Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Committee Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 5:30 P.M. Belvedere City Hall – Council Chambers 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, California

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2018, 5:30 P.M. BELVEDERE CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 450 SAN RAFAEL AVENUE BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA

AGENDA

OPEN FORUM This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Historic Preservation Committee on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon being recognized by the Chair, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Committee consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

1. Approve minutes of the May 8, 2018, regular meeting.

2. Old Business: continued discussion on local historic landmarks and the benefits of being designated a local historic landmark, and consideration of strategies to encourage property owners to designate their properties as local historic landmarks.

3. Design Review and Exception to Total Floor Area to allow for a 146 SF addition at the rear of the house for an elevator at 12 Alcatraz Avenue. The existing residence and garage are 4,088 SF and the project proposes a 4,234 SF residence and garage. A 146 square foot two story addition at the rear corner of the house is proposed. Property Owner: Anne Kasanin; Applicant: Daniel Hunter AIA.

4. Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and revocable license for an addition to the existing residence at 416 Golden Gate Avenue. The proposal includes a new open carport and fence over the existing parking pad and an expansion of a kitchen terrace with a proposed roof structure over the terrace area. Property Owner: John and Dawn Owen; Applicant: Daniel Hunter AIA.

ADJOURN

NOTICE: WHERE TO VIEW AGENDA MATERIALS Staff reports and other writings distributed to the Committee, including those distributed after the posting date of this agenda, are available for public inspection at Belvedere City Hall, 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere. To request automatic mailing of agenda materials, please contact the City Clerk at 415-435-8913. NOTICE: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and/or agenda packet materials in alternate formats and special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting. Please make your request at City Hall or by calling 415/435-3838. Whenever possible, please make your request four working days in advance.

Posted: 06/05//2018 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1

REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2018, 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 450 SAN RAFAEL AVENUE, BELVEDERE, CA

MINUTES ______

COMMITTEE PRESENT: Diana Bradley, Richard Newman, Jeanne Price, and Chair Mel Owen

COMMITTEE ABSENT: Roger Felton, George Gnoss, and Bruce Sams

OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning & Building Irene Borba, Council Liaison James Campbell, and City Clerk Alison Foulis.

These minutes are intended to reflect the general content of the regular meeting. An audio file of the meeting is available on the City website at www.cityofbelvedere.org

CALL TO ORDER OF REGULAR MEETING

The meeting was called to order at 5:34 PM.

OPEN FORUM

Larry Stoehr, 20 Peninsula Road, discussed the important role of the Historic Preservation Committee in the planning process.

Sheila Golden, 370 Bella Vista Avenue, discussed improving the list of older homes in Belvedere.

SCHEDULED ITEMS

1. Approval of the minutes of the April 10, 2018, regular meeting.

Minutes were approved as presented.

Minutes of the Historic Preservation Committee Meeting May 8, 2018 Page 2 of 3

2. Review of the Historic Designation Case Report prepared by Committee members Roger Felton and Richard Newman for the property at 280 Bayview Avenue and recommendation of Historic Designation to the Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 21.20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. CEQA status: Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Applicant & Property Owner: Griffin Family Trust.

Committee Member Newman summarized the survey he prepared with Committee Member Felton on 280 Bayview Avenue.

Chair Owen called for public comment. Robert Griffin, owner of 280 Bayview Avenue, discussed his property and the care and maintenance provided over the years.

Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chair Owen brought the discussion back to the Committee. The Committee generally felt that the property warranted historic designation.

MOTION: To recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the designation of 280 Bayview Avenue as a City of Belvedere Historic Property. MOVED: By Price, seconded by Bradley; approval unanimous (Felton, Gnoss, and Sams absent)

3. Discussion on local historic landmarks and the benefits of being designated a local historic landmark. Consideration of strategies to encourage property owners to designate their properties as local historic landmarks.

Chair Owen led a discussion on methods the Committee could use to encourage property to designate their qualifying homes as historic landmarks. Suggestions discussed included reaching out to real estate agents during the home buying process, connecting with current owners of older homes, and encouraging the local newspaper to feature stories on local historic homes. The Committee discussed benefits and concerns of requiring preservation of the interior of historically significant homes as well as the tax loss to the from the Mills Act program.

Pat Carapiet, 4 Lagoon Road, suggested as a real estate agent that the City could include historic information in the resale reports prepared before a home is sold.

No one else from the public wished to speak.

The Committee appointed Chair Owen and Committee Member Price to serve on a subcommittee with Director of Planning and Building Borba tasked with developing a letter and outreach material to encourage homeowners of high- and medium-level historic sensitivity homes to designate their properties as historic landmarks. Director Borba also stated that she would look into adding a section on historic property information to the Residential Building Reports (RBR resale reports) prepared before a home is sold. Minutes of the Historic Preservation Committee Meeting May 8, 2018 Page 3 of 3

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 PM.

THE FOREGOING MINUTES were approved at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee on ______, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:______Mel Owen, Chairman ATTEST:______Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2

CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 San Rafael Avenue  Belvedere, CA 94920-2336 Tel: 415/435-3838  Fax: 415/435-0430  www.cityofbelvedere.org

June 12, 2018

RE: Preserving Belvedere’s History and Uniqueness

Dear City of Belvedere Property Owner:

In 1993, the City of Belvedere decided that the City, and the public generally, would be well served by the protection and preservation of significant sites and structures that impart a distinct aspect of the City and which would serve as visible reminder of the historical heritage of the Belvedere. At that time, the City Council established Title 21 of the BMC, the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The first goal of the ordinance is: “To maintain and contribute to the character of Belvedere by protecting, enhancing and perpetuating sites and structures having special historical, aesthetic and architectural value.”

The Ordinance established the Historic Preservation Committee and established its authority to review applications for changes to local Belvedere historic properties, review applications to designate new historic properties, and implement the Mills Act tax abatement program. A primary duty of our Committee is to encourage the maintenance and preservation of properties that have historic or architectural integrity and are, or can be designated as an “historic resource”.

Additionally, in 2010, the City adopted its General Plan which included Chapter 6 – Cultural, Archaeological, and Historic Resource Preservation Element. The element establishes objectives, policies, and programs that will preserve and improve Belvedere’s history, identity, and unique sense of place.

With that in mind, we are contacting owners of homes, such as yours, that may qualify for Historic Designation. We would like to discuss with you why your home may be eligible for Historic designation if you are interested and choose to take advantage of this opportunity.

For additional background information on the process, we recommend that you review the City of Belvedere Municipal Code - Title 21 Historic Preservation: http://www.cityofbelvedere.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/283 and the City General Plan Chapter 6, Cultural Archaeological and Historic Resource Preservation Element: http://www.cityofbelvedere.org/DocumentCenter/View/1776.

Inquiries and or questions regarding Historic Designation may be directed to the Planning staff at City hall.

Sincerely,

Irene Borba Director of Planning & Building City of Belvedere

AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3

CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum

TO: Chair Owen and Members of the Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building DATE: June 12, 2018 SUBJECT: Applications for Design Review and Exception to Total Floor Area for the property located at 12 Alcatraz Avenue

Background

The subject site is an 8,251-square-foot lot located at 12 Alcatraz Avenue on Corinthian Island. The site is developed with a single-family residence, known as the “Masterson House,” which was built in approximately 1910. In 2002, the City designated the property as a local historic landmark (Resolution 2002-23) finding that the existing residence : a) presents an outstanding example of the architectural style of the Arts and Crafts Movement; b) is significant because of its age, and is one of the original four or five homes developed on Corinthian Island; c) was built for one of the initial developers of Corinthian Island; d) is prominently sited near the top of Corinthian Island; and e) retains integrity in that most of the original structure has been maintained.

According to the Artisan Architecture Historic Report (Attachment 5) dated May 11, 2018, 12 Alcatraz Avenue is a gracious and well maintained Brown Shingle Style home. It is substantially in original condition and tastefully and appropriately preserved with sensitive contemporary site and landscape features. The property is not listed on the National Register, although it is eligible. It is registered as a City of Belvedere/Tiburon Landmark. The proposed work is found to be in substantial conformance to both local and national standards of care for the treatment of Historic Resources. The proposed work will not adversely impact the properties future eligibility for listing on the National Register.

History

1973 - Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit and Variance to add a bedroom, bathroom and porch on the second story of the home. 1981 - Planning Commission approval of Design Review to expand the off-street parking bay, replace the retaining wall and old steps and a Variance approval for parking stall size.

Page 1 of 3

1997 - Staff Design Review approval for a new 2 by 2 window at the north elevation on the third floor. 2000 - Staff Design Review approval to rebuild the garden shed. 2002 - Planning Commission recommendation of designation of historical landmark to the City Council. 2002 - City Council approval of historic designation. 2007 - Historic Committee review of a new detached garage structure with an elevator on the south side of the property and enclosure of a covered porch on the west side of the property. 2007 - Planning Commission approval of Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area and Revocable License for a new detached garage structure with an elevator on the south side of the property and enclosure of a covered porch on the west side of the property. 2007 - City Council approval of a Revocable Licensee.

Project Description

The project proposes Design Review and Exception to Total Floor Area to allow for a 146 SF addition at the rear of the house for an elevator (Attachment 1). The existing residence and garage are 4,088 SF and the project proposes a 4,234 SF residence and garage. A 146 square foot two story addition at the rear corner of the house is proposed. One new window and one new door is proposed, both matching the existing windows and doors. All the existing landscaping will remain.

All of the exterior colors and materials will match the existing. Wood shingle walls and composition shingle roof where proposed will match the existing, all new trim will match existing.

Historic Architectural Review

In reviewing a proposed modification to a City-designated landmark, the Historic Preservation Committee is charged with providing the Planning Commission with objective criteria and specific information for use in making decisions, and to help prevent the inappropriate alteration of structures having special historic, architectural and aesthetic value.

The Historic Preservation Committee shall use the following guidelines in evaluating an application: 1. The distinguished original qualities or character of a structure and its environment should not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 2. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a structure shall be treated with sensitivity. 3. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing structures shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant

Page 2 of 3

historical and/or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property. 4. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be made in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.

City staff has determined that project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is exempt from CEQA. The addition to create room for an elevator allows the property owners to continue to use the home as its original use, a single family dwelling. Additionally, the proposed project will not destroy any historic materials; it will maintain the most character defining features of the house, large porches, covered with white trellis structures, beams shaped beam ends and distinctive rafter tails. The application included a Historical Evaluation, prepared by Artisan Architecture. The evaluation concludes that the changes are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards of Rehabilitation.

The new work is compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. The Standards for Rehabilitation are included as Attachment 4.

In making its recommendation to the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee shall set forth in detail using the guidelines stated above, what, if any, effect the proposed construction, alteration or demolition will have on the significant historical, architectural or other related features of the property, as well as its recommendations, if any, as to ways in which the application can be modified to preserve such features.

