[clears throat]
I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.
We'll begin with item one, open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any
citizen to briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not
appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes.
Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be
agendaized for further discussion at a later hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience who would like to speak during open forum?
Anyone on Zoom? Rebecca, >> there's no one with their hand raised on
Zoom. >> Okay, thank you.
We'll move on to reports. Are there any commissioners who would like to provide
a report?
Staff reports. >> Uh, I'd just like to quickly um
introduce our new planning commissioner, Jacob Lanetski. We are thrilled that
you've joined us on the commission and look forward to um your time on the
commission. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Thank you. Uh
any public comment and reports on city hall? Well, um probably not. So,
» actually, I I'll just do sorry, one more little quick update. We did I know
everyone's interested in the Malard Point project. We did issue the
demolition permit on July 15th um last week for that project.
» Oh, >> thank you.
» Very good. Thank you. We'll move on to consent calendar items.
The consent calendar consists of items considered to be non-controversial
unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff or
public. [clears throat] The consent calendar will be adopted by one motion.
Items removed will be considered for the sequence that they appear on the agenda.
Um, I will request that we remove the approval of the minutes because we only
have two commissioners here that were present at the last meeting.
» Um, does anyone else have any requests?
» So, >> um, yes,
» sorry. Um, we received a uh a letter from a neighbor with respect to u number
28 eucalyptus which was uh the uh the new garage which was first approved in
September of 2022. Um, and I didn't know whether um whether
we wanted to re reopen the design review for that
based on the letter.
» Let's see the letter. >> Staff is not familiar with this letter
if you don't mind. >> It is here on our podium.
» Is it for 34 eucalyptus maybe? >> Yeah, it's
» Oh, sorry. Never mind. I'm fine. >> Okay. [laughter]
Thank you. >> 28 34.
» Sorry. Sorry about that. Yes. >> I I do words, not numbers.
» All right. Thank you. No, no need no need to rem to remove number two.
» Okay. >> From the consent calendar.
» Thank you for that clarification. So, um with that, can I have a motion to adopt
the items on the consent calendar with the removal of last meetings minutes?
Um, I'll make a motion to approve number two on the consent on the consent
calendar. >> Second the motion.
» All in favor? >> I
» I >> Thank you.
» Sorry to interrupt. Um, I didn't I was wondering if there's any public comment
on the consent calendar item. >> Well, let's uh let's back up. Um, does
anyone in the room have any thoughts on the consent calendar?
There's no one on Zoom either. >> Okay.
» All right. So, is the motion we made okay or do you want us to retake it?
» It's okay. >> It's okay.
» All right. Thanks.
[clears throat]
We will now move on to the public hearing. Um, I believe we're going to
reorder the order that we hear the items in. We're going to begin with
item five, which is design review and use permit
for a dock expansion and boat lifts at 310 and 312 Beach Road.
Can I have a presentation from staff, please?
» Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your
consideration this evening is an application for design review and use
permit to construct a dock expansion, two boat lifts, kayak racks, and a shed.
Uh 310 and 312 Beach Road are located on steeply slope lots on the eastern side
of Belvadier Island. On July 1st, 1989, the city entered into a joint dock lease
with the then owners of both properties to use and maintain their private docks.
Historically, a deed gate, fence, and joint staircase provided access to the
dock. The stairs, which were in disrepair, have since been removed due
to safety concerns. In March of this year, the properties received planning
commission approval to construct a shared elevator and landing within the
strip to access the property shared dock. Approval was also received to
reconstruct the stairs and connect that connect to the existing pier.
Staff has received many emails from residents both in favor of the
improvements and not in favor of the improvements. Given the comments
combined with the city's differing opinions on improvements on the strip,
the applicant has decided to remove the pla the wood platforms from the project.
The improvements that are under the planning commission review tonight are
only the dock expansion, the kayak racks, and the sheds. The revocable
license has been removed from the project as well. The dock improvements
are subject to design review and the use permit.
The 270 ft dock expansion is proposed on the southern side of the existing dock
and will be constructed using composite decking materials.
Two boat lifts are proposed on the eastern side of the dock.
And the project proposes construction of a 36q ft storage shed measuring 8'2 in
in height and two kayak storage racks measuring 8 ft tall. The shed and kayak
racks would be would feature brown composite shingle roofing and finished
with vertical redwood siding to match the existing shed.
The dock, boat lifts, kayak racks, and sheds are located on the water beyond
the strip in the recreation zoning district. A use permit is required for
these components in the resident uh recreation zoning district. As
mentioned, the city and then owners enter entered into a dock lease
agreement. Uh the lease included several provisions regarding permissible uses of
the dock relevant to this project. The dock le states the dock may contain only
facilities constructed for the docking and mooring of boats. For this reason,
staff has advised the applicant that the proposed storage shed and kayak sheds
are not allowed because they are not directly related to the docking or
mooring. However, staff advises that the project may include kayak racks since
kayaks are considered boats and the racks are equivalent to do the
equivalent of docking or mooring of kayaks.
For the commission's consideration, the applicant provided amendments and
additional information for the storage rack and platforms.
First, the kayak storage racks would be located on the ends of the dock and
rotated 90°.
The applicant has also provided two additional rack kayak rack options for
the commission to consider in addition to the current shed proposals.
And finally, the plans before you show the wood landings being removed from the
strip circled here in red at the bottom of the screen.
Uh staff recommends granting design review and use permit approvals to
construct the two boat lifts, two kayak docks without their sheds,
and the 270 foot dock expansion, all within the recreation zoning district.
Thank you. And we're happy to answer any questions.
» Thank you, Sammy. Commissioners, um you like to ask
questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. the um second
storage shed that is still part of the application. Not the kayak storage shed,
but the matching >> the 36 square foot shed, it is part of
the application. Staff is not recommending approval.
» Okay. Thank you.
And um Sammy, when you said that the wooden platforms have been have been
removed, um what is going to I mean, is there
going to be any uh any construction of anything on the on the strip? And how
does one get from the elevator down to the dock if the wooden platforms are not
there? >> Yeah, good question. Uh, Commissioner
Watson, if you remember in March of this year when the elevator got approved,
» they also received approval for a landing to get from the elevator down to
the existing um uh stairs. That stairs was also approved to be uh reconstructed
in the same location. And so that's the the design that the our applicant is
going to move forward with.
» And I have one more question. the um uh the kayak the two kayak racks that
are proposed for approval or recommending approval by staff. Is it
would that be the third option, the most open option or
» the That's right. the third option. >> Okay.
Uh maybe Sammy, could you just go back to the um sort of the aerial that showed
the parcels?
» Um so the yellow rectangle um is that that represents your understanding of
what we call the strip? >> That's correct.
» Okay. Yeah, >> I just wanted to clarify that it's, you
know, [snorts] it's kind of hard when you're standing on site to tell there's
no fences or anything. Um,
and water. [laughter] Um, okay. Thank you. Any
questions? >> So, just to clarify, the improvements on
the on the strip itself are not an issue here. Correct.
» Correct. >> Okay. And the reason the staff is not
recommending the two sheds, one of which is already grandfathered in, there is a
kind of a shed there already, right? >> There is one shed there right now. Yes.
» Okay. And the reason the staff is recommend is not recommending it is
because it does not neatly fit into either the docking or the mooring
definition. Is that correct? >> That's exactly correct.
And without the two sheds, would the land owner then remove both sheds or one
of them is completely derelct? Would he or both of them restore? What is the
plan then?
» Can you bring your mic a little bit closer? It's hard to hear you.
» Sorry. >> Thank you.
» Uh question. If if the if the sheds are not approved,
what is the plan to deal with the existing shed that is pretty derelictked
on the pier? [snorts] >> The the existing shed can be repaired.
Uh but that would be the extent of the the sheds that would be on the on the
dock.
» And if the owner were to build a second shed, that would increase the square
footage of the dock. Correct? No, the uh the the dock is being
proposed for an expansion. The shed would be on the on the dock. So, it
wouldn't increase the square footage of the dock itself.
» Okay. So, the dock is going to be increased anyways by that 270 ft.
» Yes. And and that's primarily well it partly for the boat lifts.
» Understood. Thank you.
Sorry, one one more question about the shed. Um it you referenced in your um in
your report that there's a shed on a neighboring dock.
[snorts]
» I'll have to let me go back in. >> Okay. Thanks.
there.
» I can cover that. >> Okay. And I and I guess I was
specifically wondering if there if the neighboring dock had one or two sheds on
it. [snorts]
» Thank you.
Another question for design review of the um kayak racks. What's triggering
design review? Is it because they're fixed or the height of them or what
specifically? Why is it part of the design review?
» That's also a good question. I think it was part of the design review because it
was more of a structure. At this point, [clears throat]
you know, we require design review for permanent structure structures. So, I
would assume there's some permanency to a rack on a dock in the middle of the or
in the water.
» Okay. Um, any further questions or shall we ask the applicant to present?
» Okay.
» Is that the same one? >> Mr. Conro is the same.
» [clears throat] >> have a question. I guess
Mark, are you ready to present? >> Yeah.
» Okay.
[clears throat]
» The one at 503. Is that the right one? >> I think I said
[clears throat] to
Mark, does this one look right?
» Does this one look right? That's it.
» Okay.
» [clears throat]
» promote.
» No, we'll do it for you. >> But make sure that mic's on. Push the
button. So, it's green. >> Okay.
and yeah, just start out with number one. I'll go in order.
» Okay.
Yeah.
» Well, good evening and thanks for the background music. Kind of makes me more
relaxed. Uh, my name is Mark Conroe. I live at 310 Beach Road. I'm uh
representing the applicant. First of all and foremost, maybe I want to thank
planning staff. I don't know if planning commission knows, but you have some of
the best planning staff probably in the country. I've dealt with a lot of
planning commissions and planning staff and they're right up there. So, don't
lose them. Um, I think there's a couple things in the staff report that I wanted
or not the staff report, the staff presentation that I'd like to correct.
Um, the p the aerial is incorrect. So, we'll get to that in a second. Where is
the strip? So, I'd basically like to uh address four questions. What does the
general plan say about water usage in the docks? What are we proposing? What
does the dock lease say about equipment storage? And where is that darn strip?
The general plan consistently recognizes that Belvadier's unique identity drives
from its intimate relationship with the bay. It identifies maritime improvements
including docks, floats, and boat lifts as an important part of the hundreds of
waterfront properties in town and recognizes uh Belvar Cove where we front
as a important recreational resource and seeks to preserve the city's unique
waterfront character. So what are we proposing? As staff
pointed out, we had two pieces to our proposal. One was the dock and two was
in the strip to add two platforms to uh as part of our elevator improvements. Uh
clearly the whole issue of making improvements in the strip is very
political politicized and so we are advised a couple hours ago to pull that
from the application which we did. So the only thing we're discussing tonight
are the dock improvements. So, what are those dock improvements?
And again, we'll get to where the strip is in a second.
We're proposing to enlarge the existing dock that's been
there for over 50 years by 270 square ft. This is only 120 square feet, more
than what was proved a couple decades ago. This would result in the total dock
area of being 1,50 ft shared by two homes. This is probably to my knowledge
the only dock in Belvadier which is shared with two homes. Other ones it's
one dock one home. So this results in a dock size per home of 525 square ft. And
I would contend it's the smallest dock after we enlarge it in Belvadier. 525 ft
including all walkways. We're also proposing a boat lift for
each owner. Let's talk about those kayak racks and the um boat equipment storage
shed. There's one shed being proposed. If you can go to actually if you if
you're are they seeing what's in blue is what we're talk you can leave actually
that up for one second there Sammy please. In blue is what we're talking
about. In red is the strip below that red line is the strip. And I'll get to
the legal definition and our survey in a second. Let's go to the next definition
or sorry, next page, page two of the plans there. Nope,
that's not it. Oh, yeah. Okay. Actually enlarged that a little bit. Uh you had
the old uh elevation. We were asked to provide an elevation. That was what was
in the uh if you can make it smaller so you can see there's two parts of that
elevation. Sammy, if you can There we go. Keep going. Okay, perfect. That's
sort of the before and after. The before was uh a week ago and the current is we
turned the only one change we made. We turn the kayak racks 90 degrees.
One of the main reasons for doing this was to clarify this word structures. Uh
you can see that there a single wall with a roof um and they're see-through.
