Agenda — Belvedere City Council, August 8, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

5. Licensees shall not restrict access by the public and/or by adjacent property owners to the licensed area.

6. Licensees shall execute this License by: signing the License; making an acknowledgement of the License before a notary public or an officer specified by the State to take the acknowledgement of instruments of writing; and delivering the signed License and certificate of acknowledgement to the City. If Licensees shall fail to execute this License within thirty days of the date issued, the City may immediately terminate and revoke this License by mailing or delivering written notice thereof to Licensees at the address hereinabove stated.

7. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, this License shall be revocable at the pleasure of the City Council of the City of Belvedere. The election to revoke this License may be exercised at any time by mailing or delivering to Licensees at the address hereinabove stated a notice of revocation and termination. Within the time specified in said notice, Licensees shall, at their own cost and expense, remove from the Premises the encroachment and all structures and facilities placed thereon or therein by Licensees.

8. That upon the failure of Licensees to comply with any of the agreements contained herein, City may declare said improvements to be a public nuisance, and may take such action as may be authorized by law to abate said nuisance. The City shall be entitled to recover from Licensees costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees, to be determined by the court. The remedy of City as contained in this paragraph shall not be exclusive.

9. The Licensees acknowledges that the property interest created hereunder by issuance of this license may be subject to possessory interest taxation and said Licensees in whom such possessory interest is vested recognizes and agrees that they shall be solely responsible for payment of all such taxes levied upon said possessory interest.

10. The Licensees shall deliver this License to any successor in interest to the above-described land.

11. The agreements contained herein are covenants and servitudes running with the land and shall be binding upon Licensees and their successors, assignors, executors, administrators, and personal representatives.

12. The Licensees shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City prior to the commencement of any work on City property.

13. Any previous revocable licenses issued to this property are now null and void.

Issued by direction of the City Council of the City of Belvedere pursuant to action taken at its meeting of January 1, 2014.
_______________________________________
Mary Neilan, City Manager
The foregoing License is accepted and its terms
and conditions are agreed to:

DO NOT SIGN HERE -- THIS IS A SPECIMEN ONLY – YOU WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A FINAL DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. _________________________________________ _______________________________________ John Doe, Licensee Mary Doe, Licensee

ENCLOSE UNDERPINNING
EXIST. 20" PITTOSPORUM

TO REMAIN
REMOVE 123 SQ. FT. HTD. FLOOR

AREA AT UPPER FLOOR AND

CONVERT TO DECK
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN

EXISTING DETACHED
GARAGE

LINE OF NEW ADU BELOW
EXIST. UPPER DECK el. 139.25
ATT
WM
PGE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. CONCRETE APRON

EXISTING

RETAINING
WALLS
15' REAR SETBACK
15" FRONT SETBACK 6'-1" SIDE SETBACK
6'-1" SIDE SETBACK
6'-11
1 2
"
6'-7" 15'-2
3 4
"
17'-10
1 4
"
6'-11
3 4
" LINE OF EXISTING HOUSE BELOW

FOOTPRINT OF

NEIGHBORING HOUSE
Top Floor El. 129.6'
Ridge El. 150.8
10'-3" +/-
2'-7
1 2
" FOOTPRINT OF NEIGHBORING HOUSE
top floor el. 128.7'
Ridge El. 149.9'
N 46°21'18"W 79.56'
NEW CONCRETE WALLS S 38°26'00"W 124.13'
N 57°04'00"E
115.0'
S 32°56'00"E 17.0' S 77°01'00"E 28.89'
1'-9
1 2
"
NEW 6' WOOD

FENCE & GATE
SEE
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 89.5'

L E G E N D

EXISTING CONTOUR

CONTOUR TO CHANGE

NEW CONTOUR

NEW ASTROTURF PATIO (TO REPLACE

EXISTING BELOW OF THE SAME SIZE)
EL. 118.25'

NEW STONE PATIO
EL. 106.75'
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL DECK el. 128.25'

NEW DECK EXTENSION

FACE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL

TO REMAIN BELOW
EXIST. FLAT BUILT UP

ROOF TO REMAIN

EXISTING BARRELL VAULT

ROOF TO REMAIN
NEW 6' WOOD FENCE & GATE
SEE
SP 3
SP x STORY POLE LOCATION
(SEE SCHEDULE THIS SHEET)
SP 4
SP 2
SP 1
SP 6 SP 7
SP 5
2 4
2 4
NEW
STAIR
NEW
STAIR

EXISTING
STAIR

EXISTING SITE STAIRS

PG & E EASEMENT
EXIST. 20" OAK

TO REMAIN
FAILED WOOD STAIR TO BE REMOVED 15'-23
4 " NEW WOOD STAIR AND

LANDINGS JUST
ABOVE GRADE TYP.

EXIST. WOOD
DOCK
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

LOWER SITE PLAN
SP 2
SP 6
SP 5

CITY OF BELVEDERE OWNED PARCEL
NO. 060-233-06

FAILED WOOD STAIR TO BE REMOVED

PAINTED STEEL HANDRAIL

AT DOWNHILL SIDE OF

STAIR RUNS ONLY
20 11.7

18.75 4
11 113 CONROE RESIDENCE
0 8 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 16 40
1 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 6 June 2022 27 June 2022 15 July 2022

ZONING & PROJECT DATA
AP# 060-233-07
Zoning: R-15
Lot Size (Gross): 6,858.1 sq. ft.

Percent Slope: 57.74
WUI: No
Flood Zone: X
GROSS FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEET:

EXISTING PROPOSED
New ADU _ 795
Lower Floor 1385.4 1403.8*
Main Floor 1260.5* 1260.5*
Upper Floor 782 754.2
Garage 596.9 596.9
TOTAL 4024.8 4015.4
FAR 58.7% 58.6%

COVERAGE
Structures 1,756 1,756
Decks/stairs 4' + 158 1,218
Total 1,914 2,974

27.9% 43.4%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 2,308 3,422 (1,118 difference)

CUT AND FILL
total cut 65 cu yds
total fill 38 cu yds
NET OFFHAUL 27 cu yds
HEIGHT
Garage: 24'-7" (28' max.) 24'-7"
Main house: 34'-3 1
2 "(36' max.) 34'-3 1
2 " Main House Average Ht: 25'-8 1
2 "' (28' max.) 25'-8 1
2 "' PARKING SPACES 3 3
*Includes small areas above 15' ceiling height

NO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

SCOPE OF WORK
Add new ADU with roof deck, on top of existing patio, below lowest existing floor elevation. New exterior fireplace. Remodel upper level Master Suite and enlarge existing exterior balcony. Enclose 41 sq. ft. of area under existing garage for storage. Extend existing deck at Main Level. Remodel existing lower level to provide access to ADU & roof deck. New revocable license for stair access to existing dock at the bay shoreline.

INDEX TO DRAWINGS

1. Site Plan, Project information

2. ADU and Lower Terrace Plan

3. Lower and Main Level Floor Plans

4. Upper Level Floor Plan, Fence Detail, Window Schedule

5. Elevations - existing & proposed South & East

6. Elevations - existing & proposed North

7. Elevations - existing & proposed West

8. Section

9. Landscape Plan

10. ADU only Site Plan

11. Site Elevation and Section
C2 Grading & Drainage Plan

STORY POLES
Pole No. Bottom of Pole Top of Pole Length
1-4 +107.0 +118.25 11'-3"
5 +83.0 +93.5 10'-6"
6 +88.0 +93.5 5'-6"
7 +92.0 +93.5 1-6"
Also run yellow tape along the tops of poles 1-4 and a second line across poles 5-7.

COVERAGE DATA

EXISTING NEW TOTAL PROPOSED
Garage 375 375
House 1,381 1,381
ADU 795
Stairs Above 4' 41 62 103
Deck above 4' 117 137 254
Total Area 1,914 sq.ft. 994 sq. ft. 2,113* sq. ft.

TOTAL COVERAGE 27.9% 30.8%
Lot Area 6,858.1 sq. ft.
* does not include new ADU
Attachment C
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE ELEVATION
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 139.5'
FF. EL. 118.5'
FF. EL. 107'
T.O. ROOF. EL. 151.7' EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED ADU
EXIST. SITE STAIR TO REMAIN
NEW CONC. PILASTERS
IN FRONT OF EXIST. CONC.WALL
EL. 93.5'
EL. 96.6'
EL. 80'
EL. 68'
EL. 56'
EL. 44'
EL. 32'
EL. 20'
EL. 92'
EL. 11.7'

EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED ADU ADDITION
EL. 80'
EL. 68'
EL. 56'
EL. 44'
EL. 32'
EL. 20'
EL. 92'
EL. 11.7'
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE SECTION
4 1/4" = 1'-0"

SITE SECTION AT LOWER LANDING
T.O. RAMP = GRADE AT

OTHER SIDE OF RAMP
+ 20.0'

GRADE PROFILE AT STAIR UP

TO HOUSE

GRADE PROFILE AT RAMP
BEYOND

GANGWAY STAIR TO

DOCK W/GUARDRAIL
EA. SIDE

RAMP BETWEEN STAIRS WITH PARTIAL

GUARDRAIL
OPEN

PASSAGE AT
GRADE

STAIR UP TO

HOUSE W/

HANDRAIL

REPAIR EXISTING GANGWAY STAIR

REPAIR EXISTING

WOOD RAMP

STAIR UP TO HOUSE

REPAIR EXISTING DOCK

PEDESTRIAN WAY ACROSS

RAMP AT GRADE
3 1/4" = 1'-0"

PARTIAL PLAN AT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
20 18.75
4 --- CONROE RESIDENCE
0 8 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 16 40 11 27 June 2022 15 July 2022

ENCLOSE UNDERPINNING
EXIST. 20" PITTOSPORUM

TO REMAIN
REMOVE 123 SQ. FT. HTD. FLOOR

AREA AT UPPER FLOOR AND

CONVERT TO DECK
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN

EXISTING DETACHED
GARAGE

LINE OF NEW ADU BELOW
EXIST. UPPER DECK el. 139.25
ATT
WM
PGE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. CONCRETE APRON

EXISTING

RETAINING
WALLS
15' REAR SETBACK
15" FRONT SETBACK 6'-1" SIDE SETBACK
6'-1" SIDE SETBACK
6'-11
1 2
"
6'-7" 15'-2
3 4
"
17'-10
1 4
"
6'-11
3 4
" LINE OF EXISTING HOUSE BELOW

FOOTPRINT OF

FENCE & GATE
SEE
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 89.5'

L E G E N D

EXISTING CONTOUR

CONTOUR TO CHANGE

NEW CONTOUR

NEW ASTROTURF PATIO (TO REPLACE

EXISTING BELOW OF THE SAME SIZE)
EL. 118.25'

NEW WOOD STAIR AND LANDINGS
JUST ABOVE GRADE TYP.

