 912312008 LC

COVE 1--lOU APN: 060 -094-01SE

(El LAWN T O QEMAIN

----

BEACH ROAD SITE PLAN I OF 2 ~~~~~~~~SOCO-:-Y_A_C~l-l=---T-C_L_UB

.BELVEDERE . . CA.AD 3/3/201 ---

,, -, \ -,, ENTRANCE TO -,, PARKING LOT DECK ',

~TYL~

___ _) .. I l / ,,,.,--CNl WOOD DECK I / OVER

I SITE PLAN 2 OF 2 SAN FRANCISCO Y AC~T CLL.8 .. COVE l-IOUSE 988EAC~ROAD ' APN: 060-094-01 BELVEDERE. CA.

3131201 John Swain 89 Beach Road, Belvedere, California 94920 415 435 0468 fax 415 435 7636 email: [email protected]

TRANSMITTAL

Date: 10 May 2011

To: Pierce Macdonald, Planning Manager

From: J. Swain

Re: 98 Beach Road, SFYC

Transmitted: Revised Letter from Commodore Bob Heller

Comments: THE SAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB 98 Beach Road Belvedere, California 94920

May 10, 2011

The Planning Commission City of Belvedere Belvedere, California

RE: THE SAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB

We are writing on behalf of The San Francisco Yacht Club ("Club") regarding our pending application for Design Review, Zoning Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Revocable License ("Application") scheduled for hearing on May 17, 2011. The Application makes reference to three proposed construction projects at the Club (together, the "Project"):

a. Remodel of the kitchen with small addition to the main building; b. Installation of new railing on the dining deck~ and c. Remodel of the Cove House (100 Beach Road).

We have not yet seen the staff report and recommendations that will be presented to the Commission, but in light of planning staffs recent comments, and the wording of the meeting notice pertaining to our project, we have some significant concerns.

First, it is important to consider the Project in context:

1. More than a year ago, the Marin County Health Department and the Marin County Fire Department criticized the current state of our kitchen. Belvedere Planning Commission May 4, 2011 Page 2

The Health Department requires that the Club improve the food cooling capabilities in the kitchen, which can only be done through the addition of a walk-in freezer. The Fire Department requires that the Club make certain code upgrades to the fire suppression system. Although a temporary "fix" to these issues is possible, the Club determined that it would be in the best interests of the members and non-member guests if we spent the money necessary to install a state-of-the art walk-in freezer, which would not only comply with health regulations but which would in the long-run insure that our food was properly and safely stored. Not incidentally, the kitchen is badly in need of an upgrade after having seen its last substantial remodel several decades ago. The addition of a walk in freezer requires that the Club expand the footprint of the kitchen into the existing accounting and administrative areas of the Club. In order to continue to provide space for these necessary functions, the Club elected to construct a modest 689 square foot addition to the main building to accommodate the accounting and administrative functions. The Club is not expanding the capacity of the kitchen or the dining room; it is expanding the footprint of the food preparation area by adding a walk-in freezer (and a chefs office) to comply with the walk-in freezer requirement of the Health Department.

2. In our initial discussions with the City of Belvedere, the City suggested that the Club submit a "Master Plan" for the entire facility so that all elements of the Club's building needs could be addressed and considered at the same time. In spite of the urgency of the kitchen upgrade, the Club agreed and submitted plans for the overall Project.

3. At the request of the City, in March of 2010 the Club undertook a Parking Study that took our plans into consideration, which showed that thP narlr1no for'ilitiP..: ofthP rJ11h \Jl!PrP ..:nffir'lPnt for lk nrp,;;:pnt !=lnfl IL.I.I.'"-' p&.&..l.l.'°-J.,1...1.0 .L~-..1...1...1.1....1.-U '-'.L ...... _ _...... _....., •• _ _.. - U-..L..L.l._..1._..1..a ...... __..._ .A._U _t-'_.. -U-..1...1."' -..1...1.-. foreseeable uses. The Club will establish "Parking Policies" designed to mitigate the impact of parking during large events, including valet and off-site parking.

4. Almost one year ago, on May 13, 2010, the original drawings and the Application for Design Review and Use Permit were submitted to the City of Belvedere. Belvedere Planning Commission May 4, 2011 Page 3

5. On June 7, 2010, the City informed the Club that the Application was "almost complete", but that several issues remained which should be addressed. In particular, the Club should dig holes near the proposed foundations for the Cove House component of the Project and undertake ~n ~rf'hPAlAoif'~l d11rh1 tA lAAV fAr nAtPnti~l Tnrti~n rnirlrlPnc U.1..J. U.1. '-1.1..1""'-".l.'-'5.l.Vl.4.& U"\..4'-A. I '-'-' .l..'-J'\J'.I."- .l..'-'.I. }-''-'"""".l..l.'-.1....,.1. i..1..1.,.....1.u.1.~ .1...1..1....1."-'"'""'""".l..l.tJe

6. In July 2010 several holes were dug at the locations of the proposed Cove House foundations and shells were found - not entirely unusual in a location just a few feet away from the Bay shore. An archeologist was called in and after lengthy negotiations with the City as to which archeologist should undertake the study, the City commissioned a study, for which the Club paid $4,884, on January 3, 2011. The study found some disturbed Indian artifacts, remains or any other items of archaeological or cultural interest, but that the project would not disturb any undisturbed artifacts.

7. On February 18, 2011 the Club received requests from the City for additional information and requested that the Club apply for a revocable license from the City due to the existence of landscaped elements in the City's right of way. Also, additional information from the surveyor was requested, and several questions were raised regarding the potential architectural significance of the Cove House.

8. On March 30, 2011, the Club received a request from the City to undertake a "Historical Study" of the Cove House. The Club did so, at a cost of $3,750 paid to an architectural historian selected by the City.

9. The Historical Study was completed on April 22, 2011. The study finds that the Cove House has no historical significance according to three out of the possible four criteria used to assess historical significance. (a) No important events ever took place at the structure; (b) No historically significant persons were documented to be associated with the structure; and ( c) No informed determination could be made regarding the property's Information Potential. The fourth criteria - Design and Construction - is a possible but not an established criterion for inclusion of the Cove House in the historical record. The Historical Study concluded that the Cove House "retains integrity of location, design, Belvedere Planning Commission May 4, 2011 Page 4

materials, workmanship and feeling ... and appears to be eligible for listing on the CRHR at the local level."

10. The facts suggest otherwise. The Cove House was not designed by a famous. or even noteworthv. architect. It was designed by Mr. Clyde S. Payne Jr., the brother of the former owner Dolly Madison Payne. Mr. Payne reportedly was an aficionado of Italian architecture but he was not an architect or a recognized expert in the field. He designed the Cove House in the "Italian Renaissance" or "Italianate" style, a style which is generally not evident in the City of Belvedere and is certainly not reflective of the City's generally accepted community standard of architecture. A hired architect, Mr. Hind, drew up the actual plans for construction. According to the Historic Evaluation, "little is known about the work of San Francisco architect William G. Hind." Moreover, much of the building was destroyed by a fire on May 3, 1988, and very little of it is original; the windows overlooking the lawn area were installed by the Club after we purchased the Cove House in 1984 (facts of which the City's architectural historian appears to be unaware). Yet, staff now appear to conclude that this "Italian Renaissance" design is of such character, significance and originality that it must be historic in nature and therefore be protected. The Club respectfully disagrees with this conclusion.

11. We presume there is no controversy regarding the zoning change for the Cove House parcel, as the change will do nothing more than conform the zoning to its longstanding existing use, consistent with the City's 2010 General Plan.

12.The "Notice of Public Hearing" also states that "As proposed, the Cove House (formerly 100 Beach Road) would be expanded by 848 square feet, including a new 1,607 square-foot raised entertainment deck area. This statement is misleading as the proposal does not enlarge the square footage of the Cove House deck area. Instead, it simply raises the lower deck so that both of the existing decks will be at the same height. It does this for aesthetics, functionality and easier access to the Cove House, especially for handicapped persons. A key goal of this realignment is to bring the handicap access up to current standards because the existing Belvedere Planning Commission May 4, 2011 Page 5

access is somewhat of an embarrassment to the Club as if forces handicapped persons essentially to enter the Cove House through the backyard. The "expansion" of the Cove House is mainly for storage purposes, and consolidates some of the existing storage sheds under a permanent roof. Dining capacity may or may not be increased somewhat, depending on the final interior configuration chosen. In any case, it should not call for any or only a very minor increase in parking needs. As we stated earlier (see Item 3 above), the Club will establish Parking Policies that will mitigate the impact of parking during large events, including valet and off-site parking.

13. We would also like to point out that we have undertaken considerable effort, on our own initiative, to offer substantial improvements to Beach Road in the vicinity of the Cove House that will make this area safer for all traffic and especially pedestrians by incorporating a sidewalk to the proposal. The Belvedere Traffic Safety Committee studied this proposal at its March 7, 2011 meeting and approved it unanimously, noting that "this would be a big improvement to traffic and pedestrian safety." Needless to say, if the project is not approved, the current configuration will have to remain.

We appreciate the fact that planning staff have undertaken considerable effort to evaluate our proposal, but our proposed project is nothing more than a modest update of existing facilities, and we respectfully object to the ever-escalating last minute demands that have been presented by staff. We have, at considerable expense, complied with all of staffs demands, and a substantial record now exists from which the potential environmental effects of our may be evaluated.

A review of this record makes it clear that there is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that our small project will have a significant effect upon the environment. The Club respectfully requests that the Planning Commission adopt a negative declaration (to the extent any environmental review is needed at all), and approve the Project as designed and reflected in the Application. Belvedere Planning Commission May 4, 2011 Page 6

The Club simply cannot take the risk of postponing the kitchen and deck railing components of the Projects any longer for health and safety reasons. While the Health Department and Fire Department have been most understanding in tolerating the continuous code violations (we have told them that the Club was making ever; possible effort 'vvith the City of Belvedere to obtain the necessary building permits), we cannot count on their continued forbearance, as they have their own obligations to fulfill.

This Project will certainly benefit the members of the Club, but since over 500 residents of the City of Belvedere are members ofthe Club, the Project will also benefit a significant constituency of the City. The Club is an important and vital institution in the City of Belvedere, and the Project seeks to keep that institution vibrant, safe and healthy for all of its members and users.

T~al e~

Robert Heller Commodore John Swain 89 Beach Road, Belvedere, California 94920 415 435 0468 fax 415 435 7636 email: [email protected]

19 December 2010

Pierce Macdonald Planning Manager. City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA 94920 City of Belvedere

Re: Your letter dated 11 June 2010 to Dennis Conneally, General Manager, SFYC

Dear Ms. Macdonald:

Thank you for your review of the applications for Use Permit and Design Review for the San Francisco Yacht Club.

I have attached a set of revised drawings addressing the requests and concerns made in your letter as follows:

1. We have agreed to a rezoning of the Cove House property to match the rest of the yacht club property (R- Recreation). 2. Demolition plans (A24 and A25) have been provided in the new plan set indicating the extent of the removal of parts of the building. A drawing indicating typical construction details has also been included (A29). 3. A signed copy of a survey which was completed in October 2010 has been included. 4. Test holes have been dug and inspected and it is my understanding that you are in the process of hiring an archeologist to complete a study to determine if midden soil is present and to what extent further archeological study and inspection will be needed. The Cove House was built for Dr. Clyde Payne sometime between 1916 and 1920 and was designed by his nephew. The columns and arches and the arched windows and doors at the South elevation may have come from the Panama Exposition in San Francisco. The building was used as a residence until the yacht club purchased it in 1984. Although it has no significant architectural heritage, the club management feels very strongly about preserving the integrity and look of the existing building. 5. Prior to the parking study conducted by TJKM in March 2010 there had never been an engineering study to determine the capacity of the parking lot. The number of spaces determined by TJKM is 186 and going forward this should be considered the definitive number of spaces available in the lot. Please note that the TJKM study finds that the existing parking has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion. 6. I believe that the 2006 permits are correct as the club's hours of operation have been 8 a.m. to l a.m. for many years. John Swain 89 Beach Road, Belvedere, Califomia.94920 415 435 0468 fax 415 435 7636 email: [email protected]

7. The current total membership is 1016. There are approximately 4 to 6 large events per year. There are 198 boat slips and 36 dry storage boat spaces. The maximum number of guests at events is approximately 200. 8. Overall and detailed partial site plans have been provided. (A2 through A7). 9. A landscape plan (LI) has been included and outdoor seating, etc. has been indicated floor plans. The landscaping on city property between Beach Road and the club parking lot was never done and the signage approved on 17 July 2001 was never completed. The current plan includes new signage at the entrance to the lot. 10. There will be no change to the way the trash is handled with the relocation of the gate to the trash enclosure. The enclosure itself will not be changed other than to alter the gate so that it does not open directly onto Beach Road. This change will have a positive impact on both the aesthetics and sound level generated by the trash enclosure. The schedule for cleaning the grease trap has been modified to eliminate the possibility of late night disturbances to the neighbors. 11. Floor and roof plans have been provided for all of the buildings on the property. Photographs of all of the buildings will be provided shortly. 12. Door and window schedules have been included on sheets A I 0andA17. 13. A drawing indicating the approved tents has been included in the plan set (A28). 14. Cross sections of the buildings and site including heights have been added to the plan set (A20 and A21) 15. Renderings have been added to sheet Al. 16. A title report generated by Stewart Title Co. is attached. 17. The project data table on sheet A 1 has been expanded. 18. The proposed additional non-permeable surfaces including the new sidewalk and a new handicap access ramp will total 3,092. The additional storm water runoff will be minimal and will be run into the existing drain lines. 19. The revised plan includes an new sidewalk along Beach Road which will greatly improve pedestrian safety as well as sight lines for motorists at what is currently a very dangerous curve.

It is our goal to ensure that this project will be an enhancement for both the yacht club and the city of Belvedere and I appreciate your efforts in working with me toward that goal. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me.

Sincerely,

For the San Francisco Yacht Club John Swain 89 Beach Road, Belvedere. California 94920 415 435 0468 fax 415 435 7636 email. [email protected]

8 February 2011 RECEIVED

Pierce Macdonald MAR 032011 Planning Manager City of Belvedere City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA 94920

Re: Your letter dated 20 January 2011 to Dennis Conneally, General Manager, SFYC

Dear Ms. Macdonald:

Thank you for your continued review of the applications for the San Francisco Yacht Club.

I have attached a set of revised drawings addressing the requests and concerns made in your letter as follows:

1. The Design Review application has been revised to include a request to rezone the Cove House property to "R". and is attached. The zoning parameters for the portion of the project at the main club building have been updated on the application as well. The approved tents are currently often used to supplement the existing conditioned space when inclement weather is anticipated and a wedding ceremony is planned for the lawn or when there is a special member event that requires more capacity than the Cove House currently supports. The club is committed to keeping the main dining room open to members who walk in expecting to use the restaurant and the dining room is seldom full. One result of the proposed expanded capacity in the Cove House would be to lessen the need to use tents in the future. The goal of the expanded floor area and seating capacity (51 additional diners) in the Cove House is not to increase the overall capacity of the facilities but to make the facilities more efficient. It is not the intention of the club to use the Clubhouse, Cove House, and tents in tandem. Additionally, one of the primary reasons for the proposed remodel of the Cove House is that the club recently had it inspected by by a home iAspection company and it has been found to be in very bad repair. 2. An additional survey drawing provided by L. A Stevens has been added to the plan set. We have added and identified Jot lines and parcels on the site plans as well and have added additional details as you requested. Building heights are indicated on the elevation drawings as well as on sheet A I. None of the parcels have been merged. 3. The parking study by TJK Engineers indicates that there are currently 186 in the lot. The lot was repaved and re-striped about 8 years ago and this would account for the difference in actual spaces versus those indicated on past documents. SFYC has a total of 44 employees and at any given time there are no more than 35 John Swain 89 Beach Road. Belvedere. Cal1fom1a 94920 415 435 0468 fax 41·5 435 7636 email: [email protected]

employees on site. Of the 44 employees approximately 20 of them have cars, the rest carpool or use public transportation. At any given time between the day shifts and the evening shifts, there are no more than 15 employee cars at the club. 4. The site plan has been revised to provide the requested information and has been coordinated with the TJKM parking study and survey. The club does not wish to merge the lots at this time. 5. The landscape plan has been revised to include details of the new fence and sidewalk and an irrigation note has been added to the landscape plan. No changes to the existing irrigation system, which is supplied by a well, are proposed. 6. The grease trap company is scheduled to clean the grease traps during regular business hours. Typically that is between the hours of 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM but never before 7:00 AM or after 6:00 PM. 7. Photographs of all parts of the property have been added to a sheet in the plan set. Lighting fixtures are shown on elevations and floor plans. 8. Permanent anchors for the tents will be installed in th~ walkway nest to the Cove House at the direction of the Fire Marshall. 9. Additional stonn water runoff from the new impermeable surfaces will be treated by an approved method and a note has been added (Sheet Al, note 10)

If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me.

John C. Swain For the San Francisco Yacht Club

RECEIVED

MAR 0'.iZ011 City of Belvedere John Swain 89 Beach Road. Belvedere. California 94920 415 435 0468 fax 415 435 7636 RECEIVED emai I: jswa1 n (n1 swai nc.ksi gn .com MAR 0 3 2011 l March 2011 City of Belvedere

Pierce Macdonald Planning Manager City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA 94920

Re: Your email dated 18 February 2011

Dear Ms. Macdonald:

Thank you for your continued review of the applications for the San Francisco Yacht Club.

I have attached a set of revised drawings addressing the requests and concerns made in your letter as follows:

1. A letter in response to your letter dated 20 January is attached. 2. All property lines have been added to the site plan. The footprint of the proposed addition has been reduced so that the roof overhang does not project over the new sidewalk into the public right of way. There will be a request (in a separate letter) to rezone the Cove House parcel but we do not wish to merge it with adjacent properties at this time. 3. An application for a Revocable License for the new signage and other elements is attached. Please note that there is a sign currently at the entrance to the parking lot in the public right of way. The new sign would replace this unsightly sign and provide better visibility to motorists for the entry to the lot. No new landscaping is proposed at this time. The property at l Embarcadero will not be identified. The spacing of the ivy plants along the new fence has been added to the landscape plan. 4. The approved tent plan has been revised to include the proposed building additions and a note has been added indicating the permanent hold downs near the East side of the Cove House at the walkway. These are to be installed at the direction and with the approval of the Fire Marshall. 5. The surveyor is working on adding ihe additional buildings to the survey.

If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me.

For the San Francisco Yacht Club CITY of BELVEDERE 450 S,111 R

Junell,2010

Dennis Conneally General Manager San Francisco Yacht Club 98 Beach Road Belvedere, CA 94920

Re: Applications for Use Permit and Design Review

Dear Mr. Conneally;

Thank you for the Use Pem1it and Design Review applications received by City staff on May 13, 2010. City staff from the Building, Planning, Public Works and Fire Protection District departments have reviewed the application materials and architectural plans Unfortunately, at this time the applications are incomplete. Please submit or complete the following information so that staff may continue to process the applications:

1. Please amend the Design Review application for the portion of the project at the Cove House (previously known as I 00 Beach Road). The appropriate zoning for this property is R-3. The development regulations for the R-3 Zoning District are provided in Section 19.36.040 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (B.M.C.). For example, setbacks are 10 feet wide, lot coverage is 50%, and total coverage including uncovered structures is 60%. One or more Variance application(s) and fees may be necessary for new or expanded nonconformities. Alternatively, the project may be re-zoned to the R-Recreation Zoning District. In addition, please update the existing and proposed zoning parameters for the portion of the project at the Clubhouse. 1 Please provide demolition plans for the Cove House building. Removal of more than 50% of wall and roof framing, windows, and doors may require the consideration of a Demolition Permit. If the project does not qualify as a demolition, please provide typical framing details for all substandard wall, floor and roof framing that is likely to be encountered during construction. 3. Please provide a signed copy of a recent survey completed within the last 5 years. Please include all slips, wharfs. dry dock storage areas, easements, parking areas, driveways, drive aisles, accessory structures, utilities, fences, arbors, flagpoles, and decks. Please include spot elevations and- topographic contours at the corners of the buildings.

