HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agenda 2019-01-16 TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
�s��•�, January 16, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Regular Meeting
Tiburon, CA 94920
7:30 P.M.
TIBURON
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
Teleconference Location:
Councilmember Holli Thier
Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel
1230J Street
Sacramento,CA 95814
PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT,ALL.VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO
COUNCILMEMBER THIER TELECONFERENCING FROM THE SHERATON GRAND
SACRAMENTO HOTEL,1230 J STREET,SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fraser,Councilmember Thier,Councilmember Welner,Vice Vlayor Fredericks,Mayor
Kulik
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION IF ANY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons Nvi-hing to address the Town Council ou subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time.
Please note hoNvever, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on
items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,Board,
Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Pleasc limit
your comments to three (3)minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Toyv'n Council unless a request
is made by .i member of the Town Council,public or staff to remove an ,item for separate discussion and
consideratiorn. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seel< recognition by the Mayor
and do so at this time.
CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of November 29, 2018 special mectin; (Towyn Clerk
Stel:lni)
CC-2. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of December 5, 2018 regular meeting (Town Clerk
Stefani)
CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees—Announce pending vacancies for
2019 (Town Clerk Stefani)
CC-4. Special Vacancy Notice — Announce special vacancy on the Parks, Open Space and Trails
Commission (Town Clerk Stefani)
CC-5. Annual Development Fee Report — Receive annual report on the status of the Town's
Development Impact Fees pursuant to the California Government Code (Community
Development Department)
CC-6. Town Signature Authority — Adopt Resolution authorizing check signing authority to reflect
changes in the composition of the Town Council and staff (Director of Administrative Services
Bigall)
CC-7. Council Ad-Hoc Committee — Appoint two councihnembers to Town Manager Performance
Review ad hoc subcommittee (Office of the Town Manager)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH-1. 2000 Paradise Drive (Caprice Restaurant) —Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval
of a 37 square foot addition. Exterior changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, a new
awning, window changes on the west elevation, and change in color (Community Development
Department)
Owners/Applicant: Jerry Dal Bozzo/Audrey Hitchcock
Appellant(s): John Davis&Heidi Barnes
Address: 2000 Paradise Drive
Assessor Parcel No.: 059-172-46
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digests—December 7,14, r 21,2018,and Januar}'4 &11, 2019
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-
1377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Towwn to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's wcbsite,
www.townoftiburon.org.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related- modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, hailing
address,phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred
alternative .format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 clays before the meeting.
Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at,or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
CC-1
TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
Mayor Fraser called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 9:00 a.m. on
Thursday, November 29, 2018, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon.
California.
ROLL CALL
A/,
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kuli Y firer. Welner (by
teleconference)
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ,
Y
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town M r Chanis Town Attorneock,
Town Stefarn
Mayor Fraser said Councilmember Welner will be partici ,; m the meeting by teleconference
from 666 Third Avenue. New York, NY I 7, and therefor ; votes will be by roll call vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
e
There were none.
ACTION ITEMS
AI-1. Resolution - 'der a _ on in support of diversity in the Tiburon
community
Councilme t� � 'd th as a recent anti-Semitic incident at a local school. and it was
importa = the TowP ancil 't � eak out against this incident and assure the public that the
f
CounQ1� III not tolerate ; imma t' n. She said she had prepared a Resolution for consideration
that stag iburon is an Inc . ' ive town that supports all members of the community.
�.y
In response question om Vice Mayor Kulik, Chief of Police Cronin said he could not
comment on the lie investigation at this time.
Mayor Fraser opened the floor Tor public comment.
Jennifer Benk, Mantegani Way, spoke in support of the Resolution. She felt it wasimportant to
have an open discussion and that the Town and police communicate with the public when
discriminatory incidents happen.
Palle 1 0f 3
Town Council Minutes 424-2018 DRAFT November 29, 2018
Aubrey Crez, Del Mai-, also spoke in support of the Resolution, and said she had organized a
march for the community. She felt it was important that the community come together to create a
safe environment to make sure a similar incident does not happen again.
Mayor Fraser closed the floor.
Councilmernbers Thier and Welner spoke in support of passage of the Resolution to send a
positive message to the community.
io
Councilmember Fredericks supported the concept, but felt sections ol, IjPproposed Resolution
were ambiguous. She wondered if it would be appropriate to delavH ►ss►on until the school
board had decided a course of action, and a thoughtful conversat' )nerete steps to take
against discrimination could be had and included in the Resoluti
�.I-F
Vice Mayor Kulik agreed.
Thier felt it was important for the Town Council, a: .eparate fi-om the school board, to
take action now. She agreed to work with the Colm Ial points of the Resolution to
adjust the language to be less ambiguous.
Mayor Fraser supported the idea of the ting too e develop the best version of
the Resolution, and suggested incorporati the sing ation and awareness about
diversity today.
The Council agreed, and ma amend► to the Resolution. Mayor Fraser recessed the
meeting while a new draf Sion w istribut r consideration.
At 9:55 a.m., Mayor - called o r. He noted that all members of the Council
were present.
Councilmet, , �� � d th ed Resolution.
May ser opened the r for p lit comment.
Jennifer Mantegani ` -y, asked that a section be included stating the Town will alert the
community i event ch discriminatory incidents.
Mayor Fraser clos "' ;> floor for public comment.
Fredericks said notifying the community of such events may compromise the police
investigation. Chief of Police Cronin said the Police Department takes extraordinary steps to
ensure the public is reassured of their safety, but needs to be able to make the judgement call
between notifying the public of threats to their safety and compromising the investigation.
MOTION: Adopt Resolution, as amended.
Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks
Pug 2(?1'3
7'oii?i7 C'ozmcil Rli»zeies #24-2018 DRAFT November 29, 2018
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, "I"bier. Weiner
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further- business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
Nbz
JIM FRASEI5' � w
ATTEST:
"k
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Page 3(?1'3
Toivii Council Minutes #24-2018 DRAFT November 29, 2018
CC-2
TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
Mayor Fraser called the regular meeting ofthe Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 5, 2018, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. TlbLil'on,
California.
ROLL CALLON
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kuli ;'er, Weiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager :anis, Town AN" \ Stock,
Director of -nunity Developmen, derson.
Director lic Worcs/Town Engin � acnes,
Direct a- dmini e Services BI-all.
Manager n, Creekrnore. Planning
Manager K ilding Official Salzman,
ssociate Plant 'Malley, Tovn Clerk Stefani
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
George Landau, Sugarloaf Drive anked the L for pass g an anti-discrimination
Resolution the prior week.
CONSENT CALEND
CC-1. Town Council Ile opt m ofNovember 7, 2018 special and regular
meetina -- wn Cl efani)
CC 2. al Appoii nts L dopt Annual List of Appointments made by Town
Auncil in 2018 p"�� ;.at tote law (Town Clerk Stefan')
CC-3. AI"'1110 tments to n Boards and Commissions - Reappoint Alannah Kinser to
Marill oma uito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees (Town Clerk
Stefani)
CC-4. October Investment Summary - Adopt investment summary for month ending October
31, 2018 (Director of Administrative Services Bi(Yall)
CC--5. Recognition of Town Services -Adopt Resolution in recognition of Scott Anderson's 30
outstanding �ears of service to the Town of Tiburon
Mayor Fraser removed Item No. CC-5 from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Page 1 0/3
Toiri7 Council A,Iimtic, #23-2018 DRAFT December 3, 2018
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-4, as written.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Thier
VOTE: AYES: Unanimous
CC-5. Recognition of Town Services -Adopt Resolution in recognition of Scott Anderson's 30
outstanding, years of service to the Town of Tiburon
Mayor Fraser said Director of Community Development Scott Anderson is retiring at the end of
an outstanding 30-year career with the Town, and presented him a Resolut', of commendation.
Mayor Fraser read the resolution, and the Council and crowd thanked D' or Anderson.
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar No. 5, as written.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Thier
VOTE: AYES: Unanimous
ACTION ITEMS
AI-1. Oath of Office - The Town Clerk will adminis e of Office to Col1rlCllmembers-
elect Fraser, Fredericks and Weiner.
The Town Clerk administered the Oath o ouncilme -s-elect Fraser, Fredericks
and Weiner.
AI-2. Recognition of Mayor T Fraser- 'aser is a ited to share his comments and
the Council is invite Heir con is with the outgoing Mayor, as well.
Mayor Fraser said it h en an ho to represe cal citizens, the Council and the staff. He
said he felt blessed, hd and ed to the Council and to serve as Mayor. He
was happy to cavy on th o ibw cils to get things done by working and
collaborating t r to co with the best possible answer for the community.
syr
Council her Fredet - aid i been a privilege to work with Mayor Fraser. an excellent
repre I tive of Tiburon. appr ated his optimism, energy, good sense and passion for
service.
CouncilmenI elner he is inspired by how Mayor Fraser handles difficult issues on the
Council. all vv it Ior. He thanked him and said he will continue to be the Council's
senior advisor.
COUnCllmernher Thier said Mayor Fraser has led the Council with decorum and graciousness,
and said she appreciated his service, dedication and time committed to making Tiburon what it is
today.
Vice Mayor hulik echoed the rest of the Council's comments, and said Mayor Fraser is an
excellent example of a great Town COurlcilmember, and thanked him.
Pine 2 of 3
Town Cozancil.111imzles 92j-2018 DRAFT December 3, 2018
AI-3. Election of New Mayor- Outgoing Mayor Fraser will entertain nominations for the
Office of Mayor and conduct the election.
MOTION: To appoint Vice Mayor David Kulik as Mayor [2018-2019].
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Weiner
VOTE: AYES: Unanimous
AI-4. Election of Vice Mayor- The Mayor-elect will conduct the election of Vice Mayor.
MOTION: To appoint COUncilmember Fredericks as Vice Mayor [ ,t 0191.
Moved: Fraser, seconded by Thier ''
VOTE: AYES: Unanimous
r .
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
"There were none.
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
TM-1. Town Council Meeting Recess - T.. Town Manage I report on upcoming Town
Council meeting cancellations an -fall holi sure.
Town Manager Chanis reminded the Counci at th n Council mectings of
December 19, 2018 and Januar 019 wou celled, a d Town Hall will be closed
December 21, 2018 –Januar
WEEKLY DIGETS
Recei\ed. "
ADJOURI�1
Therel-1— g no further bu, ss bet the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor-elect
l{ulil< •ned the meeting, t 8:30 p.m., and the new Town Council sat for a photograph.
DAVID KULIK. MAYOR-ELECT
ATTEST:
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Page 3 of 3
7-oii7n ('ouiicil Minutes #25-2018 DRAFT December 5, 2018
Town Council Regular Meeting
TOWN OF TIBURON January 16, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 3
Tiburon, CA 94920
REPORTSTAFF
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Announcement of 2019 Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions &
Committees
`i
Reviewed By- Qrx ,%
Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney
SUMMARY
At the first'Town Council meeting each January,the Town Council formally announces the upcoming
vacancies on Town boards and commissions and invites applicants to fill the positions. Most terms expire
in February,and the Council makes the appointments or reappointments to new terms in early Match.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
1. Announce the pending" vacancies in 2019 on Town boards,commissions and committees.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council makes appointments to the various boards, commissions and committees of
the Town on an annual and as-needed basis. Most appointments are for staggered 4-year terns,
regularly scheduled to expire at the end of February. At the beginning of each year, staff and the
Council begin the process to refill the seats that are scheduled to expire, whether by
reappointment of incumbent or new appointment.
This process is governed by Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure),
which requires that the Mayor announce the pending vacancies on Town boards, commissions
and committees at the first Town Council meeting of the year. Additionally, the procedure
requires the Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Pending Vacancies (Exhibit 1) in the Ark
newspaper and post the notice at Town Hall and the Library for the purpose of informing the
public of these vacancies, and to seek applicants to fill the positions. The deadline for new
applications this year is February 14, 2019.
Commissioners whose terms are expiring in 2019 will be notified by the Town Clerk of their term
expirations and asked whether they are interested in seeking reappointment. Due consideration
will be given to all incumbent commissioners: however. the Council is required to interview all
new applicants. An exception to this rule is for commissioners who have served terms of less than
two years in duration; the Council is not required to interview new applicants for these pending
vacancies, if the incumbent seeks reappointment to the position.
TOWN OF T1BURON PAGE 1 OF 2
1 1 % ; �
The attached Notice of Pending Vacancies itemizes all of the known vacancies to which the
Council will make appointments in 2019.
ANALYSIS
No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption ofthis item is statutorily exempt fi•om the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project Under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Announce the pending vacancies in 2019 on Town boards, commissions and
committees.
Exhibit(s):
1. Notice of Pending Vacancies on Town Boards,Commissions&Committees,January 2019
Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 of 2
/• '1
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES
on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees
January 2019
BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (THE
RANCH)
BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
:�CXXX XX YX
The following vacancies on Town Boards. Commissions and Committees are current or pending
in 2019. Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-2007. the Tiburon Town Council will conduct
interviews of interested applicants beginning in February 2019.
Current commissioners whose terms are expiring may seek reappointment for another term;
commissioners who have served terms of less than two years are eligible for automatic re-
appointment.
Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the time, interest and desire to
serve on the board or commission. including attendance at regular monthly meetings and other
activities. Some commissions are comprised of residents of both TibLll'on and Belvedere, or the
Tiburon Peninsula.
Applications can be obtained at Town Hall (1505 Tiburon Boulevard) or online at
www.townoftibur011.01-0. You may also contact Town Clerk Lea Stefani at
Istefani a,townoftiburon.or( or (415)435-7377 for more information.
Application Deadline: February 14, 2019 at 5:00 P.M.
EXHIBIT 1
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES ON
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
JANUARY 2019
BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (THE RANCH)
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Jeriy Riessen Oct. 1992, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2/28/2019
201 1. 2013. 2015
Jane Jacobs Nov. 2008; 201 1, 2013, 2015 2/28/2019
BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Tom Gram November 2012; 2015 6/30/2019
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Vacant since 2015 2/28/2020
Mark Swanson February 2012; 2015 2/28/2019
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
John Kricensky March 2009; 2011, 2015 2/28/2019
Linda Emberson July 2010; 2015 2/28/2019
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Vacant since 2018 2/28/2020
Victoria Dong July 2015 2/28/2019
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Vacant since 2018 2/28/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION
Appointee A)pointed Term Expires
Erica Williams May 2014; 2015 2/28/2019
*Appointees who have served leans of 2 MPS or less are eligible for automatic reappoininnent
"No set term limit
Copies to: The.9rk ((or publication on 1/9. 1/16 and 1/23/2019) and 1101417 Independent Jozn•nal
Notice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere Tiburon Library
Town Council Meeting
TOWN OF TIBURON January 16, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 4
Tiburon, CA 94920
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members ofthe Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Announce Special Vacancy on Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission
Reviewed By: r �
Greg Chanis.Town Mana<,er Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney
SUMMARY
Parks,Open Space and TrailsCommissioner Jim Wood has submitted his resignation from the
Commission.Town Appointments Procedure requires that the Council formally announce the resignation
at the soonest possible Town Council ineeting to inform the public of the vacancy and call for
applications.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
1. Announcespecial vacancy on the Parks,Open S ace and Trails Commission.
BACKGROUND
Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure) requires that the Mayor
announce special (or unscheduled) vacancies that have Occurred on Town boards, commissions
and committees at the earliest possible Town Council meeting following the vacancy, and direct
staff to publish a special vacancy notice in The Ark and The 1lMrin Independenl Journal to inform
the public of these vacancies and to seek applicants to fill the positions.
On December 11, 2018, Parks, Open Space and Trails Commissioner Jim Wood submitted his
resignation fi-om the Commission.
ANALYSIS
The notice of special vacancy has been posted, and applications are being accepted now. The
deadline for applications is February 14, 2019. Regular procedure for filling special vacancies
would be to seek applicants to serve out the remainder of Mr. Wood's term, until February 28,
2019.
Considering how close in time this special vacancy is to the end of term date, and the annual
appointments process, the Council will till this seat alongside the other existing and pending
TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
vacancies at the first Town Council meeting in March. The person appointed will begin a new 4-
year term, starting March 1. 2019.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Cotmcil announce the special vacancy on the Parks, Open Space
and Trails Commission.
Exhibit(s):
1. Resignation Letter from Jim Wood
2. Notice of Special Vacancy
Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk
TONNIN 0FT1BURON Pncr 2 or 2
R EIVE
DEC 11 2018
TmIM OF T!CRON
December 11, 2018
Dear Town of Tiburon Mayor:
Please accept my resignation for Tiburon's Parks, Open Spaces and Trails (POST) Commission.
There are absolutely no hard feelings involved with this decision. Rather, it is a result of end-of-
the-year planning indicating a better use of my time my time would be in insuring the competent
and continual maintenance of Trestle Trail. Thus I will continue to work toward Blackie's
Pasture and Old Rail "frail realizing its potential as an attractive place to relax, connect and
recreate just in a different capacity.
Please also accept my appreciation for allowing me to serve the Town of Tiburon as a
POST commissioner. I have learned significantly from the experience. If at anytime you would
want to discuss my tenure on POST, I am more than willing to do so.