NEW STONE PATIO
EL. 106.75'
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL DECK el. 128.25'

NEW DECK EXTENSION

FACE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL

TO REMAIN BELOW
EXIST. FLAT BUILT UP

ROOF TO REMAIN

EXISTING BARRELL VAULT

ROOF TO REMAIN
NEW 6' WOOD FENCE & GATE
SEE
SP 3
SP x STORY POLE LOCATION
(SEE SCHEDULE THIS SHEET)
SP 4
SP 2
SP 1
SP 6 SP 7
SP 5
2 4
2 4
NEW
STAIR
NEW
STAIR

EXISTING
STAIR

EXISTING SITE STAIRS

PG & E EASEMENT
EXIST. 20" OAK
TO REMAIN 15'-23
4 " NEW WOOD STAIR AND LANDINGS
JUST ABOVE GRADE TYP.

EXIST. WOOD
DOCK
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

LOWER SITE PLAN
SP 2
SP 6
SP 5

CITY OF BELVEDERE OWNED PARCEL
NO. 060-233-06 CONROE RESIDENCE
0 8 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 16 40
1 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 6 June 2022 27 June 2022

ZONING & PROJECT DATA
AP# 060-233-07
Zoning: R-15
Lot Size (Gross): 6,858.1 sq. ft.

Percent Slope: 57.74
WUI: No
Flood Zone: X
GROSS FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEET:

EXISTING PROPOSED
New ADU _ 795
Lower Floor 1385.4 1403.8*
Main Floor 1260.5* 1260.5*
Upper Floor 782 754.2
Garage 596.9 596.9
TOTAL 4024.8 4015.4
FAR 58.7% 58.6%

COVERAGE
Structures 1,756 1,756
Decks/stairs 4' + 158 1,218
Total 1,914 2,974

27.9% 43.4%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 2,308 3,422 (1,118 difference)

NO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

INDEX TO DRAWINGS

1. Site Plan, Project information

2. ADU and Lower Terrace Plan

3. Lower and Main Level Floor Plans

4. Upper Level Floor Plan, Fence Detail, Window Schedule

5. Elevations - existing & proposed South & East

6. Elevations - existing & proposed North

7. Elevations - existing & proposed West

8. Section

9. Landscape Plan

10. ADU only Site Plan

11. Site Elevation and Section
C2 Grading & Drainage Plan

COVERAGE DATA

EXISTING NEW TOTAL PROPOSED
Garage 375 375
House 1,381 1,381
ADU 795
Stairs Above 4' 41 62 103
Deck above 4' 117 137 254
Total Area 1,914 sq.ft. 994 sq. ft. 2,113* sq. ft.

TOTAL COVERAGE 27.9% 30.8%
Lot Area 6,858.1 sq. ft.
* does not include new ADU
Attachment D

KITCHEN
GREAT
ROOM
PATIO

BEDROOM

SAUNA BATH
UP

DN TO DOCK
1 1/4" = 1'-0"

ADU & LOWER SITE PLAN
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 89.5'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 94'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 92.6'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5' 21'-7
716
"
44'-4
5 16
" 13'-10
316
"
19'-4
15 16
" 20'-7
1 4
"
4'-6
9 16
"
GROSS FLOOR AREA = 795 SQ. FT.

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

NEW WALL

EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED

L E G E N D
16 17
18 19 20
21 22
23 24 25
26 27
28 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - SEE SPECS
X WINDOW/DOOR DESIGNATION - SEE SCHEDULE SHEET 4
DN
DN
11 1
EXIST. CONC WALL
NEW CONC. PILASTER BELOW
TYP.

EXISTING WALLS BELOW

NEW LANDSCAPED AREA BELOW

GAS FIREPLACE
SP 3
SP 4
SP 2
SP 1
SP 7 SP 6
SP 5 4'-3
1 8
"
1'-8
3 4
" 13'-10" 16'-10
116
" 7'-10
11 16
" 16'-1
116
"
8 15
16 23'-0 " 18
" 4'-0
516"

STORY POLE DIMENSIONS KEYED FROM EXISTING HOUSE CORNERS 10'-1018
" 16'-2
78 " UP

EXISTING WALLS BELOW
UP

UP CONROE RESIDENCE
0 4 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA
8 20
2 Feb. 21, 2022 27 June 2022
UP

LAUNDRY

ADU ROOF DECK

ARTIFICIAL TURF
BATH

MECHANICAL
ROOM

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
BEDROOM 2
BATH
BATH
UP
DN
DN
1 1/4" = 1'-0"

LOWER FLOOR PLAN

EXPAND DECK ABOVE
16'-33
16" 5'-3
716" 35'-45
8 " 2'-11
3 8
" 4'-2" 2'-11
3 8
" 2'-11
38 " 4'-2" 2'-11
38 " 21'-0"
42'-6" 28'-13
4 "
GROSS FLOOR AREA = 1403.8 SQ. FT.

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

NEW WALL

TO BE REMOVED

L E G E N D
i
12 13 14
15 9 10
11 j k l

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - SEE SPECS
X WINDOW/DOOR DESIGNATION - SEE SCHEDULE SHEET 4
UP
DN
11 1
11 1
EXIST. CONC. BLOCK WALL

EXISTING STAIR UP TO REMAIN

NEW STAIR DOWN
DN

KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM

LIVING ROOM
ENTRY

MAIN DECK
2 1/4" = 1'-0"
MAIN FLOOR PLAN 5'-0" 5'-2"
29'-0" EXISTING DECK NEW DECK EXTENSION
DN
42'-6" 21'-0" 2'-11
38 " 4'-2" 2'-11
38 "
2'-11
3 8
" 4'-2" 2'-11
3 8 35'-4 " 5
8 " 28'-1
38 " 10'-2"

STORAGE
(EXISTING GARAGE UNDERSTORY
AREA)

ENCLOSE EXISTING OVERHANG
EXIST. CONC. WALL
GROSS FLOOR AREA= 1260.5 SQ. FT.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - SEE SPECS

L E G E N D
9'-1" 4'-1"
UP
11 1
11 1

EXISTING STAIR TO REMAIN

LINE OF EXISTING GARAGE ABOVE CONROE RESIDENCE
0 4 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA
8 20
3 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 27 June 2022
DN
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER

BATHROOM

WARDROBE

WARDROBE
BALCONY 1 1/4" = 1'-0"

UPPER FLOOR PLAN
open to below
2'-3" 13'-6" 16'-312" EXISTING CONVERT HEATED SPACE TO BALCONY

CONVERT HEATED SPACE
TO BALCONY 24'-314"
42'-6" 19'-314"
10'-512"

EXISTING WALLS

TO BE REMOVED E

EXISTING
GARAGE
18'-418" 20'-543"
GROSS AREA 754.2 SQ. FT.

GROSS AREA 596.9 SQ. FT.
(INCLUDES STORAGE BELOW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 a b c d e gf h

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

NEW WALL

EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED

L E G E N D
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE - SEE SPECS X WINDOW/DOOR DESIGNATION - SEE SCHEDULE SHEET 4 111
111 7 2 1/8" = 1'-0"
FENCE DETAIL ( SIMILAR TO EXISTING FENCE AT STREET) 6'-0"

COPPER CAP
6X6 CEDAR POSTS TYP.
1X4 CEDAR PICKETS TYP.
2X6 CEDAR GATE
FRAME
ELEVATION SECTION CONROE RESIDENCE 0 4 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 8 20 4 Feb 21, 2022 WINDOW SCHEDULE (no changes to Garage)

UPPER LEVEL
new to be removed

1. 3'-0" x 4'-6" casement a. 2'-6" x 6'-8" sgl. lite door

2. 3'-0" x 6'-8" sgl. lite door b. 2'-4" x 6'-8" fixed

3. 6'-0" x 6'-8" fixed c. 2'-4" x 6'-8" fixed

4. 3'-0" x 6'-8" sgl. lite door d. 2'-4" x 6'-8" fixed

5. 3'-0" x 4'-6" casement e. 2'-6" x 6'-8" sgl. lite door

6. 3'-0" x 6'-8" sgl. lite door f. 2'-6" x 5'-0" casement

7. 5'-0" x 4'-6" fixed g. 2'-6" x 5'-0" casement

8. 5'-0" x 4'-6" dbl. casement h. 5'-0" x 5'-0" dbl. casement

MAIN LEVEL
No Changes

LOWER LEVEL

9. 4'-0" x 4'-6" dbl. casement i. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors

10. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors j. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors

11. 2'-8" x 7'-0" sgl. lite door k. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors

12. 1'-4" x 7'-0" fixed l. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors

13. 7'-0" x 6'-6" fixed

14. 4'-0" x 4'-6" dbl. casement

15. 4'-0" x 7'-0" sgl. lite doors

ADU LEVEL

16. 2'-6" x 7'-6" fixed

17. 5'-0" x 8'-0" sgl. lite doors

18. 2'-6" x 7'-6" fixed

19. 5'-0" x 7'-6" fixed

19. 5'-0" x 5'-0" fixed

20. 5'-0" x 5'-0" fixed

21. 5'-0" x 5'-0" fixed

22. 2'-6" x 5'-6" casement

23. 2'-6" x 2'-0" casement

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

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION - NO CHANGES
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 139.5'
T.O. ROOF. EL.
151.7'
1 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
FF. EL. 138.9'
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 139.5'
FF. EL. 118.5'
FF. EL. 107'
T.O. ROOF. EL.
151.7'

EXISTING HOUSE

PROPOSED ADU
EXISTING GARAGE EXTEND EXIST. DECK
36' HEIGHT LIMIT CONROE RESIDENCE 310 Beach Road Belvedere, CA. 0 10.66 26.66
5 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 27 June 2022 5.33

EXISTING
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 139.5'
FF. EL. 118.5'
FF. EL. 107'
T.O. ROOF. EL.
151.7' EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED ADU
1 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
EXIST. SITE STAIR TO REMAIN
NEW CONC. PILASTERS
IN FRONT OF EXIST.