ATTACHMENT 4 98 Beach Road June I I. 20 I 0 Page 2

particularly. in the areas of the new construction. Please provide spot elevations for the tallest portions of the Clubhouse and Cove House buildings. Please provide property lines. Staff is unable to confirm at th.is time that the Cove House property \Vas legally merged with the larger Yacht Club property. 4. Preliminary information indicates that the existing site could have significant historical or archeological value. The City has contracted with ARS (Archeological Resource Services) to map possible Native American shellmound locations in the City of Belvedere. "Shellmounds" are the locations of prehistoric villages. Auger borings in the areas of the construction are necessary to determine if midden soil is present. Please coordinate the scheduling of the test borings with City staff. In addition. please provide updated historical information regarding the Clubhouse and Cove House. According to City records. the architect for the Clubhouse building in 1930 was Henry Gutterson. According to the Belvedere Tiburon Landmark Society, the Cove I-louse was constructed for Dr. Clyde Payne in 1916. Please provide the name of the original architect of the Cove House or any known historical significance. Photographs or the Cove House shO\v that the original southerly fac;ade featured two picture windows. 5. Please provide the basis for the required parking of 186 parking spaces stated on the applications. According to City records. a parking requirement of 196 spaces was established by the Belvedere City Council on .luly I I, 1984. City records state that staff had recommended upon the occupancy of the Cove House by the San Francisco Yacht Club in 1984 that additional parking would likely be required if and when the Cove House or Clubhouse expanded. Use Permit application filed in early 20 I 0 stated that the Club provided 201 off-street parking spaces. This parking requirement may be modified, reduced or increased by action of the City Council. Please coordinate Club parking infom1atio11 with that in the T.IKM parking study. 6. Please provide the basis and history ror the hours of operation. 1\ccording to permits filed in 199L the San Francisco Yacht Cluh·s hours of operation were 8 a.m to 10 p.m. According to permits tiled in 2006, the existing hours of operation were 8 am. to I a.111. 7. Please provide existing and proposed total membership. numher or large events per year (regattas, weddings, Kitchen Tour. etc.). number of boat slips/moorings. num~er of dry dock boat storage spaces, and maximum guests per eYent. Please coordinate this I infomrntion with that in the T.JKM parking study. 8. Please provide a complete site plan. Please include property lines, setback lines, rights of-way and easements. Please provide all available parking spaces and please coordinate this information with that in the T.J KM parking study. Please indicate all handicapped parking spaces and pedestrian walks. Please include all survey information. Building. Public Works, and Fire Protection District staff require this in rormation to complete their review. The Yacht Club may wish to consider the advantages of ~1 lot merger for purposes of compliance with the Fire Code and other codes /Ii Beach Road June I L 20 I 0 Page 3

9. Please provide a landscape plan. Please include outdoor seating, dining and entertainment areas, heat lamps and fire pits, including those reputed to have been installed without benefit of Design Revi.ew in late 2009. Please provide the status of landscaping of parking lot entrance and new signage approved on July 17, 2001. The Parks and Open Space Committee allocated monies to help re-landscape this area. I 0. Please coordinate location of trash enclosure with the refuse and recycling hauler and describe how trash cans will be managed. For example who will move the empty trash cans from the sidewalk back to the trash enclosure and when will this occur':> Will the remodeled trash enclosure provide insulation or other sound dampening features to reduce noise associated with trash and recycling disposal. especially glass bottles'7 Please provide schedule for grease strap maintenance. 11. Please provide floor plans and roof plans for all bui.ldings with ceiling heights of 6 feet or more on the property or properties. Will the new plan provide increased space for employee break areas before and during shifts'7 Please identify all changes to building floor plans that may have occurred since these buildings were approved. Please provide photographs of all sides of all buildings on the property and all landscape areas Please show all existing and proposed lighting on all elevations and lloor plans. Please indicate the design and location of the burgee on the front elevation of 98 Beach Road. Please include all vents. skylights, and chimneys on the roof plans. 12. Please provide a door and window schedule for existing and proposed doors and windows. 13. Please indicate the outlines of the approved temporary structures and tents on the project site plan. Please indicate the locations of permanent anchors for tent or tents for which there is insufficient space for conventional tent anchors, per the rire Marshal. 14. Please indicate cross sections of the Clubhouse and Cove House on the site plan and indicate height as measured to the lowest existing adjacent grade. The height measurement shown on Sheet A8 indicates the height as measured to the floor or the Cove House. 15. Prior to the public hearing, please provide renderings of the proposed remodel and additions, including proposed decks and landscaping. 16. Please provide a current preliminary title report for all properties. 17. Please expand the project data table included on Sheet A I to include height. parking spaces, setbacks, occupancy limits, lot coverage, slips/moorings, etc. 18. The subject property exceeds I acre in size. How will additional storm water runoff be treated before it drains into the Bay? It may be more practical and effective to treat storm water run-off from the existing parking lot instead of the ne\V areas of impermeable roof surfaces. 19. Please consider methods of improving pedestrian access along Beach Road in the area or the Cove House. Current plans would further encroach onto the setback along this part of 98 Beach Road J UllC I I. 20 I 0 Page 4

Beach Road, limiting potential locations for future sidewalks. Sight lines and traffic speeds at this corner of the property have been identified as priorities by Belvedere residents

Please note that the proposal will require Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) review and Health Department review.

In addition, staff continues to review the proposed project for conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At this time, staff is unable to exempt the project from CEQA. Staff continues to review the adequacy of the parking study completed by TJKM and other environmental information. Please include in the background of the T.JKM report, a description of current San Francisco Yacht Club policies regarding parking for various types of events. Staffs preliminary review concludes that the report does not adequately analyze the proposed Clubhouse expansion as it relates to temporary structures nr other outdoor events. It does not anticipate multiple events occurring both at the Clubhouse and at the Cove House, and it does not include the increased dining area and entertainment area represented by the expanded Cove House deck.

Thank you for your attention to these remain111g items. City stall from the various City depa11ments arc available to answer any questions or concerns. I would be happy to coordinate a meeting of the department representatives at your convenience. Please contact me at ( 41 5) 4 3 5- 3838. I look forward to working with you to complete the applications and present the project to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Sincerely. n \·LLLU, ~-{~_c_)~Ihi~ Pierce Macdonald Planning Manager

cc: John Swain. Architect, 89 Beach Road. Belvedere. CA 94920 address tlle/corresp. Transportation ,..------·------Consultants March 19, 2010

Mr. John Swain RECEIVED The San Francisco Yacht Club do Swain Design Associates, Inc. DEC 2 1 !UhJ 89 Beach Road Belvedere, CA 94920 City of Belvedere

Via Email Only: [email protected]

Subject: Final Report - Parking Study for the Cove House Facility Expansion at the San Francisco Yacht Club

Dear Mr. Swain:

TJKM Transportation Consultants is pleased to present our results for the subject study. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate how additional parking demand expected to be generated by a proposed expansion of the existing Cove House special event dining facility at the San Francisco Yacht Club can be accommodated. This study includes the results of an evaluation of existing parking demand and supply, both on site and on nearby streets, for a typical special event held at the Club; an estimation of additional future parking demand based on existing special event activity and future activity with the proposed facility expansion; and conclusions on the ability of the existing Club parking lot to accommodate the additional parking demand generated by the expansion.

Project Proposal The San Francisco Yacht Club proposes a modification to its current special use permit with respect to special events held in the Cove House dining facility. The proposed project would Pleasanton expand this dining facility such that the maximum allowable guest occupancy would increase from 3875 Hopyard Road 65 to I 13 persons. Additional proposed modifications include expanded Cove House kitchen and Suite 200 Pleasanton, CA restroom areas, as well as a new addition to the main Club building that will accommodate 94588-8526 925.463.061 I administrative offices displaced by the proposed main Club building kitchen expansion. The current 925.463.3690 fax administrative space in the main building is to become part of the expanded kitchen, while the

Fresno administrative offices will move to the new addition in that building. However, it should be noted 516 W. Shaw Avenue that the proposed Cove House kitchen I _restroom and main building expansions are not expected Suite 200 Fresno, CA to result in additional visitors or staff, and therefore would not generate additional parking demand 93704-25 I 5 above existing levels. No other changes are proposed to the current boat docking and related 559.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax marina functions elsewhere on site.

Sacramento 980 Ninth Street Figure I shows a site plan of the proposed facility expansion and the existing adjacent 186-space 16"' Floor Sacramento, CA parking lot that will serve the expanded Club facilities. 95814-2736 916.449.9095

Santa Rosa 1400 N. Dutton Avenue Suite 21 Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4643 707.575.5800 707.575.5888 fax

[email protected] ATTACHMENT 5 www.tjkm.com City of Belvedere - San Francisco Yacht Club Special Event Parking Study _Figure Project Site Plan 1

BELVEDEl2E COVE

.=<=;:

227 -009 - 2/23/1 0 - AK r. john Swain TJKM arch 19, 2010 Transportation age 3

Consultants ------~~-·-·-"- ....-·------··----·-·-·------·· Club Activity and Special Events The Club hosts a variety of daily activities as well as special events during the course of a typical year. Typical activities that occur at the Club but are not part of the proposed facility expansion include Club members dining in the main building; parking on site then sailing on their boats from the marina; parking and staying for the weekend on their boats; and sailing to the marina, docking, and dining in the main building.

In addition, several special events are held each month, many of which use the Cove House dining room that is proposed for expansion. In February, eight special events were held, and 15 were planned for the month of March. Most of these special events range from 25 to 70 members and guests. For the few large special events held at the Club where it is expected that parking overflow may occur, the Club has ongoing arrangements with nearby building and parking lot owners to allow off site valet parking at their parking lots.

TJKM selected a typical special dinner event held at Cove House on Friday, February 19, 20 I 0 for the purpose of observing on site and nearby offsite parking demand. According to the Club general manager, 24 guests attended the special event held that evening. In addition, the main Club dining room was open to members at that time. The marina was also open for member use.

Existing Parking Supply TJKM conducted a field visit of the site on Friday, February 19, 20 I 0 to confirm existing parking supply in the lot currently serving all Club activities. The current onsite parking space inventory consists of 186 spaces. In addition, TJKM inventoried on street parking spaces that are within two blocks of the Club buildings fronting Beach Road; the inventoried on street spaces totaled 56 spaces, broken down as follows: • Beach Road between Community Road and San Rafael Avenue ( 11 spaces) • Beach Road between San Rafael Avenue and Peninsula Road (32 spaces) • San Rafael Avenue between Beach Road and Community Road ( 13 spaces)

Existing Parking Demand (Occupancy) TJKM conducted a parking occupancy survey on Friday, February 19, 20 I 0 during the above mentioned Cove House special event, both at the existing onsite Club parking lot and the on street segments mentioned above. Occupancy is simply a count of the number of parking spaces occupied by vehicles at any given time. TJKM sampled parking occupancy for the onsite lot every half hour, beginning at 6:30 p.m. and ending at 7:30 p.m. On street locations were sampled at 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. The time periods were chosen to correlate with special event activity, beginning with a cocktail hour at 6:30 p.m. and dinner service at 7:30 p.m.

Table I shows the results of the parking occupancy surveys in the Club o.nsite parking lot. The results show that the highest parking occupancy occurred at 7:30 p.m., when dinner service began for the special event. At 7:30 p.m., the lot was observed at 48 percent occupancy, or 89 of 186 total spaces. This means that at a minimum, there were 97 spaces available in the Club lot between 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Figure 2 shows the observed parking occupancies in the Club lot by parking row. City of Belvedere - San Francisco Yacht Club Special Event Parking Study Figure Existing Observed Parking Lot Occupancy 2

Occupancy (Spaces) Remaining Spaces at Inventory Row 7:30pm 6:30pm 7:00pm 7:30pm (MaxOcc.)

BELVEDEl

227-009- 2/23/10 -AK Mr. John Swain TJKM March 19, 20 I 0 TFan'sportation Page 5 Consultants

Table I: Existing On Site Facility Parking Inventory and Occupancy Parking Occupancy Total Row Location Parking 6:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Spaces Occ. Rem. Occ. Rem. Occ. Rem. %0cc. %0cc. % Occ. Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Next to A 50 19 38% 31 23 46% 27 23 46% 27 Dock Middle Aisle B close to 49 18 37% 31 23 47% 26 23 47% 26 Dock Middle Aisle c close to 48 21 44% 27 23 48% 25 24 50% 24 Beach Road Next to D 39 18 46% 21 19 49% 20 19 49% 20 Beach Road

Overall Lot 186 76 41% 110 88 47% 98 89 48% 97 Note: Occ. - Occupied; Rem. - Remaining Bold indicates time of highest occupancy.

TJKM additionally surveyed parking occupancy during the special event at on-street segments located within a two-block radius of the Club. During the peak hour of parking activity on the Club site (7:30 p.m.), 36 of 56 on street spaces were occupied (64 percent). This indicates that during peak activity at Cove House, a minimum of 20 on street spaces were available within a two-block radius of the Club.

Table II shows the results of the on-street parking occupancy survey for each individual street segment in the study area.

Table II: Existing Area On-Street Parking Inventory and Occupancy Parking Occupancy On Street Side of Total Segment 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Location Street Spaces Occ. Rem. Occ. Rem. %0cc. %0cc. Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Community Road to Beach Road South 11 7 64% 4 7 64% 4 San Rafael Avenue San Rafael Avenue to Beach Road North 15 7 47% 8 8 53% 7 Peninsula Road San Rafael Avenue to Beach Road South 17 9 53% 8 9 53% 8 Peninsula Road San Rafael Beach Road to North 7 6 86% I 6 86% I Avenue Community Road San Rafael Beach Road to South 6 6 100% 0 6 100% 0 Avenue Community Road

Overall Study Area Totals 56 35 63% 21 36 64% 20 Note: Occ. - Occupied; Rem. =Remaining Bold indicates time of highest occupancy. Mr. John Swain TJKM March 19, 2010 Transportation Page 6 Consultants

Proposed Cove House Expansion and Expected Future Parking Demand As mentioned earlier, the proposed special use permit modifications calls for an expanded Cove House dining facility that would increase maximum allowable occupancy from 65 to 113 persons, or an approximately 74 percent increase in allowable dining capacity. This section discusses a potential scenario in which a maximum I 13-guest special event is held at Cove House based on the proposed modified special use permit.

Based on existing parking occupancy observations, there was a minimum of 97 spaces available in the Club parking lot. Under a scenario in which a Cove House special event would accommodate 113 guests, there would be 89 more guests than the 24-guest Cove House special event observed by TJKM staff. Assuming a worst-case scenario in which each of the 89 additional guests drove their own vehicle to the event, all added vehicles could be accommodated on site in the Club lot, with eight parking spaces still remaining (=97 available spaces - 89 new guest vehicles}.

According to the Club general manager, Cove House event guests typically consist of individual members and couples. Therefore, the one guest per vehicle occupancy rate assumed for the 89 additional guests is actually a conservative estimate. It is more likely that the occupancy rate per arriving guest vehicle would be closer to 1.5, which represents a 50/50 mix of individual members and couples. Therefore, assuming the vehicle occupancy rate of the additional 89 guests is 1.5, approximately 67 vehicles would be added to the lot, resulting in 30 remaining lot spaces that would be available for Club use (=97 available spaces - 67 new guest vehicles).

, It should be noted that the estimate of 30 remaining spaces resulting from a 113-guest event scenario assumes the same level of member and staff activity that TJKM observed during the special event. Assuming that all 24 Cove House special event guests drove in their own cars (also based on a worst case assumption of one guest per vehicle), approximately 65 vehicles were also parked on site for these non-special event activities, including members parked to use their boats for the evening and/or weekend, members dining in the main building, and Club staff serving Cove House and the main building. The proposed modification to the special use permit for Cove House special events does not include any changes to these typical member and staff activities on site, and as a result no additional parking demand is expected to be generated by these activities.

Finally, at a future time (not part of the proposed facility expansion) the Club anticipates adding up to five part time catering staff to work during Cove House special events. Based on the above parking estimates for Cove House and other simultaneous Club activity, if each part time staff member drove individually and parked in the Club lot, approximately 25 parking spaces would remain in the lot. Therefore, should the Club choose to add part time staff in the future, it is expected that they would successfully be accommodated on site.

Optional Off-Site Parking Arrangements Although an expanded Cove House special event activity is expected to adequately accommodate all additional parking demand generated within the existing Club lot, it should also be noted that the Club has two additional off-site parking capacity options if necessary. First, there is a minimum of 20 available on street parking spaces located within a two-block radius of the Club based on TJKM field observations. It is understood that some Club staff already use on street parking, and valet staff would also be available to park guests' cars in these locations.

Second, the Club has an existing arrangement with the private owner of a 150-space lot at the former Delano IGA Market at the northeast corner of Tiburon Boulevard (State Route 131) and Beach Road. This lot operates as satellite commuter parking for the nearby Tiburon Ferry Terminal, but has parking capacity available during Club events. The Club provides valet parking Mr. john Swain TJKM March/9,2010 · Transportation Page 7 Consultants

and a shuttle service to serve members and guests parked in this lot. Thus, up to 170 off-site parking spaces are available in the highly unlikely event that a Cove House special event induces an overflow parking condition in the existing Club lot.

Conclusion TjKM conducted an occupancy survey of the existing San Francisco Yacht Club parking lot during a 24-guest Cove House evening special event held Friday, February 19, 20 I 0, when the main Club dining room and marina were open to members. Also, TJKM estimated future parking demand based on a proposed special use permit modification that would increase allowable maximum dining room capacity for a Cove House special event to I 13 guests. Based on this field survey and use permit proposal, all additional parking demand generated by 89 additional Cove House special event guests is expected to be accommodated within the existing lot, with a minimum of 30 remaining parking spaces assuming 1.5 persons per vehicle occupancy. If the Club decides to add five part time staff during future Cove House special events (not included in the proposed facility expansion), there would be a minimum of 25 parking lot spaces available. Therefore, no modifications to the existing Club site are necessary with respect to provision of onsite parking, and no spillover impacts to existing on street parking in the surrounding neighborhood are anticipated.

In the unlikely event that a 113-guest Cove House special event would require accommodation of overflow parking, the Club has up to 170 additional offsite parking spaces available for its use, which can be accessed via valet parking and shuttle arrangements that the Club already has in place.

Thank you for giving the TJKM the opportunity to conduct this parking study. If you have any questions concerning our study, please feel free to call me at (707) 575-5800.

Sincerely, ,41~ e /Cll:lq Andrew Kluter, P.E. Associate

J:VURISDICTION\B\Belvedere\22 7-003 SF Yacht Club Use Permit Parking\Letter Report\L03 I 9 I O_final.docx c.Anc'1a eoQogwaQ CRe~ounce A CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED REMODEL OF TWO .9envice STRUCTURES AT THE SAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB, 98 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED BY: SALLY EVANS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE SERVICE SUBMITTED TO: PIERCE MACDONALD, CITY OF BELVEDERE I FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB, BELVEDERE, CA February 28, 2011 A.R.S. Project 10-041

INTRODUCTION As requested and authorized by the City of Belvedere, Archaeological Resource Service has conducted an archaeological evaluation of the San Francisco Yacht Club property located in Belvedere, Marin County, California. The evaluation consisted of six separate aspects: 1. A check of the information on file with the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine the presence or absence of previously recorded historic or prehistoric cultural resources within the project area; 2. A check of appropriate historic references to determine the potential for historic era archaeological deposits; 3. Contact with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if there are sites listed in the Sacred Lands File located within or near to the current project area; 4. A surface reconnaissance of all accessible parts of the project area to locate visible signs of potentially sign ificant historic or prehistoric cultural deposits; 5. Execution of a series of hand auger bores to determine the relationship and condition of the previously discovered prehistoric deposit to the proposed improvement areas; and 6. Providing further recommendations for mitigating potential adverse impacts to potentially significant cultural resources based on criteria established in the California Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of remodeling two existing structures within the San Francisco Yacht Club property. Remodel 1 is an extension off the southwest side of the San Francisco Yacht Club clubhouse building. Remodel 2 is an extension off the northwestern side of the Cove House and a deck off the southeast side. The proposed changes are shown in Figure 1. Three power auger bores were recently executed by the Yacht Club as part of this project. The auger bores revealed dark colored soil full of shell fragments (midden) indicative of a prehistoric site. Due to the presence of a recorded Native American site at the location of the Yacht Club and the discovery of midden soil further archaeological investigation was required by the City of Belvedere. The City subsequently retained ARS to conduct a proper cultural resource eva luation of the project area, including a sub-surface investigation of the prehistori c deposit to determine its location and depth in relation to the proposed improvement areas and assess its condition.

122 American Alley, Suite A Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 762-2573 V FAX (707) 762-1791 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011 . . (/) iii ! - QI °')> - ru . l>7 ]'- :~ o (/) () •"r11 ,.. 1 [,: :. - 1.Q l' ~- :J> ;~ Oz I , ( :~~ ~ I I W

"' iii ::, 0 0 0 ~

\ \ \ 9 \ i \ § \ \ \ \

J' • t ' ' IBAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB I JOHN SWACN ~ I 89 BEACH ROAD r ~: ::L~:~~=E~~:~ f'IWl'OSEl>fARTW.SITHIAN BelYtdtrt, CalUoraJa f N I R l!MCCl!L 415.435.0468 ---- ~ • FIGURE 1: PROJECT PLANS. (N) IS FOR PROPOSED FEATURES, (E) IS FOR EXISTING FEATURES.

2 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is at the San Francisco Yacht Club located at 98 Beach Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California. It is bordered by Beach Road on the north and west, Belvedere Cove (water) on the south and the Farr Cottages on the east. It includes two parcels that total approximately 0.55 acres in size known as Assessor's parcel numbers 060-094-01 and -02. The San Francisco Yacht Club is located in the Mexican era land grant of Rancho Corte Madera def Presidio, within unsectioned land of Township 1 North, Range 5 West Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates to the approximate center of the project area, as determined by measurement from the USGS 7.5' San Francisco North quadrangle map are: 4191550 Meters North and 547290 Meters East, Zone 10

EFUGE

SON BA Y

Al.PA IS i /

-<.. '

ARS 10-041: SF Yacht Club 98 Beach Road. Belvedere. Marin County. CA (APNs 060·094-01 & ·02) - 10-041ProjectArea t n lit O Polnt ,~ USGS76' SM0Wnrln•nd ;"' .$•- SottFtandacoNoltll~m.,. ,,'' 0 012$ 0 2S 05.....

FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP.

3 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

REGULATORY SETTING STATE REGULATIONS The state regulations include those established in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1) . CEQA states that significant historical resources need to be addressed before environmental mitigation guidelines are developed and approved. A "significant historical resource" (including both a prehistoric and historic resource) is one that is found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. As per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, historical resources are those that are: • Listed in , or eligible for listing in , the California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code 5024.1 , Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.); • Listed in , or eligible for listing in , the National Register of Historic Places (CRHR); • Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resource Code; or • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record , or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record . Additionally, historical resources and historic districts designated or listed as city or county landmarks or historic properties or districts pursuant to any city or county ordinance can also be listed in the California Register, if the criteria for listing under the ordinance have been determined by the Office of Historic Preservation to be consistent with California Register criteria adopted by the commission (pursuant to Section 5024.1(e) of the PRC). A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it has integrity and meets any of the following four criteria: 1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. CEQA (PRC 21083 .2) also distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological sites that meet the definition of a historical resource as above, and "unique archaeological resources." A "unique archaeological resource" has been defined in CEQA as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstratable public interest in that information, 2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts representative of California and United States history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture convey significance when they also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling , and association. A resource has integrity if it retains the characteristics that were present during the resource's period of significance. Enough of these characteristics must remain to convey the reasons for its significance.