As you look from the beach or the bay, you can see the existing shed and a
matching to be a proposed equipment boat equipment shed. So that's what we'll
talk about in terms of boat use and we can talk about the kayak racks too, but
they are covered and they match exactly what the neighbor has except about a
quarter of the size. Let's go to the next slide.
Okay, now make it a little bit smaller, please. Okay. Actually, that's not I was
looking uh in the plans. If you can go to the plans, the next slide in the
plans.
No, not just the plans. Number one, sheet three of number one. Yeah. Okay.
If you you can scroll through the pages. Okay. Go back one page. This gives it um
overall you can see the strip borded in red and what we're talking about in
blue. And again I'll substantiate the interesting on on Sammy's U slide. It
showed the correct legal description on the left but the incorrect aerial on the
right. I talked to the title company why that is and they said it's pictorial.
It's not meant to represent a legal description. The legal description
represents the legal description which is what we put on our survey which is
the lines shown in red. Those are accurate to the to the edge. Let's go to
the next slide in this package, please. Okay, this is on the left. A question
about uh is there something like this nearby? This is a couple docks down the
two photos on the left. The photo from the front of it and the photo from the
back of it that in blue lines it shows the size of ours superimposed on the
their existing shed. You can see it's quite a bit bigger. Um on the right just
are pictures of the existing boat storage shed. If you can go to the next
slide, please. Okay. And that's the elevation from the
beach. Again, the the package that uh the presentation that Sammy showed had a
the the prior u picture of what it looked like, but when we we just turned
these racks to open the Vista up. Okay. If you can go to the the um number two
on my uh list of slides, please.
That's all in that package there.
Yeah. Okay. This is simply to make the point of the before and after of what
the Vista looked when we all we did is shift the outer two structures which are
boat sorry kayak racks 90 degrees. You can go to number three, Sammy, please.
So, again, we we're trying to open it up. We're trying to address what we
think might be concerns. Let So, a couple hours ago, Sammy asked me, "Well,
why don't you give me some examples of more open kayak racks?" So, this was
done about two hours ago. The top is what we're proposing. Um, and that's
what's on the plans. And it has a single side to protect against wind, wind, and
a roof. And again, that's what's a couple doors down. Um, ours is much much
smaller than that, but same idea. There would be one for each user of the docks.
Two alternatives. Um, if we're going to look at if you wanted to get rid of the
roof, you would have a single wall um without a roof. And then the third one
down is a rack with no protection. The issue here is you get strong winds that
blow across the bay and kayaks end up in the bay uh and create hazards in the
bay. If we had to cut the baby in half, I would opt for the middle option. Uh
and that is uh with no roof but just a wall to uh both attach stuff to and to
protect against the wind. That would be perpendicular to the beach. So as you're
standing in the beach, as our elevation shows, except you would get it rid of
the roof. So you would just see this end of a wall and the kayaks itself. So it'
be virtually invisible, but it would uh help solve the problem. It also helps
solve the problem where to put the ores because you'd strap those to the wall on
the bottom example. Uh I'm not sure where they go. Uh I know where they
would end up in the bay on a strong strong wind. So, uh, we would prefer not
to have the bottom option. Okay. Uh, next. Um,
so let me I guess that's that is the and I can entertain any questions about
those improvements. So, in summary, it's uh two kayak racks, one for each of us.
Uh, and one boat storage shed. Uh, the boat storage set seems to be on the
endangered lease species list. Now, in terms of keeping it, staff's
recommending not keeping it. The only thing I would uh ask is where do you
keep all the stuff? Life preservers, ores, um uh anything you might want to
use with the boat. Uh so I guess it's either in our living room or garage,
which is up the top of the mountain or in the boat itself. Um so that would be
um because it's quite a trek to get down the mountain. Uh so having a 4ft by
basically a storage shed that's smaller than a ping pong table uh out there is
and again matching the one that's already out there so it's easy to
visualize is what we were asking for but u I understand if that's controversial
and uh is uh forboden then then uh we want to
move forward so I guess that means you take it off the uh off the list. Um just
real quickly about the dock lease. Um the dock lease is not specific as
structures on a dock. It says really just two things in the lease in two
sentences. That the dock is for private recreational uses and for docking of
boats. And you heard staff say just a second ago that the docking uh keeping
um docking kayaks is acceptable to them. um not sure with or without walls or or
roof, but um but keeping boat equipment in a storage shed is not acceptable. Um
so there, as I said, there's a practical issue, but um I'm not really here to
fight city hall on on putting a storage shed on this dock. So if that's uh
considered precedent setting, then I think it comes out. Um,
so that is I just want to have one last comment. If you could pull up the uh the
u the the um the APN map for the uh for the strip. There's two attachments, two
PDFs. One's the APM map for the strip and one's a our survey for the strip.
Could you pull those up, Sammy, please?
» Can you? >> The first one you'll recognize. It's
just a bigger version of what Sammy showed. in your presentation mark.
» Yeah, it's >> Yeah, go to the slides.
» It's probably never Let's go here and it's under
uh go under uh extra. That's a good point.
» Yeah. Okay. Go for the APM map and then the second one.
» Okay. This is um public information. It's the
APM map. The thing to glean from this very clearly, it's a legal description.
The strip is actually a legal parcel. It's parcel 06. Every parcel that the
county has has a legal description. You can see meets and bounds on this legal
description on this parcel. You can see the same where our houses are. It's
actually very easy to plot the two. And so all I've done in the next slide is
taken the the um the the the um the survey that we did for the in both the
strip and for the homes right here and overlaid that legal description the
piece that fronts us uh over there and those are the green lines. So there's
the the strip ends just above the rip raft. There's no question about this.
There's no evidence of anything else. Unfortunately, there's that um
misleading errant aerial, but that has no no legal bearing on anything. It's
the legal description for lots that dictate where lots are, and that's where
the strip is. So, um I don't think there's any question,
and I'm happy to entertain any other legal descriptions that may be found of
the strip, but that's the only one that exists.
So I'll and I I'll I'll end in this and this was I think in the packages we got
neighbors sorry letters of support from all the abuing neighbors that literally
the ones that abut on each side of us and then other one others on the street.
So there is support for this and uh I think that's an important part of the
proposal. Um I think that's it and I'll entertain any questions. Thanks for
bearing with me. Would
any planning commissioner like to ask questions of the applicant?
» Hi. Sorry to uh take us away from the thrilling conversation about kayak
racks. Um can you tell us about the lighting that's planned for the dock?
» Sure. And staff made in their staff report of recommendation which I'm fine
with. And we have the most uh unobtrusive lighting you can put in
those little puck lights that are, you know, one inch diameter that are flush
mounted with the docked so you don't walk off the end of the dock. Um and I
think they said, "Hey, there's instead of 30, I think the numbers were we put
architect put 32 on there and they said, let's put 20 on there." Um that's not a
uh a key issue to us. So staff can adopt whatever they want with doc with respect
to the dock lights. Importantly, they're not it's not light pollution. Other docs
have, you know, basically search lights out there and these are just puck lights
so you can see where [clears throat] you're walking
» and they're and they're shielded from the top. They're not shining straight
up. Correct. Like like you see in the photo here.
» Yes. That we would Yeah, that's that represents what we're planning to do. So
yeah, you Yeah, exactly. Okay. So about how many feet do you have
in between them? >> Well, the architect put there I would
say there's about six feet or >> Okay.
» 6 or 8 feet between them now. And it may if you reduce them by 40% they'll be 10
or 12 feet apart. >> Okay. Great. Thank you.
» Any other questions? Could
I make one further comment? Oh, yes. Okay. And I I just and I'm not
going to bore you with my pictures of high tide, but and it's largely
unrelated and irrelevant to the proposal, but um just for the record, we
support the public's use of the beach. And to the extent it's accessible, which
it isn't at high tide, and we have some photographs that show the water against
the rip raft, um we're we're all good for that. It's not on It's not on the
strip, but it's um again, there's been some talk about uh public use of the
beach and and what we're doing doesn't change that at all.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Go ahead, >> Mark. So, in terms of the racks, the
kind of the three possibilities here, um, I understand, you know, your point
about the third one, the lowest one being not ideal, but you could still do
some kind of a strap-on system, right, where you strap in the kayaks and you
would strap in the ores. Is that still possible or is that
» Yes, that would certainly be the backup plan. Um, to if you had an open
structure like the bottom picture, then the wind the the problematic direction
is north south basically. Um uh 80% of the time the wind comes from Pacific
Ocean. We're on the backside island. That's why Belvadier built their houses
there first because it was a better side without the view of San Francisco of
course. But but the wind comes from Mexico or Alaska about 20% of the time
or 10% of the time and it can get howling. Someone asked what happened to
our g our gang way that was ripped off in a storm and actually all the damage
you see to the existing dock was done last November. So it actually looked
much different before you had three-foot waves cresting and taking the walkway
down. So that that's the event that I'm trying to protect against where you get
50 mph winds blowing across the dock and taking things with it. So but certainly
we either go grab everything off and try to bring it up the hill into the house
up to the top of the mountain or we uh strap it down and go fishing afterwards.
Thanks.
[clears throat] I think the commission is finished with
its questions. So, would any member of the public like to
speak regarding this item?
Sandy Donnell, 137 Golden Gate Avenue, Belvadier.
And um I guess I'm curious about what the point of like talking about the
strip and the water and the waters not being part of the strip. That's one of
my first questions. And then I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that
not only if if any of that land does become privatized in the agreement
between the um when the when the property was conveyed to the city of
Beler by the land company in what 1896
it was if anything is um if we don't set up live up to the covenants that they
have um agreed to then it reverts to the Belvadier land company. So that is at
risk that the Belvadier land company is entitled to take all that property back
if the city um abuses that. And then um you spoke about the um so the revocable
license. So how is the elevator coming down if there is no revocable license?
» Um maybe staff can answer that. >> I mean maybe you can't answer because
I'm just a person talking. But >> do you want me to answer?
» Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The uh planning commission approved those a few months
ago and it has not gone to city council yet.
» But so there is a revocable license. >> It has not gone to city council for a
revocable license yet. >> But that's possible.
» It Well, yes, it will go. >> So then, okay, it will go. Well, I
didn't bring my little picture here, but you've all had it where if you see, then
it's giving away almost as much land to a private parties as the land in their
their ownership ex, you know, in their own lots, existing lots. So, I I think
that would be very irresponsible the city, but avoable license is still
supposed to be open to um the public. You can't privatize. You can't cut it
off and make it part of your yard. um it still is something that can be used by
the um by the public. That's my understanding. When I was on the city
council when we looked at um revocable licenses, that was one of the um one of
the strong findings. And I'm going to run back and get my little picture for
you. Just a sec. >> Sure.
» Um can I can I ask a question? I had thought that
there was a revocable license for the existing stairs that or I guess the
pre-existing stairs
» in in 2022 310 Beach received a uh recommendation for approval for a
revokeable license for his own stairs to come down to the shared dock.
Is it? >> But I I had thought that the stairs that
used to be there had a revocable license associated with
those stairs
» on 310 beach or 3. >> When we discussed this having to do with
with the with the elevator, it was my understanding that there was a revocable
license that was associated with the stairs. The elevator was in essence
replacing >> there. at at uh Mr. Conro's property,
there was a revocable license on his property to get down to the stair uh to
the stairs from his side of the property. Um that revocable license in
March replaced all revocable licenses in the
strip before then before that one. So any any
revocable license that was approved prior in the strip was no longer
and and the one that went in 2022 it was recommended for approval by planning
commission Mark I don't recall that it went to the city council
license. >> So he had a revokeable license for that
stairs. >> Okay. Thank you.
I'm back when it goes to the city council.
» So, if I can just clarify, is there is there an auto revokable license now?
» [clears throat]
» But the one that I think was mentioned,
» so um if you could just give us one minute. I think we are just double
checking our records down here. >> Thank you.
» Thank you, Commissioner. Could [clears throat] I make a because
this is of course Chris I've researched it heavily a couple quick uh comment on
the revocal license which of course city council is their perview but um for 50
years we had one for the stairs that were there in 2022
that was uh I was granted one for the stairs and that's in place now. If the
one that's going next month to the council gets approved for the elevator,
that would replace the one for the stairs. As far as the um the use of the
strip, we we're dramatically reducing what's been done historically. It was
and I have an exhibit for this. I didn't think we'd be discussing this because
it's a city council matter, but we were about 6 or 700 square feet for 50 years.