CONC.WALL

NEW RETAINING WALL
EL. 93.5'
EL. 96.6' CONROE RESIDENCE 310 BEACH ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA. 0 10.66 26.66
6 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 27 June 2022

MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
ROOF: Existing to remain
WALLS: Cedar shingles, stain to match existing
DOWNSPOUTS: 16 oz. Copper 3" rectangular downspouts to match existing WINDOWS & EXT. DOORS: aluminum clad wood, white color to match existing FASCIA & TRIM: Cedar, stain to match existing
MISC FLASHING AND SHEET METAL: Where copper is not used, paint to match surrounding material PATIOS: stone tile typical; astroturf at Lower Level Patio.

RAILINGS: narrow steel posts, balusters & rails, natural galvanized finish.

FENCES: Cedar 1x6, Select Tight Knot
RETAINING WALLS: natural concrete finish
SITE STAIRS: Cedar treads; pressure treated stringers 5.33 EXISTING 1 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 139.5'
FF. EL. 118.5'
FF. EL. 107'
T.O. ROOF. EL.
151.7'

EXISTING GARAGE

EXISTING HOUSE

PROPOSED ADU

PROPOSED REAR RETAINING

WALL AND STAIR
EXTEND EXIST. DECK CONROE RESIDENCE 310 Beach Road Belvedere, CA. 0 10.66 26.66 7 Feb. 21, 2022 27 April 2022 1 3/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
FF. EL. 128.5'
FF. EL. 118.5'
FF. EL. 107'

EXISTING GARAGE

EXISTING HOUSE

PROPOSED ADU

PROPOSED REAR RETAINING

WALL AND STAIR
EXTEND EXIST. DECK CONROE RESIDENCE 0 4 310 Beach Road Belvedere, CA. 8 20 10 Feb. 21, 2022 TOP OF WALL EL 93.5' BOTTOM OF WALL EL 86.5'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6' BOTTOM OF WALL EL 94' TOP OF WALL EL 96.6' TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'

EXISTING RETAINING WALLS NEW CONCRETE COLUMNS

LANDSCAPE LEGEND

SHRUBS - NEW

PERENIALS - NEW

TREES - EXISTING

SHRUBS - EXISTING

PERENIALS - EXISTING
Di
Ts Ts
Ts Ts Ts Ts Ts Ts Ts
Ec
Ec Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Ec
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Hi
Ec
Ec
Hi
Hi
Hi
Di
Di
Di
Di
Pl
LAWN c c c c
Hy Hy Hy c c
Pl 1 1/4" = 1'-0"

LANDSCAPE PLAN

EXISTING RETAINING WALLS
eJm
eJm
eJm
eJm
ePp
ePp
eDi
eDi
eDi
eDi
eDi
eDi
eAz
eAz
eAz
eAz
eAz
eAz eAz
eHy
eRh
eRh
eRh
eRh
eRh
eRh
ePs
ePs
ePs
ePs
ePs
eH
eH
eH
eH
eH
eH
eH
ePs
ePs
eEu
eEu
eEu
eEu
Ts
Ts
Ts Ts
Ts
Ts Ts
Ts
Ts Ts
Az
Az
Di
Hi CONROE RESIDENCE 0 4 310 Beach Road Belvedere, CA. 8 20 9 February 21, 2022 27 April 2022 27 June 2022 REMOVE 20" PITTOSPORUM 1 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN (PROPOSED ADU ONLY)

LINE OF NEW ADU BELOW
FIN. FLR. @ +103.6'

ATT WM PGE

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXIST. CONCRETE APRON

EXISTING

RETAINING
WALLS
15' REAR SETBACK
15" FRONT SETBACK 6'-1" SIDE SETBACK 6'-1" SIDE SETBACK 6'-1112"
6'-7" 15'-234" 17'-1014" 6'-1134" 2'-712"
N 46°21'18"W 79.56'
NEW CONCRETE WALLS S 38°26'00"W 124.13' N 57°04'00"E 115.0' S 32°56'00"E 17.0' S 77°01'00"E 28.89' 1'-912" NEW 6' WOOD

FENCE & GATE
SEE
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 86.5'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 94'
TOP OF WALL EL 96.6'
BOTTOM OF WALL EL 83'
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'
REMOVE 20"OAK
TOP OF WALL EL 93.5'

L E G E N D

EXISTING CONTOUR

CONTOUR TO CHANGE

NEW CONTOUR

NEW ASTROTURF PATIO (TO REPLACE

EXISTING BELOW OF THE SAME SIZE)
EL. 118.25'

NEW STONE PATIO
EL. 106.75'

FACE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL

TO REMAIN BELOW
NEW 6' WOOD FENCE & GATE
SEE
SP 3
SP x STORY POLE LOCATION
(SEE SCHEDULE THIS SHEET)
SP 4
SP 2
SP 1
SP 7
SP 6
SP 5 24 24
NEW
STAIR
NEW
STAIR

EXISTING
STAIR

EXISTING SITE STAIRS

NEW STAIR CONNECTION TO EXISTING

HOUSE - SEE FLOOR PLANS
EXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALL
SEE SITE PLAN SHEET 1 FOR INFORMATION
NOT SHOWN CONROE RESIDENCE 0 8 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 16 40 10 26 April 2022 27 April 2022 1 1/8" = 1'-0"

EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED ADU ADDITION
EL. 80'
EL. 68'
EL. 56'
EL. 44'
EL. 32'
EL. 20'
EL. 92'
EL. 11.7' 2 1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE SECTION CONROE RESIDENCE 0 8 310 Beach Road, Belvedere CA 16 40 11 27 June 2022 A.P. 060-233-07
310 BEACH ROAD

BELVEDERE CALIFORNIA
SHEET 1 OF 1
DRAWN BY:

DATE:

CPD
ISSUE:

LAWRENCE
100 HELENS LANE
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
415 388 9585 F 415 388 0412
DOYLE
Attachment E

Attachment F

CONSENT 1

BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July19, 2022 6:30 P.M.

A. CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING
Chair Pat Carapiet called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Belvedere Council Chambers. Commissioners present: Pat Carapiet, Ashley Johnson, Marsha Lasky, and Nena Hart.

Commissioners Absent: Larry Stoehr, Claire Slaymaker, Kevin Burke. Staff present: Director of Planning and Building Irene Borba, Substitute Assistant City Attorney Jenica Maldonado, and Associate Planner Samie Malakiman.

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

No one wished to speak.

C. REPORTS
There were no reports.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: To approve the Consent Calendar.

MOVED BY: Marsha Lasky, seconded by Nena Hart
VOTE: AYES: Pat Carapiet, Marsha Lasky, Nena Hart, Ashley Johnson (on Item 2) ABSTAIN: Ashley Johnson (Item 1 due to absence from meeting) ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker,

1. Draft Minutes of the June 21 2022, regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

2. Motion to Approve Meeting by Remote Teleconference and adopt the following findings:
a. On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency declared by Governor Newsom under the California Emergency Services Act due to COVID-19, which is still in existence;
b. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
c. The State of Emergency declared by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, continues to directly impact the ability of Commission members, staff, and the public to meet safely indoors in person; and
d. The Belvedere City Council has directed all legislative bodies within the City to meet by Teleconference until further notice.

Attachment G
Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 2 ends

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. Design Review, ADU, Variance, and Revocable License applications for the property located at 310 Beach Road. The project proposes a 795 sf ADU and retaining wall at the rear of the home. The proposal includes interior renovations and landscaping at the rear. The project would enclose 41 sf of area underneath the garage for storage. The project would convert 123 sf of floor space into a new rear deck on the upper level and extend two rear decks at the main and lower levels. New wooden stairs would be placed on public property to access the residences existing dock. A new 6’ wood fence and gate would replace existing at the front of the home as well. Project Applicant: Steve Wisenbaker; Property Owner: Lovebird Family Trust. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed the proposed project. No Recusals.

Associate Planner Sami Malakiman presented the staff report. A slide show accompanied his remarks.1
Open public hearing.

The item was postponed to a later time in the meeting while the applicant was being contacted to arrange meeting access to the Zoom format.

Close public hearing.

4. Design Review application for the property located at 19 Windward Road. The project proposes a new 701 square foot second floor addition with 11 associated windows, two exterior doors, and two exterior wall lights. The proposed second floor would lead to a new roof deck balcony above the existing garage. The project proposes new stone veneer siding along the front face of the garage as well. Project Applicant: Lindsay Massey; Property owners: Maggie and Christopher Jackson. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed the proposed project. No Recusals.