4 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1 (k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1 (g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resources as defined in PRC sections 5020.10) or 5024.1. RESULTS OF LITERATURE CHECK Prior to performing the fieldwork, the author conducted a literature search to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the subject parcel. The literature search was conducted using information on file at Archaeological Resource Service and the California Historical Resources Inventory Systems office located in Rohnert Park, CA. This record search included checking ethnographic documents, historic maps, survey reports and site records pertaining to Belvedere. The OHP's Historic Properties Directory, as well as the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources and California Historical Landmarks were also reviewed. The list of Sacred Sites maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission was also checked. PREHISTORIC SETTING Belvedere and the surrounding area was an attractive environment for human habitation during ancient times. Several historically known Native American groups are reported to have lived in territories contiguous to the San Francisco Bay. All of Marin County and southern Sonoma County were inhabited by the Coast Miwok. Various groups of Costanoans occupied the San Francisco peninsula, the South Bay, and the shoreline areas of the East Bay. The area around Mt. Diablo and lands to the north and east were occupied by the Bay and Plains Miwok (Milliken et al. 2007:100). The territory of the Wappo and the Patwin was located northeast of the Coast Miwok. The Coast Miwok occupied a territory divorced from the other Miwok groups who occupied the western slopes of the Sierra, the San Joaquin Valley, and the south shore of Suisun Bay in the area surrounding Mt. Diablo. Linguistically the Miwok languages belong to the Penutian language family, which also includes the various Wintun and Patwin, Yokuts, Ma idu and Costanoan languages. The Coast Miwok are members of a sub-branch of the Yok-Utian language family of the broader Penutian language stock. The other members of this sub-branch are the Costanoan (or "Ohlonean") peoples. Linguistic evidence suggests that the Miwok-Costanoan sub-branch first arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area about 4,000 years ago, pushing out earlier Hokan-speaking groups, possibly peoples related to the Pomo or Wappo. Moratto (1984) suggested that the Berkeley Pattern archaeological assemblage, which appears roughly the same time, is representative of a possible fusion between Hokan and Utian cultural elements (cited in Milliken et al. 2007). The Coast Miwok colonized all of Marin County and southern Sonoma County; and within this territory was a dialectic division between the Western-Bodega Miwok (Olamentko) and the Southern Marin, or Hookooeko tribe, who spoke the Southern Marin dialect with some linguistic differences between valley and coastal peoples (Kelly 1978: 414). Kroeber (1925) believed this distinction to be unimportant. Merriam (1907) discusses a third group from the northern area of Southern Marin Valley known as the Lekahtewutko tribe. More recently, Randall Milliken identified the area around San Rafael and Point San Pedro as having been occupied by the Aguasto tribe. The Richardson Bay area and the surrounding communities of Sausalito, Mill Valley, Belvedere and Tiburon are now recognized as having been occupied by the Huimen tribe, a branch of the Coast Miwok (Goerke 2007: 10). Little is known about the late prehistoric Coast Miwok compared to other indigenous California groups, and what is known comes from a diverse range of sources including accounts from early contact, Mission records, and archaeological and ethnographic research. The Coast Miwok based their subsistence around a hunting-and-gathering economy that took advantage of both marine and terrestrial resources. Up to seven species of acorns provided the main vegetable staple, while a number of other nuts, berries, seeds, kelp and seaweed were also relied upon. Black tailed deer and Tule elk were the primary big game animals, but a number of other mammals and birds, including antelope, bears, sea lions and sea otters, squirrels, rabbits and a variety of inland and shore birds, were also on the menu. Shellfish, including abalone, oyster, mussel and clam species, were also important to the diet and exchange economy, as their shells provided material for both currency and as

5 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011 decorative ornaments. Obsidian was a valuable resource for all prehistoric Californians, who used it to fashion spear points, arrowheads, knives, scrapers, and other cutting implements. The only obsidian source in Marin County is located at Burdell Mountain, but this source was likely "not suitable for tool manufacture, and has not been detected in archaeological collections" (Jackson 1989: 82). Instead, the obsidian used by the Coast Miwok comes primarily from the Annadel and Napa Valley sources, located in Sonoma County and Napa County respectively. ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING The first European contact with the Coast Miwok appears to have been in 1579, when Sir Francis Drake stopped to repair his ship, the Golden Hinde, somewhere in the Point Reyes vicinity. While their ship was repaired a member of Drake;s crew kept a journal in which he described the people they encountered and interacted with during their stay. Sixteen years later Sebastian Cermerio's galleon, the San Agustin, ran aground at what is now known as Drake's Bay, and again there is documentation of relations with the indigenous people; and in 1603 Sebastian Vizcaino's ship landed off Tomales Point. There seems to be no further contact with Europeans until late 1769 when Portola is said to have "discovered" San Francisco Bay, an event that signaled the beginning of the European conquest of the area. Six years after Portola, on August 5, 1775 Captain Juan Manuel de Ayala sailed his ship, the San Carlos, into San Francisco Bay with a crew of 30 men , including sailors, officers, a surgeon, a priest and a cook. The San Carlos dropped anchor in Richardson Bay, off what is now known as Sausalito. The morning after their first anchorage in San Francisco Bay Ayala's men rowed their longboat into Richardson Bay where they encountered a Coast Miwok (Huimen) village. The priest, Santa Maria, wrote about this initial contact and kept a journal describing other interactions over their forty-four day stay. The ship made several anchorages in the bay as they continued into the San Pablo Bay, through the Carquinez Straits and into Suisun Bay. Betty Goerke, in her re cently released book called Chief Marin (2007), provides a good narrative about the contact between this group of Spanish explorers and the Natives they encountered. Coast Miwok culture became severely disrupted 30 years later following the establishment of the Alta California missions, including the Mission San Francisco de Asis (1776; also known as Mission Dolores), Mission San Rafael Archangel (1817) and the Mission San Francisco Solano in Sonoma (1823). The priests at Mission Dolores first focused on converting Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and those in the East Bay, but by 1800 and 1803 the population of Coast Miwok speakers at Mission Dolores increased by 900 percent, from 45 to 450. Later, between 1816 and 1817, a large number of Olompali and Petaluma area Miwok were baptized and split between Mission Dolores and Mission San Jose (Milliken 2006). By 1817 Coast Miwok people made up half of the Indian population at Mission Dolores. In the early years of the twentieth century the ethnographer Samuel A. Barrett traveled around the North Bay region interviewing Native Americans and gathering data to record the linguistic boundaries of native groups and the locations of both active and old village sites before the information was lost completely (Barrett 1908). His overall purpose was to reconstruct the cultural geography and social relationships of the various native groups that had formerly inhabited the region . Although Barrett was able to locate a number of old and current village sites in the central and northern Miwok territory, none were recorded for the territory south of San Rafael. This is in part due to the fact that at the time of Barrett's study, the remaining six Miwok speakers all came from the northern Marin and southern Sonoma County coastal area and there were really no southern Marin Miwok left who were knowledgeable about their indigenous culture. This scarcity was no doubt a direct result of the rapid relocation and de-socialization of the Miwok during the missionization process. One of the ethnographic "old village" sites reported by Barrett in Marin County was Awaniwi, located just north of San Rafael. Goerke (2007) talks about the Awaniwi as a tribelet located to the north of the territorial boundary of the Huimen tribe who occupied the southern Marin area. Merriam (1907) and Kelly (1978) reported the presence of a village site in or near Sausalito called Liwanelowa; and it was later reported that the first Coast Miwok people to enter into the Mission were from that village (Goerke 2007:14). There was another Huimen ethnographic site that Betty Goerke reports on and states that it "could have been as close to Angel Island as Belvedere or Tiburon ." She suggested that the site could be either CA-Mrn-35 or CA-Mrn-39 located at the north end of the island (2007:14).

6 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

Today there are the remains of several hundred Coast Miwok sites, most of which have been identified through archaeological surveys conducted throughout Marin and southern Sonoma County. The material remains left behind at a given site (known as that site's archaeological assemblage) are instru ctive as to the kinds of activities carried out there. Long term habitation sites found throughout most of this area are marked by the presence of well-developed midden deposits, anthropogenic soils that are essentially the 1 long-term build-up of organic debris. These soils typically include marine shell , faunal bone, and carbonized organic material, the by-products of food preparation and consumption activities; and charcoal from domestic hearths has helped give these soils an almost black color. Implements of stone, bone and shell are also part of the assemblages at these sites, and flakes of obsidian or chert (from the manufacture of projectile points and cutting tools) are frequently encountered. Human remains. in the form of burials that are sometimes accompanied by ritual offerings, are also common at such sites. Short term camp sites, which are often associated with seasonal resource extraction and processing (e.g. acorn gathering, hunting, quarrying) are more difficult to identify in terms of the archaeological evidence. In addition to natural indicators (e.g. proximity to sources of freshwater or the presence of an economically valua ble stone, etc.) they may also be represented by less developed midden soils and scatters of artifacts or the debris produced from tool manufa cture. Rock outcroppings can be found throug hout the Coast Miwok territory and in many cases these exposu res have been culturally modified with either petroglyphs (etchings into the rock surface) or used as bedrock mortars (milling stones for the processing of fruits and seeds) (Miller 1977; Fredrickson and Schwaderer 1982). Ring Mountain at the head of the Tiburon Peninsula is known to contain many petroglyphs. HISTORIC SETTING The island of Belvedere has been called the Island with six names (Bastian and Gnoss 1990). In the 2 1830s it was part of the 4460.24 acre Rancho Corte Madera de/ Presidio , a Mexican era land grant deeded to John Reed (AKA Juan Read and Don Juan Reed) on October 2, 1834 (Alley Bowen & Co. 1880). Reed referred to Belvedere as El Potrero de la Punta de/ Tiburon, meaning the Pasture of Shark Point. He saw Belvedere as a natural potrero, or pastureland because it was almost surrounded by water, and used the land to graze cattle (Heig 1984:1 0). In 1855 the island became known as Kashow's Island, but was also referred to as Kashow's Lagoon and Kashow's Causeway. Israel Kashow was a New Yorker and son of an Ohio farmer who was drawn to California in 1850 in search of gold. When he came to California he worked in Sa n Francisco for a few years and in 1855 settled on what appeared to be a vacant island in the bay, now called Belvedere. The Reed family and Israel Kashow battled over ownership of the property for many years. The Reeds claimed that Belvedere was a peninsula included in the land grant, but Kashow claimed that the property was an island and therefore not part of the grant. This "peninsula-or-island" land dispute continued for almost three decades (Bastian and Gnoss 1990). In the mea ntime Kashow built a house in the immediate vicinity of the San Francisco Yacht Club where he lived with his family for 30 years. There was also a well, barns, horse stable, a dock, a house boat, gardens and orchard s (see map in Figure 3). In the 1860s the United States military became interested in the island as a military reservation. Upon researching the title, the military concluded that Belvedere was an island and not part of the 1858 survey of the Rancho Corte de Madera def Presidio. They claimed that since Belvedere was an island it was government land, as were all islands located in San Francisco Bay (Farley et al. 1970). However, the military referred to the island as Peninsula Island , and in some accounts it was called Promontory Island. Nevertheless, the island was deemed a military post by President Andrew Johnson in 1867. While Kashow had no legal rights to the land he was reluctantly allowed to lease a portion of the island from the government, particularly because by that time he owned 11 5 acres of surrounding salt marsh and tidelands. In the salt marsh that is now Beach Road Kashow established a codfishery (Bastian and Gnoss 1990). Prior to Belvedere being ca lled Peninsula Island it was referred to as Still Island (Heig 1984). This name was derived from "Stillwater Bay" which was the name given to what is now called Belvedere and Tiburon

1 This is especially the case for sites found along the coast and bay margin where shellfish were easily harvested. The sites are often called shellmounds as a result of the high quantity of shell in them. 2 "Corte Madera" is Spanish for "place where wood is cut."

7 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

1•n 1nt ·-.~1 tn1 ru n ~_/?A MAP OF '\sJ'- D tuJ'f RICHARDSON BAY Pl. PENINSU LA ISLAND* Tog9thqr with'''" Adjoining Tcrtllory As Tf>Oy Appea1ed in the Ye111 11171

s . . . 0< STILLWATER BAY o-9' x _ Oyster Seda 0 --_ lsraul Kushow·s Tldolands 0 ~ Sah Morshos 0 ~Causeways (Cf ~ ,.

PcnlnsulA P t ......

., .. , DETAIL OF KASHOW CODFISHERY ·aaec1 on• l"ortfonol Map No. 7 01 Snit"""-'"' Md Tide Undt St•u•Ntif'I MttmCouhly, Cit/Jo,,,-.

FIGURE 3: MAP FROM 1871 BASED ON A PORTION OF MAP NO. 7 OF SALT MARSH AND TIDE LANDS SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF MARIN. THIS MAP SHOWS THE LOCATION OF KASHOW'S RESIDENCE, BARN, ORCHARD, GARDENS AND HIS CODFISHERY.

Coves. The name was coined by Captain Edwin Moody who was captain of the schooner Alert, and later was a founder of the San Francisco Yacht Club. The Alert was one of several vessels that brought in cod from the north at a time when cod fishing became a major Pacific Coast industry. Kashow cured anywhere from 300 to 700 tons of cod every year at his cod fishery on Beach Road and employed over 100 Chinese laborers (Bastian and Gnoss 1990: 205). On February 25, 1885 the land title dispute over Belvedere finally came to an end when the United States government issued a patent to John Reed's heirs that included Peninsula Island and "little peninsula island" (later called Valentine's Island and now Corinthian Island) as part of the original land grant. Kashow and his family were evicted from the island that same year. The island got its sixth and final name in 1890 when the name Belvedere appeared on a subdivision map filed by the Belvedere Land Company. The word belvedere is Italian mea ning beautiful view (Heig 1984:16), and in English it means "a structure designed to command a view" (Bastian and Gnoss 1990: 7) . The Belvedere Land Company was formed in 1888 and was said to consist of men of "wealth and enterprise" (Bastian and Gnoss 1990: 7, 208). The Land Company's plan was to develop the island for profit, as the Tiburon area had been rapidly expanding; and they advertised the planned subdivision as a "residential park." The Belvedere Land Company went to work subdividing the property, constructing 3 houses and preparing lots, building roads, some embanked with stone, and lanes , and they imported over 3,500 fast growing eucalyptus and pine trees (Bastian and Gnoss 1990; Farley et al. 1970). By 1891, 150 lots had been sold, mostly to the San Francisco elite (Bastian and Gnoss 1990: 149) . On December

3 Lanes were pedestrian shortcuts throughout the island which allowed access to the entire shoreline of Belvedere and the two main roads, including San Rafael Avenue and Beach Road.

8 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

21, 1896 the town of Belvedere was incorporated and in 1899 the population of Belvedere was 430 (Bastian and Gnoss 1990: 17-18). Specific History of Project Area The first reported occupation of the project area was by the Coast Miwok, who established a small village at this location due to its proximity to a fresh water spring, wood, shellfish and other valuable resources. By 1830 there were very few non-missionized Coast Miwok residing in Ma rin County and probably few or none in Belvedere. Around 1855 Israel Kashow built a residence and adjacent building with a dock in the immediate area of the project FIGURE 3: P HOTO OF THE PROJECT AREA SHOWING THE BELVEDERE HOTEL AND A STRUCTURE WITH A DOCK THAT IS POSSIBLY FROM WHEN KASHOW OCCUPIED THE ISLAND. site. The Kashow's lived there PHOTO DATES SOMETIME BElWEEN 1900 AND 1924 {BASTIN AND GNOSS 1990:44). for about 30 years, until they were evicted from the island in 1885. The Belvedere Land Company took over the Island in 1889 with plans to develop it, and soon lots were sold. Annie T. Moore purchased the subject property, and in 1898 announced a plan to construct the Belvedere Hotel, a SO-room hotel that was said to be the "most delightful water resort adjacent to the city" (Bastin and Gnoss 1990: 44). Three Native American burials were found during its construction (Nelson FIGURE 4: PHOTO OF THE PROJECT AREA SHOWING THE COVE HOUSE ON THE LEFT, FARR COTTAGES ON THE RIGHT AND THE BELVEDERE LAND COMPANY BUILDING IN THE 1907). BACKGROUND. THE HOTEL WAS DEMOLISHED BY THIS TIME, BUT THE YACHT CLUB BUILDING Dr. Clyde Payne and his wife HAD NOT YET BEEN CONSTRUCTED. PHOTO DATES SOMETIME BElWEEN 1924 AND 1936 Dolly Madison resided at the (BASTIN AND GNOSS 1990:45). hotel during the summers until the architect W.G. Hind designed the Cove House for them, built adjacent to the hotel in 1916. Dr. Clyde Payne was a dentist who held a patent on a method of hand making tooth crowns, and owned at least nine apartment buildings in the City, many of which were also designed by W.G. Hind (Architect and Engineer 1915: 106: Crouse 1899: McGraw-Hill Co. of California 1917:108). In July 1916 an article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle with a photograph that shows the Cove House complete; and a caption that reads "Summer home for Dr. Clyde s. Payne, another Italian, type, being erected at Belvedere by W.G. Hind, architect." An article found in the Sausalito News from the same day offers further information about the Cove House, "An Italian villa summer home is being built for Dr. Clyde s. Payne at Belvedere. The house will have seven rooms, two baths, loggia and large porches and sleeping porches. The interior will be finished in enamel, with hardwood floors, tile baths, large open fireplaces, large plate glass windows overlooking Belvedere cove, and the exterior will be in cement plaster. W. G. Hind is the architect. Dr. Payne is an enthusiastic speed boat man (Sausalito News, 1916).

9 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

It is reported that the materials used to build the Cove House may have come from the Panama Pacific Intern ational Exposition held in San Francisco in 1915 and barged over when the exposition ended in December of that year (Sanders 2011 ; Bartel 1976). The owners of the Belvedere Hotel went bankrupt and closed the hotel. It was torn down sometime between 1921 and 1924. In 1925 the San Francisco Yacht Club purchased the property from the bankrupt estate of the Continental Building and Loan Association and the existing clubhouse was built in 1934. CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Ten cultural resource studies have been previously conducted for properties in Belvedere: and all but one involved a previously recorded prehistoric site (ARS 2003, 2005; Bryne 2008; Chattan 2005, 2008a, 2008b; Flynn 1999; Origer 1989; Roop 1977, 1999; Roop and Evans 2009). There are five prehistoric Native American sites recorded in Belvedere: CA-Mrn-35, CA-Mrn-39, CA-Mrn- 40, CA-Mrn-41 and CA-Mrn-649. CA-Mrn-41 is located within the project area. CA-Mm-41 was recorded in 1907 by Nels Nelson, with the University of California Berkeley. It was identified as part of a U.C . research program that involved surveying the entire San Francisco Bay estuarine system as well as conducting excavations at a number of the largest sites. Over 400 shellmound sites were recorded as a result of these efforts, most of which were documented by Nels Nelson. The following is Nelson's description of CA-Mrn-41 (P-21-00564): Location: Shel/heap. Situated about midway on the east side of Belvedere Island, near the road that crosses the lagoon to Tiburon. The site is marked by Hotel Belvedere. Several individuals, beside the Belvedere Land Co., vouch for the presence of a small mound here, some 25-30 in diam. and 3-4 ft. high. No one it appears knew of its presence until excavation was begun on the site for the Hotel. In the mound there were to the Land Co's. knowledge: 3 skeletons, several pestles, and a stone so shaped that they were placed to designate it Tomahawk. All but the pestles, which were examined in the Land office, were stolen by unknown individuals (Nelson 1907). The site has not been officially relocated by an archaeologist since it was observed by Nelson in 1907. None of the other prehistoric sites are located in the immediate vicinity of the project area . There are no historic archaeological sites that have been recorded in the City of Belvedere; however there are 49 properties listed in the Directory of Properties4 in the Historic Properties Data File for Marin County maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and six additional resources that are listed on the local register by the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. One property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places; the Valentine Rey House at 428 Golden Gate Avenue. Two are listed on the California Register, including the Valentine Rey House5 and the Pacific Motor Boat Club building at 30 Beach Road . One additional resource, the Dreyfour property at 332 Golden Gate Avenue, was listed in the California Inventory of Historic Resources prior to March 1976. There are twelve historic structures recorded on Beach Road including the Cove House located within the project area and Farr Cottages (ca. 1906) located adjacent to the project area on the east. The Cove House was designed in 1916 by W.G. Hind and built as a summer home for Dr. Clyde S. Payne. It was described as a stucco building with beautiful architecture including arches, French doors and beautiful grey and white tiles from an old Italian palace. The building materials were reportedly barged over from the Pacific Panama International Exposition (World Fair) held in San Francisco in 1915 (Bartel 1976), but this has not been verified (Sanders 2011 ). When it was recorded by Keith Bartel, grandson of Dr. Clyde Payne and a member of the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, in 1976, it was

4 This list is also referred to as the Historic Resource Inventory List (HRI). It is essentially a built environment inventory that is separate from the archaeological inventory. The HRI list also includes properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Registered Historical Landmarks , California Points of Historical Interest, Determinations of Eligibility and Historic Surveys. 5 Resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the California Register of Historic Resources.

10 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

reported to be in good condition, but needed paint and other minor restorations. It was also reported that Clyde Payne Jr. designed the house, which could be partially true. Clyde Payne Jr. was a student at the University of Pennsylvania Architectural School at the time and was commended for winning several prestigious student competition awards, including scholarships to study in Paris and Rome after his graduation in 1917. When the Cove House was built in 1916 he was a student, but given his success and father's relationship with W.G. Hind it is possible that he helped design the Cove House, maybe as a student project. The San Francisco Yacht Club building was constructed in 1934. It was constructed on the site of the old Belvedere Hotel that was built in 1898 and torn down sometime between 1921 and 1924. SACRED LAND FILE INVENTORY A check with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was conducted to determine if there are sites listed in the Sacred Lands file located within or near to the current project area . The NAHC works to identify, cata logue, and protect places of special religious or social significance, graves, and cemeteries of Native Americans per the authority given the Commission in Public Resources Code 5097.9. No Sacred Lands were identified by the NAHC as being in the immediate vicinity. Further consultation with the appropriate Native American representative regarding this project was conducted by the City of Belvedere. Pierce McDonald with the City of Belvedere contacted Nick Tipon and Ken Tipon with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) to notify them of the project and the existing resources, and requested more information about the significance of the site and further recommendations. Mr. Nick Tipon recommended retaining an archaeologist to perform a preliminary test to determine the extent and depth of the archaeological deposit, and a review of past records and reports to help determine previous impacts to the site. Following those tasks, which were accomplished as part of this project, the FIGR will recommend measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to the archaeological deposit (Tipon 2011). RESULTS OF SURFACE EXAMINATION A field survey and minor sub-surface excavation was conducted on February 3, 2011. The field study consisted of inspecting areas throughout the property for evidence of previous prehistoric habitation (CA Mrn-41) and executing a series of auger bores in three areas where excavation for the remodels are proposed. The project area is well-developed with buildings, decks, boat docks, a central lawn and surrounding landscaping and fencing. Landscaping includes mostly agapanthus and various types of hedges. The buildings include the main yacht club and the adjacent "Cove House," as well as two small sheds located behind (north of) the Cove House. There is a small gravelly beach area as well, separated from the central lawn area by a concrete walkway that leads from the parking lot to the rear (east) of the yacht club and passes by the Cove House on the east side. All areas where soil was exposed were inspected for color and the presence of shell fragments and other indications of prehistoric activity. The majority of the ground surface FIGURE 5: LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM THE CLUB HOUSE BUILDING throughout the project area is covered ACROSS LAWN ATTHE COVE HOUSE. by buildings, lawn or pavement, but soil was exposed throughout the landscaped areas.