Conclusion

City staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Committee review the project plans for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and Guidelines stated above and recommend approval of the proposed changes to the Planning Commission.

Attachments

1. Project application. 2. Plans stamped received May 17, 2018. 3. Belvedere Landmark Designation Survey Form for 12 Alcatraz Avenue dated March 15, 2002. 4. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation View guidelines at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehabilitation-guidelines.pdf 5. Historic Evaluation dated May 11, 2018, prepared by Artisan Architecture

Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

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

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date: __)_-_L_._L_- .....1_£ __' __ Rec'd. by: _....,,&..... I .... S/vf_._ ____ Planning Comm. Approval % Design Review Exception 0 Amount: ------1 sr-·1 - Receipt No.: _:;}_·_;r_' _/ _Y_Y_· __ Staff Approval 0 Parcel No.: ,~, ti o-( 03~ = fl Zone:_~,.:k:"-=-1.r_·<-'-<------

SECTION l • PROJECT SUMMARY

Does this project have an active building permit? No • Yes D Permit No.: ----- Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No • Yes D Address of Property: 12 Alcatraz Ave .. Belvedere. CA 94920 Record Owner of Property: ..:..A...;;n...;.:.n=e"-'K:...Oa=s=a=n.;.:;in;.;.______Mailing Anne Kasanin ______Daytime Phone: (415) 435-4553 Address: 12 Alcatraz Ave. Fax: ------Be Ive dere, CA 94920 Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Dan Hunter AIA Agent for owner Mailing 420 Golden Gate Ave. Daytime Phone: _,_(4:.....:.1=5),_7:...::8=9'--'-0=9'-"'5=3 ______Address: Belvedere. CA 94920 Fax: ______Email: [email protected] Project Description: New 2 story elevator and enclosure of 48 sf of existing deck.

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

ZONING PARAMETERS: Required Existing Proposed Lot Area ...... 7,500 sq. ft. min. 8,251 sq. ft. 8,251 sq. ft Lot Coverage -Structures only 3,300 sf (40%) 2,526.5 sf (30.6%) 2,575.5 sf (31.2%) Lot Coverage- w/uncovered decks 4,125.5 sf {50%} 2,968 sf {36%} No Change Total Floor Area ...... 3,500 sq. ft. 4,088 sq. ft. 4,234 sq. ft. Front Yard Setback .... 5ft. 4'-6" No Change. Left Sideyard Setback -east. . 5 ft. 19'-1/2" 18'-6" Right Sideyard Setback. -west 5 ft. 5' No Change Rear Yard Setback . . ... 20 ft. 12'-1/2" No Change Building Height Maximum ... 36 ft. 38'-7" No Change Building Height Average ... N/A N/A N/A Parking Spaces ...... 2 2 full size + existing No Change

SECTION 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CEQA

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: July 25, 2007 General Information 1.Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Anne Kasanin 2. Address of project: 12 Alcatraz Ave"' Belvedere. CA 94920 Assessor's Block and Lot Number: =60,._-...:..1=03,._-.:::.56..______3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Applicant

4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N/A 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: Design Review and Floor area exception

7. Proposed use of site {Project for which this form is filed): Single family residential garage with elevator 8. Year built: 1910 Original architect: Unknown Project Description 9. Site size. 8,251 sq. ft. 10. Square footage. 146 sq. ft. 11. Number of floors of construction. i 12. Amount of off-street parking provided. _ _.2::...;s:.co:.:a::ce=s=-+___,,1...:..n=o.:..:.n-=-c=o.:..:..m:.c:P..:.:lia::.:.n.... t ______13. Attach plans. Attached 14. Proposed scheduling. Construction start summer of 2018 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. Minor excavation less than 2 yards and staging will be required. Design Review Application • Page 2 of 9 • City of Belvedere

C:\Users\huntcr architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitcct\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

16. Anticipated incremental development. NIA 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. NIA 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/A 20. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. NIA 21. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. NIA 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. Cut estimated at 2yds. No fill required • 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. D • 25. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D • 26. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D • 27. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing D • drainage patterns. • 28. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. D 29. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. Slope is approximately 30% D• 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 • 32. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D • 33. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D •

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. Sloping site with small shrubs and native and non native trees. See application for additional details

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

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\I dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

SECTION 3 • ESTIMATE OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION

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: $less than $100,000

Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project:

D 1. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be less than $500.000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

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.

• 3. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $100,000. Construction shall be completed six (6) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

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

D 5. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at more than $500.000. Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Guidelines or wish to exceed the time limit that was approved by the Planning Commission, the following outlines the "Extension of Construction Time Limit" (20.04.0350) process: Design Review Application • Page 4 of 9 • City of Belvedere

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

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

SECTION 4 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOURLY BILLING COSTS

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:

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

C:\Users\hunter architccture\Dropbox\I dhuntcrarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2000, (subject to change without notice): City Planner $ 61. 65 Associate City 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.

SECTION 5 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY

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. If at any time during construction, and without such written approval, construction on the project is found by a member of City staff to deviate from the approved construction plans in any manner, an official STOP WORK ORDER will be issued by the City, and there shall be a total cessation of all work on the project. 4. If such a STOP WORK ORDER is issued, the City may initiate proceedings to impose administrative penalties or nuisance abatement proceedings and issue an order to show cause, which will compel the undersigned property owner to appear before the City Council and show cause why the work performed does not deviate from the approved plans and why such work should not be condemned as a public nuisance and abated. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Chapters 1.14 and 8.12)

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\J dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

SECTION 6 • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS

Story Pole Requirement

Story poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard and removed no later than ten ( 10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATION, & DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

All property owners must complete this Section. For properties owned by a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity, please attach proof of ownership and certification of the signer's authorization to enter into contracts on behalf of the entity.

Street address of subject property: 12 Alcatraz Ave .. Belvedere. CA 94920

Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property:.:::.60;::;..-...:.1=0=3-...:5=6 ______

> Properties Owned by Individuals

I, ~ ~m-J\,( ~ , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State OfalfOl"nia atl am the reord owner of the above-described subject property.

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

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

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

Signed this -'Uf..f.((2 day of . H~4t , 20~ at Belvedere, California. Signature ~ ·t::_IM c.. ".,.:,

:> 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.

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

Signature ______Signature______

Title(s) ______Title(s) ______

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

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

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\I dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc Project Address: 12 Alcatraz

> Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional)

I, Anne Kasanin, hereby authorize Hunter architecture ltd., Daniel Hunter, agent for owner, 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.

Signature of Owner: a,...,.. /::.a,,-.~.-' ~ Date: 3.22.2018 1 Signature of Representative: ~ ~--=: Date: 3.22.2018 Hunter architecture ltd. Daniel HuterAiA,aQnttof ner

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\1 dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\12 alcatraz design review elevator 2018.doc

1/8" = 1' - 0"

EXISTING ROOF, LANDSCAPE, SITE PLAN

QUINCE HEDGE QUINCE (E) MATURE (E)

TO REMAIN TO

FRONT

SETBACK

4'-5" 5'-0"

4'-7"

EL. 82.0 EL.

STAGING PLATFORM- STAGING

TEMPORARY

11'-7"

DOOR FRONT

FRONT SETBACK 5'-0"

3'-0"

20'-3 2

TYP. 6 x 6 POST 6 x 6

19'-2"

18'-10"

30'-9"

UP 8 R 8 UP

@ 7" @

(E) RESIDENCE (E) 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. ALCATRAZ 12

22'-5"

SETBACK

5' SIDE 5'

ROCK WALL ROCK

GARAGE BELOW GARAGE

DECK WOOD DECK WOOD

5'-0" 1 EL. 78.5 EL. EL. 90.4 EL. 19'-0

(E) STAIR (E) 0 16'-4"

5'-0" 2'

18'-0" 5' SIDE EL. 78.3

4' SETBACK

CURB

2" CONC. ROLL CONC. 2" DRIVEWAY 8'

NORTH

BELOW GARAGE

6'-0" NEW OF LINE 41'-0"

20' REAR

SETBACK

RETAINING WALL RETAINING

STONE FACED STONE

CONCRETE

APRON

20'-0" 13'-1 2 1 " 1/8" = 1' - 0" PROPOSED ROOF , LANDSCAPE, SITE PLAN SP5 SP4 SP3 SP2 SP1 SP# STORY POLE SCHEDULE ELEVATION

+115.6' +115.6' +115.6' +115.6' +113.6'

QUINCE HEDGE QUINCE TO REMAIN TO (E) MATURE (E)

FRONT

SETBACK

4'-5" 5'-0"

4'-7"

EL. 82.0 EL.

STAGING PLATFORM- STAGING

TEMPORARY

11'-7"

DOOR FRONT

FRONT SETBACK 5'-0"

3'-0"

20'-3

1 " HEIGHT ABOVE (E) GRADE

24'-4" 22'-4" 22'-4" 24'-4" 22'-4"

TYP. 6 x 6 POST 6 x 6

19'-2"

18'-10"

30'-9"

UP 8 R 8 UP

@ 7" @

(E) RESIDENCE (E) 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. ALCATRAZ 12

22'-5"

SETBACK 5' SIDE 5'

SP1

ROCK WALL ROCK GARAGE BELOW GARAGE NO CHANGE TO EXISTING LANDSCAPE . REPLACE PLANTED NOTE:

AREA IF DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WOOD DECK WOOD 5'-11" 5'-0"

SP2

EL. 78.5 EL. EL. 90.4 EL.

