CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

REPORT DATE: August 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 5 MEETING DATE: August 15, 2017 TO: City of Belvedere Planning Commission

FROM: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Irene Borba, Director of Planning and Building Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License requests to construct a new residence for the property located at 1 Belvedere Avenue

RECOMMENDATION The applicant requests approval of Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, a Variance and Revocable License applications to build a new single family home and attached carport. The application is included as Attachment 6 and project plans are included as Attachment 7. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTION 1 Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resource per CEQA at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment l); MOTION2 Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing single family dwelling and detached carport at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 2); MOTION3 Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for the property located at ! Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 3); MOTION4 Adopt the Resolution granting Exception to Total Floor Area approval to allow a total floor area of 7,233 SF, where 4,850 SF is permitted at ! Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 4); MOTIONS Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow 12 foot walls where 4 feet are permitted in the front setback at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 5); MOTION6 Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 1 Belvedere Avenue. PROPERTY SUMMARY

Project Address: 1 Belvedere A venue APN: 060-141-08 Project Applicant: Jeff Jungsten (Jungsten Construction) Property Owner: Susan G. Kelly Revocable Trust GP Designation: Low Density Residential SFD -1.0 to 3.0 units/net acre Zoning: R-15 Zoning District, Belvedere Island Existing Use: Single Family Residential

Site Characteristics: The project site is a 34, 129-square-foot, steeply down-sloping lot situated between Belvedere A venue to the east and City-owned lot on West Shore Road to the west. The property currently contains two buildings: a 2,814 square foot residence located roughly in the center of the lot, and a 400-square-foot carport that sits at the base of the driveway, above the house. The existing terrain is heavily wooded and traverses downward with steep grades.

ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED EXISTING PROPOSED Lot Area 15,000 SF 34,129 SF No Change Total Floor Area 4,850 SF 3,191 SF 7,233 SF 1,767 SF Structures 8, 181 (24% ) Structures Lot Coverage 30% Structures 3,524 SF Structures 8,897 (26%) Structures 50% w/Decks w/Decks w/Decks Left Side Yard Setback 10' 19' 16' Right Side Yard 10' 38' 13' Setback 88' Rear Yard Setback 20' 110'

Front Yard Setback 10' 21' 62' Building Height 36' 36' 36' Maximum Parking Spaces 2 2 5

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 2 PROPERTY HISTORY May 1963- Use Permit issued to rebuild house damaged by fire as per original plans. August 1974- Design Review approval for the removal of 16 Eucalyptus trees on vacant lot between 215 and 223 Golden Gate A venue. Application was filed by the property owners of 1 Belvedere. July 2012- Application received for Demolition, Design Review, Floor Area Exception and Second Unit Permit. The project proposed keeping some of the existing structure while constructing about 5,000 SF of new floor area by adding on to the existing two stories of the home. City staff contracted the services of Garavaglia Architecture to review the history of the existing residence. It was determined by staff that the project could not be exempt from CEQA because the "project would have a substantial adverse effect" on the property's setting, site characteristics, and the integrity of the design. A staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission review of the appeal of staffs' CEQA determination. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission directed staff to present the CEQA analysis prepared for the project to the Historic Preservation Committee for the Committees' review and recommendation to determine whether the property constituted a CEQA Historical Resource. July 2012- The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) held a public meeting and considered the materials prepared by Garavaglia Architecture. The HPC adopted motions recommending that in the opinion of the Committee and under CEQA, Aaron Green is not a master architect and that 1 Belvedere does not embody the Second Bay Area Tradition of architecture, and therefore the property was not a Historical Resource and a categorical exemption could apply for the project. The vote was unanimous. August 2012- The Planning Commission reviewed the same project, and staff recommended continuance so that the Planning Commission could review the building size and potential impacts prior to evaluation of the building and landscape design. November 2012- Planning Commission review and approval of Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Revocable license and Second Unit. The project included plans to partially demolish the existing home (more than 50%), and to construct additions to the existing home, for a total of 8,062 SF and approval of a second unit, CEQA exemption 15303. April 2014- Planning Commission review and approval of Design Review for the final landscape, including fencing, retaining walls, and a pool at 1 Belvedere. April 2014- City Council approval of a Revocable License for improvements in the right of way. May 2015- Planning Commission review of an extension of Design Review, Demolition, and Exception to Total Floor Area. The applicant requested an 18-month extension of the previously approved Demolition Permit for a new expiration date of November 20, 2016. This application was withdrawn prior to Planning Commission review.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 3 PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Design Review, Demolition, Exception to Total Floor Area, a Variance for retaining wall height and a Revocable License. The applicant proposes to construct a new 7,233-square-foot residence and attached carport. The existing dwelling and car port will be demolished as part of this application. Plans also include a major landscape renovation including removal of trees, new retaining walls, new parking area in the right-of-way and new landscaping throughout the property. The applications are included as Attachment 6. The proposed single family dwelling exceeds the allowable floor area on the property for the R-15 zoning district; therefore an Exception to Floor Area is required to allow construction of the new single family dwelling. A Variance to exceed the allowable height for retaining walls in the setback is part of the application. In addition, a Revocable License is required for the improvements in the right of way. Project Plans are included as Attachment 7.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Arclzitectural Style, Colors and Materials The applicant proposes a new Contemporary style two story residence with an attached five car auto court and carport. The proposed colors and materials consist of wood siding, wood decking, stucco and metal cladding. A color and materials board will be available for the Commissioners' review at the meeting. Site and Floor Plans The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story, 7,233 square-foot residence in the center of the lot, in a similar footprint of the existing dwelling proposed for demolition. The project, designed by Charles R. Stinson Design International, also includes new site improvements and landscaping, consisting of two decks one off of each level of the home, a new pool on the lower level and planting throughout the property. An attached five car auto court and covered carport is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the front entry, to provide parking and storage for the new residence. The auto court would be accessed from Belvedere Avenue via a new concrete driveway. The majority of the auto court, car port, and proposed dwelling will not be visible from Belvedere A venue. Plantings are proposed along Belvedere A venue to provide softening and partial screening of the car port and dwelling. The main floor of the residence includes 2,440 square feet and the lower floor includes 2,821 square feet. The carport and storage area includes 943 square feet and the covered lower level deck includes 1,029 square feet. The residence is proposed to be set 62 feet from the front property line, 13 feet from the right side yard, 16 feet from the left side yard and 88 feet from the rear yard. The main living floor will be comprised of the mud/laundry room, study, kitchen, dining, great room and the master suite. A large (1,200 SF) terrace is proposed off of the main living floor at the rear of the dwelling. The lower floor of the residence includes 2,821 square feet. The lower floor of the residence consists of four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a laundry room, mechanical equipment rooms, an exercise room and a 1,029 square foot terrace with a pool. The project also proposes an interior elevator in the house.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page4 The project as proposed conforms to the required development standards of the BMC in regards to meeting the required setbacks and height for the R-15 zoning district. RoofPlans The applicant proposes a flat roof with pavers. The roof will also incorporate solar panels and portions of it are proposed as a green roof. A clerestory roof is proposed to allow for light. Landscaping A Tree Protection Plan was prepared by Dr. Kent Julin (Attachment 9) that evaluated and inspected the trees at 1 Belvedere and makes the following conclusions. The property currently has 99 trees and there are 78 trees planned for removal that have reached the end of their utility at 1 Belvedere. According to Dr. Julin's report the removal of these 78 trees will promote the health of the native trees that will be retained.

In addition the report also includes a tree protection zone and tree protection areas that will be implemented at the time of construction. A condition of approval has been included to ensure tree protection be provided prior to any construction on the site. Landscaping must conform to both the requirements of the Design Review Ordinance and the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) Vegetation Management Standards. The TFPD requires that new houses comply with the standards for minimal defensible space and for specific vegetation requirements. All existing pyrophytic plant material will be removed from the property within the defensible area. Due to the steepness of the lot there are many retaining walls proposed with this project, a total of 16 walls ranging in height from 6 inches to 12 feet. There is one retaining wall proposed in the right-of-way that requires a Revocable License and a Variance. The wall ranges in height from 5 feet to 12 feet and will not be visible from the road. Two retaining walls are proposed to support the driveway that winds down to the auto court and car port. There are 6, ( 48 inch box) Coast Live Oaks proposed in front of the retaining wall to provide screening. Additionally, there are 32 more trees proposed throughout the property. Shrubs and perennials are proposed to be planted throughout the property as well. There are 2 side yard fences proposed in black, metal hog wire, 1 black chain link fence proposed at the rear of the property and a car entry gate is proposed at the top of the property to access the driveway. The entry gate is proposed in wood with concrete columns. The black chain link fence is at the lower portion of the property and will not be visible from West Shore or the adjacent neighbors. Design Review finding 20.04.140 discuses material and colors to be used. Use of unpainted metal, galvanized metal or metal subject to rusting is discouraged. The project proposed a painted black metal fence on a portion of the property that will not be visible. The painted, black metal fence is in compliance with finding 20.04.140. Other site amenities include a pool off of the lower living area of the house. Exterior Lights The plans propose lighting on sheet A600 that indicates there will be down soffit lights; however the elevations do not show where the down soffit lights are proposed. Sheet LlOl shows all the hardscape lighting, there is a total of 32 lights proposed on the path, stairs, driveway, auto court, entry steps and the entry gate. Staff had conditioned the project that the final lighting plan shall

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 5 be reviewed by the Planning Commission Chair and the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of building permit. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT REVIEW The proposed architectural design was reviewed by the City's Consulting Architect, Mark Sandoval. The consulting architect reviewed the project and concluded that with a few changes the project is in substantial compliance with the Design Review requirements of Title 20. The architect made the changes recommended by Mark Sandoval and they are reflected in the attached plans. His comments are provided in a letter dated August 2, 2017 (Attachment 8) and have been incorporated into the Design Review findings, where appropriate. DEMOLITION PERMIT:

Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19 .08.136 and Chapter 16.28, specific findings for a Demolition Permit must be made for the Planning Commission to approve the Demolition Permit. Provided below are staff's responses to the required findings to support the proposed Demolition Pe1mit. A Demolition Permit is required for the removal of the existing residence and carport. Staff suggests the findings for a Demolition Permit can be made. First, the project has been conditioned and designed as to avoid impacting the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the project will be required to adhere to the requirements for a Demolition Permit from the Building Department, such as preparing an Erosion Control Plan, and must comply with all Regulations from the Building and Fire Code. Adequate measures will be implemented during and after grading activities to provide adequate site protection and the project will be conditioned to identify how the project complies with State air quality requirements. Second, the proposed project will not result in the removal of a building which has been recognized as having historical or architectural significance. As noted above, in 2012 the City contracted the services of an Architectural Historian (Garavaglia Architecture) to review the history for the existing residence. The report indicated that the residence was potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. At that time, the project applicant appealed staff's determination that the project was not exempt from CEQA review because it was historical, based on the Garavaglia Report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal, and directed staff to present the analysis prepared for the project to the Historic Preservation Committee for review and recommendation. On July 23, 2012 the Historic Preservation Committee held a public hearing and considered materials prepared by the Architectural Historian. At the conclusion of the Committee's deliberations the Committee adopted motions recommending that, in the opinion of the Committee and under CEQA, Aaron Green is not a master architect and that 1 Belvedere A venue does not embody the Second Bay Area tradition of architecture, and therefore the property was not historical. The vote was unanimous. Additionally, staff recently consulted with the Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Chair reiterated the previous opinions/comments of the Historic Preservation Committee from 2012. The applicant has provided a Historical Evaluation of the property prepared by Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect. The report indicates that the existing house and garage do not exhibit architectural integrity, nor has Aaron Green been objectively identified as a master architect.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 6 Additionally, Mr. Hulbert notes that the existing house does not represent an example of the Second Bay Tradition. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Belvedere Housing Element due to the fact that the project proposed to build a single family home to replace the single family home demolished. Staff has determined that the required findings for the Planning Commission to support the Demolition Permit can be made and a Resolution has been prepared (Attachment 2). HISTORICAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Historical Resources: Bay way of background, CEQA categorical exemptions consist of classes of project that are generally considered not to have a significant environmental effect, and therefore are not subject to environmental review. (CEQA Guideline sections 15300.2(a)-(f).) For example, the demolition and construction single-family homes are categorically exempt. However, a categorical exemption may not be used ifthe project may cause a "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource." (CEQA Guidelines, § l 5300.2(f).) Here, it must be determined if the property constitutes a "historical resource". A house can constitute a historical resource in three ways: I) if it is included, or eligible for inclusion, in the California State historical register; 2) the property is listed in a local historical register; or 3) if the lead agency in its discretion determines that the property is a historical resource, regardless of whether the property is listed in a historical register. Here, staff finds that the property does not constitute a historical resource and therefore a categorical exemption is proper. The suggested determination that the property does not constitute a historical resource is based on the following documents incorporated herein by reference: I) the report of Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect of Preservation Architecture, dated July 31, 2017; 2) the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Mel Owen; 3) the information in staff report; and 4) the Belvedere General Plan, as follows: First, the subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing, in the California State historical register. Second, the subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing in the local historical register. In the City's General Plan Historic Resources Sensitivity Map, the property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" sensitivity. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Additionally, the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue, constructed in 1963, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register Lastly, staff suggests that there are not sufficient findings to support a discretionary determination that the property constitutes a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15064.5(a)(3) as indicated below: 1. The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage. The property is not associated with any historical events, nor any event relating to the broader patterns of California's history or cultural heritage. The home was designed by architect Aaron Green. While Mr. Green was a skilled architect, there is no objective analysis indicating that his structures are necessarily "historical" or that Mr. Green was a "master" architect. For

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 7 example, the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement ("HCS") does not identify Mr. Green, even within a section dedicated to Frank Lloyd Wright, who was associated with Mr. Green. 2. The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons that are important to the community's historical past. The property is not associated with the lives of persons important to Belvedere's past. 3. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. First, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Although the HCS identifies the property as a "good" and "clear" example of the Second Bay Tradition, it is not identified as "distinctive", which is required to for this finding. Additionally, the work of Mr. Green's office is not clearly associated with the Second Bay Tradition, but is rather is also considered "Wrightian" or "Organic". Moreover, the property does not have integrity. The surrounding buildings and landscaping have altered the intended orientations and views of the house, which views were integral to the design of the home itself. Additionally, the building's exterior condition is poor, and the interior has been completely gutted remodeled in the past. Second, as explained above and incorporated here, although the property was designed by a talented architect, there is no objective analysis or evidence to indicate that Aaron Green was a "master" architect. 4. The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. The property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, important historical or prehistorical information. Nor is the property representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. Explained above, the building is not a distinctive example of the Second Bay Tradition. Instead, the home has elements of a "Wrightian" style and an "Organic" style.

Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee Chair, Mr. Owen, also opined that the architect Aaron Green was not a Master architect. The Historical Preservation Committee agreed unanimously in 2012 that the Architect, Aaron Green was not a "master" nor was this house a distinctive specimen of his work. The Committee also found that, "1 Belvedere Avenue does not embody the Second Bay Area Tradition because it is not a high example of this style, but it does include some of the elements of such style .... " Tribal Cultural Resources: Recently the California Legislature amended CEQA to include "Tribal Cultural Resources" as a protected resource, similar to the category of"Historical Resources". As with a Historic Resource, now a project may not use a Categorical Exemption ifthe project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource. (See, Pub. Res. Code, § 21084.2; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15300.2(±).) However, ifthere are no Tribal Cultural Resources on site, a Categorical Exemption is proper. Therefore, the City must first make a determination as to whether Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page8 A Tribal Cultural Resource may include a variety of resources such as site features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. (Pub. Res. Code,§ 21074.) A Tribal Cultural Resource is designated in one of two ways: 1) the resource is listed in a national, state, or local register of historic resources; or 2) the City in its discretion determines the site contains a resource. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding, the lead agency may determine that a site contains Tribal Cultural Resources based on the following factors per Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1: ( 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Here, as explained below, staff suggests that substantial evidence in the record does not support a finding that Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property. Staff recommends that the City make the determination that no Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property, and that therefore a Categorical Exemption from CEQA is proper. The property is not designated as "high" prehistoric sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels defined as having a "medium" sensitivity are those that: • are located adjacent to parcels defined has having a "high" sensitivity; • parcels with the potential for submerged prehistoric resources; • parcels within 750 feet of a spring; • parcels having less than a 30° slope over 50% or more of the area; and, • parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Road when the adjacent slope is less than 30°. An archaeological investigation completed February 8, 2017 by ECORP Consulting, INC. Environmental Consultants resulted in a conclusion that no archaeological resources were identified on the site. Staff has prepared a draft resolution regarding No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources for the Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment 1). EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA

Pursuant to Section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code, in order for an Exception to Total Floor Area to be supported, the Planning Commission must determine: 1) that primary views from adjacent properties, and from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; 2) the subject parcel contains unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimizes the impact of greater floor area; 3) the proposed house structure is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel and neighborhood, and the zoning district, and that all Design Review criteria are satisfied; and 4) the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page9 privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Staff believes that all the findings can be made for the request to Total Floor Area to be supported. First, primary views from adjacent properties and from the street will not be significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The Code here protects "primary views" from significant impairment. The General Plan, p. 111, defines a Primary View as, "views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay and its environs, bridges, and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island as seen from inside the public or common areas of the home." Staff finds that as proposed, primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the proposed additional square footage. As noted above, the new home steps down the hillside and integrates well into the topography of the land. The home has been designed so that the majority of the windows will not impact the neighbor's privacy or views. The new house has been designed with the consideration of the neighbors. The project is appropriate in terms of bulk and mass for the site and the neighborhood. The home as designed steps into the hillside and is proposed in a similar footprint as the existing. Although the dwelling and car port will be minimally visible from the neighboring properties, the neighboring properties' primary views will not be significantly impaired. The proposed dwelling and carport are at least 15 feet from the neighboring property at 1 Pelican Point Avenue. Given the distance from the adjacent property combined with the fact that the adjacent property is angled towards the Golden Gate Bridge, the proposed dwelling will have no impact to the primary views of the adjacent property. The overall height of the structure will not impact primary views from the neighbor's property as the structure will not impact any views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay, bridges and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island. The dwelling measures 36 feet in height at the roof, and is a minimum of 15 feet from the adjacent neighbor. Moreover, due to the modest height of the dwelling and the distance to the adjacent neighbors in all directions, any Primary View would not be "significantly impaired" by the additional square footage. Additionally, the removal of the trees and cleaning up of the existing landscaping, may improve and or provide for different views from the properties located directly across the street as well as views from the street. Secondly, the site has unusual characteristics that minimize the impact of the additional square footage from the larger dwelling. Specifically, the lot is approximately 34,129 square feet which is more than double the required square footage for residential lots located within the R-15 Zoning Classification and the project site has rather steep topography. The project site is large enough to accommodate the additional floor area. Third, the project, including the proposed dwelling and car port, is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel and neighborhood, and the zoning district, and that all Design Review criteria are satisfied. The architectural elements incorporated into the exterior of the single-family residence and carport will be appropriate to the existing design of the property and will not create a sense of mass or bulk and will comply with the zoning requirements of the R-15 Zoning Classification. Lastly, the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Specifically, the proposed single-family residence is located within the central portion of a rather steep graded residential lot. The incorporation of landscaping, fencing and retaining walls will not result in a substantial impact of privacy that otherwise would be available for residents of the adjoining properties.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 10 Staff recommends that the findings for Exception to Total Floor Area can be made, as established in the Resolution included in Attachment 3. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The Design Review findings, specified in Belvedere Municipal Code Title 20, state that all new structures and additions should be designed to avoid excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to, and fit in, with others in the neighborhood and should not attract attention to themselves. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. Landscaping should also soften and screen structures and maintain privacy. The project includes the proposal of a new 7 ,233 square foot single family dwelling and associated site improvements. The house is designed to be unobtrusive and minimally visible from the street. The lot is very large and steep; the house has been designed to address the site characteristics of the lot. The house is designed to step down the hillside, creating different living and outdoor areas working with the steepness of the land. The house as designed fits in and relates to the other dwellings in the neighborhood. A 1,200 SF terrace is proposed off the main living floor of the home. Staff has added a condition of approval to reduce the perpendicular projection of the terrace from the house. The terrace appears to stick out from the house, creates unnecessary bulk and mass and could be designed to run more parallel to the structure. However, as conditioned, the terrace is now appropriate in bulk and mass. The proposed exterior materials will blend in with the neighborhood, as there is a mix of modem and traditional homes in the vicinity. The house has been designed with vertical and horizontal elements to avoid monotony. Landscaping at the front and side property lines will help soften the appearance of the new home from the street and from adjacent parcels. Staff recommends that the findings for Design Review can be made, as established in the Resolution included in Attachment 4. VARIANCE - RETAINING WALL HEIGHT The applicant requests Planning Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from Section 19 .48 .190 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to exceed the maximum allowable height of a retaining wall in the setback. The maximum allowable height is 4 feet in the setback. As proposed, the applicant is requesting maximum of 12 feet. Staff supports granting the Variance. First, the granting of a Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege to allow for a 12 foot retaining wall because the project will allow the property owners to enjoy a parking area similar to those in the vicinity and the same zoning district. Given the excessive size of the lot and the fact that the Fire Department is requiring access to the lot in case of an emergency, the height of the retaining wall is dictated by the slope of the lot. The height of the retaining wall will not be visible from the street and granting a Variance is diminimus and would not be considered a special privilege. Second, as noted above, the unusual circumstances of the property include its steep slope and unusually large lot size. Finally, the granting of the Variance for retaining wall height will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, as all construction will be governed by the uniform

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 11 Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts. Staff can make the required findings as included in the Draft Resolution (Attachment 3) for the Variance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations. On August 8, 2017 the proposed project was determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3(a) because the proposed project consists of construction of one single family residence in a residential zone. Additionally, the project is also exempt from CEQA by the Common Sense Exemption CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). City action is required by October 8, 2017, or the project may be deemed approved. The City has determined that the project is minor and insignificant in scope and conforms to the Design Review criteria of Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as explained below. As explained in detail above, CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource. Here a categorical exemption is appropriate because there is no possibility that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site. An Archaeological Survey Report was prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. The report concluded that the no cultural material or midden soil was observed. The subject property is categorized as a Medium Sensitivity site for Tribal Cultural Resources. The project is also exempt from CEQA by the Common Sense Exemption. If it can be seen with certainty that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it is exempt from CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).) Here, a Cultural Resources Evaluation was done by Archeological Resource Service and concluded that there is a negative result for artifacts and potentially significant cultural resources. Therefore, there is no possibility that any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site would be adversely affected. The property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Additionally, the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue, constructed in 1963, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. As explained above, staff finds that the property is not historic under CEQA, nor eligible for listing in the local historic register. The discussion regarding CEQA historical issues is incorporated here by reference.

REVOCABLE LICENSE In accordance with Section 272.05 the City's Administrative Procedures Manual, a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-way may be granted at the discretion of the City Council, provided any proposed encroachment into the right-of-way complies with the Design Review requirements of Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the City Council to grant a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-way include, but are not limited to, the following:

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 12 a. Where necessary to provide pedestrian or vehicular access from private property to the adjacent public street; b. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit landscaping to be installed that the City determines will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape; c. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit the creation of an uncovered off-street parking area, and will thereby relieve parking or traffic congestion on the adjacent City street; d. Where the public right-of-way will be used to construct retaining walls, drainage structures or other facilities that the City considers necessary to protect or maintain the public infrastructure; and/or; e. Where appropriate to validate already existing private improvements in the public right­ of-way for the purpose of shifting the City's potential liability for injuries and damages to the private property owners using the right-of-way for private purposes. f. Where fencing is proposed on city property, with the exception of where said fencing would be located on a very steep slope & would serve as a safety measure for vehicles & pedestrians said fencing shall normally be avoided as this effectively turns public property into private property & potentially creates the unwanted image of a "tunnel effect" along our city streets. Currently, there is no Revocable License that has been executed for this property. The project proposes improvements in the right of way, including, steps, retaining walls, and landscaping. The improvements proposed in the right of way seem reasonable to provide access to the home for pedestrians as well as vehicles. Additionally, the proposed retaining walls and stairs will provide a parking area so that in the case of an emergency, the Fire Department can access the new dwelling. CORRESPONDENCE A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, Staff has received comments from Richard Wodehouse, representing the property owner, Philip Moffit at 1 Pelican Point. Mr. Moffit is concerned with the location of the carport. Staff has received letters of support from Bill and Betty Hasler (102 Golden Gate), Todd Chaffee (39 Belvedere Avenue), and Clark and Sharon Winslow (337 Belvedere Avenue). Staff has also received a letter from Daniel Ruark, Architect and former Associate of Aaron Green. Mr. Ruark sent a letter with information pertaining to the original architect of the existing home, Aaron Green and another from Paul Turner, with additional information on the architect. Other letters have been received from Pam Eldred Hayden and Craig Eldred (family members of the original owners). Any additional correspondence received after the writing of this report will be provided to the Commission for consideration. CONCLUSION Staff can make all of the required findings for the Demotion, Design Review Pe1mit, Exception to Total Floor Area and Variance applications and recommends approval of the Revocable License to the City Council.

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 13 RECOMMENDATION MOTIONl Adopt the Resolution granting No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources per CEQA at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 1). MOTION2 Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition of the existing single family dwelling and detached garage at 1 Belvedere A venue (Attachment 2). MOTION3 Adopt Resolution granting Design Review approval for a new single family dwelling and attached car port at the property located at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 3). MOTION4 Adopt Resolution granting Exception to Total Floor Area to allow 7,233SF where 4,850 SF is permitted for the property located at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 4). MOTIONS Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow a 12 foot in height retaining wall where 4 feet is permitted at 1 Belvedere Avenue (Attachment 5). MOTION6 Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 1 Belvedere Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Draft Resolution for No Historical or Tribal Resource Attachment 2: Draft Resolution for Demolition Attachment 3: Draft Design Review Resolution Attachment 4: Draft Resolution for Exception to Total Floor Area Attachment 5: Daft Resolution for a Variance for Retaining Wall Height Attachment 6: Project Applications Attachment 7: Project Plans Attachment 8: Report from Mark Sandoval (Consulting Architect). Attachment 9: Report from Dr. Kent Julin Attachment 10: FAR Chart Attachment 11 : Correspondence

1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Page 14 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE FINDING, UNDER CEQA, NO HISTORICAL RESOURCES OR TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES AT THE PROPERTY AT 1 BELVEDERE AVENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 3,191-square-foot single family residence, with a detached carport, built in 1963 at 1 Belvedere; and WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical or cultural tribal resource; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2017, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the requested Demolition Permit and associated project, and heard and considered evidence on the potential historic resource value of the subject property and the potential for tribal cultural resources to exist on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings suggested by staff in the staff report and adopted by the Commission herein, and based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that, under CEQA, the subject property does not constitute a historical resource and that substantial evidence does not exist that tribal cultural resources exist on the subject property; and WHEREAS, because the property does not constitute a CEQA historical or tribal cultural resource, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on historical or cultural tribal resources, and a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15303 is proper; and WHEREAS, the demolition and associated building project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby find that the subject property does not constitute a historical resource based on the following documents incorporated herein by reference: 1) the report of Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect of Preservation Architecture, dated July 31, 2017; 2) the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Mel Owen; 3) the information in staff report; and 4) the Belvedere General Plan, as follows: A. The subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing, in the California State historical register. B. The subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing in the local historical register.

ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 2017- August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere Avenue Page - 2 -

In the City's General Plan Historic Resources Sensitivity Map, the property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" sensitivity. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Additionally, the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue, constructed in 1963, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register C. In its independent discretion the Planning Commission determines that the subject property does not constitute a historical resource under CEQA Guideline section 15064.5(a)(3) based on the following documents incorporated herein by reference: 1) the report of Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect of Preservation Architecture, dated July 31, 2017; 2) the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Mel Owen; 3) the information in staff report; and 4) the Belvedere General Plan. 1. The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage. The property is not associated with any historical events, nor any event relating to the broader patterns of California's history or cultural heritage. The home was designed by architect Aaron Green. While Mr. Green was a skilled architect, there is no objective analysis indicating that his structures are necessarily "historical" or that Mr. Green was a "master" architect. For example, the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement ("HCS") does not identify Mr. Green, even within a section dedicated to Frank Lloyd Wright, who was associated with Mr. Green. 2. The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons that are important to the community's historical past. The property is not associated with the lives of persons important to Belvedere's past. 3. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. First, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Although the HCS identifies the property as a "good" and "clear" example of the Second Bay Tradition, it is not identified as "distinctive", which is required to for this finding. Additionally, the work of Mr. Green's office is not clearly associated with the Second Bay Tradition, but is rather is also considered "Wrightian" or "Organic". Moreover, the property does not have integrity. The surrounding buildings and landscaping have altered the intended orientations and views of the house. Additionally, the building's exterior is poor, and the interior has been completely remodeled. Second, as explained above and incorporated here, although the property was designed by a talented architect, there is no objective analysis or evidence to indicate that Aaron Green was a "master" architect. 4. The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. The property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, important historical or prehistorical information. Resolution 2017- August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page - 3 -

Nor is the property representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. Explained above, the building is not a distinctive example of the Second Bay Tradition. Instead, the home has elements of a "Wrightian" style and an "Organic" style.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby find, relative to Tribal Cultural Resources, based on the findings in the staff report incorporated herein that the property located at 1 Belvedere Avenue does not constitute or contain Tribal Cultural Resource pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21083.2) in that: 1. The property is not designated as "high" prehistoric sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels defined as having a "medium" sensitivity are those that: • are located adjacent to parcels defined has having a "high" sensitivity; • parcels with the potential for submerged prehistoric resources; • parcels within 750 feet of a spring; • parcels having less than a 30° slope over 50% or more of the area; and, • parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Road when the adjacent slope is less than 30°. 2. An archaeological investigation completed February 8, 2017 by ECORP Consulting, INC. Environmental Consultants resulted in a conclusion that no archaeological resources were identified on the site.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on August 15, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED:

Acting Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST: ______Alison Foulis, City Clerk CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO 2017 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,191-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED CARPORT LOCATED AT 1 BELVEDERE AVENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 3, 191-square-foot single family residence, with a detached car port built in 1963 at 1 Belvedere A venue; and WHEREAS, the demolition project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at its August 15, 2017 regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and determined that the subject property did not constitute a Historical Resource nor did the property contain or constitute Tribal Cultural Resources under CEQA, based on the findings, determinations, and information contained in the "No Historical Resource" resolution for this Project, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Permit on August 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the findings specified in section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of an existing 3, 191-square-foot single-family residence with detached car port at 1 Belvedere A venue, with the following conditions: a) The property owners shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to, or arising from, the granting of this Demolition approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. b) All requirements of the Building Official shall be met. A permit for demolition must be issued by the Building Department before the commencement of work.

ATTACHMENT 2 Resolution 201 7 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page2

c) All work shall be completed within two weeks of the commencement of demolition unless deconstruction methods are used in which case 12 weeks is permitted. "Commencement of demolition" shall mean the date of the issuance of the building pe1mit for demolition or a start date specified in written correspondence from the property owner and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit for demolition. d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right-of-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager. e) Obstruction or blockage, partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, shall not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance shall be required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets shall be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each workday. f) Demolition shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Demolition is prohibited on City holidays except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. The City Manager is urged to impose a very high-level of scrutiny in the determination of "special circumstances." g) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work. h) All requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) shall be met. i) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations. j) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit for review and approval an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/-/media/ Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009 .pdf Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page 3

k) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with State air quality requirements related to the control of dust generated by the demolition and construction, and prepare a plan for the re-use and recycling of demolition materials. 1) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. m) In the event that archeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on August 15, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:

Acting Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Exhibit A Page 1 DEMOLITION FINDINGS Given that the existing residence and car port are proposed to be demolished, a Demolition Permit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.08.136 and Chapter 16.28. BMC Section 19.08.136, defines Demolition as "the razing of a building, removal of a dwelling unit, or the removal of more than fifty percent of the total exterior wall and roof area from the grade up .... Removing a residential second unit or converting a duplex into a single unit is considered demolition." The following findings address the demolition of both the main residential unit and the second unit. In approving the Demolition Permit, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. That the demolition, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City; The proposed demolition will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the demolition must satisfy the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department, and must also comply with all Building and Fire Code regulations. Further, staff finds that, with a condition of approval stating that the applicant demonstrates compliance with State air quality requirements, this demolition project would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City. B. That the demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed; The subject property does not constitute a building of recognized historical of architectural significance based on the following documents incorporated herein by reference: 1) the report of Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect of Preservation Architecture, dated July 31, 2017; 2) the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Mel Owen; 3) the information in staff report; and 4) the Belvedere General Plan, as follows: 1. The subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing, in the California State historical register. 2. The subject property is not listed, nor eligible for listing in the local historical register. In the City's General Plan Historic Resources Sensitivity Map, the property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" sensitivity. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Parcels with this designation include those with structures between 45 and 100 years of age and those with an unknown construction date, and not previously listed as a historic resource. The Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Exhibit A Page 2 residence at 1 Belvedere A venue, was constructed in 1963. The overall structure is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. Based on the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) discussions in 2012 and findings of the previous projects proposed at this site, the conclusion of the HPC in 2012, the General Plan map, the correspondence with Mr. Owen and the report prepared by Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect, the existing structures do not have architectural significance. In accordance with General Plan Preservation Policy 2.1.3, an assessment was completed to determine if there is any evidence to suggest that the property at 1 Belvedere A venue is eligible for listing. Staff consulted with Mr. Mel Owen, Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee (HPC), It is Mr. Owen's opinion that the property does not meet the criteria used by the HPC for designation, and he concluded by stating that he does not find that the HPC would consider 1 Belvedere Avenue for designation as a local historic landmark. Additionally, Mr. Owen found that the architect Aaron Green was not a Master architect, , and the HPC agreed unanimously that the Architect, Aaron Green was not a "Master" nor was this house a significant specimen of his work. The other finding was: " ... that 1 Belvedere Avenue does not embody the Second Bay Area Tradition because it is not a high example of this style, but it does include some of the elements of such style ... " Based on this assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that the residence at 1 Belvedere A venue is of recognized historical or architectural significance. 3. In its independent discretion the Planning Commission determined that the subject property does not constitute a historical resource under CEQA Guideline section 15064.5(a)(3) based on the following documents incorporated herein by reference: 1) the report of Mark Hulbert, Preservation Architect of Preservation Architecture, dated July 31, 2017; 2) the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee, Mr. Mel Owen; 3) the information in staff report; and 4) the Belvedere General Plan. a. The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage. The property is not associated with any historical events, nor any event relating to the broader patterns of California's history or cultural heritage. The home was designed by architect Aaron Green. While Mr. Green was a skilled architect, there is no objective analysis indicating that his structures are necessarily "historical" or that Mr. Green was a "master" architect. For example, the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement ("HCS") does not identify Mr. Green, even within a section dedicated to Frank Lloyd Wright, who was associated with Mr. Green. Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere Avenue Exhibit A Page 3 b. The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons that are important to the community's historical past. The property is not associated with the lives of persons important to Belvedere's past. c. The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high aiiistic values. First, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Although the HCS identifies the property as a "good" and "clear" example of the Second Bay Tradition, it is not identified as "distinctive", which is required to for this finding. Additionally, the work of Mr. Green's office is not clearly associated with the Second Bay Tradition, but is rather is also considered "Wrightian" or "Organic". Moreover, the property does not have integrity. The surrounding buildings and landscaping have altered the intended orientations and views of the house. Additionally, the building's exterior is poor, and the interior has been completely remodeled. Second, as explained above and incorporated here, although the property was designed by a talented architect, there is no objective analysis or evidence to indicate that Aaron Green was a "master" architect. d. The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. The property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, important historical or prehistorical information. Nor is the property representative of distinctive characteristics of historical or architectural significance. Explained above, the building is not a distinctive example of the Second Bay Tradition. Instead, the home has elements of a "Wrightian" style and an "Organic" style. C. That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for adequate site protection during and following the demolition. The plan presented in the application, and as conditioned, would provide adequate site protection during and following the demolitions. The applicant states that this material will be hauled off site in 280 cubic yard debris boxes and an erosion control plan will be put in place. Demolition is expected to take three weeks to complete. D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable. The applicant's estimated three-week time frame for accomplishing the demolitions is reasonable. Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Exhibit A Page4

E. That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining housing on the property have been thoroughly considered. A housing unit would be removed as part of this application; however a new housing unit would be constructed in its place. Therefore, no reduction in housing units will result from this project. F. The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere Housing Element. The demolition of the existing residence will not have a substantial impact on the availability of housing units in Belvedere and is consistent with the goals of the Belvedere Housing Element. CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A NEW HOUSE AND ATTACHED CARPORT AT 1 BELVEDERE AVENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code for a new house, carport and other associated site improvements at 1 Belvedere Avenue; and WHEREAS, the project been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction; and WHEREAS, CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource. Here a categorical exemption is appropriate because there is no potential that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site. Here, a Cultural Resources Evaluation was done by ECORP Consulting Inc. Environmental Consultants and concluded that no archaeological resources were identified on the property. Therefore, there is no possibility that any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site would be adversely affected The property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. "Medium" sensitivity structures are those between 45 and 100 years of age, those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource. Additionally, the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue, constructed in 1963, is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state or local register. Additionally, the property does not constitute a CEQA historic resource, based on the findings, determination, and information contained in the associated "No Historic Resource" resolution for this Project, incorporated herein by reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing on August 15, 2017 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Design Review criteria specified in Section 20.04.005 and 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.

ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere Avenue Page2

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to build a new house and garage with the following conditions: a) The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action with counsel acceptable to the City in its discretion, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. This approval is conditioned upon the accuracy of all facts stated in the application and supporting documents. b) Construction shall conform to the drawings prepared by Charles R. Stinson Design International, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on July 25, 2017. At time of building permit the main floor terrace shall be reduced in size by 100 square feet, removing a portion of the terrace that runs perpendicular to the house. c) Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager d) The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) for conformance with the District's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) prior to issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed landscape plans comply withMMWD. e) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit including but not limited to : • Vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2. • The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2. • Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2. l 0. • The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD. CFC 304.1.2. • The fire pit shall comply with TFPD Policy 423.9. Resolution 201 7 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page 3

f) All requirements of Public Works shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit including but not limited to: g) An updated Revocable License will be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way and easements. h) A Geotechnical Investigation or geotechnical review letter is required. The geotechnical investigation/letter should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review the proposed Grading & Drainage Plans for conformance with their recommendation prior to Building Permit issuance. i) The project will require a video recording of the condition of the haul route pavement. The applicant will be responsible for any damage to the roadway or other improvements along the haul route caused by the removal or delivery of materials by truck. A deposit will be required should the roadway not be repaired to the satisfaction of the City. The deposit amount (estimated range from $10,000 to $30,000) will be determined at the time of the Building Permit review.

j) A Geotechnical Investigation is required. The geotechnical investigation should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review the proposed Grading & Drainage Plans for conformance with their recommendation prior to Building Permit issuance.

k) Topographic Survey information shall be included either on the site plan or on a separate plan. The basis for determining elevations (assumed, NGVD, or NAVD) should also be clearly indicated. The surveyor's name and license number shall be included. 1) The project requires a Site Plan showing the property line locations (referencing the survey source and mapping information), any existing easements, building setbacks, encroachments etc. m) The project will require a detailed Grading Plan & Drainage Plan showing cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County. This can be found at the following website: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/F iles/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/GuidanceforApplicantsv 2508.pdf n) Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by City of Belvedere municipal code Section 8.36.090 D., permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual. Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page 4

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

p) The project will include soil disturbance during construction and applicants therefore must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. See the following link for the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Applicant Package, revised November 2015: http://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/pw/mcstoppp/development /mcstoppp-erosion-and-sediment-control-plan-applicant-package.pdf?la=en q) All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and the Director of Planning and Building. The final lighting plan shall clearly indicate the quantity, location and type of exterior light fixtures. r) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and Director of Planning and Building. s) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager, for review and approval, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official. t) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans. u) Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. v) Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established for this project. w) In the event unanticipated archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken. x) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings. y) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the property. z) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property owner shall demonstrate compliance with State/BAAQMD air quality requirements related to the dust generated by grading and construction. Resolution 2017 - August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page 5

aa) Prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall provide an elevation survey prepared by a licensed surveyor to the Building Department indicating the height of the new residence. bb) Prior to approval of the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall stake the comers of the foundation (with offset) and shall submit a survey of the foundation stakes to include the boundaries of the property. cc) Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by the City of Belvedere Municipal Code Section 8.36.090 D., Permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on August 15, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED:

Acting Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk Resolution 2017- 1 Belvedere A venue August 15, 2017 Exhibit A Page 1 Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. The existing landscaping has been neglected for many years, it is unkempt and weedy. The existing tees consist of ornamental varieties as well as native trees to Belvedere. A Tree-Protection Plan was prepared by Dr. Kent Julin, ISA Certified Arborist. There are 78 trees proposed for removal with this project and there are 99 trees total on the property. The trees proposed for removal range in diameter at breast height from 6 inches to 60 inches. According to Dr. Julin the 78 trees proposed for removal have reached the ends of their utility in this setting-they have poor form, are hazardous, or within the development footprint and he recommends removal. The building of a new residence and the outdoor patios will require grading. The project proposes to build the new house in a similar footprint of the existing house to minimize the cut and fill required for the project. The construction of the proposed residence, the removal of the trees and associated outdoor space complement the topography of the site, there is minimal cut and fill required for the construction, and therefore creation of the residence and associated improvements are in substantial conformance with this finding. Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land-forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. The project proposal maintains a balanced and harmonious relationship between the structure and its site and adjoining properties because the proposed new residence and attached carport have been designed to relate to and fit with the natural contours of the hillside. The new house and attached carport are designed in a manner as to minimize the building mass and bulk on this steep site and the structure integrates with the site. The residence is built into the hillside and terraced appropriately to work with the contours of the land and integrates well into the site. Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings that are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves. The residence is designed to avoid appearing monumental or excessively large in size. The residence and carport will not be visible from Belvedere A venue. The home is proposed to be built into the hillside and in a similar footprint of the existing structure. The residence is not out of character with the setting, there are many similar sized homes in the area. Resolution 2017- 1 Belvedere A venue August 15, 2017 Exhibit A Page 2

Although the home will be visible from the neighbor at 1 Pelican Point, the home conforms to the R-15 development standards, and is designed to not draw attention to itself. The proposed materials and rooflines are in character with the setting, the proposed residence and garage appear in character with the mixed architectural style of the dwellings in the neighborhood. The design does not include features that would be obtrusive or call attention to themselves. B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. The proposed project is designed so that it does not include large expanses of any one material. The property slopes steeply downward from the street and the mass and bulk of the residence is minimal given the down-sloping nature of the parcel. The project is proposed to be built into the hillside horizontally along the width of the property. There are many retaining walls proposed throughout the property. The project proposes retaining walls to frame the driveway, to create planting areas and to create parking at the street. All of the retaining walls are proposed in smooth, light grey concrete. The retaining walls are designed to avoid a large expanse and are well articulated given the slope of the site. The house is a modem design with many vertical and horizontal elements that add architectural variety which breaks up the building planes and avoids monotony. Further, the proposed residence and carport would not increase the impression of bulk due to its location on the lot and the abundance of existing trees provides natural screening. Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures visual impacts, that blends with the existing landforms and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone ranges are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. The building design and materials minimize visual impact, blend with the landform and neighborhood, and do not draw attention. The house is proposed in Portland cement stucco in charcoal grey and black, natural cedar siding is proposed, dark grey metal cladding on the house and windows. A glass railing is proposed on the terrace. The roof is proposed in stone pavers with solar panels and a green roof. A wood clad entry gate is proposed supported by concrete posts is proposed at the street level. The color palate for the project includes light and dark grays and dark browns. The colors and materials for the project are soft and muted and will complement the surrounding neighborhood without drawing attention to the proposed project. Resolution 2017- 1 Belvedere A venue August 15, 2017 Exhibit A Page 3

Fences and screening. A. Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical, and should not significantly block views. Fences are compatible with the site, preserve privacy, and do not significantly block views. The project includes construction of a new fencing at the side property lines. The fence is proposed to be 5 feet in height and constructed out of black square wire fencing. A black chain link fence is proposed at the rear of the property. Use of unpainted metal, galvanized metal or metal subject to rusting is discouraged. The project proposes a painted black metal fence on a portion of the property that will not be visible. The painted, black metal fence is in compliance with finding BMC 20.04.140, as the metal will be painted. A wood, 4 foot entry gate is proposed at the top of the property to allow car access down the driveway to the house. The newly proposed fence would not block views from the neighboring property and the additional landscaping will enhance the curb appeal of the residence and maintain privacy. Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. Building placement, and window size and placement has been selected to consider the privacy of adjacent buildings. Given the topography of the lot, the mature landscaping that exists, the proposed landscaping and the location of the proposed residence, the windows are placed on the structure with minimum impact to the adjacent neighbors. The windows proposed on the study at the main living area could have impacts to the neighbor at Pelican Point. Staff suggests a condition of approval that the window on the North wall is a clearstory window. Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. The proposed car port and parking deck are designed to integrate into the lot as well as the proposed residence. The proposed driveway is in a similar footprint as the existing driveway, however turns to the north towards the car port. The car post walls are designed with louvers on the outside to provide screening of car headlights at night. The project proposes additional parking at the street level, which will aid in the safety and convenience for the surrounding neighborhood. The driveway, auto court and carport are in harmony with the neighborhood and do not intrude on the privacy of or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. Resolution 201 7- 1 Belvedere Avenue August 15, 2017 Exhibit A Page4

Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan. Skylights should not have white or light opaque exterior lenses. The applicant proposes exterior lighting that will not create glare, hazard or annoyance to neighboring properties or to passerby's; all proposed light fixtures are shielded and or directed downward. Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities. The proposed project includes requests a Floor Area Exception and a Variance to exceed the allowable retaining wall height. The Floor Area Exception request is to allow an additional 2,383 SF of floor area to be constructed. The permitted floor area for the property is 4,850 SF and the proposed floor area is 7,233 SF. Given the topography of the site and where the residence, car port and auto deck are proposed on the site, the added floor area is mitigated. Additionally, the car port is proposed at 806 SF and the storage area is 137 SF, which is almost 1,000 SF of floor area that is not habitable. Due to the fact that the lot is very large, asking for a 7,233 SF home is not unreasonable. The proposed Variance is to allow a retaining wall in the setback a maximum height of 12 feet where 4 feet is permitted. The elimination of the proposed Variance does not seem reasonable as the retaining wall is to provide parking for fire trucks should they need to access the property. Additionally, the retaining wall will not be visible from the street since the lot is so steep. Given that both the Variance and Exception to Floor Area findings are satisfied, it is not reasonable nor feasible to condition the project on the removal of these nonconformities. Landscape plans -- Purpose. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters. B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls, that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings. Resolution 2017- 1 Belvedere A venue August 15, 2017 Exhibit A Page 5 The proposed project includes new landscaping in the front, side and rear yards of the property. The existing landscaping has been neglected for many years. The extensive landscape plan will provide screening and softening of the proposed house and attached carport. 38 new trees are proposed to be planted, including Coastal Live Oaks and Japanese Maples. Many of the Coastal Live Oaks are proposed at the street to provide screening and softening. The landscaping is in substantial conformance with this finding as it includes natural and native vegetation, is compatible with the character of the site and the surrounding properties, and is designed to provide screening of architectural elements. Landscape Plans - Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turn areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. B. Landscape plans should include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age. C. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. The proposed landscape is in substantial conformance with this finding as it includes 38 new trees, of which 34 are native to California as well as variety of smaller shrubs and perennials that are low water use and include slow and fast growing species. CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 19.52.115 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 BELVEDERE A VENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception to Total Floor Area from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 7,233 square feet where 3,191 square feet currently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 1 Belvedere A venue; and WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Floor Area Exception on August 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. Primary views from adjacent properties and the street are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The General Plan, p. 111, defines a Primary View as, "views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay and its environs, bridges, and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island as seen from inside the public or common areas of the home." The proposed home does not impact primary views. The new home steps down the hillside and integrates well into the topography of the land. The home has been designed so that the majority of the windows will not impact the neighbor's views or privacy. The new house has been designed with the consideration of the neighbors. Although the dwelling and car port will be minimally visible from the neighboring properties, the neighboring properties' primary views will not be significantly impaired. The proposed dwelling and carport are at least 15 feet from the neighboring property at 1 Pelican Point A venue. Given the distance from the adjacent property combined with the fact that the adjacent property is angled towards the Golden Gate Bridge, the proposed dwelling will have no impact to the primary views of the adjacent property. The home as designed steps into the hillside and is proposed in a similar footprint as the existing. There will be no view blockage from the adjacent properties as well as from the street. b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area. The site has unusual characteristics that minimize the impact of the additional square footage from the larger dwelling. Specifically, the lot is approximately 34, 129 square feet which is more than double the required square footage for residential lots located within the R-15 Zoning Classification and the project site has rather steep topography. The project site is large enough to accommodate the additional floor area. The steepness of the lot combined with the proposed location of the dwelling and car port will minimize the impact of the additional square footage. The unusual characteristic ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution 2017 - 1 Belvedere A venue August 15, 2017 Page 2

of the parcel that minimizes the impact of the greater floor area is the steepness of the lot combined with the location of the addition. c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria. The project meets all Design Review criteria and it fits in with the size, scale, and mix of classic and modem-style homes in the R-15 Zoning District. The new dwelling and car port fits in well to the character of the existing neighborhood. The project proposes an attractive dwelling that is appropriate in terms of mass, bulk and character for the neighborhood. d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Specifically, the proposed single­ family residence is located within the central portion of a rather steep graded residential lot. The incorporation of a landscaping, fencing and retaining walls will not result in a substantial impact of privacy that otherwise would be available for residents of the adjoining properties.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow a maximum floor area of 7,233 square feet where 3,191 square feet currently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 1 Belvedere A venue.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on August 15, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED:

Acting Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM SECTION 19.48.190 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 BELVEDERE A VENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from Section 19.48.190 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a retaining wall to be constructed up to 12 feet in height where 4 feet is permitted at 1 Belvedere A venue; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the requested Wall Height Variance on August 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 1. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege as the Variance would allow a wall height that is common on very steeply sloping lots, enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone. The height of the proposed wall is necessary to provide the required parking for Fire safety vehicles in case of emergency. Additionally, the wall height will retain the hillside so that extra off street parking is provided for residents in the area. The wall will not be visible from Belvedere Avenue, and will be a benefit to those in the neighborhood and not a special privilege to the applicant. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss. The special circumstances applicable to the property are the extreme steepness of the lot and the excessively large lot for the R-15 Zoning district (34, 129 SF). The wall will range in height due to the slope of the land between 5 feet and 12 feet and is proposed in the front yard setback and portions in the right-of-way. In order to conform to the Fire District's standards, the property owner is creating a parking pad so that the Fire trucks can access the house in the case of emergency. A strict application of the retaining wall height requirements would deprive this property and the adjacent properties of safety privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Therefore, a denial of this application would result in undue property loss. 3. The granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises. ATTACHMENT 5 Resolution No. 2017 August 15, 2017 1 Belvedere A venue Page - 2-

Granting of the Variance to allow additional retaining wall height will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises, because all construction associated with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is granted will be governed by the Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict construction activities. Further, the taller retaining wall will provide additional off-street parking for the entire neighborhood.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Wall Height Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a retaining wall to be constructed up to 12' in height where 4' is permitted at 1 Belvedere Avenue.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on August 15, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES; NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED:

APPROVED:

Acting Planning Commission Chair

Alison Foulis, City Clerk Project Address: \ b.e.\ \( ed Q..'{Q... {;\J.L

APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION r 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 RECE'!' '"".".f) P~f. 415-435-3838 • FAX 41?-435-0430 • WWW.CITYQFBELVEDERE.ORG

1 'J""li) ! . "''''.,·,.,~ ·.l " t . } ' 1

II FOR STAFF USE ONLY II

Date: {,-) Rec'd. by: __w_· ____ _ Planning Comm. Approval 121' ~::>,_, I 0 ""'-~ Design Review Exception D Amount: ...J ::> ~ ' 7 ' Receipt No.: _2._7_2-_'l_o__ _ Staff Approval · · D Parcel No.: __CJ_u_CJ_-_l~'f_/_-_0_1~- Zone: _ __,_R-_.._._/L.....______Located in Flood Zone D AE D VE Ji(N/A D VofRO received (if applicable)?

II SECTION 1 • PROJECT SUMMARY II

Does this project have an active building permit? No J8l Yes D Permit No.: _____ Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No )iit' Yes D Address of Property: I b\\/Mt(',e_ :AVL Record Owner of Property: ~ usan c. Ke-l\y '{~¥0 r& ±ru..~ Mailing Daytime Phone: ------Address: Fax: ------Email: Owner's Representative: ::sQ. ff :SVno ~Q..¥\ c~-v-n_a_s_t_Q.V'\__ C__ br-a--E-i_>\v_~--~V)---,,-j- Mailing 4 CJ 5 l\\\ \\t,y'"" ft VQ \ Daytime Pho'r:e: "f t5 0 fl\ 0 \ (o d,._ 1 Address:"-\\\,\ \fG...\~\('j\ 9t{4'fl Fax: _'' ' 31la5 Email: :Se_~_j e~ na St-(¥)· C-Oyy\ Project Description: Cons±rtkcT 0. nuv s l n¥t. -f.ruvi ,lM ns\'d.U\c.t, I ( (,, '$ Q (!or IC ~o'-{ fl ') dnit!-11.> ll-\'lJ a_t± o.chuf J"" ,.lF 1 ])..mo e ·,s,+ \n, hov.SLJ Cov.t.v)u;.\l &.r:~r-r a.r

Design Review Application • Page 1 ATTACHMENT 6

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\WordVersion Project Address: l -e,.e.\v.tJwe ..,<..A \]:t_

ZONING PARAMETERS: Required Existing Proposed . Lot Area / • Lot Coverage ...... Co v .V<.t\:' ~ \>.t\C:.0\1ef°e.cL d. ~c..over:tI:: ~ f~~Y\.-t ot- SECTION 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CEQA

(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed:------General Information • Lt'\5 t.{\\\tr ~Vv I. Name and address of developer or project sponso~o "'::,T..t.n Cons.tr\.r\.t"tto(\ t.A..i \\ \ffil~, lA , 'f'l't ( 2. Address of project: \ l:>.t.\y.(.dtr.t.. 'i\Je..~\v'c.A,.tn,.., CA 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this projectS;°f± :S:una&..t.Y\. 1'\S µ·,\\w f\\JCe ~1°,l\ '/oJ\~i CA qf~q( ~\S.3&\·:0\lod.' 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: ______5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for t1'.s project, incl,uding those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:Y't.Vo<..o...k.:lc.. h'umg.. > Qt.Mo ~rvn& \fo..f\O.r')T°'DY\ -£>< Th-hxl £loar ().DA~' 6. Existing zoning district: _:,:5.!-L'--_,_\_,S""------,------­0 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): s·\ Y"Ala.. £0..rinL..A dw.t.\..\ \V\" .....) \\

8. Year built: \q (, 3 Original architect: a..n:ron ~'C.LLV'\ Project Description 9. Site size. b, JS <.\le\ 0..c..r<..~ :l\ 10. Square footage. &aoL.L G,'v Vku .. (:i+.:i3 'SQ FT 't:~~'-" .... J 11. Number of floors of construction. _.i...=------12. Amount of off-street parking provided. _;:~::.__+______

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

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: \ ~.L\ V..tk(L ~ \}..1..._

13. Plans attached? Acc.J> ;+e c.±u ra ' I cl.\/~ I I Io..ndsco.pe. <

14. Proposedscheduling.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­ 15. Associated proj_ects, such as required g~ading or staging. ------

16. Anticipated incremental development. ------­ 17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 5 \.. r\glt.. -£.o..o\,k 18. If commercial, indicate the type, whJther neighborh-OOJ, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales a~a. and ~ading~cilWes. ~~------~ 19. If the project involves a variance;, conditional us or rezoning applicati lXY\Vt.\V

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 t~ ~se e accepted. ti l ~tv c · ·;\- '

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,. IS'°rear yard, etc.). Attach. hotographs. of the. vicinit . Snapsh. ts or Polar . id hotos . ill be accepted .