11 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

Medium to dark brown colored gravelly soil containing fragments of clam shell and a lesser amount of mussel shell was observed in all areas of exposed soil surrounding the Cove House and near the yacht club building. It was not dense, dark midden soil, but did contain shell fragments throughout. The dark soil and shell is indication that the prehistoric deposit is present, but it has obviously been disturbed by the previous development. SUBSURFACE EXCAVATION Because the site is situated on a known prehistoric site (CA-Mrn-41) and evidence of it can be seen throughout the project area, particularly near the cove House, several hand augers were excavated in the three locations of proposed excavation. A 10cm diameter twist-type hand auger was used to excavate to a depth of at least SOcm, which is the maximum depth of the proposed excavation. The soil was removed in 10cm increments and passed though a 1/8-inch mesh screen then placed back into the hole once the auger was completed and the contents of the screen inspected. The purpose of the hand augering was to evaluate the integrity of the archaeological deposit in the locations where excavation is proposed to determine the appropriate FIGURE 6: LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE CLUB HOUSE BUILDING. means of mitigating potential impacts. The locations and depth of proposed excavation was determined prior to execution of the augers. Nine augers were excavated within three areas. Four augers were excavated in the area of the club house addition, four were excavated on the north side of the Cove House, where an addition is proposed, and one was placed in the area of the proposed deck off the southeast side of the Cove House. Club House Augers Augers 1-4 were near the club house building. Augers 1-3 were within the lawn area and Auger 4 was within the small area covered by artificial turf. Auger 1 was terminated at 38cm due to encountering a possible concrete footing , possibly from the old Belvedere Hotel. The soil was medium brown colored throughout. A few shell clam shell fragments were observed between 20cm and 38cm depth. Two fragments of bottle glass (clear, green) and a small chunk of highly aggregated concrete were found from 30 to 38cm depth. Auger 2 was excavated to a depth of 70cm. The upper 20cm was medium brown clay loam. At 20cm depth the soil became markedly darker in color and pockets of midden soil were encountered. The soil became lighter in color at about socm depth, but midden was still present. Small pockets of midden were encountered from 20cm to 70cm depth along with the occasional historic item such as three fragments of bottle glass, a small brick fragment and four heavily oxidized nails, found to a depth of 60cm. Two small animal bone fragments were observed from 50-60cm depth. Auger 3 was excavated to a depth of socm. No midden soil was encountered, but fragments of clam shell were observed throughout. Four fragments from a single larger fragment of a blue and white transfer ware ceramic plate or saucer were observed at about 17cm depth. One heavily oxidized nail was found at SOcm depth. Auger 4 was excavated to a depth of 70cm. The upper levels consisted of medium brown sandy clay loam soil that contained a few small pieces of clam shell. From 30-40cm depth the soil became a bit darker in color and very gravelly. About a dozen fragments of clam shell were encountered as well as one mammal rib bone fragment. Two more rib bone fragments were encountered from 40-SOcm as well as a fragment of porcelain and a fragment of a ceramic utility pipe. Pockets of midden soil containing mussel

12 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011 and clam shell fragments was encountered at 65cm depth, as well as several bone fragments that appeared to be deer (cranium and rib) . A heavily oxidized nail was also found. Cove House Augers Augers 5-8 were located near the existing sheds on the north side of the Cove House. Auger 5 and 6 were placed adjacent to previous augers that had recently been excavated. Auger 5 was excavated to a depth of 60cm. Fragments of clam shell were observed in the upper 20cms, and again from 50-60cm and one chert flake was encountered from 20-30cm. No midden was encountered. Auger 6 was excavated to a depth of 55cm. The soil was dark brown colored in the upper 20cms and contained the occasional fleck of shell. It became a bit lighter in color and very clayey beyond 20cms depth and one fragment of a clear square bottle was encountered at about 40cms depth. No midden was observed. Auger 7 was excavated to a depth of 45cms and was terminated just short of the proposed excavation due to the presence of a large rock. The soil was medium brown colored clay loam that became very clayey at about 20cms depth. A few fragments of clam shell were observed in the upper 1Ocms. A clear glass marble, a fragment of brown bottle glass with the partial embossing of "CAL," and a chunk of actinolite schist were observed FIGURE 7: AERIAL VIEW OF S.F. YACHT CLUB PROPERTY SHOWING from 10-20cms. No midden was LOCATION OF AUGER EXCAVATIONS. encountered. Auger 8 was excavated to a depth of 68cm. The upper 50cms consisted of a medium brown colored clay loam with no shell in it. A very small pocket of midden soil was encountered at 52cms below the surface that contains tiny flecks of mussel shell. Auger 9 was located at the west corner of the existing concrete and paver patio in the front of the Cove House. Sandy fill was observed at the surface to about 18cm and beyond that midden soil was encountered Lo a depth of 65cms. The midden appeared somewhat disturbed to about 40cms based on the size and condition of the shell fragments, but was in better condition at about 50cms. At 65cm the soil turned to medium brown colored clay and no midden was observed beyond that depth. CONCLUSIONS Potentially significant historic and prehistoric resources were observed in the project area including the prehistoric site known as CA-Mrn-41, the club house building and Cove House. Additionally, the large palm tree is left over from the previous Belvedere Hotel that once occupied the location of the club house building and may be considered historically important at the local level for that association.

13 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

Structures The club house building was constructed in 1936 and the Cove House was built in 1916. The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) recommends that structures greater than 45 years of age be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian for their potential historic significance if changes are proposed. The OHP states that buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts representative of California and United States history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture convey significance when they also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling , and association. A resource has integrity if it retains the FIGURE 8: FRONT (SOUTHEAST) SIDE OF COVE HOUSE BUILT IN 1916. characteristics that were present during the resource's period of significance. The club house building and the Cove House appear to retain most if not all elements of integrity and each may meet one or more criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The Cove House appears to be eligible for its architecture (criterion 3) , but may also meet criterion 1, in that it is associated with an important event, and/or criterion 2, in that it is associated with an important individual. CA-Mrn-41 Evidence of the archaeological site was observed across the surface of the project area and in the three areas that are proposed for excavation. However the site appears to have been heavily disturbed in all areas that were investigated as part of this project. A series of auger bores were excavated in the three areas that will undergo excavation for this project. Either no midden or small pockets of previously disturbed midden were encountered. Midden that appeared somewhat intact was observed in Auger 9 at the west corner of the patio in the front of the Cove House, and was encountered just below the proposed maximum depth of excavation. While the surface of the project area is covered by dark brown colored soil and contains fragments of clam shell throughout the midden that was encountered was different in that it was darker in color, had much more of a "greasy" texture and was dense with crushed up mussel shell. The soil throughout the project area contains mostly clam shell, which could be the result of both prehistoric and past historic activities. While the prehistoric site may be eligible for listing on the California Register due lo its potential lo offer information about prehistoric life ways in California and locally (criterion 4), the areas that will be affected by this project have been previously disturbed and the deposit in these locations does not have integrity and does not appear to meet the CRHR criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on regulations established California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1) ARS recommends that the club house structure and the Cove House be evaluated by an architectural historian to assess their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, and recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. If either structure is found to be eligible for listing to the CRHR the proposed changes should also be evaluated by a qualified

14 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011 architectural historical to determine potential adverse effects and offer further consultation on the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic buildings. No further sub-surface archaeological testing is warranted at this time because the proposed excavation will not disturb intact deposits. However, archaeological monitoring during construction is strongly recommended due to the archaeological sensitivity of the project area (for both prehistoric and historic resources) and the potential to encounter artifacts and possibly previously disturbed human remains. Human remains have been previously reported and fragments of previously disturbed burials may be encountered. It is also recommended that if any intact midden or features are encountered during excavation that fur1her work is halted in that location until the discovery is assessed for potential significance under CEQA. If part of the deposit or a feature is found to be significant and it cannot be avoided by the project then archaeological recovery will be warranted in order to mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. Archaeological recovery would include hand excavating the feature or the portion of the intact midden to be affected so that the information can be property recovered, recorded and presented in the final report. It is also recommended that any midden soil that is excavated as part of the project is retained within the project area, if feasible. Finally, upon completion of the monitoring program a final report should be prepared that describes the work accomplished and the data that was recovered as part of the project. The report should follow the Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) recommended contents and format. DPR 523 forms should also be completed to update the 1907 site record for CA-Mrn-41 . ARS' recommended monitoring procedures are outlined below. RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROCEDURES A recommendation was made to have an archaeological monitor present during all earth-disturbing activities. ARS recommended monitoring procedures are as follows: • Monitoring will consist of directly watching the excavation process. Monitoring will occur during the entire workday and will continue on a daily basis until earth moving activities no longer have the potential to affect the resource or encounter associated resources. The archaeologist may determine when full-time archaeological monitoring could be scaled back to part-time monitoring or spot checks. The depth at which resources would not occur is estimated as usually about five feet below grade at the beginning of the project, but may require modification in specific cases, and will be determined by the monitoring archaeologist based on observed soil conditions. • Spot checks will consist of inspecting of the progress of excavation over the course of the project. During spot checks all spoils materials, open excavations, recently grubbed areas, and other soil disturbances will be inspected. The frequency and duration of spot checks will be based on the relative sensitivity of the exposed soils and active work areas. The monitoring archaeologist will determine the relative sensitivity and the necessity for full-time or part-time monitoring or spot checks. • Whenever the monitoring archaeologist suspects that potentially significant cultural remains or have been encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the suspected deposit will be stopped, and the excavation inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected remains prove to be non-cultural or not culturally significant, work will recommence immediately. If the suspected remains prove to be part of a significant deposit, all work should be halted in that location until plans for its preservation or its removal has been accomplished. • Equipment stoppages will only involve those pieces of equipment that have actually encountered significant or potentially significant deposits, and should not be construed to mean a stoppage of all equipment on the site unless the cultural deposit covers the entire building site. During temporary equipment stoppages brought about to examine suspected artifacts or features, the archaeologist should accomplish the necessary tasks with all due speed. The discovery of human skeletal remains anywhere within a project area requires that work be discontinued in the vicinity of the discovery while the Marin County Sheriff/Coroner's office is notified. If the skeletal remains are found to be prehistoric, Native American and not modern, then the Sheriff/Coroner will call the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento, which will

15 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011 designate the "Most Likely Descendant" (MLD) of the remains. The MLD will be responsible for recommending the disposition and treatment of the remains. The likelihood of encountering human skeletal remains in the project area is good, so it is important to have a procedure for alternate tasks that can be put into effect quickly in the event that human remains are discovered. This allows construction work to continue while the remains are investigated. REFERENCES CONSUL TED Allen, Jim (Belvedere Land Company) 2009 Personal communication between Sally Evans of ARS and Jim Allen regarding the history and development of the island and the location of existing springs. January 21 , 2009. Alley, Bowen & <.:o. 1880 History of Marin County, California. Library of Congress, Washington D.C. Republished in 1972 by Charmaine Burdell Veronda , Petaluma, CA. Archaeological Resource Service 2003 Results of an Archaeological Monitoring Program at the Property Located at 4 North Point Circle, Belvedere, Marin County, California (APN 060-111 -03). On file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-27423. 2005 Results of an Archaeological Monitoring Program at 10 North Point Circle, on the Site of Mrn-39, Belvedere, Marin County, California. ARS 01 -024. Unpublished report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-30451 . Architect and Engineer 1915 With Architects and Engineers. Volumes 43-44, pgs 53 & 106, . Harvard University. Barrett, S. A. 1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6 (1 ): 1-332, Berkeley. Bartel, Keith 1976 HRI form for the Cove House. Property ID 21 -4920-14. Form on file atthe NWIC of the CHRIS. Bastian, Beverly Wright and Barbara Britton Gnoss (editors) 1990 A Pictorial History of Belvedere 1890-1990: A California Island Town. The Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, Marin County, CA. Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society 1997 Walking Tour of Tiburon and Belvedere. Electronic document, http:llwww.landmarks-societv.org/docs/walking tour.pdQ. Accessed January 5, 2009. 2008 Belvedere's West Shore. Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, Belvedere, CA. California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California - The Resource Agency, Sacramento, CA. List dated March 1976. Chattan, Cassandra (ARS) 2008a A Cultural Resource Evaluation of 6 San Rafael Drive, Belvedere, Marin County, California. ARS 08-025. Unpublished report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-34981. 2008b A Cultural Resource Evaluation of 41 West Shore Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California. ARS 08-026. Unpublished report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-34982. Codoni, Fred and Paul C. Trimble (Northwestern Pacific Railroad Historical Society) 2006 Northwestern Pacific Railroad. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco, CA. Collier, Mary E.T. and Sylvia B. Thalman (editors) 1996 Interviews with Tom Smith and Maria Copa: Isabel Kelly's Ethnographic Notes on the Coast Miwok Indians of Marin and Southern Sonoma Counties, California. Mapom Occasional Papers, Number6. Miwok Archaeological Preserve of Marin, San Rafael. Crouse, J.N. 1899 List of Latest Dental Patents. Dental Digest. Volume 9, pg. 288. F<:ult!y, Er win, D<:tviu Tt!<:tlht!r <:1111.l Joy1.;l:! Wil:;o11 (t!uilor:;) 1970 Shark Point High Point: An Illustrated History of Tiburon & Belvedere in Marin County, California by the Eighth Graders of the Reed School Classes of 19524, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958. Tiburon: Reed School District Parent Teachers Club. Flynn, Katherine 1999 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Berry Property at 10 North Point Circle, Belvedere Marin County. ARS 99-16. Unpublished report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-27787. Goerke, Elizabeth and Robert Rausch (College of Marin) 1999 Archaeological site record for CA-Mrn-649. Unpublished record on file the NWIC of the CHRIS. Goerke, Betty 2007 Chief Marin, Leader, Rebel, and Legend: A History of Marin County's Namesake and His People. Heyday Books, Berkeley, CA.

16 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

Heig, James (editor) 1984 Pictorial Histo ry of Tiburon: A California Railroad Tow n . Scottswall Associates: San Francisco. Heig, James and Shirley Mitchell (editors) 1985 Both Sides of the Track : A Collection of Oral Histories from Belvedere and Tiburon. Scottswall Associates: San Francisco. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch and William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle 1990 Histo ric Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford; Keegan, Frank L., 1987 San Rafael. Jackson, Thomas. L. 1989 Late Prehistoric Obsidian Production and exchange in the North Coast Ranges, California. In Current Direction in California Obsidian Studies, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 79-94. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility no. 48. Kelly, Isabel 1978 Coast Miwok. !n William Sturtevant {editor) 1978, Handbook of No rth American Indians. Robert F. Heizer (volume editor), Volume 8, California, pp. 414-425. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C. Kroeber, Alfred 1925 Handbook of Califo rnia Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington D. C. Luby, Edward M. and Clayton D. Drescher and Kent Lightfoot 2006 Shell Mounds and Mounded Landscapes in the San Francisco Bay Area: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 1 :191 -214. Mason, Jack 1971 Early Marin. House of Printing, Petaluma. Meighan, C. W. and Arnold Pilling 1949 Site record supplement for CA-Mrn-39. On file, Archaeological Research Facility, University of California at Berkeley. Merriam, C. H. 1907 Distribution and Classification of the Mewan Stock in California. American Anthropologist#9 (2) pp. 338-357. Milliken, Randall and Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier and David A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area . In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-123. AltaMira Press, a Division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, New York. Milliken, Randall 2006 Mission Period Eth no history. !n Report on the Creekside Village Archaeological Testing Program, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, CA by William Roop et al. (ARS 05-056). Report currently being processed at the NWIC. Mitchell, Shirley and Cathy Debs Epstein 1985 Both Sides of the Track : A Collection of Oral Histories from Belvedere and Tiburon. Sponsored by the Landmarks Society of Belvedere and Tiburon. Edited by James Heig and Shirley Mitchell. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida. Munro-Fraser, J. P. 1880 History of Marin Co unty. Alley, Bowen & Co. , 1880. Reprinted by Charmaine Veronda Burdell 1972. Petaluma. Nelson, Nels C. 1907 Site notations on site nos. 35, 39, 40 and 41. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Archaeological Research Facility, University of California at Berkeley. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):310-357. Berkeley: The University Press. Nichols, Donald and Nancy C. Wright 1971 Preliminary Historic Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. Open File Report of the U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Menlo Park. Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2006 California Historical Resources Information Systems Information Center Procedural Manual. Originally published Nov~1111J~1 20, 1995 l>y th~ D~p<:11h11~111 of P<:11k:; <:111tl R~1;1~<:1tio11 , R~:;ou11;~ Ay~111,;y. A111~11tl~tl lluouyh Q1;to1J~1 1, 2006. Electronic document, http:l/ohp.parks.ca.qov, accessed 1/ 14109. Origer, Thomas 1989 Letter dated June 24, 1989 to Anthony Cohen, Attorney regarding human remains found at CA-Mrn-39, the prehistoric archaeological site where Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg are remodeling their home in Belvedere, Marin County. Quinn, Arthur, 1981 Broken Sho re, The Marin Peninsula; A Perspective History. Salt Lake City: Peregine Smith, Inc. Reed District Parent-Teacher Club 1958 Map of the Tiburon Peninsula, Marin County, State of California and Adjacent Areas. Executed expressly for Shark Point High Point.

17 A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, Belvedere, Marin County, CA. February 28, 2011

Rice, Salem and T. C. Smith 1976 Geology of the Tiburon Peninsula, Sausalito and Adjacent Areas, Marin County, California. In Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County, California. Division of Mines and Geology OFR 76-2 , SF Plate 1 E, Scale 1 :12,000. Cited in Hallenback & Associates (1988). Roop, William 1977 Letter to PG&E Land Department dated February 08, 1977 regarding Permit No. 476491159, 04-M4n- 3.09/3.23+ Tiburon Blvd. at San Rafael Avenue, GM 71125, PGH&E Job# G-80713. [Letter regarding archaeological monitoring and data recovery of human remains and artifacts found within archaeological site CA-Mrn-35, also known as Nelson's Hilarita Mound.) Archaeological Resource Service 77-12. Unpublished report on file at NWIC, HRIS under S-06562. 1999 A Historic Properties Evaluation of the Parcel at One Madrona Avenue, Belvedere , Marin County, California. ARS 99-88. Unpublished report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS as S-27676. 2001 Leiter lo Mr. John Anastasio regarding Archaeological Discoveries al 4 North Point <.:ll'cle , Recommending Archaeological Monitoring. Roop, William and Sally Evans 2009 An Evaluation of Cultural Resources and a Legislative Overview for the City of Belvedere General Plan Update, Marin County, California. ARS 08-070. Report on file at the NWIC of the CHRIS. Sanchez, Katy (Native American Heritage Commission) 2011 Response letter from NAHC with results of Sacred Lands File search request and list of the four Native American individuals/organizations to contact for further information. Letter on file at ARS as 10-041 and at the NAHC. Sanders, Steve 2001 Remnants of a Dream, a search for the Jeweled City's relics. Locating remains of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915. http://home.comcast.net/-sgsanders/index.html. 2011 Personal communication between Pierce McDonald at the City of Belvedere and Steve Sanders regarding the Cove House. Dated February 22, 2011. San Francisco Chronicle 1916 Photograph of "Summer home for Dr. Clyde Payne." Saturday July 22, 1916. Second Section, Page 9. Vol. CIX, No. 7. San Francisco, CA. Sausalito News 1916 "Summer Villa Home." Saturday July 22, 1916. No. 30, Vol. XXXll. Sausalito, Marin County, California. Slaymaker, Charles M. 1974 Fidemo, the Twilight, and Before: A Study of Coast Miwok Political Organization. Master's thesis, California State University, San Francisco. 1982 A Model for the Study of Coast Miwok Ethnography. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Teather, Louise and Philip Molten 1984 Pictorial History of Tiburon, A California Railroad Town . Edited by James Heig. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco. California Room Map Collection: Survey of Corte Madera del Presidio. Map File #459. (Anne T. Kent California Room Collection, Marin County Civic Center). Teather, Louise 1969 Island of Six Names: A History o f Belvedere, California 1834-1890. Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society. Tiburon, CA. 1986 Place Names of Marin. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco. Tipon, Nick (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) 2011 Response to Pierce McDonald's e-mail notification of the project at 98 Beach Road, Belvedere, on February 18, 2011 with further recommendations. Response e-mail dated February 19, 2011. Wilson, Steven C. 1974 Ethnology and Ethnohistory. In Michael J. Moratto, Lynn M. Riley, and Steven C. Wilson (editors) 1974, pp.10-16.

18 THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA

Historic Resource Evaluation

Prepared for City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

Prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc

22 April 2011 lnnova[ing Tradirion

ARC! I ITEt TL'RE THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was contracted by the City of Belvedere (Client) in March 2011 to provide historic preservation consulting services for a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the building located at 100 Beach Road (also known as the Cove House) in Belvedere, California. The Client requested these services in connection with proposed modifications to the building by the San Francisco Yacht Club (Owners). The residence has not previously been evaluated for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). As requested by the Client, this report evaluates the subject property for listing on the CRHR.

METHODOLOGY

Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. Architectural Historian Sarah Hahn conducted a site visit and survey of the property's interior and exterior on 5 April 2011. The Client provided historic photographs and other relevant documentation prior to the site visit. During this visit the building's configuration and architectural elements were documented with photographs and field notes. Archival research did not produce any original drawings for the subject property.