Re�pectfully submitted,
C �
1 Wood
cc: Town Manager Greg Chanis; POST Chairman Philip Feldman
EXHIBIT 1
r
f
TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE
On Town Commissions, Boards & Committees
2019
Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission (POST)
Statutory Authority: Title I, Chapter 2, Article VI of the Tiburon Municipal Code; Town Council
Resolution No. 22-2008: Town Council Resolution 13-2017
Term: FOUr Years
Purpose: The POST Commission serves as the official Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory
Committee of the Town. Among its duties are to periodically review the
Tiburon Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan and submit recommendations to
the Town Council on bicycle and pedestrian-related matters. The POST
Commission also periodically reviews the Parks and Recreation Element of
the Tiburon General Plan, and makes specific recommendations to the
Planning Commission and Town Council on policy matters pertaining to
parks and/or open space lands under the jurisdiction of the Town, including
then- acquisition. maintenance, improvement and operation. The POST
Commission assists with the organization of Town-sponsored events such as
the Coastal Clean-up, public facility dedications and fund-raising events.
Qualifications: Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have an interest
and time available to help promote the general welfare of the community.
A vacancy on the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Commission has occurred as follows:
Appointee Date Appointed Date Resigned Term Expires
I) Jim Wood 9/2017 12/11/2018 2/28/2019
%X%XX:�CXX YS:
Interested residents can contact Tiburon Town Cleric Lea Stefani at (415)435-7377 for more
information, or submit an application at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard.Applications
are also online at www.townoitiburon.or��.
Deadline for Applications: February 14, 2019 at 5:00 P.M.
(Position open until filled)
Notice Posted al Torn Hall X Library
Notice perblished in The.Irk on danual-Y 9. 7019
Y'. Marin LI
EXHIBIT 2
Town Council Meeting
TOWN OF TIBURON January 16, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC- 5
Tiburon, CA 94920
STAFF O .
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Recommendation to Accept Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees
Pursuant to the California Government Code
1 a
Reviewed By: ez
An�
G•eg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney
SUMMARY
The Town of Tiburonimposes three categories of fees that qualify as development fees. These
categories are: ) traffic impact fees; 2) street impact fees; and 3) stormwater runoff fees. State
law requires end of year reporting of these`development fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS)
1. Staff recommends the Town Council accepts this annual report as part of the
Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND
Similar to most cities and counties in California, the Town of Tiburon imposes public facilities
tees on development projects during the approval process. Certain of these fees are categorized
as "development fees" under Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code. Section
66006 of that code requires specific data regarding development fees to be made available to the
public within 180 days following the end of each fiscal year (i.e., by December 31), with a public
meeting held on the matter at the next regularly scheduled meeting following release of the data.
"phis report sets forth the required annual data reporting for the Town's development fee accounts
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018, which closed on June 30, 2018.
ANALYSIS
The Town of Tiburon imposes three categories of fees that qualify as development fees. These
categories are: 1) traffic impact fees-, 2) street impact fees; and 3) stormwater runoff fees. Park
and recreation in-lieu fees and affordable housing in-lieu fees, which the Town also collects. are
not defined as development fees. Required reporting data for each of the Town's three
development fee categories is shown below.
Traffic Mitityation Fees
Traffic mitigation fees have been collected by Town since 1980; the two current fee accounts
were established in 1996, each addressing different portions of the Tiburon Planning Area. The
Town Council received a mandatory five-year report on these funds in January 2017 and made
findings regarding the future use of unexpended funds in these accounts; the next five-year
review would be scheduled for January 2022. In August 2017, the "Down Council adopted
Updated traffic mitigation fees that consolidate the collection of newly-received traffic impact
fees into a single account that also contains the prior fees collected for improvements within the
Town's corporate limits. which is called the Circulation System Improvement Fund. The pre-
existing Planning Area Mitigation Fund will continue to exist, but will not receive any new
contributions.
Circulation System Improvement Fund (CSIF): This fund contains the collected exactions for
construction of public traffic improvements in the incorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning
Area prior to October 15, 2017 and all traffic mitigation fees subsequently collected. The fee
varies depending on the location of the project in relation to intersections identified in the General
Plan Circulation Element as requiring improvement. The fee is $7,174.76 per new PM peak hour
trip generated.
TIBURON CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT FUND
Fund Balance, July 1, 2017 $109,827
Revenues:
Fees Collected $1,189
Interest Income $1,112
TOTAL REVENUES $2,301
Expenditures: $(0)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(0)
Fund Balance, June 30, 2018 $112,128
In the adopted FY 2018-19 budget there are no planned expenditures identified from this account.
No inter-fund loans or transfers occurred from this account for FY 2017-18 and no refunds from
this account were issued in FY 2017-18.
Planning Area Mitigation Fund (PAMF): This fund contains the collected exactions for public
traffic improvements in portions of the Tiburon Planning Area outside of the Towns corporate
limits. all of which were collected prior to October 15, 2017. No new fees are collected into this
account.
TIBURON PLANNING AREA MITIGATION FUND
Fund Balance, July 1, 2017 $187,420
Revenues:
Fees Collected $0
Interest Income $2,550
TOTAL REVENUES $2,550
Expenditures: $(0)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(0)
Fund Balance, June 30, 2018 $189,970
The FY 2018-19 Town budget contains no budget allocations from this fund. Future projects to
which these funds would be contributed include a merge/acceleration lane at the Tiburon
Boulevard/Cecilia Way intersection and capacity improvements at the Tiburon
Boulevard/Redwood Highway Frontage Road intersection. These improvements are set forth in
the General Plan Circulation Element, but are likely to be at least five years away. The cost of
these improvements will exceed finds available at this time. No inter-fund loans or transfers
Occurred in this account for FY 2017-18 and no refunds from this account were issued in FY
2017-18.
Street Impact Fee
The street impact fee went into effect in July 1999. This fee partially off-sets the Town's costs of
public roadway maintenance by assessing a fee of 1.0% (.01) on the valuation of all building
permits issued by the Town. A project with a $100,000 building permit valuation vyould
therefore be subject to a street impact fee of$1,000.
TIBURON STREET IMPACT FUND
Fund Balance, July 1, 2017 $2,577,131
Revenues:
Fees Collected $474,838
Interest Income $37,263
$0
Refund/Reimbursement
TOTAL REVENUES $512,101
Expenditures: $(159,065)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(159,065)
Fund Balance, June 30, 2018 $2,930,167
EXPENDITURES
Projects completed FY 2017-18 Cost % from Fund
Pot Hole Repairs $159,065 100%
Total Projects FY 2017-18 $159,065 100%
For FY 2018-19, the Town has identified in its adopted budget $1.582,126 in planned street
improvement projects to be funded by the Street Impact Fund. The Town maintains a Pavement
Management Program (PMP), which analyzes the condition of the Town's streets and suggests
appropriate repair/replacement techniques based on this analysis. In 2006., the Town embarked
on an aggressive program to eliminate its "failed" street segments, which has been successfully
completed. According to the most recent Pavement Management Program (AMP) update report,
the Town's overall Pavement Condition Index (PC]) now stands at 76 (tied for best in Marin
County along with the City of Belvedere) and up from a PCI of 66 in 2006. No refunds or
transfers were issued from this account in FY 2017-2018. The Town Council received a
mandatory five-year report on these funds in January 2015; the next such report is due in 2020.
Storm)Yater Runoff Fee
The Town began collecting stormwater runoff fees, also known as impervious surface fees, in
2005. The stormwater impact fee helps recover the costs of upgrading the Town's public storm
drain system to accommodate additional runoff caused by new construction. The fee is $1.00 per
square foot of new impervious surface created by construction projects. The Town Council
received a mandatory five-year report on these funds in January 2016 and made findings
regarding the use of unexpended funds in this account. The next such report is due in January
2021.
STORMWATER RUNOFF (DRAINAGE IMPACT) FUND
Fund Balance, July 1, 2017 $38,168
Revenues:
Fees Collected $1,472
Interest Income $528
TOTAL REVENUES $2,000
Expenditures:
Storm Drainage Improvements $(15)303)
Railroad Marsh Maintenance $(0)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(15,303)
. _.- __._. _ ___ ......... ....................
Fund Balance, June 30, 2018 $24,665
For FY 2018-19 the Town has $30,000 in expenditures planned from the Storm Water Runoff
Fund. No inter-fund loans, transfers, or refunds were issued to or from this account in FY 2017-
18.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The information provided is an annual report of development 1ees. There is no fiscal impact to
accepting this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council accepts this annual report as part of the Consent Calendar.
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
..._.............
Town Council Meeting
TOWN OF TIBURON January l6, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 6
Tiburon, CA 94920
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department
Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution to Establish Check Signature Authority
Reviewed By: 6/1/
Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock.Town Attorney
SUMMARY
As there are changes in the Council composition or staff changes,a new Resolution must'be adopted
establishing persons with authority to sign Town checks.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS)
1. That the Town Council adopt the attached resolution establishing who can sign Town
issued checks.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council adopts by resolution those officials and employees who shall have authority to
sign and endorse Town checks. With the retirement of Community Dev elopment Director Scott
Anderson last month, it is appropriate to officially authorize replacement signatories.
ANALYSIS
No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt frons the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) P1,11-Auant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set 1-orth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3).
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE I OF 2
illUill'\' lo. ",01 Q
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Move to approve a Resolution Establishing Town Check Signature Authority.
Exhibit(s): Resolution Establishing Check Signature Authority
Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services
TOWN of TI BURON PAGE 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING AND
ENDORSING OF CHECKS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF PAYMENT
& ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RETAINED IN SAFEKEEPING
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has, by resolution, adopted a policy which identifies
the employees and officials who may sign and endorse checks and other instruments of payment
on behalf of the Town, and which employees may have authorization for access to Town
documents held in safekeeping: and
WHEREAS, from time to time as employees or COUncilmembers authorized to sign and
endorse checks and other instruments of payment on behalf of the Town leave the Town's
service it becomes necessary to add an authorized signer. and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Bank of Marin, Tiburon Branch, shall be the depository for all funds of the
Town of Tiburon. Commercial accounts shall be established and maintained by and in the name
of the Town of Tiburon at the designated bank upon and subject to such terms as may be agreed
to from time to time.
2. All checks, drafts and other instruments for payment from the Town's commercial
account in the amount of$2,500.00 or less, or relating to the Town's state and federal payroll tax
obligations, PERS retirement, or health insurance obligations in any amount shall be signed on
behalf of the Town by any two (2) of the following people: Town Manager Gregory Challis,
Director of Administrative Services Heidi Bigall, Management Analyst Suzanne Creekmore,
Town Clerk Lea Stefam, or any member of the current Town Council (Jim Fraser, David Kulik,
Alice Fredericks, Holli Thier, or Jon Wclner).
3. All payroll, payroll payable, and payroll benefit checks shall be signed by the
Town Manager and Director of Adm inistrative Services, and in the case of either's absence the
Director of Administrative Services. or any member of the Town Council.
4. All other checks, drafts and instruments for payment shall be signed on behalf of
the Town by either the Town Manager. Director of Administrative Services, Management
Analyst, Town Clerk and by one member of the Town Council.
5. All checks, drafts or other instruments for payment made payable to the Town of
Tiburon may be endorsed for deposit by written or stamped endorsement in the name of the
Town of Tiburon without individual signatures.
6. Staff is directed to provide a certified copy ofthis resolution to the Bank of Marin
along with signature authorization forms which include signatures of the individuals currently
Town C01111c11 Resolution No. XX-2019 January 16, 2019
-I-
EXHIBIT I
holding the following positions: Town Manager, Director of Administrative Services,
Management Analyst, Town Clerk, and Town Council members. The Town Clerk shall inform
the Bank of Marin of any changes in these positions and provide new signature cards when
necessary.
7. The Bank of Marin is requested and authorized to honor, receive, certify or pay
any instrument signed or endorsed in accordance with this Resolution. This Resolution and
signature authorization forms submitted by the Town Clerk shall remain in full force and effect,
and the Bank is authorized and requested to rely and act thereon, until such time as the Bank
receives written notice of any changes from the Town Clerk.
8. The Bank of America, Tiburon Branch is the location of four Safe Deposit Boxes
that the Town rents from the Bank. The following employees of the Town are authorized by
signature to place, extract, or review items held in safekeeping: Town Manager(Greg Chanis),
Town Clerk, (Lea Stefani), Director of Administrative Services (Heidi Bigall), and Management
Analyst(Suzanne Creekmore).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on January 16, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
DAVID KULIK, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2019 January 16, 2019
-2-
Town Cotmcil Regular Meeting
TOWN OF TIBURON January 16, 2019
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 7
Tiburon, CA 94920
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Office of the Town Attorney
Subject: Recommendation to Appoint to Ad Hoc Subcommittee: Town Manager
Performance Evaluation
0
Reviewed By: C J
Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney
SUMMARY
The Town Council will consider appointingtwo members to an ad hoc subcommittee to review the Town'
Manager's perforniance'and make recommendations regarding revisions to the Ernployment Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS)
1. Appoint Mayor Kulik and Vice Mayor Fredericks to the Town Manager Performance
Evaluation ad hoc subcommittee.
BACKGROUND
Members of the Town Council are appointed to serve on various ad hoc subcommittees, formed
for a limited duration of time. to study specific issues in Town.
The Town retained Gregory Chanis as the Town Manager pursuant to an Employment
Agreement. Section 5 of the Agreement provides for annual evaluations to review the Town
Manager's performance and salary. At this time, staff recommends creating an ad hoc
subcommittee to begin the performance evaluation process. The ad hoc committee will meet with
the Town Mana0er and develop a set of recommendations for consideration by the frill Council at
a future closed session. The Town Council will sunset this ad hoc subcommittee following
completion of the Town Manager's performance evaluation.
Staff recommends the C011nell appoint the current Mayor and Vice Mayor to sit on the ad hoc
subcomm ittee.
ANALYSIS
No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE I OF 2
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt fi-om the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of"
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council appoint Mayor Kulik and Vice Mayor Fredericks to the
Town Mana-er Performance Evaluation ad hoc subcommittee.
Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk
TowN of Tim lzoN PA(J.-2 m 2
TOWN OF TIBIIRON Town Council i, /Icctina
c.,( 'r 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 16,2019
., ,� Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: PH — 1
STAFF
REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: 2000 Paradise Drive; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the
construction of a 37 square foot addition, increasing the roof height by I foot.
new mechanical equipment on the roof, replacement of the privacy screen on
the roof, a new awning, new building color, and window changes.; 2000
Paradise LLC, Owner; Heidi Barnes and John Davis. Appellants; File No.
DR2018-074; Assessor Parcel No. 059-172-46.
f
Reviewed By:
Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney
SUMMARY
Appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of the proposed project.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS)
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Board approval of the proposed project.
PROJECT DATA
Address: 2000 Paradise Drive
Owner: 2000 Paradise LLC
Applicant: Audrey Hitchcock
Appellants: Heidi Barnes and John Davis
,Assessor's Parcel: 059-172-46
File Numbers: DR2018-074
Lot Size: 3.308 Square Feet
Zoning: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
General Plan: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-Year Storm Event) &
VE-14 (Coastal High Hazard Area)
BACKGROUND
The Caprice Restaurant has operated more or less continuously at 2000 Paradise Drive since
1961. when its building was lawfully converted to a restaurant/bar from a single-family residence.
In 2018. the property and the restaurant were sold to a new owner and the establishment closed
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11
January 16,2019
for a major remodel and upgrade. On June 13. 2018.. the Planning Commission approved a
conditional use permit authorizing a 37 square foot floor area expansion and modifying use
parameters for the restaurant, including a reduction in scating. The Commission's approval was
not appealed and is final. On October 4, 2018, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan
and Architectural Review application for the construction of a 37 square foot addition, raising the
roof by 12 inches, a new awning, window changes on the west elevation, and revised colors.
The owners of the property at 2002 Paradise (Heidi Barnes and .lohn Davis), hereinafter referred
to as the "appellants," filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision. "The appeal is attached as
Exhibit 1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for various exterior
alterations, including construction of a 37 square foot addition, increasing the roof height by 12
inches, installation of a new awning, and making window changes on the west elevation. The
exterior of the existing structure consists of blue/grey wood paneling on the upper floor. A mix
of wood paneling and concrete exists on the exterior of the lower floor. The proposed roof color
includes dark grey thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing membranes. The exterior
would be painted white, with dark grey trim. In the neighborhood, there are a variety of white
structures, including the multi-story residential structure at 2002 Paradise Drive, the Sanitary
District building across Paradise Drive, and other homes along Paradise Drive. The small entry
canopy would be reddish in color.
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board considered the application at its meeting on October 4. 2018 (see staff
report and minutes attached as Exhibits 2 & 3). At that meeting, the appellants raised concerns
regarding:
l) inaccuracies with the drawings;
2) view impacts to their building at 2002 Paradise Drive (from the increased roof lheight);
3) that is may be possible to redesign the project where the roof7ine is not increased;
4) aesthetics of the proposal;
5) the affect on light and air;
6) increase in internal volume.