Associate Planner Sami Malakiman presented the staff report. A slide show accompanied his remarks.2
Commissioners asked questions regarding complaints from neighbors about the history of constant recent construction and a need for a one year break between projects; the questions of the height of the building and triggers of both items on FEMA requirements; clarification of the existing Revocable License, and the nature of a 2018 8.5 SF addition in 2018.

Director Borba replied that research can be provided or perhaps the applicant can clarifiy these details. If the permits were properly issued and finaled then there would be no impact on the current application under FEMA. Heights of buildings are not relative to FEMA requirements either; rather, the elevation of the finish floor is the criteria for FEMA projects. This project is not deemed to be a substantial improvement and is not subject to FEMA.

Open public hearing.

Lindsay Massey, project architect, stated described the revised project. Recent conversations with the owners of 21 Windward Road regarding windows has been ongoing since the time of the 1 The slide show presentation is archived with the record of the meeting. 2 The slide show presentation is archived with the record of the meeting.

Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 3 ends

issuance of the staff report, but those have not been included in the current plans before the Commission tonight. Those can be reviewed after this consideration as revisions.

Maggie Jackson stated that the 8.5 SF addition was for a small half bath added under a covered porch in 2018 and the work also included a kitchen remodel also occurred. Later a pool repair and rebuild occurred that took approximately 8 weeks in 2020. There have not been continuous construction or permits for the past 4 years as has been suggested.

Commissioners asked for clarification of proposed new exterior lighting (in the balcony facing Windward Road), the upstairs loft purpose (TV and activity room for the kids) the stair location (structural reasons for it to remain as is) and proposed window modifications (removal of 2 loft windows facing the neighbor, reducing the size of the stairwell window, and reduce size of a window facing the Lagoon. The office window would remain as proposed.) Also asked was the rationale for the other side ‘box’ design with 2 very small windows (to appease that neighbor).

Ms. Jackson stated that the changes to the windows would be submitted for followup approval when the details are worked out.

Chair Carapiet stated that an approval can be conditioned to review and approve the window changes.

Elizabeth Brekhus, representing the owners of 17 Windward Road, has submitted a letter to the Commissioners.

Director Borba confirmed that the letter has been shared with the Commissioners.3 Ms. Brekhus went through the points in the letter, including Design Review considerations for harmonious and balanced development on the site and in the neighborhood, disagreement with the construction valuation provided for the project, discrepancies in the story pole heights, and requesting clarification on a 1974 Variance for the property.

The son of the owner of 17 Windward Road Raphine Lepine spoke to their objections as they are the most impacted neighbors to the proposed project. These include negative impacts on their privacy, views, and sunlight. The project does not meet the legal requirements for approval. The addition should be reoriented to be side to side and away from being weighted to their side of the lot.

Karina Halton, friend of the owner of 17 Windward Road, spoke to concerns of impacts of the proposed project on that neighbor. The environmental concerns over use of ‘plastic grass’ are an issue. The project is oversized, negatively impacts neighbors, and is not FEMA compliant.

Steve Broad, 21 Windward Road, looks forward to seeing the changes to the windows before the project is approved.

Rosalee Cornue, friend of the owner of 17 Windward Road, spoke to reconsideration of whether the project is FEMA compliant. She requested the denial of the application due to negative privacy impacts on 17 Windward Road.

Jeff Catinto, builder of the 17 Windward Road project, stated that the cost estimate for this proposal is understated. Rotation of the addition 90 degrees would be a better alternative and would reduce the impacts on 17 Windward Road.
3 Correspondence is archived with the record of the meeting.

Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 4 ends

Gabriel Lepine, son of the property owner of 17 Windward Road, requested denial of the project due to lack of FEMA compliance, privacy impacts on their home, and failure to meet Design Review requirements.

Michelle Lepine, owner, 17 Windward Road, requested that her concerns be addressed.

Erica Olsen Lepine, daughter in law of the owner of 17 Windward Road, stated that the proposal is too large, intrusive, and reduces a significant amount of light and privacy. The project is not compliant as prior projects should figure into FEMA valuation requirements and the spirit of the law.

Scott Hamilton, Windward Road resident, supports the proposed Jackson project. This is a family who actually lives in Belvedere so there needs to be consideration for them and their needs over others who do not live here but who only visit.

Ms. Jackson responded that they are not trying to overbuild, but just find space for their family.

They hope to accommodate their neighbors’ concerns as well as they can and look forward to discussing window revisions with the Broad family if the item is continued. They are sorry that the neighbors were upset by the pool project and did that work as quickly as possible.

Ms. Massey added that they believe the budget is accurate and beneath FEMA requirements. The story poles are correct. They will verify their accuracy.

Close public hearing.

Commissioners discussed the proposal, including consideration of reorienting the addition to be perpendicular to the first floor to reduce neighbor impacts and be more in line with other second floor development in the neighborhood. If the loft were eliminated possibly that would increase air and space. A street-facing balcony was not supported. Window changes are supported. A continuance for story pole verifications is desired.

Vice-Chair Johnson stated that she can support the changes that have been made since the prior hearing. The applicants have a reasonable need for their improvements and would have to be in compliance with any other Lagoon zone projects for approval. She can make the findings if the clarifications on windows and story poles are determined. FEMA estimated valuations are currently accepted so that would not be a consideration at this time.

Chair Carapiet commented that artificial turf is allowed per State law; it is no longer subject to Design Review. In regards to the current project she agrees with Vice Chair Johnson and the current FEMA worksheets were adopted to gain consistency and compliance with FEMA regulations. She agrees that there is some uncertainty on some important information so a continuance would be favored.

Open public hearing.

Ms. Jackson replied that moving the upstairs addition would require too much structural work and would trigger a FEMA project which is not the course they wish to pursue.

Close public hearing
Chair Carapiet commented that artificial turf is allowed per State law; it is no longer subject to Design Review. In regards to the current project she agrees with Vice Chair Johnson that FEMA requirements are in compliance; the current FEMA worksheets were adopted to gain consistency Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 5 ends

with FEMA regulations. The City previously adopted the zoning rights to two story buildings in the Lagoon zone at the time of the implementation of FEMA regulations.

She agrees that there is some uncertainty on some important information regarding story poles and proposed windows so a continuance would be favored.

MOTION: To continue the proposed project for Design Review at 19 Windward Road to a future meeting of the Planning Commission.

MOVED BY: Marsha Lasky seconded by Nena Hart
VOTE: AYES: Pat Carapiet, Marsha Lasky, Ashley Johnson, Nena Hart
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker.

The project would enclose 41 sf of area underneath the garage for storage. The project would convert 123 sf of floor space into a new rear deck on the upper level and extend two rear decks at the main and lower levels. New wooden stairs would be placed on public property to access the residences existing dock. A new 6’ wood fence and gate would replace existing at the front of the home as well. Project Applicant: Steve Wisenbaker; Property Owner: Lovebird Family Trust. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed the proposed project. No Recusals.

Director Borba stated that the property owner is now available to join the meeting. The staff report was already presented at the beginning of the meeting.

Open public meeting.

Mark Conroe, property owner, 310 Beach Road, stated that he agrees with the staff report. He is available for questions.

Vie-Chair Johnson asked if there are any new lights. She only sees 6 proposed new lights. Also she asked how much increase is there in new glazing on the north side.

Steve Wisenbaker, project architect confirmed that there are only the 6 lights as required by the building code. There is no new lighting on the patio. The increase in glazing (not including the ADU) is not a significant increase in area.

Commissioner Lasky asked requested clarification of the ends of the balconies, are those solid or open. Answer was they are open metal rails, same as existing. She suggested that the windows in the ADU might be made smaller. Is Jasmine being used to cover walls and piers? Mr. Wisenbaker stated that they would remain as shown. They face the Bay and have not impacts on neighbors. The Jasmine is correctly going to cover walls and retaining walls. (Applicant agreed with this comment)
Chair Carapiet asked if the roof deck on the ADU could be reduced to have no impact on 300 Golden Gate. Avenue (Applicant wants to retain the proposed size) Would the applicant consider windowing the Oak tree to improve the view. (He would)
Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 6 ends

Commissioner Hart asked if the ADU windows can be considered during the ministerial review.

She would encourage some reduction in the amount of glazing to reduce light emissions.

Director Borba stated staff will look at this concern.

There were no public comments.

Close public hearing.

Vice-Chair Johnson stated the plans are consistent with Design Review findings. The biggest issue is the proposed improvements on the City’s land known as ‘The Strip’. Currently the owners hold a legal dock lease but have no provision for access to it. It makes sense to provide the access and she believes this does not constitute a new structure nor to be in conflict with the land’s intended use and in fact these steps will benefit both the owners and the public access for the intended use of the land. Signage might be posted. The City should take a perspective to make this area more accessible and walkable to the public.

Commissioner Hart can support the overall project. She asked whether the pier is available for public access. She stated that the stairs are defined as ‘structures’ in the Code. She agrees that this will improve hill stability and safety. The City needs to support the provision of access to property owners to their pier.

Commissioner Lasky stated that the Parks and Open Space and Lanes Committee has suggested that the owner provide for public access allowing for the public to be able traverse the stairs when traveling along in the Strip. This has been added to the stair plan. The stairs will also assist structurally for the hill stability. She can make all the findings for the project.

Chair Carapiet can make the findings for Design Review for the home. She has difficulty with compliance with the 1896 Deed restrictions and 1996 update regarding the The Strip that state there can be no new structures built. She agrees that access to the shared dock should be pursued via the originally existing shared stairs on 312 Beach Road. There should be some coordination with that neighboring property owner to restore that access. The 1968 City document supported the shared dock with one stairway access. She understands the right to go down but not a separate access for each owner. This should be a consideration for the City Council to come up with better guidelines for this situation. Commissioner Johnson’s suggesting of a public walkway along the strip would be a good plan. She cannot recommend the Revocable License.

Open public hearing.