Garavaglia Architechue Inc. also conducted additional archival research on the subject property and surrounding area. Research repositories consulted include the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, City of Belvedere Planning and Building archive database (Belvedere City Hall), the San Francisco H istory Room at the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL), Environmental Design Archives at University of California Berkeley, California Historical Society and Online Archive of California research databases, and the SFPL online research databases. (See References section for complete list of resources.)

DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE

This one-story Italian Renaissance style residence is set on a generally triangular lot (APN: 060- 094-01) immediately east of Beach Road in Belvedere, California. A large paved parking lot abuts the property to the south and the floating docs of the San Francisco Yacht Club (the Club) border the property to the south and east. A storage area with a collection of small outbuildings is located just behind the house at the north. The Club's main building is located northeast of the subject property and was designed by Henry Gutterson in the 1930s. The Club currently uses the Cove House as an event space, as well as office space for the Race Council Office. Generally square in plan with a small extension at the northeast corner, the building sits on a concrete foundation and is topped by a hipped roof clad in composition shingles.

A prominent recessed entry porch with a triple-arched entryway and rounded classical columns dominates the front (south) elevation. Symmetrical in arrangement, this fac;ade also features shallow squared bays on either side of the central recessed porch, each with a single large, fixed picture window. Wall surface ornaments, in the form of a simple raised rectangular panel, punctuate the wall above each window, and the fac;ade terminated in a wood cornice and boxed eave overhang .

..,~ 1 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

A large wood terrace, running the full length of the front fa~ade, attaches to the south wall of the property. A decorative wood railing encloses the terrace perimeter, and wood steps access the deck on the east and south sides. The southern stair leads to a paved patio area, almost triangular in shape. A wood trellis structure borders the eastern edge of this patio, shading a paved sidewalk that leads to the parking lot at the south.

The west elevation is separated from Beach Road by a narrow hedge that stretches along the outer edge of the lot. It feahues a window and a door opening, both topped with a blind arch header. The multi-pane glazed wood door provides entrance to the Race Council Office, and the pair of multi-pane casement wood sash windows set in the second opening have been painted over. A paved walk provides passage along this elevation, between the house and hedge.

The rear (north) elevation has two exit doors, one leading into the main house and one to the commercial kitchen through the rectangular-plan addition near the east corner. A modern wood stair provides access to the French doors at the house entry on this elevation. A wood deck and stair attach to the addition near the kitchen entry. A band of single pane wood casement windows light the breakfast nook inside the addition, and the kitchen has a one-over-one double hung wood window with ogee lugs. A modern Dutch door with multi-pane glazing provides access to the kitchen interior.

The east exterior wall features a prominent band of three, multi-pane wood casement windows with multi-pane arched transoms. Hedges and small plantings are set between the adjacent sidewalk and the house at this elevation.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

B ELVEDERE1 In 1890, a group of prominent local businessmen and investors formed the Belvedere Land Company to develop their newly acquired island adjacent to the Tiburon peninsula. Belvedere Island was connected to the mainland by a narrow sand spit and a protected lagoon and rose from the waters as a tree-covered rocky mass with steep sides but commanding views of Angel Island, the Marin headlands and San Francisco Bay. "The company immediately set about terracing the big island with lineal, winding roads embanked with stone walls, and promoted the subdivision as a 'residential park.' The plan was an immediate success, the in [sic] place for San Francisco's first families as the cenh1ry turned."2

To attract buyers, the Land Company improved streets, installed a water system and set about providing a ferry landing to connect the island with Tiburon, Sausalito, San Francisco and the wider Bay Area community. In the early years, Belvedere was made up of a mixture of seasonal and year-round residents with an active, bohemian-type summer atmosphere and a more subdued winter social scene. However, it also was a place that residents and visitors alike wanted to improve for more comfortable and hospitable year-round living. To this end, the City was incorporated in 1896, and had established a post office and school district by 1897.

1 Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, A Pictorinl History of Belvedere: 1890-1990. (Tiburon, California: Wood River Publishing, 1990), sununarized from various chapters. 2 Ibid. p.7 . ..,~ 2 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

Belvedere developed in two phases. After the initial offering of lots in the decades around 1900 attracted prominent San Franciscans looking for sununer homes and a more rural lifestyle, there was a second marketing push in the 1940s to bring in more year-round residents. Consequently, there is a variety of housing stock reflecting these two eras. From the first are grander residences constructed in the popular styles of the time: Stick, Arts and Crafts, Queen Anne, Mission Revival, and First Bay Area Tradition. Many of these have shingle or wood siding, double hung windows, dormers, bay windows, multiple levels, obvious exterior ornament, and are set on larger lots.

Figure 1. Belvedere Cove c. 1926. Note Cove House, Belved ere Land Company building, and Fa rr Cottages from left to right (photo courtesy of Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society).

From the second are smaller, more modest buildings in the mid-century architechlral styles distinguished by single-levels, lower profiles, simpler exterior ornament, larger windows and a direct corn1ection to outdoor living areas, all on smaller, more closely placed lots. These two developmental periods are the results of shifts in the organizational struchu-e of the Belvedere Land Company. From its fotmding until 1935, it was rnn by a Board of Trustees who answered to a series of shareholders. In 1935, Harry Allen (successful developer of Sea Cliff in San Francisco) became the sole owner of the Belvedere Land Company. Recognizing the change in the realty market, he set about promoting Belvedere as a family friendly, more modest community to the upper-middle class market.

Growth was steady until the post-World War II era when Belvedere, like many Bay Area communities, found itself with a rapidly increasing population and all the governing issues that come with it. In 1954, a city manager form of governance was adopted but many critical operational ftmctions were still carried out by the county or by consultants. Today, the predominantly residential community retains its original resort-era charm with a number of large, late-Victorian "cottages" still serving as prominent visual landmarks as visitors approach across the original sand spit (now Beach Road). The Albert Farr-designed Belvedere Land Company offices and cottages on Beach Road provide the architectural cues for a number of these early residences. Scattered among the larger residences are the smaller bungalows and ..,~ 3 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation early ranch-type houses of the second marketing phase. Then finally, in the lagoon and on the west side of the island, are later developments dating to the post-World War II period and more recent periods.

100 BEACH ROAD

Early History The Coast Miwok are the first documented occupants of the site where the subject property now stands. The Mi wok established a small village at this location, ideal for its proximity to a fresh water source, wood, shellfish and other resources. By 1930 very few non-missionized Coast Miwok are reported to have been living in Marin County, and likely few to none living in Belvedere.3

Israel Kashow settled here around 1855, building a residence and dock in the immediate location of the Cove House. The Kashow house can be seen in early photographs of the Belvedere Hotel, appearing as a modest, one-story affair built out over the water. Kashow occupied the site for about thirty years, until being evicted from the island in 1885.4

Figure 2. Cove House and Belvedere Hotel, c. 1920 (photo courtesy of Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society).

The Belvedere Land Company assumed ownership of the island in 1890 and proceeded to develop and improve their acquisition. Annie T. Moore purchased a cove side lot (adjacent to the current site of the Cove House) and announced plans to construct the SO-room Belvedere

3 ArchaeologicaJ Resource Service (Sally Evans), A Cu/turn/ Resources Evnluntio 11 for tire Proposed Remodel of Two Structures nt tire Snn Francisco Yacht Club, 100 Beach Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California (Petaluma, CA), 9. ~Ibid . ..,~ 4 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

Hotel in 1898. Dr. Clyde Payne and his family resided at the hotel during the summers before constructing their own residence immediately adjacent to the hotel in 1916.5 Though the Belvedere Hotel was a popular destination for a number of years, the owners evenhially went bankrupt and the hotel was demolished sometime between 1921-1924. The San Francisco Yacht Club purchased the property adjacent to the Cove House in 1925, and built the existing clubhouse in 1934.6 Dolly Madison Payne (Keaton) passed away in 1982 and the San Francisco Yacht Club purchased the subject property from the Dolly Keaton estate in 1984.

Payne Family Clyde S. Payne Sr. was born in 1869 to Sylvenus W. and Emma A. Payne on the family ranch at Tomales Point. Sylvenus, a cattle drover, had operated the Tomales Point Ranch since 1866, and in 1873 relocated the family to a new ranch near Olema, California. Just a few years later, in 1877, the family relocated yet again to a ranch property in the Santa Cruz Mountains. After their mother passed in 1880, Eugene, the eldest, took brothers Clyde and Redmond to San Rafael. Sylvenus retired in San Francisco, where he lived out his days in a Nob Hill apartment.7

Clyde married Charlotte Eva Newman and the couple had two children, Clyde S. Payne Jr. (1894) and Dolly Madison Payne (1903). Dolly was named after a relative - Dolley Madison, wife of President John Madison. Dr. Clyde Payne earned his dentistry degree from the University of Maryland College of Dentistry in Baltimore and practiced dentistry in San Francisco.8 He reportedly held a patent on a method of hand making tooth crowns, and owned at least nine apartment buildings in San Francisco, many of which were designed by W.G. Hind.9

The Payne family began to spend their summers in Belvedere as early as 1905, but kept a house in San Francisco for the remainder of the year. By 1915 the family began planning for a summer retreat of their own on the island and chose an ideal site on the cove, just south of the Belvedere Hotel. Dr. Payne originally leased the lot from the Belvedere Land Company, though Mrs. Charlotte Payne ultimately purchased the property.10

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article in July 1916 showing an illustration of the new Payne Figure 3. Dr. Clyde Payne in front of Cove residence with the caption: "Summer Home for Dr House, c. 1916 (photo courtesy of Clyde S. Payne, another Italian type, being erected at Bel vede re-Tiburon Landmarks Society).

5 lbid. 6 Ibid, 10. 7 Written account of family history, undated, from Keith Bartel files. 8 Written account of family history, undated, from Keith Bartel files. 9 ArchaeologicaJ Resource Service (Sally Evans), 9. '° James Heig and Shirley Mitchell, Eds. Both Sides of the Track: A Collection of Oral Histories from Belvedere and Tiburon (San Francsico: Scottwall Associates, 1985), 115-116 ..,~ 5 ••ARCH ITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

Belvedere by W.G. Hind, Architect." The Sausalito News also ran an article about the house the same day, describing the house as follows:

An Italian villa summer home is being built for Dr. Clyde S. Payne at Belvedere. The house will have seven rooms, two baths, loggia and large porches and sleeping porches. The interior will be finished in white enamel, with hardwood floors, tile baths, large open fireplaces, large plate glass windows overlooking Belvedere Cove, and the exterior will be in cement plaster. W. G. Hind is the architect. Dr. Payne is an enthusiastic speed boat man.12

An oral history provided by Dolly Madison Payne indicates that her brother - who was in arclutechue school at the University of Pennsylvania at the time- designed the house. However, contemporary newspaper accounts list W. G. Hind as the architect. W. G. Hind was also the architect of record for a number of apartment buildings in San Francisco commissioned by Dr. Payne. Still other accounts tell that the house was barged over from San Francisco after the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition. Dolly Payne recalled that the lumber used for the house was recycled from the Exposition, and that the tiles that once graced the front yard had also been taken from a building at the fair.13

Figure 4. View of east elevation, c. 1926 (photo courtesy of Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society).

It is generally understood from existing historical accounts that the residence was inspired in part by the arclutechual styles of the Exposition, and potentially by the use of "fireproof" construction materials that became popular after the 1906 earthquake and fire. Keith Bartel, Dolly Madison Payne's grandson, recalls that Architect Hind and Clyde S. Payne Junior collaboratively designed the house.14 It is possible that other decorative details seen in the

11 San Francisco Chronicle, (San Francisco, CA: 22 July 1916), 1. 12 Sausalito News, (Sausalito, CA: 22 July 1916), 1. 13 Both Sides of the Track: A Collection of Oral Histories from Belvedere and Tiburon, 115-116 14 Oral Interview with Kei th Bartel (March 2011), by Pierce MacDonald . ..,~ 6 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation existing house (wood archways, columns, multi-pane glazed entry doors, hardware) may have also been recycled from the Exposition, though no substantiated evidence has yet been identified to confirm this speculation.

The Paynes became popular members of Belvedere's elite society. Newspaper articles and society columnists documented several dances, dinners and other social events hosted by Dr. and Mrs. Payne at their house on the cove. Dr. Clyde Payne Sr. was an avid mariner and served as the first Commodore of the Pacific Motor Boat Club. Clyde Payne Jr. had gained attention as an aviator and inventor by his mid-teens, and later went on to serve as a pilot with a rank of ensign in the Navy during World War I.15 Clyde Junior's aviation feats occurred after the Wright Brothers' achievements in 1903 and 1905 at Kitty Hawk.

Dolly Payne Madison, a fashionable socialite and member of the San Francisco Junior League, was educated at Mrs. Burke's School in San Francisco and later studied in Geneva Switzerland. She excelled at sports and was a noted golfer and ice skater. She married Los Angeles clubman and Stanford University graduate Bert 0. Simmons on November 28, 1928 at the family's house in Belvedere. Dolly and Bert had two daughters, Patricia and Diane.

As previously stated, the family used the residence primarily as a summer retreat for a little over a decade. After Dr. and Mrs. Payne separated (date unknown), Dolly and her mother would spend the summers in Belvedere and the remainder of the year at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. Following Dolly's marriage to Mr. Simmons and subsequent move to Los Angeles, Mrs. Payne made the Belvedere house her permanent residence.16 Charlotte Eva Payne died in August 1947 in Marin County .17 Dolly and Bert Simmons evenh1ally divorced, and Dolly later remarried under the surname Keaton. It was after her divorce from Bert Simmons that she made Figure 5. Dolly Madison the Cove House her permanent residence until she passed in 1982.18 Payne,1928(newspaper article photo courtesy of Keith Bartel). William G. Hind Little is known about the work of San Francisco architect William G. Hind. United States Federal Census Records indicate that Hind was born in Canada to Canadian parents around 1867 and came to the United States in 1884. By 1900 he was a practicing architect living in Salinas, California with wife and three children. The family had moved to San Francisco by 1910, and lived in a house on Broderick Street. The 1920 Census shows Hind as an architect specializing in apartment buildings; he was living on 66th Street in Oakland with his wife by that time. In addition to the Cove House, Hind is known to have designed several apartment houses in San Francisco for Dr. Clyde Payne Senior. At least two of these commissions were constructed shortly after the 1906 earthquake and fire.

15 "Belvedere Revisited -A Look at its Playful Past." 7 April, 11002, Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society archives. 16 Both Sides of the Trnck: A Collection of Orn! Histories from Belvedere nnd Tiburon, 121. 17 California Death Index, 1940-1997. Database on!ine at Ancestry.com (accessed 18 April 2011). 18 Both Sides of the Trnck: A Collection of Orn/ Histories from Belvedere nnd Tiburon, 121. ..,~ 7 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

Italian Renaissance Style Identifying features of the Italian Renaissance style generally include low-pitched hipped roofs; arches above doors, first-story windows, or porches; entrance areas accented by small classical columns or pilasters; full-width porches; and symmetrical facades. According to Virginia & Lee McAlester:

Details are borrowed more or less directly from the Italian originals. Among the most characteristic are recessed entry porches and full-length first-story windows with arches above. The roof, except when flat, commonly has broad overhanging, boxed eaves ... these features of the roof-wall junction are helpful in distinguishing Italian renaissance houses from related Mediterranean styles with tiled roofs .. .Stucco, masonry, or masonry-veneered walls are universal; wooden wall claddings are never used.

The Italian Renaissance style is found in early 201h-century houses throughout the country but is considerably less common than the contemporary Craftsman, Tudor, or Colonial Revival styles. Primarily a style for architect-designed landmarks in major metropolitan areas prior to World War I, vernacular interpretations spread widely with the perfection of masonry veneering techniques; most of these date to the 1920s.19

Construction Chronology The Cove House was constructed in 1916 and the house was owned and occupied by the Payne family until 1982. No recorded alterations to the residence exist from the period of occupation by the Payne family. Historic photos, however, do provide a basis from which to discuss original versus existing configurations. Later building permit records held at Belvedere City Hall also provide some information on more recent alterations to the building.

When the house was constructed adjacent to the Belvedere Hotel in 1916, it sat just at the water's edge and boasted an unobstructed view of Belvedere Cove. Photos taken c. 1920 show only a low stone retaining wall between the house and beach.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to construct a small boat harbor facility at Belvedere to the San Francisco Yacht Club in 1956. The proposed marina included 136 floating berths, a breakwater and locker deck. The configuration shown in the plan drawing for this marina is essentially the configuration seen today (see Appendix A). This drawing identifies the subject property as the property of Dolly Keaton and shows that a 210-car parking lot had already been established just south of the Cove House.

Currently, the trellis struchue with lattice wall that borders the property to the east and south, along with a tall hedge to the south, obscure clear views of the cove from the property's front terrace. The existing wood terrace appears to have been built in the same general configuration as the original, however the materials have been replaced. Further, while the decorative railing that encloses the terrace is relatively new, it appears to have been replicated from the original. The paved patio (2000), paved sidewalks (1990), and landscaping surrounding the house are all modern elements installed in recent years.

Though the setting has been altered since the Payne family occupied the house, the subject property retains many of its original exterior and interior features. With exception of the existing light fixtures, the front elevation retains all of the original feahues shown in historic

19 Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to A111erica11 Houses, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 397-398. ..,~ 8 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

photographs of the property. Building records indicate that the property received a new foundation in 1984, and the front decking- including the exterior terrace with wood rail and recessed porch floor - was also replaced at this time.

The west elevation originally featured two windows with arched transoms. Permit records indicate that the southernmost window was converted into a door in 2000 and is now the primary entrance for the Race Council Office. The other window on this elevation remains, but has been painted over. Both openings retain their original blind transoms.

Two modern stairways attach to the rear of the house, accessing each of the entrances on this elevation. Alteration drawings from a 1988 renovation of the property show that these struchires were built at that time. As evidenced in historic photos of this elevation, the rear extension appears to date to the original construction of the house, as do the existing windows and door openings. The Dutch door accessing the kitchen was added in 1988, though the French doors appear to be original.

The tripartite, Classical style window on the east elevation was installed in 1988 and all five original one-over-one windows were removed. The existing window is currently the only opening on this elevation. Early photos indicate that the house originally had three brick chimneys; there is now only one.

The 1988 remodel also included several interior modifications. Beyond those already mentioned, the following changes are noted in the drawings: • Installation of a commercial kitchen in the northeast corner of the house; this included removal of two walls, which had formed a small room entered from the existing kitchen entry door • Removal of existing kitchen entry steps (from exterior) and replacement with new deck and stair • Removal of attic stair near kitchen, replacement with ladder on north side, • Removal of two walls (that originally formed two rooms) in the northeast corner of the existing dining room to create single open space; new hardwood floor and trim to match existing • Reconfiguration of rooms along west side of house to create two restrooms and hall

Other undated alterations include: • Modern acoustic tile ceiling, removal of original plaster ceiling medallions at light fixture locations • Modern light fixhires • Brick fireplace painted white by Keith Bartel's mother, Diane, daughter of Dolly Madison Payne and Burt Orin Simmons • Composition cladding on roof, replacing original crushed tile • Removal of gray and white tiles from front yard (taken from PPIE)

..,~ 9 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides the legal framework by which historical resources are identified and given consideration during the planning process. The law was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-2117?. CEQA's basic functions are to:

inform governmental decision makers and Lhe public aboul Lhe polenlial significanl environmental effects of proposed activities; • identify ways to reduce or avoid adverse impacts; • offer alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and • disclose to the public why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved.

CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded or requiring the issuance of a permit by a public agency. The analysis of a project required by CEQA usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Negative Declaration (ND), or Environmental Assessment (EA). 20 Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines will be considered mitigated to a less than significant level, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3).

THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The California Register of Historical Resources is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register criteria.

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a "scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with

20 http:/ I www.aqmd.gov I ceqa/ (accessed 4.22.2011) . ..,~ 10 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

the resource." Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource.21 The OHP recommends documenting, and takinR into consideration in the planning process, any culhtral resource that is 45 years or older.2- As such, this report evaluates all resources known to be 45 years or older for the purposes of CEQA.

CRHR criteria are similar to National Register of Historic Places criteria, and are tied to CEQA, as any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA. Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.

Integrity When evaluating a potential historic resource, one must determine and clearly state the significance of that resource to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A resource may be considered individually eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one or more of the above listed criteria for significance and it possesses historic integrity. Historic properties must retain sufficient historic integrity to convey their significance.

The National Register of Historic Places recognizes seven aspects or qualities that define historic integrity. These are also used in evaluations of integrity for the CRHR:

• Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting. The physical environment of a historic property . • Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culh1re or people during any given period in history or prehistory. • Feeling. A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

To retain historic integrity, a resource should possess several of the above-mentioned aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is essential for a resource to convey its significance. Comparisons with similar properties should also be considered when evaluating integrity as it may be important in deciding what physical feahtres are essential to reflect the significance of a historic context.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or a ppearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California

21 CCR 14(11.5) §4852 (d)(2). 22 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1995, p.2. instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. ..,~ 11 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

Register.23 Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR.

FINDINGS

C ALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL R ESO URCES

This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 100 Beach Road for historic significance, in. particular its eligibility for listing in. the California Register of Historical Resources. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. The residence at 100 Beach Road was constructed in 1916 and therefore meets the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the California Register of Historical Resources evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria:

Criterion 1 (Event) As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion "recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic h·ends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce."24 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated event or trends "must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city." 25

Belvedere developed in two phases. After the initial offering of lots in the decades around 1900 attracted prominent San Franciscans looking for summer homes and a more rural lifestyle, there was a second marketing push in the 1940s to bring in more year-round residents. The Cove House was built in 1916, which would tie it to the first development period for the island. The NPS, however, clarifies that "mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under [this criterion]: the property's specific association must be considered important as well."26 While the subject property was built relatively early in Belvedere's history, research does not indicate that its construction made a notably significant contribution to the development of the community.