The stairs are about 5 to 600 square feet of impact area on the strip and
currently we're about 230 square feet for the hill elevator. So, and I have a
a exhibit that shows all this. So, that we've reduced in half our impact of
what's been going on for 50 years. It's the exact opposite of what people are
suggesting that we're getting more land. We're actually giving up a lot more
land. Even if we had the platforms approved, it' be 30% less than what I
already have a revocable license for. Platforms don't get approved in a month.
It's 50% less than what I currently have in my hand in terms of a revocable
license. So again, we're trying to reduce our impact on the strip. We're
giving back land that's been used for 50 years. So that those are the facts
around the revocable licenses. >> Thank you.
We'll wait for a moment for um staff to catch up with any
» There's an existing revocable license for 312 beach for landscaping.
Um I'm pulling up in 2022
there is a the [clears throat] stairs were part of
a revocable license. I don't I don't have that recorded, but
I can go back to the minutes of that meeting and see if it was approved.
[snorts]
So, will the landscaping license for 312 remain in
place or is that going to be replaced by this new
» Yes. My understanding of Okay, so we're talking about the revocable license.
Now, my understanding of it when it goes to
the council, it will be for the landscaping for 312, the entirety of the
strip. So, both those property owners are willing to take on responsibility
and liability for the entire strip. If you draw imaginary property lines down
their pro down the hill towards the water at the edge, it would stop. And
they they both have communicated to us that they're willing to take on that
liab liability and responsibility.
That may be I mean it I'm not exactly sure how that dovtales into our
deliberations tonight, but it's probably a very good point for us all to be aware
of and I think it'll be clarified when it goes if it if and when it goes to
council um for consideration at the replicable license stage. Um, I'll just
note there haven't been any landscape proposals for either lot
as in front of either lot on the strip. Um, and I imagine if um there were an
intention to do landscaping there as opposed to maintenance and debris
collection, we would see a plan. But we haven't seen one today.
Are there any other comments from the audience? Please come forward.
» Hello, I'm Charlie Harrington. Oh, should I wait for the timer?
» Anyway, I'll I'll start. I'm Charlie Harrington. I'm chair of the Belvadier
Parks Open Spaces and Lanes Committee. Um, on this matter, I've been engaged uh
with city staff. Um, a couple months ago, I met with city staff, a council
member, and a homeowner at the site. Uh, we reviewed and discussed what seemed
like a great project, which was to add the elevator, repair the existing
damaged dock, and improve pedestrian access on the beach underneath the dock,
which was awesome. Um, but the project has ballooned since then. I've written
two letters. Um, hopefully you've seen those. Um, so I was going to talk about
two things. It does look like the shoreline decks have been removed from
this proposal. That was one of the things I was going to bring up, but um
otherwise I'll talk about the building of the uh additional dock. So the
Belvadier general plan was brought up earlier. I reviewed it when I joined
Parks Open Spaces Lanes. And there's an exhibit, exhibit 3 is the land use map.
It's this colorful map showing what what everything is. And the general plan that
map clearly shows that the waters of Belvadier Cove are open space. Um so in
the staff report, it they're contending the new dock would be in the R zone,
city's recreation zone. Um, so there's there's some ambiguity there. So I just
highlight that for your attention. Um, and then in the staff report, it talks
about the term of private recreational land use as an acceptable way to get a
use permit. And in that same map, which of course I don't have in color, uh, I
don't have a color printer, but there are three locations in Belvadier where
you can have private residential land use. It's on that map. They are the two
yacht clubs and they are the homes along the water on Corinthian. I think those
homes interestingly own the water uh underneath or own the land underneath
the water right there. But beyond that, the general plan doesn't show any other
private recreational land use. So, I wanted to highlight that. Uh, of course,
there are the grandfathered in private recreational docks. It's my
understanding the city has not approved uh another dock being construction since
the 80s. So, I just reminding like what this project is. Um, you know, repairing
the existing dock is one thing, but expanding and doubling the size of that
fixed dock, effectively building a new dock, which the city has, as far as I
know, hasn't done in many years. Um, so yeah, the original project of a hill,
existing dock repair, and improving pedestrian access under the dock. No
issues with that. And again, I appreciate the engagement uh that we've
had so far, but I just uh think about the precedent of giving away the city's
public zones open and recreation for private benefit. Thank you.
Thank you, >> Chair Cidle. Just for your uh
consideration, we did find the 2022 revocable license which was executed uh
at 310 Beach Road. It included a new staircase, landing, and landscaping.
» Okay. >> And and is so is that already repealed
or is that still in effect until something supersedes it? That's still in
a >> Yeah, that revocable license is still
recorded on the property. Um, so it would could be repealed assuming this
project goes forward to city council. Uh, but then there could be some
potential for harmonizing the two revocable licenses given that this 221
references landscaping. I don't think that would be disturbed, but obviously
the stairs and such could be impacted. >> So we would need to harmonize them
assuming this project goes forward. >> Okay.
» Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Uh, I'm I'm I'm
letting members of the public comment right now, Mark. Um,
Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom who would like to say anything?
» There are no hands raised. >> Okay. Um, Mark, if if you have one very
brief comment, >> very brief comment because there is
» there is the staff report correctly identifies recreation zone versus open
space zone. The general plan is confusing, but but Mr. variance because
it shows open space all the way to um to Angel Island. So it's logical conclusion
is that uh parks and open space can regulate things all the way to Angel
Island. If you look at the current zoning map, it clearly shows open space
is the hillside, the strip, and recreation is the beach and the water.
That's the zoning map. Uh city staff pre presented that to me this week. So I
think the general plan needs to be amended to be consistent with the
current zoning map which is the hillside is the open space. The strip the beach
and the bay are recreation zone not perview of the um parks and open space
people. Thanks. Okay. Thank you.
So, I'm going to just give one more opportunity if anybody wants to say
anything before I bring this back to the planning commissioners.
Having said that, I will now close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission for discussion. Um, Jenna, could you please lead the discussion?
» Sure, I'm happy to. Um, with uh your permission, I'd stand up. I threw my
back out this past week and uh it was a little bit painful to sit, so I'm just
going to I'm just going to do this. Sorry. Um, [sighs and gasps] it's much
better. Um, uh, first first of all, I want to I want
to say thank you both to the both to the staff and to the homeowners and also and
also to, uh, to Charlie Herring to Harrington. Um this has been a a project
that we've discussed a couple of times and I think there's a lot of real
thoughtfulness uh that is sort of all you know all all around on on all on all
aspects of it. Um as some of you know I actually used to be chair of the parks
open spaces and lanes lanes commission. So, I am I'm I'm very attuned to the
public access um issues um especially with the beachfront properties and some
of the coordination that it takes uh with the homeowners and um and the and
the com and the commission. So, thank you. Um, one thing that that I that I
like about this this uh project is that it's, you know, it's actually getting
the homeowners to to be able to use their waterfront. One thing that I find
amazing about Belvadier is that we're surrounded by water, yet the access to
the water is almost nil. I mean, when you think about the the ways that the
public can access can access the water, it's really difficult. I mean for for
those of us who don't live on and and for those of us who live on the water um
and uh the reason why I had asked about the revocable licenses because I think
that one of the things that makes Belvador so great is that we do have um
as you know we do have the strip is we do have access that's built into
um our land our land records for the for the public and that's something I'm very
interested in. um in um in keeping um one one thing that I want to point out
is that you know there there's two different sections to you know to what
we're looking at. There's the there's the strip which I appreciate that
there's no building that's happening in the strip now and that is in the other
building that's being covered by it is is already covered by a revocable
license which is why I asked about that. And then the dock itself, which in
looking at the plans, there are going to be
six new pilings that are that are that are going to be dug and I appreciate the
amount of work that's been done by the um we call it the seafair seafaring
agencies um to approve that. I don't really have that much of an opinion with
respect to the kayak racks. I mean, I've seen
enough kayaks blown around. Um, and I can't get that excited over whether a
kayak rack has a wall or a roof or [laughter] no roof and no wall. So, I
will leave that to other members to talk about. Um,
but I I do appreciate that this is a unique project for the expansion of the
dock because it is shared by two houses. Um and I think that the plan in its even
though it is enlarge enlarging the dock considerably
does serve to not not require putting a new dock in for you
know for the other for the other homeowner and that they are sharing a
dock. And I find it amazing that in this community that two homes next to each
other have been able to share a dock for so long. I think that's testament to our
community quite frankly. Um so
um
oh what is the expiration of the lease?
» 25 years >> I think it's 39.
Okay. >> And and there's no proposal right now to
extend that? >> Not to my knowledge.
» Okay. Thank you. Um,
all right. That's my comments right now. Thank you.
I'm just going to continue to stand. >> Okay. Permission granted.
Uh, is that please? >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, I'd just like to
thank the applicant and other members of the public who spoke. Um, uh, I really
do appreciate your efforts in working with the staff on this project. I have I
spent a lot of time uh reading through all the details and it's very thoughtful
application. Um I and I appreciate the comments about the general plan. I think
it's really important to open up access to the water and recreational uses. Um,
however, I do think that the planning or the city staff's uh interpretation of
the lease terms is um is something that I will that is guiding this project as
well in terms of the storage not uh really being allowed under the lease. um
you know that the dock expansion um I think I agree with the uh recommendation
that it um it's in keeping with other docks in the area. It's not oversized.
You know, the materials are all compatible. Um and I think it's
consistent with the Rzzoning district as well. Um, as far as the storage racks
for the kayak, um, I do again think that while I appreciate, uh, the general plan
provisions, I do think that the, uh, lease provisions are the more
restrictive here. And I think that the the more open kayak rack seems more
appropriate. Otherwise, it becomes more of a storage structure, which according
to staff um interpretation of the lease um wouldn't be permitted. And again, um
I do uh think that the reduction in lighting on the dock as proposed by
staff would be appropriate as well. Thanks.
» Thank you. Uh Jacob, can we have you weigh in on
this now? Uh >> yeah. I
I second the comments uh that have been made and thank you to Mark and others
who have expressed their views here as well. Um
I come to it from I guess a very similar perspective which is we have a pretty
derelict dock right now and it's almost it's really an eyesore for pretty much
everybody involved and there's a plan to fix it to renovate it um slightly
enlarge it in a way that I think will add to the aesthetic appeal and in
essence the public benefit there. So, for me, that's um an
important factor. As regards the rack, um I'm of the opinion that you should
strike a balance between what's most utilitarian, but also provides for the
safety. I don't think it's good for any kind of plastic debris to be blown away
and floating in the bay. So, uh Mark, I think you've expressed the opinion that
the second version is probably the one that will provide that medium of safety,
but also of least intrusiveness. I'm fine with that design. I think it
strikes an appropriate balance. Um, that's my opinions.
» Thank you.
Um, there has been, I would say, a lot of work on this application. I
appreciate staff. I appreciate the applicant and community members. um
parks, open space, and lanes input. Um I've tried to diligent diligently read
and reread it all and read the deeds. Um I think it's a uh it's been an
interesting um application to study because it really touches on four
different parcels. Um, and there's, you know, information going back all the way
to the 19th century to take into consideration here. Um,
and I I um, I should disclose I've had numerous
conversations with Mr. Conroe in the course of this um, sort of trying to
navigate the best course. Um, I feel I I share with um, fellow commissioners. I
think we're on a pretty good course here now. Um the way during my admittedly
somewhat limited years on the commission, we have had [clears throat]
several of these applications related to docks and transiting across the strip.
And I think so far um my impression is that the idea even though it's not
specifically mentioned in the deed that if you have a dock, you got to have a
way to get there. And so um that's what this application has now not so clear
that you know expansions beyond that within the strip are a good idea. So I
feel it's a clean application now um with with the removal of the platforms.
Um and then um I go out to the the dock. Um, I feel this [clears throat] is a
probably a pretty unique situation in Belvadier where two properties are
sharing one dock. I think given that it's a unique situation, I
can understand why each homeowner would essentially want to have a place for
their own boat and lift. And I don't think the docks are excessively large.