The Design Review Board (DRB) considered these issues. The majority of the DRB determined
that the proposed project should be approved. The Board voted 3-1 (Cousins. Cmberson, and
Kricensky in favor and Chong opposed) to approve the project subject to additional conditions of
approval, including that: 1) there be no increase in internal ceiling hei-lits; 2) the allowable
increase at the ridge is a maximum of 12" above the surveyed dimensions of the existing roofline
hei( hts: and 3) the awning shall have a maximum projection of 5 feet.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11
January 16,2019
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
There are seventeen (17) grounds upon which the appeal is based:
Ground #1: The drawings have a number of inconsistencies.
Staff Response: The drawings have been prepared by a licensed Architect. Earlier
inconsistencies in the drawings have been corrected. Exterior and interior
heights are noted on the plans. Staff considers the drawings adequate for
design approval purposes. The site has been surveyed by a licensed
surveyor and a post-construction will be required to verify the accuracy of
the construction prior to building permit sign-off.
Ground #2: The roof height does not need to be raised 12 inches.
Staff Response: The appellants note there could be a number of design alternatives that
could be utilized to maintain the roof height. Regardless of potential
design options, the Design Review Board voted to allow the 12-inch
increase in roof height. The Board majority considered the appellant's side
view as a secondary view, the view blockage minimal, and noted the 180
degree view from that structure. Refer to pp. 15-18 of the DRB minutes
(Exhibit 3)for particulars.
Ground #3: Accurate Roof Height Measurement.
Staff Response: The appellant noted that the roof height should be certified. The Design
Review Board included the followin- conditions as part of the approval of
the project:
17. The height limit increase shall be limited to one foot. Prior to Building
Permit issuance, the applicant shall clearly show (to the satisfaction of
staff)that height limit will only be increased by one foot.
18. Prior the final inspection, the applicant shall obtain a height survey to
show that the height increase was limited to one foot.
21. The proposed height along the ridge shall be a maximum of 12 inches
above the survey dimensions of the existing heights of the building.'
Staff concludes that these conditions would adequately address concerns
about the accuracy of roof changes approved by the Board.
Ili addition, the applicant surveyed the roof heights. As shown in the
elevations, the roof trim is 2 inches higher than the roof structure. The
story poles show the roof heights without the trim.
Ground #4: The project needs a Variance.
Staff Response: As defined by the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project would be under
the allowed 30 ft height limit allowed in this zone. Height is measured
from the Mean High Tide Line (Elevation point 5.17). As accurately
explained by Board►1nember Kricensky during the DRB meeting, the
elevation point from Mean High Tide Line is the height of the structure, as
TOWN OF TIBURON 'AGE 3 OF 11
January 16,2019
defined in the Zoning Ordinance. No variances are required for the
proposed project.
Ground #5: Noise from the roof-top equipment.
Staff Response: Staff normally includes a standard condition of approval regarding the
allowed noise levels for the rooftop equipment for all projects.
Compliance with this condition of approval is verified prior to the issuance
of building permits. The Design Review Board approved the project with
the standard condition of approval regarding rooftop equipment noise. No
additional analysis is required at this time.
Ground #6: Increase in size of roof-top equipment.
Sta.f'Response: The proposed project does include morc rooftop equipment; however,
some of the existing roof-top equipment will be removed. The applicant
notes that the proposed roof-top equipment is required by the County
Health Department in order to meet contemporary standards for restaurant
uses.
Ground #7: Story poles are inaccurate.
Staff Response: Staff received photographic evidence that the ridge height of the story
poles was 12 inches high from the roof structure. In addition, the applicant
provided photographic evidence that the increase in roof height is 12
inches fi-om the roof structure, not from the roof edge trim. The roof trim
is two inches high. As the proposed project is not a new commercial
structure, story pole certification is not required by the Zoning Ordinance.
See also the response to Ground No. 3 above.
Ground #8: Concern that the applicant may request a greater height.
Staff Response: If additional height is requested, the applicant would need to go back to the
Design Review Board for approval. The.current approval does not allow
greater height than what has been approved.
Ground #9: Increasing the roof height would affect views from the side views of
Level 2 unit and the entry lobby.
Staff Response: Boardmember Emberson noted that the increase in roof height would not
affect the primary view. She noted that views of the Bay and Angel Island
would be maintained. Vice Chair Cousins noted that the views of
Corinthian Yacht Club and Belvedere Island would be maintained. Vice
Chair Cousins also referred to Goal 3, Principle 8 states that projects to "a
view across a vacant lot is often considered to be a 'borrowed' view, which
is likely to be compromised by the eventual development of the vacant
lot." Although the subject property is not a vacant lot, the Vice-Chair
Cousins determined that the proposed project would result in a de minimis
amount of view blockage on the "borrowed view" portion of the 180-
degree view.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11
January 16,2019
Z- 50bs-rmT-IAL
/ \ 1,AW-0MAtK
VIS. Ktut �t�VJ
F'�tSr� aB.SGvf�
.r' NE1FjJ i'fiJJSE'I—�: �A,,-0JJ'a A1fMMZVRS, view
i �.tr56"sCvt"�
` r Falk 93esTM
U fCOVUR
�.,� �` � .,y r,. _ -.\ �e psi \✓
1i
7
tdiNhP_ E3rsar3prLY: ^�siFt �� YES
r -
-_—.. -
CONS 1 T5t3�2.Al.":`GSGt�d 7$'S't V to �tT't'N(. d f.'�. .
eUILD111, MA,5SING T :i!� s vi .ldkttNr S. Vtr�Fa:,
Ground #10: The proposed project does not conform to Design Guideline for
Hillside Dwellings (hereinafter "Hillside Desil4n Guidelines"), Goal 2,
Principle 9.
Staff Response: This principle states "acoustic privacy is important to all residents. Any
dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution
sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors."
r
The Design Review Board adopted the following standard condition of
approval to address the rooftop equipment noise:
9. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Toivn's Noise
Slandal"ds Policv for Air Condiiioning Uni/s.
Nvww.tmvnoftiburon.ori/DocumentCenter/VieNv '1050/HVAC-and-Similar-
Mechanical-Equipment-Noise-Pohcv. If the units exceed any noise standards
at the property line, noise battles or other sound reduction measures shall be
required to reduce the sound levels at the property lines and may require a
separate Design Review application. Compliance with all applicable noise
standards shall be established prior to the issuance of a building permit.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11
]anuary 16,2019
Ground #11: The proposed project does not conform to Hillside Design Guidelines
Goal 2, Principle 13.13.
Staff Response: This principle states that Variances are exceptions to the law. As
previously explained, a Variance is not required for this project.
Ground #12: The proposed project does not conform to Hillside Design Guidelines
Goal 3, Principle 3
Staff Response: This principle states that views should be preserved as much as possible
within reason. The purpose of this principle is not to stop all development.
This principle allows the Town to request appropriate and reasonable
design changes. The applicant had many conversations with the
neighboring property owners regarding the design of tile project. Staff also
mediated a meeting between the two parties to try to come to an
agreement. The two parties could not agree to what would be reasonable.
The Design Review Board reviewed the project, found the view impacts to
be minimal and within reason, and determined that the proposed project
was consistent with the design guidelines.
�u \ x ._._
.
pn
�d.. j s... -oX
Ground 913: The proposed project does not conform to Hillside Design Guidelines
Goal 3, Principle 7.
Staff Response: This principle states that partial view blockage should be avoided
whenever possible. Section D states that blockage of important objects in
the view (Golden Gate Bridge. Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island)
is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known
landmarks. The proposed project would affect the view of the Belvedere
Lagoon fi-om the middle unit of the neighboring residential structure. The
proposed project would not block viev\s of Angel Island or the Golden
Gate Bridge from the neighboring residential Structure.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11
Ii, ici i \ -..
Januar}'16,2019
z
Section F states that "measuring a view for blockage purposes, the entire
panorama should be considered. To present the problem effectively the
view should be photographed completely from view stop on right to view
stop on left."
i
Ground #14: The appellant believes that the building is a historic structure.
Staff Response: As noted in the September 25, 2018 response memo, the structure is not a
historical resource in that: 1) the structure is not listed on the Town of
Tiburon's Local Historic Landmarks list; 2) the structure is not listed on
the California Historic Resources list; 3) the structure is not listed on the
National Register of Historic Places; and (4) there is no evidence that the
structure meets any of the criteria for listing. In addition, the property
owner has noted that they would not consent to listing the property on any
historic list.
Ground #15: The appellant believes the rooftop equipment screen would further
block views.
Staff Response: The new rooftop equipment screen is taller than the existing rooftop
equipment screen. The Council may wish to evaluate whether the height of
the rooftop equipment screen should be reduced. Reduction of the height
of the rooftop equipment screen may expose the rooftop equipment to
view.
Ground #16: Concerns outlined in the September 4, 2018 letter from the appellants'
attorney.
Staff Response: These issues were addressing in staffs comment response memo dated
September 24, 2018 (Exhibit 2).
Ground #17: Concerns outlined in the September 17, 2018 letter from the
appellants' consultant.
Staff Response: Many of the issues raised in this letter are typically addressed in the
building permit plan check process. Although there are some technical
comments that the appellant wot.ild like to use to question why the roof
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11
January 16,2019
needs to be raised. the applicant does not want to reduce the interior ceiling
heights and would like to satisfy all the building code requirements above
the existing ceiling. The applicant would like to maintain the ambience of
the restaurant and minimize disruptions to the interior space.
In addition to the responses provided above, staff provides the additional
comments with respect to the Hillside Design Guidelines:
a) Goal 3: Preserve access to views.
The purpose of Goal 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines is to
provide design options to minimize impacts to views as
appropriate. The Design Guidelines are not intended to maintain
every existing view to the point of limiting any development.
Principle 8 states that a view across a vacant lot is often considered
a "borrowed" view which is likely to be compromised by the
eventual development of the vacant lot. As development can occur
over years and decades, the borrowed view does necessarily entitle
the neighbor to their Current views across the subject site. In
addition. the proposed project is under the height limit and
potentially could have more impacts on neighbor's view. In
addition, the middle unit would maintain views of Angel Island, the
Golden Gate Bridge and Raccoon Straits.
b) Goal 3: Principle 3. Views should be preserved as much as possible
within reason.
Conformance to this guideline is addressed in staff's response to
ground 812.
C) Goal 3: Principle 4. View Quality is usually more important to view
Quantity.
The applicant attempts to improve view quality by removing a large
piece of roof-top equipment, adding a privacy screen to hide the
new equipment, and locating it closer to the street and away from
the neighboring property's primary views.
d) Goal 3: Principle 5. Horizontal View Are —View Framing.
This design guideline is primarily for design of windows fi-om the
interior of a proposed house. This guideline is not intended to limit
additions to structures.
e) Goal 3: Principle 7. Partial view blockage should be avoided
whenever possible.
Conformance to this guideline is addressed in staffs response to
ground #13.
In order to approve a Site Plan and Architectlural Review application, Section 16-52.020 (1-1[2])
requires that the Town consider -`the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to
the location of improvements on adjoining sites. with particular attention to view considerations,
privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air,
and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." As
described in the staff responses above, the revised project design, as conditioned by the Design
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11
January 16,2019
Review Board, would not appear to create substantial view, privacy, noise, light or air impacts on
the appellants' property.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and
Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines and other relevant provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance in its review of this project. The proposed exterior changes, as modified by the
conditions of approval imposed by the Design Review Board, would not result in substantial view
or privacy impacts on the appellants' property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On June 13, 2018, the Planning Commission, as part of its review of the project and approval of
the CUP, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class l and Class 3
categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and
15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). A Notice of Exemption (NOE)
was filed on June 22, 2018. and the NOE was posted for the requisite period, which triggered a
35-day statute of limitations period for legal challenges to the Town's CEQA exemption
determination associated with its CUP land use approval. No timely legal challenge was tiled so
the time to object to or challenge the Planning Commission's CEQA exemption determination
has passed.
On October 4, 2018. the Design Review Board, as part of its review of the project and approval of
the CUP, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3
categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and
15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
To the extent further analysis is required, staff recommends that the Town COLICA similarly
determine that with respect to the limited Site Plan/Architectural Review approval at issue the
Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the same Class l and Class 3 categorical exemptions,
and that no exceptions to the exemptions apply.
Class I Categorical Exennlwion (CE-OA Gui('elines§ 15301 —Existing Facilities)
The proposed project consists of a 37 square feet addition. In addition, the project would reduce
the number of restaurant seats. As such. the project proposes minor repairs/alterations to an
existing restaurant involving negligible expansion of existing building.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11
January 16,2019
Class 3 Categoi-ical ].�_temption (CEQA Guidelines § 15303 — Neiv Const-uction/Conversion of
Simill So-itelm-es)
The proposed project involves a minor amount of new construction to add a 37 square foot
addition and the restaurant use would not involve substantial hazardous materials beyond use of
the normal cleaning and sanitation materials typical of any restaurant. The proposed awning
would not create significant impact. Facade upgrades are typical of restaurant improvements.
Categoi-ical Exemption Exceptions ((EQA Guidelines§15300.2)
Further, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no
evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does
not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. hndeed, the proposed project
would not significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that
any significant cumulative impacts would occur.
Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following:
l) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways
in Marin County.
2) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no
hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon.
3) The structure is not a historical resource because l) the structure is not listed on the Town
of Tiburon's Local Historic Landmarks list 2) the structure is not listed on the California
Historic Resources list, 3) the structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; and (4) there is no evidence that the structure meets any of the criteria for listing.
In addition. the property owner has noted that they would not consent to listing the
property on any historic list.
4) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon's Design Review Board to approve
exterior improvements for restaurants. For reference, the Design Review Board approved
exterior changes at 27 Main Street(DR 2018-092) on 9/6/18.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
I. I lold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the
Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 6) and close the public hearing.
2. Deliberate and. if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal.
3. Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption
at the next meeting.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11
January 16,2019
Exhibit(s):
I. Notice of appeal
2. Design Review Board Staff Report dated October 4, 2018 with Attachments (Comment letters, Staff
Response Memo,application)
3. Late Mail for October 4.2018
4. Design Review Board Minutes dated October 4,2018
5. Design Review Board Approval Resolution
6. Applicant's response letter,dated January 7,2019
7. Appeal procedures
8. Submitted plans
Prepared By: Sung 1-1. Kwon,Director of Community Development
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11
RE OVED
OCT 15 2018
TOW(v CLERK
TOWN OF TIB'JRCN
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon,CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373
wiviv.townofribu ron,ori
APPELLANT(S)
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Name: John Davis and Heidi Barnes
Mailing Address:2002 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
Telephone: 310-279-0968 (Work) (Home)
FAX and/or e-mail (optional): heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Design Review Board
Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: October 45 2018
Name of Applicant:Audrey Hitchcock (for 2000 Paradise Dr LLC)
Type of Application or Decision: Site Plan and Architectural Review
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Please see attached letter.
STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE
Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed:
Fee Paid: �jf Receipt No. V_5` f 12) Date of Appeal Hearing:
NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300E o►B jica;'
S.l,ldn:inisrrationlFoairaslNotice ofAppeal jornr revised 3-9-_1010.doc Revised Admclr 20/0
Heidi Barnes
2002 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
310-279-0968
October 15, 2018
Subject: The Caprice at 2000 Paradise Drive—Grounds For Appeal
Dear Tiburon Town Council,
On the evening of October 4th, my brother, John, and l sat in the Design Review hearing as the
board members considered the renovations to the Caprice. We made sure to be personally
present at this meeting because the proposed project has such an impact on our property next
door, that we feel we must do everything in our power to protect our land, while trying to help
our neighbors improve a restaurant that needs a refresh.
At the hearing, the Board members pointed out error after error, and many inconsistencies, in
the application materials. The project designer, Ms. Hitchcock, acknowledged these errors,
changes, and inconsistencies. The plan set does not match the application. The actual height of
the building isn't shown, and can only be determined by subtracting one plan set number from
another. Staff told the applicant long ago that the project exceeded 30 feet, and needed a
variance. However, no variance has been applied for or granted, even though the new structure
would exceed the 30-foot height limit. This alone is grounds for granting our appeal. But,
there's more. The sound study had not been done. The interior ceiling height either is, or isn't,
being changed. The story poles were "only" off by a few inches (a nearly 20% inaccuracy) ... the
list goes on.
After all the errors and inaccuracies were admitted and discussed, the board still voted 3-1 to
approve the project; a project that takes away a critical view from our family's property,
forever, without really considering why the roof needs to be raised, and whether doing it the
cheap way is worth trading away the view.
We were shocked. We had heard, and witnessed, nearly all other projects in Tiburon being held
to a much a higher standard in regards to plan accuracy, architecture, and reducing impacts.
We feel, that with all the facts on the table, accurately and completely presented, the findings
needed to approve this project cannot be made. At our expense, we hired a reputable
architecture and engineering firm to opine as to whether raising the roof of the Caprice was
really necessary to accomplish the requested upgrades. The answer was an unequivocal: no.
(please see letter attached as Exhibit 1.)Also at our expense, we hired a reputable local law firm
to opine as to whether the project met the legal standard for approval. The answer was an
unequivocal: no. (please see letters attached as Exhibit 2.) The fact is, this application is not
ready for consideration. A property of this significance deserves accurate and thorough study.
That has not occurred.