Mr. Conroe understands the reasonable understanding of the provision of access to the dock. The City has promoted a solution to an historical problem of the sharing of the stairs. They seek to have access and to improve the stability of the hill.

Mr. Wisenbaker stated that City policy encourages separate and independent integrity of properties without conflicts of interest with neighbors. He would encourage the City Council to opine on the desirability of property independence. The Strip is frontage to the dock and should not be encumbered.

Chair Carapiet stated that the City property is a single continuous parcel so the situation is somewhat different.

Mr. Conroe stated that there is a public benefit to having the stairs to access the City property that abuts them for landscaping and stabilization, and independent access is a part of that.

Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 7 ends

Close public hearing.

MOTION: To approve the draft Resolution for Design Review at 310 Beach Road.

MOVED BY: Marsha Lasky, seconded by Ashley Johnson
VOTE: AYES: Marsha Lasky, Ashley Johnson, Nena Hart
NOES: Pat Carapiet
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker
MOTION: To consider making a recommendation to City Council for approval of a Revocable License for 310 Beach Road.

MOVED BY: Marsha Lasky, seconded by Ashley Johnson
VOTE: AYES: Marsha Lasky, Ashley Johnson, Nena Hart
NOES: Pat Carapiet
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker

4. Design Review and Use Permit for the property located at 71 Bellevue Avenue. The project proposes to replace an existing 388 square foot U-shape dock with a 384 square foot rectangular shaped dock. The project would replace the existing 82 square foot gangway and five piles associated with the dock. The project is in the Recreation (R) Zoning District.

Applicant and property owner: Noah Drever. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposed the proposed project. No Recusals.

Planner Sami Malakiman presented the staff report. A slide show accompanied his remarks4.

Open public hearing.

Commissioners requested clarifications of project details, including a need for a new or revised dock lease. The drawing attached to the original lease is different than what is proposed. The applicant can clarify.

Director Borba does not know why the Exhibit A on the original dock lease is different from what is existing. An updated dock lease exhibit might be required to bring it up to date.

Open public hearing.

Noah Drever, property owner, stated that in 1977 the family modified the orientation of the ushaped dock. The current boat lift is still in good condition and will be retained. The rectangular design is what was recommended for better stability. BCDC and other agencies will provide permits for the dock. It will be attached to 3 pilings in the same exact locations. The result will be a smaller dock that does not flex like a u-shaped dock in the area currents.

Chair Carapiet asked if the missing pier footing still exists.

Mr. Drever says he does not think it is still there.

Open public hearing.

No one wished to speak.
4 The slide show presentation is archived with the record of the meeting.

Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2022

Page 8 ends

Close public hearing.

Commissioner Hart stated she had noticed a change of location from the old pilings to the new ones. Whether this is considered ‘new’ or ‘replacement’ may not be of significance other than to verify this. She supports the new materials and design. She can make the findings for the Design and Use Permit.

Vice-Chair Johnson agrees with Commissioner Hart. She can support the requests.

Commissioner Lasky agrees with her fellow Commissioners and she can make the findings for the Use Permit and Design Review applications.

Chair Carapiet agrees with her fellow Commissioners and supports the findings for both applications. She would add a condition of approval as to whether a revised lease document may be required.

MOTION: To approve the application for Use Permit for a replacement gangway and floating dock at 71 Bellevue Avenue as conditioned.

MOVED BY: Ashley Johnson, seconded by Nena Hart
VOTE: AYES: Pat Carapiet, Marsha Lasky, Nena Hart, Ashley Johnson.

NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker
MOTION: To approve the application for Design Review to replace a gangway and floating dock at 71 Bellevue Avenue as conditioned.

MOVED BY: Ashley Johnson, seconded by Nena Hart
VOTE: AYES: Pat Carapiet, Marsha Lasky, Nena Hart, Ashley Johnson.

NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Larry Stoehr, Kevin Burke, Claire Slaymaker,
Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.

PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on August 16, 2022, by the following vote:

VOTE: AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSED:

ABSENT:

APPROVED: ___________________________________
Pat Carapiet, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST: _____________________
Beth Haener, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM NO. : 18

PUBLIC HEARING BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Robert Zadnik, City Manager
Helga Cotter, Administrative Services Director
Subject: Adopt resolution amending the City’s Master Schedule of Fees, Charges & Application Fees
Recommended Motion/Item Description

1. Conduct the public hearing.

2. Adopt the attached resolution approving changes to the City’s Master Schedule of Fees, Charges and Application Fees.

Background
The City’s Master Fee Schedule reflects fees charged by all City departments. Council last approved adjustments to the City’s fee schedule in June 2021.

Findings
A user fee, or service fee, is a payment made by an individual for a service that primarily benefits the individual. By law, user fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of the service for which they are collected. The California Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to establish and increase fees to offset the City’s costs in processing permits, licenses, and other services. The City maintains and publishes a Master Fee Schedule that provides for such fees to be charged for various local government services.

The following amendments are recommended for Council consideration, and the proposed updated Master Schedule is attached.
• City Attorney Fee: The fee schedule was amended in June 2021 to include the City Attorney’s hourly rate in the hourly billing rate schedule. The billing rate listed in the current fee schedule for the City Attorney is $240 per hour, which was the rate of the previous City Attorney. A new contract for City Attorney services was approved at the December 21, 2021, Special Council meeting. The new City Attorney, Renne Public Law Group’s, rate is $335 per hour. Staff is proposing to modify the fee schedule’s hourly billing rates to list the City Attorney’s fee as $335 per hour based on the current hourly rate.

PUBLIC HEARING BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

• Senate Bill 9 (SB9) Fee: On September 16, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB9 into law to establish California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 which requires ministerial approval of a one-time, two-lot subdivision and up to two (2) units per lot. The City Council passed an urgency ordinance on January 10, 2022, to comply with Senate Bill 9 (SB9). Projects submitted under SB9 must still comply with all other existing zoning and objective design standards adopted in Belvedere. There are specific criteria required for this type of a request; therefore, an application and fee for this process needs to be established for the City of Belvedere. A time & materials-based fee is proposed for this type of application, with an initial deposit collected. Any unused deposit would be returned to the applicant. Fees in excess of the deposit would be billed to the applicant.
• Staff Hourly Billing Rates: As part of the current Master Schedule, staff time is billed as time & materials for most planning service fees. The proposed hourly billing rates reflect the most current staff rates as of July 1, 2022. A preliminary estimate of the cost recovery rate for the Planning and Building Department as of June 30, 2022, is 73 percent. The proposed fees and hourly billing rates target 90% cost recovery.

Fiscal Impact
No significant fiscal impact to the City is anticipated as a result of these minor change to the fee schedule.

It is important to note that while adjusting fees will provide a fiscal impact in the form of additional revenue, the revenue is not intended to be used to fund new services. Rather, as required by the Fee Mitigation Act, the revenue will offset the costs of providing existing services that are recoverable from fees. Consequently, while fees may rise annually, labor and service costs (the primary drivers of fee-related costs) typically also rise annually. Recalibration of these fees simply provides an offset of existing expenditures/needs rather than a source of funding for expanded service levels.

Environmental Review
The fees authorized by the Resolution are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Review Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline section 15273, as they are for the purposes of meeting operating expenses. They are also categorically exempt under the “common sense” exemption, CEQA Guideline section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that it will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council amend the Master Schedule of Fees, Charges and Application Fees.

PUBLIC HEARING BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

Attachments
• Resolution with Master Schedule of Fees included as Exhibit A

CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER SCHEDULE OF

FEES, CHARGES, AND APPLICATION FEES
______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, City of Belvedere staff have recommended an amendment to the City’s Master Schedule of Fees, Charges and Application fees, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Fee Schedule”); and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2022, the Belvedere City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed changes to its Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Fee Schedule changes are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) (the “common sense exemption”) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant adverse environmental effect.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Belvedere as follows:

1. The City’s Master Schedule of Fees, Charges and Application Fees, as amended (Exhibit A), is adopted.

2. In accordance with the California Government Code, this resolution shall become effective sixty days after the date of its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere City Council on August 8, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:___________________________
Sally Wilkinson, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Beth Haener, City Clerk
Only Planning Department fees are shown, as no other fees are affected by this change.

Current as of August 2021 Proposed
N/C = No Change
Item/Purpose Fee Fee
Planning Department $0 $0
Architectural Consultant Deposit $2,500 N/C
Appraisal Deposit $1,000 N/C
Design Review - Staff Level $500 N/C
Design Review - Exception T&M* with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Design Review - Planning Commission Approval (remodel 251 - 500 sf) T&M* with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Design Review - Planning Commission Approval (remodel 501 - 1,500 sf) T&M* with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Design Review - Planning Commission Approval (=/> 1,501 sf) T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Design Review - Planning Commission Approval (new residence) T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Design Review - Continuance (redesign or revision) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Design Review - Application for a Previously Approved Project 1/2 total fees N/C Design Review - Extension (1st Time) $200 N/C
Design Review - Extension (2nd and each subsequent time) $500 N/C SB9 Review - Lot Split T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000.

SB9 Review - Two-Unit Development T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000.

N/C
N/C
Planning Commission Noticing Fee (applicant-requested continuance) $105 N/C Variance Application T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Appeal of Planning Commission Action $1,000 applicant; $750 non-applicant N/C Appeal of Staff Action $1,000 applicant; $750 non-applicant N/C Conditional Use Permit T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Demolition Permit (Planning Only) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Environmental Review Deposit - Initial Study/Negative Declaration. For the filing of a Notice of Determination for either a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
$2,500 City fee
Pass-through fee as set by State Fish & Wildlife Dept Pass-through fee as set by County of Marin
T&M with an initial deposit of $2,500 + pass
through fees as set by State Fish & Wildlife
Dept. and County of Marin
N/C
Environmental Review Deposit - Environmental Impact Report. For the filing of an Environmental Impact Report.
$5,000 City fee
Pass-through fee as set by State Fish & Wildlife Dept Pass-through fee as set by County of Marin.