SP5 (E) STAIR (E)

7'-10" 0 16'-4"

5'-0" 2'

18'-0" 5' SIDE 18'-6" SP3

EL. 78.3 SP4

4' SETBACK

CURB 2" CONC. ROLL CONC. 2" DRIVEWAY 8'-7" 8'

NORTH

BELOW GARAGE

6'-0" NEW OF LINE 41'-0"

20' REAR 10" OAK TO REMAIN (N) ELEVATOR

SETBACK EXTEND LOW SLOPE ROOF

33'-6"

RETAINING WALL RETAINING

STONE FACED STONE

CONCRETE

APRON 20'-0"

LEGEND 13'-1 2 1 " EXISTING NEW Hunter 415.789.0953 A.P.#: 060-103-56 DATE: DRAWN: TIBURON, CA. 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. PROPOSED ELEVATOR COPYRIGHT HUNTER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. EXISTING AND PROPOSED NOT BE USED IN WHOLE OR PART ON OTHER PROJECTS EXTENSIONS OF FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED OR NOT EXECUTED. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL HUNTER ARCHITECTURE LTD. AND SHALL REMAIN SO WHETHER THE PROJECT THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF HUNTER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. THIS DOCUMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE IS THE SOLE PROPERTY SITE PLAN/ ROOF PLAN DESIGN REVIEW SET C GC FINAL DR. REVISIONS APRIL 30, 2018 [email protected] A2 architecture ltd. LEGEND Hunter architecture ltd. INDICATES (N) WALL INDICATES (N) WP WALL SCONCE OVER DOOR 415.789.0953 [email protected]

9'-91" 2 1 22'-11" 1'-7" 22'-11" 5'-1" 4'-82" DOWN DOWN

DECK ABOVE

(N) 3068dr. " 1 (N)ELEV. 2

1 +91.3' (0'-0") 1 2 2 CONC. A6 A6 (E) CABINET TO REMAIN A6 A6 RANGE +91.6' (0'-4") RANGE 5'-4 FFL.lower fl. 3070dr. +91.6' (0'-4") POWDER FFL.lower fl. (N) 4'-4" KITCHEN KITCHEN 3068dr. POWDER 3'-6" 2'-7"

DBL. DBL. REF. REF. OVEN OVEN

EXISTING PARTIAL LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED PARTIAL LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

1/4" = 1' - 0" 1/4" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8' PROPOSED ELEVATOR

12 ALCATRAZ AVE. TIBURON, CA. 14'-0" 1 9'-31" 4'-81" A.P.#: 060-103-56 5'-92" 2 2 (N)WDW. 3060

(N)ELEV. " 1 1 1ST FLOOR BELOW 1 1ST FLOOR BELOW 2 2 2 A6 A6 A6 A6 3070dr. 5'-4 " 1 2

DECK 9'-9 (N) FFL. (N)WDW. 3060 +101.8' (10'-6") MATCH (E) +102.3' FFL. DECK (N)WDW. EXISTING AND PROPOSED 3060 FLOOR PLAN

+102.3' (11'-0") +102.3' (11'-0") (N) WALL ALIGN W/ (E) FFL.upper fl. FFL.upper fl. WALL BELOW

DESIGN REVIEW SET

DRAWN: GC

DATE: APRIL 30, 2018 FINAL DR. REVISIONS EXISTING PARTIAL UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED PARTIAL UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A3 1/4" = 1' - 0" 1/4" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8'

COPYRIGHT C HUNTER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. THIS DOCUMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF HUNTER ARCHITECTURE LTD. AND SHALL REMAIN SO WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED IS OR IS NOT EXECUTED. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF HUNTER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. Hunter architecture ltd.

415.789.0953 [email protected] T.O. ATTIC FLR. T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ± EL. 113.6 ±

T.O. UPPER FLR. T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.3 EL. 102.3

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6

T.O. DECK EL. 90.4

T.O. LOWER FLR. EL. 82.6 ±

T.O. GARAGE SLAB EL. 78.5 EXISTING NORTH-EAST ELEVATION EXISTING SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION

1/8" = 1' - 0" 1/8" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8'

PROPOSED EXTEND LOW SLOPE ROOF ADDITION

(N) ELEVATOR

T.O. ATTIC FLR. T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ± EL. 113.6 ±

EXISTING RAFTER TAILS TO REMAIN SUCH THAT IF ADDITION IS REMOVED, HISTORIC ELEMENT WILL REMAIN. (N) WDW. (E) (N) WDW. PROPOSED ELEVATOR 3060 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. TIBURON, CA. A.P.#: 060-103-56 T.O. UPPER FLR. T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.3 EL. 102.3 (N) DOWNLIGHT

(E) (E) (N) DR. EL. 93.3 3068 EXISTING AND PROPOSED

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 ELEVATIONS

T.O. DECK EL. 90.4 (N) RET.WALL PROPOSED ADDITION

PROPOSED ADDITION

T.O. LOWER FLR. EL. 82.6 ± DESIGN REVIEW SET

T.O. GARAGE SLAB EL. 78.5 DRAWN: GC

DATE: APRIL 30, 2018 FINAL DR. REVISIONS LEGEND LEGEND EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED NORTH-EAST ELEVATION NEW PROPOSED SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION NEW A4 1/4" = 1' - 0" 1/4" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8'

415.789.0953 [email protected] T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ±

T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.3

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6

T.O. DECK EL. 90.4

EXISTING NORTH-WEST ELEVATION

1/8" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8'

PROPOSED ADDITION

(N) ELEVATOR

T.O. ATTIC FLR. PROPOSED ELEVATOR EL. 113.6 ± 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. TIBURON, CA. A.P.#: 060-103-56

(N) WDW. 3060

T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.3 (N) DOWNLIGHT EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS

(N) DR. 3068 EL. 93.3

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6

(N) RET.WALL

PROPOSED ADDITION DESIGN REVIEW SET

DRAWN: GC

DATE: APRIL 30, 2018 FINAL DR. REVISIONS LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED NORTH-WEST ELEVATION NEW A5 1/4" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8'

415.789.0953 [email protected] T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ±

T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.6 ±

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6

T.O. DECK EL. 90.4 (E) GRADE

T.O. LOWER FLR. EL. 82.6 ±

T.O. GARAGE SLAB EL. 78.5

EXISTING WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED ADDITION 1/8" = 1' - 0" (N) COMP. SHINGLE 0 2' 4' 8' ROOF MATCH (E) - CLASS "A"

T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ±

(N) WDW. (N) WDW. (E) 3060 3060

(N) WD. SHINGLE SIDING MATCH (E) PROPOSED ELEVATOR

T.O. UPPER FLR. 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. EL. 102.6 ± (N) ELEVATOR- TIBURON, CA. ALL MATERIALS TO A.P.#: 060-103-56 MATCH EXISTING HOUSE

(E)

(N) DR. 3068

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 T.O. DECK EXISTING AND PROPOSED EL. 90.4 PROPOSED (E) GRADE ELEVATIONS ADDITION

T.O. LOWER FLR. EL. 82.6 ±

T.O. GARAGE SLAB EL. 78.5 DESIGN REVIEW SET

DRAWN: GC

DATE: APRIL 30, 2018 FINAL DR. REVISIONS

LEGEND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION EXISTING NEW A6 1/4" = 1' - 0" 0 2' 4' 8'

415.789.0953 [email protected]

EXTEND FLAT ROOF

T.O. ATTIC FLR. T.O. ATTIC FLR. EL. 113.6 ± EL. 113.6 ± (N) ELEV.

REMOVE (E) DOORS (N) WDW. 3060

T.O. UPPER FLR. T.O. UPPER FLR. EL. 102.3 EL. 102.3

(E) CASED OPENING

(E) POWDER ROOM

PROPOSED ELEVATOR

(N) DR. 3068 12 ALCATRAZ AVE. EL. 93.3 TIBURON, CA.

T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 T.O. MAIN FLR. EL. 91.6 A.P.#: 060-103-56

T.O. DECK T.O. DECK 14.0000 EL. 90.4 EL. 90.4

(N) (E)

14" MIN. PIT FOR BUFFERS

T.O. LOWER FLR. T.O. LOWER FLR. EL. 82.6 ± EL. 82.6 ± EXISTING AND PROPOSED SECTION

T.O. GARAGE SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB EL. 78.5 EL. 78.5

LEGEND EXISTING EXISTING SECTION PROPOSED SECTION NEW

1/4" = 1' - 0" 1/4" = 1' - 0" DESIGN REVIEW SET 0 2' 4' 8' 0 2' 4' 8'

DRAWN: GC

DATE: APRIL 30, 2018 FINAL DR. REVISIONS A7

ATTACHMENT 3

CITY of BELVEDERE

BELVEDERE LANDMARK DESIGNATION SURVEY FORM

The following criteria shall be used when considering structures or sites tor landmark designation:

I.. Architecture It is an outstanding example cf a particular style, construction method or material.

2. Architecture It is outstanding because ct age.

3. Architecture It is outstanding because it is the work of a significant architect or builder.

4. Architecture It is outstanding because it is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property cf its type in the city.

5. Desicn It has a unique or original design or demonstrates out standing craftsmanship.

6. History It is associated with a person, group or event significant to the city, state or nation, or shows broad cultural , political, social, or economic patterns, or embodies and expresses the history of the city. 1

7. Environment It contributes to the dlaracter of the street or neigh borhood area or has significance as a visual landmark owing to its unique location.

8. ~ It retains most cf its original materials and design features.

9. National Aeoister ct Historic Placss It is a site or structure listed on the National Register cf Historic Placss.

Street address 12 Alcatraz

Block----- Lot----- Photo with date

Owners Mark and Anne Kasanin

Owners' address 12 Alcatraz

Common name ______Historic name Harry Masterson House

450 San Rafael Ave .• Belvedere, CA 94920 • TEL 415/435-3838 • FAX 415/435-0430 -2-

Historical Information

Construction Date : Approximately 1910 Architect: 1Jnkno\VI1

Significance and evaluation

1. Architecture It is an outstanding example of a style of architecture which covered the period from 1900 to World War I, which loosely incorporated and blended the Arts and Crafts Movement moving into Shingle Style It includes such representative features as a low pitched roof, wide eave overhangs, massive woodwork, supporting brackets, window seats, French doors with leaded glass, and a shingled exterior. Most of these features are evident in this house. White-painted and carved over-sized beams support the roof of the wrap-around porch. The side entry, with broad stairs, has the same overhead beams which form a trellis-like cover for the front door. Inside, the massive beams are repeated in the living and dining rooms for con continuity of design. Other features on the interior of the main floor include dark wainscoting and redwood Ionic columns.

2. Architecture The house is significant because of its· age. It was one of the original 4 or 5 houses on Corin thian Island, built soon after the island was purchased and sub divided for development. The lot can be located on the 1907 plat map of the original subdivision of the Island and part of plot 63 offered at $750 and $1,000 respectively. The date of construction is assumed to be 1910, deter mined both by its appearance in various historical photographs dating from that tirne, and also by the uncovering of a newspaper comic strip dated 1910 which was used for insulation. An early painting by the California artist Granville Redman(1871-1935) features the house and the island.

6. History Its historic importance is further enhanced by its.connection to the developers of the Island. It was built for a successful lumberman, Harry Masterson, by his.in-laws, Mr. And Mrs. J. H. Kelley, who lived next door at 38 Alcatraz. Kelley, with his brother Frederick, H. H. L. Corran and his son-in-law Sidney Plant acquired the Island from the heirs of Thomas B. Valentine and formed the Corinthian Island Company. Before Valentine, the property had been part of John Reed's Mexican land grant.

7. Environment This house and all the other first homes were located facing Belvedere Cove, overlooking the colorful fleet of arks anchored offshore and the open Golden Gate in the distance. Prominently place near the top of Corinthian Island, it can be viewed today from much of the east side of Belvedere Island, the Lagoon and most of the northwestern portion of Corinthian Island.