1
Our family asks you to grant our appeal and deny this application. It is incomplete, many of its
impacts are unknown, and those that are known, are simply too much. If nothing else, please
send it back to the Design Review Board and ask that the applicant correct the errors, maintain
the existing roof height, and actually study the noise. At least then we would have some
certainty about what it is that will be built at this critical property within the town.
Here are a few suggestions that need to be carefully identified or corrected:
• Ms. Hitchcock and the Dal Bozzos state that "Title 24" makes them raise the roof height.
o This is not a meaningful explanation. What is the actual requirement they are
meeting? Why do they have to increase the roof height to meet this
requirement? Our experts at PB+A have suggested otherwise (see the attached
letter). The Dal Bozzos should consider alternatives.
• At the Design Review hearing, Ms. Hitchcock admitted that the plans show the interior
ceiling height increasing. This is never called out or identified in the application.
o If it is wrong, which she says it is, it needs to be corrected before the application
is considered.
• They still have not studied the noise of rooftop equipment or identified how loud the
equipment is going to be. Could they locate it somewhere else? Have they considered
more quiet or low-profile versions?
o The Town's code clearly calls for these studies to occur so the impacts can be
determined.
• At the Design Review hearing, they acknowledged that they have not designed the
unidentified "Title 24" improvements yet, including the insulation and fire sprinkler
system, and don't know how much space they will take. Will they fit? Will they want
more space later? The time to do this is now.
• The story poles are wrong. We measured them at 10 inches the morning of the Design
Review hearing. They are supposed to be 12 inches. This is a big difference in our view.
o As noted by one of the DRB members, it is literally these last few inches that
totally eliminate our view of the Belvedere lagoon. Accuracy is critical on this
issue.
o The story poles have been wrong before, as our attorney pointed out in a letter
to the town.
o And they still do not reflect the height and width increases to the lattice,which
will screen the rooftop equipment but block more of the view, especiallyfrom
the entryway.
• Finally, they don't have an accurate roof height measurement as the building stands
today. How does the town confirm that they only raise the roof 12 inches. What if other
problems are identified during construction, other parts of the building need to be
removed, and the former roof height is forgotten?
o The current roof height must be memorialized in order to determine if the
ultimate increase is truly the amount that is ultimately allowed (if any).
2
We know that revitalizing the Caprice is probably desirable to the Town, but it has to be done
right. Not unnecessarily at the expense of our long-held family property. This property is our
retirement home. It has had a 150-degree panoramic view of San Francisco Bay for sixty years;
raising the roof of the Caprice will take away 90 degrees of it. If this is a borrowed view,then all
views in Tiburon are borrowed and extinguishable.
Please ask why their roof increase, which they claim adds no benefit to the property, is more
valuable than our view? These applicants should be held to the same standard as everyone
else. If their plans are wrong, they should be fixed before they are approved.
I would like to show each of you the view from our property. Please call me at 310-279-0968 or
email me at heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com to arrange a viewing.
Thanks so very much,
Heidi Barnes (and John Davis)
3
Ragghianti (Freitas LLP
Attorneys at Law
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269
jkathrein@rflawllp.com www,rflawllp.com
October 4, 2018
Via E-Mail Only
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94926
Re: The Caprice - Opposition to DR2018-074
October 4th Design Review Board hearing
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
Our office continues to represent John Davis and Heidi Barnes ("Neighbors"), the
owners of 2002 Paradise Drive in Tiburon ("Davis Property"). The Davis Property
shares its southwest property line with 2000 Paradise Drive ("The Caprice"), owned by
2000 Paradise LLC and Jerry Dal Bozzo as its president ("Applicants"). We are writing
to request that the Design Review Board ("Board") deny application number DR2018-
074 for site plan and architectural review ("Application"). Any roof height increase and
rooftop HVAC will cause our clients significant harm due to significant impacts on
critical water views andd associated noise pollution.
This Application can be summarized as a statement from the Applicants to the
Neighbors as "improving the ambiance of The Caprice is more important than your
view and the quiet enjoyment of your residential property." We hope the Board does
not endorse this statement for the following reasons.
1. The Application requires a variance, as stated in the July 21, 2018 letter to Ms.
Hitchcock from the Planning Manager, because the Applicants have supplied
contradictory and incomplete roof heights, which exceed the 30-foot
Neighborhood Commercial zone limit. Because a variance has not.been sought,
and because the notice for the DRB's meeting did not reference a variance, there
is no way approval can occur at this time.
Ragghianti (FreitaS LLP
Page 2 of 9
2. Applicants must certify current heights before commencing any work because
they have demonstrated in their placement of story poles and contradicting plan
set information that they have a tendency toward inaccuracy in their favor.
3. Applicants have not demonstrated noise level compliance as is required by the
Town's Noise Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical
Equipment.
4. The projects violate the "Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside
Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and
Remodeling." The Application specifically ignores the required protection of
views of Belvedere Lagoon.
For these reasons, expanded upon below, and the reasons detailed in our letter to the
Board dated September 4, 2018 and incorporated herein, we must request that the Board
deny the Application. This request comes after extensive efforts to work with the
applicant to resolve this matter in advance of the hearing.
1. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED
The Caprice is zoned Neighborhood Commercial ("NC"). The Tiburon Municipal Code
("Code") sets a maximum height for the NC zone at 30 feet. (TMC 16-22.040, Table 2-3.)
The Height Measurement guidelines state, "No building or structure shall be erected or
altered to exceed the height limit established for the zone in which the structure is
located." (TMC 16-30.050(A).) "Height is the plumb vertical distance, measured using a
plane, established by the lower of the natural or finished grade at the perimeter of the
exposed exterior surface of the building, structure, fence or wall." (TMC 16-30.050(B).)
However, Sheet A2.3 of the plan set for The Caprice, submitted to the Town on
September 25, 2018 ("Current Plan Set"), shows the new height of the roof peak as 30.7
feet. Since, 30.7 feet is in excess of the 30-foot height limit in the NC zone, this height is
not allowed without a variance.
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 3 of 9
ELEVATION EXISTING
... __
tiV)
r
r. :: ...... -_
-
� Q
ELM E].F EL
�--L!11
.............. ......... ----------
1 --
I 1 ! I___. .' I�
Figure: 30.7 foot roof height
In addition, the letter from the Planning Manager to Ms. Hitchcock, dated July 21, 2018
("July 21st Letter"), states, "Please also note the height of the structure and the 30-foot
height limit from the mean high tide line. Please note that the increase in roof height
may require a Variance." (July 21st Letter, item 1.) In the Current Plans, the roof height
remains above 30 feet, and the Applicants have not applied for a variance.
Without a variance, which is not sought or on the agenda, this increase in roof height
does not conform with the requirements of the NC zone and the project cannot be
approved.
2. NEED TO CERTIFY CURRENT ROOF HEIGHT
The story poles currently in place at The Caprice are inaccurate, thereby resulting in
ineffective notice of the actual project scope. The story poles do not accurately reflect a
1-foot increase in roof height, but instead only show 10 inches. The image below shows
the story poles reflect a 10 inch, not 12 inch, increase. In this particular case, 2 inches is a
meaningful discrepancy given how close the roof already is to blocking remaining
water views.
RagghiantiIFreitaS LLP
Page 4 of 9
x
'=YGkv Asa
Figure: Current, but inaccurate, story poles
In this instance, every inch counts. When coupled with the contradicting heights in the
Current Plan Set, the two inches causes a greater impact -- The view of Belvedere
Lagoon from the Davis Property disappears. This is demonstrated by the photo below:
n' .
rti. F
Figure: Current, but inaccurate, story poles
Ragghianti (Freitas LLP
Page 5 of 9
It is unclear where the roof will actually end up, because the Applicants do not certify
current roof heights, so everything is.just an estimate. This inaccuracy is exacerbated by
the fact that when we last wrote to the Board, the Applicants did not have story poles in
place, as is required by the Code. Now story poles are in place; but inaccurate, thereby
representing something less than the actual negative effect of the height increase of The
Caprice.
In addition, the plans themselves show a hidden height increase in the building, even
below the additional roof height. Notice the height increase in the actual structure,
below the roofline, in Sheet A2.3 in the Current Pian Set below. It is apparent, if one
follows the height measurement across the page horizontally.
ffil _.
Figure: The building grows taller, not just the roof
In Sheet A3.2, below, one can see that in the entry level, the height of the proposed
design no longer matches the height of the base of the roof in the existing structure. In
other words, the Applicants are also increasing the height of the walls.
+3+..0'
Ni ROCF PEAK
g +,o.o i[WRY lMR F---E O CiNxC MIX
,.f ;i7 ROOF PEAK
MW.LOU F.FF.O ZINK LOM
i
rpe»r UININU (:LV i
I�
+18.c
r-NFRY _EHEL FTE p�RY tFYEI fY.E.,
EICCR lflR C.C.C.
RagghiantilFre itaS LLP
Page 6 of 9
o'
.�;N) ROOF PEAT(
r;O.L -YRrY�F F.C.�.O OMliC h?-Jt
-, RCGP PEAK
cu:Rv:cvei..,..e.o n.nc iow� I •i
i
i l
DINING WEST
—I'J<
i I1
j
F" LEVEL LEVEL FFE
FT
Figures: The building grows taller, not just the roof
3. NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The Town of Tiburon adopted Noise Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar
Mechanical Equipment ("Noise Standards"), revised by the Director of Community
Development as recently as September 9, 2017. (Noise Standards, page 3.)
The purpose of the Noise Standards is to "provide guidance for the review and
approval of zoning permits for heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) units. . .
(Noise Standards, Purpose, page 1.) The Noise Standards "require sufficient
information" to find that "the proposed equipment (in aggregate) would not generate a
maximum A-weighted sound level of more than 60 decibels (dBA) at any point on the
property line." (Noise Standards, Policy, pages 1 and 2.)
The Application is deficient and does not meet this requirement because it does not
provide any information related to the noise level generated by the rooftop HVAC
equipment located just feet from the property line, and just feet from the three
residential units at the Davis Property. Applicants do not provide equipment types or
noise ratings. Applicants do not provide any information about noise, and do not
provide how it will be limited at the property line.
The Noise Standards demonstrate in detail how the sound levels are calculated. (see
Noise Standards, Methods for Determining Sound Levels, page 3.) This information
must be provided for this application to even be considered.
Ragghianti I F reitaS LLP
Page 7 of 9
4. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and General Design
Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling ("Design Guidelines") have been a
fundamental guiding document for the Board since October 1981. (Hillside Design
Guidelines, Introduction.) As is clear from the title, the Design Guidelines include
remodeling. Four important principles should be carefully considered here.
a) Goal 2, Principle 9 - Acoustic privacy is important to all residents.
The Applicants are moving and replacing HVAC equipment closer to the Davis
Property. Applicants have not considered acoustic impacts in any of their
application materials. This new equipment will be within feet of the three
neighboring residences. It must be studied. In the very least, specifications must
be provided to the Board.
b) Goal 2, Principle 13 - Height limits are strictly adhered to. "Variances are
exceptions to the law and are hard to justify." (emphasis in original.)
As the plans for the The Caprice identify, the height of the building will be in
excess of the height limit for the NC zone. The Applicants must adhere to the
Design Guidelines as well as the Code requirements. An exception should not be
made here.
c) Goal 3, Principle 3 - Views should be preserved as much as possible within
reason.
The principle states that the neighborhood and the developer and architect must
work together within reason. Here, there has been a failure to work together.
There have been meetings, but no attempt to compromise. The Applicants will
block the view of their Neighbors and that has been the end of the conversation.
This approach does meet the requirements of this principle.
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Page 8 of 9
d) Goal 3, Principle 7 - Partial view blockage should be avoided wherever possible.
Subsection D specifically says, "blockage of important objects in the view
(Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more
difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks."
(emphasis added.)
Here, the blockage is of Belvedere Lagoon. The Design Guidelines state that this
is "difficult to accept." This blockage cannot be minimized by saying that the
Davis Property also has a view of Angel Island.
In fact, Subsection F puts the burden on the designer to make a complete
presentation of the view blockage that is being presented. Here, the Applicants
have not made any presentation depicting the view blockage. We requested a
visual rendering, and at one point were promised one. Applicants have made no
visual demonstration of the view blockage. They do not meet this requirement.
5. CONCLUSION
There is a simple theme here. The Applicants still have not articulated why they must
increase the roof height. They have never pointed to a specific requirement. Our clients
.have made reasonable request, including that if the height is increased, it not include
raising the center peak of the roof.
Our clients simply seek certainty - certainty about the height increase, and certainty
about the noise generated. This certainty comes from accurate plans, and accurate post-
project measurements.
.If the Board chooses to approve this Application after a properly noticed variance
hearing, against the will of the Neighbors, the Board should condition approval on two
studies being complete: (1) a certification of the current height, by a land surveyor, with
correct elevations, and a certification of a post-construction height; and (2) an HVAC
study to determine the volume, size, and odors emitted from the proposed rooftop
equipment.
The Town and the Neighbors need specific benchmarks given the tolerances involved.
We request that the Board deny this Application.
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Page 9 of 9
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
j
Jonathan R. Kathrein
CC: Client
Riley F. Hurd III
October 1, 2018
Subject: The Caprice at 2000 Paradise Drive
Dear Tiburon Design Review Board,
The new owners of the Caprice Restaurant, which is right next door to my brother's and my
residential property at 2002 Paradise Drive, have recently submitted a design plan for their
renovations. They propose raising their commercial roof, which will be covered with heating
and cooling equipment.This will significantly diminish the panoramic views from our triplex, a
property that has been in our family for 35 years, and my primary source of income.
The applicant defends the height increase by saying, "it's only a foot." This one-foot increase in
height is enough to completely eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove from our middle unit and
atrium, as well as reduce the natural sunlight in our lower unit. The change has a major impact
on the character and value of our property, both in rental income and resale value.
The new owners of the Caprice could adjust the design to eliminate intrusion to our property,
but so far have refused. We recently hired Posard Broek & Associates: A firm with licensed
architects, engineers, and general building contractors, who specialize in the design,
investigation, analysis, testing and remediation of building systems in historic and
contemporary structures. They have analyzed the Caprice plans and found no compelling
grounds on which the roof needs to be raised. Posard Broek has concluded there are other
ways to provide insulation, ventilation and a new sprinkler system without raising the roof and
obstructing our view. Further more, the story poles are presently at 10 inches, even though the
Caprice plans are asking for 12 inches. Originally, the story poles were set at 8 inches. There
continues to be inconsistencies with the Caprice plans and the owners have not provided any
evidence that the roof needs to be raised.
We oppose any height increase to the Caprice. In addition, we request that the Design Review
Board study the increase in height more carefully. The increase is significant. A robust study
including a land surveyor needs to be done to confirm existing heights and their accuracy. In
addition, the applicant must repair the required story poles that once again appear too short.
As the story poles stand today, they do not adequately demonstrate the increase to the roof
height and its impact on its neighbors, namely 2002 Paradise Drive. And most significantly, the
Caprice owners should submit alternative plans, which include accomplishing what is required,
without raising their roof. It is all in the structural engineering. There are other options and
better options that will be fair to all.
There has been constant deception presented by the new Caprice owners:
1. Inconsistent numbers on plans. There is total misrepresentation or fudging. And it is unclear
if the height will go over one foot, upon construction.
2. Inaccurate ever-changing story pole heights
3. The Caprice owners keep changing their story. I have now spoken with them and the owners
said the Caprice is a hobby for them, they don't care if they make money or how long it takes to
open the restaurant. They said they would just go to their house in France for a year and hang
out. Meanwhile, the triplex at 2002 Paradise is my bread and butter. My sole income. A
property that my parents left my siblings and me.
4. In addition, the roof equipment has enlarged and is directly on our side of the Caprice,The
screen in front has increased one foot in height and eighteen inches in length toward the water.
This unsightly obstruction will again affect our water and town views from our atrium and units,
along with diminishing the natural sunlight. Again, there are lower grade options that have not
been presented and should be.
5. We are concerned that the Caprice is a historic structure, with great significance to the Town
of Tiburon and the neighborhood, and deserves to be studied and carefully preserved.The
Caprice was built as a home in the 1950's. The property was purchased by Kirby Atterbury in
1962 and turned it into a restaurant, which he named after his daughter, Caprice. In the last 56
years there have been no changes to the exterior, with the exception of paint and the addition
of a few planter boxes. The Caprice acts as a landmark, reflecting the town of Tiburon in that
era.
We have tried to handle this in a neighborly fashion. A few months ago, I invited the Caprice's
new owners by the triplex to discuss our concerns. While they did slip by for a short visit,they
were not interested in seeking a solution. They said they were moving forward with their plans,
with no consideration for our loss.
It is my understanding one of the concerns of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, is to
protect the view of home owners.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 4th. I invite and encourage all Members of the
Design Review Board to visit our triplex Wednesday,October 3rd or Thursday, October 4th.
Times are flexible. And please, to Members that visited earlier, I ask you return as the story
poles were incorrect, only at 8 inches when you last visited. However, they are still 2 inches
short and should be raised to 12 inches by Wednesday morning.
I will be flying into town to meet with Members on Wednesday and Thursday at the property. If
those dates do not work, please let me know. Again, any time at your convenience.