In cases where a succession of family members have lived in a house and collectively have had a demonstrably significant impact on the community, a building may be significant under this criterion for association with a pattern of events. However, as discussed under Criterion 2 below, though the family was well known within the resort community of Belvedere, research did not indicate that they make a significant impact on the community through community service, politics, personal achievements or other activities. As such, the subject property does not appear to be eligible for the CRHR at the National, State or local level under Criterion 1.

23 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2006, p.2. California Register and National Register: A Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Deparhnent of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Rea·eation, Sacramento. 2~ National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, online at http: I I www.nps.gov I nr I publications / bulletins/ nrbl5/ nrb15_6.htm 25 Ibid. 26 lbid . ..,~ 12 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

Criterion 2 (Person) Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as "individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context." The NPS specifies that a property "is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group." Further, buildings that served as the seat of an important family can be eligible under [this criterion] if the "significant accomplishments of one or more individual family members is explicitly justified."27

Members of the Payne family owned and occupied the house for nearly seventy years and the family became popular members of Belvedere's elite society. However, research has not indicated that any one family member made a demonstrably important contribution to the local community during that time. Dr. Payne was a well-known physician who practiced dentistry in San Francisco and built a summer home in Belvedere. The family's primary residence was in San Francisco. Dr. Payne was an avid mariner and served as Commodore of the Pacific Motor Boat Club for a period of time. However, these distinctions do not lend significance to the house itself. Research also did not show that Dr. Payne played a role in local politics or other significant activities related to the Belvedere community.

Clyde Payne Jr. gained some notoriety during his mid teens for his experiments in flight, though this was in 1909, seven years before the Cove House was constructed. Dolly Payne, a beautiful and talented socialite who came of age during the roaring twenties, was well traveled and educated; however, these characteristics are similar to those of many other wealthy young women of the time.

While the activities of the Payne family - both in Belvedere and beyond- are noteworthy, they do not qualify the property for listing on the CRHR at the National, State or local level under Criterion 2.

Criterion 3 (Design/Construction) Under Criterion 3, properties may be eligible if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, According to the NPS, "'Distinctive characteristics' are the physical features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction." 28

The Cove House is a notable example of the Italian Renaissance style in Belvedere. It possesses several features characteristic of that style type, including a low-pitched hipped roof; arches above doors and windows; a recessed entrance area accented by arches and classical columns; a symmetrical fa<;ade; boxed eaves; and stucco wall cladding.

Belvedere boasts a remarkable variety of architectural styles including Queen Anne, Tudor, Craftsman, Mediterranean and the First Bay Tradition style characteristic of Albert Farr's work in the area. The Italian Renaissance style was considerably less common than other contemporary styles and the Cove House appears to be a rare example of this pure style type

27 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 28 Ibid . ..,~ 13 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

within the Belvedere community. Furthermore, the location of the house on Belvedere Cove is unique, as the property is the only single family residential property set immediately adjacent to the waterfront.

Because the property clearly possesses a number of distinctive characteristics of the Italian Renaissance style, and is notable within the community for its style and location, it appears eligible for listing on the CRHR on the local level under Criterion 3.

Criterion 4 (Information Potential) Archival research and physical investigation of the site focused on the above ground resource only. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property's eligibility for the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Integrity Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources must meet one of the criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.29

Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The property has not been moved from its original location and therefore retains integrity of location.

Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, struchue, and style of a property. Though the property has been altered in recent decades, it still possesses a number of identifiable features from its original construction. The form and footprint of the original building are as they were originally and the exterior features readily demonstrate a recognizable architechual style. While alterations have been made to the interior floor plan, the house retains a number of original feahires and finishes including the fireplace, original hardwood floors, crown molding, and decorative trims. Therefore the property retains integrity of design.

Setting Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. As originally constructed, the Cove House sat immediately adjacent to the water's edge and had an open, unobs tructed view of Belvedere Cove. Modifications to the site completed under ownership of the Yacht Club have notably altered the property's relationship with the site. Construction of the floating berths has increased the property's distance from the water, and the existing trellis structure and hedge have obscured the view. As such, the property does not retain integrity of setting.

29 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2006, p.2. California Register and National Register: A Comparison. Teclrnical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recrea tion, Sacramento . ..,~ 14 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

As stated above, though the property has been altered in recent decades, it still possesses a number of identifiable features from its original construction. The exterior retains its original materials, stucco wall cladding and many original windows and doors. While alterations have been made to the interior floor plan, the house retains a number of original features and finishes including the fireplace, original hardwood floors, crown molding, and decorative trims. Therefore the property retains integrity of materials.

Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, hirning, and joinery.

The property does not appear to have a large number of features that have been hand crafted by artisans, however it does retain ornamental detailing in its arched transoms, arched porch entry with rounded Classical columns, and decorative interior trims and moldings. Therefore the property displays integrity of workmanship.

Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character.

As previously discussed, the property retains a high degree of material and design integrity. However, the setting has been dramatically altered from the original configuration. As such, the property displays a diminished degree of integrity of feeling.

Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character.

The property was not found to have a significant link to an important historic event or person, therefore this aspect of integrity was not evaluated.

Conclusion 100 Beach Road retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling, and is significant as a notable example of the Italian Renaissance style in Belvedere. Therefore, the property appears to be eligible for listing on the CRHR at the local level.

..,~ 15 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource Evaluation

BIBLIOGRAPHY & RESOURCES

A Pictorial History of Belvedere: 1890-1990. Beverly W. Bastian and Barbara B. Gnoss, Eds. Belvedere-Tiburon: The Landmarks Society, 1990.

Archaeological Resource Service (Sally Evans), A Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Remodel of Two Structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 100 Beach Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California (Petaluma, CA).

"Belvedere Revisited - A Look at its Playful Past." 7 April, 1982, Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society archives.

Bartel Historical Archives - private collection of archival materials relating to the Payne family.

Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society Archives, historical photographs related to subject property (David M. Gotz, History Collections Manager).

California Death Index. Ancestry.com. .

City of Belvedere Planning and Building Databases, permits and other documentation related to 98-100 Beach Road.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research: CEQA Technical Advice Series. "CEQA and Historical Resources," Sacramento, May 1996.

Heig, James and Shirley Mitchell, Eds. Both Sides of the Track: A Collection of Oral Histories from Belvedere and Tiburon. San Francsico: Scottwall Associates, 1985.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

National Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Technical Bulletin No. 15. 1997.

Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Register and National Register: A Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6. 2006

United States Federal Census Records (1870-1930). Ancestry.com. .

USEFUL WEBSITES

California Historical Society http://www.californiahistoricalsociety.org I collections/ index.html

California State Historical Building Code: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov I

National Park Service: Technical Preservation Services: h ttp://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/ tps/ index.htm ..,~ 16 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA H istoric Resource E valuation

National Register Bulletins: http: / I www.cr.nps.gov I nr I publications/ bulletins.htm

Office of Historic Preservation: http: / I ohp.parks.ca.gov I

Online Archive of California http: I I www .oac.cdlib.org I

Preservation Briefs: http: /Iwww.cr.nps.gov/hps/ tps/ briefs / presbhom.htm

Preservation Tech Notes: http:/Iwww.cr.nps.gov/hps/ tps/ technotes/ tnhome.htm

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: http: /Iwww.nps.gov/history / hps/ tps/ standguide/

..,~ 17 ••ARCHITECTUU THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs

All photos by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. (April 2011)

Figure 6. South elevation, looking north (photo compilation)

Figure 7. East elevation, looking southwest (photo compilation)

.,~ 18 ••AR.CHITECTUJ.£ THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

Figure 8. West elevation (looking north)

Figure 9. North elevation (looking southwest)

.,~ 19 ••AR.CHITECTUJ.£ THE COVE HOUSE - 100 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA Historic Resource Evaluation

Figure 10. North elevation, kitchen entrance (looking south)

Figure 11. North elevation, French doors at rear entry and rear extension (looking east)

.,~ 20 ••AR.CHITECTUJ.£ ~· F>E'RMi-r'F'0RAL'LwCSRK ANJiORUSE oF"~ PLBL.K3'R'G~Of=":WAY'suc~As,c0Ns'T'RUCroN' ST AGNG, TEMPORARY POWER. PORTA POTTY. DEBRIS BOX, TERMINATION OF Tl-E SITE DRAINAGE m SYSTEM INTO Tl-E CITY CURB AND GUTTER. SEWER WORK, TRENCl-llNG, AND INSTALLATION OF LINDERGROUND UTILITIES CB..ECTRIC. GAS. WATER ETCJ. SMC SECTION 8.04.090 CONT ACT TI-E CITY ENGINEB

TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NOTES:

I. PRIOR TO EA0-1 TIME A TENT LARGER THAN 200 SO. FT. OR A CANOPY LARGER THAN 400 SQ. FT. iS PROPOSED TO BE ~i=CTED FOR USE. A PERMIT SHALL BE APPLED FOR AND RECBVED FROM T1-E TIBURON FIRE DISTRICT. CFC 2403.2 2. ANY PERMIT APPUCATION FOR A TENT OR CANOPY EXCEEDING 2.500 SO. FT. SHALL BE CEl Bl.LONG ACCOMPANED BY STRUCTURAL STABILITY DOCLJMB\ITATION INCLUDING ll'FORMATION l

TENT SQUARE FOOT AGE EAVE I-ff. RIDGE ~T. ~~~~~s~C::/i~~C(/ I 30' x 40' = l.200' 10' 14' 150 I 80 2 20' X I 10' = 2,200' 10' 14' 275 I 145 3 40' x 60' = 2,400' 10' 20' 300 I 160 Date : 16 July 2009

4 10' x 20' = 200' 10' 14' 25 I 13 Scale : 1" = 50'

5· 10' x 10' = 100' 10' 14' 12 I 6 Drawn By: 6 50' x 90' = 5,400' 10' 22' 560 I 300 Job: 7 10' x 50' = 500' 10' 14' 62 I 33 8 30' x 40' = 1,200' 10' 14' TENT 150 I 80 TOTAL = 14,400' 1,534 I 817 Drawing No. RECEIVED FEB ·1 1 Z010 A1 etty of Belve<" ATTACHMENT 8 DOCKS \.

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~~~(\\vv <\ v CB WOOD DECK

CE> ISLAND

I"• I'\()' CITY OF BELVEDERE • RESOLUTION NO. 2009-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY TENT AND CANOPY STRUCTURES LOCATED ON PROPERTY AT 98 BEACH ROAD

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review for temporary tent and canopy structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 98 Beach Road. pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the project has been detcnnmed to he categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SectJOn 15303, Construction of Small Structures; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heanng on the requested Design Review application on August 18, 2009; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Comm1ss1on finds, based upon the findings set forth m Exh1b1t A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the condit10ns listed below, the proposed project 1s in substantial conformance with the Design Review criteria specified m sections 20.04 110 to 20.04.2 I 0 of the Belvedere Mun1c1pal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Comm1ss1on of • the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of Design Review for temporary tent and canopy structures at 98 Beach Road, pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, with the following conditions: a) The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere anJ its officers harmless in the event of any legal acllon related to or ansing from the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City m the defense of any such action, and shall mdemmfy the City for any award of damages and/or attorney's fees and associated costs that may result. b) Tent and/or canopy sizes, heights and locations shall conform_ to plans prepared by John Swam, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on August I 3, 2009. with the exception that tent no. I 0 1s not approved and that a max 1mum of 7600 square feet of tents shall be used at any one time.

c) Design Review approvals remam valid so long as a minimum of one (I) Fire D1stnct Tent Penni! 1s obtamed each twelve ( 12) months from the date of approval and a va!Jd Conditional Use Pcnrnt has been issued.

d) A mimmum of 1 parking space shall be provided for every 30 feet of net floor area of the tent(s) when used for dmmg or equivalent tables, 1 parking space for every 14 feet of net floor area of the tent(s) when used for seatmg; and I park mg space for every I 0 feet of net floor area of the tent(s) when used without seat mg or tables. Net floor area includes all areas located beneath the tent roof and excludes areas used for guy wires, restrooms. anchors, weights. display tables, • dccoratJOns. and planters Parking within the parking lot of98 Beach Road shall

ATTACHMENT 9 Resolution 2009-024 98 Beach Road • Page 2

only be used to satisfy 3 7 parking spaces needed for temporary tent or canopy structures. Parking beyond the 37 spaces shall be accommodated by valet parking using adequate private parking facilities off-site. Tent locat10ns that occupy more than 37 parking spaces shall also provide a parking plan that off-sets the loss of these space. No public or pnvate on-street parkmg shall be used to satisfy parking spaces required by this resolution. e) Prior to each time a tent larger than 200 square feet or a canopy larger than 400 square feet is proposed to be erected for use, a pennit shall be applied for and obtained from the Tiburon Fire District pursuant to CFC 2403.2. Permit shall include a description of parking plan for duration of each event requiring a penrnt. Tent or canopy loc_at1ons on docks, as shown on approved plans, may require significant modifications to meet Fire Marshal requirements for anchorage, egress, emergency access, and safety, and these locations may be prohibited. f) The erection and use of tents and canopies shall comply with all requirements of CFC Chapter 24. g) The Planning Manager and Building Official shall be copied on all Fire District Tent Penmt applications and may accompany the Fire Marshal on site visits to mspect the subject tent or canopy installation. h) Tent(s) and/or canopy(1es) shall be used only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 • p.m. 1) All lighting inside or outside of tent and/or canopy shall be shielded by an opaque shroud and directed downwards. Tent walls shall be considered opaque shrouds for the purposes of this condition J) Tents nos. 3 and 6 may be used for a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days, plus a maximum of two (2) add1t1onal days solely for the mstallat1on and removal of the tent(s). Tents nos 3 and 6 may be used for a maximum of 14 consecutive days, plus two (2) days solely for installat10n and removal, with pnor wntten approval of the City Manager k) Tents nos. 3 and 6 shall be used for a maximum of 50 cumulative days between the two tents m any 12 month penod I) This Design Review approval 1s for the items described herein Other improvements or changes to the property may be subJcet to add1t1onal Design Review requirements . • Rcsolut10n 2009-024 98 Beach Road • Page 3

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on August 18, 2009 by the following vote·

AYES: Lasky, Johnson. Hart, Lenzen NOES: None ABSENT· Wilson ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Rosenlund, Kemnitzer

• erk

• Resolution No. 2009-024 98 Beach Road Exh1b1t A

• DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.1 IO 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 finding above can be made because all of the ex1stmg landscaping would be preserved.

20.04.120 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 .

The proposed temporary tent and canopy structures satisfy the finding above because they arc consistent with the architectural design of yacht club, typical of outdoor assembly-type uses like those used elsewhere on the Tiburon Peninsula, • and hannonious with surrounding development due to a 22-foot maximum ridge height

Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings which :ire 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 finding above can be made because the proposed tent and canopy structures arc temporary m nature. the materials arc temporal, and the maximum ridge height is 22 feet tall .

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 piane retaining waiis should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony.

The finding above can be made because the proposed tent and canopy structures arc constructed of mtcresting matcnals, on many angles and planes, which add • visual mtcrest and architectural vancty Resolution No. 2009-024 98 Beach Road Exh1b1t A Page 2

• 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.

The finding above can be made because the proposed tent and canopy structures are constructed of interesting matcnals, on many angles and planes, which add visual interest and architectural vancty. Although the tents arc made of white canvas, they arc temporary. well-screened. and will not attract attention to the structure.

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. Fences should be designed and located so that they are architecturally compatible with the design of the building, are aesthetically attractive, and do not significantly block views .

The proJCCt will continue to satisfy the finding above because existing • landscaping will screen the temporary tent and canopy structures Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent huildings.

The finding above can be made because the proposed tent and canopy structures are single-story and will be screened by exrsllng landscaping.

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 of neighboring properties. The project will satisfy the finding above because, as cond1t1oncd, sufficient parking to provide one (I) parkmg space for every two people assumed under the California Fire Code occupancy limits shall be provided above and beyond a minimum 143 parking spaces deemed necessary for the normal use of the clubhouse buildings. A parking plan describing the methods used by the applicant to provide the rcquned parking shall be reviewed by the Planning Department • pnor to each event Resolution No. 2009-024 98 Beach Road Exh1b1t A Page 3

• 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. Lamps should be low wattage, should be incandescent, and except for outdoor Christmas lights, shall not be colored.

As cond1t1oned, the project will satisfy the finding above because the lights will be shielded with opaque shrouds and directed downwards

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 project 1s consistent with the finding above because setbacks. height, parking, and other requirements of Title I 9 arc established by cond1t10nal use pem11t ;:ind therefore considered to be confonnmg.

Landscape Plans-Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant, are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water • usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turf areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided.

NIA

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 an:hitectural design.

NIA

• CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO. 2009-025

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • BELVEDERE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY TENT AND CANOPY STRUCTURES AT 98 BEACH ROAD

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Conditional Use Penn it pursuant to Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow temporary tent and canopy structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 98 Beach Road; and

WHEREAS, the project has been detcnnined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Construction of Small Structures; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed publtc heanng on the requested Use Penrnt applicat1on on August 18, 2009, and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, 1s in substantial conformance with the Cond1t1onal Use Permit findings required by Section 19 80 of the Belvedere Municipal Code because: the requested use will not, under these particular circumstances, be detnmental to the health, safety, morals. comfort, convenience and general welfare of the persons residing or working In the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will not be injurious or detnmental to the property and improvements m the neighborhood of such proposed use, or to the general welfare of the City because. as cond1t1oned, the cumulative floor area of the proposed temporary tent and canopy structures will be hmlled, the parking demand generated by the temporary tents and canopy structures will be addressed, California Butldmg Code • and Fire Code requirements will be met, and tents nos. 3 and 6 shall be used for a maximum of 50 cumulative days between the two tents in any 12 month penod. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Comm1ss1on of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Condit10nal Use Perm11 application pursuant to Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow temporary tent and canopy structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 98 Beach Road, sub.ice! to the following cond1t1ons of approval. a) The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or ans mg from the grant mg 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 attorney's fees and associated costs that may result. b) Tent and/or canopy sizes, heights, and !ocat1ons shall confonn plans prepared by John Swam. stamped received by the City of Belvedere on August 13. 2009, with the exception that tent no. 10 1s not approved and that a maximum of 7600 square feel of tents shall be used at any one time. c) Design and sizes of tents under this Conditional Use Penrnt remain valid so long • as Design Review approval also remains valid . Rcsolut1on 2009-025 98 Beach Road Page 2

d) A minimum of I parking space shall be provided for every 30 feet of net floor • area of the tent(s) when used for dining or equivalent tables, I parking space for every 14 feet of net floor area of the tcnt(s) when used for seating, and I parking space for every I 0 feet of net floor area of the tent(s) when used without seat mg or tables. Net floor area includes all areas located beneath the tent roof and excludes areas used for guy wires, restrooms, anchors, weights, display tables, decorations, and planters. Parking within the parking lot of 98 Beach Road shall only be used to satisfy 37 parking spaces needed for temporary tent or canopy structures. Parking beyond the 37 spaces shall be accommodated by valet parking using adequate pnvatc parking fac11Jt1es off-site. Tent locations that occupy more than 37 parking spaces shall also provide a parking plan that off"..scts the loss of these spaces. No public or private on-street parking shall be used to satisfy parking spaces required by this resolution. e) Pnor to each time a tent larger than 200 square feet or a canopy larger than 400 square feet 1s proposed to be erected for use, a pcnn1t shall be applied for and obtained from the Tiburon Fire D1stnct pursuant to CFC 2403.2 Permit shall include a descnption of parking plan for duration of each event rcqumng a pcnn1t Tent or canopy locations on docks, as shown on approved plans, may require significant modificat10ns to meet Fire Marshal requirements for anchorage, egress, emergency access, and safety. and these locations may be proh1b1ted . f) The erection and use of tents and canopies shall comply with all requirements of CFC Chapter 24. • g) The Plannmg Manager and Bmldtng Official shall be copied on all Fire Distnct Tent Pcnrnt appl1eat1ons and may accompany the Fire Marshal on site visits to inspect the subject tent mstallat1on. h) Tcnt(s) and/or canopy(1es) shall be used only between the hours of 7 a.m. and I 0 p.m. 1) All lighting inside or outside of tent and/or canopy shall be shielded by an opaque shroud and directed downwards. Tent walls shall be considered opaque shrouds for the purposes of this cond1t1on J) Tents nos 3 and 6 may be used for a maximum of seven (7) consccut1vc days. plus a maximum of two (2) add1t1ona\ days solely for the installation and removal of the tent(s) Tents nos 3 and 6 may be used for a max11num of 14 consecutive days. plus two (2) days solely for installation and removal. with pnor wnnen approval of the City Manager k) Tcnt(s) nos. 3 and 6 shall be used for a maximum of 50 cumulative days between the two tents in any 12 month period I) As requested by the applicant. this Cond1t1onal Use Permit cxpJTcs February 28, 2010 . • Resolution 2009-025 98 Beach Road • Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Comrrnss1on held on August 18, 2009 by the following vote:

A YES: Lasky, Johnson, Hart, Lenzen NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson RECUSED: Rosenlund, Kemnitzcr

George J •

• CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-006 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY TENT AND CANOPY STRUCTURES AT 98 BEACH ROAD

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Use Permit pursuant to Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow temporary tent and canopy structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 98 Beach Road; and

_WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Construction of Sm al I Structures; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Use Pem1it application on February 16, 201 O; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance with the Use Pem1it findings required by Section 19.80 of the Belvedere Municipal Code because: the requested use wi 11 noL under these particular circumstances, be detrimental to the health, safrty, morals. comfort, convenience and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or to the general welfare of the City because, as conditioned, the cumulative floor area of the proposed • temporary tent and canopy structures will be limited, the parking demand generated by the temporary tents and canopy structures will be addressed, California Building Code and Fire Code requirements will be met, and tents nos. 3 and 6 shall be used for a maximum of 50 cumulative days between the two tents in any 12 month period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission or the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval or the Use Pennit application pursuant to Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow temporary tent and canopy structures at the San Francisco Yacht Club, 98 Beach Road, subject to the fol lowing conditions of approval: 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 or 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 attorney's fees and associated costs that may result. b) Tent and/or canopy sizes, heights, and locations shall conform to plans prepared by John Swain, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on February I I, 20 I 0, with the exception that a maximum of 5,400 square feet of tent floor area shall be used at any one time . c) This Use Permit remains. valid for five (5) years. commencing on the date or • approval by the Planning Commission. Resolution 20 I 0-006 98 Beach Road Page 2

d) A minimum of I parking space shall be provided for every 30 feet of net floor • area of the tent(s) when used for dining or equivalent tables; I parking space for every 14 feet of net floor area of the tent(s) when used for seating; and I parking space for every 10 feet of net floor area of .the tent(s) when used without seating or tables. Net floor area includes all areas located beneath the tent roof and excludes areas used for guy wires, restrooms, anchors, weights, display tables, decorations, and planters. Parking within the parking lot of 98 Reach Road sha!! only be used to satisfy 3 7 parking spaces needed for temporary tent or canopy structures. P;uking beyond the 37 spaces shall be accommodated by valet parking using adequate private parking facilities off-site. Tent locations that occupy more than 3 7 parking spaces shall also provide to the Planning Department a parking plan that off-sets the loss of these spaces. No public on-street parking shall be used to satisfy parking spaces required by this resolution . . e) Prior to eHch time a tent larger than 200 square feet or a canopy larger than 400 square feet is proposed to be erected for use, a permit shall be applied for and obtained from the Tiburon Fire District pursuant to CFC 2403.2. Permit shall include a description of parking plan for duration of each event requiring a permit. Tent or cHnopy locations on docks, as shown on approved plans, may require significant modifications to meet Fire Marshal requirements for anchorage, egress, emergency access, and safety, and these locations may be prohibited. !) The erection and use of tents and canopies shall comply with all requirements of CFC Chapter 24. • g) The Planning Manager and Building Official shall be copied on all Fire District Tent Permit applications and may accompany the Fire Marshal on site visits to inspect the subject tent installation. h) Tent(s) and/or canopy(ies) shall be used only between the hours of 7 a.m. and I 0 p.m. The use of equipment, amp Ii fied music or other amplified sound in conjunction with the use of tents permitted herein at 98 Beach Road shall cease at 10 p.m. unless an earlier time is required to comply with Chapter 8.10, Noise, of the Belvedere Municipal Code. i) All lighting inside or outside of tent and/or canopy shall be shielded by an opaque shroud and directed downwards. Tent walls shall he considered opaque shrouds for the purposes of this condition. j) Tents nos. J and 6 may be used for a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days, plus a maximum of two (2) additional days solely for the installation and removal of the tent(s). Tents nos. 3 and 6 may be used for a maximum of 14 consecutive days, plus two (2) days solely for installation and removal, with prior written approval of the City Manager. k) Tent(s) nos. 3 and 6 shall be used for a maximum of 50 cumulative days between the two tents in any 12 month period. For example, tent no. 3 may be used for 25 • days and tent no 6 may be used for 25 days in any 12 month period . Resolution 20 I 0°006 98 Beach Road Page J

• 1) The applicant shall work with the Fire Marshal to address the anchoring of Tent #3, prior to any request for a Tent Pennit from the Tiburon Fire Protection District.

m) Tent sizes and locations shall be modified as needed to allow the tents to be anchored per the Tiburon Fire Protection District requirements.

n) Failure to comply with any of the conditions contained herein shall be grounds for revocation of the Use Permit."