8. Integrity The majority of the exterior and the interior of the house are as it was originally built in 1910. Aside from a kitchen remodel, most of the original structure has been maintained. __,_,.,

Recommendation: The Harry Masterson House has the unanimous approval of the Historic Preservation Committee to become a designated Belvedere Landmark.

References A Field Guide to American Houses Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society Archives Collection Corinthian Island Company Brochure and plat map, 1907

Date of Survey March 15, 2002

Prepared by Jean Fair

Organization City of Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee ATTACHMENT 4

Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation projects must meet the following Standards, as interpreted by the National Park Service, to qualify as “certified rehabilitations” eligible for the 20% rehabilitation tax credit. The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.

The Standards apply to historic buildings of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They apply to both the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ATTACHMENT 5

May 11th 2018

Rebecca Markwick

Associate Planner City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue. 94920

RE: 12 Alcatraz Avenue, Tiburon, CA

Dear Ms Markwick;

Thank for the opportunity to provide the following findings regarding you efforts to determine the conformance to requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. 470f) and as amended through its implementation regulation found in; 36 CFR Part 800. As well as the City of Belvederes municipal code regarding modifications to historic properties chapter 21.3

Summary of Findings.

12 Alcatraz Avenue is gracious and well maintained Brown Shingle Style home. It is in substantially original condition tastefully and appropriately preserved with sensitive contemporary site and landscape features. The property is not listed on the National Register, although it is eligible. It is registered as a City of Belvedere/ Tiburon Landmark. The proposed work is found to be in substantial conformance to both local and national standards of care for the treatment of Historic Resources. The proposed work will not adversely impact the properties future eligibility for listing on the National Register.

Methods.

This study consisted of review of national records and by drawings provided by the applicant and a physical survey of the property and proposed work. The property survey occurred under clear and sunny conditions On April 25th at approx. 11:30 am.

Evaluation Criteria.

The City of Tiburon/ Belvedere requires according to Chapter 21.24 that the applicant evaluate the project according four criteria of evaluation for modifications to historic structures. It is the findings of this survey as referenced in those standards that :

1. The distinguished original qualities or character of a structure and its environment where not destroyed. A minor porch addition that was added after the period of significance is modified to provide access to a new elevator tower that is to be added. 2. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the structure have been be treated with sensitivity. 3. No contemporary design features are added the alterations and additions to the existing structures do not destroy significant historical and/or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property. 4. The new additions or alterations to the structures were made in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.

The following section addresses the proposed Project within the context of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, as adopted by the City of Belvedere. The Standards are presented in black, and (AA) Artisan Architecture analysis of the proposed Project, as it relates to the Standards, is presented below in blue.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

AA Response : The Project does not modify the use of the historic resource. Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 1.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

AA Response : The original portion of the property retain a high degree of integrity related to the historic character that help convey significance. The character-defining features that remain on the building that support significance are maintained.

The principle character defining elements are the wide porches, covered with white trellis structures , beams, shaped beam ends and distinctive rafter tails. None of these are affected by the proposed work. The site is impacted by the addition of the elevator tower to the rear of the residence at a later porch addition. It is beyond the main residence elevation and view corridor and is an incidental change.

Evaluation: The proposed Project retains the original portions of the residence and currently meets Standards 2, The removal of the non-historic porch addition at the rear to provide for the elevator access tower new addition do not contribute to or detract from the integrity of the original building.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

AA Response : No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings are included in the Project. Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 3.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

AA Response: There are no significant changes to the house that have become “significant in their own right” that will be affected by the proposed Project. Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 4.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

AA Response: The distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques associated with the Brown Shingle Style architecture will be preserved and restored. Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 5.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentation, physical, or pictorial evidence.

AA Response : Few historic features are impacted, and would be repaired rather than replaced. Any damaged and deteriorated features within the building that need replacement shall be replaced in-kind based on physical evidence.

Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 6.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

AA Response : No historic materials will be damaged by chemical or physical treatments during the proposed changes to the building.

Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 7.

8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

AA Response: There are no known archaeological resources within the project area. Ground disturbing activities include minimal surface grading and minor above grade concrete removal. Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 8.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 9.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

AA Response : The new proposed addition is undertaken in such that it is an indistinct addition to the historic structure. It will replace the poorly constructed and designed additions and will be undertaken to ensure compatibility with the original residence.

Evaluation: The Standards are not meant to prevent change – instead, they represent a sophisticated and nuanced framework for managing change. The Standards do not require that every feature of a historic property be preserved, but do seek to preserve the most significant, character-defining features of a historic site. Based on the current plans designed and submitted to the City of Tiburon by Daniel Hunter AIA, and dated 3/16/18, the proposed Project would not compromise the current local listing of the resource and would not impact its ability to convey significance if listed in the future on the CRHR.

The proposed Project complies with Standard 10.

Conclusion

We did historic research regarding national listing and reviewed design documents provided by the applicant. In our review we found no evidence to suggest the proposed work will adversely affect this historic property. Neither do we anticipated discoveries to change these findings.

We wish you well,

Wm. Mark Parry Architectural Historian Historical Architect

16 Based on the current plans designed by Hunter architecture ltd. dated March 16,2018 5

AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum

TO: Chair Owen and Members of the Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building DATE: June 12, 2018 SUBJECT: Application for Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License applications for the property located at 416 Golden Gate Avenue

Background/History

On January 8, 1990, the subject site and structures at 416 Golden Gate were given landmark status by the City of Belvedere. The historical significance of the existing garage/apartment was noted as its status as an original stable to the residence.

On December 6, 2005, the property owner and the City entered into a Mills Act Agreement, reducing property taxes for the property, commensurate with cost of maintaining the integrity of the historic residence.

March 14, 2007, the Historic Preservation Committee approved exterior modifications to rehabilitate the historic garage/apartment structure.

March 20, 2007, the Planning Commission approved the project which included the replacement of the existing cement fiber roof with wood shingles, the addition of a canopy over the entry, expansion of the existing exterior deck and staircase, installation of new lighting, painting the garage/apartment the same color as the existing house; and constructing a hillavator. In 2008, modifications to the approved project were approved.

In 2009, an Exemption was approved for roofing material modifications and other minor landscaping and lighting changes and in 2016 an Exemption was approved for fencing.

Project Description/Analysis

The applicant requests Design Review approval an Exception to Floor Area and a Revocable License for an addition to the existing residence at 416 Golden Gate. The proposal includes a new open carport and fence over the existing parking pad and an expansion of a kitchen terrace with a proposed roof structure over the terrace area. The proposed open carport is designed to provide support for a large oak tree that is adjacent

Page 1 of 3

to the overhangs the existing parking pad. The proposed open carport is designed as a freestanding structure. Both the open carport structure and the proposed roof covered structure over the terrace off the kitchen are similar in design and match the existing residence/structures currently on the property.

Historic Architectural Review

The Historic Preservation Committee shall use the following guidelines in evaluating an application:

1. The distinguished original qualities or character of a structure and its environment should not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 2. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a structure shall be treated with sensitivity. 3. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing structures shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical and/or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property. 4. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be made in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.

William Mark Parry an architectural historian has reviewed the proposed project to ensure conformance with the requirements of Title 21 of the Belvedere Municipal Code and in accordance with the Secretary of Interiors Standards Treatment of Historic Properties (see Attachment 4). Mr. Parry concluded that the house is

“An appreciable historic resource with exhaustive documentation of its significance and it maintains expert preservation, rehabilitation and restoration efforts. It is registered as a City of Belvedere Landmark. The proposed work is found to be in substantial conformance to both local and national standards of care for the treatment of Historic Resources. Although now eligible, it will remain eligible after the propose work is executed, but it is not currently on the National Historic Register.”

Page 2 of 3

Conclusion/Recommendation

City staff has determined that project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and is exempt from CEQA and is in conformance to Title 21 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Belvedere.

City staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Committee review the proposed project and recommend to the Planning Commission as follows:

1. The Historic Committee finds the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Historic Rehabilitation; and

2. The Historic Preservation Committee finds find the project consistent with Title 21 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.

Attachments

1. Project application & narrative/background information. 2. Plans stamped received March 22, 2018. 3. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation View guidelines at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehabilitation-guidelines.pdf 4. Historic Evaluation dated May 11, 2018, prepared by Artisan Architecture.

Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Project Address: ~~~~~~~~-~~-

APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW REC!::il/L~D CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 MAR 2 2 ?Drn PH. 415-435-3838. FAx415-435-043o. www.crrvoFBELVEDERE.oRG

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date: _3.._../_"2.:_il-..,.._./<...._;J__ Rec'd. by: _ __,,__~.....·--- Planning Comm. Approval '}3. l'SS"/-- " Design Review Exception 0 Amount: ------Receipt No.: _{)_·· _8_1_.'-f_~--- Staff Approval 0 Parcel No.: d '= 0 - -z..:z. .3 -=(( Zone: _ _,__A____ ;_~------

SECTION 1 • PROJECT SUMMARY

Does this project have an active building permit? No .!! Yes 0 Permit No.: _____ Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No .!! Yes O Address of Property: 416 Golden Gate AV. ______Record Owner of Property: John and Dawn Owen. ______Mailing same Daytime Phone: 415 .748.2328 Address: Fax: ~------Em a ii: [email protected]______Owner's Representative: Daniel Hunter. AIA. Agent for owner Mailing 420 Golden Gate Ave. Daytime Phone: .._(4:....:1=5.._)7.;....;8:;..;::9;..,..;-0=9=5=3 ______Address: Belvedere, CA 94920 Fax: .._.(4...... 1_....5),_7"""'8"""9'---9 ...... 5"""'1"""8 ______Email: [email protected] Project Description: This application has two components. A proposed new open carport and fence over an existing parking pad . This structure is designed to provide support for a large oak adjacent and overhanging the parking area. The parking structure is free standing. The expansion of the kitchen terrace and a proposed roof structure is the second component. Both designs are similar and use materials that match those on the existing buildings additions and decks on the site that are not a part of the historic original home.

Design Review Application• Page 1of9 •City of Belvedere

C:\Uscrs\hunter archi1ec1ure\Dropbo

ZONING PARAMETERS: Prescribed Existing Prouosed Lot Area ...... 15,000 sf. 12500 sf No change 23.7% 26% Lot Coverage ...... 30% d.~~-8 3361.f Total Floor Area ...... 4125 sf 33% 6161 sf 6488 sf Front Yard Setback .... O' at garage 6' No change Left Sideyard Setback .... 10' 37'-10" 22'-0" Right Sideyard Setback.... 10' 1'-3" No change Rear Yard Setback ..... 15' 6'-3" No change Building Height Maximum ... 36' 35' No change Building Height Average ... No change Parking Spaces ...... 3 4 No change

SECTION 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CEQA

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: 3.22.2018 General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: john and dawn owen 2. Address of project: 416 Golden Gate Avenue Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 060-223-11 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:same

4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: NA'------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: design review, floor area exception. revocable license 6. Existing zoning district: R-15 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): single family residential 8. Year built: 1890's Original architect: Willis Polk Project Description 9. Site size. 12,500sf 10. Square footage. 327 11. Number of floors of construction. 1 12. Amount of off-street parking provided. 1 13. Attach plans. yes _ 14. Proposed scheduling. Submit in april begin construction this year 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. Staging on existing carport . no mass excavation just drilling for 6 piers.