Please call me at 310-279-0968 or email me at heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com to arrange a
viewing.
Thanks so very much,
Heidi Barnes
2002 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
310-279-0968
� posard broek + associates
September 17, 2018
John Davis and Heidi Barnes(Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive)
c/o Ragghianti Freitas LLP
Attention:Jonathan Kathrein
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
RE: The Caprice,2000 Paradise Drive,Tiburon,CA 94920
PB+A Review of'Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
Dear john and Heidi:
POSARD BROEK+ASSOCIATES(PB+A)was contacted by Jonathan R. Kathrein (Ragghianti Freitas LLP)on September 12,2018,in
connection with the above referenced project. We Were subsequently asked to review the design review set of plans prepared by Hitchcock
Design Studio dated August 14,2018(Delta Plan Check Response II"),and the subsequent revised set dated September 24,2018(Delta
"Design Review").
PB+A is an interdisciplinary firm of architects,engineers,and construction managers specializing in the design,investigation,analysis,
testing,and remediation of building systems in historic and contemporary structures. Over the last twenty-five years, PB+A and its
principals have successfully completed thousands of investigative,testing,and repair projects throughout the United States involving
virtually every type of building system and construction materials,structural system,and architectural component.
PB+A understands that the Owners of the adjoining property(2002 Paradise Drive)are concerned about having established views of the
Tiburon and Belvedere waterfronts obstructed by the new proposed roof height increase at the 2200 Paradise property,otherwise known as
the Caprice Restaurant.
As part of our review,PB+A also reviewed the Town of Tiburon"Hillside Design Guidelines"particularly with respect to safeguarding the
views of existing properties.
Below is a summary of PB+A's review of the two sets of plans,the Land Development Application,the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines,
and our proposed considerations to allow the Owners of the adjacent property to retain their views of the Tiburon and Belvedere
waterfronts.
AUGUST 14 2018 SET OF PLANS(DELTA"PLAN CHECK RESPONSES 11")
1. The height limits on the Cover Sheet for the existing and proposed do not correspond to the roof heights listed on the elevation
drawings.The cover sheet lists a change from 28.7'(Existing)to 29.7'(proposed). This deviates from the 30.0'(existing)and 31.0'
(proposed)on the elevations. We further understand that the Neighborhood Commercial Zone only allows a maximum of 30.0'in
height.
2. The land survey on the Meridian Surveying Engineering Inc.sheet 1 of 1 shows the ridge peak at 30.0'at the street side of the ridge,
and 29.7'at the bay side of the ridge peak.This indicates that the roof ridge is sloped from front-to-back by approximately 4". The
view of Tiburon and Belvedere waterfronts for the Owners at 2002 Paradise Drive is principally at the back portion of the Caprice
property(i.e.,the lower section of roof ridge).
3. The ducting through the roof for the dishwasher,range,and other mechanical appear to exit straight up through the roof from the plan
below and therefore do not require any ducting within the roof framing cavity(as stated on the Cover Sheet and Proposed Roof Plan).
112 pine street s a n anseImo, ca 94960 v 415 456.9616 1 415 456.9256
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
4. The Food Service drawings as indicated on the Upper Level Plan have not been provided,however,the Building Section sheet
indicates the range abuts the gridline 4 with the exhaust hood directly above.
5. The Building Section—Longitudinal#2 does not modify the ceiling height dimensions for the proposed plan at the West Dining Room,
and the ceiling height has clearly been raised.The Kitchen-109 and Egress—104 spaces also appear to have increased in ceiling
height.The ceiling height dimensions called out are not at the correct elevation nor dimensioned at the new heights.
6. The Proposed Roof Plan does not indicate the direction of slope on the low slope roof section or how the roof drains.
7. As shown on the Exterior Elevations-North Elevation,the proposed roof height on the West elevation appears to have also increased
in height,but the elevations are not noted.
8. As shown on the Exterior Elevations-North Elevation,the concrete footing on the east elevation has increased in height,but no
notations are included to indicate this change. The—same change shows up on the Exterior Elevations—West Elevation sheet.
9. The sheet"Exterior Elevations—South Elevation"call out repairs and waterproofing to the existing piles, but do not indicate the height
increase of the piles.
SEPTEMBER 24,2018 SET OF PLANS(DELTA"DESIGN REVIEW")
1. The height limits on the Cover Sheet for the existing and proposed do not correspond to the roof heights listed on the elevation
drawings.The cover sheet heights were changed and now state 27.3'(Existing)to 28.3'(proposed). This deviates from the 30.0'
(existing)and 31.0'(proposed)on the elevations.
2. The Proposed Floor Plan—Upper Level now has a more developed Kitchen plan including indicating the dishwasher location and
ranges. These locations indicate that the roof exhausts are directly above these appliances.Therefore,the reasoning for adding
ducting in the new 2x8 roof rafters has not been adequately substantiated.
3. The egress hallway on the Proposed Upper Level should be properly dimensioned for code minimums. Typically,exit corridors must
have a minimum clear width of 44"and may need to be larger due to the occupant load.This width needs to be clarified by the
Architect to determine that no walls need to be adjusted within the current setbacks.
4. The Lattice/Privacy Screen on the roof plan has been extended slightly towards both the Bay and Street sides of the roof.A new
secondary screen is now placed in front of the dishwasher vent but is not called out. It is unclear if the current story poles show this
extension and how the view of the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive may be adversely affected.
5. The roof exhausts on the North Elevation now appear to be higher than the August 14,2018 set of plans and the long screen/lattice
has been relocated closer to the ridge.The Satellite dish has also been added.
6. The pier extensions on all elevation drawings have not been called out(only states a repair and waterproofing).In fact,these notes
have been deleted from the previous version.
7. The north,west,and south elevation drawings all call out the ridge peak at 31.0'. The ceiling at the low slope roof areas(both ends)
on the South Elevation has been raised and there is no indication of these new elevations.Between the siding increase above the
window heads,and raised roof framing,this increases the heights well over 1 foot. It is unclear if the builder installed story poles on
these sections of roof.
8. The screen on the West Elevation proposed, Sheet A2.2 is now much higher than the existing or previous version of the plans. No
elevation is indicated from the top of the screen. The satellite dish has also been added to the new drawing.
9. The East Elevation—Proposed,sheet A2.4 shows this taller screen,but no height is indicated. This new taller screen will obstruct the
existing views of downtown Tiburon for the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive.
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
10. On Sheet A2.4,East Elevation—proposed,the ridge peak is listed as 30.7'(see note above regarding ridge peak of 31'for the other
three elevation drawings). It is presumed that if new 2x8 framing is installed,the roof ridge would be straightened at the 31'elevation.
It is unclear if the story poles on the south elevation are at this actual 31'height,and the 2002 Paradise Drive owners view obstruction
will be worsened.
11. On Sheet A2.4,the notes for the repairs to the concrete piers are still present,but there are no indications to the increased heights.
12. On Sheet A3.2 Building Sections—Proposed,the screen height has increased from the August 14,2018 set of plans,as have the
exhaust fans on the east portion of the roof.
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
This original application fails to mention that the-roof height will be raised to 31'. It does sFfavi a 1-foot increase in height,
but has the original height at 27.3'and the proposed height at 28.3 feet.
2. Under the Minor Alternation section,Item#1,it mentions a"new roof'but fails to mention that the roof framing would be
replaced with deeper framing,or raising the interior ceiling heights(as graphically shown on the current September 24,2018
set of drawings). The current reasoning by the Applicant for the deeper roof framing is in order to accommodate a new fire
sprinkler system and insulation in order to comply with Title 24.
TOWN OF TIBURON"DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE DWELLINGS"
1. These guidelines were found on the Town of Tiburon Website. There are also Downtown Design Guidelines,but the Caprice
Restaurant appears to be outside of the zone deemed as"Downtown".
2. In"Goal 3—Preserve Access to Views",#1 to#7,in the introduction paragraph it states"No single item,with regard to his dwelling,is
more precious to the resident of Tiburon than his view.The view may be panoramic or a slot between two other dwellings. It may look
at the San Francisco Bay or Mount Tamalpais,at the Forest Glen or across a meadow to a nearby attractive neighborhood.The nature
of the view and the preservation of it make up about a third of the discussions before the Board of Adjustments and Review."
3. Principle 3: "Views should be preserved as much as possible within reason". It further states"The neighborhood and the developer or
architect of the new dwelling must work together to obtain the best solution between slot views,view corridors, and panoramic views.
Remember,the slot view is just as important to the person who owns it as the 360° panoramic view is to its Owner." The Owners of
2202 Paradise Drive view their view of downtown Tiburon and the Tiburon/Belvedere waterfronts as an important"slot"view.
4. Principle 4—View Quality is Usually More Important than View Quantity. The Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive view their view of the
Tiburon/Belvedere waterfront as a"quality"view.The proposed roof height increase takes away the view of the bay water at this view
point.
5. Principle 5—Horizontal View Arc states that"most views in Tiburon are horizontal". It is for this very reason that the 2202 Paradise
Drive Owners cherish their horizontal view of the Tiburon I Belvedere waterfront,which would be adversely obstructed if the Caprice
roof height were raised.
6. Principle 7—Partial View Blockage Should be Avoided Whenever Possible. The footnote to this provision further clarifies"View
Protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling(e.g.,Living Room,Dining Room, Family Room,Great Room,
Kitchen,and decks associated with these rooms)". The view that is being blocked at the 2002 Paradise Drive property for the second
floor unit is from the common Entry atrium and the Kitchen,Dining,and deck areas of Unit#2. Each of these spaces constitute as
defined by the Guidelines,a"primary living area".
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the documents prepared by the Caprice designer,the Town of Tiburon,the current story poles installed at the roof
of the Caprice property, it is PB+A's opinion that the height increase at the Caprice property does not conform to the Design Guidelines
provided by the Town of Tiburon and will adversely impact the existing and established views of the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive
(adjacent property).
Furthermore,the plans prepared to date for these renovations by Hitchcock Design Studio appear to be incomplete and contain multiple
inconsistencies with respect to ceiling and roof heights at the upper level of the Caprice property from the previously issued plans to the
Tiburon Planning Department,some of which were not requested during the plan check process.The inconsistencies misrepresent the
actual height of the applicant's proposed project to the benefit of.the applicant.
PROPOSED CONSIDERATIONS
The following proposed considerations would protect the 2002 Paradise Drive Owner's existing views of downtown Tiburon and the Tiburon
I Belvedere waterfronts without compromising the applicant's proposed project.
1. The Architect and Structural Engineer may be able to use the new 2x8 roof framing,as desired, but can cut them back at the ridge, by
use of collar or tension ties and additional blocking. This minor change would keep the.existing ridge peak at 29.7'and 30',but allow"
the installation of new fire sprinklers and insulation(purported to be the reason for the height increase).
2. The applicant should have a land surveyor certify that the installed story poles are at the correct elevations and placement.
3. The revised architectural plans should include all ceiling and roof heights for review by the Town of Tiburon in making their final review
and approvals.
4. The revised architectural plans should adjust the height and location of the privacy screens/lattice at the north roof area so as to not
increase the existing view obstructions. The new mechanical hoods/fans should not increase in height so as to require this higher
screen/lattice.
5. The revised architectural plans should include all other necessary notations to describe the proposed work(e.g., reason for increasing
the concrete foundations on the piles at the bay elevation).
6. The Applicant through their designer should also provide the structural engineering drawings prepared by Prowest Structural
Engineering and the Mechanical drawings prepared by ACIES Engineering with respect to the new roof fans/hoods.
7. In conjunction with review of the Mechanical plans,and assuming that the existing exhaust fans are still operational,a sound test to
establish existing STC sound levels should be established and the new fans should meet or be less than the current sound levels.The
same should apply to the exhaust odors and filtration.
Contact us if you have any questions or if you would like us to conduct a site visit prior to the October 4 hearing or review additional
documents.
Sincerely,
Approved Electronic Signature
Adam Posard,A.I.A.LEEDO AP
Principal
Sent via E-mail
Enclosure: Town of Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Attorneys at Law
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415:453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269
jkathrein@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com
September 4, 2018
Via E-Mail Only
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: The Caprice - Opposition to DR2018-074
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
Our office represents John Davis and Heidi Barnes, the owners of 2002 Paradise Drive
in Tiburon ("Davis Property"). The Davis Property shares its southwest property line
with 2000 Paradise Drive ("The Caprice"), owned by 2000 Paradise LLC and Jerry Dal
Bozzo as its president ("Applicants"). We are writing to request that the Design Review
Board ("Board") deny application number DR2018-074 for site plan and architectural
review ("Application"). Any roof height increase and rooftop HVAC will cause our
clients significant harm due to the raised roof impacting critical water views.
We ask the Board to excuse the tardiness of this letter, but we only just learned we
would need to be writing to you at all. We engaged the Applicant extensively in an
attempt to address our clients' concerns. Last Tuesday, August 28th, I spoke with Mr.
Dal Bozzo by phone. Mr. Dal Bozzo proposed a plan to reduce the increase in roof
height to only 1 inch on the water-side of the Caprice, and an 8 inch increase on the
Paradise Drive side. We were encouraged by this proposal.
Two days later, on August 30th,Thursday, Mr. Dal Bozzo told me he had met with his
architect and contractors to plan for the reduced increase to the roof height. The next
day, on Friday, August 31st, I spoke with Mr. Dal Bozzo again. He told me he 1-lad
directed Audrey Hitchcock, his designer, to speak with me and provide our clients with
modified plans and a visual rendering so that John and Heidi could consider Mr. Dal
Bozzo's proposal. After a couple unsuccessful attempts to reach her, and unreturned
voicemail messages, I finally reached Ms. Hitchcock who confirmed that, by the end of
the day on Monday, she would send us modified plans decreasing the roof height
Bit;
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 2 of 1.4
increase, as well as visual renderings to provide a perspective from the Davis Property.
We did not receive anything from Ms. Hitchcock on Monday. Today, I called Ms.
Hitchcock, who told me to direct my call to Mr. Dal Bozzo. By the end of the day,after a
call with a newly-engaged attorney for Mr. Dal Bozzo, it was clear that we would not
receive the promised plans and visual rendering, and that the promised reductions
would not be occurring. It appears Mr. Dal Bozzo took advantage of our good faith
attempt to come to a resolution, and used it as a tactic to stall our effort to protect our
clients by submitting timely comments. This is also unfortunate because the modified,
detailed plans, and color visual renderings would have helped the Board to come to a
better understanding of what is being proposed.
At this point, for the reasons discussed below, we must request that the Board deny the
project.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The purpose of site plan and architectural review ("Purpose") is to ensure that the
design of proposed construction assists in maintaining and enhancing the Town's
distinctive character, including, as is applicable here: (1) compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood, (2) retaining and strengthening the visual quality and
attractive character of the town, . . . (5) assisting project developers in understanding the
town's concerns for the aesthetics of construction, and (6) ensuring that construction
complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely
affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. (TMC 16-52.020(A).)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In review of an application, the Board must determine whether the project meets the
following guiding principles ("Guiding Principles"), and any other town guidelines,
including, as is applicable here: (1) site plan adequacy, (2) site layout in relation to
adjoining sites, (3) neighborhood character, (4) floor area ratio, . . . (6) compatibility of
architectural style and exterior finish, . . . and (10) appropriate use of building envelope.
(TMC 16-52.020(H).)
ROOF HEIGHT INCREASES
The Board must consider that an increase in roof height or other changes to a roof
design may result in potentially significant view obstruction impacts on neighboring
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Page 3 of 14
homes. (TMC 16-52.020(L).) Applicants must erect story poles for all minor alteration
project site plan and architectural review that involve modifications that would
materially increase the height, location or visual mass of a roof. (TMC 16-52.020(L)(1).)
Story poles must be installed at least ten days prior to the hearing, be connected by
ribbons or tape, and,visible from at least three hundred feet. (TMC 16-50.070.) Failure to
properly install poles and materials can result in a continuance. (Id.)
The Board shall determine from the reports and data submitted, supplemented by
public comment and on-site inspections, whether the structure will further the Purpose
and achieve the Guiding Principles set forth above. (TMC 16-52.020(E)(2); 16-52.020(A)
an.d _(I I).) .And. the Board must..make .affirmative findings, based on-the record, in
approving or denying the application. (TMC 16-52.020(E)(2) and (3).) The Board may
also approve the application subject to conditions or modifications. (TMC 16-
52.020(E)(3) and (4).)
APPLIED TO THE CAPRICE
Here, reports and data are missing, but even with the information available, it is clear
the required findings cannot be made.
(Purpose 1) Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
Foundationally, it is important to realize that 1.3 feet of roof height increase to the
Caprice causes the middle unit of the Davis Property to lose its entire view of Belvedere
Cove, the sailboats, and the historic downtown. It also impacts the other two units. But
this proposed obstruction is not limited to the Davis Property, it will also impact an
important view for everyone who visits the point in Tiburon.
Figure: Before and After
While the Caprice has one immediate neighbor, the Davis Property, it is also next to the
Shoreline Path and Paradise Drive. Both Shoreline Path and Paradise Drive are heavily
trafficked by pedestrians, bikers, local residents and tourists from across the world. In
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 4 of 14
fact, the route is identified as Section 23 of the San Francisco Bay Trail as a "spectacular
local favorite among cyclists." (San Francisco Bay Trail, Card 23.)