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

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: f ~..t.\"dex£ '-AvL

SECTION 3 • ESTIMNfE OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION

For Design Review applications not requiring a building permit this section does not apply. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval unless granted a longer duration by the Planning Commission.

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: $_3J.L.:...-"'A-=-...,.__~,:_,'-=------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.

~ 2. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be more than $500.000. Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.

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

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

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

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

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: I bL\ ve..kv-L

For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Guidelines or that wish to exceed the time limit that was approved by the Planning Commission, the following is the "Extension of Construction Time Limit" process (BMC Section 20.04.035(0):

1. For projects which have received an 18 month construction time limit, 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 and 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. The extension 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.

4. The extension 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 of the Planning Commission approval of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the design review approval. The decision of the Planning Commission to grant or deny the requested extension may be appealed in writing to the City Council.

5. For projects which have not received an 18 month construction time limit, the extension committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines in Subsection D3, and increased project valuation, 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: Hourly billing costs as of October 18, 2013, (subject to change without notice): City Planner $ 69.00 Associate Planner $ 54.00 City Attorney $195.00 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead Design Review Application • Page 5 of 9 • City of Belvedere

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev!0-21-13.doc Project Address: / J3.t\ Vo ~-~ \)...(_

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)

SECTION 6 • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS

Story Pole Requirement

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

Design Review Application• Page 6of9 •City of Belvedere

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: J :Be\ V.tckv~ fl U.e ... project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.

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

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

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

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

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

Street address of subject property:

Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: .....Q...... (o"0_-__,_/-=5'-'5=---'0=--:.\ ______

~ Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or Other Entity

Please provide proof of ownership and of the signers' authority to enter into contracts regarding this property. One or more (or a combination of) the following documents may contain the necessary information. • For Trusts: the Trust Document or a Certificate of Trust, including any attachments thereto; Property Deed; Certificate of Title Insurance. • For other entities: Articles of Incorporation; Partnership Agreement; Property Deed; Certificate of Title Insurance; written certification of facts by an attorney. Photocopies are acceptable. To ensure privacy, documentation will be shredded in a timely manner, or, upon request, returned to the applicant.

I/we, t, , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California at the above-described subject property is owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or other entity and that my/our signature(s) on this application are authorized by all necessary action required by said LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or other entity.

I/we hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I/we have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present Design Review Application • Page 7 of 9 • City of Belvedere

U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: \ ~\ ve_dcuY-Q. 'Avll-

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

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

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

I/we understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record. If more than one signature is required by the owner entity to make this application, please have all signers sign below. htA -:--\ Signed this ____ day of \J IA.r\e..- , 20 l ·t , at Belvedere, California.

Signature ______

Title(s) ______

D Partners: D Limited or D General D Corporation

~ Properties Owned by Individuals

I, , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property.

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

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

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

ntents of this document are a Public Record .

..,,,,,._ ___ day of ______, 20_, at Belvedere, California.

Signature______

Design Review Application• Page 8of9 •City of Belvedere

U:\Pla1111i11g\Pla1111ing Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordYersions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REYIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: l ~ \vuJu..e...,'l'J lJ-L

}'>- Designation of Owner's Representative (OJ?tional)

I/we . ~ ~C-~(:Ji ,hereby authorize -:s:t£CS-. ~ \) n~c;±-....e.Y\ to file Oil my/our beh If any, applications, plans,. papers, data, or documents nee sarytoObtain approvals required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my/our 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 ·u Date: b -2 -Fr Date: G.-'Z- -\1

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

U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVcrsions\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl0-21-13.doc Project Address: \ Be\v..o ~ ,. A1JET

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

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date:-----­ Rec'd. by: ___ Amount: _____ Receipt No.: Assessors Parcel No:------

To BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT

Address of Property: i \O=e\v,,g~.. Au€. Type of Property: 5n.J C;,...l F ,=\AIJ\.k.J. hi ~ \.il.R..i\1-s wg R-l>: Record Owner of Property: 2U5AltJ c_ be,,\~ irevoCJA\?lf !VV Sl Mailing Daytime Phone: ------Address:

Email:------­ Owner's Representative: T-ef+= ,Tvn9 ~ _{_ :IL)>/\@~ C.O\l'\;=tV\)c..TI~) Mailing ~ q S: W\\\\-.ev= IA1JL Daytime Phone: YI~- '?8/ - ~b Z Address: tJ\ .\). GA °t'"i'i y l Fax:------Email: Te.ff.T@T~c;,.~.C..DM Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: _3_.,.._"1.-.D__O_, ------

1. Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: ------­ Q ":> ~Q~ ·r-c....~d.. ::stuc::. \::.. '~ \cc . l ~ ~D'&e::.-:\:\:. .8' ,C:::I] DC.::::. 2. Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: ------­ C\l\:::....c tn 12..~~o..:>r c:...e.. ~c::.a~ C:Si!:O~ 3. Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: ~O~------

4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: ------~ ~\clrLo Go.\-~ ~. :tO s~ Ri&freL. WE

Demolition Permit Application • Pagel of2 • City of Belvedere Project Address: \ ~\\...)\Q...~ A-\Jf;

5. SizefType of trucks used to haul demolition material: ------2-C> C'~C '>.J,~ d>.~ tr..J<::: \s.. 6. Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: ------­ Z'i!fj:J ~\Q'-e: -~';:::. ~ .. ':;) I lb 't'odl-> ~~R J.d2.. 7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed: ___!£, M 10\f\ nv;

8. Period of time demolition is expected to take: ___3'...... ~~\....)~~~-\~s...... '.'.:;)_,,______

9. Size and location of trees or oth'{'2.~egetation and location of any t.:inage system to be removed in conjunction with the demolition: '5"4!!\J~'Cl.1.... /...Av-~ ~l'1(1VS 1 ~. ?tive.. "(Ir«?.~" M-UG.. 10. Erosion, sedimentation, and /or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: _____ &5 eeau\teb.,_._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: µ l2J e..

12. Year building to be demolished was constructed: --'-11,_.,=-i"?;.,______

13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any: ~µ~Cl.'>_-e...~------­ i 4. Other:

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

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described for owne[ re12resentativ~as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative). hereby make application for the demolition permit requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

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

Signaturez=

Name: :;=-e+f- 1.Tl..M'1 ~ Date: b - Z - {'l

Demolition Pem1it Application • Page 2 of 2 • City of Belvedere JUN O5 2017

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

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date: &- <; - /7 Rec'd. by: LD Amount: & )3 Receipt No.: ....:J...... 7_d_i_l/_ Assessors Parcel No: (){, t!> I c/f 0 f Zone: _ _..;_l'<-_l_':J_--______

TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT

Address of Property: \ h\vtdw1. .f\ Uk Type of Property: '2:>1g?sk h.m 1l.\~ \\ ;Y'><\ ~ · /'=1 Record Owner of Property:..:)~ k kC!;\\y '"Ba.>roc.a.k::LQ Jf~ Mailing Daytime Phone._ si...9CfD Su;e>St()( ::BoaA• Address: qroY\D tv\N 6535b Fax: ______Ema~ Owner's ~epresentative73!!:£ :s~ ca 5tL-n CI0 0~51-QC\ Co~ty:~c.:t,~) l Mailing '-1'1:_ ~~:t= I Daytime Phone: 4!5.'Q:?\.~11.>d- Address: B.11 \ V~'1'2 t:f / Fax: ' 3 f (,p 5 ' . Email: "Se..~~.I ~ufu\ 1S\-'4¥\. CCNY\ \ ~

ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 1t5 Q sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS: ft,~Y, 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, becauseTu. '(t.$\dtOc.R b~ bw ~~:·!!~~~~:±;.~~=~~ \Jl !&f>PR'Ltbc, ~ \q£Dlioo et? Tu. 'i-~E>T'"<\) W )'\6.h 6a..n Yi.'/\Ma.&.

l=t:~onc:.t.o..li.d. ~N'\!tit~~= '/,IM:) . ~;tnt~::!~- Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 1 of 3 • City of Belvedere

C:\Documenls and Se1tings\depu1ycilyclerk\Oesktoplfonn Folder\Application for EXCEPTION TO TOT AL FLOOR AREA.doc 2.

3. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the

4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining prope~ies, because: -r+ h~ ban .d~~\~{le..&. V.»('cb \X\1>ITT troYY\ Yk\.1'1oo'<'$ o.nO. \S \d\ \

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.. fY-o\X2$&d horoL \~ 0.. 0lu..) S+v-u._d=u.re.... _

(For purppses of this Section, floor area in the existing structure which is in excess of th~ requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to be an "existirig nonconformity" on the property, and the grant of a floor area exception h.ere4nder shall not be deemeo to Greate a "new nonconformity." Additionally, for purposes of th.is section, w~ere an applicant propose~ to construct new and additional parking

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

C:\Documents and Settinl!s\denutvcitvclerk\Oe~ktnn\Fnnn Fnlrler\Annlkatinn for FXC'FPTION TO TOT AI. Fl .OOR ARFA rln" sp9ces, 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 ~ears prior to the floor area exception application, because: ~ =t>~of>OSe..c\ )roie c± 1s CA.. nuA) ':>-\=v-u.d= u.Y-L .

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 the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

Signature: -4"'--~'------/ Name: :;:r.._ft ~l....N\.,~

Date: C.. ~ 'Z. - t 7

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

C:\Documents and Settings\deputycityclerk\Desktop\Fonn Folder\Application for EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc RECEIVED

Project Address: ' v~dtte.. Avt... City of Belvedere h\ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

t:,. ~. Date: G- S- -I 7 Rec'd. by: Lf/) Amount: c!/~./l, Receipt No.: Assessors Parcel No:-"""'(!)-'~""""·__,l:..-4...-/,__0-1¥.,..._ ___ Zone: ---"'-£_!_~------

Address.of Property: \ J)e.\ y ..e_dt,(e, -1\v;.e.... ·Type of Property: ~\ Y\g\e_. taffi~ :t\Ntl\~~ ::b · \5 Record Owner of Property3~~ Ce tsl\~ ;!Z.V~~\ol_e \\ltzcl... Address: \\~\\ \f Q\\.ttA )\.B 9'¥i~ \ Fax: :._. · · . · _____\ _____ Email: ::Sc..£f:Se..-:S-vnc\ST4n· Cam

· Description of project and variance(s) requested:

ORDINANCE§ REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED 11 \q,4eo lqo ~·' J1"trl\ \,JJ~ll~ qt, -+- 7JA41 w£\t\ c~)

Variance Application • Page l of2 • City of Belvedere Project Address: l 'i>i'f.\ ~a+e....- Mc

I hereby apply for a variance from the strict interpretation of the Belvedere Zoning .Ordinance to permit the construction described on the previous page. I propose that the Planning Commission make· the following findings offact in.order to grant.the requested variance:

A. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated because: · · ::t::r [email protected]\OM--S J.f.e-\.U off~T .fAvk..'t"tJ

. . · B. Because of special circumstances applicable to the· property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed py other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss, as follows:

C. The granting o{ this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment 9f their premises because:

1T Y~v\c\J:D. Neu.) ~ Q'9.V~p QO....)

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 variance requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit( s} are.true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

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

Signature: ,c2 7 .... Name: S-tZ/4 ~.9'2ith0

Date: ' - ?... -17

Variance Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere Project Address: I be..\ 'f!.d-'2..Y'·.e._ J\V ·L

APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE RECEIVED CITY OF BELVEDERE .,.....,_.....,.6-d" . 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 ~JUN a·s·zo11 PH.415-435-3838. FAX415-435-0430. WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG

Date: l-) - // Rec'd. by: lJJ Amount: S 3 '72- Receipt No.: 17;i.. 'f t.{ Parcel No.: CL C> ( '{ { Of Zone: ,Rr y- City property to be encroached upon:------'------

Address of Property: \ ~ \ V e..d 'LY Q.... fs \J JL

Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g.! street right-of-way, view easement;"fid~ '1ot):

Record Owner of Property:Su5(lo L f<, !~ \ ~ Y-e. yo ca.~ ±Yu'&± Mailing daytime Phone: ------Address: Fax:------. . . Email: . . " .. _. Owner's Representative: :>:S""e f ~. "S"vnqf)~.e..Y) (:Su o~~t..Q(\ COV\$±'{vc:b.()V1) 1 \q t.. A· \ \ 11 ".:z. Mailing "1 5 \V\ ,\\t,\'" c.AV-L Daytime Phone: -,lS .µ10\. :3\ lo a_ Fax: ______Address: lv\,\\ *"\'2,y l LA 9lf~'f I \ Email: Lo YY\ ~e..tf1 e:S"\.U'\Q\ ST-ID · Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): CO'V) '3?rVU C.-1\ e..J o -G-- ~ o.f..f.:s~--r Q~~lJ:1 ~, deelr~~~ ~' "'"Jt'e"'bJ ~d, ~ 'fY'ee..'i>.

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

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

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE rev -3-24-12.doc Project Address:\~~ ME"9

IMPORTANT! This application will first be reviewed by the City Staff and/or Planning Commission. ff the appf ication 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 oi the Deputy City Clerk before the agreemerit can be ratified by lhe City Council. A specimen copy of the revocable license agreement is attached for your information. THE OWNER'S FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WILL PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT ASSOC/A TED WITH THE LICENSE.

I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described or owner re resentative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representathre)", ttere ~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 bel~f ·

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

Signature: //: 7 Name: ;r'e+f- ..TVv1fJ"P=n

Date: ' ... 'Z- - ~ 7

Revocable License Application •Page 2 of 7 • City of Belv.edere

U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE rev -3-24-12.doc July 31, 2017

Susan and Justin Kelly c/o Susan C Kelly Revocable Trust 2990 Sussex Road Orono, MN 55356

Re: 1 Belvedere Ave., Belvedere

At the request of yourselves and of the Town of Belvedere, I have reviewed and herein address the historic resource record concerning this property and its existing residential buildings, which includes a single-family residence and detached carport. This effort has included the receipt and review of records related to past Town of Belvedere planning and building permit applications and their associated public processes, general research re: the subject architecture and architect, and a site visit to familiarize myself with this setting, property and buildings.

Past planning efforts included a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture in 2012). Per that HRE, the existing residence at 1 Belvedere Ave. dates to 1963 and was the design of the architects Aaron G. Green Associates. Of additional interest and importance, the HRE notes that the second floor of this house was burned and reconstructed in the mid-1970s.

In general, the overall historic resource record, inclusive of the 2012 HRE, points to a very equivocal potential historical resource. That the overall record does not draw any clear conclusion is itself relevant. The residence in question is a private, single-family home that is quite concealed. Along with this fact, that the resource and the architect in question are not unequivocally and clearly significant generally presents an insufficient basis for its historic resource identification.

More specifically, in the historic resource record for 1 Belvedere, the potential for its identification highly depends on its architectural authorship by the office of Aaron Green. With all the respect due him from within the architectural profession, no current, objective analysis identifies Green as a masterful architect, whereas the HRE presumes that he is, yet without providing any references or analysis.

Relative to which, a key document, referenced in the 1 Belvedere HRE, is the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement, prepared by the San Francisco Planning Department in 2010. That report comprehensively addresses the mid-20th-century architectural styles relevant to San Francisco, including the identification of architectural and landscape architectural practitioners of that period and with an aim towards identifying, for the specific purposes of historic resource evaluation, "masters." Aaron Green's office was located in San Francisco and where they also designed and completed projects. Yet, tellingly, Aaron Green is not identified or even named within this comprehensive report, not even under a section dedicated to Frank Lloyd Wright, to whom Green was closely associated.

Again, while respect is due Green from within the profession, there is no current objective analysis of his overall contributions and with which to identify that he was an architect who, in

446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 [email protected] his time, was at the top of his profession and with few peers. At this juncture, some 15 years in the wake of his passing, Aaron Green has not been objectively identified as a "master" architect.

Within the record for this property, a second basis for its potential historic resource identification is that the subject house is an example of the Second Bay Tradition architectural style. This style is also effectively summarized in the San Francisco Modern Historic Context Statement, and which the 1 Belvedere HRE cites. Whereas the HRE confers that this residence is a "good" and "clear" example of the Second Bay Tradition, the appropriate and requisite measure is that of "distinction." In the exact words of California Register criterion 3: " ... properties may be eligible if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method ... " (italics added). There is no detailed analysis in the record - nor is there empirical evidence - that the subject residence embodies distinction relative to its architectural period.

Moreover, and importantly, the work of Green's office is not clearly associated with the Second Bay Tradition. Rather, the overall architectural direction of their work was explicitly "Wrightian" or "Organic." Consequently, the identifiable architectural style of the subject house is not a clear no less a distinctive example of the Second Bay Tradition.

Further, the house that is in evidence today has not been treated with any evident degree of concern towards a property and buildings of any potential historical distinction. Residential architecture identified as "Organic" is one of integrity between inside and outside. Green reportedly designed the interiors of the 1 Belvedere house, yet the designed interiors were largely removed by a previous owner - leaving a shell of a house that, on its own and in its extant state, poorly represents the "Organic" style of architecture.

The reality is that a wide range of the extant conditions - i.e., integrity - of this house are poor to very poor, including its setting, which has been altered by the addition of surrounding buildings and landscaping, resulting in the deleterious alteration of its intended orientations and views; association, as any connection to its origins and original owners are, at this juncture, highly diminished; and, as the building's exterior and interior are, respectively, very poor and missing, the unequivocal loss of material and design integrity.

Altogether, the existing property and buildings at 1 Belvedere Ave. do not exhibit integrity, nor has Aaron Green been objectively identified as a modern architectural "master," nor is this residence a potentially distinctive example of the identified architectural style of the Second Bay Tradition.

Signed: ~cM,_ Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect

attached: MHPA resume

1 BELVEDERE AVENUE MHPA-072917-P2 Mark Hulbert Preservation Architect

Professional Experience 2002- Mark Hulbert Preservation Architecture, Oakland, CA 1998-2002 Associate/ Preservation Architect, C David Robinson Architects, San Francisco 1990-1998 Architectural Conservator I Preservation Architect, Page e:"' Turnbull, San Francisco 1986-1989 Architect, Michael Rex Associates, Sausalito, CA 1984-1985 Architecture & Preservation, Buttrick, White & Burtis, NY, NY 1982-1984 Retail Planning, Architectural & Industrial Design, Milton Glaser, NY, NY 1981-1982 Architecture '6~ Preservation, William A Hall 0~ Associates, NY, NY

Professlonal Education International Centre for the Conservation of Cultural Property, Rome, Italy; ARC, 1996. North Carolina State University School of Design, Raleigh, NC: B-Env.Des.-Arch., 1980-81. Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA; 1979-1980 Mercer College, Trenton, NJ: A Arch., 1977-1979

Professional Registration Certificate, Architectural Conservation, ICCROM, 1996 California Architect C 21014, 1989

Recent Awards Ford Assembly Building, Richmond: • California Governor's Historic Preservation Award for 2013 • California Heritage Council, Award of Recognition, 2013 • National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Honor Award, 2008 • California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2009 • American Institute of Architects East Bay Chapter, Citation Award, 2009 • American Institute of Architects San Francisco Chapter, Historic Preservation and Innovation Award, 2010 Highland Hospital, Alameda County: • Design/Build Institute of America, Western Pacific Region, Award of Distinction, 2012 Richmond Civic Center, Richmond: • California Governor's Historic Preservation Award, 2011 • California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2010 • American Institute of Architects San Francisco Chapter, Historic Preservation and Innovation Award, 2010 • Design I Build Institute of America, Western Pacific Region, Regional Award, 2010 • City of Richmond, Historic Preservation Award, 2010 • California Construction Award, Overall Top Project, 2009 Municipal Boathouse, Oakland: • California Preservation Foundation, Preservation Design Award, 2011 Studio One Arts Center, Oakland: • American Institute of Architects East Bay Chapter, Citation Award, 2011 Winters Building/East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, Richmond: • American Institute of Architects East Bay Chapter, Honor Award, 2011

446 17th Street #302 Oakland 94612 510 418 0285 [email protected] Selected Preservation & Rehabllltatlon Project Experience Borreo Building (1877), Napa Eschol/Trefthen Winery Building (Hamden Mcintyre Arch., 1886), Napa Phoenix Lake Log Cabin (1893-94), Marin Municipal Water District Cardiff House (1864), UC Santa Cruz Gamble Building (cl850), Big Oak Flat Pier 70/20th Street Historic Buildings (1886-1945), San Francisco Buildings 45 and 223, Mare Island Saint Mary's College (John J. Donovan, 1928; Milton T. Pfleuger, 1960), Moraga Marin County Civic Center Chambers (Frank Lloyd Wright, 1962), Marin County Hawk Hill/Battery Construction 129, Marin Headlands, GGNRA Filbert Street Cottages (1906-1946), San Francisco The Valhalla (1893), Sausalito Hacienda De Las Flores (1916-17), Moraga Petaluma 0~ Santa Rosa Railroad Trestle (1922), Petaluma Highland Hospital (Henry H. Meyers Arch., Howard Gilkey Landscape Arch., 1926), Oakland Claremont Branch Library (James Plachek, 1924), Berkeley Richmond Civic Center (Pflueger & Pflueger Arch., H. Leland Vaughan Landscape Arch., 1948), Richmond San Joaquin Experimental Range (1934), Madera County Shattuck Hotel (Benjamin McDougal, 1909-14; Walter Ratcliff, Jr., 1927), Berkeley Ford Assembly Building (Albert Kahn, 1929), Richmond Clark Kerr Campus Buildings and Landscape (Alfred Eichler, 1930-1950), UC Berkeley Building 165/ Baylink Ferry, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo Chi Theta Chi House (W. Corlett, 1935-1950), Stanford Municipal Boathouse (John G. Howard, 1907), Oakland Los Gatos High School Theatre (William Weeks, cl925), Los Gatos Muir Beach Park, Muir Beach, GGNRA Marshall General Store/ Hog Island Oyster Co., Marshall Cryer Ranch, Hayward Kingman Hall (Drysdale & Thomson, 1914), Berkeley Petaluma Silk Mill [C. Havens, 1892; Brainerd Jones, 1922), Petaluma YWCA (Julia Morgan, 1914), Oakland Fruitvale Masonic Temple/ Arts Center, Oakland Studio One Arts Center, Oakland William Colby House (Julia Morgan, 1905), Berkeley Keeler Residence (Bernard Maybeck, 1902), Berkeley SummerHill Historic Homes, (904-932 Bryant St., 264-270 Channing Way), Palo Alto Edwards Stadium, UC Berkeley Pier 40, San Francisco Boudrow Residence (Julius Krafft, 1881), Berkeley Love Ranch, Danville Heritage Theatre (William Weeks, cl925), Campbell The Cliff House [Reid Bros., 1909), San Francisco Lucie Stern Community Theater [Birge Clark, cl921), Palo Alto Hearst Memorial Mining Building (John G. Howard, 1907), University of California, Berkeley Geary Theater [Bliss 0~ Faville, 1910), San Francisco Pacific Gas & Electric Company [Bakewell&Brown, 1922; Bliss&Faville, 1925), San Francisco

MHPA RESUME - P2 Historic Structure Reports and Preservation Plans Phoenix Lake Log Cabin, MMWD 323 University Avenue, Palo Alto Hawk Hill/Battery 129, GGNRA Camera Obscura, San Francisco Girton Hall, UC Berkeley Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite The Pelican Building, UC Berkeley Geary Theater, San Francisco Sea Scout Base, Palo Alto California State Office Building, San Francisco Municipal Boathouse, Oakland Casa Amesti, Monterey SummerHill Historic Homes, Palo Alto U.S. Court House, Los Angeles Petaluma Silk Mill, Petaluma U.S. Customs House, San Francisco Richmond Civic Center, Richmond U.S. Appraisers' Building, San Francisco Cloyne Court Hotel, Berkeley U.S. Court of Appeals, Pasadena Clark Kerr Campus, UC Berkeley Presidio of Monterey

Selected Historical Resource and Project Evaluations Kennedy Park House, Napa 660 Bridgeway Blvd., Sausalito Cambrian Park Plaza, San Jose 24829 Palomares Road, Castro Valley Stanford Financial Square, Palo Alto Richmond Public Library, Richmond Trefethen Winery, Napa County San Antonio Hills Neighborhood, Oakland Sausalito City Hall, Sausalito 30935 Vallejo Street, Union City Point Reyes Lodge, Olema I Culloden Park Road, San Rafael Saint Mary's College, Moraga 1500 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley 3227 Peralta Street, Oakland 2600 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley 94th & International, Oakland St. Brigids Church, San Francisco 1212-1222 First Street, Napa 2255 Lyon Street, San Francisco 1945 Broadway, Oakland 216 Corte Madera Avenue, Mill Valley Demmel Boathouse, Inverness Armstrong School Building, Berkeley Mill Valley Lumber Co., Mill Valley First Congregational Church, San Francisco 450 Hayes Street, San Francisco 412 Monte Vista Avenue, Oakland 565 Throckmorton Avenue, Mill Valley 1849 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco The Valhalla, Sausalito Booker T. Washington Center, San Francisco 167 Lovell Avenue, Mill Valley SF Boys & Girls Club, San Francisco Wheeler Plaza, San Carlos 430 Main & 429 Beale Street, San Francisco 1538 3rd Street, Napa Town & Country Village, Palo Alto Mare Island Cemetery, Vallejo Winters Building, Richmond 1501 Third Street, Napa 3900 Adeline Street, Emeryville 94th ct~ International, Oakland 323 University Avenue, Palo Alto 136 Ord Street, San Francisco Spring Estate, Berkeley University I Shattuck Properties, Berkeley 5924-30 Foothill Blvd., Oakland 466 Missouri Street, San Francisco Mazda Lamp Works, Oakland Lick Mansion, Santa Clara 461 Baker Street, San Francisco 352 Richland Ave., San Francisco Berkland Baptist Church, Oakland 1531 Oak Park Blvd., Pleasant Hill Pier 40, San Francisco 12 Laurel Way, Kentfield 1505 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley St. Matthew School, San Mateo Harrison Street Properties, San Francisco 2 Glenwood Avenue, Ross 2121 Allston Way/Magnus Museum, Berkeley Claremont Branch Library, Berkeley 45 Lansing Street, San Francisco Horseshoe Hill Ranch, Bolinas 401 Alice & 420 Third Streets, Oakland Menlo Park Fire Station 2, East Palo Alto Pier 23, San Francisco MHPA RESUME - P3 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 8/2/17

TO: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner, City of Belvedere

PROJECT NO: MSA-1707-03

FROM: Mark Sandoval, AIA

REGARDING: 1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum (Second Review)

PROJECT DOCUMENTS

• Architectural Drawings: Prepared by CHARLES R. STINSON DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, 18304 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN 55391, revision date: 7/19/17 and consisting of 9 individual drawing sheets

• Landscape Drawings: Prepared by COEN+PARTNERS, 400 151 Avenue North, 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55401, revision date 7 /24/17 and consisting of 17 individual drawing sheets; Irrigation Plans, dated 5/23/17 and consisting of 10 Corte Madera. CA 94925 individual sheets Peninsula & South Bay

Phone: 650.941.8048 • Civil Engineering Drawings: Prepared by BENJAMIN ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS, 720 York Street, Suite 114, San Francisco, CA 94110, revision date San Francisco & North Bay July 24, 2017 and consisting of 4 individual sheets Phone: 415.924. 7059 • Additional Documents and Related Application Material: Application For msa@msando\'alarchitccts,com Demolition Permit, dated June 2, 2017; Application For Design Review, dated \.. ·ww.msandovalarchitccts.com June 2, 2017; Application For Exception to Floor Area, dated June 5, 2017; Application For Variance, dated June 5, 2017; Application For Revocable License, dated June 5, 2017; Letter from Neighbor Phillip W. Moffitt, received July 10, 2017; Letter to Applicant from City of Belvedere Planning Division, dated June 29, 2017, Project Computer Model Renderings (North Entry and West Elevation), dated 7/24/17 and consisting of 2 individual sheets; Stormwater-Control Plan for Small Projects/Single-Family Homes 1 Belvedere Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920 prepared by Benjamini Associates, Inc. and consisting of 4 individual sheets; City of Belvedere Design Review Comments 1 Belvedere Avenue, dated 6/23/17 and consisting of 3 individual sheets

REQUESTS

The applicant is requesting the following permit approvals to allow for the demolition of an existing home with detached upper carport shown with a total floor area of 3, 191 (revised 7/19/17) square footage, and replacing it with a new contemporary-styled two-story hillside home shown to have an overall square footage of 7,233 (revised 7/19/17) square feet (including the attached 806 square foot carport). Included under the scope of the proposed

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Architecture +Ii s tori c Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page: 1

ATTACHMENT 8 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

work is to be the removal of the majority of the existing trees and vegetation that will be impacted from the extensive grading operation that will be needed to accommodate the footprint of the new home in addition to its connecting driveway to the roadway above and the new auto court parking level which is placed in front of the main entrance to the home. Associated additional site improvements including expanding the width of the existing roadway above to provide guest parking for two vehicles and for firetruck access to the site and extensive replanting of the entire site.