So, um, I would be able to find in favor of the dock. So, when you get to the
discussion of, you know, the things on top of the dock, um, [clears throat]
you know, I'm inclined to go with the staff interpretation, I think. Um, but
partly because in my own mind, given that the dock is in an open space zone,
I think having less structures on it is consistent with the idea of an open
space. I mean, it's basically a horizontal plane with a railing. You can
mo a boat there. Um, it's not obstructing the views of the open space
and there are people using the beach who want to look out. Um, so
again, I appreciate the offer to remove the shed. So that kind of leaves us with
the kayaks. Um, I I I think it's got to be either image two or image three. And
bear with me for a minute minute while I vacasillate here. Um, I think that
properly uh secured
it and probably has to be significant strapping or something. I think that the
kayaks themselves are weatherproof. They don't need cover. Um,
how a freestanding wall is going to perform, it's a little hard for me to
predict um whether it's going to add that much
safety. So, I guess I'm inclined to go with just the rack. Um, and I would add
though as far as I'm sensitive to what Mr. Conroe brought up about lugging
everything up to the house. You do want to have storage for life preservers and
paddles and so forth in a secure way. But I um there are there are
pre-fabricated bins that are of a lower height that to me would be acceptable.
They may not even have to be part of the,
you know, whatever findings we make today because I think they're um, you
know, not necessarily a fixed structure. They would be attached to the dock so
they didn't blow away, but um to me that would be acceptable because they would
be sort of more in the height range of a railing. So less view obstructing but
sort of solve the storage problem which I think is um a legit a legitimate
desire. Um so I I think that's pretty much how I come down on it.
Does does anyone have anything further to say or um are we It sounds like we're
relatively consistent. Someone wants to take a stab at making a motion.
» Do you want the lawyer to do it? >> Okay,
» I'd appreciate it. Sure.
All right. Um like to propose a motion to adopt the
resolution granting design review approval to construct two boat lifts,
two wood landings, and a dock extension for the properties located at 310 and
312 Beach Road with the >> excuse me.
Not not the woodlandings. >> Oh, sorry. Not the woodlanding. Sorry.
Yep. Adopt a resolution granting design
review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the
properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the following requirements.
There be a reduction in the number of lights as uh as as discussed.
that the kayak racks be rack number
» three >> be rack number three in the in the
photos that were shown. um that the new shed proposed is not is
not approved [gasps] and that the public access is main is
maintained um along the beach in the same degree as currently exists.
» If I could just clarify the motion if you don't mind commissioner.
» Go for it. >> Yeah. So the the shed is not before you.
It's no longer part of the application given the duck lease. All right.
» Right. And then I believe you at the end addressed maintenance. Is that what I
heard? >> No, no, no. Public access.
» Oh, public access. Okay. Uh, that's not part of design review.
» Okay. >> But if that's something that's you
nonetheless want to address, that's okay. But it's not technically a design
review criteria, >> right? We're on the designer edge view
resolution >> and it's not that that's not part of the
project that so it's do you have the peer they're just rebuilding that but so
and that sort of [clears throat] relates more to the revocable license.
» Okay. All right. Then we can take we can if it if that's not
if that's if if what's before us isn't isn't covered by the area that that the
public walks.
» Right. We're not addressing any improvements on the street.
» All right. All right. So we have lighting
rack number three. That's it.
» Yes. Thank you so much, Commissioner. >> All right.
Okay. Do you want me to rephrase? >> I think we have it. Unless anyone else
up on the DIS would like a read, a further read.
» Can it be read again? >> Of course.
» Right. Um, I'd like to propose a a motion to adopt the resolution granting
design review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the
properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the requirements that there be
a reduction in the overall lighting on the dock as discussed in this meeting
and that the kayak racks be of the sort shown as rack number three in the in the
photos. is pres presented at this meeting.
» Perfect. Thank you so much, Commissioner.
» Okay, we'll [clears throat] please vote. All in favor?
» I thank you.
All right. Um and then we have another motion. Okay.
Um, adopt. I would like to propose a motion adopting resolution granting the
use permit approval to expand the existing fixed dock the city-owned water
parcel within the R zoning district adjacent to 310 and 312
Beach Road. And I'd like to add subject to the
existing lease or something where I reference the fact that the use of the
dock is covered by the lease with the city.
» Yes, I think it's fine to reference or include subject to the existing dock
lease. >> Okay. Um subject subject to the exist to
the terms and conditions of the existing doc lease.
Uh yes, you can.
» Is the dock lease co-terminus with a revocable license?
» No, not necessarily. So that's a very good point. So the doc lease, as
referenced before, is set to expire on June 30th, 2039. Revocable leases do not
necessarily have a term, >> although something that the city council
could conceivably incorporate, but they don't always have a term.
So it is something that we should probably look into in that the two
documents should be co-terminous, right? Because you can't really have a dock
without the revocable license that allows for the access to the dock.
Correct. So
» isn't the revocable license covering the strip of land?
» Mhm. >> And the strip of land is where the
elevator and the stairs are. Without the strip of land, without that elevator and
the stairs, you cannot access the dock. Is that correct? Logically correct? Yes.
» Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So therefore, the two the revocable
license and the lease, the dock lease should have the same term, the same
length would be my advice on that. Otherwise, you can have a situation
where one expires or one is revoked, but the other one remains
» and the land owner may have other other remedies for it, but I don't think the
city would want to engage in those. Yeah, that's a very good point,
Commissioner. We can certainly raise that with the city council when they
consider the revocable license. >> Thank you.
» Thank you.
» I think we need a second. Second motion. >> Please vote. All in favor?
» I
» Thank you.
And then we do not have a motion. >> We don't need the third one. Okay.
» All right. I think that concludes this item.
Okay. Uh we are now going to return to our regularly scheduled program. Uh, and
I will open the hearing [clears throat] on item three, design review for
additions to 34 Eucalyptus Road.
Can we have a presentation from staff, please?
Yeah, we're ready. >> Thank you, Chair Cidle, and members of
the planning commission. Again, uh for your consideration, this evening is an
application for design review to construct two additions in a canopy at
34 Eucalyptus Road.
The subject property is 22,000 square feet and on a steeply slope lot on the
southwest side of Belvadier Island. The parcel is located near the end of a
culde-sac on the private Eucalyptus Road and is surrounded by single family homes
in all directions. The site includes an existing 3,697
foot residence and 600 ft detached garage which is screened by dense
vegetation and mature trees along the property's western, southern, and
northern sides.
The applicant proposes two additions resulting in 289 square feet of new
floor area to be located on the lower level of the existing residence. One
addition uh would total 55 square feet at the northern side of the property, 23
feet from the right side property line. The second addition consists of a 234
square ft addition beneath the footprint of the upper level deck on the at the
rear of the residence. The 237 234t addition will be 17 ft from the rear
property line and 45 ft from the left side property line.
» [snorts] >> The 55 foot edition would include one
sliding door and one fixed window. The 234t edition would include one sliding
glass door and two fixed windows. The additions would not increase the height
of the home. The 55 ft addition would be 9 ft 6 in in height from existing grade
[clears throat] and the 234t edition would be set into the sloping hillside
15 ft above existing grade. The proposed exterior materials would match the
existing residence, including dark flint flint rock colored wood siding and steel
windows and doors in a matte dark bronze finish. [snorts]
The project proposes a constructing a new 532 ft steel canopy on the existing
upper level deck.
The canopy structure would be 11 ft tall and supported by four steel columns with
a matte dark bronze finish. The existing deck would be renovated as well with the
existing seating area to be removed and installation of new stone pavers and
glass guardrails.
Here are the rendering details. The look of the stone deck and canopy. The canopy
would include motorized shades as well.
Exterior lighting is proposed on the new canopy and they would include six flush
mounted exterior lights between the canopy steel slats.
Uh the project does propose landscaping uh that would include prairie drop seed
grass within a 27 square foot planter uh on the entry level deck. the grass would
grow to a maximum height of 4 feet.
Uh for the commission's consideration, we did re receive one letter uh about
the project uh related to a previous approval in 2022 and that information
was sent to you and on the uh DIS for you as well.
The project is categorically exempt from SQA.
Uh staff recommends that the design review uh uh be granted and the planning
commission adopt the resolutions for totaling 289 square feet and 532 foot
canopy on the existing upper level deck. Thank you. And we're happy to answer any
questions. >> Yeah. Commissioners, uh questions for
staff.
» You [clears throat] for staff? you you were not really counting the um canopy
as one of the additions, correct? Because it's open to the sky. Correct.
» Exactly. >> Okay.
[clears throat]
If the um canopy were ever to be more completely covered like more than 50%
then it would it would count as square footage and it would be non-compliant I
presume. >> We would then count it as square
footage. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
um regarding the um letter that we have about the lighting that um I didn't look
at the lighting when I was there. It seems like it may not be compliant with
our the existing lighting may not be compliant with our guidelines. Is that
something that we can think about here or is that
something that should be handled through another uh process?
The design review findings do take into consideration all existing
nonconformities. Uh I remember that that lighting that
was uh approved in 2022, it was incorrectly approved.
So yeah, it was it was subject to a final
lighting and landscape plan by the chair at the time. The chair did not get a
opportunity to review those those lights. So,
uh, there it was approved and the building permit was issued, but there
was no final lighting and landscaping plan that was approved by the chair in
2022. Okay. Um, so that's good history. Is it
is it something that we could act on in in this approval and ask for it to be
rectified or do we need to separate them? And
» we have the points.
I think typically it would be handled through a code enforcement action. I was
involved with some of the complaints about the lights and I pulled up the
plans and the lights that are my understanding in 2023 that the lights
that are on there are the are the lights that were approved. So it sounds like
amongst staff we need to do a little more historical research into this.
» Yeah. Um, I mean, I'm I'm sympathetic to what the letter is expressing. However,
um, I don't have information regarding the details of it.
So, like for me, it would be kind of hard to to say anything at this point.
So, um, I just, um, but I think maybe there's something that internally you
could do in terms of rectifying this the situation if it's non-compliant.
Okay. >> Yeah. Can we
even though this was formally approved, can we
um encourage the applicant to change those lights?
» Yeah, I think sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah, c commissioner. Yeah, certainly
one of the options is to discuss the issue with the property owner, but it
sounds like again that we also need to make sure that we understand the history
as well. >> All right. Because I what I also noted
there are six more lights under the canopy which we can discuss with the
applicant that um I asked him to decrease. Okay.
» Okay. Thank you.
» Um um if we have no further questions, is
the applicant here? Would they like to speak? Yeah. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you for your time this evening. Um,
I met with uh Marsha on Sunday and um she had some very good ideas. We will
reduce the number of lights in the canopy from 6 to three. And if if the
council would like us like me to replace the lights on the on the uh deck, I
don't want it to be an issue with with my neighbors and I'd be happy to do that
and make it conform. want to be a good neighbor. And also,
Marcia had a very good idea about landscaping below the add proposed
addition. And we have we the architects uh and landscape companies sent a plan
in this evening. I don't think it made it in time for the meeting. Uh that
includes landscaping all under all on the hillside and uh four oak trees, two
30-inch box oaks, and two 24inch box oak trees.
Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Um, any questions from the planning commission to the applicant?
[laughter]
» She's got a lot of experience, right?
Are there any comments um from members of the audience regarding this item?
» I I have one comment. Um if you if it's in the planning
commission's interest, we will pull up this landscape sheet because the
additional landscaping would require design review. So if you can review it
on the dis I think that would help the applicant out to not have to go through
design review again. >> Okay.
» That sounds >> I know that's putting a lot of pressure
on you. >> Yeah. Well, I was going to make it a
condition. >> Yeah.
» I was going to make the landscaping as a condition of approval.
» Okay. >> That size
have to be reviewed at a design review level.
» Okay. So, is this a revised plan that we're looking at?
» Yeah, >> I don't think so. I think it's new.
» It was an addition. >> Oh, okay. But this represents the
landscaping that you just discussed that you so maybe you could just spend a
minute describing what this exhibit. >> We just got it today. [laughter] So, we
can >> it it's it's uh basically a variety of
different shrubberries and then the four oak trees that you see there um closer
to the uh Belvadier Avenue. Um, and we we did that on Marsh's direction. And I
I did plan on on doing some enhancement of landscape because there's been a lot
of work done um under the house uh air conditioning and and some shoring up of
the of the uh foundation. And it's pretty
much just bare land. And I wanted to bring it up to uh
bring it up to a higher quality look.