The Caprice is in a picturesque location that is important to the way residents of the
Town and visitors from across the country and around the world view the Town of
Tiburon. The Caprice is not hidden from view or tucked into a far-flung area of the
town. The Caprice is at the most picturesque point in Tiburon. Changes in design
features, architecture, and height should be very carefully considered by the Board.
Here, changes in the height of the Caprice will impact the Davis Property, and its three
residential units. Charges in the height will also impact the view from Paradise Drive -
and the Shoreline Path for many visitors each year.
The Applicant has not submitted any visual impact studies or renderings that show the
changes in the Caprice in relationship to the views from Paradise Drive, the Elephant
Rock Pier, or the Davis Property and the Caprice's impacts on the views of Angel
Island, the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown San Francisco, or Belvedere Cove. John and
Heidi have been promised color renderings of the visual impact to their property, and
possible modifications to the design. .These renderings would inform the Board's
decision as well. The promise has not been kept.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
(Purpose 2) Retains and strengthens the visual quality and attractive character of the
town
Adding height to the Caprice does not,actively retain or strengthen the visual quality or
attractive character of the Town as viewed from Paradise Drive. It blocks the view of
the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown San Francisco, and Angel Island. How great is the
impact? We do not know because it has not been studied. There is no information in
front of the Board as to the impacts to visual quality. But the height increase certainly
does not retain or strengthen the visual quality.
As can be seen in the image below, it cannot be disputed that the height increase and
modification of HVAC and ventilation equipment will obstruct the view of Angel
Island.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 5 of 14
f�
' III
-Y.
y.
S r.
1
Figure: View from Mar West Street
(Purpose 5) Assist project developers in understanding the town's concerns for the
aesthetics of construction
The Application does not provide any narrative to explain how the Caprice fits into the
town's concerns for aesthetics. This is wholly unaddressed.
The entrance canopy is designed to be bright red. This is an unusual color choice.
Restaurants and shops nearby,.including for example the shops on Main Street, have
more subtle canopies. Why did the Applicants decide to impose on the aesthetics with
bright red? We do not know. An understanding of the town's aesthetics, Purpose 5 of
site plan and architectural review, and addressing those aesthetic concerns is required.
The lighting has not been considered or studied either. Lighting systems and light
strength have not been detailed in the design. Will the lighting be increased to create
additional light pollution, impacting views from Paradise Drive or from the Davis
Property? Lighting impacts must be considered in relationship to town concerns for
aesthetics. The image below shows the perspective from the lower unit in the Davis
Property and provides some sense of how impactful light pollution could be to the view
of the Golden Gate Bridge.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
RagghiantllFreitas LLP
Page 6 of 14
tiF<
i
Golden Gate Bridge
i
Figure: Light Pollution and the Golden Gate Bridge
(Purpose 6) Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards
and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or
natural resources.
The California Architects Board explains that a person not licensed as an architect or
engineer can design certain types of buildings or portions of buildings, including:
single-family dwellings, nonstructural storefronts, and nonstructural alterations or
additions, provided that the alterations do not change the structural system or safety of
the building. (California Architects Board, Consumer's Guide to Hiring an Architect,
page 3.) But this does not apply to the Caprice.
The plans for the Caprice show changes in what appears to be the structure of the
building, as can be seen in the images below. This raises an important question. Is.it
appropriate for the Board to make a decision regarding the community health and
safety without plans created by an architect or engineer? Community health and safety
is one of the fundamental purposes for the Board's review. Not relying on the proper
professionals or adequate information is unacceptable. Detail must be provided by an
appropriate professional.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 7 of 14
-.__-_._.__
L
t I-- - r
Ix,
U'
N ;
_ W
..I�..sr tcwnn.w..i�ic:gr .-..___.._..__. i
I :
I
ti..v
Figure: Structural Alterations
LLJr, r
2
i
i .
Figure: Additional Structural Alterations
RagghiantilFrettas LLP
Page 8 of 14
(Guiding Principle 1) Site plan adequacy
As with Purpose 6, above, the site plan impacts the structural integrity of the Caprice. It
also increases the height, changes the lighting, and changes the color scheme of the
building. None of these have been addressed by studies or qualified professionals.
These changes are not adequately addressed in the site plan. The work done is not that
of engineers or architects.
Guiding Principle 1 is not met because the site plan is inadequate to meet the specific
requirements that must be considered for site plan and architectural review.
(Guiding Principle 2) Site layout in relation to adjoining sites
Adjoining sites include the Davis Property, Paradise Drive, Mar West Street, Shoreline
Path, Elephant Rock Pier, and the San Francisco Bay itself. The Application proposes to
make modifications to the Caprice without considering, or even describing, the impacts
on any of the adjoining sites listed here.
The Town Code requires the Board to make affirmative findings, based on the record, in
approving an application. Here, the only evidence in the record (ours), is that the
project will have an impact. Accordingly, the only finding the Board can make here is
one of denial.
(Guiding Principle 3) Neighborhood character
The neighborhood character is a combination of residential, pedestrian, and tourist
vista. The Application interferes with each. First, the height increase and noisy
equipment impose on the view, aesthetic quality, and value of the Davis Property.
Second, the height impact, the new bright red awning, and new lighting systems
impose of the surrounding vista for town residents and travelers alike.
At best, the fit between neighborhood character and the proposed changes to the
Caprice need a thorough analysis by the Applicant. Otherwise, these impacts appear to
support denial findings only.
(Guiding Principle 4) Floor area ratio
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that the Neighborhood Commercial
land use designation shall permit a maximum allowable FAR of 0.37. (Land Use
Element, General Policy DT-12.) Minor floor area additions to properties exceeding FAR
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 9 of 14
limits but "a finding must be made that there will be no material adverse effects." (Land
Use Element, General Policy DT-8.)
Here, the Application states that the lot area is 3308 square feet and the gross floor area
will increase by 37 square feet to 3352 square feet. (Application, page 3.) This creates a
floor area ratio of 1.01. Therefore, the Caprice significantly exceeds the applicable FAR
of 0.37.
Even if the floor area ratio is approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the site
plan and architectural review criteria require a finding that there will be no material
adverse effects is required. This finding cannot be made,.as _there will be a material
adverse effect and furthermore it has not been studied or addressed in the Application.
This Guiding Principle cannot be met.
(Guiding Principle 6) Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish
The exterior finish of the Caprice needs to be more carefully considered. This includes
lighting, color, signage changes, roof height, and HVAC equipment and ventilation
system placement..A decision cannot be made without making findings based on
evidence in the record. There is no evidence here, upon which to base a decision.
Additional plans sheets should be submitted to the town to demonstrate the exterior
finish and architectural style in more detail.
This Guiding Principle cannot be met.
(Guiding Principle 10) Appropriate use of building envelope
In our conversations with the applicant and the designer, we are not convinced that the
building envelope have been used to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and
surrounding properties and vistas. The rationale that the roof height must be increased
to accommodate additional insulation and fire sprinklers is an easy argument to hide
behind, but has the Applicant thoroughly investigated where else these materials could
be placed? We are not convinced, and the Board should not be either.
The Applicant must provide sufficient information to the Board, in the record, so that
the Board can determine that the Application meets this Guiding Principal.
It is our understanding that there are alternatives to increasing the roof height. The
piping for the sprinkler system could be located under the roof, within the walls,under
Ragghianti I Freitas LLP
Page 10 of 14
the building, forward on the roof, or hidden behind the fascia boards at the roof's
border. These designs have not been provided to neighbors or the Board. These
alternative designs should be considered when the Board considers use of the building
envelope.
"It will cost more money" is an easy argument for the Applicant to make. But not
considering more efficient use of the building envelope will cost John and Heidi in the
economic value of the Davis Building.
In summary, the Application does not achieve the Guiding Principles detailed above,
- and therefore it should be denied.
Roof height increases may result in significant view obstruction
The Tiburon Code particularly calls out the negative impact of roof height increases as a
consideration for site plan and architectural review. The Code does so, not within
another larger topic, but individually, as a stand-alone consideration for the Board's
review. The focus on roof height increases and the potentially significant view
obstruction on neighboring homes signifies the weight that should be given to the
Board's consideration.
As with other considerations, including the Purposes and Guiding Principles described
above, the Board's finding must be based on the record. Here, there is no record made
by the Applicant. The Application does not show a visual perspective of the roof height
increase from any neighboring property. The Application does not describe the impacts.
The plan set does not even juxtapose the Caprice against a background. The plan set's
exterior elevation of the front does not show Angel Island or the San Francisco Bay in
the Background. Similarly the plan set's east elevation does not show Belvedere Cove
and downtown Tiburon in the background. Based on the Application it is not possible
to understand what the roof height increase is blocking.
This letter, and the images herein, are the only record that addresses this important site
plan and architectural review consideration. The roof height increase and changes to the
roof design of the Caprice will result in significant view obstruction impacts on the
Davis Property, and other neighboring homes. The roof height increase will completely
eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove and downtown Tiburon from the middle unit of
the Davis Property.
In addition, the Applicant must erect story poles, connected by caution tape, at least ten
days in advance. Here, the story poles are up, but they are objectively not connected by
,W
RagghiantiIFrei taS LLP
Page 11 of 14
caution tape, and appear to be less than the applied-for height above the existing
roofline. Most importantly, the fact that there is no tape running along the peak of the
roof fails to demonstrate any sense of the view obstruction that will result from the
height increase.
The Applicant could have presented the Board with an argument, in the form of visual
data and reports in the record, that the roof increase will not cause a significant view
obstruction impact on the Davis Property and others. In fact, this is what we asked the
Applicant to demonstrate to us during this last week. Instead, the Applicant not only
failed to make an argument to support a finding by the Board, but in addition, the
--- Applicant.-objectively failed to meet the towns story pole requirements. -
For these reasons, the Board should determine that the record can only support a
finding that the roof height increase will have an unacceptable significant view
obstruction impact on the Davis Property. The Application should be denied.
ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW
In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the Board must apply
the goals and principles of other guidelines. (TMC 16-52.020(J.).) The Board's review
must consider the "installation or relocation of exterior air conditioning or heating
(HVAC) units, generators or similar noise-generating mechanical equipment." (TMC
16-52.020(B)(3).)
On September 6, 2017, the Town revised and updated the Noise Standards for Air
Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical Equipment ("HVAC Noise Standards").
The HVAC Noise Standards state that "[t]he installation of air conditioning units or
other similar noise-generating mechanical equipment may potentially have adverse
noise and/or unreasonable aesthetic impacts on neighboring properties." (Page 1 of 3.)
Applications must contain sufficient information to make specific findings, including,
but not limited to, the following:
(2) "[T]he proposed equipment would (in aggregate) not generate a maximum A-
weighted sound level of more than 60 decibels (dBA) at any point on a property line.
(Pages 1 and 2 of 3.)
Applicants do not include such "sufficient information" in their plans. They do not have
any information related to HVAC noise at all. Therefore the application is incomplete.
In addition it is not possible for the Board to make a finding on this subject as is
Ragghianti (Freitas LLP
Page 12 of 14
required by the Town Code and the HVAC Noise Standards because they do not have
any information upon which to base their finding. This finding simply cannot be made.
(3) "An applicant shall provide a letter from an acoustical consultant or a mechanical
engineer that demonstrates sound level compliance for installations utilizing noise
control barriers or enclosures." (Page 2 of 3.)
The Applicant simply has not provided such a letter, therefore the application is
incomplete. As the application stands, missing required information, it is not possible
for the Board to make a finding based on sufficient information. The required
information from an appropriate licensed professional is n,ot_present.or included.
(4) "If the proposed equipment has the potential to create unreasonable aesthetic
impacts, adequate screening shall be provided . . . to substantially conceal the
equipment from adjacent properties and/or the public rights-of way . . . ." (Page 2 of
3.)
While the plans screen some of the equipment, they do not screen all of it. The spirit of
this required finding is clearly that the neighbors and the general public do not want to
see HVAC equipment in the middle of their view of the San Francisco Bay. The rooftop
of the Caprice is designed with HVAC equipment all over it. The equipment is clearly
visible from neighbors, Paradise Drive, and the streets and homes above. It should be
hidden from view. In fact, why is the HVAC equipment placed out of sight underneath
the property instead of on the roof?
The HVAC Noise Standards contain methods for determining sound levels. (Page 3 of
3.) These methods cannot simply be ignored, as they have been.
It is additionally important to consider that The Caprice has almost no setback from the
property line with the Davis Property. The Davis Property has 'three residential units
within a few feet of the proposed HVAC equipment, including their living rooms and
outdoor decks. This HVAC equipment will have adverse noise and unreasonable
aesthetic impacts on the Davis Property and must be studied and mitigated.
The Application does not meet the HVAC Noise Standards, it does not even include the
mandatory determination by an acoustical consultant or mechanical engineer. The
Application must be denied for these reasons.
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Page 13 of 14
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires government agencies to
consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans or
committing to a course of action on a project. (Public Resources Code §§ 21000,21001.)
CEQA and its related guidelines contains a list of classes of projects which have been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt
from review ("Categorical Exemption(s)"). (Pub. Res. Code § 21084, CCR § 15300.)
One such Categorical Exemption is a "Class 1 Exemption" for the repair and minor
alteration of existing structures. (CCY § 15301.) Though Categorical,-Exemptions are not
absolute ("Exception(s)"). (CCR § 15300.2) An Exception to the Class 1 Exemption is
that it "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource." (CCR1500.2(o.)
A historical resource includes any object, building, structure, site, area which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant. (CCR § 15064.5(a)(3).) The CEQA
guidelines provide additional considerations that may guide a lead agency's
determination. (Id.)
Here, the Application claims a Class 1 Exemption to CEQA, yet a historical resource is
an Exception to the Class 1 Exemption to CEQA and therefore the Categorical
Exemption cannot be used. If the Board decides not to thoroughly consider and study
the environmental impacts of the Application, it must do so with more than a cursory
claim to a Categorical Exemption.
The Board should note that, according to the Staff Report, the structure has been
standing since the 1950's and has been a restaurant since 1961. (DRB Staff Report, page
1 of 8.) This makes the Caprice at least 57 years old, as a restaurant, and older as a
structure. According to the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Caprice is older than
the Town of Tiburon. (Planning Commission Staff Report, page 2 of 6.)
In addition, Fodor's travel guide describes the Caprice as a "Tiburon Landmark" for
"more than 50 years." (Fodor's California 2016: with the Best Road Trips.)
At the very least, the Board must take time to study the Caprice in order to determine
that the Caprice is not a historical resource, as the Caprice is older than the town itself
and highlighted internationally as a landmark. The historical significance of the Caprice
must be carefully considered. If it is historic, as we believe it is, additional review must
be done.
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
Page 14 of 14
CONCLUSION
The Application does not meet the Purposes and Guiding Principles required by site
plan and architectural review. The Application does not support a finding that the roof
height increase is less than a significant view obstruction, as is an important
consideration for approval.
Specific findings must be made before the Board may approve the Application. In order
to make required findings, the Board must have documentation and studies upon
which it may base those findings. The necessary material has not been provided to the
Board, making those findings mripossible...to.make. A_s..such, we request that.the Board
deny this Application.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Jonathan R. Kathrein
CC: Client
Riley F. Hurd III
August 29, 2018
Subject: The Caprice at 2000 Paradise Drive
Dear Tiburon Design Review Board,
The new owners of the Caprice Restaurant, which is right next door to my brother's and my
_ residential pro_perty.at_2002 Paradise-Drive, have recently submitted.a..d_esign plan.fo.r their,
renovations. They propose raising their commercial roof, which will be covered with heating
and cooling equipment. This will significantly diminish the panoramic views from our triplex, a
property that has been in our family for 35 years, and my primary source of income.
The applicant defends the height increase by saying, "it's only a foot." This one-foot increase in
height is enough to completely eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove from our middle unit and
reduce the natural sunlight in our lower unit. The change has a major impact on the character
and value of our property.
The new owners of the Caprice could adjust the design to minimize intrusion to our property,
but so far have refused.
We oppose any height increase to the Caprice. In addition, we request that the Design Review
Board study the increase in height more carefully. The increase is significant.A robust study
should, at a minimum, include a site plan that includes the roof height in relationship to our
property and others. In addition, the applicant must repair the required story poles that both
appear to be too short and do not have the required connecting tape. As the story poles stand
today, they do not adequately demonstrate the increase to the roof height and its impact on
the neighbors.
We are concerned that the Caprice is a historic structure, with great significance to the Town of
Tiburon and the neighborhood, and deserves to be studied and carefully preserved.The Caprice
was built as a home in the 1950's. The property was purchased by Kirby Atterbury in 1962 and
turned it into a restaurant, which he named after his daughter, Caprice. In the last 56 years
there have been no changes to the exterior, with the exception of paint and the addition of a
few planter boxes. The Caprice acts as a landmark, reflecting the town of Tiburon in that era.