• Application for Design Review to allow the construction of a new 7,233 (revised 7/19/17) square foot home with attached carport, driveway, site improvements including landscaping and widening of a portion of Belvedere Avenue for additional visitor parking and emergency firetruck access to site

• Application for Variance to allow for an increase walls greater than 48" in overall height (19.48.190 of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code) for new parking along roadway

• Application for Exception to Total Floor Area to allow for an increase in the permitted buildable floor area allowed from 4,850 square feet for a 7,233 (revised 7/19/17) square foot home within the R-15 zoning district

• Application for Demolition Permit to allow for the demolition and removal of the 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 existing residence, trees, and 280 cubic yards of demolition material and debris which 130 cubic yards will be concrete Corte Madera. CA 94925

Peninsula & South Bay • Application for Revocable License to allow encroachment into the public-right-of­

Phone: 650.941.8048 way for adding street parking, gates, steps, deer fences, and the planting of 4 trees San Francisco & North Bay

Phone: 415.924. 7059 PROJECT DESCRIPTION msa(@msandovalarchitects.com The subject property is located on a steeply downhill-sloped property with views www.msandovalarchitl.':cts.com predominately toward the south of Richardson Bay at the west The site is shown to be 34, 129 square feet and can be characterized as a densely wooded coastal property with a steeply rugged terrain particularity toward the base and along the sides of the property, which supports an abundance of very large mature Monterey cypress, coastal oaks, redwoods, and other trees (both native and nonnative) of various sizes, as well as tall grasses and other natural vegetation.

The property is occupied by what is shown as an existing 3, 191-square-foot older home with a detached carport placed above and reportedly constructed in 1963, and both are proposed to be removed. The applicant is presenting a creative design for a new 7,233- square-foot two-story home that includes an attached 806-square-foot carport, with auto court that are placed above the main entrance terrace located at the main level of the home. A steep driveway supported on either side with large retaining walls connects the lower parking level of the home to Belvedere Avenue above. Included as part of the various site features and amenities, the applicant is proposing a new gated driveway entrance at the top of the roadway, roof gardens, above-ground cantilevered pool, pedestrian pathways and stairs to allow general circulation and access to the lower parts of the new home and property. The construction of the new home will require both extensive grading modifications and significant re-landscaping of the majority of the site,

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Arch itecture+I is tori c Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page:2 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

including widening a portion of Belvedere Avenue to add two additional parking spaces in front of the property and for fire truck emergency parking.

New Two-Story Residence With Attached Carport

The new residence is to be located within the central portion of the property and is placed in the general location of the existing older home that is to be demolished. The footprint of the new home, however, now expands across the entire width of the lot (parallel to the topographic contours) to better accommodate the internal room configuration of the new residence and to maximize the views to the west and south. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from the steeply sloped driveway beginning at the north-eastern edge of the property along Belvedere Avenue. A series of retaining walls are also proposed on both sides of the new driveway to support the upper hillside, the roadway above, and the auto court that has been placed in front of the home. To the left of the main entrance, the applicant is proposing to have an open three-car garage carport. From here, a paved set of stairs and walkway leads to the front entrance terrace located on the main level of the home.

The architect has skillfully designed each of the building's elevations to be imaginative, compositionally pleasing, and visually cohesive. Through the use of large areas of glass, particularly on the west and south elevations, the exterior walls seem to dissolve into shadow, and those solid walls that remain are well articulated and act to connect the 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 building to its site. Utilizing staggered projecting and cantilevered horizontal roof planes, terraces, and a rich combination of surface cladding materials (e.g., stucco, natural wood, Corte Madera, CA 94925 etc.), the architect has succeeded in breaking up the overall mass of the structure without Peninsula & South Bay it appearing contrived, busy, or without compositional purpose.

Phone: 650.941.8048 The mix of solid supportive vertical walls balanced with large unencumbered glass window San Francisco & North Bay and fenestration openings makes the home more transparent and less of a massive Phone: 415.924.7059 impenetrable solid edifice when viewed from the downhill vista and the water. msa@msando\·alarchitccts.com DESIGN ANALYSIS \vww.msandovalarchitccts.com 20.04.110 Preservation of existing site conditions

The architect has placed the new two-story home generally in the same location as the current home that is to be removed and within the constraints of the topographic challenges of the site. Both the added size of the home and the new steep driveway that connects it with the roadway above necessitate major earthwork alterations to the existing site, and the removal of most the existing trees and vegetation currently found. The applicant is proposing to retain some of the smaller existing coastal oaks below the new proposed home; however, for the most part, not much of the existing landscape is to remain.

20. 04. 120 Relationship between structures and the site

The architect has placed the structure in a manner that effectively utilizes the natural contours to reduce the new proposed structure's overall visual mass as viewed from the two neighboring properties and as seen from the roadway above.

Comment:

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Arch itecture·H is toric Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page: 3 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

It should be pointed out that the applicant's architect may wish to reexamine the actual backup space proposed for the parking stall closest to the new main floor wall. It is unclear whether the proposed distance that seems to scale at around 18'-0" from the face of carport to the edge of the planter wall-leading to the entrance terrace below-may impede on this vehicle's overall maneuverability to backup, particularly if another vehicle occupies the parking space immediately to the right of this space.

20.04.130 Minimizing bulk and mass

The architect has designed the new home in an effective manner by placing a significant portion of the lower floor into the hillside underground, which helps lessen the overall mass of the home when viewed from the sides and front. In addition, utilizing the various cantilevered staggered decks and roof forms helps to avoid monotony and creates linear rhythm and depth to the building's fa<;:ades, breaking up what could otherwise be a more massive vertical form.

20.04.140 Materials and colors used

The materials and general colors provided in the revised submittal for both the home and the landscape (Sheets A202 and L004) all suggest a sense of permanence and should age naturally over time. They seem to be appropriate for both the landscape and the architecture of the home and should integrate well with the remaining trees and other 145 Corte Madera Town Center #404 natural vegetation found on this steep hillside lot. Corte Madera, CA 94925 20. 04. 150 Fences and screening Peninsula & South Bay

Phone: 650.941.8048 The proposed guardrails, site retaining wall elevations, and driveway entrance gate at the top of the roadway all appear to be constructed of the highest-quality materials and are San Francisco & North Bay aesthetically attractive. They have been thoughtfully placed in a manner that optimizes Phone: 415.924.7059 privacy for the adjoining neighbors without significantly obstructing important common view corridors. [email protected] www.msandovalarchitccts.com Comment:

Staff may wish the applicant's landscape architect to provide additional drawing details for any pedestrian gate which may be proposed along Belvedere Avenue, in addition to the deer fencing that is referenced in the Application for Revocable License dated June 5, 2017.

20.04.160 Privacy

Because of the building's orientation, with a majority of the windows and other fenestration elements facing the west and at a respectable distance from shared property lines with the contiguous properties, the added landscaping shown on Sheets L 141 and L 142 would help to increase the privacy between these neighbors. In the revised drawings dated 7/19/17 the applicant's architect seems to have added horizontal metal louvered screening within the northern wall opening of the new carport. Although it is unclear the actual space between each of louvers, this measure should help immensely to cut down the glare of any vehicle headlights that may be parking in the carport at night, which could have a real adverse impact on the bedroom windows of the closest neighbor located at 1 Pelican Point.

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Architecture +Ii s tori c Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page:4 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

20.04.170 Drives. parking. and circulation

There are a number of merits to the proposed design currently under consideration. Placing the vehicle parking below the roadway and widening a portion of Belvedere Avenue to provide two additional parking spaces and for emergency firetruck access enormously improves the overall safety along this narrow stretch of Belvedere Avenue.

20. 04. 180 Exterior fighting. skvfights. and reflectivity

On Sheet A600 in revised architectural drawings dated 7/19/17, the applicant is proposing to use all recessed low voltage soffit down light type fixtures to illuminate the building. Although their actual placement and quantity of fixtures are not clearly indicated they along with the proposed landscape lighting fixture specifications on Sheet L 1, all appear to be shielded and should not create excessive glare or light pollution that could annoy the neighboring property owners or passersby.

20. 04. 190 Consideration of nonconformities

Since this property happens to be much larger than the 14,700-square-foot minimum required in this zoning district, and because of there are so many positive merits with this proposed design, the granting of the conditional approval for these minor nonconformities 145 Co11e Madera Town Center #404 as a means of mitigation by the city, can't really be viewed in my opinion as unreasonable. Col1e Madera. CA 94925 Comment: Peninsula & South Bay

Phone: 650.941.8048 The revised project square footage tabulations shown on Sheet AOOO in the architectural

San Francisco & North Bay drawings seems to be inconsistent with the square footage numbers that are shown in the applications originally submitted for this project. Staff may wish to examine this data to Phone: 415.924. 7059 ensure their overall accuracy and that all applications are consistent and have been [email protected] properly updated. www.msandovalarchitects.com 20.04.200 Landscape plans-purpose

The proposed landscape plan submitted utilizes a rich combination of large box trees, flowering shrubs, perennials, and ground-covering plants and grasses that both complement the architectural style of the home and should equally harmonize with the existing hillside landscape of the neighboring properties.

20.04.210 Landscape plans-materials

Most of the plants and trees appear to be low-water-demand species, with a mix of both fast- and slow-growing types; however, because of the extensive removal of most of the existing trees and established vegetation, it will take a number of years for the new landscape to grow and mature. Once it does, the new landscape should complement the home and blend nicely with the undisturbed landscape of this hillside property.

The general level of attention and detail illustrated within the proposed landscape drawings seems to indicate a well-conceived plan, providing the minimum number of large trees, tall shrubs, grasses, and ground-covering plants needed for privacy without obstructing

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Arch itecture+I is tori c Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page:5 M. SANDOVAL ARCHITECTS, INC.

important shared views of the nearby neighbors. The proposed roof gardens also help to provide a less intrusive vista of the home as viewed from the edge of the roadway above.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the design under consideration does require significant earthwork and tree removal, it is a successful design solution for this particularly challenging down-sloping hillside property. In choosing a modern-styled signature-designed home for this property with selected colors, materials, and a well-designed landscape that complements the architecture of the home, it is my belief this new two-story home will over time, blend into its natural surroundings. With the exception of the comments noted above, it is my opinion that the Design Review Application for 1 Belvedere Avenue generally meets the design objectives found under Title 20, Architectural and Environmental Design Review, Section 20.04.050 and 20.04.110-20.04.210 of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code as currently submitted.

145 Corte Madera Town Center #404

Corte Madera. CA 94925

Peninsula & South Bay

Phone: 650.941.8048

San Francisco & North Bay

Phone: 415. 924. 7059 [email protected] www.msatldovalarchitects.com

1 Belvedere Avenue - Design Review Memorandum Arch itecture·H is toric Preservation ·Design Date: 8/2/17 (Second Review) Page:6 TREE-PROTECTION PLAN

1 Belvedere Avenue Belvedere, California (APN: 060-141 -08)

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

Prepared by: Dr. Kent Julin ISA Certified Arborist California Professional Forester ARBORSCIENCE

May 28, 2017

ATTACHMENT 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ASSIGNMENT ...... 1

SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS ...... 1

SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT ...... 1

DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT TREES ...... 1

CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTED TREES ...... 2 Mark and Cut Trees Designated for Removal ...... 2 Install Tree Protection Fencing ...... 2 Prune Exposed Roots ...... 2 Prune Damaged Branches ...... 2 Grade Outside Tree Protection Fencing ...... 2 Protect Roots Near Walkways ...... 3 Restore Surface Soils And Drainage Near Trees ...... 3

ARBORIST CHECKLIST ...... 3

CERTIFICATION ...... 4

Figure 1. Arborist Map ...... 5

Table 1. List of Subject Trees ...... 6

ii 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 ASSIGNMENT

The City of Belvedere hired ARBORSCIENCE to prepare this tree-protection plan for the planned demolition of an existing home and construction of a new single-family home at 1 Belvedere Avenue. I conducted fieldwork on May 18 and 21, 2017. This tree-protection plan describes existing trees then provides measures to protect the health and stability of trees on the property that are planned for retention.

SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS

Information regarding property boundaries, land and tree ownership were obtained from using County of Marin Assessor record maps. I have neither personal nor monetary interest in the outcome of this matter. All determinations reflected in this report are objective and to the best of my ability. Observations and conclusions regarding the subject trees and site conditions in this report were made by me, independently, based on my education, experience, and inspection of the site. Unless expressed otherwise, information contained in this report covers only those items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible tree components from the ground without dissection, root crown excavation, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question may not arise in the future.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

The subject trees are growing on a developed 0.85-acre parcel at 1 Belvedere Avenue in Belvedere, California. An existing house with redwood siding and detached garage on the property were originally constructed in 1963 then remodeled in 1973. Over mature landscaping consists of planted ornamental trees (i.e., pine, eucalyptus, cypress, maple, redwood, and Victorian box) and trees native to Belvedere Island (i.e., oak, bay, buckeye, and toyon). The grounds are unkempt, weedy, with significant infestations of French broom and pride of Madeira.

DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT TREES

The 99 trees on the property consist of 58-planted ornamentals and 41 that are native to Belvedere Island. The subject trees range in diameter at breast height from 6" to 60". Note that while coast redwood, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine are native to coastal California, none of these species grow naturally on the Island.

Trees to be Removed. The 78 trees planned for removal have reached the ends of their utility in this setting-they have poor form, are hazardous, or are within the development footprint. Their removal will promote the health of native trees that will be retained. Victorian box is the most abundant tree on the property and was likely planted for privacy screening purposes; these trees have not been well maintained. Canary Island pines were planted in the upper portion of the property and are reaching the end of their safe utility in

1 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 this setting. Three Monterey pines that grow on the property are highly susceptible to pitch pine canker (Fusarium circinatum) and are not suitable for retention. Four coast redwoods grow mid slope on the property. Redwoods are generally problematic when growing near homes-their aggressive root systems uplift walkways, damage pool decks, crack foundations, and drop large, heavy limbs during winter storms that can be life threatening. Eight red gum eucalypts grow in the western lower garden. These trees are massive, block views, and present both fire and falling hazards.

Trees to be Retained. The 21 trees planned for retention are native trees that are outside the development footprint. Retained trees include a grove of coast live oaks that grows on the lower slope and 2 native buckeye trees grow along the northern property line.

CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTED TREES

Mark And Cut Trees Designated For Removal. All trees designated for removal will be spray-painted with a red "X" and a stump spot by the project arborist. After tree removal work is completed, the project arborist will inspect remaining trees for damage and provide recommendations for protected tree repair if needed.

Install Tree Protection Fencing. Protected trees will be fenced with 4'-tall orange plastic construction fencing to help guard them from construction impacts. Placement of the fencing is shown in Figure 1 and should be installed with oversight by the project arborist or City representative in consultation with the contractors. Heavy equipment has the potential to gouge surface soils and damage major roots. Protection fencing should be regularly checked to ensure that the tree roots are not damaged in protected areas. The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the fencing and excluding construction activities from these zones unless the project arborist supervises it.

Prune Exposed Roots. Generally, cutting roots three inches or greater in diameter should be avoided on protected trees. Roots one 1- to 3-inches in diameter that must be cut should be cut cleanly and obliquely with the cut surface facing slightly downward. Exposed and pruned roots should be covered with light well-drained soils and mulch. The area should be kept moist during the dry season to avoid desiccation for the first year after construction.

Prune Damaged Branches. Pruning shall be done in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations, Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices. Protected trees may need special pruning to accommodate the construction. Only an experienced, licensed arborist should perform the necessary tree work, and the project arborist should oversee all tree work.

Grade Outside Tree Protection Fencing. Grading should be kept away from critical root zones of protected trees. Unavoidable grading within critical root zones should be performed manually or pneumatically and overseen by the project arborist. Holes for piers and posts in critical root zones should be excavated by hand to identify large roots so that piers can be re-positioned if possible.

2 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 Protect Roots Near Walkways. Roots from protected trees near the planned walkway may be mechanically cut, but should be hand or pneumatically finished where significant roots of protected trees are encountered.

Restore Surface Soils and Drainage Near Trees. The soil and drainage shall be rehabilitated and all debris removed after construction.

ARBORIST CHECKLIST

1. The project arborist will mark trees for removal and oversee installation of tree­ protection fencing (Figure 1) prior to starting demolition, grading or construction work.

2. The project arborist shall attend a pre-construction meeting with contractor or responsible party and all other foremen or crew managers on site prior to any work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection. The contractor must notify the project arborist if major roots are exposed or if trunk or branches are wounded on protected trees.

3. Heavy equipment use should be limited around protected trees and their roots. No heavy equipment may be transported or used on bare ground within the tree protection fencing.

4. Any damage to trees due to construction activities shall be reported to the project arborist within 6 hours, so that remedial action can be taken.

5. All trenching within the critical root zones of protected trees shall be done pneumatically or by hand.

6. The project arborist shall oversee all grading, trenching, tunneling, or other excavation within the critical root zones of protected trees.

7. No chemicals or masonry waste materials shall be dumped in the critical root zones of protected trees.

8. Any minor roots (<3.0") encountered should be cut cleanly with a saw after excavation.

9. Pruning with be done to ANSI A300 Standards. The project arborist will supervise all pruning.

10. The project arborist must perform a final inspection to insure that no unmitigated damage has occurred and to specify any pest, disease, or other health care. The project arborist shall specify and oversee any necessary restorative actions.

3 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 CERTIFICATION

I certify that the proposed project with prescribed tree-protection measures presented in this report will protect the systemic health and stability of trees identified for retention on the property.

Sincerely,

ARBORSCIENCE

,/7 / ' •1 / /.' //,/J //'/ /:.-~·/ .--z/~ /',/' /' / / ..,_,.' / 'h/>" / / // Kent R. julin, Ph.D. ISA Certified Arborist #WE-8733A ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor Qualified California Registered Professional Forester #2648

4 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 Legend

Coast live oak (33)

California bay (3)

California buckeye {2)

Toyon {4)

Coast redwood (4)

Monterey pine (4)

Canary Island pine (7)

Monterey cypress (3)

Japanese maple (3)

Red gum (8)

Victorian box (28)

Trees to Remove

Tree Protection Fencing Development Envelope

0 25 50

______E_____ ARBORIST MAP souNo Ti"'

Figure 1. Arborist map for 1 Belvedere Avenue.

5 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 Table 1. List of subject trees at 1 Belvedere Avenue that measure 6 inches or larger in trunk diameter at breast height (DBH, 4.5' above grade) by number, common name, species name, DBH, if they are native to Belvedere Island, and plans for retention under the current development proposal.

No. Common Name Scientific Name DBH (in.) Native Retain Tree Tree 1 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 27 - - 2 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Native - 3 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 67 - - 4 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 10 - - 5 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 11 -- 6 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 14 -- 7 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 7 - - 8 California bay Umbellularia californica 12 Native - 9 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9 Native - 10 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 18 - - 11 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9 - - 12 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 4,5,7 - - 13 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 13 - - 14 Victorian box Pittosporum undu/atum 7 - - 15 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 22 - - 16 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 27 -- 17 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 21 - - 18 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 18 - - 19 California bay Umbellularia californica 13,13 Native - 20 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 8 - - 21 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9,9 -- 22 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 3,3,4,5,9 - - 23 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6,6 -- 24 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 7 -- 25 California buckeye Aescu/us ca/ifornica 17 Native Retain 26 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 3,3,4,7 -- 27 Coast live oak Quercus aqrifolia 9 Native - 28 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 9 - - 29 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14 Native - 30 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 13 -- 31 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6,8 - - 32 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 10 - - 33 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 8 - - 34 California bay Umbellularia californica 31 Native - 35 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 6,7 Native - 36 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 7 - - 37 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 4,6,6,6,7 - - 38 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 2,4,4 -- 39 Japanese maple Acer palmatum 2,4,5,5,5,6 -- 40 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6,6 Native - 6 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 No. Common Name Scientific Name DBH (in.) Native Retain Tree Tree 41 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 Native Retain 42 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 4 - - 43 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 5,6,8 - - 44 Coast redwood Sequoia sempetvirens 60 - - 45 Tovon Heteromeles arbutifolia 3,4,5,5,6 Native - 46 Coast redwood Sequoia sempetvirens 6 - - 47 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 Native - 48 Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 50 -- 49 Coast redwood Sequoia sempetvirens 9 - - 50 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native Retain 51 Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 12 -- 52 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9 Native - 53 Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 8 -- 54 Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa 18 -- 55 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native - 56 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9 Native - 57 Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 48 -- 58 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 15 - - 59 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 8 Native - 60 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6,7,9,10,15 Native - 61 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7,8,12 Native - 62 Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 18,22 - - 63 Red Qum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 14 - - 64 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 2,2,2,3 Native - 65 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 Native - 66 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 21 - - 67 California buckeye Aesculus ca/ifornica 12 Native Retain 68 Red Qum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 23 -- 69 Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 37 - - 70 Red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 12, 12 - - 71 Red Qum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 14 - - 72 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native Retain 73 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6,6,8,8, 10 Native Retain 74 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native Retain 75 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7,12 Native Retain 76 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 9, 11 Native Retain 77 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7,7 Native Retain 78 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native Retain 79 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13 Native Retain 80 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 7 Native Retain 81 Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 10 Native - 82 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 Native Retain 83 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Native Retain 84 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 8 Native Retain 85 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Native Retain 7 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 No. Common Name Scientific Name DBH (in.) Native Retain Tree Tree 86 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Native Retain 87 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Native Retain 88 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 8 Native Retain 89 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 8 Native Retain 90 Coast live oak Quercus aqrifolia 4,8 Native - 91 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6 - - 92 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 7,8 - - 93 Victorian box Pittosporum undu/atum 8,9 -- 94 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 11 - - 95 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 7 - - 96 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6 -- 97 Victorian box Pittosporum undulatum 6 - - 98 Victorian box Pittosporum undu/atum 6,6 - - 99 Victorian box Pittosporum undu/atum 5,6 -

8 1 Belvedere Avenue Tree-Protection Plan 5/28/2017 Sizes and FAR's of Residences within a 100-Foot Radius in the R-15 Zone Residence Lot Area Address FAR(%) (s.f.) (s.f.) 11 Belvedere A venue** 4,690 28,432 16.5 1 Britton A venue* 9,448 48,655 19.4 1 Pelican Point Road** 5,930 15,080 39.3 4 Pelican Point Road* 3,365 21,500 15.7 101 Golden Gate Avenue* 1,629 14,400 11.3 102 Golden Gate 4,936 21,663 22.7 Avenue** 19 Oak A venue* 3,696 39,606 9.3 1 Belvedere Avenue 7,233 34,129 21.1 (Current)

* Marin County Assessor Records * * City of Belvedere Permit Records

ATTACHMENT 10 Irene Borba - City Planner

From: William Hasler Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 2:41 PM To: Irene Borba - City Planner Cc: Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner; Nancy Miller - Secretary Subject: One Belvedere Avenue

To: Irene Borba Director of Planning and Building City of Belvedere

Betty and I are writing in support of the proposed project at 1 Belvedere.

We are the residents of 102 Golden Gate which overlooks this proposed project. We have had a full opportunity to review the proposed design and plans and fully support them.

We have no neighborly concerns and believe that the result will be a positive addition to the Belvedere scene. Please feel free to contact us with any follow up questions.

Very truly yours.

Bill and Betty Hasler 415 789-0014

ATTACHMENT 11

1 Ms. Marsha Lasky Chairperson, Belvedere Planning Commission

Dear Marsha-

Hi. We are writing to support the application by Justin and Susan Kelly for the Susan C. Kelly Trust to replace the abandoned house at One Belvedere Avenue with construction of a new home. Please circulate this email to other members of the Committee.

Sharon and I have known the Kellys for nearly 20 years and their daughter and son since birth. They are bright, successful and engaging people. They are the epitome of desired family/neighbors in Belvedere. This highly favorable view is evidenced in part by my choosing Justin to be my successor CEO at Winslow Capital in Minneapolis.

Regarding their proposed home, they have talked at length with their neighbors to be sure their proposed home does not adversely affect the neighbors privacy and their views. The Kellys have owned a home on the Lagoon since 2010 until a few months ago when they began this project to commit further to Belvedere. They would highly appreciate being on the Planning Committee's calendar as soon as possible to move along expeditiously before the winter rains begin.