» I think the the I think the biggest sort of impact here are these four C oak
trees. >> Um we don't have a size on it. I think
that can be determined um with the planning commission chair afterwards if
you're inclined to review this tonight. Um the other landscaping the maximum
height ranges from 1 foot to six feet. I think that's sort of you know what the
planning commission tends to look at in terms of height and potential view
impact and things like that. I think the the biggest impact again are these trees
here um which look like they're going on the lower side of the house.
» So I would assume it would be a while before
No, they're going here on the side. So I think that's a detail that can be
determined with the planning commission chair.
» I was thinking that perhaps the landscape plan could be it could be
conditioned but then it could be approved by the chairman and planning
staff. >> Yes. Okay.
» And um Rebecca, if you just scroll this up a little bit. The area on the right.
Uh no, move the image up. It the the deck with
the canopy is above that rectangle. um there.
» Yeah. >> And there's planting that's going under
the deck, I guess, if I understand that correctly.
» Yes. >> So that way when people are looking up
from the street, they'll see the planting.
» Yes. >> Good.
» Yeah. Here's the deck area. And here these plantings are some type of
rosemary,
» but they're they're at ground level. They're ground. They're two feet.
» Yeah. Okay.
» Okay. >> Yeah. You can't I don't think we they're
allowed to plant rosemary. They're stringing, which is a different Yeah,
that's fine. >> Okay.
» Yeah. Catch on fire. [laughter]
» And are are these the kind of oak that grow to be 30 to 50 feet high?
I'm sorry. Are the Are these the kind of oak tree that grow to be 30 to 50 feet
high? >> No, that's not the plan. No, just I I
think they're slow growing. I I I talked to uh talked to landscape uh uh owner
landscape company. I think the 30-inch box trees are maybe 12 feet high when
you plant them, and they're pretty slow growing. They are co-live oak so I think
they have the potential but >> right but it'll it would take longer
than for me to be here on >> dead.
[laughter]
» Okay. Does everyone feel like they got a good look at that?
» Just in all seriousness, we would once we get that final landscape plan, we
would put a max height on them. Yep. >> Okay. Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Um I don't think I
asked were there anybody was there anybody on Zoom that wanted to hands
raised say anything here? >> No hands raised.
» Okay. Um any do you have anything further to
add to your presentation? >> No sir. Thank you so much for your time.
» Thank you. >> I'll now close the public hearing and
bring this >> people in the audience.
» Oh. Oh, I didn't >> come on up.
» You brushed so quickly past in anybody in the audience, so I didn't have time
to state that. >> I I apologize. I want to put a face to
the letter [clears throat] A heart and I wrote it be
» because I was really involved in the first um
» permit and all that with with this wonderful house and I want to say I
really think you're doing something smart. It looks like really thoughtful
stuff. But your comment that you would uh definitely think about taking away
these lightsabers warms my heart and I'm really grateful
and I just want that to go on the record that I just don't want to complain but I
also want to congratulate and thank you. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. Nana Hart 206 Eucalyptus Road.
» Okay, I'm going to bring this um back to the commission for discussion. Um
Missola, could you start us off, please? >> Sure. Um I want to thank the applicant
for uh um for the changes in the landscaping. I think it'll be a nice
addition. Um, yeah, I would like the staff and the commission chair to review
the plans finally, but I I think it it'll be a nice addition. I also
appreciate the reduction in the lights. That was sort of my main concern about
the project was whether or not uh there was too much lighting. Um, otherwise, I
do think the uh the the small additions are compatible with the existing
structure and don't impact the neighborhood and the um the obviously
the canopy is quite attractive and a nice addition as well. Thank you.
Uh Jenna,
» um I al I also I also appreciate the project and also your willingness to uh
to add some softening with with landscaping and reduction of lighting,
both existing lighting and uh and and the and the proposed lighting. Um, and I
think that with um with having chair Sidell be able to
approve um the new lighting to replace the existing lighting and also the final
landscaping plan. I think this I think I can I can support this project. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Marca.
Um I I really can understand why um the applicant would like this um awning
because they face um southwest and they get which I also do which I like but you
get a lot of sun and there are no um overhangs on this house. So I think that
will really help him um especially today I'm sure you you felt it. Um, so I can
make the findings for design review uh for this uh project. But with the um
condition of the additional landscape below the house, um when when I walk by
Belvadier Avenue and look up, even now the deck seems to me very close even
though it it's I guess 17 ft. And so I think having additional trees and
landscape there will screen the street and also screen the house, give some
screening to the new addition which is on the lower level which I think will
really help. Um and also I think we need to have a condition of reducing the um
lights from six to three. And if you are willing, it would be great to take out
the the tall the linear lights that are on the deck and replace those if that
can be part of the condition. That would be great. Thank you. Um so I can make um
the design review findings and I think it's a great um project and um hopefully
it'll keep you a little cooler. [clears throat]
» Thank you. If I may just chair for the record, I do want to I just do want to
document for the record that the applicant did say yes in the audience
and when Commissioner Laskkey read out the condition regarding the linear
lighting. Thank you. So, um, I just want to start by saying,
you know, kind of one of the interesting things about being in this position on
the planning commission is getting around and seeing all these interesting
homes and properties in in Belvadier. And, um, I actually think you have a
really attractive home. Um, I think that the additions you're planning on making
are very consistent um, with the character of the home. I think it'll be
attractive. um like my fellow commissioners, I'll be able to make the
design findings and um I appreciate the additional landscape and lighting
changes that you're offering. Um so um any further discussion with within
the commission or I was wondering if Commissioner Laskkey would like to make
the motion given that um you have some additions and you've been involved in
the evolution of the design.
I move to adopt the resolution granting design review for two additions totaling
289 square ft and a 532 square ft canopy on the existing upper deck at 34
eucalyptus with the two conditions of reducing the lighting from 6 to three um
to replace the existing lights on the deck um and also to add the there are
three conditions, sorry, to add the landscaping below the um deck under the
new addition with um oak trees.
» Can I make a comment? um just that um uh I don't know um I wonder if it's
better to not be too prescriptive about the landscape um proposal uh because it
still needs to be reviewed by staff and um
» right so we could say that the that the replacement lighting um and the final
landscape plan is it best to have it to have it
approved by by Chair Sidell or by staff
both. >> All right. Yeah, both.
So, I guess that would be conditions two and three, both the replacement lights
and the final landscaping plan to be reviewed by staff and approved by both
staff and chair Sidel.
» Prior to issuance of building permit. prior to issuing building permit.
» Thank you, Rebecca. And I'll second that motion.
» Okay. Then please vote. I
» I
» Yeah. >> Take care.
We will now move on to review item number four which is design review
demolition and floor area exception at 135 Belvadier Avenue.
Staff report please. >> Thank you again chairle and members of
the planning commission for your consideration. Here is an application
for design review, demolition, exception of total floor area, and revocable
license to construct a new single family home at 135 Belvadier Avenue.
The project site is on a steeply sloped 52,000t lot. The site received a lot
merger lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three
parcels. The site is developed with an existing dilapidated residence and
wooden staircase. The existing structure is centrally located on the lot and
surrounded by mature unmaintained vegetation.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,764
ft residence and construct a new 11,223 ft residence and 495 ft junior accessory
dwelling unit. The residence will be located on the
upper third of the site where the existing home currently sits. The home
would be developed in two floors including a 4,761
ft f first story, 4,912 ft second story and 1,250
ft attached garage
16t and 5 in from the rear property line. The project proposes a 300 foot
boat house.
The proposed residence will be set back 14 ft from the right sideyard, 32 feet
from the left sideyard, and have a zero front yard setback [clears throat] for
the garage. For transparency, the applicant in is
including plans to construct a detached ADU on site. The ADU would be reviewed
under a separate permit and would not be subject to design review.
The front of the home would include a 7 foot 10-in wide by 11t 8 inch tall glass
entry door between two fixed windows. Because Belvier Avenue would be 20 ft
below above the second story's finished floor, the 17t 8 inch tall roof and 12t
8 inch tall garage would be below street level.
Floor to ceiling, exterior windows and doors
are proposed on the right and left side of the house.
Measured from existing grade, the residence is proposed to be 32 ft tall
and viewed from the rear. The project proposes a series of Florida glass floor
to ceiling glass windows and glass guardrails.
The project proposes a contemporary design with sharp vertical and
horizontal elements, glass guard rails and windows and canolver roofs. The
color palette consists of soft and muted wooden earth tones including board form
concrete siding in a warm white color, a tar and multicolored gravel flat roof,
western red cedar wood siding, and aluminum um aluminum windows and doors
trims in a dark bronze or black finish. The proposed materials add architectural
variety and help to break up the building's massing.
Access to the residence will be via a new 16t 8 inch wide paved driveway and
15t wide 6ft tall steel automo automobile gate on the left side of the
property which would lead to a new autoc court and garage.
The entry gate would be made of dark metal horizontal rails and bordered by a
6-ft tall concrete freestanding wall on both ends.
New fencing is proposed, including a 6ft tall vertical bar metal fence along the
front property line, a 6ft tall wood fence along both side property lines,
and a galvanized steel fence that would be painted black along the rear yard.
Additional improvements would include a new 16 ftx 48 foot inground swimming
pool and spa on the rear patio left of the pool. The project would
include a 12tx 24 ft trellis structure standing 10' 4 in tall that would
accommodate outdoor seating, a stone countertop, and a barbecue.
Because the home is proposed to be stepped back and into the hillside, it
would reduce the structures perceived mass and bulk. Doing so, however, would
result in extensive grading concentrated extensive concentrated grading at the
upper portions of the property. Up to 20 vertical feet of soil will be excavated
below Belvier Avenue to construct the proposed autocore and up to 13 vertical
feet of soil excavated to construct the residenc's first story. The project
estimates 2500 cubic yards of excavation and 1,700 cubic yards of fill. While the
proposed grade changes are significant, constructing the home at the upper
portion of the lot will preserve much of the site's natural grade and vegetation
below. [clears throat]
The project proposes a series of path lights, wall lights, ingground lights,
handrail lights, and wall sconces. 62 wall lights are proposed around the
driveway and stairs and 36 recess down lights and wall sconces are proposed
throughout the residence. Staff suggests the fixture quantities are modest given
the size of the home, but recommends the micronite star down light by BK Lighting
be replaced with a fixed downward-f facing option.
The project proposes removing 54 trees including multiple 30 to 60 foot tall
Monterey pines, 50 15 to 30 foot tall coastal live oaks and one 67 foot tall
cyprress as well as one 70 foot tall eucalyptus. The trees are generally
within the footprint of the proposed home and heartscape.
New landscaping would include a variety of shrubs and perennials within the
front, side, and rear yards of the home uh to screen the proposed front yard
fencing, retaining walls and stairs. The project would include planting eight
southern live oaks in 36-in boxes, which are listed to grow to 20 ft tall.
Eight Chinese elm are also proposed in 36-in boxes along the southern end of
the right side property line.
The applicant requests an exception of total floor area uh approval for the
11,223 square ft where 4850 ft are permitted.
In order to grant the exception, the planning commission must be able to make
each of the following findings. These include that primary views will not be
significantly impaired, that there are unusual characteristics applicable to
the parcel which minimize the impact of the greater floor area, that the
structure is appropriate in mass bulk and character of the neighborhood, and
that the additional square footage will not substantially reduce privacy on
adjoining properties. Here staff recommends the findings can
be made. Primary views from adjacent properties
will not be significantly impaired as the subject property is above the
adjacent 125 Belvadier and two Cliff Road.
Views from Belvadier Avenue and uphill neighbors will not be impaired as a
residence is set below the street line and tucked into the hillside.
[snorts] The site is unusual in that it was historically three separate parcels
until 2019. The larger lot size and steep steeply
sloped nature of the site minimize the buildable area and impact to the
additional floor area.
The project is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the parcel and in the
neighborhood and meets all design review criteria. The 23 foot 6 inch average
building height helps decrease the the appearance of mass and bulk on the site
and the 32- foot tall max height is consistent with adjacent properties.
With respect to size, the proposal is not unusual in the neighborhood. In
2016, Cliff Road was approved for a 12,000 foot residence. In 2009, 425
Belvadier received the approval to construct a 15,555T
residence and 337 Belvadier, 255 Golden Gate Avenue, and 345 Golden Gate Avenue
are examples on the western side of Belvadier Island, uh, where the floor
area permitted is exceeded.