We have tried to handle this in a neighborly fashion. A couple of months ago, I invited the
Caprice's new owners by the triplex to discuss our concerns. While they did slip by for a short
visit, they were not interested in seeking a solution. They were moving forward with their plans.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 6t". I invite and encourage all Members of
the Design Review Board to visit our triplex Wednesday, September 5t" or Thursday, September
6t". Times are flexible.
I will be flying into town early to meet with Members at the property. If any of those dates do
not work, please let me know and I will arrange another day.
Please call me at 310-279-0968 or email me at heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com to arrange a
viewing.
Thanks so very much,
Heidi Barnes
2002 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
310-279-0968
TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting
z 1505 Tiburon Boulevard October 4,2018
Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: AI-
t_
STAFF PO .
To: Members of the Design Review Board
From: Sung H. Kwon, Planning Manager
Subject: 2000 Paradise Drive; File No. DR2018-074; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for the construction of a 37 square foot addition. Exterior
changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, a new awning, and
window changes on the west elevation.
PROJECT DATA
ADDRESS: 2000 PARADISE DRIVE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059-172-46
FILE NUMBER(S): DR2018-074
PROPERTY OWNER(S): 2000 PARADISE LLC
APPLICANT: AUDREY HITCHCOCK
LOT SIZE: 3,308 SQUARE FEET
ZONING: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
FLOOD ZONE: X(OUTSIDE 500-YEAR STORM EVENT) &
VE-14 (COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA)
DATE COMPLETE: AUGUST 15,2018
PSA DEADLINE: JANUARY 12,2018 (PSA DEADLINE EXTENDED)
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the
Class 1 and 3 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303, and that
none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply.
HISTORY
A use permit was granted by the County of Marin for a restaurant at this location in 1961,prior to
the incorporation of the Town of Tiburon. The use has essentially been in continuous operation
since, with various changes of ownership and proprietorship. The structure was initially built as a
single-family residence in the 1950s.
TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBITIftit.
October 4,2018
Planning Commission Review
In early 2018, the property and proprietorship changed hands, and the restaurant closed for
upgrades and refurbishment. Prior to the sale.. Town staff verified that a parking lease was
secured between the seller (Point Tiburon Plaza) and the buyer of the Caprice. This long-term
lease ensured an adequate off-site parking supply for the restaurant use in accordance with
Zoning Ordinance standards of one parking space per each four seats. The lease was needed
because the owner of the Point Tiburon Plaza was the seller and the Caprice parcel has no on-site
parking.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed 37
square foot addition and related land use changes for the Caprice Restaurant on June 13, 2018 as
required in Tiburon Municipal Code Sections 16-22.040C & 16-22.040D.
The Planning Commission approved the (CUP) and imposed conditions of approval on the land
use including but not limited to the operational use (including hours of operation, seating, valet
parking), setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area. The Planning Commission further conditioned
the use permit to require that valet parking will be addressed under a separate encroachment
permit application.
Design Review Board Review
The Design Review Board does not need to address the building size, restaurant use, or parking
as these issues were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The Design Review
Board's review is limited to the proposed exterior changes including height, windows, awnings,
lights, and change in exterior materials and colors.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a 37 square foot
addition. Exterior changes include increasing the roof height by I foot (The highest portion of
the existing roof is at 30' elevation point. The new maximum roof height would be limited to 31'
elevation point.), a new awning, and window changes on the west elevation. The Design Review
Board has discretion over height. The height of the building would remain less than the allowable
30-foot height limit. (There is a slight slope to the roof ridge. It slopes from 30' at the front of
the building to 29.7' at the rear of the building.)
The exterior of the existing structure consists of blue/grey wood paneling on the upper floor. A
mix of wood paneling and concrete exists on the exterior of the lower floor. The proposed roof
color includes dark grey Thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply rooting membranes. The
exterior will be painted white with dark grey trim. In the neighborhood, there are a variety of
white structures, including the multi-story residential structure at 2002 Paradise, the Sanitary
District building across the street, and other homes along Paradise Drive. The entry canopy will
be red to signify that it is a restaurant. A color and materials board has been submitted and will
be present at the meeting for the Board to review.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 8
�i:';;Iti;ll I�.C:`•'lt\\' �iatli.� ���i'i'i711�
October 4,2018
PROJECT SETTING
1991
II t J,6 .l U9 F��� 3� !9PF� :�} q�� f� d � �. Y t •
Jos
41
C.• F 3 A C � � �t �, �. 3
•loot
410 -4
1910
Tiburon
eoo Ior y, s a
e '
The subject site is located on the downhill side of Paradise Drive. The views from this site are of
San Francisco, Racoon Straits, and the Golden Gate Bridge. The site slopes down to the water
from Paradise Drive.
ANALYSIS
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H)
(Guiding Principles). Staff's analysis of how the proposed project conforms to the guiding
principles are provided below:
1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes
orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is small scale in nature. The size of the addition was already
approved by the Planning Commission. The increase in roof height is less than the
maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Allowing the Caprice Restaurant to be
updated is a benefit for the Town of Tiburon. There are many Tiburon residents that are
waiting for the Caprice Restaurant to reopen. In addition, allowing this waterfront
restaurant to be modernized allows for a more enjoyable experie»ce by customers.
2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the
site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular
attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior
mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints
on development imposed by particular site conditions.
The one-foot height increase would not result in an adverse impact on nearby
structures/uses, including the residential units at 2002 Paradise Drive, in terms of access
to light and air.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 8
October 4,2018
The neighbor's main concern is the proposed project's effect on the private views from
their 3-story residential building at 2002 Paradise Drive. This increase in roof height
would not eliminate westward side water views from the upper unit. This increase in roof
height would not eliminate westward side water views of the lower unit, as the Caprice
restaurant currently blocks this view.
The Town of Tiburon's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings note in Principal 713
that that blockage of center views is more damaging than blockage of side views. In
addition, the DRB has the authority, if it deems appropriate, to approve project submittals
up to the height limit. Under the Zoning Code, a structure at 2000 Paradise can be up to
30 feet high, subject to design review.
The rooftop mechanical equipment proposed is typical of a restaurant. By removing the
existing equipment and installing new equipment, the side views for the middle unit at
2002 Paradise Drive would be enhanced. Staff recommends any approval include the
Town's standard condition noting the requirement to operate within applicable noise
standards is proposed.
Allowing the Caprice Restaurant to be updated is a benefit for the Town of Tiburon.
There are many Tiburon residents that are waiting for the Caprice Restaurant to reopen. In
addition, allowing this waterfront restaurant to be modernized allows for a more enjoyable
experience by customers.
3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, rind/or bulk of the proposed project bears a
reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good
relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in
neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be
discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize
the intrusion on the neighborhood.
The neighboring structure at 2002 Paradise is three stories tall and would remain much
taller than the Project's proposed structure with its 1-foot roof height increase. The 2002
Paradise Drive property is zoned R-2 which has a height limit of 30 feet. Staff believes
that the structure at 2002 Paradise is over the current height limit.
The proposed project would remain under the applicable 30-foot height limit and the 1-
foot increase in the height of the structure would not materially affect the visual quality
and visual character of the town. As the proposed project includes some exterior upgrades
and enhancements, the visual character of the town would be improved.
4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and
the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is
known as floor area ratio (See subsection L, below).
For Project's involving residential development the Staff and/or the Design Review Board
would review Floor Area ratio issues. For Commercial Development, however, the
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 8
October 4,2018
Planning Commission reviews and approves the Floor Area through Conditional Use
Permit applications. The Planning Commission has already approved the 37 square foot
addition.
S. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes
grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the
site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses.
No grading or tree removal is proposed.
6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and
exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be
in stark contrast with its surroundings.
The 37 square foot addition and the 1-foot increase in roof height do not change the
physical structure very much. The exterior materials will remain the same. The proposed
color will change from a blue/gray to white. As noted previously, there are a number of
white buildings in the area including the residential structure at 2002 Paradise Drive.
7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent
erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise
impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-
resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity,
nunimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other
monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a
one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of
title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall
comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient
landscaping adopted by reference therein.
No changes to the existing landscaping are proposed.
8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other
properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for
safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded
downlighting.
Lighting is proposed only on the front elevation. There are 6 lights proposed below the
eaves and 2 sconces proposed next to the new entry door. As required under Municipal
Code Section 16-30.070 B. "All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded
downlighting." The proposed number of lights are appropriate for a restaurant and will
not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution.
9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing
improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site
as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing
development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 8
.'41�ti1 Iii.11:1(\V P-O.Hd
October 4,2018
buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a
reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or
modifications required.
Town of Tiburon residents have inquired with staff and the applicant regarding the
reopening date for the Caprice Restaurant. The applicant's proposal will upgrade the
existing structure. Staff believes that proposed project would improve the property.
10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones,
building envelopes rine generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for
flexibility in the appropriate siting Of a main structure and its accessory structures. The
building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by
a main structure and its accessory structures.
The proposed project is not located in a planned residential zone.
11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy
and/or resource conservation.
As part of the building permit process, a demolition recycling plan is required. If the
project was a new house, solar panels would be required. Residential additions do not
require solar panels. As the proposed project is a small commercial addition solar panels
are not required
12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall
conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone
by article H (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements
including recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C[recyclables collection area]) and
screening guidelines established.for specific uses by this zoning ordinance.
The proposed project is located in the NC zone, which sets setbacks through the use
permit process. The height limit for the project site is 30 feet. The proposed project will
remain under the allowable height limit.
In sum, the proposed design change is relatively minor. The additional square footage allowance
has already been approved by the Planning Commission. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area
issues were also addressed in the Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission.
The applicant contends that the increase in roof height allows for the installation of seismic
upgrades, duct work, and fire sprinklers. The applicant also plans to change some of the rooftop
equipment. Staff believes the project as submitted is in conformance with all the applicable
guiding principles. The Design Review Board may review height and roof top equipment as part
of the Site Plan and Architectural Review.
The owner of 2002 Paradise Drive (adjacent 3-story residential structure) has expressed concerns
to staff and submitted two letters about the project's increase in roof height and alleged view
blockages. Staff has prepared a memo addressing the concerns identified in both letters which is
attached hereto as Attachment 3.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 8
October 4,2018
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff received two comments letter provided by the neighbor at 2002 Paradise Drive. Letter 1,
dated August 29, 2018, was written by Heidi Barnes. Letter 2, dated September 4, 2018, was
prepared by an attorney representing Heidi Barnes and John Davis. See Attachment 2 for copies
of those letters and Attachment 3 for staff's responses to the comments provided therein.
CEQA
On June 13, 2018, the Planning Commission, as part of its review of the project and approval of
the CUP, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3
categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and
15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). A Notice of Exemption (NOE)
was filed on June 22, 2018, and the NOE was posted for the requisite period, which triggered a
35-day statute of limitations period for legal challenges to the Town's CEQA exemption
determination associated with its CUP land use approval. No timely legal challenge was filed so
the time to object to or challenge the Planning Commission's CEQA exemption determination
has passed.
To the extent further analysis is required, staff recommends that the Board similarly determine
that with respect to the limited Site PlandArchitectural Review approval at issue the Project is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to the same Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions, and that no
exceptions to the exemptions apply.
Class I Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines§ 15301 —Existing facilities)
The proposed project consists of a 37 square feet addition. In addition, the project would reduce
the number of restaurant seats. As such, the project proposes minor repairs/alterations to an
existing restaurant involving negligible expansion of existing building.
Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15303 — New Construction/Conversion of
Small Structures)
The proposed project involves a minor amount of new construction to add a 37 square foot
addition and the restaurant use would not involve substantial hazardous materials beyond use of
the normal cleaning and sanitation materials typical of any restaurant. The proposed awning
would not create significant impact. Fagadc upgrades are typical of restaurant improvements.
Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA Guidelines§ 15300.2)
Further, none of the exceptions listed in Cl3QA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no
evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does
not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. Indeed, the proposed project
would not significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that
any significant cumulative impacts would occur.
Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following:
1) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways
in Marin County.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 8
October 4,2018
2) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no
hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon.
3) The structure is not a historical resource because I) the structure is not listed on the Town
of Tiburon's Local Historic Landmarks list 2) the structure is not listed on the California
Historic Resources list, 3) the structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic
Places; and (4) there is no evidence that the structure meets any of the criteria for listing.
In addition, the property owner has noted that they would not consent to listing the
property on any historic list.
4) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon's Design Review Board to approve
exterior improvements for restaurants. For reference, the Design Review Board approved
exterior changes at 27 Main Street(DR 2018-092) on 9/6/18.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, subject to the standard conditions outlined in
the draft resolution for approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution for Approval
2. Letter 1, dated August 29, 2018, was written by Heidi Barnes. Letter 2, dated September
4, 2018, was prepared by attorney for Heidi Barnes and John Davis.
3. Staff response memo to the 2 comment letters.
4. Application and supplement material
5. Submitted plans
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 8
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-03 (DRAFT)
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
GRANTING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 2000
PARADISE DRIVE BY 37 SQUARE FEET, RAISE THE ROOF BY 1 FOOT, CONSTRUCT
A NEW AWNING, AND MAKE WINDOW CHANGES ON THE WEST ELEVATION.
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-172-46
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findinp-s.
A. The Design Review Board has received and considered a design review application (File
#DR2018-074) for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a 37 square
foot addition. Exterior changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, constructing a new
awning, and making window changes on the west elevation. The application consists of
the following:
1. Application form and supplemental materials received June 20, 2018.
2. Plans received September 25, 2018.
The application and official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part
of this resolution. The record includes, without limitation, the staff reports, minutes,
application materials, and all comments and materials received prior to or at the public
hearing.
B. The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public meeting on October 4, 2018, and
heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C. The Design Review Board finds that the project falls under and thus is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class I and
Class 3 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303. The
Design Review Board further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2
apply, as there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances or involves let alone will cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
D. The Design Review Board finds, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the October 4, 2018 staff report and the attachments thereto, that the project,
as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with all
applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
1
E. The Design Review Board finds that no aspect of the project, including its additional
square footage or roof height increase would have a material adverse effect on the
surrounding area or the Town of Tiburon.
F. The Design Review Board finds that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes
of and guiding principles under Section 16-52.020H of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby conditionally approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review Application
(File #DR2018-074). The conditions of approval adopted by the Design Review Board are
listed below.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval.
Community Development Department
I. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be
responsible for defending against this challenge, with defense counsel subject to the
Town's approval. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the
"Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval,
including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the
third party challenge.
3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved
by the Design Review Board on October 4, 2018, as may be amended by these conditions
of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated September 25 2018,
stamped "Approved by Design Review Board October 4, 2018", as determined in the
discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board,
4. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be
materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are
made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for
clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the
Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes,
such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted
construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and
attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the
Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
2
are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project
that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building
Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning
Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal.
5. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall
demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures must be down-light type fixtures with
shielding.
6. At the time of building permit submittal, a photovoltaic energy system shall be shown on
the drawings in compliance with the requirements of Section 16-40.080 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code and shall be installed and operational prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or building permit final sign-off.
7. At the time of building permit submittal/planning conformance check, it shall be
confirmed that all skylights will be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner
(minimum 25%), and no lights shall be placed in the wells of the skylights. Installation
in accordance with the approved plans shall be documented prior to final building
inspection sign-off.
8. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of
Action", including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project, shall be copied
onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings.
9. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Tollm's Noise Standards
Policy for•Air Conditioning Units.
www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1050/HVAC-and-Similar-Mechanical-
Equipment-Noise-Policy. If the units exceed any noise standards at the property line,
noise baffles or other sound reduction measures shall be required to reduce the sound
levels at the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application.
Compliance with all applicable noise standards shall be established prior- to the issuance
of a building permit.
10. Throughout project construction, fencing and/or walls located within a required setback
shall not exceed six feet (6') in height at any point, measured fi•orn grade on both sides of
the fence/wall, except where allowed by Municipal Code section 16-30.040(B)(2). All
new fencing, walls and footings shall be located entirely on the subject property.
11. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted
on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the
public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-
resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall
contain the following information:job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13
of the "Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project
manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name- and phone number
Design RevieA Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
3
reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the
site.
12. Prior to under-floor inspection, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor of the structure
foundation is required to be submitted to the Building Division. Required documents
shall include: 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2)
specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as
appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and
slabs. No additional inspections will be provided until the confirming survey results have
been submitted.
13. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection sign-off,
all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The
installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field
inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, flood proofing shall be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Town of Tiburon Building Official.
15. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain a sign permit for the restaurant name
sign.
16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain all necessary
approvals from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC).
17. The height limit increase shall be limited to 1 foot. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the
applicant shall clearly show (to the satisfaction of staff) that height limit will only be
increased by 1-foot.
18. Prior the final inspection, the applicant shall obtain a height survey to show that the
height increase was limited to 1-foot.
19. All work shall be limited to the subject property.
Public Works Department
20. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the
following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans:
■ An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town's
road right-of-way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of
new utility connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall
clearly identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment
Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
4
Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD)
21. Throughout the duration of project construction, all requirements of the Fire Protection
District shall be met, including but not limited to the following:
■ Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Is Required per NFPA 13. An automatic fire
sprinkler system is required to be installed conforming to NFPA Std. 13. Plans and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to
installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District to apply for fire service
connection. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire
flow.