Based on what we know of their proposal and their character, we hope the Kellys' new home, to be built by Jungsten Construction, will receive expeditious review and approval. Best wishes, Clark and Sharon

Clark J. Winslow Founder [email protected] M: 612.751.90071 0: 612.376.9107

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it may contain confidential and legally privileged information. This information is intended for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, take notice that any disclosures, copying, distribution or taking of any action based upon this information is prohibited by law. If you have received this e-mail in error, please return it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you. AUG 07 From: Todd Chaffee < Date: August 5, 2017 at 8:26:03 PM PDT To: "[email protected]" Cc: Jeff Jungsten Subject: 1 Belvedere Avenue

Hi Irene,

I wanted you (and the Planning Commissioners) to know that I have reviewed the plans for the new home at 1 Belvedere, and I am supportive of the plans as they have been submitted.

I think the new home will be a great enhancement to the neighborhood.

Thanks,

TC Phmip W. Moffitt JUL lO 2017 To: Rebecca Mark.wick mailto:[email protected] City of Belvedere Belvedere Planning Commission

RE: 1 Belvedere Avenue proposed new home

As the closest neighbor at One Pelican Point I will be affected by this proposed new home construction. I wish to work with the K~llys in a cooperative manner to where they can have a wonderful new house while preserving the pleasing qualities of my home. As is normal in this early design phase, I think it is possible to modify the proposed design to have less impact on my home.

While it is hard to tell the true impact until the story poles are accurately placed and labeled and the physical property line between our properties is marked, we have the following concerns: 1 The temporary metal story pole erected closest to the water is in the middle of my main view corridor towards the GG Bridge. We need to know what this represents. A structure there, or worse, people there would not only block my view but would also threaten the privacy of my master bedroom and main living area. If this is the top view deck, this would be quite alarming. Of particular concern is the overall size and height of the terraces. 2 The impact of cars pulling into the autocourt area. It appears that as cars turn into this area they would be looking right into, and worse, shining headlights right into my office and bedrooms. 3 The new structure at the carport and bunk room areas is going to be physically close to my office and bedrooms.

Because of these concerns we are requesting the following: 1 That the story poles depict the following in a method where it is clear to tell: a Carport: Floor level 11 Railing level m Rooflevel iv Depict clearly any open areas where headlights would shine across the property line. b Lower and Upper Terraces: I All the outside comers of the structures .. , . . ' ~

Phil~ip W. MojJiU .till 102017

11 bottom of each floor structure vertically (to see vfe~ of Belvedere blockage) 111 floor level iv Railing top level v Location of the circular stair 2 That the property line be marked so it is easily seen along the line where our structures will be physically close 3 Show accurately on your site plan the closest corners and walls of the structures on One Pelican Point Road. ·

The designer, the Kelly's and the planning commission members are welcome to come and look from inside my home. Please call me in advance at: .. or my Owner's Representative Richard Wodehouse at: 415 944 0278 On any future correspondence Please send to me at: mailto:[email protected] and copy Richard Wodehouse at: mailto:rw@ri c hardwodehou se. com

Richard E. Wodehouse cell: 415 944 0278 PO Box 211, Tiburon, Ca 94920 www. ri chardwodehouse. com

CC: Justin Kelly:mailto:[email protected] Jeff Jungsten:mailto:[email protected] Carl Goldfischer RICHARD E WODEHOUSE PO Box 211 Tiburon, CA. 94920

Cell: 415 944 0278 Professional Project Manager Owner's Representative rw@rjchardwodehrn1se com Certified in Mediation CA. G.C. Lic#305719 rjcbardwodehouse com

August 3, 2017

Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner City of Belvedere AUG 0 3 2017 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

RE: 1 Belvedere Avenue Design Review

Dear Rebecca:

I am writing on behalf of Phillip Moffitt, owner of 1 Pelican Point Road in Belvedere. This letter is submitted in advance of the design review hearing for 1 Belvedere Avenue ("Project"). The following elements of the Project plans are particularly concerning:

1. The Project's upper level deck presents substantial and significant view and privacy issues for the Moffitts; specifically in the master bedroom, living room, dining room and adjacent deck. • Impact #1 : The outer 60% of the Project's upper deck is located directly in the existing view corridor for the Golden gate Bridge and Richardson Bay. • Impact #2: Any person on the Project deck will have a close up view of the Mof­ fitts' master bed as well as the living room, dining room and deck. These incom­ patible uses will eliminate necessary privacy in the Moffitts' primary living spaces. • Impact #3: The exterior lighting in and around the upper and lower deck for the Project will unreasonably interfere with the Moffitts' use and enjoyment from pri­ mary living areas. Suggested solution: Reconfigure or reposition the deck so it does not cantilever so far from the home and towards the Bay. Reducing the depth of the deck should sub­ stantially alleviate obstruction of the Moffitts' view corridor. We acknowledge that if the project deck is located over part of the pool, it could be viewed as shading the pool. However, since the sun will come well under the deck from the South and West, we see this as a minimal drawback.

2. If the tree removal plan is executed, as shown on the Project plans, there will be very little mature vegetation left to provide visual screening and sound buffering between the Project's and Moffitts' house. It is strongly recommended that the applicant, staff, and the Commission review these conditions and make necessary arrangements to pre­ serve existing conditions to minimize post construction impacts that are reasonably avoidable at the outset. • Impact #1 : Car headlights from the Project will unreasonably shine into the Mof­ fitts' property (office and bedrooms). We have been assured that there is going to be screening for car headlights, but we don't know what this will be or whether it can be effective. There should be a solution presented in the design materials and a condition of approval for continued maintenance of the solution feature.

3. Project windows are unnecessarily and unreasonably directed towards the Moffitts' house, decreasing privacy and introducing potential light pollution. Each of the rooms identified below also currently show windows oriented to the Bay view, so eliminating the windows facing the Moffitts' home should not result in a meaningful impact to the design, light access, or use and enjoyment of the home. • Windows # 214 and 215 in the study next to the kitchen: These will look directly into Moffitts' master bedroom, deck and dining and living room. • Window # 217 in the pantry: even though it is high, light will go towards Moffitts' home. Window in a pantry seems particularly unnecessary. • Window # 219 in the mud room/laundry. • Door # 115 and side glass to the Exercise room . • Window #115 in the bunk room. Even though it is high, if it is a bunk then privacy is an issue as well as light. • Door # 111 and window #11 O in Pool Bath. • Clerestory windows in the stair tower will addd tonight pollution. Suggested solutions: Eliminate these windows, install non-glass doors, and put focus on the adjacent windows facing the bay view. Locate stair tower lights so as to minimize light shining out these high windows.

4. The proximity and height of the Project's carport structure relative to the Moffitts' ex­ isting improvements. Approval of the design as submitted will create an alley effect since there will be little or no remaining tall vegetation to occupy the same space and provide necessary screening. The shading effect of the proposed 30 foot tall structure will stunt growth of new plantings along this alley between these homes.

Suggested solution: Shift the carport South to retain as many existing trees as possible, in consultation with the project arborist's recommendations for tree protection. Supplement the existing vegetation as necessary.

Thank you for your consideration. We call your attention to the following guidelines:

GOAL CD-6: Maintain privacy between neighbors. Policy CD-6.1 : Privacy impacts to surrounding properties should be minimized by ade­ quate building separation, building setbacks, screen plantings, building orientation, and sensitive design of outdoor living areas. Actions: CD-6.1.1 : Design new construction with an aim to minimize visual or auditory intrusion onto neighboring properties. CD-6.1.2: Building placement, deck placement, and window size and placement should give consideration to the privacy of nearby buildings. CD-6.1.3: The desire to maintain neighbor privacy should be balanced with the fair and reasonable use of yard areas for functional purposes.

2 Jungsten Construction Tel 415.381.3162 495 Miller Avenue Fax 415.381.3165 Mill Valley, CA 94941 lic.#549463

To Rebecca Markwick AUG 0 4 2017 Town of Belvedere Re: response to Wodehouse letter on behalf of Phillip Moffit City of Re: 1 Belvedere 8-4-17

Rebecca, Please find attached responses to the letter from Mr Wodehouse regarding 1 Belvedere.

Issue 1. The upper level deck The Project's upper level deck presents substantial and significant view and privacy issues for the Moffitts; specifically, in the master bedroom, living room, dining room and adjacent deck.

"Impact #1: The outer 60% of the Project's upper deck is located directly in the existing view corridor for the Golden gate Bridge and Richardson Bay." Response to Impact #1: The project is sited low allowing for neighboring views over the structure to the Golden Gate Bridge and Richardson Bay (as seen in previous submittals approved by both the city and the neighbors)

"Impact #2: Any person on the Project deck will have a close up view of the Moffitt's master bed as well as the living room, dining room and deck. These incompatible uses will eliminate necessary privacy in the Moffitts' primary living spaces." Response to Impact #2: While we disagree with it being a "close up view" there will be the ability for the Neighbors to see the project's deck, it is substantially lower than their current deck and living space giving them a view over the deck.

"Impact #3: The exterior lighting in and around the upper and lower deck for the Project will unreasonably interfere with the Moffitts' use and enjoyment from primary living areas." Response to Impact #3: No lighting has been placed on the upper deck at the corner toward the Moffitt's property The recessed downlight locations are labeled "RL" on sheets A120 and A110. The lower deck has recessed downlights to provide a lit secure path from the pool to the pool bath.

"Suggested solution: Reconfigure or reposition the deck so it does not cantilever so far from the home and towards the Bay. Reducing the depth of the deck should substantially alleviate obstruction of the Moffitts' view corridor. We acknowledge that if the project deck is located over part of the pool, it could be viewed as shading the pool. However, since the sun will come well under the deck from the South and West, we see this as a minimal drawback." Response: The project's deck, as compared to previous designs approved for this site by the city, has been moved further away from the north property line and does not reach out as far. The siting of the exiting home, the previously approved design as well as the proposed project all sit substantially lower than the neighboring property allowing views over to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Issue #2. North side screening "If the tree removal plan is executed, as shown on the Project plans, there will be very little mature vegetation left to provide visual screening and sound buffering between the Project's and Moffitts' house. It is strongly recommended that the applicant, staff, and the Commission review these conditions and make necessary arrangements to preserve existing conditions to minimize post construction impacts that are reasonably avoidable at the outset." "Impact #1: Car headlights from the Project will unreasonably shine into the Moffitts' property (office and bedrooms). We have been assured that there is going to be screening for car headlights, but we don't know what this will be or whether it can be effective. There should be a solution presented in the design materials and a condition of approval for continued maintenance of the solution feature." Response to Impact #1: There has been significant planning relating to the driving access to the proposed residence. The car lights will be aiming down as the cars approach the carport. The added louvered design is above the 3'-6" wall that acts as the primary light block for cars coming down the driveway. Screening considerations are now included in the design. A large screening hedge and native oaks are planned for the property line area.

Issue 3 -All Windows on the North Side. "Project windows are unnecessarily and unreasonably directed towards the Moffitts' house, decreasing privacy and introducing potential light pollution. Each of the rooms identified below also currently show windows oriented to the Bay view, so eliminating the windows facing the Moffitts' home should not result in a meaningful impact to the design, light access, or use and enjoyment of the home." Response: Natural light is crucial to the experience of a home and is a hallmark of the designs of Charles R. Stinson Design International. While we understand the concerns the property next door looks directly over the majority of our property that is usable and feel that the current design is a reasonable response to difficult site conditions and neighboring property placements.

"Windows # 214 and 215 in the study next to the kitchen: These will look directly into Moffitts' master bedroom, deck and dining and living room." Response: There are currently many large windows in the existing house aimed directly at the neighbor's property. The new residence window is at the study which is a secondary use space and will not be in use at all times. Eliminating the windows on the North side creates a claustrophobic, cave-like feel not conducive to working there.

"Window# 217 in the pantry: even though it is high, light will go towards Moffitts' home. Window in a pantry seems particularly unnecessary." Response: The windows are being used to borrow natural light into the hallway at the end of the house and will not substantially impact the privacy of the neighbors or cause light pollution as the area is mainly for storage and borrowing light.

"Window# 219 in the mud room/laundry." Response: Light that enters from many directions is preferable than in a single direction which creates a cave-like feel. In original designs of the home these windows went down to counter height and provide more privacy they were raised to transom height.

"Door# 115 and side glass to the Exercise room." Response: A screening hedge outside an exercise room window is a much more pleasurable experience. The screening implemented will minimize the impact of this room that is used for minimal amounts of time.

"Window #115 in the bunk room. Even though it is high, if it is a bunk then privacy G is an issue as well as light." Response: The bunks are behind a wall. Again originally a larger window with plant screening was preferable but it was opted to raise the window in consideration of the neighbor while not having the room feel cave-like.

"Door# 111 and window #110 in Pool Bath." Response: The door will have obscured glass and the windows may be obscured as well. Having natural light is preferable than a cave-like room with natural light only at one end.

"Clerestory windows in the stair tower will addd tonight pollution."

Response: These windows are an important characteristic of the architecture and are set far back from the property line and will not adversely impact the neighbors.

Response: We feel it is unreasonable to suggest eliminating every single window on the north side of the home. Much care has gone into the planning the windows to provide natural light into the home while being sensitive to the privacy of the neighbors. The challenge of this site is the majority of the Neighbor's rooms look directly over this site. The windows have been planned for both properties privacy in mind.

Issue 4 - Carport "4. The proximity and height of the Project's carport structure relative to the Moffitts' existing improvements. Approval of the design as submitted will create an alley effect since there will be little or no remaining tall vegetation to occupy the same space and provide necessary screening. The shading effect of the proposed 30 foot tall structure will stunt growth of new plantings along this alley between these homes." Response: It should be noted that the carport structure is not 30' all along the property line due to the strong slope of the site. The area of the carport closest to the neighbor starts at roughly 12' which will allow ample light into that area for vegetation to grow.

"Suggested solution: Shift the carport South to retain as many existing trees as possible, in consultation with the project arborist's recommendations for tree protection. Supplement the existing vegetation as necessary." Response: The location of the proposed carport has been well planned and is in direct relation to the placement and location of the proposed building, which in turn has been located most sensitively to reduce impacts to the neighbors. By locating the residence where it is planned and in concert with both direct neighbors, (in the same relative area as the existing residence), it limits the view impacts, enhances the access and finds symmetry with the site. The carport cannot be moved south, as the ability to use the driveway and parking areas would not be possible. The location of the residence is in the best possible location for the neighbors thus the access and relationships to centralized parking and the dimensions for those areas has been well planned around the constraints of the proposed building. The combination of hedge with trees will provide privacy at various sea/es of height. Per the drawings, the screening hedges and oaks will be installed at a large size and have been selected specifically to be fast-growing and tolerant of the variety of soil and light conditions.

"GOAL CD-6: Maintain privacy between neighbors." Response: The project submitted has implemented many strategies to preserve and create privacy for the owners and neighbors. The use of high glass allows for natural light in from outside while limiting views out to neighboring properties preserving privacy. "Sightproof' louvers have been added to eliminate any direct light reaching the neighboring property to the north. Much care has been given to adding new plant screening to the property to replace existing screening that will be impacted through the construction process. Lighting has only been added to areas where security and access is an issue while limiting the lighting towards neighboring properties. The project as a whole meets the design objectives and goals of the City of Belvedere.

End of response. Jeff Jungsten, on behalf of the Kellys. ws WESTOVER SURVEYING

RE: #1 Belvedere Ave., Belvedere Story-pole Verification

On August 4, 2017, My field crew measured the following elevations and locations on the story­ poles at the above referenced location and as referenced from the plans provided by the client. Following are the surveyed results. The design elevations below are from the plans provided by the client.

MEASURED STORY POLE# DESIGN ELEVATION ELEVATION CUT/FILL SP-1 160.33 160.38 -0.05 SP-2 160.33 159.79 0.54 SP-3 160.33 160.09 0.24 SP-4 160.33 160.31 0.02 SP-5 156.37 156.21 0.16 SP-6 156.37 156.44 -0.06 SP-7 158.21 158.46 -0.25 SP-8 158.21 158.23 -0.02 SP-9 158.21 158.09 0.12 SP-10 158.21 158.22 -0.01 SP-11 156.37 156.11 0.26 SP-12 140.02 139.89 0.13 SP-13 150.67 150.37 0.30 SP-14 155.58 155.49 0.09 SP-15 140.02 139.97 0.05 SP-16 150.67 149.82 0.84 SP-17 155.58 155.45 0.13

336 CLAREMONT BLVD .. SUITE 2 • SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 • PH: (415) 242-5400 • FAX: (415) 242-5410 website: westoversurveying.com ws WESTOVER SURVEYING

MEASURED STORY POLE# DESIGN ELEVATION ELEVATION CUT/FILL SP-18 140.02 139.67 0.35 SP-19 140.02 139.61 0.41 SP-20 140.02 139.65 0.37 SP-21 140.02 139.91 0.11 SP-22 140.02 139.90 0.12 SP-23 155.58 155.50 0.08 SP-24 127.00 126.89 0.11 SP-25 127.00 127.00 0.00 SP-26 140.02 139.78 0.24 SP-27 150.67 150.52 0.15 SP-28 140.02 140.13 -0.10 SP-29 150.67 150.64 0.03 SP-30 155.58 155.54 0.04 SP-31 155.58 155.22 0.36 SP-32 155.58 155.27 0.31 SP-33 155.58 155.40 0.18 SP-06A 156.37 156.57 -0.20

Daniel J. Westover, PLS 7779

336 CLAREMONT BLVD., SUITE 2 •SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 •PH: (415) 242-5400 • FAX: (415) 242-5410 website: westoversurveying.com ws WESTOVER SURVEYING

RE: #1 Belvedere Ave., Belvedere Story-pole Verification

On August 4, 2017, My field crew measured the following elevations and locations on the story­ poles at the above referenced location and as referenced from the plans provided by the client. Following are the surveyed results. The design elevations below are from the plans provided by the client.

MEASURED STORY POLE# DESIGN ELEVATION ELEVATION CUT/FILL SP-1 160.33 160.38 -0.05 SP-2 160.33 159.79 0.54 SP-3 160.33 160.09 0.24 SP-4 160.33 160.31 0.02 SP-5 156.37 156.21 0.16 SP-6 156.37 156.44 -0.06 SP-7 158.21 158.46 -0.25 SP-8 158.21 158.23 -0.02 SP-9 158.21 158.09 0.12 SP-10 158.21 158.22 -0.01 SP-11 156.37 156.11 0.26 SP-12 140.02 139.89 0.13 SP-13 150.67 150.37 0.30 SP-14 155.58 155.49 0.09 SP-15 140.02 139.97 0.05 SP-16 150.67 149.82 0.84 SP-17 155.58 155.45 0.13

336 CLAREMONT BLVD., SUITE 2 • SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 • PH: (415) 242-5400 • FAX: (415) 242-5410 website: westoversurveying.com ws WESTOVER SURVEYING

MEASURED STORY POLE# DESIGN ELEVATION ELEVATION CUT/FILL SP-18 140.02 139.67 0.35 SP-19 140.02 139.61 0.41 SP-20 140.02 139.65 0.37 SP-21 140.02 139.91 0.11 SP-22 140.02 139.90 0.12 SP-23 155.58 155.50 0.08 SP-24 127.00 126.89 0.11 SP-25 127.00 127.00 0.00 SP-26 140.02 139.78 0.24 SP-27 150.67 150.52 0.15 SP-28 140.02 140.13 -0.10 SP-29 150.67 150.64 0.03 SP-30 155.58 155.54 0.04 SP-31 155.58 155.22 0.36 SP-32 155.58 155.27 0.31 SP-33 155.58 155.40 0.18 SP-06A 156.37 156.57 -0.20

Daniel J. Westover, PLS 7779

336 CLAREMONT BLVD., SUITE 2 •SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 •PH: (415) 242-5400 •FAX: (415) 242-5410 website: westoversurveying.com ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

Partial assessment of and recommendations for trees at 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Belvedere, California

1UG 0 7 2017 Of

Prepared at the Request of:

Mr. Richard Wodehouse, Owner's Representative 1 Pelican Point Belvedere, CA

Site Visit:

Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA)

8/4/2017

Report:

WLCA

8/4/2017

1of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

1.0 BackgroundandAssignment~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-3 2.0 Summary 3 3.0 Conclusion 8 4.0 Recommendations 9 5.0 Consultant's Qualifications 2 6.0 Bay Area Vendors 3 7.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 4 8.0 Certification 4 9.0 Digital Images 15 10.0 Attached, Tree Location Map (from Belvedere Contract Town Arborist Report 5/18/2017)_18

2of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ~lb V\Talter Levison r CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 1.0 Background and Assignment

Walter Levison (WLCA} was requested by Mr. Richard Wodehouse, owner's representative for 1 Pelican Point, to assess portions of the arborist report prepared by Dr. Trent Julin, Town of Belvedere Contract Arborist, who prepared a report dated 5/28/17 for the 1 Belvedere proposed site plan.

The scope of WLCA's work was to:

1. Visit the 1 Pelican Point site on 8/4/2017 to assess existing screening conditions in relation to the proposed plan for new residential construction at 1 Belvedere.

2. Prepare a written arborist report which details concerns and outlines recommendations for mitigation of sight-line screening loss that is expected to occur if the current proposed plan for 1 Belvedere is built as proposed.

3. Attend the Town of Belvedere planning commission meeting on 8/15/2017 to discuss my findings and recommendations with the Town commissioners.

The documents used to prepare this report were:

a. The "arborist map" prepared by Dr. Jul in in his report for 1 Belvedere which shows tree disposition (retain, remove}. b. A tree list of 1 Belvedere specimens noted by tree tag number, species, diameter, and disposition. c. A tree planting schedule of new trees and shrubs proposed to be installed on 1 Belvedere. d. A portion of the proposed retaining wall and stairs plan sheet for the northeast portion of the 1 Belvedere project. e. A portion of the overall site plan sheet. f. A portion of the proposed plant and tree installation plan for the north boundary area of 1 Belvedere.

Assignment Limitations

WLCA's analysis was limited, due to the lack of access to the 1 Belvedere property. 1 Pelican Point owner's representative Richard Wodehouse requested access to the 1 Belvedere property, but was denied. We were required to stay to the north of an imaginary property line that had not been flagged or otherwise noted in the field by a surveyor. 2.0 Summary

1. Existing Screening Trees:

A large number of mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia}, Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum}, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens}, Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa}, and large specimens of other tree species are currently in fair to good overall condition, growing along the property line boundary between 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point (see images below in this report}.

Some of these trees are providing a boundary screen within 20 feet of the common property line boundary between 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Poin, and are tagged and shown on the tree location map in Mr. Julin's report as trees #18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 68, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, etc.

3of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboricullure

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ~lb Walter Levison r CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

The evergreen screening provided by these trees is present year round, and blocks most or all views of the 1 Belvedere property existing residence when standing in the master bedroom and/or the decks at 1 Pelican Point.

Maintenance of and protection of this screen is a priority for privacy at 1 Pelican Point.

It is not known if the current boundary fence line is built along the correct lot line. Some of the above-noted trees may be located on 1 Pelican Point, and would therefore not be allowed to be removed or negatively impacted in any way during construction at 1 Belvedere.

2. Plan-Proposed Removals:

All of the trees noted in section 2.0(1) above are currently shown as to be removed on the proposed site plan sheets for 1 Belvedere.

It is not clear as to why every existing evergreen screening tree is proposed to be removed between the property line and the proposed new residence on 1 Belvedere, and then that area is to be immediately replanted with twenty-four (24) 48" box size coast live oak specimens (Quercus agrifolia). The cost of installing this many large native tree specimens along the steep sloped north boundary of 1 Belvedere is 1 considered "extreme" , and would probably require use of special equipment such as very large cranes, simply to install a new sight-line screen that replaces what screening already exists along that area of the site. The extreme cost of oak specimen installation would seem to be better utilized for other purposes.

See also item #4 below, which details the limitations of the current proposed planting scheme.

3. Loss of Screening Due to Proposed Removals:

Loss of screening is estimated to be 80% loss of sight-line screening along the property boundary area of 1 Belvedere, with all trees noted in 2.0(1) above being proposed for removal per the current proposed plans.

The only remaining screening that would block sight-line views between the 1 Pelican Point bedrooms {existing) and the 1 Belvedere decks and structures (proposed) would be a small grove of coast live oaks located on the 1 Pelican Point property, which would provide some residual minimal screening benefit (see images below in this report).

Screening between the two properties for the first undetermined number of years from buildout of 1 Belvedere to "parity'' would be minimal at best, and reduce privacy to a level hitherto unseen at 1 Pelican Point.

Sight-line screening from the new 48" box size oaks would be very minimal for at least 1O to 20 years as the trees go through a transplant establishment period of one to two years, and are then possibly stunted by extreme shading from the 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point residence masses. Because coast live oaks (and almost all of the world's landscape trees) require full sun to thrive and maintain normal growth functions, this shading may reduce the new oak screen planting growth rate severely. The 10 to 20 year estimate for the screening plantings to attain "parity" with current existing screening trees that are located along the north side of 1 Belvedere is reasonable, given the above noted limiting factors.

1 Per WLCA references, each tree installed cost could exceed $5,000 or $6,000 per tree, not including special use of cranes to lower the tree boxes down the slope.

4 of 18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

Right: Image taken 8/4/2017 illustrating how the proposed new main deck at 1 Belvedere will affect privacy and views from the 1 Pelican Point master bedroom. Note that most of the existing screening trees in the uppermost 50% of this image will be removed from 1 Belvedere if the tree removal plan is executed as currently proposed. This will effectively reduce sight-line screening between the two properties to minimal screening at best, and result in an unacceptable situation.

Below Right: Mature pittosporum screening trees located along the property boundary line between 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point, looking northward (upward toward the street). It is not clear as to why the applicant proposing new construction at 1 Belvedere shows all of the trees along the north side of his property as being removed, since this screening is currently excellent, and many of the trees do not appear to be a hindrance to proposed new construction (not verified).

4. Proposed Planting Plan I Effects of, and Limitations:

Removals

The proposed planting plan shows roughly 70 trees being removed from the property in the uppermost 80% or so of the landmass, with only twenty or so trees being retained in the lowermost portion of the property nearest the bay.

Replacements

The current proposed planting schedule sheet shows at least twenty-four (24) 48" box size coast live oaks being installed as both property line and "infill", plus another nine 60" box size coast live oaks in a grove, and one specimen 84" box size coast live oak.

The planting schedule also indicates installation of 143 pittosporum specimens, although from my limited plan sheet image, WLCA could not determine if some or all of these were to be installed along the joint property line area as screening (not verified).

Oak Spacing

Although WLCA did not have access to scale bars on the documents, it is apparent that the rough spacing proposed for the coast live oak screening plantings is approximately 30 to 35 feet from center to center of each tree. This is a relatively wide spacing for an area where dense screening is desired, and would appear

5of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ~Jb Walter Levison r CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

to provide only very limited actual screening. Local landscape architects that work with WLCA on large projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area will typically use a spacing of 20 to 25 feet on center for situations where dense screening is required, even when using larger specimens such as 48" box.

Sun vs. Shade

As noted above in this report, landscape trees such as coast live oaks generally require full sun to thrive and grow. This means that the deep shade created by the proposed residential structure of height 30 feet2 at 1 Belvedere, existing structures at 1 Pelican Point, and the various existing coast live oak specimens along the south side of 1 Pelican Point which are not shown on the tree map in Dr. Julin's arborist report, will likely stunt the growth of the proposed new screening trees.

This expected stunting will limit the usefulness of the screen to block sight-line views between residents of the two properties, and will extend the time to tree growth "parity" (i.e. time to achieve the screening value already existing along the property boundary separating the two properties at the time of writing) to possibly 10 or 20 years post planting date. This is an unacceptable situation for which adjustments to the proposed tree disposition plans for 1 Belvedere are warranted.

Note that WLCA was not able to determine whether none, some, or all of the 143 project proposed pittosporum plantings are to be installed along the 1 Belvedere side of the joint boundary area. If they are proposed for the property line area, then shading from the pittosporums will cause stunting of the proposed new oak plantings.