Finally, the project does not substantially reduce privacy of
adjoining properties as the proposed windows are not within neighboring sight
lines and landscaping will screen uh screening will provide an additional
buffer.
The applicant requests a revocable license for a wood fence, gates,
driveway, parking, and landscaping all within the Belvier Avenue rightway.
On the right side of Belvadier Avenue, uh, a 6- foot tall wood fence and access
gate are proposed. The fence would encroach 7 feet 9 in onto city property
and would be set 1 ft below the edge of pavement and would appear 5t tall at
street level.
Also within the right ofway, the applicant proposes to plant coffee berry
dwarf mat rush, Fortnite lily, and rasleberry French flour.
Uh these shrubs and perennials are listed to grow no taller than 4 feet in
height.
Additionally, the applicant would widen Belvier Avenue from 17 ft to 24 ft 9 in
by relocating the existing street parking 7 ft closer to the front
property line. Staff recommends that these rightway improvements provide a
public benefit. Widening the roadway serves pedestrians and vehicles on a
currently narrow road. The parking spaces are entirely public and serve as
a public benefit. Landscaping will enhance the aesthetic quality of the
streetscape and the fence will serve as a safety barrier and delineate the
roadway from the hillside for oncoming vehicles.
The project is exempt from SQA
and staff recommends the findings for design review, demolition, exceptional
floor area and revoke license can be made. recommend adopting the resolutions
before you tonight. Thank you. And we are happy to answer any questions.
» Thank you, Sammy.
» I had a couple questions. Um, does this property have an existing revocable
license now? And what is that for? >> It it does I could look in the records
um to the year, but it is for the frontage improvements and that was
recorded. It includes I should I don't want to speak out of
turn. I believe it includes a trash enclosure, but I'll double check.
» It includes the trash enclosure. So, they don't need another revocable
license for the trash enclosure that it already has one.
» It It has one. This one would be a a new revoke license that includes
landscaping. So, this would be a brand new revoke license taken to to uh the
council. Is it replacing the old one or it's an additional one?
» It would replace the current. >> Oh, so it's replacing Okay.
» Yeah, because we because we reviewed the fence here
not terribly long ago. >> That's right.
» Right. >> Um, one other question. Um, there is an
additional five parking places near the property. Um, but is the parking there's
a parking place across the street. Is that coming out?
That's against the hillside. >> I don't believe it's coming out, but
» So, it's staying. >> Yes.
» Okay. So, then and there two places near the property. So, that means
um five, six. Okay. I was trying to see how
many new new parking places they would be. Um
[clears throat] Okay, those are my questions.
Okay, thank you. >> Do any other commissioners have any
questions?
» Um, well, I well, I recognize that this is this is a piece of property that
hasn't been touched other than by coyotes in in decades. Um, I do
appreciate that there's a lot of big old trees that are come that are coming out
um especially cypress trees uh which are which are native. Um, are there any of
the the big trees that are able to be to be saved? I mean, that are not under
where the the building is currently going to be.
» I think that's a better question suited for the landscape. Okay.
» Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. Thank you.
» Sold. Did you have any questions? Okay. Would
the applicant like to make a presentation
» any with your permission? I'm going to stand up as well, but it's just for my
back. Thank you.
» [clears throat]
» Yeah, my name's uh David Katsub and I'm the architect for the project. We also
have John Merton here at Studio Green and he can, you know, get into the
landscaping and all those tree questions. So, I just wanted to point
out, you probably already know, but I just wanted to record to show that this
is the exact design that was approved in June of 2017.
So, we have not made other than the elevator, the hillside lift, we have not
made any changes um to that approval. So, Sammy made a great presentation. and
he stole all of my thunder. But this is the drone shot we took back then. And
the idea was is so we're going to position the house at, you know, where
the existing one is. And it is sort of upper mid from the midpoint of the lot
just above the midpoint. And what it does is it orients the house in the
negative space of 125 Belvadier and a little bit of two cliff road.
And so in elevation, what's important to this design is the fact that we keep it
as a twostory residence versus maybe a three or even a fourstory. Um, and so
the the aspect ratio will be horizontal, which I think is consistent um with the
neighborhood and also appropriate for this hillside. Next, so here's the site
plan. Um, we picked the access point and I think others that have worked on this
property have where Belvadier Avenue is the lowest. And what we're trying to do
is we're trying to get down um as soon as we possibly can to get on grade with
the main level for this two-story design. And so once we arrive at the
motor court, we basically establish um the second floor, which is the main
floor. And there aren't any level changes um in that within that floor.
So this is a graphic I did to try to explain
um in my mind it's it's nothing in the ordinance or code but what I did is I
took a contour that was 7 feet above the lowest floor. So, I took contour 104,
which is the lowest floor is 97. And that yellow area is the amount of floor
area that's cut into the hillside, which reduces greatly, I think, the um effect
of the the 11,000 foot house. And that yellow area totals out to be about 3,100
square feet. The other thing that we're doing because
you know the roof is below Belvadier Avenue and they are flat, we are
incorporating um quite an extensive green roof system. So those green
pocheted areas indicate that.
And then this is the upper level, the main level. So just you know showing the
organization of the house down the center spine you peel off to the west or
you peel off to the east to the private bedroom or go downstairs which is the
next slide. And in the downstairs we you can see
where the the part that's really up into the hill towards Belvar Avenue is it's
rendered out as a home theaters, a gym and some utility. And then on the west
side it's um utility, laundry room and mechanical. And the orange is shaded
area is the junior ADU and the purple is the detached ADU.
And this is the section that Sammy showed which um indicates how it is cut
into the hill to create this two-story design. I threw in a couple of oak trees
after I talked to Marsha on the bank. I'll have John talk about that.
» [laughter] >> and and this and so what we think we're
doing here is we're opening up Belvadier Avenue. I mean it's already opened up
after we put in that fence which is a temporary fence but it indicates the
height of what our permanent fence will be and it really opens the view up and
removing the existing garage is I think had a major impact for the better. So,
in the u you know, this is the main motor court. You get down and and we're
framing the Golden Gate Bridge, and I got a little water feature that I'm
going to try to match the bay color. And the great room, if you will, is a bridge
between the water feature and and the bay.
And I think this view is a good indicator of the articulation of the
walls both um in horizontal and vertical planes and also the composition of the
materials and the juxosition of the softer warmer wood against the darker
steel and the natural concrete.
And this shows the ADU which I guess isn't under your purview today but I
just thought it was a cool rendering. And this finally at the bottom, we are
able to get some uh level outdoor space, which I think is extremely valuable um
on the island, especially on a site that slopes this steeply.
And this is the last view. Um and so the I hope that this presentation tells the
story of how we started and how we ended up here. And if we have some more time,
I think John's ready to talk about the landscape.
just
» um David, the drive where the driveway is, um when you're coming from the south
on Belvadier Avenue, you are able to turn right and go in without coming from
the other direction. >> Correct.
» Okay. And one more question. Um on the um cubic yards, it's about Well, the
demolition is about 50 cubic yards. And does that mean when you say you have the
truck is 10 cubic yards per truck? >> Yeah, those small trucks. So
» that's a small truck. >> Yeah, I think that's the maximum allowed
by the ordinance. I'm not sure. >> So that would be um five trips for that.
But then on the other cubic yards, it's about 775
is the difference. Are you able to use any of that more? Um
that's a lot of truck. Yeah, I mean obviously we can look into it further
and detail it. Those figures came from the civil engineering that was done nine
years ago. Um it's something that we we definitely want to use as much as
possible on site >> because I know you have to you have to
fill up the road to make it level two. Yeah, there may be
» um you know we also were trying to decrease the amount of
» truckloads on the roads and traffic etc. I think one of the this is kind of
almost the last lot or at least in my opinion and you're on Belair Avenue and
you know then you start to get into it gets tighter and you get around the
point. This is before that. So that the one benefit I realize it's a lot of
trucks is we're closer to um you know Britain and way down.
» Yes. Five corners. Yes. Um and did you bring your did you bring color samples
of the concrete and the wood? I I don't have actual physical samples here today.
It's more of the photographic. >> All right. Thank you.
» Uh good evening. I'm John Martin with Studio Green Landscape Architects and
excited to really work on this project. I I never thought it was going to come
back and you know other house got approved and now this one's back and
it's fantastic because I really um was excited about it way back when. Uh we
can go to the next slide which is a site plan.
Uh wait I guess that's not how about the next slide. We can go back to this.
Um so this is a plan view site plan. Um you know we we because the house sits
down and um we really can open up the the front from the street. Um we we feel
like there's a huge advantage here and a great benefit for the community. Uh you
know his be previously it was a fence right along the the whole street and you
really didn't have a view and now it really is opened up. The majority of the
trees in the center portion of the property are Monterey pines. I believe
there's one cyprress um which the report recommended removal because of its
condition but also it's a fire hazard. But in any case uh there and three four
of the current large Monterey pines that were in the center of the property have
actually collapsed and fallen down since we did this project
um some years ago. Uh and I think one even went through the roof of the
current house. Um and you can you can see them. and they're sitting on the
ground. Uh the uh as David was saying, how the house is developed in this uh
layering down into the there is sort of a flatter area um 23 feet below the
street and that's the opportunity spot to capture some flat space and and also
for the landscape exterior uses to be associated with the house in a really
tight and compressed way. So, we really when we do utilize some open space,
we're we're maximizing the benefit of that um and not stretching out further
than we have to. So, but we really are trying to also provide for some exterior
uses.
As you can see in the slides, I think the the renderings represent the color
and the feel very well being that it's a warm tones. Um, you know, we're thinking
of a warm concrete like the buff tones and and and the stone being in in a warm
gray, very neutral, um, contemporary uh, simple compositions. So, it's not
complex patterning, more gridlike, very restrained, um, almost like museum
quality kind of of sense. Also very high quality materials. So, it's it's not um
there's no compromise in finishes and glass rails and stainless steel and and
other other finishes that will hold up in this setting.
the lighting for the exterior has been commented on. Um, and
[clears throat] you know, we were concerned about I mean, one of the
things I hear about on every project we ever do is like there wasn't enough
light, you know, so you know, sometimes we we go a little heavy and uh there's
areas that we can work on and and and I'll get back to that in a minute, but
you know, we're looking primarily downwardly oriented for safety, for
navigation. um there's no up lights, there's no
drama moments, but still even within that there there's room for maneuvering
I think. Um as far as the plant pallet goes, we were really focusing on
evergreen um screening for the neighbors. Uh so having the landscape
that has some presence uh really mitigating a lot of the any walls or any
architectural features that you might see from offsite which there isn't much
because of the way it's positioned. It's positioned really well. Um concern for
fire resistance, drought tolerance, and also size appropriateness. We we haven't
planted say things that are going to get um you know 75 feet tall next to you
know under the eve of the house that kind of thing. I mean it's it's kind of
scale appropriate and we can jump back to the previous
slide. Um I did have a conversation with chairman uh or the commissioner lassi
about the various things. Uh so what what this slide represents is some of
the areas that we've already now given some thought to in terms of modifying
this project. So for example in the driveway we've
taken out every other wall light. Um in the connection from the main house down
to the ADU we've taken out every other uh in wall light. Uh in the service
area, we've taken out the uh five of the in wall lights on that retaining wall.
We did add two pathway lights back because they're just more general light,
less focused on the staircase because those tend to be have a small pool of
light. The other one has a little broader.
We have uh removed the in handrail light system that was incorporated into the
entire staircase going down to the dock below which obviously from the water
looking up you had the chance of seeing kind of like a you know kind of a
disco runway kind of thing going on. So we agree with that and and uh so that's
gone and and we we but we do want to have enough light that you could at
least navigate down without a headlamp or flashlight necessarily.
So, we've we're proposing um this uh the sea uh it's a brand from Hawaii anyway.
It's very rugged coastal uh product that um it's a 2-in diameter base and and
it's a downward oriented light. So, it's very small that we can be mounted on the
post. So, it's very very inconspicuous and it's set on the C bay side. So, the
post itself would mask the light source from below. So it would be pretty uh uh
nearly invisible we think. Um >> is that what the is that what the blue
dots >> correct are? Okay.