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

C:\Users\hunter arehitecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\416 golden gate APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW·loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

11. Number of floors of construction. ~ 12. Amount of off-street parking provided. 4, 13. Attach plans. yes _ 14. Proposed scheduling. Submit in april begin construction this year 15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. Staging on existing carport . no mass excavation 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 size expected. 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/A 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 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 II ground contours. 23. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. D II 24. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 0 II 25. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 II 26. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 0 II 27. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0 II drainage patterns. 28. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 II 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 II explosives. 31. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 0 II 32. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 0 II 33. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D II

35. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. _ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON LAND SLOPING TOWARD THE BAY WITH FULLY DEVELOPED GARDENS.

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

C:\Userslhunter architccture\Dropbox\I dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documcnts\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

SECTION 3 • ESTIMATE OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION

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.

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

Estimated cost of construction:$_ less than $500.000. Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project:

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

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

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

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

C:\Userslhunter an:hitecture\Dropbox\J dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

SECTION 4 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOURLY BILLING COSTS

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

C:\Users\hunter architccture\Dropbox\I dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

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

SECTION 5 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY

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

C:\Uscrs\huntcr architccture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\eity of belvedere documents\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

SECTION 6 • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS

Story Pole Requirement

Story poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.

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

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

STATEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATION, & DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

All property owners must complete this Section.

Street address of subject property: 416 Golden Gate Av. Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property:060-233-11

)- 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

C:\Uscrslhuntcr arcbitccture\Dropbox\I dhunterarehitcct\eity ofbelvedcr~ doeuments\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/12/2008 LC Project Address: ______

and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

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 entity.

I, 'j '6-lft_J 0 Ul~ 2- ~UAJ Ou.Jea) , 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.

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 B:!?" Califo~nia. Signature \)\Jlt,SJ~ Signature::~~•• ~J,1)\\Qv0 Title(s} ______Title(s}______

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

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

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

C:\Users\hunter archileclure\Dropbox\1 dhun1erarchi1ect\ci1y of belvedere documents\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIE\V-loaober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC Project Address: ______

> Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional)

I, , hereby authorize_DANIEL HUNTER - OWNERS AGENT 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 u til the d signation is rescinded in writing.

Date: ~.:. ~ '. ~l~

Date: c/!2 r2

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

C:\Userslhunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\CURRENT APPLICATIONS\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW-loctober 2008.doc Rev. 9/1212008 LC •'

Ma~ch 20, 2018 APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION MAR 2 2. 7n13 450 SAN RAFAEL A vE • BELVEDERE, cA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date: Rec'd, by: ,~ Amount: 1(.D Receipt No.: _a._8_(_'7._3__ Assessors Parcel No: tJ {,,,_e> 2-'l.} I I Zone: /2.. IC ------~~-~ ___,.,--...... ~------

II TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT II

Address of Property: 416 Golden Gate AV. ______Record Owner of Property: John and Dawn Owen ______Mailing same Daytime Phone: 415 .748.2328 Address: Fax: ------Em a iI: [email protected]______Owner's Representative: Daniel Hunter. AIA. Agent for owner Mailing 420 Golden Gate Ave. Daytime Phone: .....{4;....;.1"""5),_7'---8 ...... 9--'-0;;...;;9"""'5"""3 ______Address: Belvedere. CA 94920 Fax: ------~ Email: [email protected]

ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 4125 sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS: 6488 sq. ft.

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

1. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage, because: Both structures are essentially transparent as is the new fence above the 4' height

2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, because: The lot is steeply sloping and which minimizes the impact of the terrace which only about 1/3 the height of the house as seen from the street. The large oak and existing garage screen the proposed carport from a majority of viewpoints Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 1 of2 • City of Belvedere

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\416 golden gate Application for EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA2017.doc 3. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all Design Review criteria, because: The proposed additions have minimal impact on the mass and bulk of the structures when viewed from the parcel, the neighborhood and the district as they are not enclosed and lightly supported by slender columns. Many of the homes in the neighborhood appear to be much more massive and bulky. The additions are conceived and implemented as complementary structures to the existing home that are in character with the property and the neighborhood.

4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because: The kitchen terrace partially exists and is supported by the neighbors nearest to it. The proposed carport has no impact onprivacy of the adjoining properties.

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

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

6. That the proposed new construction is not a continuation, expansion, or subsequent phase of a project for which one or more variances were granted, which project was completed within two years prior to the floor area exception application, because: No variances have been granted within the two prior years.

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for approval of the exception as requested and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in t att ched exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Signature: ---~:f:==:=:~~~;;2~;;;;~---- Name: Daniel Hunter A

Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\416 golden gate Application for EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA2017.doc Project Address: ______

APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE ...... ,.. __ ..._rJllll1' RECEIVED CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 ~MAR22?ll18 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date: 'S(t'L.7-(rJ Rec'd. by: ~ Amount: '??>Cf,,_ Receipt No.: _:J:_:J_f_'{_S__ Parcel No.: I Zone: _ _....t:::::!_'i)t__ /'o ______City property to be encroached upon: _....;()ic;....;:µ>;;..__'2,.;_Z.._J_l._'I______

TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT

Address of Property: 416 Golden Gate Avenue. Belvedere. CA 94920 Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide Jot): Street right of way Record Owner of Property: John and Dawn Owen ______Mailing same Daytime Phone: 415 .748.2328 Fax: ______Address: Email: [email protected] ______

Owner's Representative: ...... H...... u ...... n ..... te ..... r.... a..... r..... ch.... i...... te ..... c..... tu ..... r...... e .... lt.... d ...... -----~D.... a...... n~ie~l .... H..... u...... n..... te~r~...... A IA...... A...... g e...,.n ...... t.... fo..... r_o ...... w..... n..... e ..... r Mailing 420 Golden Gate Ave. Daytime Phone: .._(4.:....;1:...;::5'"'")_,_7=89;:;..-..;:;0=9""'"53;::;______Address: Belvedere. CA 94920 Fax: ------Em a iI: [email protected] Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): rock wall. concrete wall. concrete curb trees, metal fence and gates, stone paving , garage and eave , eave of carport, landscaping

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

Revocable License Application • Page 1 of 7 • City of Belvedere

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitect\city of belvedere documents\416 golden gate APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 9123/2008 LC Project Address: ______

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

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

Date: 3.20.2018

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

C:\Users\hunter architecture\Dropbox\l dhunterarchitcct\city of belvedere documents\416 golden gate APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC f't:

g3 Hunter architecture ltd. 415.789.0953

~ 416 GOLDEN GATE t.tl scale: 3/32" date: 4.2.18 ~ (.!) z 0 4' t.tl 8' 16' § (.!)

~~;~~~~~~URB --..._1 FENCE

LANDSCAPING

""~" r-~1-~::; ~-

CONCRETE WALL OAK TREES

WOOD FENCE &GATE

STONEWALL

CARPORT EAVE EDGE OF STONE -...... __ DRIVEWAY

WATER METER STONE WALL

GARAGE

@ORTH

PARTIAL SITE PLAN-416 GOLDEN GATE AVE 3132· = 1· -o· / ,...... ,-(

Hunter architecture ltd. 415.789.0953

416 GOLDEN GATE scale: 3/32" date: 4.2.18

0 4' 8' 16'

CONCRETE CURB WITH METAL FENCE

LANDSCAPING

CONCRETE WALL

OAK TREES

WOOD FENCE &GATE

STONEWALL

CARPORT EAVE

EDGE OF STONE DRIVEWAY

WATER METER STONEWALL

GARAGE

PARTIAL SITE PLAN - 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE 3/32" = 1• - o· JOH.\i & D ..\ \\''.\OWE\ 416 GOLDEN GATE A \'E;-;L'E BEL VEDEl

Tuesday, :r-.fay 22, 2018

Irene Borba Planning Manager Citv of Belvedere 450 San Rafael A venue 2018 Belvedere CA 94920 2 4

Dear Ms Borba :

Reference : 416 Golden Gate A venue - the lV1oore House Design Re\'ie\\'

Dear Ms Borba and Commissioners :

416 Golden Gate Avenue was designed bv distinguished architects Willis and Dan Polk and constructed in 1893 as a summer c~ttage for Mr and Mrs Alfred and Florence Moore. On January 8 1996, the structure, one of the earliest houses in Belvedere, was granted landmark • • • designation by the City and the committee prepared the attached report \vhich gives much fuller details and history of the house.

When my wife and I acquired the prope11y in 1997, it was in a state of disrepair and barely habitable. It had sat unsold on the market for several years perhaps because of the daunting amount of work and cost involved to restore a historically registered house. With its landmark designation. demolishing the house was not an option.

However. we took on the challenge to restore the house as closely as possible back to it's • • • original state. Enclosed with this letter is a forensic analysis by our restoration architect in an effort to understand the evolution of the house and the process by which to restore the house in 1997. 104 years after it was first built. From 1997 to 2002. it was a labor of love for almost fi\'e years to complete the main house.

Our restoration process has continued with different phases for another 20 years - and it is not yet over.

In this two-decade journey. we have been suppo11ed by the Landmark Society initially by the founding chairperson Marty Gordon through to the current Committee. \Ve also received considerable help from the City of Belvedere - from Diane Henderson, City Planner, Engineer Lee Braun, City M:::nager Eel San Diego, and Dan Gale, Chair of the Planning Commission. We have always received and indeed been much encouraged by the City to preserve this house as much for Belvedere's history as well as an example of its architecture for the City's future.

At all stages and through numerous phases we have endeavored to honor the history of the building and complement the Polk brothers' design. We have worked with the best historical architects and used top craftsmen to ensure the structure was restored to the highest standard. We recognize that we are the current 'caretakers' for this house and will be leaving it to future generations of Be!vederians to care and enjoy. ....,

In 2006, it was time to renovate the Cottage (originally the stables). From initial discussions with the City Planner, we understood that the Cottage was not part of the landmark designation. Our architect began work. \Ve wanted to move the Cottage footprint within the setbacks of our ••• property to conforn~. Please see attached exchange of emails between ourselves and our architect where the Historical Preservation Committee overruled the Citv Planner's decision and insisted the Cottage be considered part of the Historic designation. ~

In our continuing effort to be good members of the community. we did not pursue the idea of demolishing or moYing the cottage and renonued it within its footprint. The Cottage was given its own street address,418 Golden Gate /we. by the City.