T&M with an initial deposit of $5,000 + pass
through fees as set by State Fish & Wildlife
Dept. and County of Marin
N/C
Development Agreement T&M with an initial deposit of $10,000. N/C Floor Area Exception T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Housing - Preliminary Housing Development Application (SB 330) T&M with an initial deposit of $5,000. N/C Housing - Affordable Housing Streamlined Application (SB 35) T&M with an initial deposit of $5,000. N/C Lot Line Adjustment T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Lot Merger T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C
Reasonable Accommodations Requests for Disabled $500 N/C Revocable License $500 N/C
Second Unit and Junior Second Unit N/C N/C
Study Session (Planning Commisison or City Council) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Subdivision - Tentative Map T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Subdivision - Final Map T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Subdivision - Improvement Plan T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Subdivision - Minor - Tentative Map (Lot Split) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Subdivision - Minor - Final Map (Lot Split) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Historic Preservation Application $53 N/C
Mills Act Contract Application ($105 non-refundable deposit + $1,202 application) T&M with an initial deposit of $2,000. N/C Work in Inundated Lands $300 N/C
Zoning Ordinance Amendment T&M with an initial deposit of $4,000. N/C Planned Unit Development Rezone/Planned Unit Development Permit Time & materials with an initial deposit of $5,000. N/C
Second Kitchen Agreement $500 N/C
Planning Permit Tracking/Technology Fee $26 N/C
Hourly Billing Rates for Deposit-Based Services:
a) Director of Planning & Building
b) Associate Planner
c) Senior Planner
d) Building & Planning Technician
e) City Attorney
a) $110
b)
c) $80
d) $60
e) $240
NOTES:
*T&M = Time and Material for staff time (hourly rate plus 10% overhead) to provide service. If costs exceed the deposit, the applicant will be billed for the overruns.

When more than one Planning application is required (except environmental), the application fee/deposit that is greatest shall be required, plus an additional $1,000 deposit. The Director of Planning may require a larger deposit when warranted by the size and scope of a project.

Resolution No. 2022-xx
Master Schedule of Fees, Charges & Application Fees
Proposed for FY2022-23
Retroactive Approval 2X total fees + $500 min. fine
1 of 1
a) $120
b) $60
c) $90
d) $65
e) $335
Exhibit A
AGENDA ITEM NO. : 19

OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Robert Zadnik, City Manager
Irene Borba, Director of Planning and Building
Brian Van Son, Building Official
Subject: Findings and recommendations of Construction Impact Committee

RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the findings of the Construction Impact Committee and provide staff with direction with respect to specific recommendations of the Committee.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At the February 14, 2022 regular City Council meeting, Council adopted a resolution establishing a temporary committee to analyze potential construction impacts and provide recommendations to Council. This was in response to a discussion at the January 24, 2022 Council and Management Retreat where Councilmembers discussed concerns/complaints that have been voiced by residents regarding impacts from construction activity. The concerns raised generally related to dust, noise, traffic, and parking impacts from residential construction projects, utility upgrades, and Capital Improvement Projects.

The Committee met over a period of six months and started by analyzing project and road closure data trends in Building, Planning, and Public Works. With this information, they divided into several subgroups that focused on developing solutions to address distinct categories of impacts.

These included:
• Review of fees associated with grading, road-impact, and road closures • Review of the City’s Design Review process
• Review of Parking and Construction Time Limit (CTL)
• Ideas for managing communications, information, and complaints • Options for modifying permitted work hours
• Review of Historic Properties
The full Draft Report contains a summary of the Committee’s work, findings, and recommendations for consideration by City Council (Attachment 1).

NEXT STEPS

OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

The Chair of the Committee, John Tantum, will be attending the Council Meeting via Zoom to provide a summary of the Committee’s work and final recommendations.

The Committee and Staff are seeking feedback from City Council on which recommended policies and programs should be implemented, researched further, or abandoned. Staff will then work with the Committee to return to Council at a later date with additional information and necessary draft amendments to the City’s Municipal Code and Administrative Policy Manual.

This was a significant undertaking; members of the Construction Impacts Committee should be commended for their efforts in searching for solutions to these complex issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff does not foresee fiscal impacts to the city other than staff time to assist the subcommittee.

ATTACHMENT

1. Construction Impact Committee July 7th Draft Report.

2. Correspondence

CITY OF BELVEDERE

CONSTRUCTION IMPACT COMMITTEE
Draft report, August 3, 2022
I. Summary
A. Key data

1. Data supports observations that construction has increased in recent years. a) Construction increased in 2020 and 2021 over levels seen in preceding 10 years.
b) Road closures and encroachments also were among the highest in the preceding 10 years.

2. Large projects (project valuations excess of $500K) are responsible for most road closures and encroachments.

3. Length and scope are primary drivers of construction impact on a neighboring community.

B. Summary of recommendations

1. Increasing certain fees may enhance efficient use of public resources, recover for roadway damage, and bring Belvedere in line with fees charged in other Marin municipalities.

2. Enhanced enforcement of existing Design Review standards to preserve site conditions should reduce project scope and duration, and limit truck trips that add to traffic and parking congestion, and unduly impact our roadways.

3. Greater enforcement of existing rules regarding construction parking permits and limits on vehicles per project can reduce impacts.

4. We should consider revisions to the Construction Time Limit ordinance that may encourage more consistent compliance with CTL deadlines.

5. We can improve communications about building projects to enhance neighborhood awareness and expectations, and encourage reporting of complaints to help us better understand construction impacts.

6. A proposed12-month trial period of modestly increased permitted hours for quiet work should shorten project duration without adding meaningful impacts.

7. We should examine our list of historical properties to ensure that construction projects do not unduly impact our objective of preserving historic properties.

II. Committee Background, Approach and Data Review
A. Construction Impact Committee (“CIC”) Background

1. Formation
a) Formed by City Council Resolution 2022-11 approved on February 14, 2022.
b) Charter is set forth in Exhibit A to that resolution.

2. Members
a) Public Members
Attachment 1
CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 1 (1) Andy Allen
(2) Jane Cooper
(3) Sandy Donnell
(4) Jeff Hadley
(5) Peter Mark (City Council Liaison beginning June 2022) (6) Steve Stroub
(7) John Tantum (Chair)
b) City Council Liaisons
(1) Steve Block
(a) Upon Steve Block’s resignation from Council, James
Campbell was appointed Liaison.
(b) Upon Peter Mark’s appointment to Council, he replaced James Campbell as Liaison in June 2022.
(2) Jim Lynch
c) Ex-Officio (at invitation of Committee Chair):
(1) City Manager
(2) Building Official
(3) Planning Official
(4) Chief of Police

3. Scope per Resolution 2022-11, Exhibit A:
a) Gather and analyze data pertaining to construction projects (e.g., number and types of building permits, number of road closures) and citizen complaints related thereto;
b) Evaluate whether residents are currently experiencing greater impacts from projects than in the past because of the complexity of projects, more stringent building code requirements, or topography challenges, etc; c) Evaluate whether the concentration of construction projects is contributing to negative impacts on residents;
d) Consider options for reducing construction impacts on Belvedere residents consistent with the City’s desire to continuously improve its environment; and
e) Report the findings of its analysis to Council and, if applicable, make recommendations to Council on strategies that could mitigate the impacts of construction projects on residents.

4. Traffic & Safety Committee
a) The CIC was mindful of the extensive work by the Traffic Safety Committee, and endeavored not to replicate or revisit the analysis and recommendations in that committee’s 2021 report to Council.

5. Timing
a) This is a temporary committee (approximately 6 months) scheduled to “disband after its report to Council,” unless Council directs otherwise.

B. Approach

1. The CIC began by considering all ideas about reducing construction impacts. a) We then divided into groups focused on developing ideas to address distinct impacts.

CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 2 b) We then discussed those ideas in public hearings, and refined ideas for further research and analysis in sub-groups.

2. Public meetings
a) Monthly, beginning in March, 2022
b) Draft report presented to Council in August.
c) August 2022 is the last planned meeting, with the final report to Council in August.

C. Data Review

1. A primary question we confronted was whether construction actually was increasing in Belvedere, or whether residents were experiencing more impacts because COVID caused residents to spend more time at home. Or both? a) We cannot discount the effect of COVID on residents’ experience of construction impacts.
b) But the data confirms that 2020 and 2021 were among the busiest construction periods in a decade.

2. Building permits
a) Data supports the conclusion that construction activity was higher in 2021 than in years past.
(1) 2021 had the highest number of opened building permits -- 289 -- since 2013. 2021 had 9% more open permits than 2020, and 21% more than 2019.
b) An increase in “large projects” (over $500k in value) may be causing greater community impact.
(1) In 2020 14 projects opened with valuations of more than $500K (including 1 valued at more than $2 million and 1 at more than $7 million).
(2)
(3) In 2021 10 projects opened with valuations of more than $500K (including 5 valued at more than; $1 million and 1 valued at more than $2 million).
(4) For comparison, in 2019, 7 projects opened with valuations of more than $500, (including 1 valued at more than $1 million).

3. Road encroachments and closures are higher, with large projects responsible for most of them.
a) Large projects account for most road encroachments and closures b) In 2019 - 2022, 11 projects accounted for:
(1) 470 of 605 road encroachments; and
(2) 48 of 61 road closures.
c) Large projects at “choke points” in roadways are particularly challenging.

III. Discussion and Recommendations
A. Topic 1: Fees for road encroachments, closures, “impacts,” and “grading” CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 3 1. The Committee compared Belvedere’s fees to other community fees, and while “apples to apples” comparisons were not always possible, we did make the following observations.