Pit Digging Impacts to Existing Oaks

As noted elsewhere in this report, there are at least ten or more mature coast live oak specimens growing along the area between the joint property boundary and the existing 1 Pelican Point residential structures (see image right looking downhill along the south property boundary area of 1 Pelican Point).

If we consider that the trees' root systems extend at least 2x to 3x the canopy radius distance southward into the 1 Belvedere property (a reasonable distance), then these root systems are currently extended into the areas proposed for new screen tree and screen plant installation per the 1 Belvedere project planting plan. Installation of large specimen trees such as the proposed 48" box size oaks will cause extensive severe root loss to these existing oaks, with land grading, pit digging, irrigation pipe trenching, etc. occurring along the joint property line. This new landscaping work could thus cause rapid decline or death of the 1 Pelican Point-owned coast live oaks with the root systems of all trees being cut along the property line during irrigation trenching and large tree pit excavation.

2 Personal communication, 8/4/2017, Owner's representative for 1 Pelican Point.

6of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

Typical excavation for a 48" box tree planting pit will be at least 6 to 8 feet in width on both sides in order to overexcavate the pit and allow for loosened soil to be present around the ball perimeter, which equates to 36 square feet or 64 square feet of area excavated, per each single 48" box oak planting, inside which all of the roots of the coast live oaks owned by 1 Pelican Point as shown in this image above might be destroyed or severely damaged along the south sides of their root systems. Irrigation pipe trenching typically occurs directly along the property line of a site, and is dug to 12 to 24 inches depth below grade, often severing the entire root systems of neighbor-owned trees on the other side 3 of the property line . Because WLCA did not review the irrigation plan, it is not known whether this type of property boundary pipe trench routing is currently proposed for the 1 Belvedere site.

Plantings to be Installed Along Property Line

Note that proposed new tree and shrub plantings are shown on the proposed 1 Belvedere planting plan as to be installed all the way to the property line on the 1 Belvedere side. All of this tree and shrub planting and its accompanying irrigation pipe trenching work proposed to occur assumes that all trees along the 1 Belvedere side of the property line are to be removed 100%. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, WLCA suggests that we attempt to retain some 50% to 70% of the trees currently shown as being removed such that the screening benefits derived from those trees can be maintained. As we do not yet have a property boundary established in the field as a flagged line, legal ownership of many trees has not yet been determined, and therefore removal of any trees near the (assumed) property boundary line cannot occur.

Pittosporum

Pittosporum species are generally the best screening trees for establishing fast, dense, evergreen screening to block sight-lines between properties. 4 The trees are generally pest and disease free, maintain evergreen foliage, grow relatively fast, and establish an upright form that can be sheared over time to create a narrow hedge. Given that we already have an entire grove of pittosporum trees growing within roughly zero to 50 feet of the joint property line separating the two subject properties, it would seem to be beneficial to maintain this existing screen instead of removing it entirely from the landscape and starting from scratch.

A multiple-pronged approach to the screening issue may be the best solution in terms of providing better, faster screening than is currently proposed by the 1 Belvedere project team. This would involve one or more of the following:

• Retain 50% to 70% of the trees located between the 1 Belvedere north property boundary line, and 20 feet south of that line, that are currently shown on site plan sheets as proposed to be removed.

• Install supplemental screening tree species that are shade-tolerant or partial-shade tolerant, as needed to increase screening density to current pre-project levels, after trees are removed as required to build out the proposed new residence at 1 Belvedere.

As noted above in this report, it was not clear from the 1 Belvedere partial planting plan sheet available for the WLCA review, whether some, all, or none of the proposed 143 pittosporum plantings are proposed to be installed along the joint property boundary.

• Eliminate all new irrigation pipe trenching (if any proposed) within 30 feet of any trees being retained on 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point properties in order to avoid unnecessary tree root damages or losses. Utilize over-grade trenchless type irrigation piping to supply water for irrigation of new screening tree installations on 1 Belvedere.

3 WLCA professional experience, based on 19 years of full-time arborist consulting in the San Francisco Bay Area. 4 WLCA professional experience based on 19 years of full-time arborist consulting in the San Francisco Bay Area.

7of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 814/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arbolists and Member of the International Society of Arboliculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

• Pull back proposed new construction on 1 Belvedere by an additional 10 to 20 feet to allow for better root protection of the existing screening trees, and to allow for better sunlight penetration into proposed new property boundary landscape areas.

5. Boundary Survey & Re-plot of Tree Locations:

To establish tree ownership rights, WLCA is suggesting that the property boundary line between the two subject properties be surveyed and flagged with neon colored flags in the field prior to approval of any proposed work at 1 Belvedere.

It is very possible that the existing older steel property fence is incorrectly set, and that some of the survey trees currently shown on the 1 Belvedere plans are actually located on 1 Pelican Point property (to be determined).

Typically, accurate tree locations in dense forest conditions such as at this site are difficult to determine even when using a surveyor's Trimble base station, because the forest cover blocks satellite triangulation by the GPS backpack system in the field. The surveyor often has to stand in an open clearing to gain satellite triangulation, and then shoot "offsets" along different azimuths (compass bearings) to try to establish GPS-plotted tree location points.

In some cases such as with 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point, a more accurate tree plotting method might be to simply use 100 ft+ long tape measures and compasses while measuring off of a known line, such as an accurately- flagged property boundary line. Without that property line accurately flagged in the field as a visual, known field locator feature, it is very difficult to determine ownership of the trees within close proximity of the line.

It is not known whether the trees shown on the Dr. Julin arborist map were originally surveyor-plotted as "offsets" using the process discussed above, or whether they were simply "rough-drawn" (eyeballed) onto the plans by the project architect or other team members. 3.0 Conclusion

The proposed site plan for 1 Belvedere includes construction of a large massing that encroaches to within roughly 10 to 20 linear feet south of the joint property line as currently shown on plan sheets.

The uppermost 80% of the 1 Belvedere property land elevation areas will be completely scraped with all existing trees to be removed, to accommodate the new residential structure, if the site plan is built out as currently proposed. These +/- 70 trees being removed include mainly coast redwoods, coast live oaks, Monterey cypress, pittosporum, and eucalyptus species.

The joint property boundary line separating 1 Belvedere, and 1 Pelican Point to the north, has not been flagged accurately in the field. Therefore, there is currently no way of determining whether arborist-assessed trees previously tagged by Contract Town Arborist Dr. Kent Jutin, and shown on the plan sheets as being removed, are actually owned by 1 Belvedere. A large number of these trees may in fact be located on 1 Pelican Point property (to be determined).

Removal of all of the existing screening trees as currently proposed within approximately 50 feet south of the joint property line between the two subject properties will result in an unsatisfactory sight-line screening situation for as long as 10 to 20 years, while new landscape tree plantings grow to "parity" (although WLCA has not yet verified the locations of proposed pittosporum plantings indicated on the 1 Belvedere planting schedule

8of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

sheet). Given the heights of the residential structures at 1 Pelican Point (existing), the structures at 1 Belvedere (proposed), and the existing oak specimens on 1 Pelican Point, it is expected that cross shading from these factors will have a severe negative effect on the growth of proposed new 48" box size coast live oak plantings shown on the 1 Belvedere planting plan as "property line" installations. Based on the author's experience, the current proposed boundary planting plan will still only provide minimal mitigative screening along an area that currently has excellent sight-line screening consisting of pittosporum, coast redwood, coast live oak, eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, and specimens of other tree species.

The current proposed planting plan for 1 Belvedere may also cause the decline of or death of some ten or more coast live oaks located on 1 Pelican Point, due to irrigation pipe trenching, and the extremely large planting pit sizes required to be excavated for the 48" box size oaks to be installed along the property line.

Per current certified story pole markers in the field today (8/4/2017), the main deck and kitchen deck as currently proposed on the 1 Belvedere plans will be visible from the master bedroom of 1 Pelican Point, even if none of the existing screening trees were to be removed (100% of boundary area trees on 1 Belvedere are to be removed per the current proposed plans). Once existing trees are removed from the joint property line area separating the two subject properties, the decks and the massing of the new residential structure at 1 Belvedere will likely be in clear view from the 1 Pelican Point master bedroom, altering the privacy level currently enjoyed by 1 Pelican Point from "excellent" to "very poor/unsatisfactory".

4.0 Recommendations

1. Main Deck:

It is suggested that the proposed 1 Belvedere main deck impact on the primary view from 1 Pelican Point be reduced, by pulling the main deck westward from its current proposed width.

2. Kitchen Deck:

It is suggested that the proposed 1 Belvedere kitchen deck be eliminated or reworked to avoid all sight­ line views from the 1 Pelican Point master bedroom and decks.

3. Property Line Survey:

It is suggested that the 1 Belvedere project team retain a licensed surveyor to accurately flag with neon colored flags the property boundary line between 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point, in order to accurately identify the ownership rights of trees currently shown as being removed (e.g. #18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,31,32,33,35,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,67,68,92,93,94,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, etc.).

After tree ownership is established, then the tree disposition plan can be reworked as applicable.

Note that the tree locations may need to be completely redetermined, if they were originally rough-plotted by the project architect. Having the accurately flagged property boundary set out in the field will allow for this process to proceed.

9of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

4. Screen Tree Retention and Protection:

It is suggested that a large percentage (e.g. 50% to 70%) of screening trees #18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,67,68,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99, etc. be retained (instead of removed as is currently proposed by the 1 Belvedere project team), in order to maintain good residual sight-line screening between the two subject properties.

Provide trunk buffer wraps, root protection zone exclusion zones using chain link fencing, and periodic heavy irrigation for all trees being retained between the property line and 20 feet south of the line.

See spec images at right for examples of properly­ installed trunk wraps and root protection zones.

5. Screening Tree Augmentation:

It is suggested that Town Staff verify the locations of the proposed 143 pittosporum tree plantings.

If these plantings are to be installed along the joint property boundary between 1 Pelican Point and 1 Belvedere, then this screening planting may provide a dense sight-line screen between the two residences.

However, presence of pittosporums planted at this density, if installed along that joint property line boundary, may have a severe shading effect on the proposed 48" box size oak plantings proposed for that area of the site.

This is a subject for further discussion.

6. Residential Structure:

It is suggested that the entire proposed residential structure on 1 Belvedere be pushed further southward than currently proposed, to allow for better screen tree root zone preservation.

Current offsets between structural buildout and property line appear to be 10 to 20 linear feet.

WLCA suggests increasing this offset to 20 to 30 feet minimum in order to maintain lateral woody root growth of 20 to 30 feet southward from screening trees located on or near the north property line.

10 of 18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

Above Right: Sketch5 of a typical tree root system showing laterally extended woody roots that grow mainly in the uppermost two-feet of the soil profile.

Tree roots generally extend at least 2x to 3x the canopy dripline radius distance from trunk (i.e. often farther extended than shown in this sketch), except in instances where roots encounter impediments to their normal growth, such as curb footings, building foundation footings, soil compacted to greater than approximately 85% Proctor, etc.

7. Proposed Ground Level Walkway & Stairs Along North Boundary:

It is suggested that the proposed stairs to be built up and down slope along the north property boundary be either built completely over-grade with only small diameter piers used as supports, or that the stairs be eliminated from the plans, in order to allow for preservation of laterally extended woody roots attached to the coast live oak specimens growing as screening trees between the 1 Pelican Point residence and the joint property line. These trees are not shown on the Dr. Julin arborist map, and have not previously been accounted for in terms of impacts from proposed construction on 1 Belvedere.

Minimum distance from the trunks of the 1 Pelican Point coast live oaks to standard (deep) stairs footings (if the stairs were to be poured in place as a concrete massing instead of set over-grade on small-diameter hand-dug piers), should be approximately 10 to 20 linear feet. The offset standard used by some local municipal jurisdictions for construction activity on only one side of a tree is 1 foot of radial offset between trunk edge and the nearest construction, per each single inch of trunk diameter.

Example: For a 10-inch diameter oak, the minimum offset for a deep foundation footing would be 10 X 12 inches =10-feet of offset from the trunk edge.

In either case, the preferred tree-friendly method of construction would be wood set over small-diameter piers in order to allow for maximum root zone preservation within 30 feet of trees being retained.

Image at right: A ramp walkway in Toronto, Canada set over-grade around a tree, with pier-type footings that minimize disturbance to the tree's lateral roots.

8. Planting Plan:

It is suggested that shade tolerant or partial-shade tolerant tree species be used as the screen tree species for sight-line screen augmentation plantings along the north property boundary line portion of the 1 Belvedere site.

The current proposed coast live oak species requires full sun to thrive, and therefore any specimen installed along the 1 Belvedere boundary zone will likely be stunted from shade caused by surrounding residential structures as well as mature coast live oak specimens on the 1 Pelican Point property.

5 Image from internet source: treeassociates. wordpress.com

11 of 18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 81412017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

5.0 Consultant's Qualifications

o Contract Town Arborist to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department (Planning Division) 11 /15-present

o ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor

o ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Course, Palo Alto, CA. 2013

o PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor Course graduate, 2009 Vancouver, B.C., Canada

o ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) #401

o Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board) 2001-2006

o ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000

o ISA Certified Arborist (CA) #WC-3172

o B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990

o Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993

o Associate Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99

o Contract City Arborist to the City of Belmont Department of Planning and Community Development 5/99-present

o Continued education through attendance of arboriculture lectures and forums sponsored by The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and various governmental and non-governmental entities.

(My full curriculum vitae is available upon request)

12of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST

ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 6.0 Bay Area Vendors

Service Company What they offer Contact

Large specimen trees, transplant T ransplan!ing Tree Movers Inc. 650-968-6117 services. Valley Crest Tree Co. tree Large specimen trees, transplant moving division 818-223-8500 services. (Now called "BriQhtview")

Pruning, root crown excavation, fertilization, tree installation, support Pruning Advanced Tree Care 650-839-9539 systems for high risk trees, SOD phosphate sprays. Pruning performed directly by an ISA Maguire Tree Care 650-245-2620 Certified Arborist Pruning performed directly by an ISA Trees 360 Certified Arborist 408-866-1010 (uoon request). Pruning of very high quality if request ISA Certified Arborist Joe Commercial Tree Care 408-985-TREE Nama to directly monitor pruning work.

650-326-0406 The Shady Tree Co. High quality pruning. www.theshadY,lreecom12any_.com

Specialty Oaks Special Tree Sources California native oak species www .SQecialty_oaks. com Lower Lake, CA

Various oaks and hybrid elms. Only local purveyor of hard to find Italian www.oracleoaknurse[Y..com Oracle Oak Nursery oak (Q. frainetto 'Forest Green')

Can import rare oaks such as the fantastic 'Forest Green' Hungarian oak, from Oregon growers. Sweet Lane Wholesale Nursery www.sweetlanenurserv.com Santa Rosa, CA Also may be able to request the excellent Cathedral live oak (Quercus virginiana 'Cathedral')

Current local source of the rare 'Roberts' sycamore: a cultivar of ht!Q://www.lecooke.com/cms/contact- deciduous California sycamore that le-cooke.html LE. Cooke Nursery is reported to be resistant to both powdery mildew and sycamore Visalia, CA anthracnose, while exhibiting fast upright growth appropriate for urban landscaoe conditions.

(The above sources have been known to provide high-quality arboriculture services in the past. They are not guaranteed or endorsed by the author.)

13of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST

ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

7.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correcl Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management.

It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations.

Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.

Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.

Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any inttiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications.

This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constttute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.

Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and refiects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.

Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.

Arborist Disclosure Statement

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. 8.0 Certification

I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith.

Signature of Consultant

14 of 18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] ~lb Walter Levison r CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Re istered Consultin Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 9.0 Digital Images

The following is an assortment of images, taken by WLCA while standing on 1 Pelican Point, of some of the larger tree specimens currently shown in the Dr. Julin arborist report as being removed from the northmost boundary area of 1 Belvedere. Some of these trees may actually be located on and owned by 1 Pelican Point (not verified at date of writing). Trees are noted by their numeric metal tag numbers (tags affixed to the trees by others):

Eucalyptus 57 in fair overall condition. Coast live oak 52 in poor overall condition.

15 of 18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] Monterey cypress 53 in fair to good overall condition.

Monterey cypress 51 in poor to moderate overall condition.

Monterey cypress 54 in fair to good overall condition. Coast redwood 30 in fair overall condition.

16of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] Left side of image: coast live oak 29, a large specimen of this native oak species. The screening trees located to the right of oak 29 (downhill from oak 29} are pittosporum and Screening trees along the joint property boundary proposed other species. to be removed for unknown reason(s). These are pittosporum specimens 92 through 99, viewed looking down from the apex of the 1 Belvedere property, standing on the public road.

Screening pittosporum specimens 92 through 99, as viewed looking uphill along the joint property boundary. There are roughly ten or more coast live oak specimens It is not clear at the time of writing whether these trees are located north of the joint property line, on 1 Pelican Point, owned by 1 Belvedere or 1 Pelican Point. which provide additional sight-line screening function. The current proposed structures on 1 Belvedere are relatively close in proximity to these trees, and may negatively impact the lateral woody roots of these oaks if the structure is built as currently proposed.

17of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 81412017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected] Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172

The proposed main deck is shown here as red flagging, as viewed from the master bedroom of 1 Pelican Point.

The deck will be clearly visible from the master bathroom.

Also, if the screening trees in the upper 50% of this image are all removed as is currently proposed, the entire proposed deck and much of the proposed residential structure will be clearly visible from the master bedroom.

Retention of as many existing screening trees within approximately zero to 20 or 30 linear feet of the joint property line is suggested as a privacy mitigation measure to maintain sight-line screening between the two properties. This will benefit both the 1 Pelican Point and the 1 Belvedere property residents.

10.0 Attached, Tree Location Map (from Belvedere Contract Town Arborist Report 5/18/2017)

18of18 Site Address: 1 Belvedere and 1 Pelican Point Version: 8/4/2017 Walter Levison © 2017 All Rights Reserved

Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture

Cell (415) 203-0990 Email [email protected]

AUG 0 7 2017

To: City of Belvedere Planning Commission From: Pam Eldred Hayden Date: August 3, 2017 Subject: August 15, 2017 Public Hearing regarding Application for Demolition, New House Plans and Variance Requests at One Belvedere Avenue, Belvedere, California

I appreciate the opportunity given to me to express to you my extreme lament at the possibility that the home at One Belvedere Avenue could be demolished. I believe that it is imperative for the betterment of the community of Belvedere and the greater community at large that there be a more concerned, professional and heartfelt deliberation about this architecturally significant property, designed by one of the Bay Area's most stellar 2Q1h century architects.

The Historic Resources Evaluation, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, should be revisited and considered in light of what is known about both Aaron Green and the significance of the architecture of the existing home at One Belvedere Avenue. The Eldred Residence should be preserved because a renowned architect, Aaron Green, designed it and because the design and high artistic elements of the architecture is exemplary for its time and style.

The application for demolition and the building of an entirely new home on the property should be denied.

I am writing to you from two perspectives. The first is my personal attachment to my family home. The second, and far more important one is from a public service, planning and architectural historian's point of view. Citizens today have a responsibility to future generations to make informed decisions about preserving and restoring our treasured historic architecture.

I was very fortunate to have grown up in the home at One Belvedere Avenue. My parents, Dr. Roy Edward and Orchid M. Eldred, had migrated westward like so many young families, from their childhood homes in the mid-west (Wisconsin and Minnesota respectively), in 1955. Their first home was on Strawberry Point, Mill Valley, overlooking the beautiful Richardson Bay.

By the early 1960s, my folks had saved their money so they could afford to purchase a lot on Belvedere's west side and hire an architect who best exemplified their philosophy in life to design and build a home that fit in naturally with the environs of the Bay Area and the wooded hillside of their beloved lot.

When I was a young girl of about 10, I remember the excitement my parents expressed when they showed us the plans for our new "dream home". They had disregarded plans from other architects because they were too formal and couldn't grasp the concept that my parents desired to build a home that was at one with nature and complimented and captured the stunning beauty of Belvedere and the San Francisco Bay. They were looking for an inspired architect that was capable of expressing a higher art through architecture. Aaron Green was the architect they chose. My father had been a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright in Wisconsin since his youth and was thrilled about the opportunity to work with a talented and skilled architect who embodied the same philosophy as Mr. Wright. Aaron Green had apprenticed under Frank Lloyd Wright at both of his studio workshops: Taliesin East in Wisconsin and Taliesin West in Arizona. He was also Frank Lloyd Wright's representative on the west coast and ultimately became very successful and renowned for his excellent works throughout the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st.

My parents chose the right architect for their aesthetic ideals, family needs and to fit with the Belvedere landscape of their sloping lot. To live in this home was an inspiration for them for the rest of their lives. It was designed to snuggle into the hillside and afforded sweeping views of Mt. Tamalpais to the north, Sausalito to the west and the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco to the south. It was neither important to my parents nor Aaron Green to design a building that stood out for others to admire. It was designed with careful consideration of a design and craftsmanship that had a natural intrinsic value, fitting well with the 'indoor outdoor' concept of living as well as fitting in with the natural terrain and landscape.

I was a resident at One Belvedere Avenue during my formative years before attending college at Berkeley where I studied architecture then earned a Masters degree in Landscape Architecture. I'm certain that living in this home inspired me to pursue these interests. Experiencing the home through the different seasons and times of day from dusk until dawn over the years gave me a great appreciation of the sensitive insights of the architect, Aaron Green. The warmth of the sun shining through the west facing amber glass panels into the great living room ... the large over hanging brick fireplace with an expansive base at floor level radiating the warmth of thousands of crackling fires ... window placement in all areas allowing for peak-a-boo and sweeping vistas of the surrounding landscape ... the list goes on and on. Aaron Green certainly knew how to design a beautiful home that both fit into the landscape and captured the many varied views of mother nature that the lot afforded.

Upon moving to Oregon in the late 1970s, I worked in urban planning and specialized in historic architecture and preservation. Although now retired, I continue to work in this field and am currently the Vice President of the Bosco Milligan Foundation, Architectural Heritage Center in Portland Oregon.

I have reviewed as much documentation in City files about the unfortunate ownership/stewardship pattern of individuals after the house was sold, when my parents passed away in 2004.

I understand that there will be testimony by architects and persons very close to the works of Aaron Green, who will submit documentation and evidence that unequivocally supports the important stature of Aaron Green as an architect equal to other "Master Architects" and of the architectural significance of the home at One Belvedere Avenue for preservation. To lose this architecturally important building through demolition or incompatible remodel would be a travesty to the legacy of Belvedere's architectural history and the rich and varied cultural fabric that is Belvedere Island and the City.

2 I have a few comments about the procedures and process by which the architectural merits of the Eldred Residence were judged in 2012 by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. I listened to the audiotape of the Historic Preservation Committee meeting on July 23, 2012, which was disturbing to say the least.

Although they were well meaning, I was very surprised to understand that this hearing body made negative judgments about the merits of the Eldred Residence as a historically significant work of architecture, designed by architect Aaron Green, which were neither based in fact nor expertise.

The Historic Resources Evaluation Report, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, was submitted to the City and stated that the Eldred Residence was historically significant and eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The Planning Commission ignored this report and relied on the Historic Preservation Committee to make a determination of architectural and historic significance. The Historic Preservation Committee also ignored the professional recommendations of the City's hired consultant. The Historic Preservation Committee recommended to the Planning Commission that the Aaron Green was neither a significant or 'Master' architect and the home was not of architectural significance. The name 'Historic Preservation Committee' is a contradiction in terms as it relates to this case.

Why the City paid good money to hire a qualified expert to make a professional assessment and recommendation about a historically significant work of architecture, only to dismiss it surreptitiously is beyond common sense. It is certainly not good public service or in the best interest of the public at large.

I encourage any Planning Commission or City Council members to listen carefully to this audio recording. I would hope that individuals appointed to this commission in the future have greater qualifications for important decision-making. A bungled recommendation to the Planning Commission by the Historic Preservation Committee led to a staff report outlining these findings to the Planning Commission. I can only wonder at the Planning Manager's disbelief that the City's consultant report was ignored ... The record of the Planning Commission on November 20, 2012 reads:

"As discussed in the August 21, 2012 staff report the City has determined that the house is not of architectural or historical significance. A Historic Resources Evaluation was prepared by Garavaglia Architecture and concluded that the residence is an historic resource. Subsequent to this evaluation the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the residence and Garavaglia's evaluation and determined that the findings could not be made to support recognition of the property as an historic resource."

I respect the efforts of volunteer commissioners in our communities. However, I firmly believe in this instance that both the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning Commission are culpable and were remiss and erroneous in their findings.

This unfortunately has this led to an application by the current property owner to demolish the Aaron Green designed home, which should be preserved as a significant architectural landmark building in the City of Belvedere and the State of California.

3 The current property owner has submitted their plans for demolishing the Eldred Residence to build a larger and more invasive home on the landscape, needing variances for both a larger than allowed retaining wall and greater floor area of an additional 2,383 square feet. It is totally understandable that people wish to build new big beautiful homes of their own in stunning settings. The house should fit the lot and visa versa.

I have reviewed the proposed house plans. They show an attached garage to the house, unlike the detached carport of the original house. This will necessitate a precipitously steeply sloping driveway down to the house for an elevation change of no less than forty feet. It will also require massive cuts, the exporting of soil and filling the front yard with stepped retaining walls in order to accomplish the desire to bring cars directly down to the residence. I would estimate that no less than 17 large dump trucks, removing 167 cubic yards of soil from the property and this will likely need to be staged from the narrow street above, not from within the property.

The Preliminary Grading Plan shows that the entire front third of the property will be entirely cut and extensively re-graded for the purposes of building this driveway. All of the existing trees in this third of the property, roughly one-quarter acre, will be completely removed and filled with stepped retaining walls. There are other less-impactful alternatives to such massive land movement and landscape destruction.

This proposal is the total antithesis of the sensitive design concepts used by Aaron Green to finesse a very beautiful and livable residence into the existing landscape. Aaron Green's philosophy of design directly correlated with his mentor and friend, Frank Lloyd Wright, who is considered one of the world's premier architects of all time.

The fact is, the Eldred Residence should not be demolished and the proposed plans should not be approved. The fact that the One Belvedere Avenue home is a significant work of historic architecture, designed by a masterful and renown architect, should negate any approval of demolition or building of another structure. Sensitive modification approved through a thoughtful process is certainly understandable.

The current application for demolition was made based on the premise, perpetuated by the City, that the existing building on the property has no merit historically or architecturally. Unfortunately this premise was initiated by faulty deliberations of an unqualified set of individuals and then used by the Planning Commission in their approval process in 2012.

It is hoped that all proceedings by the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning Commission from 2012 be discounted when considering this new application to demolish the Eldred Residence.

The Historic Evaluation Report prepared by City consultants should be heeded as well as any new evidence submitted to City representatives in this application review process regarding the historic significance of both the architect Aaron Green and the Eldred Residence. It will be clear to all that this building, which is eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, should not be demolished.

4 RECENEO

To: City of Belvedere AUG 0 7 2017 Planning Commission Belvedere City Hall City of 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

From: Craig Eldred Date: August 6, 2017 Subject: Architect Aaron Green FAIA designed "The Eldred House", One Belvedere Ave.

I'm writing this letter to express the heartfelt support of all the descendants of Dr. Roy and Mrs. Orchid Eldred for the preservation of architect Aaron Green FAIA designed, "The Eldred House", at One Belvedere Avenue in Belvedere.

Much evidence and documentation is being presented to support architect Aaron Green's status as a master architect and the "Eldred House" as being one of his finest and earliest examples. The evidence speaks for itself.