Now in 2018, we wish to improve the entrance to the property. However, the City now ad\·ises that our carport design has a setback on city property -- yet back in 2006 we had not been allowed to relocate the Cottage onto our land.

We are penalized fer 'doing the right thing' whichever way you look at it. Two decades and two opposing views.

Design of New Carpo11:

The original entrance to the house was from Bella Vista A venue. Golden Gate A venue was ••• originally a dirt trail behind the house. l am attaching a photograph of the cottage (originally the stables) taken circa 1894 - the cottage can clearly be seen in the background abutting the trail which later was to become Golden Gate A venue.

The cottage was built in 1893 at least three years before the City of Belvedere was established (1896). Subsequently, the City designated roads and Golden Gate Avenue was created (the earliest map is estimated to be around 1896). The road pushed up close to the cottage and it could be argued that the citv road encroached on our land rather than the other wav around! For over 120 v;ars there has be~n an encroachment of 6 feet into the right of wav. • - ~ - When the road was laid out the City surveyor obviously did not take into account the prevailing topography as houses on the block would need a 10-15 foot retaining wall to allow the road its designated 30 foot width. All houses (specifically 402, 408, 412. 416, 418. 420, 424 and 428) on the east side of Golden Gate have a 6-foot revocable setback.

lt is important to note the design of the new Golden Gate A venue entrance could not have been considered by Messrs Polk as Golden Gate A venue simply did not exist at that time.

So, our proposal for the final phase of our restoration work is to improve and consolidate the entrance to the house. Our considerations are to:

• provide an attractive street entrance to the house.

• provide cradle support for the oak tree at our entrance which is a feature of the street but in serious and imminent danger of collapsing (see separate letter from arborist).

+ provide covered car parking for two cars rather than take two spaces from the street (most of the year. the oak tree droppings prohibit the use of this space for parking).

+ increase fence height to prevent deer from entering our garden (temporarily this is done with unsightly plastic netting).

• provide concealed storage for green, recycle and garbage containers which currently sit unattractively in the parking space.

• replace the utilitarian and crumbling concrete parking area with visually attractive stone\'vork compatible \\'ith the stonework within the garden.

2 Our architect. Dan Hunter. has met this challens:e with an elegant design that answers these needs and enl~ances the visual presence of the p~·operty from the street ~while prolonging the life of a tree in danger of collapsing and damaging the cottage. His designs are in concert with the original Polk design of the house and will continue to provide a view through to the bay for the many 'walkers' who come to Golden Gate Avenue.

We respectfully request that permission be granted for the work that we wish to undertake.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

John and Dawn 0\ven

Enclosed with this letter are :

I. Historic report on Moore House 2. Forensic Analysis of the House 3. Copy of the exchange of emails between ourselves and our architect - January 2006 4. Archival photo of the Rey House with the Stables to #416 in the background atop a dirt road. of E

BELVEDERE LANDMARK DESIGNATION SURVEY FORM

fc;:owing criteria shall be used when considering sO"Uc:ures or sites tor ,a.ii< desigr.accn:

Architec:ure It ls an outstar.cing example cf a partic!.!iar styfe. ccr.sm.:ct1cn mettled or material.

Archltec:ure !t is cl.11'.star.Cing because cl age.

Architeoire It is clt'.stanclnc t:ec:!use lt is the work ct a sfcnifica11t arcnirec: er buifder. - -

Arc!'lltec:i..1re It is cutstandng l::ec:ause it is :he :irst fast. cniy er most sigrnlicarn archi1eo:ur.:J propeny cf its :ype in t."le city.

Desicn It r.as a unique or original design er demcns:rates out· standing craftsmanship.

Histcrv lt is assc<:fatec with a per.lcn, grouo er event significant to !he c."ty, state or nation, or shows broad c:.iitur.:J , pclltical, social, or ee:ncm!c µattems, er embodies and expresses Uie histt::ry cf !l':e C:t'/.

Envircr:mer:r It ccr.tril:U'tes to me c:-.arac:er ct tr.e street er !ieich !'Crnc.c-d area or has signmcar:ce as a visual lancmarl< owing fu rts uruc;ue !ocation.

lntecrttv It retalr.s most ct its original materials and cesign featt.:res. •

Natiqnal Recfster cf Hl.5tRric Places It is a site or sm.;-c::ure !lsted en the Nat:cnal Register ct Hlstcrtc F!aces.

416 Golden Gate Avenue

Mr. and·Mrs. Berton Jacobson

416 Golden Gate Avenue. Belvedere. Ca. 94920

Hill Crest rnon name ______

450 San Rafael Ave .• Belvedere, CA 94920 • TEL 415/435-3838 • FAX 415/435-0430 Page 2

Descriotion: Overall shape c! strl.lCtl.lre, No. ci stcries. sioir.g type. root sr.ape and matt:r.als. corm er wir.dows, ott:er w1~ patta type ano location, poi'Ch i:x decX type, orr.amentation, alterations. conclton, surrcuncmgs &. !a."ld~ing, condition ct property.

The Moore House was one of Belvedere's first homes, and began as a mccest one-story cottage with a picturesque half-timbered exterior. Describing it as "a rich collection of images", Richard Longstreth, author of On the Edge of the VVorld . notes that the cottage exterior "is a hybrid of an English cottage and a Swiss chalet, with a kitchen ell resembling a homesteader's cabin .... The house is symmetrical... and many of its details inspired by late Georgian work"(!)

Additions over the years enlarged the cottage to a three story home stepping down the hill. Two obvious alterations are the enclosure of the long porch to create a sun room on the view side; and, at the lowest level, the addition of an above-grade par tial basement across the front of the house. The roof of this addition provides a deck opening off the floor below the living room. From the street below, the addition ob scures but does not eliminate the chinked log base of the original cottage as well as the large brackets which support the enclosed porch.

The shake roof involves many steep gables accented by a brick chimney with a cap which echoes the roof's angles. A bedroom addition on the view side has a shed roof. Eaves are supported by ornate brackets. A variety of windows includes many of leaded glass with large openings toward the view. Several French doors lead to decks and outdoor areas, while a solid wood Dutch door under a bracketed canopy serves as the entrance. The color scheme is buff stucco with deep reddish brown timbering.

The house was built on a lot with sweeping views of Belvedere Cove, Corinthian Island and Tiburon extending to the east to include .A.ngel Island. Access to the home is through a lush, mature garden via paths and steps created vvith rock walls.

The garage at the road was probably once the stable mentioned on p. 3 of this report. It has a dark shingled base, with a half-timbered upper story which is now living quarters. The stuccoed area is painted a deep orange, but the archi tecture is consistent with the architecture of the house.

Historical information

Construction date 1893 Architect Willis Polk Daniel Polk

The house was built for Alfred Moore, president of the Pacific Mining Exchange, and his wife Florence Cornwall Moore. It was to Florence that Daniel Polk dedicated a charming rendering of the house, which he signed. The answer to who designed the house suggests that both Polk brothers were involved. ''In October 1892, Willis, his father and brother Daniel launched a new partnership, Polk & Polk ... Willis con-

(I.) Longstreth, Richard On_ ~b~ Edge of the...W.Qrld, p. 169, M.1.T.Press 1983 Page 3 trolled the design of projects. Daniel was a gifted draftsman who soon took charge of several minor commissions." (2) "He, (Daniel), had a hand in the Alfred Moore House in Belvedere" (3) The May 19, 1893 Sausalito News reports "Mr. and Mrs .. Alfred Moore gave a house-warming at their pretty home last Friday night. The house, one of the prettiest on the island, was designed and built by Dan Polk, the architect.."

Soon family quarrels split the firm and Daniel left to play the banjo in vaudeville. The elder Polk retired in 1896 and Willis continued the practice by himself. A Guide to Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California credits Willis with the first remodeling in !906. It is not known who was responsible for the subsequent changes.

In a written reminiscence of early Belvedere, the property is described: ... "on a rather small lot was Mrs. Moore's house. She was the daughter of a prominent old-time financier in San Francisco named Pierre Cornwall. She used to rent her house part of the year until her son married, then they lived there all the time. Mrs. Moore had once kept a horse and the stable was on the road , the lot being so narrow that it took up all but the walk to the house. The young Moores thus had room to put a car and 'Nere, I believe, the first people on Golden Gate to have one. She drove it her self and everyone thought her very daring (about 1910).'' (4)

Being midway on the old section of Golden Gate, 416 1Nas once the site for the road side befl used as a fire alarm and rung every day at 4:00 to aiert the children it was time to go home.

Subsequent owners of the house include George (Edward?) and Louise Stevens who sold to Theo and John Lord King ln 1948. In i950, they sold to Eric Pedley, one-time polo great, 1..vho subsequently sold it to Sterling Hayden. The Jacobsons have lived there for 19 years.

S ianificance and evaluation

I. lt is characteristic of a half-timbered country cottage, and is an excellent example of Polk's treatment of the type, in which "these dwellings contain little save basic accommodations as originally built , yet they are far from being ordinary ... They are rustic but refined." (I)

2. Jf is one of Belvedere's earliest homes, having been built in 1893.

3 It is the work of Willis Polk.one of the most distinguished practitioners of ar chitecture in San Francisco in the late 19th-early 20th century, as well as his brother Daniel. 7. It contributes to the character of the neighborhood, with its unique garage at the road and views open to the street for the enjoyment of vva/kers.

L~ngstreth, Richard .40n the Edge of the World, p. 91 n)\ '-' lbtd, p. 372 (4) Nan Reardon Boeck, from the Landmark Society archives recommends that this house be designated a Historic Belvedere.

A Gulde to ,t;rchitecture in San Francisco and Northern California, Page 206

Here Today. Page 315

Date of survey Seotember 10. 1995 and October 24. !995

Prepared by Roger Felton and Marty Gordon

Organization Preser;atiQn Committee_._ Citv of Belvedere

Any additional recoqnition:

Included in the Landmark Society's Historic House Tour in 1990.