2. Road encroachment and closure fees.
a) Compared with other Marin municipalities, Belvedere’s fees do not appear to encourage efficient use of encroachment and closure permits. b) Many Marin towns charge encroachment fees that are three to nine times higher than Belvedere.
(1) Belvedere’s encroachment fee is $53/day and $105/week (2) Some surrounding towns charge from $180 to $463 per day, and some charge a percentage of the project value, which would be much higher than $463/day, in most instances.
c) Belvedere’s road closure fee is $245/half-day and $489/day. (1) Mill Valley is $292/day
(2) Ross charges $1,796/day minimum
(3) Most Marin towns do not allow road closures

3. “Impact” fees
a) Belvedere charges a “road impact fee” of 0.075% of project valuation. b) Except for Sausalito which has no specific “road impact fee,” every other municipality in Marin charges at least 0.1% road impact fee.

4. “Grading” fees
a) Unlike most municipalities in Marin, Belvedere does not charge for truck trips related to “grading” of a property.
(1) Ross charges $3/cubic yard hauled in/out of town
(2) Mill Valley charges $1,052 for 51-100 cubic yards, then increases the cost above 100 cubic yards ($20/cubic yard for 51 cubic yards).
b) Cement trucks contain approximately 8-10 cubic yards; dump trucks approximately 10-16 cubic yards.

5. Recommendations:
a) To encourage more efficient use of public resources, revise fees for road encroachment and closures, impact fees, and grading. These recommendations will also , protect roads and bring fees in line with fees in surrounding municipalities.
(1) Increase the day-long encroachment permit fee to $260/day (about five times higher than present, and in the middle of fees many surrounding municipalities charge).
(2) Create a new category of encroachment permit for single deliveries with a fee $53 per delivery. This is equal to the current encroachment permit fee.
(3) Increase road closure fee to $490/half day and $990/day (about double existing fees).
(4) Increase “impact” fee to 0.01% of project valuation (in line with all other towns charging impact fees).

CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 4 (5) Impose “grading” fee of $10/cubic yard. This is roughly a midpoint between the Ross and Mill Valley fees, and is about $100 per truck trip.
(6) Implement an inflation-based annual escalator for all fixed fees.

B. Topic 2: Design Review requirement that projects “preserve existing site conditions.”

1. The Planning Code requires that projects minimize the removal of rock and soil, “cut and fill areas,” and grade changes. BMC, section 20.04.110:

To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. All disturbed areas should be finished to a natural appearing configuration and planted or seeded to prevent erosion. (Ord. 90-5 § 2, 1990; Ord. 80-1 § 48, 1980.)

2. This Planning Code requirement has many benefits, including reducing the number of truck trips to haul dirt, debris, and concrete. a) Fully loaded cement trucks and dump trucks can weigh up to 33 tons - roughly 16 times more than a typical passenger vehicle. b) They are responsible for many road encroachments and some road closures.
c) They significantly add to traffic and parking congestion. d) They substantially add to wear and damages to our roadways.

3. The CIC recognizes that current construction standards often require more substantial concrete foundations for structures, engineered walls, fences, etc., than in the past. Simply replacing a fence or decking can require much more steel and concrete than existing. But we can and should preclude site changes that require anything beyond minimal revisions to existing conditions.

4. Recommendations:
a) The Planning Department should apply more scrutiny to enforce Section

20.04.110 by precluding site grading, terracing of sloped lots and other plans beyond “minimal” changes to site conditions.
b) The Planning Department should require estimates by cubic yard for “cut and fill” and concrete, including for landscaping plans. c) The Building Department should require precise numbers by cubic yard for “cut and fill” and concrete, including for landscaping plans, before issuing a building permit.
(1) Any requests to increase such amounts should be strongly disfavored.

C. Topic 3: Parking

1. Construction-related parking beyond the allowable limit has an adverse impact on neighborhoods by the loss of on-street parking, street congestion, and impairment of emergency access.

CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 5 2. Belvedere Police can and do respond to complaints regarding traffic and parking related to construction, however, if no statute or ordinance is being violated their primary concern is health and safety, and possible traffic violations.

3. Belvedere Building Department officials attempt to remind and enforce the requirements of a Permittee’s Staging and Parking Plan, but the Building Department does not currently have the personnel adequately to enforce the requirements nor, as importantly, the policy guidelines for this enforcement.

4. Recommendations:
a) Modify Staging and Parking Plan policy to include potential work stoppages and/or fines associated with policy requirements, including the three vehicle parking limit, as well as material storage and equipment storage and utilization. Establish manageable procedure for Building Department enforcement of contractor parking requirements. Broader site inspections and building department staffing would likely be required. b) Specifically, codify the current custom into actionable policy. Current custom is a verbal warning, written warning, and finally a stop work order, although this rarely, if ever happens. New policy would be a verbal warning, a written warning, and finally an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.15 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.
c) Additionally, a new or modified Ordinance may be necessary similar to the recently adopted Ordinance amending Title 9 of the Belvedere Municipal Code by adding chapter 9.80, “Parks and Community Center,” regulating the use of Belvedere parks and Community Center. This new ordinance would govern the enforcement of the modified Staging and Parking Plan
d) City should consider adding people, possibly part-time employees or in conjunction with Tiburon, to enforce parking regulations.

5. The CIC also discussed the possibility of establishing two-hour parking regulations for all cars other than residents’ throughout the City. While this option seems to be beyond the scope of the CIC, we feel it could have a positive impact on construction-related parking. The Traffic & Safety Committee recently reviewed parking regulations and we defer to their recommendations.

D. Topic 4: Construction Time Limit

1. Belvedere’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (20.04.035) and related Administrative Policy (14.4) provides for a maximum amount of time for completion of a project without incurring a penalty. Time is based on valuation from 6 months to 18 months. A 24 month CTL can be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. This ordinance is intended to motivate the timely completion of construction projects.

2. We may consider revisions to the CTL to more effectively encourage project owners to complete projects within the CTL.

3. Recommendations:

CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 6 a) Migrate to a Permit Expiration model. Permits are valid for a fixed number of months (6, 12, 18); unusually complex project permits can still be issued for 24 months at the discretion of the Planning Commission. If the work is not complete within the initially-approved time period, reactivation fees would be required. The fees and penalties necessary to reactivate a permit increase with successive reactivations. b) Example attached.
(1) The goal is to improve upon the project shortening financial motivation of Construction Time Limits. A reactivation/extension charge is primarily a penalty for failure to complete the project within the allotted time, and secondarily a fee to recover the cost of providing additional building inspection services.

4. Actions
a) Belvedere would need to modify section 16.03.020, which amends the California Building Code uniquely for Belvedere. Section 105.5 Expiration of the California Building Code would need to be modified in the BMC (16.03.020).

5. Supporting Documents
a) Relevant City Ordinances & Policies
(1) 20.04.035 Time limits for construction
(2) Policy 14.4 Violation of the Construction Time Limit Ordinance b) Model Ordinance from Tiburon
(1) https://library.municode.com/ca/tiburon/codes/code_of_ordinances ?nodeId=TITIVLAIMUS_CH13BURE
(2) Example
(a) Grace Period. In instances where the permittee has
proceeded with due diligence and made substantial
progress but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the
permittee, one extension of up to three (3) months may be granted, without payment of additional charges or
penalties.
(b) Extension #1 (6 Months). If the project is not completed within the extension allowed under section 1 above, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date of expiration and
work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. A six (6) month extension may be issued by the Building Official once a reactivation/extension Charge equal to one (1) times the original project construction permit fee is paid.
(c) Extension #2 (6 Months). If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under section 2 above, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date of
expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. Reactivation and extension of CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 7 the permit for another six (6) month period shall be allowed only if a Reactivation/Extension Charge equal to three (3) times the original project construction permit fees is paid. (d) Extension #3 (tbd) with City Council Approval. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under section 3 above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the City Council for resolution.

The City Council may reactivate and extend the permit for additional time based upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project and payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit fees as a Reactivation/Extension Charge. The City Council may
reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such
reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. The City Council may impose
additional requirements, such as the retention of a
qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted
project, in order to promote swift completion.

E. Topic 5: Communications, information, and complaints

1. Improving communications regarding construction projects, and implementing a system for tracking complaints, will help us continue to monitor construction impacts going forward.

2. Recommendations:
a) Improve oversight: Provide adequate Building Department personnel to oversee safety, orange tags, parking issues, mess from workers, permitting issues
b) Improve Communication
(1) Create and publicize a single contact point, including a phone number (unattended, with voicemail) and an email address, for all comments or complaints about construction impacts.
(a) This contact point should cover matters related to Building, Planning, Public Works, parking, traffic, and other
construction-related matters. Belvedere residents often do not know which department should handle their concerns. (b) City staff should monitor all communication and distribute to the appropriate department or staff.
(c) Data on complaints should be collected and analyzed on a periodic basis.
(2) For projects expected to have a duration of more than 30 days, and any long-duration encroachment or road closure permit (or other projects as determined by the Building Department), require on-site sign/poster, with a QR code that links to Planning Dept., at each worksite displaying:

CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 8 (a) Project/site address;
(b) Permitted duration of project;
(c) Permitted hours of construction - Subsection 105.7.1 of Municipal Code 16.04.030
(d) Name, address, and phone number of contractor or lead agency;
(e) Name, address, and phone number of the person
responsible for the project or in case of emergency;
(f) The email of the Belvedere building official to contact for complaints regarding the project.
(3) Improve community outreach, as a condition of use:
(a) For municipal projects, require an agency introductory letter to all affected neighbors with contact information for primary liaison.
(b) For large residential projects, require a contractor introductory letter to all affected neighbors with contact information for primary liaison.
(4) Improve the Building Department website
(a) Revise and update
(b) List current and upcoming road encroachments and
closures
F. Topic 6: Permitted work hours

1. The CIC’s objective is to explore how modifying permitted work hours, for quiet work only, could reduce the duration of projects without meaningfully increasing disruptions. To illustrate, a 5% increase in productivity due to expanded quiet work hours could result in a large project being completed 4-5 weeks sooner.