The extended Eldred family has a strong moral and emotional attachment to the house and property resulting in a need to speak our hearts and convey the philosophy that created this house and home. I hope you will indulge me.

The creation of this house and what it represents architecturally and philosophically was a very conscious decision on the part of our parent's.

My father was a doctor in the Navy during the Korean War. He discovered and fell in love with San Francisco and Northern California. Roy and Orchid moved their family from Minnesota to Marin in 1955 and he joined the Kaiser Permanente Group. He was chief of Urology at the San Francisco Kaiser Hospital for 33 years. Orchid raised the three children and went on to attend UC Berkeley graduating in rhetoric with Phi Beta Kappa honors in 1973.

Marin's natural beauty inspired my parent's as it does everyone who lives or visits this region. They were both inspired by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright's philosophy of the natural house. Wright's passing in 1959 put an end to their early dream of having Wright design their house. By the time, they could afford to build they had discovered Aaron Green and began a collaboration to realize their dream home. The building of the Belvedere house occurred concurrently with Green's work on the Marin Civic Center.

Roy and Orchid knew from the start that they were creating a work of art. They had picked out an outstanding lot on Belvedere and had enlisted one of Wright's finest apprentices to execute the plans. They had every intention of creating a home for their family and a work of art for posterity. A home that represented their philosophy of how we can build structures to live in harmony with nature. As a boy of thirteen, I played on the undeveloped lot and explored the beach (no houses yet). I saw them cut into the pristine lot and carve out a site for the house to sit. I learned that the house was anchored to bedrock by the massive chimney and fireplace. The anchorage was successful as demonstrated by the 1989 earthquake.

The house was finished in 1963/4 and I began my freshman year at Redwood. I dreamed of being an architect for a while. Instead I got a degree in Biochemistry and after two years of graduate study I decided to go into science education. I now teach physics, chemistry, biology, environmental science at Terra Linda High School. This will be my fortieth year in teaching and for twenty years I taught in Alaska, in the Arctic.

What does this have to do with the house? This house allows for your imagination to expand and dream. You are exposed to nature from every window. The massive windows in the great room gives you wide open panoramas as if you were in the trees. I am reminded of the story by John Muir of climbing a tree in the middle of a storm to witness the power of the storm. The house and the environment were in resonance and together they became one. It was tangible, you felt elevated and enriched. It was Nature on display and you had a front row seat in the trees.

Then in 1973 the house caught fire and major damage was done to the upper floor. It was an historical day as everyone in their boats and Sausalito witnessed the flames and the huge living room windows exploding out. My parents rushed back from their Bolin as cottage only to see their dream house in flames from Mt Tamalpais. That could have been the end of the house, however, our parents were not ones to give up. They immediately began plans to rebuild. They rebuilt the same house, with minor changes. One change was to have built in quadrophonic speakers instead of just stereo speakers. This is a testament to the genius of Aaron Green's design and a testimonial to the respect my parents had for him and the house he created.

For the next thirty years, my parents enjoyed their home and watched their family grow. Three children, seven grandchildren, and growing number of great grandchildren all got to experience this unique house. In 2003, my mother suddenly passed away after placing my father into an assisted living care, due to Alzheimer's.

Shortly before my mother's passing, the house again suffered some damage to the upper-deck, due to a large eucalyptus branch that fell. When I became the executor of the estate, I had to supervise reconstruction of the upper-deck. I was given several choices as to how I could fix the deck. There was only one way to fix it and that was to bring it back to its original design. To cantilever the upper-deck, the entire down stairs ceiling with the radiant heating throughout had to be redone. In my mind, it was the right thing to do, to preserve the original design of my parents and their love of Aaron Green's creation. In late 2003, the house was in fantastic shape as you can see by the photos (in documents submitted by Daniel Ruark) of that time. In 2004, we sold the house. For the first time since its construction, the house had a new steward. Unfortunately, the new owners were not good stewards. Now after 14 years of sitting unoccupied there is an application to demolish the structure.

My parents would be horrified and in shock, as I am. They were Belvedere residence for forty years and believed that Aaron Green would eventually be recognized and their house would be preserved. The evidence is mounting that Aaron Green is indeed a Master Architect and that the "Eldred House" is deserving of preservation.

My parents loved their privacy. They did not try to advertise or promote their home. In fact, my father planted many trees so that the house became nearly invisible on the site and to block the view of the many houses that have been built on the beach below their home. They wanted the site to look natural from above and below. Showcasing the house for public view from above or below was not in keeping with their philosophy. Their vision was to integrate our buildings with the landscape and not to destroy the landscape to accommodate our buildings.

My parents would again be horrified and shocked that the site will undergo massive land reshaping so that a car can drive to the level of the house. That numerous trees, planted by my father, will be felled. Making the landscape fit the design rather than letting the landscape inspire the design. Conquering nature instead of integrating nature conflicts with the philosophy aspired to by my parents and Aaron Green. What if the new owner, like the two previous owners, quits before finishing the project? My parents loved Belvedere and Marin. They wanted their house to be a source of pride for the community. They anticipated that given time Aaron Green's work would gain acclaim, as it has.

"The Eldred House" stands elegantly silent and resilient on the site waiting. Dr. Roy and Mrs. Orchid Eldred would know what to do. They would bring it back to health and make it thrive. They would not talk of destruction. The house was destroyed once before and brought back to life and it can happen again. The integrity of the vision can be restored. It can serve as an example of how to build a sustainable future, for a home or for a home planet.

I wish to thank all the architects and others who have written letters, books, and taken photographs in support of preserving this heritage. For the architectural legacy and the legacy of the Eldred Family I am urging the planning commission to do the right thing and preserve this masterpiece by Aaron Green.

Sincerely yours,

Craig Eldred AUG 07 H City of Belvedere of Planning Commission Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

August7,2017

RE: August 15, 2007 public hearing regarding Application for Demolition, New House Plans and Variance Requests at One Belvedere Avenue, Belvedere, California

Honorable Planning Commissioners:

I am writing to you requesting that you reconsider the scheduled demolition of the Master Architect Aaron G Green FAIA designed residence for Roy and Orchid Eldred and their family. I am certain that you are well aware of the nomination of the Aaron Green designed Marin City Project to the Department of the Interior National Register of Historic Places by the State of California Historic Resources Commission. The Historic Resources Evaluation Report prepared by Garavaglia Architecture for the City of Belvedere evaluation of the Eldred House project seemed to have gone unheeded, or am I missing something. The Historic Resources Evaluation report prepared by Garavaglia Architecture for the Marin City project was not. It should be noted that one of the commissioners honored Master Architect Aaron Green design architect, Master Architect John Carl Warneke and Master Landscape architect Lawrence Halpirn each as Master Architects. Hopefully this alone will compel you to question the opinion of the City of Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee and revisit the validity of your decision. It will be greatly appreciated by many including his many Stanford 5th year design students and the untold numbers of apprentices and seasoned staff architects who work for him. This is your decision and yours alone. At the moment this great house is directly in the cross hairs of a bulldozer. I hope that others have written to share to their compelling thoughts with you also.

I would like to share with you a celebration of the life of Master Architect Aaron G Green FAIA written by revered Bay Area "Pulitzer Prize" winning San Francisco Examiner Architectural Critic Allan Temko. I felt it was important for you to broadly understand more about the nature of this wonderful man.

"Architect Aaron Green Left A Graceful Bay Area Legacy" June 1o, 2001

Aaron Green, the Bay Area's foremost proponent of Frank Lloyd Wright's "organic architecture" died.

1 Just a week before, he had been awarded the first Gold Medal of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation in recognition of a career that dated back more than half a century in San Francisco, where he set up a joint office for himself and Wright in 1951.

Mr. Green participated in several of Wright's famous designs, notably the V. C. Morris Store in Maiden Lane (which was later carefully restored by Mr. Green and renamed Folk Arts International) and the visionary "Butterfly-Wing" Bridge that was never built across the lower bay.

Perhaps his most important contributions to Wright's achievement figured in the sweeping horizontal forms, plastic roofs and mighty arches of the Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael.

Officially designated as its associate architect, Mr. Green in some respects was virtually a co-designer of this palace of modern drive-in democracy, overlooking Highway 101. In all, he took part in about 30 Wright designs, built and un-built, in Northern California.

That alone would have been a life's work for many architects. But Mr. Green's own independent practice - clearly discernible from Wright's, although they shared the same principles -- was also remarkably diverse and rich. It ranged from churches and schools to an array of handsome houses and multiple dwellings, which in low-rent housing in Marin City and Hunters Point were considerable achievements of social art.

Mr. Green's innovative spirit filled even relatively modest buildings with strong civic meaning. The retractable skylight of the Union City Civic Center, a charming piece of municipal art, opens the whole central hall to warmth and sunlight.

And his design methods are beautifully revealed in a series of Roman Catholic parish churches in the East Bay -- St. Stephen's in Walnut Creek, St. Monica's in Moraga, St. Joan of Arc, in San Ramon and, most recently, St. Elizabeth Seton in Pleasanton -- each different from the others.

Mr. Green handled all of this work with a buoyant elegance. He was busy in his office until a day or two before his brief final illness, conferring with his staff, and refining details of the Hebrew High School, in Greensboro, N.C., a coed boarding school primarily intended for Jewish students but philosophically open to the world.

Mr. Green, who won a national competition for the job, not only master- planned the campus, but also designed all 7 4 broad-roofed buildings centered around a domed synagogue. Seven classroom buildings and dormitories are under construction, with more to be built on a long-range schedule, and the trustees are committed to Mr. Green's designs. Already his concepts of order and clarity, enriched by landscaping, can be sensed on the wooded site.

2 Some features of the plan are less evident -- for instance, the geothermal energy system, one of the three or four largest in the country. Heat is harnessed by "wells" deep beneath the playing fields, which should provide for the school's energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Green, always open to new building technologies, called such design "bio­ technic" architecture. To him, machines could co-exist with the natural world if human needs were put first. Moreover, the surrounding Tarheel woods offer a further insight into Mr. Green's whole life and thought.

Aaron G. Green (his seldom used middle name was simply "Gus") was a Southern boy who retained a trace of a drawl all his life. He was born in Corinth, Miss., on May 4, 1914. Most of his childhood, however, was spent in Alabama, not too far from the hydroelectric dams and powerhouses of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provided his first impression of functionalist modern architecture.

His father had been a painter and his mother appreciated art. Together, they encouraged his ambition to become an artist.

After enjoying a privileged youth in Florence, Ala., as a member of the Southern Jewish patriciate, he went North to school. After a stint at the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts, he went to Cooper Union, in New York, then, as now, a stronghold of rationalist design.

What changed the course of his life was his decision to join Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin in Wisconsin and the Western Taliesin outside Phoenix. He became a full-fledged member of the Wrightian community before he enlisted in the Air Force and served three years as a bombardier in the Pacific.

After the war, in a surprising shift, he did not return to Taliesin but went to work in Los Angeles for industrial designer Raymond Loewy, a businessman, as opposed to Wright, the master artist. Mr. Green worked on interior design for department stores and a couple of movie sets, until Wright asked him to join him in San Francisco.

Their office, designed by Wright, is now literally a museum piece. Because no San Francisco museum or collector had the sense to acquire the furnishings when the lease ran out in the 1980s, they were transferred, more or less intact, to the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh, near Wright's famous house, Fallingwater.

The office was a delightful working environment, doubly delightful by candlelight after work, when Mr. Green could enjoy a drink with friends. Occasionally, Wright himself would come -- Taliesin people always called him Mr. Wright, even after he died. There was a wonderful sense of wholeness, of joy, that Mr. Green never lost.

3 A fellow of the American Institute of Architects, Mr. Green received many professional awards and citations, but the honor closest to his heart was a remark by Wright when asked what their relationship was. The master replied, "Aaron is my son.

A few final words: Aaron G Green Architect FAIA has a very special designation, FAIA. It represents Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

The Following is from the American Institute of Architects Web Site • AIA Fellows are recognized with the AIA's highest membership honor for their exceptional work and contributions to architecture and society. ·The prestige of FAIA after your name is unparalleled and the judging is rigorous. • Architects who have made significant contributions to the profession and society and who exemplify architectural excellence can become a member of the AIA College of Fellows, ·Only 3 percent of the AIA members have this distinction.

Aaron Green receives this "unparalleled" distinction from his piers for his excellence in design. A prestigious distinction precious few other architects attain.

In terms of the residences in particular there is no one best. They were all very special in their own unique way and they all received his complete attention and dedication to design excellence and detail. It was all about the client, their program, their budget, the site location, the site orientation and other unique constraints. My best guess is that the State of California Historic Resources Commission would find this house very compelling which would contradict the City of Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee findings. In my humble opinion the Eldred House is a fine example of his best work. Aaron was proud of them all.

Thank you Honorable Planning Commissioners and with sincere appreciation for taking the time to read this very long statement. It is my way of letting Aaron know that he not only could depend on my dedication during his lifetime but well beyond.

Sincerely yours, Jan Novie Associate of Aaron Green's for almost 4 decades Personal email: [email protected] Personal phone: (415) 271-3441

4 MJG 0 7 ~·· 1 ·'

August 7, 2017 of

To Planning Commission Chair Marsha Lasky CC: Planning director Irene Borba I am writing in reference to a proposal to demolish the Eldred residence, which was designed by the great Bay Area master architect Aaron Green. As a writer about architecture and design in the Bay Area for many years, I am very familiar with the work of Aaron Green and have written about it for the San Francisco Chronicle and for CA Modem magazine. As one of the closest associates of Frank Lloyd Wright, the only architect to share an office with Wright that had both men's names on the door, Green was clearly a deeply respected man in his field. His work, while indebted to that of Wright, was also very creative on its own. This can be seen in the Eldred house, with a distinctive roof-line that is so sympathetic to its hillside setting and its prow-shaped forms suggesting the sea. The interior of this house is dreamlike in its combination of openness to the outside and to the view, and in its cave-like warmth. Green's work is historically important in many ways, and one of the ways seen clearly in the Eldred house is how Green bridged the work of Wright and the Bay Area modernists who were so influenced by Wright, including Jack Hillmer, Henrik Bull, Robert Anshen and many others. To compare the work of Green, who worked closely with Wright, and those of the architects who simply were influenced by Wright, can be enlightening. As I wrote about Aaron Green for a profile in the San Francisco Chronicle: SIGNATURE STYLE: Aaron Green I Getting it Wright I Bay Area architect forme ... "For eight years Green ran Wright's West Coast practice as well as his own, the only disciple ever chosen to run one of the Master's offices." And, from that same piece, note that some architects have considered Green even more of a master than Green's master Mr. Wright: "During his 60-plus-year career, Green designed more than 200 homes, often of brick and stone and natural wood, long and low to the ground, with open plans and walls of glass, broad brick chimneys, bravely cantilevered eaves and decks and roofs shaped liked arrowheads. Green also designed public housing, public and commercial buildings, churches and cemeteries. "Green was one of Wright's most creative disciples. "His work is quiet and fine and modest," says architect Daniel Liebermann, who worked with both men. "In some respects I think Aaron's earlier smaller buildings were better than Wright buildings. They were a little more open and a little quieter and a little smoother." In considering the work of Wright, and the Eldred house in particular, please make no mistake: This is a superb house, a great example of Bay Area Modernism, and the work of a true master architect.

Dave Weinstein Freelance writer, photographer 155 Ashbury Ave. El Cerrito, CA 94530 510-524-1737 davidsweinsteinla>yahoo.com www .davidsweinstein.com Nancy Miller - Secretary

From: Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:14 AM To: Nancy Miller - Secretary Subject: Fwd: Aaron Green house, 1 Belvedere Avenue

Will you add this letter to the PC packet too. AUG 0 62017 Thanks! of Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Turner Date: August 5, 2017 at 7:14:48 PM PDT To: Cc: , Subject: Aaron Green house, 1 Belvedere Avenue

To: City of Belvedere Planning Commission From: Paul V. Turner Date: August 5, 2017

I'm writing in supp01i of the preservation of the Eldred House, at 1 Belvedere A venue in Belvedere, designed by the architect Aaron Green in 1962. This house is one of the best examples of Green's work, and of Bay Area residential architecture in general.

Aaron Green was one of Frank Lloyd Wright's apprentices, and in 1951 Wright chose him to be his Bay Area associate, in charge of Wright's only branch office, in San Francisco. Until Wright's death in 1959, Green worked with him on his many Northern California projects and supervised their construction. He played an especially important role in the creation of the Marin County Civic Center, working with Wright on the project throughout the design of the complex, and then supervising its construction following Wright's death. At the same time, Green developed his own architectural career, producing a large number of important buildings--private houses, public buildings, churches, and other types of buildings--works that were at the forefront of architectural design in the Bay Area.

The Eldred House represents the finest aspects of Green's work, and of Bay Area architecture of the mid-twentieth century. It has characteristics of Wright's architecture, for example in the prominently projecting roofs and decks, the natural use of materials, and the clear expression of the building's structure. But it's not a copy of Wright's work; it has its own original and innovative character, and overall it epitomizes what's often called Bay Area Regionalist architecture. Its demolition would be a major loss to the architectural heritage of Marin County and the greater San Francisco area.

I urge that every effort be made to preserve this important architectural work.

Sincerely yours,

1 Paul V. Turner Professor of Architectural History, Emeritus Stanford University

2 Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 8:41 :15 AM Pacific Daylight TI me

Subject: 1 Belvedere Avenue-Planning Commission Application Date: Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 9:20:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: daniel ruark To: [email protected] JUL ? 0 :117 CC: Jan Novie, Bill Schwarz 16July 2017

Ms. Irene Borba Director of Planning and Building City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

From: Daniel Ruark, Architect; Jan Novie, Owner and President of Aaron Green Associates; and William J. Schwarz, AIA, Architect

Re: 1 Belvedere Avenue

Dear Ms. Borba,

It has come to our attention that an application has been filed with the City of Belvedere for the purposes of demolishing the existing house at the subject property and replacing it with a completely new house. This existing house, and it's associated carport, you must likely be aware, was designed by Architect Aaron G. Green, FAIA who was a protege and former West Coast Representative of Frank Lloyd Wright. It's construction was completed in 1963, while Aaron Green was overseeing the ongoing work of the Marin County Civic Center design development and construction, for which he was designated Associate Architect by Wright. The Marin County Civic Center is on the National Register of Historic Landmarks and has been recently nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage site, along with nine other significant buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

We have been witnessing and tracking the rather sad trajectory of 1 Belvedere Avenue since it first went on the market in 2003. Until that time, for forty years, it had been in the hands of a single owner, Dr. and Mrs. Roy Eldred, the original commissioning clients. They both loved the house and revered Aaron Green for the positive difference that design made in their lives each and every single day--until they both passed. At the time their children sold the house in 2004, it was in pristine vintage condition. It looked exactly the same as it did in the 1963 photos taken at completion of construction-beautifully and immaculately maintained. The link is to the photos of the Eldred Residence on the Aaron Green Associates website: httP-://www.agaarchitects.com/P-ages/residential/single_familyjres eldred.html

Sadly, the house has not fared as well in the hands of subsequent owners-one only has to view the house in the state that exists today. Nevertheless, that house stands intact, with original integrity, and is quite structurally sound, despite the total lack of any maintenance in over a dozen years. There is no reason on any account to demolish and replace the house and carport. Previous owners have tried -and the records at the City of Belvedere's Planning office should attest to that upon review. In

Page 1 of2 fact, as a result of such intentions on the part of the previous owner, the City of Belvedere commissioned a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) for the property by the very reputable San Francisco firm of Garavaglia Architecture. The HRE was completed and dated July 6, 2012. The HRE concludes that the Architect Aaron Green was a significant Bay Area Architect and that the house and carport he designed at l Belvedere Avenue was a significant example of Late Bay Area Tradition Contemporary Architecture. The HRE identified the property as a historic resource worthy of being landmarked. We suggest that the City Planning staff review and re-familiarize themselves with the content and recommendations of this report, if they haven't already. Since commissioned by the City of Belvedere, a copy should be in the Planning Department's files for this address-part of the property's recent history. Otherwise, a copy can be obtained from Garavaglia Architecture by contacting Michael Garavaglia at (415) 391-9633.

It should be noted that an exhibition of the architecture of Aaron Green was recently held in Southern California. hllP-: Iiaaron ggreen .org This fall of 2017, a major publication of the life and work of Aaron Green will be released. Aaron Green's most significant projects will be profiled in this monograph-one of these being the Eldred Residence at l Belvedere Avenue.

We wish to review the application for the proposed project on file as well as meet with you to discuss the matter in greater detail, along with the Planner assigned to this application. We welcome the opportunity to visit your office for this purpose--at your earliest convenience. Please let me know your availability to meet.

Respectfully,

Daniel Ruark Architect and former Associate of Aaron Green

JanNovie Owner and President of Aaron Green Associates

William J. Schwarz, AJA, Architect Former Associate and Colleague of Aaron Green

Page 2of2 .. , RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2017

3 August 2017

City of Belvedere Planning Commission Belvedere City Hall 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920

Re: 1 Belvedere Avenue-Aaron Green-designed residence of historical significance Hearing Date: August 15, 2017

To the Planning Commissioners:

I respectfully request that the application to completely demolish the historically significant residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue, designed by Architect Aaron G. Green, FAIA, be denied. Aaron Green is a significant architect of international renown.

The design review application describes the current project as "construct a new family residence (6,204 sqft.), driveway, attached carport, demo existing house, covered carport and landscape" and "add off-street parking spaces."

In my opinion, the proposed demolition that is a key part of the application would have significant environmental impacts, relating to adverse impacts caused by the loss of the historic residence on the site and the adverse aesthetic impacts of that loss. The Historic Preservation Committee declined to find the residence historic when a partial demolition project was proposed in 2012, and it was approved via categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since that time, significant new information has become available regarding the importance of architect Aaron Green and the related eligibility of the residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue for the California Register. Even without new information, case law requires that the City consider historic qualifications anew.

This new design review/demolition project requires CEQA analysis to inform consideration of demolition. Such environmental review would focus on significant project impacts and feasible alternatives to demolition: thus benefitting the environmental and cultural legacy of Belvedere. Master Architect Aaron Green was an apprentice to Frank Lloyd Wright and later, at Wright's request, became his West Coast Representative. Together, they opened a joint office in San Francisco, where Aaron Green served Wright on over 30 California projects from 1951 to the time ofWright's passing in April of 1959. Frank Lloyd Wright designated Aaron Green as his Associate for the design and construction of the Marin County Civic Center. Aaron Green succeeded in carrying out and completing Wright's design for his last civic project During the period of their association, Aaron Green maintained his own independent architectural practice primarily designing custom homes. After Frank Lloyd Wright's passing, Aaron Green's practice continued to grow and flourish. He designed and completed a broad and diverse mix of projects, which included churches, office buildings, community centers, public libraries, public housing projects, school buildings-in addition to the private homes.

Construction of 1 Belvedere Avenue One of Aaron Green's projects was the home on Belvedere, at 1 Belvedere Avenue, for the Eldred family-a doctor and Chief of Urology for Kaiser Permanente, his wife, and their three children. Designed in 1962 with construction completed in 1963, it is a modest-sized two-stoty house of approximately 2,700 square feet with an architecturally matching carport of 500 square feet. Aaron Green was managing the design and construction of this residence at the same time he was overseeing the completion of the first phase of construction of the Marin County Civic Center as well as the beginning of its second phase. 2012 Project From a Memorandum issued by the Planning Manager on July 20, 2012: "On July 17, 2012, the Planning Commission considered a determination that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required under CEQA for proposed changes to the existing two-story residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue. According to a recent historic evaluation prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, the existing residence may be a "historic resource" and eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources." "The City contracted the services of an Architectural Historian (Garavaglia Architecture) to review the history of the existing residence. The Architectural Historian informed City Planning staff that the residence was potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Staff informed the project applicant the same day and explained that the proposed project cannot be deemed exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Demolition of a historic structure, including those deemed eligible for the California Register, require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under law." "The basis for the current recommendation relies on two key findings that pertain to the protection of a potentially "historic resource" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The first finding (Finding 1) establishes that the project is subject to comply with CEQA on the basis that a potential historic resource is present. The second finding (Finding 2) is then applied to determine the significance of any potential impacts to the identified resource. The outcome of Finding 2 is the deciding factor as to whether potential impacts may be mitigated to a less than significant level or require further examination through the EIR process. According to CEQA, an EIR is required when there is a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA, any project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment."

Please reference the Planning Manager's Staff Report of July 13, 2012 for their more detailed analysis regarding the Findings as it applied to this property at the time, including relevant Attachment 2 of their report relating to CEQA's "Applicable Statute and Guidelines relating to Historic Resources" and Attachment 3 "Excerpts from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation." As well, please reference and review the Historic Resource Evaluation for 1 Belvedere Avenue, prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, dated July 6, 2012, as can be found filed with the City of Belvedere Planning Department or online via City of Belvedere's Historic Preservation Commission's Agenda for July 23, 2012: http://www.cityofbelvedere.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/800

The matter was deferred by the Planning Commission to the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee (HPC), who is, according to the City of Belvedere's website, a "seven-member committee is a quasi-legislative body appointed by the City Council to consider applications for historic preservation and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding the granting of historic preservation status. The committee meets periodically whenever an application is filed or a matter of business needs to be considered." They took up the matter of 1 Belvedere Avenue as their only matter of business for the meeting on the evening of July 23, 2012. The minutes reflect that they were engaged by Planning Director Macdonald in a discussion requested by the Planning Commission primarily regarding the historical significance of the property: whether as the Historic Resources Evaluation concluded, 1) that Aaron Green is a master architect and 2) whether the buildings at 1 Belvedere Avenue embody the elements of the Second Bay Area Tradition style of architecture. To these questions, the Committee determined that neither was the case and when asked his opinion, the architect for the applicant's project also asserted that Aaron Green "was not a "master" nor was this house a specimen" (quoting from the meeting minutes). As a result, a Committee member made two motions, one that Aaron Green was "not a master architect," and the second "that 1 Belvedere Avenue does not embody the Second Bay Area Traditions because it is not a high example of this style, but it does include some of the elements of such style." These two votes and the recommendations of the HPC negated the findings of a professionally prepared Historic Resources Evaluation by a well-recognized Architectural Historian as well as the research and findings of the City's Planning Department-and has become the basis of the City's continuation to this time to assert and uphold that 1 Belvedere Avenue and Architect Aaron Green have no merit of historical significance.

Please bear in mind that the owner/applicant at the time, throughout their ownership of the property from 2007 to the end of 2016, were only asking for partial demolition of the house­ only that as needed to integrate the existing house with an addition. The owner's architect, at the time, made statements of how much the owner appreciated the original house and wanted to preserve and restore that which would become the core living areas of the proposed home. The addition was for expansion of the lower floor bedroom level, as well as an attached garage. The Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee was not reviewing and discussing an application for a complete house demolition at this 2012 meeting. In fact, it would be prudent for all to review the audio recording of this July 23, 2012 meeting. It presents the more complete range of the Committee's discussion regarding 1 Belvedere Avenue and Aaron Green than is actually recorded in the minutes-developing an entirely different impression as a result. The recording yields considerable insights regarding the Committee members' comprehension of the task entrusted to them by the Planning Commission-revealing members possessing little to no background or experience with architectural history and State law in order to speak with any real confidence or authority upon the matters and questions brought before them. Excerpts from the audio recording of the meeting follow below with specifically transcribed quotes given in italics:

The Planning Commission had forwarded the project file to the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) for comment with a number of questions about the house as well as the Planning Staff analysis found in the Staff Report. The Planning Manager summarized their concerns in two questions: l} "Whether or not the building had historic value because ofits association with Aaron Green-does that in and ofitself make the home associated with a master architect?"