-----Original Message----- From: John Owen L-'-'-'-'=~==="-'--'-'=-="'-'-'-"~"'"~-"''-'-'-'-0"~-'-J Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:53 PM To: Philip Rossetti Subject: RE: garage/apartment thoughts Philip

I spoke to Marty after you. I explained that we we just getting started and that was why you talked to her -- to make sure this is a collaborative process. I also reminded her that she had previously advised me that the cottage is excluded from the landmark designation because they were unsure of its provenance. However, whether under their control or not I reassured her it is our intention to collaborate with the Landmark committee at all stages. I don't think we need to worry too much at this stage -- let's just continue working on ideas. John

I just now spoke to Marty. She that the landmarks committee the first month so the next meeting is 7. ! relayed to her what the city planner had to me that we could remove the building, keeping roughly same footprint and rebuild it new. Marty was not happy that and said that the planner had given me misinformation and that the historic designation encompasses the property, not just the main house. However, she was certainly willing to see what we had in mind. We would have to show entire comm sketches the plans, site plan, probably materials colors as well. was concerned ahead of the process by having looked a new scheme already. I some at home just to see if I could make the design meet needs. We should talk about

Philip I

CITY OF BELVEDERE

NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Department has approved the following modifications to plans approved by Resolutions 2007-029 to 2007-031 granted by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2007 for property located at 416 Golden Gate Avenue and has determined that the changes are minor and insignificant and in no way defeat the objective of Section 20.04.020 of the Belvedere Municipal Code:

1. Removal of existing garage window on the south elevation: 2. Minor realignment of the existing steps east of the entry gate, pathway surface at east side of the building changed to gravel; 3. Removal of approved door at east side of garage; 4. Replace original door at the north side of Bedroom 2 \Vith a window to match existing approved windows; and 5. Replacement of the existing 20-panel rolling garage door on the street side with a v grooved panel door.

The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation of the CEQA Guidelines. The project received Historic Preservation Committee approval on September 2, 2008.

All plans submitted to the Planning Department regarding the above application are available for review at the Belvedere City Hall, Monday through Thursday. 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and l p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Any interested person may object to this determination by submitting written notice to the City of Belvedere, 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, California 94920, no later than 4:30 p.m. September 21, 2008 (postmarks accepted).

Date: _7_-_l_f-cl___,i,___ Design Review Exception is hereby granted with the following conditions:

1. That all construction and site improvements shall conform to the drawings prepared by Architectural Resources Group dated received by the City of Belvedere on July 21, 2008 and garage door detail received on July 31, 2008, with the exception that the fence is not approved because it was withdrawn by the applicant.

2. This Design Review approval does not include modifications or improvements to the subject property that are not listed herein. Other exterior changes not listed may require separate Design Review approval.

3. The project approval granted by the Design Review is subject to the original Construction Time Limit deadline, established at the commencement of work on the property pursuant to Section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.

4. All prior conditions of approval remain in full force and in effect.

ATTACHMENT 2

HLI nte r architecture It PROJECT DATA DRAWING LIST 415.789.0953 [email protected]

AO PROJECT DATA. DRAWING LIST, PROJECT DIRECTORY, VICINITY MAP, SCOPE OF WORK, PHOTOS ZONING: R-15 A1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN, STORY POLE PLAN LOT AREA: 12,500 SQ. FT. A2 PROPOSED CARPORT PLAN & ELEVATIONS ZONING PARAMETERS: A3 PROPOSED SECTIONS, FENCE & GATE ELEVATION

~ A4 PROPOSED TERRACE PLAN & ELIEVATIONS

FRONTYARD- E1 EXISTING SITE PLAN I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CARPORT 0'-0" NIA o·-0· GARAGE 0'-0" -6'-0" AT GARAGE N/CATGARAGE HOUSE 15'-0" 50'-5" AT HOUSE N/CATHOUSE

EAST SIDE YARD 0'-0" 1' -3)\" AT GARAGE N/C AT GARAGE PROJECT DIRECTORY WEST SIDE YARD 22'-0" 3r-10· AT HOUSE N/C AT TERRACE COVER REAR YARD 15'-0" 6'-3" AT HOUSE N/C AT HOUSE ARCHITECT: PROPERTY OWNER:

BUILDING HT. MAX. 36'-0" 35'-0" N/C DAN HUNTER AIA JOHN & DAWN OWEN HUNTER ARCHITECTURE LTD. 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. PARKING SPACES 420 GOLDEN GATE AVE. BELVEDERE, CA. 94920 BELVEDERE, CA. 94920 tel (415) 748-2328 WEST SIDE OF GARAGE SOUTH & WEST SIDE OF GARAGE tel (415) 789-0953 email: [email protected] 0 CD fax (415) 789-9518 FLOOR AREA: email [email protected]

TOTAL EXISTING: 6,161 SQ. FT. TOTAL PROPOSED: 6,161 SQ. FT. ADD COVERED PARKING 131 SQ. FT. ADD TERRACE COVER 196SQ. FT. REVISION TOTAL 6,488 SQ. FT. (51 .9%) SCOPE OF WORK ALLOWABLE: 4,125SQ. FT. (33%) 1. DESIGN REVIEW 3.21 .18 AT EXISTING FRONT DRrvEWAY AREA ADD NEW CARPORT W/ SKYLIGHTS. FRAME OPENING FOR EXISTING OAK TREE. ADD NEW LOT COVERAGE: WOOD LATIICE FENCE AND GATES. EXISTING STRUCTURES: MAIN HOUSE 2,372 SQ. FT. AT WEST SIDE OF EXISTING HOUSE, ADD NEW TERRACE WITH GARAGE I 2NO UNIT 596 SO. FT. WROUGHT IRON GUARD RAIL AND WOOD LATIICE BELOW. TOTAL 2,968 SQ. FT. (23.7%)

PROPOSED STRUCTURES: ADD COVERED PARKING 131 SQ. FT. ADD TERRACE COVER 265 SO. FT.

TOTAL 3,364 SQ. FT. (26.9%)

ALLOWABLE: 3,750 SQ. FT. (30%)

EXISTING (induding PROPOSED CARPORT: uncovered outdoor decks)*: 3,101 SQ. FT. (24.8%} PROPOSED {induding uncovered outdoor decks)*: 3,101 SO. FT. (24.8%) ALLOWABLE: 6.250 SQ. FT. (50%) 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. BELVEDERE, CA. " INCLUDES DECKS 4' • 15' ABV. GRADE (COUNTED 100%), AND DECKS >15' ABV. GRADE (COUNTED 50%) A.P.#: 060-223-11 DRIVEWAY LOOKING WEST DRIVEWAY LOOKING NORTH 0 0 APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES & ORDINANCES

2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Effective date 7-1-14} 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE And ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES and ZONING CODE

PROJECT DATA, DRAWING LIST, PROJECT DIRECTORY, VICINITY MAP, SCOPE OF WORK, PHOTOS

NORTH DRAWN: 0 KITCHEN TERRACE LOOKING SOUTHWEST 0 DRIVEWAY LOOKING NORTHWEST VICINITY MAP ~ ====~ DATE: MAR. 21 , 2018 AO

COPYR!GHT @HUNTERAAO«ll::CTURE. lTO.

THIS OOCIJMEHT AS~ INSTRIJMEHT OF SERVICE IS THE SOLE PftOPERTY OF Ht.HTER AAOirTtCTIJRE LTD. MO SHALl. REMAfj SO WHETHEA THE PROJECT FOR WHIOl rT IS tmHOEO IS OR IS NOT EXEatnO. THIS OOClJLfEHT SHAU. NOT BE USED ~ WMOl.E OR IN PART OH OTHER PROJECTS OR £XfENSJONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BYWRITTEN CONSENT OF HWTERARCHrTtCTIJRE. LID. Hunter architecture. It

415.789.0953 dhunter@hunterarchitect ure.co

412 GOLDEN GATE ~ 425 BELLAVISTA

0 ZGAS VALVE

iJ'.I ;:Jz ~ REVISION iJ'.I ~ 1. DESIGN REVIEW 3.21.18 ~ 8 PROPOSED----- 0 ~ ~t:;ORT( N @i I I I I I I PROPOSED CARPO RT: I I I I EXISTING~!ULTISTORY RESIDENCE I 416 GOLDE I BELVEDER~ GATE AVE. l 322.20 :~ A.P.#: 060-223-1.j CA. I I I l I I l I l I I I I I I 1, ' ... ___ _ PROPOSED SITE PLAN

NOTE: NOTE· NO CHANGE TO SURVEY INFORM ANTICIPATED R LANDSCAPE IS TOPOS PREPARE~T~~~ COMBINED FROM DISTURED IN KIND IF DU.Rl~~LACECONSTRUCTION DJSCRANTO . 420 GOLDEN GATE DOUGLAS J ~CSURVEYING DATE: APRlL 21 RANTON UPDATED MAY 17,• 2014, 2016 (NORTHS DRAWN: ARCHITECTURA IDE) FROM OWEN C L RESOURCES GR DATE: MAR. 21, 2018

ROOF PLAN A1 ~8~?1·P_oO· SEO SITE & 4' Hunter architecture It

415. 789.0953 [email protected]

------(E)GARAGE/ SECOND UNIT

~------1 x6 IPE OVER PVC SHEET ROOFING SKYLIGHTW/ mmm COPPER FRAME. TYP. DOWNLIGHT, TYP. 3x 10 BEAMS

i;: =;;;l=::§'§§~;:;:j:::§~~§§~./:;f:.::§~~~~~~---3!:!_~£1.0JRl'I._EL 333.50------..V ···- / >=~:;;::::::::;-~~:;;::::;---~--'1ij..__ ___c'\f--"''f'·'-...__6x10BEAMSW/ SHAPED ENDS '-+----UNDERSIDE- 1 x 4 V-GROOVE ~-!--+-- 6 x 14 BEAM REVISION 'I----.,-+---+--- 6 x 6 TUBE ~ STLPOST b WRAPPED W/ 1. DESIGN REVIEW 3.21.18 DnLJ ~ WOOD. TYP. +---i---t--li if------;+----. -----~Cfil% EL 324.10

EL322.2 LINE OF (E) GRADE

@ ~ ~~.~~SED ELEVATION I SECTION LOOKING SOUTH PROPOSED CARPORT: 4 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. BELVEDERE, CA. A.P .#: 060-223-11

PROPOSED CARPORT PLAN & ELEVATIONS

~ooo ODD

EL .1i1iL 324.34 LINE OF (E) GRADE 323 60 EL322.79 418 LIT HOUSE NUMBER · L IN SOLID PANEL DRAWN: EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELECTRIC STRIKE NEW LATTICE (E) GATE TO REMAIN, ADD FENCE DATE: SOLID PANELS AT BOTTOM MAR. 21, 2018 TO MAKE IT 6'-0" HIGH (E) FENCE (N) FENCE ( ' )

NORT'(g) ® ~4~~.~~SED WEST ELEVATION A2 2' 4' 8'

COPY'RlGHT @HUNTER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. THIS DOCUMENT AS ff! INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF HUNTER ARCHITECTURE LTD. A.'IO SHAU Ra.IAfi SO WHElHEA TH€ Pfi:OJECT FOR'MilCHITISINTENDEDISORlSNOTE.XEOJT'EO. THISOOCUMEKTSH.AU NOT BE tJS€O IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENSIONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY ~ITTEH CONSENT OF HUNTER ARCHITEClURE. LTO. Hunter architecture It