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on February 16, 2010 by the following vote:

A YES: Hart, Johnson, Lasky, Lenzen NOES: None ABSENT: Kemnitzer, Rosenlund, Wilson • RECUSED: None

• Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 5 of 23

Mr. Hadley stated that what they would propose would be to place all the duct work under a slightly elevated new section of the existing flat roof, approximately 16 inches higher, to allow for the • piping to be inside which would not even be noticeable. Open public hearing. Ken Johnson, 16 Leeward Road, stated that he would encourage the City to expedite the process in any way possible. Peter Maier, owner, stated he has lived in Belvedere for 36 years. He stated that the 45-year-old radiant heat has finally failed. Excavating the floor and repairing leaks has not been successful as other leaks develop. He stated that the contractor has advised that further repairs would not he advisable. Mr. Maier stated that he now understands that there are aesthetic issues with the current proposal, and they will propose to open the rooC install the ducts, and cover those with the roof again. He stated that the current story poles on the home show the work is difficult to see. He requested that the approval be at the earliest possible date in order for them to have heat installed as soon as possible. Close public hearing. Commissioner Kemnitzer stated that there is nothing now before the Commission so she cannot give any opinion. Commissioner Rosenlund stated he agrees that there is now nothing before the Commission. He · stated that given the fact that the redesign has not been properly noticed, he will follow the City Attorney's instructions. He stated he understands the alternative idea. However, the Commission is unable to act now. He stated he would like to see this project move forward as quickly as possible . Deputy City Attorney Hurd stated that there still 1s an application before the Commission tonight. However, if the Commission agrees with the staff report, there is the possibility of choosing to grant • a continuance. The applicant would be able to return to the City immediately with a different proposal, which may be deemed approvable at an administrative level, or if not, could return at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Rosenlund stated that right now there is a proposal before the Commission to place the duct work on the roof, and the Commission has not voted on this application. Would it be possible to grant the current application, conditioned that if the applicant were to revise this to a less visible or obtrusive design that this would fall within the conditions of acceptance as well? Commissioner Kemnitzer stated that she had understood that the applicants had stated that they were withdrawing their application, but. perhaps this was not their intent? She stated that what is currently before the Commission would be whether or not to grant a continuance. She does not believe the applicant was asking for a vote on the current application. Deputy City Attorney Hurd replied that Commissioner Rosenlund's suggestion would lack the necessary specificity, that is, how to determine what is considered either too obtrusive or not obtrusive. This determination would fall within the discretion of the Planning Commission. He stated that he did not hear the applicant withdraw the application. The public hearing could be reopened to ask the applicant, or the Chairman could ask for a straw poll on the current application. Commissioner Kemnitzer stated she would request that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant. Chairman Lasky stated that before that is done, there seems to be an application that is now • changed, which is not an uncommon situation. Apparently, the applicant upon realizing there ,-- ATTACHMENT 10 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commiss10n meeting August 18, 2009 Page 6of23

would be some objections to the current design, is proposing to modify or change the design to eliminate the visible ducts, and it would seem reasonable for the Commission to grant a continuance to then allow them to come back to the City with a modified proposal. He asked whether the other • Commissioners would like to go in that direction. The Commissioners indicated that would be their action. MOTION: To continue the item to the next available meeting to allow the applicant to submit a revised proposal for 322 San Rafael Avenue, with proper notification. MOVED BY: Rosenlund, seconded by Kemnitzer VOTE: Ayes: Lasky, Kemnitzer, Rosenlund, Hart Noes: None Recused: Johnson, Lenzen Absent: Wilson Vice-Chairman Johnson and Commissioner Lenzen rejoined the Planning Commission. 5 Design Review for modifications to Design Review approval granted by the Planning Commission by means of Resolution 2009-007, for property at 350 Bella Vista Avenue, on March 21, 2009. Modifications include removal of original wmdows, changes to approved window design, new exterior lighting, and other mmor architectural changes. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Thomas Loeb. Applicant: Roger Hartley. Planning Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. She stated that in addition to the staff report a number of letters of support have been received and distributed to the Commission tonight. Commissioner Rosenlund stated that the historical report was very thorough, interesting and comprehensive. He asked whether this kind of report be required for all of the old Belvedere • houses? In addition, was there a special circumstance that required such an extensive, and probably expensive, report? He asked under what authority was this required? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that the home appeared on a number of registers of notable homes. These lists did not say whether or not the home would be.eligible for a register of historic properties, but the home did appear on Landmark Society tours, a list of possible homes that the Landmark society created in 1976, and there were a number of important clues that this could be a significant home. She stated that she believes that the historical report was so long and detailed because so much interesting information was discovered and the consultant needed to take extra steps to determine whether or not that made this house eligible or not. She stated that for most homes, such research is cut and dry, usually because no one of historical interest was involved with the property. In this case, there was a lot of information. She stated in staff's opinion, this would not be the normal size or detail for such a report Vice-Chairman Johnson inquired as to the design of the proposed exterior lights. Planning Manager Macdonald replied these are craftsman-style frosted glass exterior light sconces, and also soffit lighting. She stated the design "is not different from the previously approved lighting; there are just additional locations in tonight's application. Open public hearing. Deborah Loeb, owner, 350 Bella Vista Avenue, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for reviewing the application tonight. She stated that she does not believe this application would be •• considered an incremental change to the previous approvals, as previously discussed on an earlier Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 7of23

item tonight. She stated that at the time of the original approval, the windows could not be considered, until the decision was made as to the necessity for an historic evaluation. • Ms. Loeb distributed and read an additional email received from the historical architect which discusses the appropriateness of the choice of windows for the house. Close public hearing. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that she did not revisit the site, as she is familiar with it from prior visits. She stated that some of the proposed window changes would be more in keeping with the rest of the house. She stated she also likes the change to eliminate two windows in the kitchen and to open that up with doors as this would improve the project. She stated she can fully support the applications. Commissioner Hart stated she revisited the site today. She stated she is very impressed with the windows that have been chosen and this would improve the project. She stated is she is glad to see all the work on the terracing has now commenced so it would be done before winter. She stated she can suppo11 the project. Commissioner Kernnitzer stated that she viewed the property again from the street. She stated that she agrees with the historical architect that the new windows would be an improvement to unify some of the disparate elements of the house. She stated that this is one case in which incremental changes do improve the project and has her full support. She stated she did consider whether the changes to the window locations would cause any concerns regarding privacy and light, and she has found none. Commissioner Lenzen stated that he has studied the materials and is familiar with the site. He stated that he found the historical report informative. He stated that, with the historical architect's confirmation, he can agree with his fellow Commissioners and supports the project. • Commissioner Rosenlund stated that this is a nice final touch to a project for a nice house that was in need of renovation. He stated he believes it was unfortunate that the applicant had to undergo such a lot of time and expense to get to where they are now, with regard to the level of investigation. However, the net result is a history that will be a part of the record of the house. I-le can make the findings for Design Review and fully supports the project. Chairman Lasky stated he can also make the findings to support Design Review. He congratulates the applicant for bringing together the elements to give the home a much more consistent feeling. MOTTON: To adopt the Resolution granting Design Review to remodel the residence and garage/studio building, including new windows, exterior lighting, and corbel brackets at 350 Bella Vista Avenue. MOVED BY: Rosenlund, seconded by Lenzen VOTE: Ayes: Lasky, Rosenlund, Lenzen, Johnson, Hart, Kemnitzer Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Wilson • Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 8 of23

6. Annual Report pursuant to California Government Code Section 65400(a)(2)on implementation of the existing City Belvedere Housing Element including description of report prepared by the housing advocacy group, Public Advocates, and • discussion about affordable housing and in-lieu fee programs. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to 15061 (b )(3). Applicant and Property Owner: Citywide. Planning Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. She stated that this hearing, will serve as the required annual report on the progress that the City has achieved in implementing its Housing Element. She stated that the report from Public Advocates has been included, because the reported numbers are accurate, as well as identifying the success the City has had in achieving its goals in the last Housing Element cycle. She stated that the City does not agree with the report's conclusions which indicate that because the City did not achieve all of the ten units that it was required to prepare for, that those additional four units need to roll over to the new Housing Element cycle. She stated there is very interesting information as to what various communities are doing to increase their chances to provide affordable housing. One of the most important items identified in the report is in regards to the collection of an in-lieu fee and the development of a housing trust fund where funds are collected to stabilize rental housing, or rehabilitate existing rental units, or even to develop affordable rental housing. She stated that the 2005 Housing Element included a policy to develop an in-lieu fee process, but it was not tied to any particular program. Included in tonight's report is a briefing from staff regarding such a program. She asked the Commission to review the entire report and to keep this information in mind when the new Housing Element is before the Commission. • Open public hearing. No one wished to speak. Close public heanng Chairman Lasky stated he would like to hear any comments from the Commission. He stated that no action is to be taken other than to receive the report. Vice-Chainnan Johnson stated that this was a complete and very extensive report that was prepared by Public Advocates. She stated she would accept this as reported. Commissioner Kemnitzer stated that the report is publicly available to all the citizens and she encourages it to be widely read. She stated that she does note, whether or not required of the authors, that public housing cannot be always viewed outside of the other necessities of life One of these is transportation. She stated that the requirements for individual communities can be. misunderstood if there is no consideration of the availability of safe and reliable transportation, traffic patterns, pubic roads and the like. Particular circumstances to this peninsula make Belvedere and Tiburon different from those communities that are located closer to the freeway and/or public transportation. She stated as this very important issue is !Urther considered in Marin County, this factor should be kept in mind. Commissioner Rosenlund stated that he agrees with Commissioner Kemnitzer. In addition, the report addresses, but overlooks, the fact that affordable housing is really a regional problem. He stated that it is very difficult for a small community like this, with a small number of people and almost no buildable area, to create a microcosm here, as a smaller version of a big city. He stated it is very difficult to create what some people might envision as a full spectrum of housing choices in • such a small town. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 9of23

Chairman Lasky stated he agrees with his fellow Commissioners. He stated the General Plan Update Steering Committee has reviewed many of these details. However, to see the information • brought in about a lot of jurisdictions, and from the viewpoint of someone who is not involved with this jurisdiction, is very interesting and helpful. He stated Commissioner Rosenlund has made the very interesting point that it is very difficult for a community of this size to make a positive impact. As the document points out this would take time and effort to implement. He stated that the City Council will likely find this report very interesting. For Belvedere, the General Plan Update Steering Committee has identified possible areas for housing, but as the report points out, the City is not required to itself actually develop the housing, but rather to make it possible for an outside developer to do so. Commissioner Kemnitzer stated she must recuse herself from Item 7 (105 Acacia Avenue) and Item 8 (98 Beach Road, San Francisco Yacht Club) because she owns property within 500 feet of the subject properties .. 7. Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Variance for I, 188 square feet of new interior floor area, changes to exterior siding, new decks, nevv retaining walls, new green roof and rooftop patio, and changes to the landscaping for the property at 105 Acacia Avenue. Variance is for non-conforming rear yard setback. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existmg Faci Ii ties. Property Owners: Ross M. Berger and Melissa Pulling. Applicant: Luke Ogrydziak. Planning Intern Paniagua presented the staff report. Vice-Chairman Johnson requested a color and materials board. Samples were distributed of proposed paint color and wood siding. Chairman Lasky asked how is the rear yard setback calculated, in that there is an unusual shape to • the lot? He asked whether there is some kind of averaging used in this situation? He stated that one part of the lot has a large setback, and on another part there is almost no setb(:lck. Planning Intern Paniagua replied that there is no averaging. The setbacks are accurately called out on the plans. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that the configuration of the site is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. If the area requiring the Variance is, in the opinion of the Commission, a side property line, and not the rear property line, that would change the analysis. However, staff is working on the basis that the rear property line is the line that jogs on the L-shaped parcel, and setbacks are measured parallel to the rear property lines. Open public hearing. Luke Orgrydziak, architect for the project, stated that he previously was involved in an interior remodel at the same house for the same owner several years earlier. He presented the project to the Planning Commission. He stated that the unusual lot, the steep uphill rear yard and an existing casement were factors in the determination to locate the proposed addition towards the south. He stated that in recognizing concerns related to the nearest neighbor to the south, as expressed in the staff report, they have recently decided to add a chamfer of the comer of the addition, in order to retain the 17-inch diameter oak tree, which will contribute as a significant landscape and visual buffer. He stated they arc amenable to making all the lighting consistent with the new type of fixtures. He stated that they would like to receive guidance regarding rnatenals, windows, and other concerns from the Commission. He stated that because of privacy concerns, the owner agrees that • the windows towards the south and west should be obscure glass. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 10 of23

Mr. Ogrydiziak stated that they have studied various color and materials schemes ranging from all wood, to the current hybrid of one color on the existing structure with a new color on the addition. • However, they are amenable to changing from the yellow to a tan or darker color. A color sample was distributed of a possible different paint color. Commissioner Hart asked whether the cut corner would be glass or a solid wall. Mr. Ogrydziak stated that corner would have two stacked windows with siding below. Ross Berger, owner, I 05 Acacia A venue, stated that the site is very challenging. He stated that they have been working with the only affected immediate neighbor, Mr. Laurie, and the new corner design would save the oak tree with the huge canopy. He stated that they would like to get started as soon as possible to expand the small home and look forward to receiving direction tonight on this proposal. Vice-Chairman Johnson asked whether the new addition would be shingled? Mr. Ogrydziak replied that the sid111g would be a horizontal cedar wood rain screen. A sample was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Berger stated that it is similar to a shingle but does not overlap, and should weather naturally. Vice-Chairman Johnson asked has any consideration been to address the old windows, in order to have a more cohesive relationship with the new addition, particularly the front windows over the garage? Mr. Ogrydziak replied that has been one of the primary issues or discussions, as they view the design as a mixture of public and private programs. He stated there is more than one way to look at the story they are telling about the logic of the existing house. One concept for the extension would be to photocopy the existing elevation, and to transpose that in terms of the ratio of glazing. In order to do that, one would either have to modify the proposal, or to modify the existing house. Another • viewpoint is to see that the story being told is to open the house up to the view. Mr. Berger stated that the front upstairs windows, which are original, are not tempered glass and are actually set into the wood, at a height that did not require them to be tempered. He stated he has considered replacing them with tempered glass for safety and to use modern installation in havmg them framed, giving the ability to put in a slider onto the deck which is very good for the use of the children. Mr. Ogrydziak stated that he understands that there are some concerns about the smaller windows above the garage. He stated they could consider expanding the amount of glazing on the existing house which might be beneficial in more than one way. Ron Laurie, I 07 Acacia A venue, stated he fully supports the alternative that would preserve the tree, and the preservation of adequate screening, particularly in regards to the rooftop deck. With those two conditions addressed, they fully can support the plan. ~v1r. Berger thanked the Con1mission for any direction they can provide. Commissioner Hart asked how much excavation would be required for the retaining wall near the oak tree. She would like to know what an arborist would believe is adequate protection. Mr. Berger stated that the retaining wall near the tree is only about one foot tall. The tree itself is right next to the cement driveway easement. He stated he would be willing to have the arborist return to assess the impacts of the wall and render a professional opinion. • Close public hearing . Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 11 of 23

Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that she has visited the site. She stated she is pleased that the 17-inch oak would be saved. She stated she would like to see the relationship between the old and the new parts of the house made more cohesive. She stated she likes the new darker color presented tonight • instead of the yellow and white, as well as the siding. She stated that the windows on the side closest to l OJ Acacia A venue seem very different than the other side of the home. She stated she is thrilled to see the green roof, and the deck, although a nice idea, may actually not be used much because it would take a lot of effort to get up there. She stated that the back yard and uncovered decks will likely be used more. Commissioner Hart stated that she also visited the site. The walk-through was helpful to her understanding the entire plan. She stated she is impressed by the perfect locati.on and angle of the addition, especially when one sees how much of the property involves an easement with the property above. She stated she is happy to hear that the plan is to save both oaks. In regards to Section 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, she would prefer to see the old and new be made more ham10nious together. She stated she toured the City to see other projects where other additions told a story of old and new, but rather, she did not find any that did so She stated she also agrees with staff that the outdoor lights should all be similar. Commissioner Rosenlund stated he agrees with his fellow Commissioners. He commends the applicant for all the work with the challenging site, including the existing structure and the configuration of the lot and easement and other constraints. He stated he believes that the project has -come a long way already. He stated that a bit more fitting the addition together with the existing house would work better, as well as addressing the configurations of windows and lighting would be sufficient to complete a very nice project for approval. Commissioner Lenzen stated that he agrees with his fellow Commissioners. He stated that in view of the presentation tonight, he understands the efforts to make the project more harmonious, and to • work with the neighbors. He stated he agrees that the colors displayed tonight are very nice. He stated that as his fellow Commissioners have stated, a bit more work on some details will bring the project together. Chairman Lasky stated that he agrees that the preservation of the beautiful oak tree is important. He stated that this tree makes the whole site. He stated that he actually prefers a darker color, although staff disagrees. He stated that he would like to see the project tied together a bit more. He stated that the design and coordination of the windows would improve a very interesting design. He stated that this house is one that falls into the category of a proposal for a very large house on a very small lot, which the recent R- l 5 Committee recommendations would not support. However, that recommendation is not yet in effect. He stated that this 1s a crazy lot; L-shaped with a driveway easement on the front. He stated that the request is for a house with a very large footprint. However, with work on the windows and lighting as discussed in the staff report he believes the project will move forward. He stated he would prefer wood .siding for the whole house, rather than a mixture with plaster. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that she is not against some variation in the materials for delineation of the architecture. MOTION: To continue the item at 105 Acacia Avenue to a future meeting to provide the applicant with an opportunity to address concerns expressed by staff and other concerns presented at the public hearing . • MOVED BY: Johnson, seconded by Lenzen Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting August 18, 2009 Page 12of23