» Correct. So we went to the top towards the top and towards the bottom of each
landing so that and not in the midspan so that you could at least find the
first and last step. Then uh then we've added uh five oak trees on the downhill
slope and we have inserted a tree into the turf area. um next to they're kind
of separating where the main public parts of the house are to a guest bed
bedroom courtyard. Um and let's see and then further uh we did explore moving
the trash enclosure which uh uh you know the the the current house or the the
previous house had had it up in the street but the by moving it onto the
property it's quite steep in that location. Uh it turned out in order for
you to take a can and roll it out to the street, uh that platform would be 10 ft
above the ground. And so we it would be it would force us to build a slight a
very elevated structure because then from the property line to the street,
the you're you're you're getting to be at 8 to 10 feet away from the ground in
order for that to be a flat transition. So, it was a lot of building uh for
something that historically has already had a use.
Um I think that's that's all I have to say for a moment. Thank you. Since we're
sort of asking questions during your presentation, while you're there, um I
just wanted to verify or clarify. I think I recall that
there was screen planting sort of continuous along that wall beneath the
pool. Um and that like these trees aren't substituting for that. They're an
in addition. Is that a tree? >> In addition to that.
» Yeah. >> Uh yeah, this plan
we did modify it from the previous submitt to include uh taller shrubs at
the base of that wall and also uh uh further extending in that in the
direction to the east in order to give more vegetation. And I and I believe we
incorporated the loris novelis uh shrub the in that area which is a really
evergreen um takes a lot of sun tough rugged plant.
» Great. Thank you.
» I have some questions. >> Thank you for Thank you for doing that.
I think it'll make a big difference in the property. I don't really want to go
over every detail because I know on the lighting because I know it can be gone
over with the chairman and planning, but um thank you for decreasing those, but
there also is um I think an excess amount of lights on the stairs coming
down below the driveway and over the barbecue. And so there are a lot of
different places that the lights I think can be, but I don't want to go over
every one. I think it can be um gone over um to to decrease that and it's a
big help that you put the laurel where you put the laurel trees that also will
give a great screening and thank you for the trees and the hillside that'll make
you know a huge difference too. I did want to ask you one um the green roofs
are going to really make the whole project fit into the hillside but I
didn't know what experience you've had with them. We've had some in Belvadier
actually farther on Belvadier Avenue where there have been problems where
they leaked and they actually ended up taking them out. I didn't know what your
experience with them has been. >> Well, I've installed a design
maybe a dozen or something. Um we did a project in Ross uh with David and um
that had I don't know maybe uh thousand square feet or maybe 1,200 square feet
of of roof and that was primarily uh succulents. uh what we I have learned
from and observed from other projects that used
grasses that they didn't come back and perform well at all and the ground dries
out very very quickly in those especially here with like you'll have
this constant breeze and southern facing. So uh what we don't want to have
is plants that um once they dry out they turn brown and or go dormant or
whatever. So, this would be suitable for more of a coastal succulent kind of
garden. Uh, and in that we've had good success. In fact, um, Halblivus' house,
we did a green roof off his bathroom terrace and that was very
successful. >> Oh, good. And next to the ADU is a is a
Chinese elm. Correct. >> Correct.
» Because there's a tree there. Good. I wanted to have a tree. Those those are
really beautiful. Um so all the addition of the trees you
made which um you had actually added uh almost 50 30 and so that's that's
really um I was upset about seeing 60 trees taken out and 14 going in. So I
think you've remedied some of that. Um >> well I I know because the Monterey pines
there there's so many of Monterey pines and they're so bad. Yes.
They're all past their climax. >> Yes.
» Um so they no matter what they should come out. Yeah. Anyway. Yeah.
» Yes. And also the lights. I think you you did decrease the ones on the boat
house. There were quite a few on on that also. And the strip lights. Thank you
for We are always discouraged something to look like a landing strip.
» Yeah. >> You may get unwanted visitors if um
» or disco. And also noted in the staff report was already a condition to
replace the micro uh night I guess it's called something like
that and that's already in the staff report in order to do that.
» Um and I have to say
many people are very excited about getting that horrible fence out of
there. [laughter] It's nice to have a goodlook fence.
We've been looking at that for years and years. So that it's nice to get rid of
that fence. Um, >> okay. Those are all my questions
» for you. And you were going to talk about the pool lights too. I think
» Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh, on slide if if we wanted to go to the uh I think it was
nine, page nine, slide nine, it it shows a section cut through the property. Um,
the sheet A4.2 two on David's package. The the the the
conversation about the pool uh is that we placed the lights on the house side
such that if you walk to the edge of the deck and you look down at the pool, you
wouldn't see the individual lights in your eyes. So, you would only see
reflection. So, then the concern would be if that's the case, then what about
light pollution going out? Well, in this instance, from the bay or from uh the
adjoining properties, they're slightly below and there's no possibility to be
able to see the pool whatsoever. And they looking at it from the other
direction. The the street uh is entire the street
view is entirely blocked by the whole house. So there's no possibility that
that any part of this swimming pool could be seen off off the property.
So therefore, a glow for the water um while visible from inside the
property is not visible from anywhere off the property.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple questions. I want to focus around
the um revocable license area and um for either of you. Um one is the uh the
garbage area. Um you know, I've read through the policy
for revocable license and it it's um it's discouraging things like the
garbage enclosure. I know that uh John Mertin talked a bit to how difficult it
would be to build a structure up there, but just want to see if if you would
consider other locations for >> Well, we definitely consider it. Well,
my question about the revocable license, though, I mean, I have the copy of the
recorded one. Wouldn't it have been um issued on the on the approval that we
got before or did the did the project after ours into 2023 did it supersede
what we because I think they had a garbage can
closure >> there was a garbage garbage in the
previous project and it's been recorded but if we go in for a new revocable
license then previous RLS become null and void okay
» so the garbage enclosure.
» Well, we have a we have we have a little >> It doesn't sound like there's an
enclosure in this one, though. It's just a fence and then it's to screen the
garbage can. So, we didn't really call it a garbage enclosure. It doesn't have
sides, doesn't have doors, it doesn't have a lid.
» Yeah, but I >> Yeah, I I I mean, I think we should look
at this to see what the current revol I don't know. Or do you think that that
the city council would wouldn't
You know, I don't know. It's just that it's just that if we move the the
garbage enclosure down into the property, the the slope is so steep it's
not practical. >> Um Okay. And then
» and the other and the other benefit, by the way, and I don't know how much value
this has, but when we moved the the when we built the new fence and we moved it
onto the property, it revealed where 125 Belvadier has some utility hookups and
stuff. Now, if we keep our our garbage screening where we want it, we screen
all of that utility. And so, what happens is I think it's a benefit
because we're also widening Belvar Avenue so much. It's kind of a averaging
where you're you I think you're getting more and it's a better design if we keep
the garbage where we where we propose it.
» Okay. Um and then I wanted to ask too about the fence that's proposed up at
the street level. Um I understand that the purpose of the fence is for public
safety and I think it's super it's very important because of the uh drop off
there. I just wonder uh the the fence uh it
appears from grade level at the street it's about four and a half feet high. I
wonder if it needs to be that high to provide public safety. Um it seems a
little high. >> Is it six feet off?
» It's six feet from where the grade is where it's built and then but the
section shows uh from the street level it's about about four and a half ft
high. I I just don't know if it needs to be that high. Um,
» I wish I included that graphic we had. We had I mean because the property line
is >> Can you get closer to the mic?
» I think the property line's about seven or eight feet off the edge of the road
down slope. >> When you have this sixoot fence, we were
» down well, you could easily see over the top and with the 4ft vegetation would it
would nearly seem as though it wasn't there. But the the design of it
and and then this is something that we have to work on probably a little bit.
But is that the base of that would be very stout like there's a there's a
plate and then we have these pickets that rise up
» and the the intention is that if a vehicle were to you know edge off the
edge of the road they couldn't make it >> past that that barrier.
Um, this was a a just kind of a sketch study
looking at moving a trash enclosure off the rightway and in onto the property
entirely. And what I was pointing out is that the contour line,
say the midpoint contour line is around 130 and we're at 138.5. So it's 8 and
1/2 on average 8 and 1/2 ft up in the air and and and so that and in order for
you to then be able to roll a can not going up or down stairs or up a ramp
more or less across and put it in the street for pickup. And so uh it seems
like a lot of construction. It's it's making a lot of construction right
there. Um, and so then since we already had the revocable license, we were
hoping that we wouldn't have to build so much in that particular location.
» Okay. And then and then to follow up too about the the fence, I you know,
» the height of the fence, it's a sixoot fence and it's the you know, it's the
fin style metal pickets and I suppose it could be a five foot fence or something
in that ballpark, but I would want you would want it to be a certain height.
» Yes. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. No. And I I was, you know, in prepare preparing for
this, I was looking around, you know, like guardrails on the freeway, which
keep cars from going over. They're at about 3 ft high, but um I uh I you know,
I was imagining cars at night coming around the curve. You you want
definitely want a visual barrier. Um so I'm not saying the fence has to be from
street level 3t high, but I don't think I don't know that it needs to be four
and a half ft high. It's pretty tall. I mean, it's probably about this height
here. And the my my only point is with the uh revocable license requirements is
that there's an intent to really not have public land look appear to be
privatized by things like fences or >> well this particular part of the fence
is on the property line because the retaining wall for the driveways on the
property line. So this fence would sit on top of the that's why it's this
style. So the retainable curves and so these
elements so it's really not in in the city property
» um is it portion of the revocable license for the fence
» for the wooden fence by the trashing >> okay
» yeah the uh the vertical kind of picket style fence is entirely on the property.
Okay. Thanks. Thanks. >> Um, and the the plan is to to screen the
fence with uh with vegetation as well. Correct.
» I don't I don't think my intention was to screen the fence in in particular,
but to have vegetation in the front, more for aesthetic uh purposes. I I
didn't think that the that I thought the fence would be attractive and it's it's
sort of a definition of space. So, Um, I I didn't think that that was the
purpose.
» Did you Did you have any additional questions?
» Just had some questions about the amount of glass on the on the back of the of
the house. Um, I I know that this is, you know, the
the glass and then the inter and the interior lights are not necessarily
going to be seen by other other members of the Belvadier community, but I just I
want I guess I want I want to ask like is is
this house going to be a a giant shining beacon for the people of Salo?
Well, what we what we've done is we've introduced, you know, wood lettuce
screening on portions of the glass actually quite a bit. Um, and the other
thing I was considering I'm we'd use [clears throat] it in Lake
Tahoe is non-reflective glass, which might be a consideration.
» [clears throat] >> Yeah, I think that would probably be be
good just for for the folks out out on the water and for our slightly farther
away neighbors.
[snorts] >> All right.
No further questions from planning commission. Um, would anyone in the
audience like to make a comment? Please come forward.
[clears throat]
» Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Steve Silverstein. I live at two at
one cliff road. I'm a 30-year resident of Belvadier, and I have walked by this
street uh hundreds or thousands of times. in them. I am one of the people
who is really excited that that fence has come down. Uh it's just like a whole
new world here. Like we u I really appreciate the people behind this of
moving the fence away from the street down [clears throat] uh down the hill.
The top of the fence is below the street level. They did that for about three
quarters of the fence and then one quarter of it they did it the way the
old fence is as it's closer to the street and it's it's that old uh tunnel
effect. So you almost have the before and the after still still there.
I hope that uh in all our deliberations here that we make a condition that the
top of the fence be below the street level. So, I don't care if the fence is
four feet, five feet, six feet, seven feet, just so long as the top of it is
below the street level. I think they uh submitted a uh in the architectural uh
uh things that were submitted to the city, there's a shot here. It's in the
lower right hand corner. you see a couple of uh people walking or running
along the uh along the street and you can see that the there's no you can see
the the garbage uh container over in the back but for the whole front of the
property there's no the fence is below the street level. So, I hope that that's
what uh is in the plans all the way up to the uh to the the driveway which is
on the the left side as uh as we know there. So, that that will be a great
improvement. And I was so super pleased to hear that the roof is going to be
green because you're going to look down on top of the roof and you're going to
see some nice uh uh plants there. It it's going to be really uh really
beautiful with that. So, I I commend this is like our fourth time on this uh
thing here uh that this one gets done and it gets done this way and we'll all
be grateful for it. So, just make sure that that happens. Thank you.
» Thank you. Is there anyone else present that in the
room that would like to speak here?
