Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review 62 Alcatraz topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belvedere planning commission approves fence, requires stone cladding for retaining wall at 62 Alcatraz
Summary
The commission approved a replacement fence at 62 Alcatraz and granted conditional approval for a replacement retaining wall provided the new concrete wall is clad in stone to match Corinthian Island character. Staff had recommended cladding under Belvedere Municipal Code design criteria.
Get email alerts on the Design Review 62 Alcatraz topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Belvedere Planning Commission on Dec. 16 approved a replacement fence at 62 Alcatraz Avenue and granted conditioned approval for replacement of a failing stone retaining wall, requiring that the proposed shotcrete wall be faced with stone. Chair (Speaker 1) moved to approve the fence without conditions; the commission then approved the retaining-wall replacement on the condition that the face be clad in stone to match nearby walls. The decisions passed with the members present voting in favor.
Planning staff, Sammy (Speaker 3), told the commission the proposed 36-foot-6-inch shotcrete wall—measuring about 4 feet 1 inch above existing grade in places—would create a large, single-material plane that ‘‘would not blend with the existing landform and surrounding vegetation’’ and therefore did not appear to meet Belvedere Municipal Code sections 20.04.130 and 20.04.140. Staff recommended adding a condition requiring stone cladding to ‘‘add architectural variety, avoid a single plane of any one material, and blend in with the surroundings.’’
The property owner (Speaker 7) told the commission that installing stone cladding would substantially lengthen construction—‘‘it would probably take another two weeks to clad that wall with stone, and we'd have to close the road’’—and said that level of disruption to the narrow island streets weighed against cladding. Commissioners debated tradeoffs between neighborhood character and construction impacts; several members agreed with staff that cladding would better preserve visual character at this location. One staff member cautioned the commission that a 2–1 vote with only three members present is permissible but not best practice; commissioners nevertheless split the motions (fence, then wall) and voted.
The commission and staff also discussed the wall’s engineering: staff said Public Works had reviewed the project and had not raised engineering objections to the proposed shotcrete structure, and staff confirmed that temporary emergency measures would be allowed if loose rock or debris created an imminent hazard. The commission approved the fence outright and approved the wall subject to stone cladding, and the hearing was closed.