VOTE: Ayes: Lasky, Johnson, Rosenlund, Lenzen, Hart Noes: None Recused: Kemnitzer • Absent: Wilson Commissioner Rosenhmd stated he is voluntarily recusing himself from Item 8 (98 Beach Road, San Francisco Yacht Club). He stated he is a member of the San Francisco Yacht Club and it is his understanding that that alone does not disqualify anyone. However, he is active in the House Committee of the SFYC and is involved in some of the activities on the property. He stated that even though there is no legal obligation to recuse himself, he believes it is best, to preserve the integrity of the process, to recuse himself from the process as a voting Commissioner in this hearing. He stated he reserves his right to speak as a club member and as a resident of Belvedere. 8. Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed temporary structures, including tents and other outdoor structures and uses associated with special events at 98 Beach Road, the San .Francisco Yacht Club. Property Owner: San Francisco Yacht Club. Applicant: John Swain. Planning Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. She stated that staff is recommending approval of the attached Resolutions for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit, including all conditions of approval. Open public hearing. John Rittenhouse, 240 Bayview Avenue, stated he is a long-term Belvedere resident and also on the Bo.ard of Directors of the San Francisco Yacht Club (SFYC). He stated he will be joined by staff Commodore John Swain, who also serves as the SFYC architect, and Dennis Conncally, who is the General Manager of the SFYC, and Paul Rosenlund, who is a member of the SfYC and who co chairs the House Committee, which handles operations of the Club. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he • would give an overview, and then would ask Mr. Rosenlund to speak to the matter of some requested modifications to the conditions of approval in the resolutions. He thanked City staff for their partnership and for their work put into the resolutions and the discussions held with the SFYC up to this time. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that staff has requested that the SFYC submit a master plan for tents, identifying any existing and future potential uses that might include the placement of any tent. He stated that it is their understanding that temporary structures do not require Design Review or Conditional Use Permits, unless they arc in pJace for more than six months at a time. He stated this is not being requested. He stated this is per the California Building Code Section 3103. However, at the request of the City, they are pleased to display their intended uses. Mr. Rittenhouse presented a plan for various tents and described their uses and locations to the Commission. He stated that Tent #I 0 was included in this plan, although they have never used it before. As a result, he stated the SFYC cannot speculate as to whether that tent would be used just for dining at this time. Mr. Rittenhouse stated there is a 20-foot by 20-foot canopy used for many years by the youth sailors during the summer. This canopy was omitted from the original plans. He stated that of course, fire permits would be obtained for tents greater than 200 square feet, or any canopy greater than 400 square feet, as per the CFC Code. He stated that the SFYC is in general agreement with the proposed resolutions, with the exception of a few small issues with the conditions. He stated that finally, the SFYC is requesting that their conditions be consistent and in • line with all current Belvedere Ordinances that are enjoyed by all citizens. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 20 I 0 Page 2of16

Deputy City Attorney Hurd stated that typically, when there are multiple items on the Consent Calendar, the motion encompasses the entire Consent Calendar as one motion. If there is something • on the Consent Calendar that warrants discussion or questions, the item may be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTfON: To approve the Consent Calendar consisting of the following items: I. Draft Minutes of the January 19, 2010, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission as corrected. 2. Resolution of approval for Demolition, Design Review, and Exception to Total Floor Area for construction of a new 6,323-square-foot, three-story residence at 39 Belvedere Avenue. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303. Construction of Small Structures. Property Owner: 39 Belvedere, LLC. Applicant: Aidlin Darling Designs. MOVED BY: Johnson, seconded by Lenzen VOTE: Ayes: Lasky, Lenzen, Johnson, Hart Noes: None Rec used: None Absent: Kemnitzer, Rosenlund, Wilson D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Pennit for proposed temporary structures, including tents, lighting, amplified sound, and other outdoor structures and uses associated with special events at 98 Beach Road, the San Francisco Yacht Club. Categorically exempt pursuant to Section • 15303, New Construction of Small Structures. Property Owner: San Francisco Yacht Club. Applicant: John Swain. Planning Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. A corrected draft Resolution has been distributed tonight. This has been renumbered to the year 20 l 0, and condition of approval b) changes the stated maximum size to" .. . 5,400 square-feet of tent floor area shall be used at any one time" which is the size of the largest requested tent in this application. Vice-Chainnan Johnson asked if the largest tent is in use, does this mean that no other tents may be used at the same time? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that is correct.. Commissioner Lenzen asked how would condition n) be processed? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that consideration of a revocation would come to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Commissioner Hart asked why condition h) includes the last sentence that "the clubhouse kitchen shall not be cleaned or otherwise serviced after 9:00 p.m." She does not believe this should be included in this condition. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that this was related to the use of generators used for cleaning the fryers . • Commissioner Hart asked how are the parking requirements in the Resolution going to be enforced? Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 2010 Page 3of16

Planning Manager Macdonald replied that typically, as a part of the issuance of the tent permits, a parking plan is required. Valet parking would be required to handle parking off-site if the larger • tents are being used. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that she believed that the 10:00 p.m. cut-off time for amplified music does not also apply to the people using the tents after that hour. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that condition uses the same language as the previously approved Resolution. This could be modified tonight if the Planning Commission so desires. Open public hearing. John Swain, applicant, stated that the San Francisco Yacht Club will continue to strive to be a good neighbor. In regards to the noise complaints in the staff report, none were related to the use of tents. Mr. Swait) stated that it was his understanding that the prior six-month approval was a trial period to see if that approval was burdensome to the SFYC. They are requesting the same Resolution to be approved tonight. He stated that they object to the change in condition b) specifying a maximum tent size of 40 feet by 50 feet. He stated the SFYC has been using a 40 foot by 60 foot tent for a number of years without issue. He stated that the structural engineers could work out the technical issues with the Fire Marshal to allow for use of that tent. However, they do not feel they want to be restricted by this approval to the smaller tent. Mr. Swain requested that condition h) would remain the same as in the previously approved resolution. He stated the SFYC would like to be subject to the same noise requirements as the rest of the City. The SFYC feels the additional request to restrict the kitchen maintenance should not be required. He stated that residents may have a party at their home with a band. and they are less restricted. Mr. Swain stated that the SFYC would like there to be no time limit on the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that unless there is a violation to be • reviewed, the SFYC should not be burdened with this process, given their long history as a good neighbor. Planning Manager Macdonald stated that the Fire Marshal is here tonight and is available for questions. Chainnan Lasky asked if this Resolution requests the approval of the Fire Marshal for the tents, does this not take care of most of the conditions that are of concern to the SFYC? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that the intent of the planning process is to look ahead, to see how well-designed projects are, and whether they address all the potential constraints. In the opinion of staff, Tent #3 does not fit the particular requested location for its use. The Planning Commission could approve it as shown on the plans; however, there may be some problems that could result in last-minute issues for organizations that want to use this tent as shown. The conditions in the Resolution are a way of looking ahead to avoid such problems. Chairman Lasky asked why not restore the language from the prior resolution and treat the SFYC equally under the Noise Ordinance. The intent of the SFYC is to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Lenzen stated that he believes that the SFYC is different from a residence. The facility is much larger and is adjacent to water and as such, is a special case. He stated that he was somewhat surprised to see seven calls in two years for noise issues. This is a social and recreational • facility, and should not be treated the same as a normal residence . Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 2010 Page 4of16

• Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that the condition that the use of the tents must cease use at I 0:00 p.m. should take care of the noise issue. Commissioner Lenzen stated that due the size, location and function, the SFYC needs to have a Conditional Use Permit. Residences do not need Use Permits. The language in the Resolution might need some adjustment but as a concept, the SFYC is a distinct facility. Given the recent history of service calls this should be addressed. Chairman Lasky stated that the City already has a reasonable Noise Ordinance that would apply to the SFYC as well. This matter concerns the use of the tents. Commissioner Lenzen stated that the matter is also about noise. The Resolution addresses amplified sound in relation to the use of the tents. Chairman Lasky asked staff to clari(y the question. Deputy City Attorney Hurd replied that the issue is triggered by the request to utilize the tents with amplified sound. Commissioner Lenzen stated that the issue is the use of the tents and not the use of the whole SFYC club. The Planning Commission must peripherally judge the noise impacts related to the use of the tents. Chairman Lasky replied that there were no complaints listed about noise related to the use of the tents . Commissioner Lenzen stated that he is not sure whether or not the listed police calls were related to the use of the tents. However, there is the potential of noise in conjunction with the use of tents and • that is why it should be specified. Chairman Lasky stated that the last discussion was in August 2009. The police calls listed are not clear as to whether there was any issue related to the use of the ten\s. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that perhaps condition h) could be kept as per the prior resolution to state that "Tents and/or canopy(ies) .... shall be used only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m." Commissioner Lenzen stated that would mean the tents would have to be vacated at l 0 p.m. Commissioner Hart asked if there were perhaps, three noise-related complaints related to the tents should the SFYC be required to come back before the Planning Commission? Commissioner Lenzen stated that he would like to avoid the SFYC having to come back frequently to the Commission. However, he stated he is still very much in favor of limiting the term of the permit; he is against an indefinite permit. . Chairman Lasky stated he would like to open the public hearing to ask the applicant to clarify any inforn1ation required. Open public hearing. Mr. Swain stated that there have been two tents erected since the last meeting. The first was in September 2009 for the Al Gore speaking event, and the second was in February for the Kitchen Tour. Neither of the noise compl.aints in September and October was related to tent use . • Close public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 20 I 0 Page 5 of 16

Deputy City Attorney Hurd suggested that the framework for tonight's decision is the making of the findings to approve the tents. These findings are: that ·the requested tents are not detrimental to the • health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. In regards to the modifications to the language in the current condition h) the added second sentence language is inherent in the first sentence. However, if the Commission wishes to eliminate that added language, the meaning will still be effectively the same. Now the debate should be the consideration of what would be necessary to make those findings. Commissioner Lenzen stated that the comfort of the neighborhood is a key finding. Vice-Chairman Johnson asked why the staff recommendation is to reduce the approval for the size of Tent #3. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that a tent that large must be anchored to the ground to withstand wind and other events, in order to protect the large number of people housed by the tent. In the experience of the Fire Marshal the companies that have been installing these tents have not had enough room for adequate anchoring for safety. As a result, he has requested the added condition of approval in this resolution requiring the reduced tent size. Vice-Chairman Johnson has the largest tent been used'7 Planning Manager Macdonald replied it was recently used for the Kitchen Tour. However, there were some problems with that tent meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that at the August 2009 meeting, she was able to make the findings • for the approval of the Conditional Use Pennit for the tents. She stated she can continue to do so,. with some changes to the language in the conditions of approval in the current Resolution as follows: She stated that condition h) should remain the same as the original approval, retaining only the first sentence. She stated she would add that she does not believe it is burdensome to ask the SFYC to return after five years to renew this permit. Commissioner Hart stated she also previously approved the Conditional Use Permit in August 2009. She stated that the complaints in the staff report apparently do not relate to the use of tents. She stated she can make the findings for the current application. Commissioner Lenzen stated he can make the findings with respect to the corrected draft Resolution. He would like to delete the last sentence of condition h) but would retain the first and second sentences as written, for clarification. He stated that he strongly believes that the permit should have a limited duration. Commissioner Hart stated that if the last sentence in h) is removed, then the issue of the generator is not addressed. Commissioner Lenzen stated that the generator is not really before the Commission at this time. This may be potentially an issue for a future meeting which should be addressed as soon as is practical. , Chairman Lasky stated he can make the findings for this application as he did previously for the • prior application. He agrees that the last sentence of condition h) should be eliminated. He stated Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 2010 Page 6of16

• that he believes that condition e) would automatically cover the use of the larger tent; if they cannot get a pennit to use that tent from the Fire Marshal, then they cannot use it. Commissioner Lenzen stated that staff may be suggesting that if the applicant has to wait for the permit from the Fire Department to be granted or denied, this might occur at the last minute for a planned event. He stated he is unwilling to rely on the assurances of the applicant that the 40 foot by 60 foot tent can be adequately secured. This might be a timing issue. Planning Manager Macdonaid that permits are approved by the Fire Department and then, shortiy before the event occurs, there is an inspection of the tent and some issues have been raised at that time. So it could very well be a last minute problem, if the permit were denied because there was insufficient anchoring. She stated that it might be a good idea to ask the Fire Marshal to clarify this important issue. Open public hearing. Ron Barney, fire Marshal Tiburon fire Protection District, stated that the problematic event for the larger tent just occuned last week. He stated that in all fairness to the SFYC, they have not had an opportunity to respond to his recent letter to them, that indicated that the tent company was not capable of anchoring that tent properly. It may be possible for the SFYC to work with some engineers and the tent company to establish some permanent anchor points to meet those requirements. This is at this time unknown. lt is correct that under the CFC Title 19 all tents greater than 200 square-feet require a pem1it. If it is the pleasure of the Commission to continue to allow the use of the 40 foot by 60 foot tent, he is willing to work with the SFYC to determine whether or not a permanent anchoring system can be created lo allow for that tent to be erected in that same location. If not, they would be on notice regarding allowing another event there, and would be • restricted in using that tent subject to the permit process. Close public hearing. Chaimian Lasky stated that condition e) covers the requirement without specification of the maximum tent size. Next would be the discussion as to the reason why the SFYC would need to return every 5 years. Is this normally how Conditional Use Permits are issued? Commissioner Lenzen replied that there should be a reasonable requirement for there to be a periodic review of any Use Pem1it. Planning Manager Macdonald replied that this condition was added at the recommendation of the Deputy City Attorney. Otherwise, a Conditional Use Pem1it would be valid in perpetuity. In the future, many changes could occur at the property or in the area, that might change the underlying circumstances. Deputy City Attorney Hurd added that in his experience, the problem with in-perpetuity Conditional Use Permits is that the surrounding land uses may change over long periods of time; it is very difficult to extinguish the rights under a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the Commission can discuss a different time frame if they so choose. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that condition b) should delete "with the exception that tent no. 3 is approved at the dimensions of 40 teet by 50 feet." Planning Manager Macdonald stated that condition I) would also need language to be struck in • conjunction with Vice-Chairman Johnson's change to condition b). Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 16, 20 I 0 Page 7of16

• Commissioner Lenzen stated the last two conditions would need to be renumbered. Vice-Chairman Johnson stated that the first and second sentences of condition h) might also both remain. Planning Manager Macdonald stated that this second sentence was meant to address exterior equipment and amplified sound. For example, a generator might be used to provide for the activity occurring inside the tents. Commissioner Lenzen asked if the other issues raised tonight might require an additional Use Permit, or would that require a modification in the future of this Use Permit? Planning Manager Macdonald replied that those items might be addressed through a future Design Review application. Deputy City Attorney Hurd stated that at this time the City does not have any information and those other issues would not be a part of this Conditional Use Permit.

Deputy City Attorney Hurd stated that the second sentence of condition h) might be modified to state, "The use of equipment, amplified music or other amplified sound in conjunction with the use of tents permitted herein at 98 Beach Road shall cease at 10 p.m. unless an earlier time is required to comply with Chapter 8.10, Noise, of the Belvedere Municipal Code." MOTION: To adopt the Resolution granting a Use Pem1it to allow temporary tent and canopy structures with a maximum size of 5,400 square-feet and a maximum height of 22 feet at 98 Beach Road, as conditioned and amended . MOVED BY: Johnson, seconded by Hart • VOTE: Ayes: Lasky, Lenzen, Johnson, Hart Noes: None Rec used: None Absent: Kerrinitzer, Rosenlund, Wilson 4. Design Review and Revocable License for property at 322 Beach Road to remodel the existing residence, replace foundajion and retaining walls, demolish portions of the home and construct new additions for a total decrease of floor area. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Project Owners and Applicants: Steve and Meryl Wisenbaker. Planning Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. Open public forum. Steve Wisenbaker, owner and applicant, stated he would like to thank staff for their thorough review. He stated he would like to comment on the three conditions of approval suggested by staff. In regards to the location of the proposed gate posts, the existing clearance for vehicles would not be decreased, as verified on the survey on the site plan on Sheet 18. Mr. Wisenbaker stated that the height of the gate columns is purposely high enough so they might be seen when seated in a vehicle .. Mr. Wisenbaker stated that, in regards to the proposed extension of the main living level deck as seen on Sheet 3, in addition to taking a portion of the side yard off of the main structure, the proposal is also to take portion of the deck adjacent to the side property line off as well. He stated • he believes there is no privacy issue with the neighbor to the right side, because her house is RECEIVED Planning Commission City of Belvedere MAY 03 2011 450 San Rafael Ave Belvedere, CA 94920 City of Belvedere

To the Planning Commission:

We are writing in response to your Notice of Public Hearing on May 17, 2011, Item# 4 regarding The San Francisco Yacht Club.

My wife Megan and I are residents at 555 San Rafael Ave Apt B in Belvedere and our residence is located directly behind the San Francisco Yacht Club. Megan grew up on Golden Gate Avenue and her grandmother, Midge Moore, still lives there and is one of the earliest residents of the City. l am also a member of the SFYC and we both use and enjoy their facilities often, including our own wedding festivities.

Both of us are strongly in support of the proposed enhancements to the facilities of the SFYC. They are designed in a fashion that readily blends in with the existing architecture and will make the facilities much more usable - not only for us, but also for all the other members of the club and the community at large.

The designs of the buildi~gs are appropriate and the small enlargement should not block views to any significant degrees.

As immediate neighbors we look forward to these much needed improvements so that the Club will remain a valuable resource not only to us, but also the other members of the community.

We hope that you will approve the project quickly.

Cordially,

Christopher Heller and Megan Marietti Heller

'.?. ' ·' ..

. ·• ~ ~ , ! .. , : r~ ., .. ';., ;· ";,.

•·I • ' l ( • . : J ; i:' ,• •"' ~ '

! ·.. ~· ' .. .~ . ' • ~ ': ~ ' I . .. . .

A1TACHMBNT I i CITY OF BELVEDERE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: This is not an agenda. The agenda will be posted and available the Friday before the meeting. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere will hold a regular meeting at 450 San Rafaet A venue, Belvedere, California, to consider the following actions: I. Consideration of Retroactive Design Review Penalty for property at 2 Britton Avenue for effectively removing four trees at .the rear of the property, removing one tree at the rear yard, removing trees from the front of the property and partial construction of a new railing without benefit of Design Review. CEQA starus: categorically exemptpursuant to Section 15303. Applicant and Property Owner: Raj Pherwani. 2. Design Review and Consideration of Extension of Construction Time Limit of six (6) months for remodel of the existing residence at 3 Bellevue A venue approved by the Planning Commission by means of Resolution 2011-011 on February 15, 2011. Project includes modifications to the approved scope of demolition and other changes necessitated by development of construction plans. Property Owner: Marcel Houtzager. Applicant: Steve Wisenbaker, A.I.A. 3. Design Review, Second.Unit, and Exception to Total Floor Area, for vacant property located at 14 Pelican Point Road. Proposed plans include a new 5,750-square-foot two-story residence and associated site walls, parking, driveway and lapdscaping. Plans include the removal of all Eucalyptus trees. Property Owner: Joan Watkins. Project Applicant: Mohamed Sadrieh, A.I.A. 4. Appeal oflnitial Study prepared.pursuant to CEQA which determined that proposed changes to th~ San Francisco Yacht Club located at 98 Beach Road would have potentially significant adverse impacts. Project includes Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Revocable License for the San Francisco Yacht Club. Application includes request to rezone the property from R-3 Residential to the R- Recreation Zoning District. As proposed, the main clubhouse building would be expanded by approximately 688.5 square feet and the Cove House (formerly l 00 Beach Road) would be expanded by 848 square feet, including new 1,607- square-foot raised entertainment area deck. Project plans include a new sidewalk and fence along Beach Road, new signage, parking plan and landscaping. Potential impacts to environmental resources include archeological, parking/traffic, and historical resources. Property Owner: San Francisco Yacht Club. Project Applicant: John Swain. 5. Design Review and Exception to Total Floor Area for remodel and additions totaling 130 square feet to an existing 4,947-square-foot residence at 276 Beach Road which was constructed in 1899. Applicants and Property Owners: Jeremy and Jean Fair (Fair Family Trust). 6. Modificaton of Condition of Approval L of Resolution 2010-060 regarding demolition and reconstruction of a portion of a deck located within the public right-of-way of Beach Road and within the rear yard setback at 250 Bayyiew Avenue. Deck work is associated with Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variances and Revocable License for the remodel and addition of l ,069 square feet to an existing 1,829-square-foot residence. Variances are for nonconforming minimum Separations between the proposed addition and nonconforming residences on both sides of the property and for increasing the size of the floor area of the existing nonconforming residence by more than 50% within a I 0-year period. Property Owners: Conor and Meredith Flynn. Applicant: Keith Plymale.

NOTICE JS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at the above time and place, all letters received will be noted, and all interested parties will be heard. Please note that if you challenge in court any of the matters described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the above-referenced public hearing [Government Code Section 65009(bX2)]. Please submit arty correspondence by May 4, 2011 for inclusion in the staff report distributed to the Commission before the meeting. Items will not necessarily be heard in the above order, nor, because of possible changes or extenuating conditions, be on the actual agenda. For additional infonnation, please contact City Hall. 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920 (415) 435-3838 Keith Bartel 86 A Main Street• Tiburon, CA 94920 •Phone: (415) 435 - 6238

Date: May 9, 2011

City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael A venue Belvedere, CA 94920

Dear Residents of Belvedere:

I am writing this letter to express my thoughts about the Cove House and its upcoming changes because I am unable to attend the Belvedere City Planning Meeting.

My name is Keith Bartel and my great grandfather Dr. Clyde S. Payne built the Cove House at 100 Beach Road in Belvedere as a family summer home in 1916. The Cove House was built from recycled materials from the Panama Pacific Exposition, including the tiles that once graced the front yard. It is also known that the Cove House site was once part of a Miwok Village. My family enjoyed the Cove House until 1984 when it was sold to the SFYC. It made perfect sense for the SFYC to purchase 100 Beach Road because it completed their property. The SFYC is a great asset for the community of Belvedere for recreation, special events and socializing. I was happy to see the Cove House used for special events and for many people to enjoy this unique location; my wife and I celebrated our wedding at the Cove House in 2005. l would like to thank SFYC for maintaining the historical appearance of the structure ov'er the years. However lam somewhat surprised for th<:; changes .to· the fa;;ade of the building that are proposed, as they ·are not at all. in·keeping-with the. historical beauty of the Cove House.

I understand the SFYC's need to improve the Cove House's facilities to better accommodate events. I have seen the plans and designs proposed by Architect John Swain, and l agree that the interior, terrace and the back of the building need to be enlarged. I do not feel that the exterior of the Cove House should replicate that of the SFYC main clubhouse. I think the house would look best if it would retain its original elegance and colors, gray or off-white stucco with white trim, to appreciate its history. Garavaglia Architecture Inc., mentions that "100 Beach Road retains integrity of location, materials, workmanship and feeling, and is significant as a notable example of the Italian Renaissance style in Belvedere, therefore the property appears to be eligible for listing on the CRHR (California Register of Historical Resources) at the local level." I understand sustaining historic buildings is complicated for many reasons. However, I feel that history is important to the residents of Belvedere, which is attested by the popularity of the "Walk Your History" event. I imagine the residents would also appreciate the preservation of the Cove House as part of Belvedere's history. It would also be nice to replace the plaque stating who built the house and when.

1 would like. to ackno\\'.ledge my gratitud~·to the people and organizations.concerned with· the future of the Cov,e House. : · .. '. - -. .··

Sincerely,

Keith Bartel