415. 789.0953 [email protected]

REVISION

1. DESIGN REVIEW 3.21.18 -

SKYLIGHT WI ro~~•-.ne.~ - 1 x 6 IPE OVER PVC PROPOSED CARPORT: :ET ROOFING\ Sx 10BEAM s\ - 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. UNDERSIDE- 1x4V-OROOVE / 1111 1111 BELVEDERE, CA 6x14BEAM wy A.P.#: 060-223-11 SHAPEDE ND HIDDEN GARBAGE AREA GATE SHOWN COPPER AS VIEWED DOWNS POUT STRAIGHT ON~ BEYOND, TYP.- ~ 6x6TUBE STL. Fr.='~~~:;:;=';~~~ POST WRAP PED ~ W/WOOD, TYP.- ~ 4x4WO.POSTW/ WOOD GA- ·- ~ BALL CAP TYP. - STEEL 1! 4 x4 LATTICETYP. BOLLARD :::. ! I~ PROPOSED SECTIONS, LINE OF (E) GRADE FENCE & GATE ELEVATION ® ~4~~.~~SED SECTION LOOKING_E_A_sT__ _ CD ~4~~.~~SED SECTION & FENCE ELEVATION LOOKING NORTH

4' s· 2' 4' 8'

DRAWN:

DATE: MAR. 21, 2018

COPYRIGHT@HUNT£R ARCHITECTURE. LTD. THIS OOCUMen' AS A."l INSTRIJUENT OF SERVICE IS TH£ SOLE PROPERTY OF HUNTER ARCHITECTURE LTD. AAO SHALL REMAIN SO WttE1HER THE PROJECT FOR'NHICH IT IS JNTENOEO IS OR IS NOT EXECl.ITEO. THIS DOCUMENT~ NOT BE USED JN WHOLE OA: lN PART ON OTHER F'R.OJECTS OR EXTENSIONS OF THIS PROJ£CT EXca>T BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF HUN1ER ARCHITECTURE. LTD. HLI nter architecture 11

415. 789.0953 [email protected]

(E) DECK & (E) HOUSE

GLASS SKYLIGHT WITH 3"X10" BEAM TYP. COPPER FRAME TYP.

EL 300.0 EL 300.0 TERRACE w 6"CONC. SLAB EDGE, TYP. .,,,~ 6"CONC. REVISION o_.-'o SLAB EDGE. ow TYP. --+---- LINEOF "'""' (E)GRADE 1. DESIGN REVIEW 3.21.18 EL 295.0 HIDDEN DOOR INLATIICE @ ~4~~.~~SED TERRACE ELEVATION @ ~4~~.~~SED TERRACE ELEVATION @ ~4~~.~~SED TERRACE ELEVATION 2' 4' 8' 2' 4' 8' 2' 4' 8'

PROPOSED CARPORT:

416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. BELVEDERE, CA. A.P.#: 060-223-11

PROPOSED TERRACE PLAN & ELEVATIONS

(N) 2 GAS INFRARED HEATER

'/ / / .... / _,'

DRAWN: G) ~ ~~.~~SED TERRACE PLAN 4 DATE: MAR. 21, 2018 2' 4' 8' A4

COP'r'R!GtfT@HUNTERARCHrrECTlJRE. LTD.

THtS OOCUMEffT AS~ !KS1RUMENT OF SERVICE IS nu: SOlE. PROPERTY OF HUNTER ARCH!TECT\JRE LTO. AHO SHAU. REMAIN SO WHETH£R THE PROJECT FOR 'M11CH IT IS INTENO£O IS 00 IS NOT EXECUTED. THIS cxx::ut.IENT SHAU. NOT SE USED JN l/IHOtE OR IN PART ON OTliER f>ROJECTSOA EXTENSIONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY VIR!TT£.°' CONSENT OF HUN"TER ARCHITECTURE, LTD. Hunter architecture It<

415. 789.0953 [email protected]

\ \ ' ZGAS VALVE

REVISION

1. DESIGN REVIEW

DECKABO\'E309.65'

PROPOSED CARPORT:

416 GOLDEN GATE AVE. MULTI STORY RESIDfu'ICE BELVE DE RE, CA A.P.#: 060-223-11

"'N ,,., "'N "'

"'N I I ~\."tDING 1 l'--~..L,--,-l"'---..L.Wlli..J--"'--- il EXISTING 1 FF323.90' 2 CAR GARAGE I s/e=~_E .1:'._N..!_T______SITE PLAN

NOTE: SURVEY INFORMATION COMBINED FROM TOPOS PREPARED BY:

DJ SCRANTON SURVEYING DOUGLAS J. SCRANTON DATE: APRIL21,2014, UPDATED MAY 17, 2016 (NORTH SIDE) DRAWN: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP FROM OWEN COTTAGE PERMIT SET DATE: DEC. 13, 2017 DATE: JULY 17, 2007

EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 2" 4" E1

ca>[email protected], LTD THIS IXlCUU£NT AS Nf INSTRUUEHT Of' SERVICE IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF H.IKTERARCHITECTUFtE LTD NIDSHAU.~ SO W£1l£R TME PROJECT FOR 'o'MICH fT IS INTEHOEO ts OR IS NOT EXECUTED. THfS OOCIJUENT 9W.l. NOT BE. USED IH VdiOC.f OR IN !'ART ON OlHER PROJECTS OR EXTaiSIONS OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT SY WRITTEN CONSENT OF HIJN'TER ARCHITECTURE. LTD ATTACHMENT 3

Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation

May 11th 2018

Irene Borba Director of Planning & Building 450 San Rafael Av. Belvedere, CA 94920

RE: 416 Golden Gate Avenue, Belvedere, CA

Dear Ms Borba;

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following findings regarding your efforts to determine the conformance to requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16U.S.C. 470f) and as amended through its implementation regulation found in; 36 CFR Part 800. As well as the City of Belvederes municipal code regarding modifications to historic properties chapter 21.3

Summary of Findings.

The Moore house is an appreciable historic resource with exhaustive documentation of its significance and it maintains expert preservation, rehabilitation and restoration efforts. It is registered as a City of Belvedere Landmark. The proposed work is found to be in substantial conformance to both local and national standards of care for the treatment of Historic Resources. Although now eligible, it will remain eligible after the proposed work is executed, but it is not currently on the National Historic Register.

Methods.

This study consisted of a national records search, and a review of background research provided by the applicant as well as a physical survey of the property and proposed work. Architectural design documents were also provided prior to the survey. The property survey occurred under clear and sunny conditions on April 25th at approximately 10:00 am.

Evaluation Criteria.

The City of Belvedere requires according to Chapter 21.24 that the applicant evaluate the project according four criteria of evaluation for modifications to historic structures. It is the findings of this survey as referenced in those standards that :

1. The distinguished original qualities or character of a structure and its environment where not destroyed. No removal or alteration of distinctive features is proposed.

2. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize the structure have been treated with sensitivity.

3. No contemporary design for alterations and additions to the existing structures destroyed significant historical and/or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property.

4. The new additions or alterations to the structures were made in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.

The following section addresses the proposed Project 16 within the context of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, as adopted by the City of Belvedere. The Standards are presented in black, and AA (Artisan Architecture's) analysis of the proposed project, as it relates to the Standards, is presented below in blue.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

AA Response : The Project maintains its historic use as a single family residence. Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 1.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

AA Response : The original portions and rehabilitated portions and additions to the historic property retain a high degree of integrity related to the historic character of the property that help convey significance. The character-defining features that remain on the building are unchanged.

The proposed work does not actually affect the main residence other than the addition of balcony and trellis structure to a later addition. These are at the rear of the structure and the entry portico and carport additions are to a the secondary structure the garage. The garage structure is not proven to be attributed the Polk design team, and in fact is not shown on the original Polk generated perspective of the property. Evaluation: The proposed Project does not adversely affect the original portions of the 1893 residence designed by Willis and Daniel Polk. The proposed work complies with Standard 2.

AA Response : No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings are included in the Project.

Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 3.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

AA Response: There are no significant changes to the 1893 house that have become “significant in their own right” that will be affected by the proposed project. These changes, not considered important to the integrity of the 1893 Polk residence, include substantive rehabilitation efforts permitted under building permit No.2000-95, issued on April 24, 2000. They where accomplished in such a way as to not adversely affect the historic features, remaining sympathetic to but distinctive from the historic character defining elements of the Polk designed Cottage.

Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 4.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

AA Response: The distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques associated with 1893 Polk residence and it's architectural details will be preserved. The new work does not adversely impact the historic home. The carport and entry portico impact the garage that has not been directly attributed to the Polk era of significance.

Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 5 .

AA Response : All historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Any damaged and deteriorated features within the building that need replacement shall be replaced in-kind.

Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 6.

AA Response : No historic materials will be damaged by chemical or physical treatments during the proposed changes to the building.

Evaluation : The proposed Project complies with Standard 7.

8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

AA Response: There are no known archaeological resources within the Project Area. Ground disturbing activities include minimal surface grading and above grade concrete removal does not impact as best can be determined by observation any historic elements.

Evaluation: The proposed Project complies with Standard 8.

AA Response: The proposed Project calls for the removal of a minimal amount of historic materials other than where new work interacts with the existing construction. The Project will preserve and restore or replaced “in-kind” the materials as they interact with the existing structure. Although the original historic structure is not actually impacted by any of the scope of work. Only subsequent additions are impacted. Evaluation: The proposed project complies with Standard 9

AA Response : The new proposed additions will be undertaken to ensure compatibility with the original 1893 Polk Residence design and be distinctively differentiated from it.

Evaluation: The Standards are not meant to prevent change – instead, they represent a sophisticated and nuanced framework for managing change. The Standards do not require that every feature of a historic property be preserved, but do seek to preserve the most significant, character-defining features of a historic site. Based on the current plans designed and submitted to the City of Belveder by Hunter Architecrue LTD. and dated 03/15/18, the proposed Project would not compromise the current local listing of the resource and would not impact its ability to convey significance if listed in the future on the CRHR.

The proposed Project complies with Standard 10.

Conclusion

We did preliminary historic research and reviewed historic document provided by the applicant. In our research and project review we found no significant historic evidence or suggestion in the records provided to suggest the proposed work will adversely affect this historic property. Our analysis of the proposed design we found no significant elements that would detract or diminish the significance of the property. The elements added are distinct from the historic property and easily reversible should subsequent restoration efforts be undertaken.

Neither do we anticipated discoveries to change these findings.

We wish you well,

Wm. Mark Parry AIA,CSI,SAH Architectural Historian

16 Based on the current plans designed and submitted to the City of Belvedere by Hunter Architecture ltd. and dated 3/16/18