2. Based on discussions with two of Belvedere’s leading contractors, who participated on the CIC, there are several ways expanding permitted work hours will reduce project duration and construction impact:
a) Expanded hours will result in greater scheduling flexibility and increased productivity, reducing overall duration of projects.
b) Construction crews could be on-site before school traffic fills the streets, reducing congestion. RUSD schools start at 8:00, 8:20, and 8:30 am; Redwood and Tam start at 8:30 am.
c) Expanded hours would permit a construction team to optionally work four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days, reducing traffic congestion and preparation/disassembly time (shortening projects).
d) Expanded hours would enable >40-hour work weeks if the homeowner is willing to pay overtime (as they may in a CTL fine situation). e) These changes closely align with other Marin cities and towns, where quiet work is generally permitted before 8:00 am and after 5:00 pm.

3. Recommendations:
a) For a pilot period of 12 months, extend the time when construction work is permitted to the hours of 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday, CIC DRAFT REPORT - For revision with Committee and public input 9 provided that from 7 am to 8 am, and from 5 pm to 6 pm, only light noise associated with preparing or disassembling the job site is permitted; for example, no heavy equipment or power tools are permitted. Delivery of construction material such as lumber and cement would be unchanged, and may be made to the work site only between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday.
b) Clarify the language in Belvedere Municipal Code section 16.04.030 (subsection 105.7.1) to accommodate these changes and to clean up ambiguities.
c) After the 12-month pilot period, assess the response of the community to the extended quiet hours based on complaint data.

4. To address concerns about construction-related noise between 7 and 8 am and 5 and 6 pm, the CIC recommends improved communication and complaint processes, as described under Topic 5.

G. Topic 7: Historic properties

1. The Belvedere General Plan recognizes “that the conservation of historic properties stabilizes and increases property values and strengthens the overall community.” The CIC recognizes that the preservation of historical structures, avoiding their tear-down and replacement, will significantly reduce negative construction impacts.

2. As defined by Belvedere’s Historical Preservation Committee, list of historic properties is maintained by Belvedere Planning pursuant to Title 21 of the Belvedere City Code.The list currently enumerates 21 buildings.

3. However, a more comprehensive list is the Historic Properties Data File for Marin County that is maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), referred to as the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). There are 49 properties listed on the HRI that are located in Belvedere. Additionally, reports made by the Landmark Society name other structures.

4. Recommendations:
a) The Historical Preservation Committee should review the gaps between the HRI list, the Landmark Society lists, and the City of Belvedere list. b) The City of Belvedere list should be adjusted as the HPC believes is appropriate.

July 27, 2022
TO: City of Belvedere Construction Impact Committee
FROM: Linda Bine/339 San Rafael Avenue
RE: Draft Report 7/7/22
I applaud your efforts to quantify the conditions related to the impact of construction on residents of Belvedere and to formulate a comprehensive set of recommendations to help mitigate the issues you have identified.

However, I am reminded of the Hippocratic Oath that compels doctors to “First, do no harm.” I fear that a couple of your recommendations – in particular extending permitted working hours, increasing encroachment permit fees and establishing twohour parking regulations for all cars other than those belonging to residents - would likely harm more residents than it would help.

In contrast, I strongly support a focus on large construction projects; greater communication, greater enforcement of existing rules regarding construction parking, and greater enforcement of existing codes that require projects to minimize removal of rock and soil, cut and fill area and grade changes.

Don’t Extend Work Hours Beyond 8AM-5PM
I strongly urge you to eliminate the recommendation to increase permitted work hours to allow “light noise” between 7am and 8am and 5pm and 6pm. This may be something that a couple of contractors expressed support for, but as a someone who lives in a location (at the bottom of a hill) where sound ricochets from near and far, I can’t imagine a worse idea. Here are just a few reasons:

1. One of the things we all love about Belvedere is how quiet it is – the more hours that are peaceful the better.

2. Defining “light noise” would be impossible. Just saying that the workers can’t use “heavy equipment or power tools” wouldn’t preclude someone using an old-fashioned hammer and nail or some kind of “light equipment” that makes enough noise to disturb a sleeping retiree or wake up a baby. And if preparing or disassembling the job site is permitted, as your draft indicates, what makes anyone think that such activities are quiet?
Attachment 2

3. Improving the complaint process doesn’t help a neighbor who is experiencing noise from a construction site at 7AM. Who are they going to call? The only people at City Hall working at that hour are the police. Is that really a good use of their time? And likely they wouldn’t be able to get to the job site before 8AM, when the noise they were called to investigate would be allowed. And even if the police do come to check out the excessive noise in time, how are they going to assess if it is “light” or “heavy”? Increase Encroachment Permit Fees Only for Large Projects I found the committee’s finding that large projects (over $500,000) account for the most road encroachments and closures to be enlightening. Given that reality, I would recommend that you consider only increasing encroachment permits and fees for activities related to those large projects, while keeping the encroachment permit fees for small projects, and especially one-day projects such as tree trimming, at the current modest amounts.

It is likely that if you raise the one-day encroachment permit fee to $260 you will just have more people choosing not to get permits for minimal projects and hoping they just don’t get caught.

Do No Harm
Your report contains so many diverse recommendations, I urge you to include a suggestion to the City Council that any implementation of changes begin in a slow, incremental fashion - starting with enforcing the rules that are already on the books and then moving on to focus on large construction projects, which you have determined cause the most headaches for residents of Belvedere.

Thank you for your consideration.

Agenda Item No.: 20

OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Robert Zadnik, City Manager
Subject: Approve the Formation of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee for Review of the Protect Belvedere Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution establishing an Citizens’ Advisory Committee for the Protect Belvedere Project to review the construction impacts portion of the draft Environmental Impact Report.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Throughout the history of the Protect Belvedere Project, citizen oversight by committees and other working groups has played a critical role in opening the review process to the community.

At the same time, the City has greatly benefited from the insight and expert advice these diverse groups bring to the table.

This project has moved into the CEQA stage, and a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is anticipated to be available for publication in September of 2022. The Draft will summarize the findings related to noise, dust, traffic, and several other short-term and potential long-term impacts related to the work. For transparency, the City proposes a short-term advisory committee be established to assist staff in reviewing construction impacts identified in the draft EIR.

This committee will consist of no more than seven members from the community who have experience in the construction/building industries or reside in locations likely to face direct construction impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff does not foresee fiscal impacts to the city other than staff time to assist the committee.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution establishing a Citizens' Advisory Committee with Committee Charter included as Exhibit A.

CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE ESTABLISHING A CITIZENS’ ADVIORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

PORTION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROTECT

BELVEDERE PROJECT
______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of Belvedere has engaged in a significant infrastructure project intended to strengthen, its access/egress routes and utility lines from the threat of natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, called the Protect Belvedere Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, in order to proceed with the Project, the City is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and complete and Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on the Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Belvedere wishes to minimize the construction impacts of the Project on the citizens of Belvedere; and
WHEREAS, the Belvedere City Council desires to establish a Citizen’s Advisory Committee (“Committee”) to review and provide comments on the construction impacts portion of the draft EIR for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Committee’s function will be to allow for additional citizen review and input on the construction impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Committee will make official comments to become part of the record provided to Council prior to its certification of the EIR.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Belvedere hereby establishes a Citizen Advisory Committee to Review the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft EIR for the Protect Belvedere Project as set forth in Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Belvedere on August 8, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:___________________________
Sally Wilkinson, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Beth Haener, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
Charter for the Citizens’ Advisory Committee to Review the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Protect Belvedere Project.

Purpose:

The Citizen’s Advisory Committee to Review the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft EIR for the Protect Belvedere Project (“Committee”) is a temporary ad hoc committee whose purpose shall be to review and comment on the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft EIR.

Duties:

Upon the publication of the Draft EIR for the Protect Belvedere Project, the Committee shall meet to review and assess the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft EIR Consistent with the timelines provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Committee will provide comments in response to the Construction Impacts Portion of the Draft EIR to become part of the official record of the EIR for Council to consider prior to certifying the Final EIR.

Members:

The Committee shall be comprised of no more than seven Public Members, who shall be residents of Belvedere with either relevant construction or construction oversight experience or who reside in locations likely to face direct construction impacts from the Protect Belvedere Project. The Committee shall select its Chair from its Members.

In addition, the Committee will include one non-voting Council liaison charged with guiding committee deliberations to ensure they are responsive to the purpose of this Charter.

The City Manager shall attend committee meetings.

Selection of Members:

The Council shall delegate to the Mayor the selection of public members. The Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Council.

Duration of Committee and Meetings:

The Committee shall complete its work in no more than three weeks in order to comply with the timelines established under CEQA. The Committee shall meet as frequently as necessary to complete their duties.

After the Committee has provided its comments, the Committee will expire.

Quorum:

A quorum shall require a majority of the Members.

Funding:

No budget appropriation shall be made for the Committee. Incidental expenses not to exceed $2,500 may be paid by the City in connection with the Committee’s work if approved by the Mayor.

Brown Act Committee:

The Committee is subject to the requirements of the Brown Act (Govt. Code sec. 54950) and its meetings shall be open to the public.

AGENDA ITEM NO. : 21

OTHER SCHEDULED ITEMS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 8, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Beth Haener, City Clerk
Subject: Appoint a voting delegate and alternate for the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference
Recommended Motion/Item Description
Appoint a voting delegate and alternate for the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference.

Background
The League’s 2022 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 07-09, in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, Belvedere must appoint a voting delegate and alternate. City Council is asked to appoint a voting delegate and alternate.

Attachments
• 2022 Annual Conference Voting Delegate/Alternate Form Belvedere

Belvedere City CouncilAugust 8, 2022

Belvedere City Council
August 8, 2022