Any hands raised on Zoom? >> No hands raised.
» Okay. Um I I wonder um regarding the last comment if I could have the
applicant uh come forward and just talk about this idea that the top of the
fence should be below street level. What what would be involved in that? Is that
possible? Um >> I don't I I don't have
We'd have to Well, there's a vertical drop and it so it has to be 42 inches
above. Um [clears throat] so I don't know if that how that relates to street
level, >> right?
» But it has to be 42 in um minimum. >> Correct.
» Yeah. And so right now >> so I I sort of know and this question
can't perhaps cannot be answered because >> right now it's 72 in. It has to be 42.
Yeah. Yeah. >> And it could be somewhere between 72 and
42. And the other thing I'd like to point out is the only reason that that
existing part is still where it was before is a practical matter. And when
the new fence is in, that is totally gone and we're back to that line that
continues. >> The excuse me, but the the new the fence
is metal, isn't it? The new fence that you can see through,
» right? >> So it doesn't really
» block off any So if you're walking by, you can see through it also. and and
since it's curved in the way it's designed, it sort of changes as you move
through the space. So that's why, you know, John was saying it's an
architectural element. The planting is sort of a base or foreground in front of
this architectural >> element.
Okay. >> Thank you.
I do think it's important >> you don't see the fence
» in the picture that they submitted. You don't see the fence. Okay. The top of
the fence is below the street level, right? It's not a problem.
Okay. That's what they submitted. The site is vertical enough [clears throat]
to do it. So, let's just do it.
» Um, did you did you have something to say?
I the the concern I I I I can't answer this question because I don't I didn't
memorize the the grade location relative to the street and perhaps as we get
where the metal picket meets a wooden fence. There could be a zone in there
where even 42 is higher than the street level. It's it's likely. Um certainly
not where the vehicle gate is. We we know it descends down some distance.
were already going down the driveway. So, this fence does [clears throat] have
both a curve and a downward suite as you come around. Uh, so, but I I can't
answer the question technically, but I also would like that fence to look kind
of beautiful from above and below. In other words, having a gradation that is
uniform. But I I our our in we have no benefit for seeing the fence. So, you
know. >> Okay.
» That's good. Thank you. I'm just trying to get the picture here.
» Um if nobody here has any further comments, I'll close the public hearing
and bring it back to the commission for discussion.
Um, Commissioner Laskkey, would you like to begin the discussion, please?
» Um, this is actually, as you mentioned in the audience, um, this is the third
time that I have looked at a project for, um, this site, so I think that I
would be thrilled to see um, a house built there. Um, and also, um, it really
does this where you're sighting the house below the hillside and also with
the green roofs really makes it fit in to the terrain and disappear basically.
And it's wonderful to be able to walk along now and look over the fence and
where the stray poles are, you can look over. So that's where the house um is
going to be. Um,
and the other advantage of having the garage below the road is you're not
looking at garages. And it's very attractive to have the garage below the
road. So, we're not looking at a garage sitting um on the road.
It doesn't the hum does not draw attention to itself at all because it's
below the road. and the screening that are on both um of the property lines
give privacy. Um and I like the fact that um the landscape architect added
some pod carpus on the road that also will give some green and some some tree
and shade there. Um it will break up the view a little bit. Um the wood and the
materials I think are really beautiful. the wood louvers
um that were added actually to some of the windows. So that would screen some
of the light and the windows that you would look at from Salelo and or from um
the water. It softens the house. So I can make the findings for design review.
I would have liked to have seen the colors of the materials tonight,
especially the cement. Maybe to be sure that the cement is not too
um white. I think the color was a um um can't remember now it was a buff but
to be sure that it's not you know white um
and I can make the findings for demolition there are no hysterical not
hysterical but historical architect maybe hysterical too. um significance.
Um it's really great to clean, you know, clean up the lots. I am concerned about
the truckloads. So that's something I think the city can look at. Yeah, it's
called buff or something. The concrete, [clears throat] I think.
Um I can make the findings also for the revocable license. I I don't know.
[clears throat] I was asking whether there is an
existing one because I didn't know whether you could just add a new one for
the parts that aren't included in the old one. I don't know um how that how
how that you could do that. But [clears throat] um it is practical to
have the garbage container there. Um, so I that that really is is an ease and
that doesn't really bother me. Um, and you are increasing the space of the
road by seven feet 9 in which is um actually a great advantage to give more
parking. And so that is um um really a public uh favor to add more parking and
increase the size of the road. Otherwise, you know, it kind of drops
off there. Um [snorts]
yeah, and having the metal fence see-through, I think, is an advantage,
too, because it gives air and um doesn't close off the whole property.
Um I can make the uh findings also for the exception to floor area. Um this lot
is three times the size of a normal lot size. The primary views are not impacted
from adjoining properties and it will also not reduce privacy um in adjoining
properties. It's and the way the house is set on the on the hillside, it really
sits into the slope which decreases the mass and bulk of it. Um, and in the
years after it'll be completed, it certainly will improve the views uh from
the street. And the new landscape screening also um
is good for the neighbors and good for the um uh neighborhood all around.
I do I I would like to add also a condition for tree protection because
there are some trees that need to be protected during the construction. some
of the old oak trees. And actually, I I actually forgot to mention to John, but
I can give the city there are three or four trees um I have the numbers of that
look like things can be adjusted by a foot or two and you could keep these oak
trees. So, um they are um [clears throat]
number 28 and number 30. One's near a boat house and one's near the ADU. But
it would be good to take a look at some of these large oak trees that you are
taking out. And sometimes it just means a difference of a foot on the building
to be able to keep um some trees and that should be looked at.
Those are my comments. Thank you. [clears throat]
» Thanks. Um, Commissioner Wilson, please. >> Yeah, thank you.
» [snorts] >> Um I just wanted to say that um I also
can make the design review findings for this project um
uh with the changes with the lighting that are proposed and um you know the
mention of the glazing that will be non-reflective. I think that will be
very helpful. Um the project is compatible with the the surroundings. Um
and then as far as the demolition permit I can also make the findings for that.
um you the demolition of what's on the site will not be detrimental to the
city. Um as far as adopting the resolution for the exception to total
floor area, um I also agree with the previous commissioner's findings um that
uh primary views are protected. Uh privacy as well is not impacted and the
views from the street are also protected. And finally, for the
revocable license, uh, I would like to know if I would like the applicant to
consider moving um the garbage off out of the revocable license request. I'm
not I don't want to make it a condition of approval. Um, but on balance, I do
think that the um uh the amenities that are being provided with the project uh
support avocable license as well. Thank you,
» Commissioner Watson, please. >> Thanks. Um, I too think that this this
this project um even even if it wasn't replacing what is currently a coyote
habitat would be a great benefit to our uh to our community and to our island.
Um I um I also walk walk past this uh this lot all the all the time as I live
on that side of the island and really appreciate the the opening up of the
view already. Um it's uh it's very nice to see something that you didn't know
you were going to get. Um you know and especially since it's a f it's a
fantastic view. Um um I can make I can make the findings clearly clearly for
clearly for demol for uh for for the for the dem for the demolition. Um and also
for the exception to total total floor area. Um, as the other commissioners
already pointed out, uh, until very recently, this was actually three lots.
And, um, if you assume that it is still still three lots, it actually would
wouldn't have need wouldn't have needed a an exception to total floor area. Um
and also the way that the way that it's uh it's cited as um does provide privacy
a and a sort of a a green look as well as well as providing views for the
community. Um I also appreciate uh the addition of the ADU and the Jedu so that
there are still three housing units that are on that are on this this uh this
this this property. Um, I can also make the findings for the
revocable license, um, including the garbage enclosure. Um, as it looks as
though they're that it will have like the lowest height practicable for for
actually hiding the hiding the garbage. Um,
my 16-year-old son is supposed to be the one to take the garbage out up our
steep, you know, fairly steep driveway. He does not. It is me. And so I I will I
I understand just what a pain it is to haul garbage around. Um and then um I
appreciate uh Commissioner Lask's um proposal of reviewing plans for the
protection of of trees number 28 and and and 30. Um, one of the only things that
I didn't like about this plan was the the number of large old trees that are
being removed. Even though I understand that a number of them um are both
damaged, disease, past their prime, and should be should be removed for fire
purposes and also uh within within the floor plan of the of the proposed house.
Um I would like to condition uh the approval on uh for the um for the design
review on the reduction of the out of the outside lighting um as you already
dis discussed this evening um as well as the protection of the existing and rema
and remaining large trees during uh during construction. This is something
that we've provided on a number of uh of new of new house builds. Um and also on
having non-reflective glass on the on the large large panel large panels of
panels of glass um on the on the house. Um and then the approval of the final
lighting lighting plan by [clears throat]
the um by the chair and the
» lighting and landscape. >> Yes, lighting and landscape. Thank you.
Uh so I uh I will echo um my fellow commissioners um feelings about this.
I'll try not to be too redundant, but just highlight a couple of um things
that I observed. Um it was pretty interesting um upon visiting the site to
see the way the story poles situate themselves in the site. um and also the
the distance and the existing vegetation that's going to be between this rather
large house and the adjacent neighbors. So, um I I very much appreciate the the
way the building has been designed and situated into the site. I think the
colors and materials are good. I also think it's hard to design a really
attractive very large house. I guess that's speaking from, you know, as an
architect. It's not an easy job and I I think that um a very good job has has
been done here. So, I'll be able to make the findings for design review. Um I'll
also be able to make findings for demolition.
Um, again, in terms of um floor area exemption, um, the things I just
referenced, the way the house relates to its lot, its neighbors, vegetation, um,
all good. So, I can make the findings for additional floor area. Um, and I'll
be able to make findings for revocable license. Um I um appreciate Commissioner
Lasky's um input to the applicant on trees. I also had a concern about um the
number of trees being removed. Um I don't think we're looking for a onetoone
replacement at this point, but I do think the additional landscape
improvements that you've described are are good. Um I also u want to say to the
neighbor who's interested in the fence height, I think that can be subject of
of review. Um which will landscape and lighting and fencing will come back to
me. So at that time I'm going to try to keep your comments in mind and see what
we can do and just urge you to do what you can to keep the fence as as minimal
as it can be. Having said that, I like the idea of what the fence design is
with the the see-through slats. So, I think we'll end up at a good
solution at the end of the day. And I appreciate your comments.
So, um, with that, I think we're ready to get
some motions on the floor and some conditions of approval. Anyone want to
take a shot at that?
So, I'm going to go a little bit out of order, just the easy ones first. Um, I'd
like to propose a propose a motion to adopt a resolution granting a demolition
permit to demolish the existing 3,764 ft single family dwelling unit at 135
Belvadier Avenue. I'll second the motion.
All in favor? >> I I
» All right. Um I'd like to propose a propose a motion to adopt a resolution
granting an exception to total floor area to allow an 11,223
square ft house where a 4,850
square ft uh house is permitted at number 135 Belvadier Avenue.
» Second. >> All in favor? I
» I >> um for the revocable uh license, this is
just a recommendation. Um so I'd like to propose a motion to recommend the city
council approval of the revocable license for the private improvements
located in the Belvadier Avenue right ofway at 135 Belvadier Avenue.
» Second. >> All in favor?
» I I >> All right. Um, and now for the motion
for design review. Um, I would like to propose a motion
adopting a resolution granting design review to construct a new single family
residence and attached garage number 135 Belvadier Avenue with the following
conditions. Number one is that the staff and chair Sidell um approve the
landscape and lighting and lighting plan uh for the house prior to the uh
building permit. Number two, to provide uh protection to
we'll call it the the old and larger trees dur during during construction and
also to review the tree plan uh as to whether or not trees number 28 and 30
couldn't be kept.
And then number three is um to have non-reflective glass on the
large panels of glass on the upper story of the back of the house. How does that
sound?
» Good. All right. I'll second. >> We're not I don't think we're finished
yet, are we? >> That was that I only had one, two,
three. >> Oh. Um
» what are we missing? Do we need to um say something about that light fixture
that needs to be changed out? >> Um I thought that was going to be under
the lighting plan. >> Oh, it can't. That's fine. Okay, then I
can cross that off my list. So So that's the So we have a complete motion.
» I'll second the motion. >> All in favor? Hi.
» Hi.
» Okay. Uh, thank you everyone. I'll now adjourn the meeting.