2) "Even ifthe home was potentially historic, are the changes really that significant so that the changes are an "adverse change" to a historic resource?" Note: "Adverse change" as defined under CEQA means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

The Planning Manager was seeking comment on the matter from the HPC and intended to forward their recommendations to the Planning Commission at their next August 2012 meeting.

One committee member immediately questioned whether the property was historic or not. Another committee member offered that the property had no historic value so the questions were "rather moot, "in his opinion. Further, he stated, if the HPC were to determine that the property had no historic value, then there would be no reason to have input on other issues.

The Planning Manager sought to explain that the building is historic and the proposed changes (demolition) are "adverse changes" and impacts to that historic resource, then they have to submit to an EIR procedure which the Manager states they "would prefer to avoid that ifwe can. " The Planning Manager indicated she was hoping that if the HPC felt there could be changes that would make the application consistent with standards of historic preservation, then the project could be an exempted from the CEQA process and need for an EIR.

One Committee member expressed his thoughts concerning standards for determining a "master architect" and even though he respected Aaron Green and knew of his role in the Marin County Civic Center project, he thought Green was a "fine architect" but did not fall into that category of being a "master architect." The Committee member had conducted his own independent search and analysis for information leading to a list of master architects. One list of "15 Top Bay Area Architects" that had been generated by a local writer presented names recognized by the Committee member, but Aaron Green's name was not upon that list, although he was surprised to point out that renowned Bay Area Architect Willis Polk's name was not there either.

The second Committee member stated that he believed it doesn't "meet the criteria for an architect ofnote such that it warrants it as a historic thing" and continues to note ''possibly ifwe were trying to

4 pass this or something at the owner's request, as we sometimes do, we might jitdge a little bit, but I think under the circumstances I would have a hard time going along with this as an architect ofsuch renown that we by necessity should have to recognize that. "

The Planning Manager corrected this second Committee member, indicating that Planning Staff is operating from a different designation than what the City of Belvedere would use to designate a building because of its local importance. Instead, the standard for CEQA is whether it meets standards for California history, whether it's an architect or building of statewide importance.

A third Committee member felt that, after reading the Historic Resources Evaluation that all he "came away with was this should be preserved because Aaron Green designed it. In looking at the property, I can see absolutely no reason to preserve it, but in looking for something historically significant, I'd like to put it another way-there should be significant historical value to preserve it­ no one is ever going to see it, what public service are we providing ifno one can see it from above, below ... they are not interfering with any neighbors, the house is located too low on the property, they have to put in elevators, they would be better offand save a lot ofmoney ifthey moved it up ... " Another Committee member observed that what he noticed about the property that "you really have to hunt, it's well-disguised, well hidden ... my feeling is it's questionable whether we want to recognize the house is the fact that it's not visible by the public whereas all ofour other properties are quite prominent in the City ... what service is provided for the next 48 years ifyou can't see it? The only people going to see it are the owners and their guests. "

The Planning Manager remarked that prior comments were once again more applicable to City designated landmarks "whereas Architectural Historians are looking for buildings where may have influenced jitture buildings that can bring a better understanding to the particular architect or particular development ofan architectural style-all ofthose things that are still out there even ifa building isn't perfectly obvious from the roadway. "

One Committee member countered, "It's the end ofa style, not the beginning ofa style-it's Maybeck/Wright style-and nothing new in it as I can see."

One Committee member stated that since "we are hitting that 45 year period, which is the 60s and 70s, the more historic architects are obviously known, they have more ofa reputation, then ...people are more familiar with it... I think that things that are hitting the mid-century are the things that a lot of people don't agree have historic value or they 're vacillating on it, so those are the ones that require a little bit more attention from us to make sure we aren't losing something ofvalue ... they are less popular with the general public... another member interjects "are you thinking that maybe in another 50 years they will be the important houses?" The Committee member continued· "Ijust think we should give it a thought to not brush offquite so much that fact that it isn't a Julia Morgan ifyou want to consider that this fellow is maybe the Julia Morgan 50 years from now... our opinion is going to matter here now.

A Committee member responded that "We're all older than all these houses we're looking at, that conjitses us a little bit, but I think we have to use common sense that we're building a house for a family-I mean, I can imagine that Aaron Green, what he would say ifwe said "here's the house that's already on the property, you've got to build around it and you can't change it much, you've got to make it look just like this ... ""

'i Another Committee member interjected that "We do have a couple ofproperties on the island that were the more mid-century look and they have kind ofworked within the ji-amework ofwhat has already existed and come up with something really success.fit! ... it was my understanding that the owner wanted to preserve a good portion ofthis house. "

The Owner's architect explained that he wished to "correct a misunderstanding, " sensing "that the owner wants to demolish the house and it's quite the opposite-they do want to preserve-the reason they purchased the house is that they like what they see, even though it's unlivable... they want to keep the house and restore the house . .. obviously they want to add onto it to accommodate theirfomily, but I think what you 'fl see once the project is finished is that the house is basically restored and exists how it does today, with some slight addition-the wood siding will be the same, the pattern will be the same, the doors and windows will be the same-we just have to bring all ofthose things up to Code ... the design concept is to honor and respect this existing house and the addition is to complement and contrast it... I don't think anything is going to be lost here ...you 'fl still be able to represent the Second Bay Area Tradition and see all ofthose great details which is why the client purchased it, but they do need to update the house and make it work for theirfomily as well. "

Committee member to Planning Manager and owner's architect: "It might be your preference to not have us determine it's historic and have it encouraged that you would retain, or tJy to work within the historic preservation guidelines, which you are probably pretty close to, and then you would get both, because I don't think, it doesn't seem you are that for offji-om actually meeting those guidelines if you 're preserving that much ofit, it's getting taken care of ..you 're excluded fi·om CEQA ifyou work within the historic guidelines for t;ying to preserve the house. "

Another Committee member: "I would move taking the language ji-om somewhat Staffhad except I'd say there is no need to require an Environmental determination and nothing significantly historic about this home, this house. " This motion retracted.

1) For the first motion, the Committee would declare "that Aaron Green is not, in our opinion, considered a "master architect. " The Planning Manager summarized that the HPC was disagreeing with the Historic Resources Evaluation's (HRE) conclusion that Aaron Green is a master architect. Question once again by the previous member why this first motion is necessary because he felt the Committee "doesn't think this property has significant historic value for a number ofreasons. " Another Committee member responds that, "We 're giving advice-we 're basically giving our opinion to the Planning Commission. "

2) Second question of whether the house exemplifies or embodies distinctive characteristics of the "Second Bay Are Tradition." Committee member: ''/don't know quite what that is ... "

Another Committee member offered his thoughts that he did think that architecture of the 60s and 70s were not particularly good for architecture and disagreed with the HRE. He believed that the house did not meet the criteria of character defining features as the report concluded.

Another Committee member protested: "Somehow that causes the implication that ifit is ofa style, that makes it historic. Everything is ofsome style, my house was built in a style, everybody's house was built in a style ... I don't see that that necessarily makes it a historic treasure. Things were built in certain styles, in certain periods oftime, and so ifyou look back in the histo1y-every house has a history-Ijust don't, I have a hard time equating that with a determination that this is a historic structure that deserves special attention, either positively or negatively, so I would prefer not to vote as to whether this is a particular architect or style because I really don't know--but mainly, I don't think it's particularly relevant. "

Another Committee member stated in response: "I'm thinking we're acting on something we're not qualified to act on. "

For clarification to the Committee, the Planning Manager reads Criterion 3 of the California Register evaluation that "the building embodies the distinctive characteristics ofa design style, period, region, or method ofconstruction, or represents the work ofa master~ or possesses high artistic value. "So "It's a higher threshold than just "is it a style"-does it embody the style, is it the best or finest example ofthis style in Belvedere that you are aware of"

Another Committee member: '1 thought it did have some examples ofthe Second Bay Area Tradition-the natural materials, the wood, that what I was thinking that perhaps ifyou could retain all those-the natural materials, the use ofglass, the setting-that was the beginning ofnestling things into the property, they were no longer perched on top, they were nestled in, the organic feel ofthe house, the layering, and all ofthat is visible there. " "There are a number ofarchitects that are known ftom that period-we've looked at some. Most ofthem had to do with Berkeley-the Eshericks, and the Sea Ranch people, ifyou think about that era oftime, that's what they're (the Architectural Historian in the HRE) talking about. That's the period-it's kind ofa natural look, you know it's a use ofglass, use ofsetting, so it does fall into those."

Different Committee member: '1 have a feeling that, with the plans as I see them, there's going to be a lot ofthe Second Bay Area Tradition left-the shapes, the balconies, the roof, the same slant­ although there's going to be another house tacked onto it. I think what's left is still an example ofthe Bay Area Tradition, which we can point to and we can live with-maybe not the best in town, but I don't think we are losing a whole lot with this remodel. "

Another Committee member agreed: '1t does embody the Tradition, and on its site, you know those enormous windows and that beautifid view-it is special to the site and ifwe can somehow add our advice, we would encourage the owner to preserve as much as he can ofthe house, even though it has to be upgraded... seeing it today was entirely different than looking at it there (indicating the drawings), but you know that the way that it is set into the site, it has the natural wood. .. so if. .. we could add our advice on that, even though we may not say that this is the best example ofthe Tradition, it's still worth preserving and we would encourage the owner to do that, but it doesn't rise to the category ofa historical preservation-would be terrific ifit could. One ofthe things we usually do when something does voluntarily get listed with us is, we're always very happy when someone wants to take a property and work with it, and we're open to all kinds ofthings-renovation to it-because we're encouraging people to preserve the treasures that they can. I felt the house was close to that. "

Another Committee member: "What I hear andfeel is that we like to see, maybe keep the look and feel but I hesitate to impose the historic significance which then requires so much more that we're talking an Environmental Impact Report-I mean that just boggles the mind that we should have a "Financial Impact Report.""

Another Committee member: '1t does include some elements ofthat Tradition, and we compliment the applicant on their efforts to preserve those elements that's in their submitted design. "

7 Informed by the complete contents of this July 23, 2012 discussion, the justification of the HPC's decision not to find 1 Belvedere Avenue historically significant was based on the limited information then available and also the fact that the proposed project would retain the character­ defining features of the residence. The 2012 project only proposed limited and selective demolition for the purposes of attaching an additional building and expanding square footage. Otherwise, the owner in 2012 fully appreciated, respected and intended to preserve as well as restore the house back to its original quality. This was not an application for complete demolition and removal of the buildings on the property. In fact, the HPC's recommendations were to allow the applicant/owner to proceed with limited demolition in order to accommodate the planned additions, with the understanding that the original house would be preserved intact and restored for use. 2017 Demolition Project The current project proposal is for complete demolition. The evaluation in 2012 cannot be relied upon, and it was prepared under very different facts and without expert analysis aside from the Historic Resources Evaluation prepared by Garavaglia Architecture. Five years has passed since the completion of the Historic Resources Evaluation. In five years, the recognition of the life and work of Architect Aaron Green has grown considerably. The questions that the Planning Staff asked then can now be more fully and completely answered-and should be. One HPC member did have some foresight in 2012 in musing that he thought the Committee should not brush the matter off, that Aaron Green might become more significant and recognized over time. It didn't take 50 years as he speculated, it only took five. By the time of this writing, and since July 23, 2012, these events concerning the importance of Aaron Green and his architectural contributions to the American landscape have emerged: • The first book dedicated to presenting the life and work of Architect Aaron Green is being published for release next month. The book "Aaron G. Green: Organic Architecture beyond Frank Lloyd Wright," focuses upon close to forty of Aaron Green's most significant works, one of which is the Eldred Residence at 1 Belvedere Avenue (advance excerpts from the book regarding this property made available by the author and arc attached to this letter) • In 2016, the book "Frank Lloyd Wright and San Francisco" was published by Paul V . Turner, Emeritus Professor of Art and Art History at Stanford University. Aaron Green, and his association with Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as the work of his office, figures prominently throughout this book. • In 2015, the book "John H. Howe, Architect: From Taliesin Apprentice to Master of Organic Design" was published by Jane King Hession and Tim Quigley. John Howe, like Aaron Green, was an early apprentice to Frank Lloyd Wright, who became Wright's chief draftsman as well as a gifted and prolific architect. After Wright's passing, Howe joined Aaron Green's office in San Francisco for several years before returning to Minnesota to establish an independent practice. A chapter of this book is devoted to detailing the time Howe spent in Aaron Green's office as well as the projects of Green's he worked upon. • From January through end of May 2017, an exhibition of the work of Aaron Green was presented at the Palos Verde Art Center, curated by Alan Hess, architecture critic for the San Jose Mercury News, as well as architect and historian who has written nineteen books of Modern architecture and urbanism in the mid-twentieth century. This exhibition was coupled with an open house viewing of a nearby residence completed by Aaron Green in 1959. (sheet documenting exhibition announcement attached) • On July 19, 2017, the City of Florence, Alabama announced that they selected Aaron Green as one of three inductees to their "Walk of Honor"--adding a bronze plaque to a monument on their walk for permanent display. The Walk of Honor Committee pronounced that Aaron Green was "most deserving of this honor for his accomplishments as an internationally recognized architect." One of Aaron Green's earliest projects as a young architect was for a design of a house for his friends, a newly married couple. At one point in the process, he suggested to his clients that they should really engage the services of Frank Lloyd Wright, who was embarking upon a new direction for modest­ cost homes. This led to Green's introduction to Wright, as well as Wright's only built project in Florence, Alabama-the Rosenbaum Residence, which is listed upon the National Register of Historic Places. (letter from City of Florence attached) • The Marin County Civic Center, where Frank Lloyd Wright designated Aaron Green as his Associate Architect (and an original bronze plaque bears testimony to that unique privilege that is mounted at the entrance) was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1991. Recently, in 2016 the Marin County Civic Center was nominated as an UNESCO World Heritage site, along with nine other significant buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. • Last Friday, July 28, 2017, the California State Historic Resources Commission unanimously approved the nomination of the Marin City Public Housing project to the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district of 29 original buildings on nearly 30 acres of property-an individual first for Aaron Green. Aaron Green was the Design Architect for the project in association with Architect John Carl Warnecke and Landscape Architect Lawrence Halprin. In their comments to the audience, Commission Luis Hoyos, representing Architectural History, remarked that, "I think this is a remarkable place. I recognize the care and design of the three master designers who produced this wonderful place." Quly 28, 2017 article from the Marin Independent Journal attached)

Historic Significance of I Belvedere Avenue The residence at l Belvedere Avenue reflects a clear pedigree to Wright's own work and based upon his design philosophies. Aaron Green was one of Frank Lloyd Wright's most trusted Associates and once said that "everything I have ever learned about architecture I owe to Frank Lloyd Wright." The residence shares the "open floor plan" arrangement originated by Wright­ the Living Room, Dining Room, Music Room, and Kitchen are all main floor areas that flow together under the broad gabled roof volume-a "Great Room" in today's terminology. A common feature to nearly all ofWright's residences, l Belvedere possesses a massive fireplace (of narrow red concrete masonry bricks with a patterned concrete mantel) that anchors the house to its site and is a focal point of all the social areas of the main floor's Great Room. Redwood

q siding is used exactly the same on the interior as the exterior-horizontal boards with vertical batten strips-an expression of the honest use of materials as well as a seamless visual aesthetic at every turn. A departure from Wright is Aaron Green's bold expression of structure in exposing the post and beam system of construction, which adds a rhythmic and unifying character to the overall composition. Another design characteristic entirely of Aaron Green's origin, almost a signature, is the dramatic splitting of the roof's gable ends-the apt-named "swallow's tail" arrangement, an early such use of this distinct feature, but appearing in later residences over the remainder of Aaron Green's career. Similar to Wright's work, Aaron Green designed and incorporated into the interior all built-in cabinetry and furniture, including a large, comfortable L-shaped sofa in the Living area that faced the fireplace. Green designed an original 8-foot long dining table built entirely of teak hardwood and numerous small moveable tables and hassocks. Most of the remainder of the built-in cabinetry was constructed of a fine-grained Mahogany, clear stained.

The house is not "abandoned" as the Design Review application states, but is in actualiry "unlivable" in its current condition. This is because of the wholly abusive and neglectful actions on the part of a succession of three owners since the property was owned by the Eldred family. At the time of its first sale out of the Eldred family's hands, the house and property were in pristine vintage condition. The Eldreds loved their house and maintained it at a high standard and virtually unchanged from the day it was built. At the time the house first sold in 2004, the house and its interior looked exactly as it did in the vintage black and white photographs from 1963-over 40 years of dedicated care. Not long after the house changed hands, however, the first purchaser, a San Francisco developer, applied for a demolition permit for the interior-and proceeded to dismantle nearly all of the non-load bearing partitions and built-in furniture throughout both levels of the house. The massive masonry fireplace is unchanged. None of this selective interior demolition has compromised the structural integrity of the house. There was no demolition whatsoever to the exterior of the house. The exterior shell is completely intact in both materials and all distinctive design features. It is essentially an unlivable house that has not been occupied or received any maintenance for thirteen years, so it looks as one would expect if they never maintained their own home for such a long period of time. Subsequent owners have done nothing to stabilize or maintain the house-just left it in a neglected condition for over ten years. The house looks the same as it has since the first purchaser completed his interior dismantling around 2006.

A series of 1963 post-construction B+ W photographs of the residence as well as color photographs from 2003/2004 at the time when the property first appeared on the market, have been assembled and presented in an attached document accompanying this letter.

Summary/Request The 2012 determination that 1 Belvedere Avenue was not historically significant was inadequately supported; even more important, it is out of date and a new evaluation of historic status by the City is required (see, e.g. Valley Advocates v. City ofFresno). I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the application for the full demolition permit, based on 1 Belvedere Avenue's significant aesthetics as well its qualifications as an historical resource at the State level. 1 Belvedere Avenue is a historically significant resource designed by master architect Aaron Green.

10 The applicant should be required to evaluate an alternative that preserves and restores the house materially intact with all distinctive characteristics that serve to define its unique and singular architecture, without "adverse changes," but expanded in a manner that sensitively blends alterations/additions with the existing architectural vocabulary. It is understood that the house and property must adapt to new families and current Codes, and all can be accomplished in a skilled, sensitive manner, as suggested in 2012 and supported by City staff and the HPC.

The City of Belvedere should be proud that it has within its community a exemplary built work by architect Aaron Green, a mid-century Modern architectural masterpiece distinctively influenced by his mentor, Frank Lloyd Wright-the only one of its kind on the island-rather than being an active participant in the insensitive disregard and demolition of an historic resource. It's not too late to protect the historical significance of both 1 Belvedere Avenue and it's architect Aaron Green.

~lly,

~ark, Architect

Attachments: 1) Excerpts from "Aaron G. Green: Organic Architecture beyond Frank Lloyd Wright," publication release September 2017, as it pertains to 1 Belvedere Avenue 2) Exhibition announcement for "Aaron G. Green and California Organic Architecture," Janua1y 21 through May 28, 2017

3) Letter from City of Florence, Alabama, dated July 19, 2017 inducting Aaron Green to "Walk of Honor"

4) Marin Independent Journal article, dated July 28, 2017 concerning the approval of the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the Aaron Green-designed Marin City Public Housing

5) Document presenting photographs of 1 Belvedere Avenue-both post-construction B+ W images from 1963 and color images form 2003/2004 at the time it was first put on the market

cc: Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building, City of Belvedere Craig Middleton, Belvedere City Manager Historic Preservation Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, Brandt-Hawley Law Group

11 Marin City's Golden Gate Village historical tag draws cheers, concern Housing project's nomination could affect future upgrades

By Mark Prado, Marin Independent Journal

Friday, July 28, 2017

Marin City's Golden Gate Village public housing complex is on the road to gaining national historic status after a state agency commission voted unanimously Friday to make that nomination.

A crowd of about 75 people erupted in applause as the eight-member state Historical Resources Commission voted one by one for the designation. "We did it! We did it!" shouted a woman inside the San Rafael City Council chambers, where the commission met Friday morning.

The vote for the nomination came despite concerns from the Marin Housing Authority. Officials there said they were not opposed to the nomination, but wanted additional details and more involvement in the process.

If the federal designation is given, it could have an effect on how the housing authority manages the property. The agency is looking at the possibility of a rebuild to bring in higher-priced rental units and commercial space to help subsidize low-income housing in a public-private partnership.

The historic preservation effort began in 2015 when resident Royce McLemore hired San Francisco-based Garavaglia Architecture Inc. to conduct a "historic resource evaluation" of the 296-unit Golden Gate Village.

That the 57-year-old complex was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright protege Aaron Green, and had the involvement of American landscape architect Lawrence Halprin and architect John Carl Warnecke, helped solidify the nomination.

"I think this is a remarkable place," Commissioner Luis Hoyes told the crowd. "I recognize the care and the design of the three master designers who produced this wonderful place." Commissioner Alberto Bertoli lauded the design. "This project represents a very high quality design for public housing," he said. "This is very representative of what public housing ought to be."

Commissioner Rick Moss noted the design and social aspect of Golden Gate Village. "When we look at the aesthetic ... it's exemplary," said Moss, noting the housing was an attempt to right wrongs that black workers faced after World War II. "I think it's an example of something that should be saved. It's also an important statement for what our nation could be."

A new estimate puts repairing and upgrading Golden Gate Village at $63 million - $47 million more than previous projections. The housing authority's sole source of income to make improvements is $500,000 in annual money received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"We respect the decision, but we do not agree with it," said Lewis Jordan, who heads the housing authority, after the hearing. He said his department is reviewing next steps in regard to the nomination, adding feasibility work on redevelopment at Golden Gate Village will continue.

Supervisor Kate Sears, whose district takes in Marin City, was not at the nomination hearing because of a conflict with a Golden Gate Bridge district meeting. But she did submit a letter to state commissioners asking for a continuation of the matter.

"It would be a cruel irony if a historic status designation for Golden Gate Village makes it even more difficult or even impossible to make the improvements that must be made to tum what are now substandard buildings into beautiful apartments - without losing the original vision of the architect," she wrote.

The nomination now goes to the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. for final review and possible listing by the "keeper" of the National Register of Historic Places. The park service makes a listing decision within 45 days. "There are opportunities to do deferred maintenance with that status," McLemore said after the vote. "There are millions of dollars available to infuse to Golden Gate Village. Maybe now the housing authority will treat us as equals and partners as it should be." January 21 - May 28. 2017 Aaron G. Green and CALIFORNIA ORGANIC ARCHITECTURE(!> AAR~P.it~lf't:fYJAf~~t'?.17-2001) California Organic IMAGEZ ~RATORspecfaY~~ent: ~r&@~hP'i~Ilos v~~Jt?? Ancier W tJ & Modern, April 8 "'-""~chitecture Ill ~ ~pec1al event: HUU~I:. teaturmg He1d1 lJuckle .... Dance Theatre (archive) 0:: -~ o~ ·s: Palos Verdes Art Center is pleased to announce Aarc • m . G. Green and California Organic Architecture, openir 0 I? January 21, 2017. The exhibition features rare 0 photographs and original architectural renderings an z m plans from the noted architect's office, as well as 1~ period shelter magazines spotlighting Green's work. 0 g The exhibition will remain on view at PVAC through a: May 28, 2017. ,,~ c Architect Aaron G. Green (1917-2001) FAIA, was o ~ m of Organic Architecture's most talented proponents. Inspired by the complex patterns, rugged textures ar varied forms of nature, Organic Modernism offered < alternative to the sharp-edged glass box Modernism known as the International Style. Though he worked primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area, Green launched his career in Los Angeles after World War 11 when the region's creative energy flourished. Green's long independent practice produced Organic designs for custom homes, public housing. churches. schools. and internment facilities. He was widely published in House Beautiful and Architectural Digest. But his additional role as Frank Lloyd Wright's associate in their joint San Francisco office also placed him at the forefront of some of America's most visionary architecture during the fruitful final decade of Wright's life. The graceful Butterfly Wing bridge to cross southern San Francisco B was never built, but the equally visionary Marin County Civic Center was; Wright entrusted Green to see it to completion after Wright's death. This is the first exhibit of Aaron G. Green's work to be presented in Southern California. Alan Hess, Curator

Palos Verdes Art Center would like to thank The Aaron G. Green Archive. Allan Green, and Jan Novie for loaning invaluable objects, and The Huntington Library, San Marino, California for providing rare photography by Maynard L. Parker to make this exhibition possible.

This exhibition is supported, in part, by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors through the Los Angeles County Arts Commission

Palos Verdes Art Center I Beverly G. Alpay Center for Arts Education, a nonprofit community visual arts school and gallery, inspires individuals to create, appreciatE and celebrate art. Since it was founded in 1931, PVAC's exhibition, education and outreach programs have made the visual arts available, accessible and affordabl

· © 2017 Aaron G. Green and California Organic Architecture· Designed by Press Customizr ·Powered by \t\' 1 Belvedere Avenue Designed by Architect Aaron Green, 1962/63

Entry approach, 1963.

East Elevation, 1963. Dining Area, looking Southwest, 1963, with pass-through to Kitchen

Emry, Stair, light lantern, 1963 East Exterior Elevation, 2003/2004

Living/Music area, looking Southeast, 2003/2004 Living/Dining Area, looking South, 1963.

Dining/Living/Music Area, looking North, 1963.

? Living/Dining area looking Southeast, 2003/2004

Living/Music area, looking Southeast, 2003/2004 Architect Aaron Green, standing at the Carport/Entry balcony of 1 Belvedere Avenue, 1963

The Eldred family in their Aaron Green-designed home, 1 Belvedere Avenue, circa late 1990s CITY OF FLORENCE, ALABAMA Office of the i.\1ayor

July 19, 2017

Mr. Robert Whitten 21 7 East Irvine A venue Florence, AL 35630

Dear Robert:

On behalf of the City of Florence Walk of Honor Selection Committee (WOH), I am pleased to inform you that because of your nomination, Aaron Green has been selected as one of three 2017 Inductees for the Walk of Honor. The WOH Committee whole-heartedly agreed that he was most deserving of this honor for his accomplishments as an internationally recognized architect.

As an Inductee, a bronze plaque recognizing him will be placed on one of the monuments of the Walk for permanent display. This is a means to give honor and perpetuate the name and achievement of deserving individuals, either current or fonner citizens, through a form of civic recognition.

There will be a dedication ceremony for the Inductees that is tentatively set for Thursday, October 26. We will be finalizing the plans for the ceremony as we make contact with all of the families involved and formal invitations will be sent. We kindly ask for your help with the following infonnation.

1) Do you know of any family members or friends that we could contact about this honor? We will need a list of names and addresses in which to send the invitation to the ceremony.

2) The picture you submitted with the nomination works fine so we are set to go with the plaque.

As a note, neither the press nor the public have been notified of the selections. A public announcement will be made once the details have been worked out for the dedication ceremony.

POST OFFICE Box 98 + FLORENCE, AL 3 5631-0098 TELEPHONE (256) 760-6400 + www.florenceal.org + Fi\X (256) 760-6.388 We are very excited to be able to recognize Mr. Green and the other Inductees. Please let 1ne know if you have any questions or if we can help you in any way. Sandra Morgan in my office will be coordinating the event, and you may contact her at [email protected], or feel free to call her at 256-760-6408.

Again, thank you for this nomination and we look forward to the upcoming induction ceremony.

Sincerely,

Mayor sn1

Enclosure City of Florence, Alabama Walk of Honor River Heritage Park, Hightower Place