■ System Supervision Required. All automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems,
flow switches, and control valves shall be monitored by an approved UL Central
Station company, zoned and enunciated as required by the California Fire Code.
■ Knox Key Access Required. 'Knox' key access shall be installed at the premises
conforming to TFPD Policy 423.1.
■ A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) conforming to the policies of the Tiburon
Fire District shall be prepared and implemented at the site. The VMP-Fuels
Management Plan shall conform to Tiburon Fire Protection Policy 433.5. The plan
shall be incorporated into the landscape plan for the project and submitted to the Fire
Marshal for review prior to implementation. The plan shall be implemented prior to
building final.
■ Exit Signage redlined to state " This Exit shall remain unlocked When Occupied."
The sticker that stated "...during Business Hours" is no longer compliant to the 2016
Code.
■ Hood and Duct Extinguishing Systems. California Mechanical Code, California Fire
Code, State Fire Marshal Building Standards and Regulations, Conformance
Required. This will apply to the commercial cook line and duct system and be
covered under the Building Permit process.
Other Agencies
22. The applicant shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from Sanitary District No. 5 and
pay all applicable fees (including connection & fixture fees) prior- to construction.
Sanitary District#5 permit issued before construction starts:
■ Sewer line lateral video (Section. 8610)
■ Check valve installation/confirmation (Section. 4612)
■ All remodels, new construction or any work over $50k (Section. 11408. & # 611. (a)
o for Residential and Commercial projects
o Connection fees for additional bath/kitcheri/laundry fixtures
o Require set of existing plans, as well as proposed plans, for comparison purposes
■ Any bathroom or kitchen remodel work (Section. 4901.)
■ New Construction: Connection fees for new lot/home Residential and Commercial
■ For Commercial Properties w/Kitchens: installation/confirmation of grease trap or
interceptor
■ Payment for new fixture fees and permit
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
5
■ Permit issue for all outside sewer work lateral repairs or replacements to city main
sewer
House sales:
■ Real estate agents must provide the Sanitary District with a sewer line lateral video
before sale of a property, this is to review the condition of sewer lateral. The Sanitary
District inspector will determine if the line needs a repair or replacement. (Section.
4408 & 4611 (b) )
■ Check Valve installation/confirmation
■ All final projects with the city must have a Sanitary District final walk through and
job card sign off.
23. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall
submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of
MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on October 4,
2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BRYON CHONG, CHAIR
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
SUNG H. KWON, ACTING SECRETARY
Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft) October 4, 2018
6
Sung Kwon
From: Jonathan Kathrein <jkathrein@rflawllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Sung Kwon
Cc: Heidi Barnes
Subject: Letter from Heidi Barnes regarding the Caprice
Attachments: Tiburon Design Review Board - Letter from Heidi Banes 9.4.18.pdf
Hi Sung,
Heidi Barnes asked me to send the attached letter to you.She is in Tiburon this week and available to show DRB
members and town staff her property(2002 Paradise Drive) any time before the meeting on Thursday night.She is
available by phone and email.
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan R. Kathrein, Esq,
RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP
1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
Tel:415.453.9433 ext. 131
Fax:415.453.8269
Email: jkathrein@rflawllp.com
Website: http://www.rflawlip.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole
use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing,
or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover,any such inadvertent
disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication
in error, please contact the sender at: jkathrein@rflawllp.com<mailto:ikathrein@rflawllp.com>. Thank you.
1
August 29, 2018
Subject:The Caprice at 2000 Paradise Drive
Dear Tiburon Design Review Board,
The new owners of the Caprice Restaurant, which is right next door to my brother's and my
residential property at 2002 Paradise Drive, have recently submitted a design plan for their
renovations.They propose raising their commercial roof, which will be covered with heating
and cooling equipment.This will significantly diminish the panoramic views from our triplex, a
property that has been in our family for 35 years, and my primary source of income.
The applicant defends the height increase by saying, "it's only a foot." This one-foot increase in
height is enough to completely eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove from our middle unit and
reduce the natural sunlight in our lower unit. The change has a major impact on the character
and value of our property.
The new owners of the Caprice could adjust the design to minimize intrusion to our property,
but so far have refused.
We oppose any height increase to the Caprice. In addition, we request that the Design Review
Board study the increase in height more carefully. The increase is significant.A robust study
should, at a minimum, include a site plan that includes the roof height in relationship to our
property and others. In addition, the applicant must repair the required story poles that both
appear to be too short and do not have the required connecting tape. As the story poles stand
today, they do not adequately demonstrate the increase to the roof height and its impact on
the neighbors.
We are concerned that the Caprice is a historic structure, with great significance to the Town of
Tiburon and the neighborhood, and deserves to be studied and carefully preserved.The Caprice
was built as a home in the 1950's. The property was purchased by Kirby Atterbury in 1962 and
turned it into a restaurant, which he named after his daughter, Caprice. In the last 56 years
there have been no changes to the exterior,with the exception of paint and the addition of a
few planter boxes. The Caprice acts as a landmark, reflecting the town of Tiburon in that era.
We have tried to handle this in a neighborly fashion. A couple of months ago, I invited the
Caprice's new owners by the triplex to discuss our concerns. While they did slip by for a short
visit, they were not interested in seeking a solution.They were moving forward with their plans.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 6t". 1 invite and encourage all Members of
the Design Review Board to visit our triplex Wednesday, September 5t" or Thursday, September
6t". Times are flexible.
I will be flying into town early to meet with Members at the property. If any of those dates do
not work, please let me know and I will arrange another day.
Please call me at 310-279-0968 or email me at heich_@ eidibarnesrealty.corn to arrange a
viewing.
Thanks so very much,
Heidi Barnes
2002 Paradise Drive,Tiburon
heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
310-279-0968
Sung Kwon
From: Jonathan Kathrein <jkathrein@rflawllp.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 9:45 AM
To: Sung Kwon
Cc: Riley Hurd
Subject: Opposition to DR2018-074 (The Caprice)
Attachments: Ltr- Tiburon DRB - Barnes Davis - Caprice Opposition FINAL.pdf
Sung,
Our letter of opposition to the site plan and architectural review application for the Caprice is attached. Please excuse its
late arrival. We have been working hard in our attempt to find a resolution between the neighbors, but have not been
successful.
Thank you, in advance,for circulating the letter to the DRB members.Thank you also for your thoughtful and thorough
work on this matter.
Best regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan R. Kathrein, Esq.
RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 131
Fax:415.453.8269
Email: jkathrein@rflawllp.com
Website: http://www.rflawllp.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole
use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing,
or the taking of any action in reliance upon this cornmunication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent
disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication
in error, please contact the sender at: jkathrein@rflawllp.com<mailto:ikath rein@rflawllp.com>. Thank you.
1
Ragghlantli 17-IC .11S LLP
Attorneys at Law
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269
jkathrein@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com
September 4, 2018
Via E-Mail Only
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: The Caprice - Opposition to DR2018-074
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
Our office represents John Davis and Heidi Barnes, the owners of 2002 Paradise Drive
in Tiburon ("Davis Property"). The Davis Property shares its southwest property line
with 2000 Paradise Drive ("The Caprice"), owned by 2000 Paradise LLC and Jerry Dal
Bozzo as its president("Applicants"). We are writing to request that the Design Review
Board ("Board") deny application number DR2018-074 for site plan and architectural
review ("Application"). Any roof height increase and rooftop HVAC will cause our
clients significant harm due to the raised roof impacting critical water views.
We ask the Board to excuse the tardiness of this Ietter, but we only just learned we
would need to be writing to you at all. We engaged the Applicant extensively in an
attempt to address our clients' concerns. Last Tuesday, August 28th, I spoke with Mr.
Dal Bozzo by phone. Mr. Dal Bozzo proposed a plan to reduce the increase in roof
height to only 1 inch on the water-side of the Caprice, and an 8 inch increase on the
Paradise Drive side. We were encouraged by this proposal.
Two days later, on August 30th, Thursday, Mr. Dal Bozzo told me he had met with his
architect and contractors to plan for the reduced increase to the roof height. The next
day, on Friday, August 31st, I spoke with Mr. Dal Bozzo again. He told me he had
directed Audrey Hitchcock, his designer, to speak with me and provide our clients with
modified plans and a visual rendering so that John and Heidi could consider Mr. Dal
Bozzo's proposal. After a couple unsuccessful attempts to reach her, and unreturned
voicemail messages, I finally reached Ms. Hitchcock who confirmed that, by the end of
the day on Monday, she would send us modified plans decreasing the roof height
Ragghiant1 .1,re.[_L,tS LLP
Page 2 of 14
increase, as well as visual renderings to provide a perspective from the Davis Property.
We did not receive anything from Ms. Hitchcock on Monday. Today, I called Ms.
Hitchcock, who told me to direct my call to Mr. Dal Bozzo. By the end of the day, after a
call with a newly-engaged attorney for Mr. Dal Bozzo, it was clear that we would not
receive the promised plans and visual rendering, and that the promised reductions
would not be occurring. It appears Mr. Dal Bozzo took advantage of our good faith
attempt to come to a resolution, and used it as a tactic to stall our effort to protect our
clients by submitting timely comments. This is also unfortunate because the modified,
detailed plans, and color visual renderings would have helped the Board to come to a
better understanding of what is being proposed.
At this point, for the reasons discussed below, we must request that the Board deny the
project.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The purpose of site plan and architectural review ("Purpose') is to ensure that the
design of proposed construction assists in maintaining and enhancing the Town's
distinctive character, including, as is applicable here: (1) compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood, (2) retaining and strengthening the visual quality and
attractive character of the town, . . . (5) assisting project developers in understanding the
town's concerns for the aesthetics of construction, and (6) ensuring that construction
complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely
affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. (TMC 16-52.020(A).)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
hz review of an application, the Board must determine whether the project meets the
following guiding principles ("Guiding Principles"), and any other town guidelines,
including, as is applicable here: (1) site plan adequacy, (2) site layout in relation to
adjoining sites, (3) neighborhood character, (4) floor area ratio, . . . (6) compatibility of
architectural style and exterior finish, . . . and (10) appropriate use of building envelope.
(TMC 16-52.020(H).)
ROOF HEIGHT INCREASES
The Board must consider that an increase in roof height or other changes to a roof
design may result in potentially significant view obstruction impacts on neighboring
bi
LIU
Ragghianti J.f I'CI t UP
Page 3 of 14
homes. (TMC 16-52.020(L.).) Applicants must erect story poles for all minor alteration
project site plan and architectural review that involve modifications that would
materially increase the height, location or visual mass of a roof. (TMC 16-52.020(L)(1).)
Story poles must be installed at least ten days prior to the hearing, be connected by
ribbons or tape, and visible from at least three hundred feet. (TIVIC 16-50.070.) Failure to
properly install poles and materials can result in a continuance. (Id.)
The Board shall determine fromthe reports and data submitted, supplemented by
public comment and on-site inspections, whether the structure will further the Purpose
and achieve the Guiding Principles set forth above. (TMC 16-52.020(E)(2); 16-52.020(A)
and (H).) And the Board must make affirmative findings, based on the record, in
approving or denying the application. (TMC 16-52.020(E)(2) and (3).) The Board may
also approve the application subject to conditions or modifications. (TMC 16-
52.020(E)(3) and (4).)
APPLIED TO THE CAPRICE
Here, reports and data are missing, but even with the information available, it is clear
the required findings cannot be made.
(Purpose 1) Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
Foundationally, it is important to realize that 1.3 feet of roof height increase to the
Caprice causes the middle unit of the Davis Property to lose its entire view of Belvedere
Cove, the sailboats, and the historic downtown. It also impacts the other two units. But
this proposed obstruction is not limited to the Davis Property, it will also impact an
important view for everyone who visits the point in Tiburon.
r
Figure: Before and After
While the Caprice has one immediate neighbor, the Davis Property, it is also next to the
Shoreline Path and Paradise Drive. Both Shoreline Path and Paradise Drive are heavily
trafficked by pedestrians, bikers, local residents and tourists from across the world. In
RagghIanti l Y'lsel[�1 S 1_.1.P
Page 4 of 14
fact, the route is identified as Section 23 of the San Francisco Bay Trail as a "spectacular
local favorite among cyclists." (San Francisco Bay Trail, Card 23.)
The Caprice is in a picturesque location that is important to the way residents of the
Town and visitors from across the country and around the world view the Town of
Tiburon. The Caprice is not hidden from view or tucked into a far-flung area of the
town. The Caprice is at the most picturesque point in Tiburon. Changes in design
features, architecture, and height should be very carefully considered by the Board.
Here, changes in the height of the Caprice will impact the Davis Property, and its three
residential units. Changes in the height will also impact the view from Paradise Drive
and the Shoreline Path for many visitors each year.
The Applicant has not submitted any visual impact studies or renderings that show the
changes in the Caprice in relationship to the views from Paradise Drive, the Elephant
Rock Pier, or the Davis Property and the Caprice's impacts on the views of Angel
Island, the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown San Francisco, or Belvedere Cove. John and
Heidi have been promised color renderings of the visual impact to their property, and
possible modifications to the design. These renderings would inform the Board's
decision as well. The promise has not been kept.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
(Purpose 2) Retains and strengthens the visual quality and attractive character of the
town
Adding height to the Caprice does not actively retain or strengthen the visual quality or
attractive character of the Town as viewed from Paradise Drive. It blocks the view of
the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown San Francisco, and Angel Island. How great is the
impact? We do not know because it has not been studied. There is no information in
front of the Board as to the impacts to visual quality. But the height increase certainly
does not retain or strengthen the visual quality.
As can be seen in the image below, it camlot be disputed that the height increase and
modification of HVAC and ventilation equipment will obstruct the view of Angel
Island.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
Ragghianti r'r ! L ;. LLP
Page 5 of 14
Figure: View from Mar West Street
(Purpose 5) Assist project developers in understanding the town's concerns for the
aesthetics of construction
The Application does not provide any narrative to explain how the Caprice fits into the
town's concerns for aesthetics. This is wholly unaddressed.
The entrance canopy is designed to be bright red. This is an unusual color choice.
Restaurants and shops nearby, including for example the shops on Main Street, have
more subtle canopies. Why did the Applicants decide to impose on the aesthetics with
bright red? We do not know. An understanding of the town's aesthetics, Purpose 5 of
site plan and architectural review, and addressing those aesthetic concerns is required.
The lighting has not been considered or studied either. Lighting systems and light
strength have not been detailed in the design. Will the lighting be increased to create
additional light pollution, impacting views from Paradise Drive or from the Davis
Property? Lighting impacts must be considered in relationship to town concerns for
aesthetics. The image below shows the perspective from the lower unit in the Davis
Property and provides some sense of how impactful light pollution could be to the view
of the Golden Gate Bridge.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
Page 6 of 14
f3 R $at
' r
t
Fbbi 3
M4
Golden
t
i S i � �3
i Golden Gate Bridges 1�
a
Figure: Light Pollution and the ilGolden Gate Bridge
(Purpose 6) Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards
and guidelines,and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or
natural resources.
The California Architects Board explains that a person not licensed as an architect or
engineer can design certain types of buildings or portions of buildings, including:
single-family dwellings, nonstructural storefronts, and nonstructural alterations or
additions, provided that the alterations do not change the structural system or safety of
the building. (California Architects Board, Consumer's Guide to Hiring an Architect,
page 3.) But this does not apply to the Caprice.
The plans for the Caprice show changes in what appears to be the structure of the
building, as can be seen in the images below. This raises an important question. Is it
appropriate for the Board to make a decision regarding the community health and
safety without plans created by an architect or engineer? Community health and safety
is one of the fundamental purposes for the Board's review. Not relying on the proper
professionals or adequate information is unacceptable. Detail must be provided by an
appropriate professional.
The Application does not further this Purpose.
Ragghianti
Page 7 of 14
a
U
W:
-17
Figure: Structural Alterations
U
a
w
2
Figure: Additional Structural Alterations
Ragghianti � _IS LLP
Page 8 of 14
(Guiding Principle 1) Site plan adequacy
As with Purpose 6, above, the site plan impacts the structural integrity of the Caprice. It
also increases the height, changes the lighting, and changes the color scheme of the
building. None of these have been addressed by studies or qualified professionals.
These changes are not adequately addressed in the site plan. The work done is not that
of engineers or architects.
Guiding Principle 1 is not met because the site plan is inadequate to meet the specific
requirements that must be considered for site plan and architectural review.
(Guiding Principle 2) Site layout in relation to adjoining sites
Adjoining sites include the Davis Property, Paradise Drive, Mar West Street, Shoreline
Path, Elephant Rock Pier, and the San Francisco Bay itself. The Application proposes to
make modifications to the Caprice without considering, or even describing, the impacts
on any of the adjoining sites listed here.
The Town Code requires the Board to make affirmative findings, based on the record,in
approving an application. Here, the only evidence in the record (ours), is that the
project will have an impact. Accordingly, the only finding the Board can make here is
one of denial.
(Guiding Principle 3) Neighborhood character
The neighborhood character is a combination of residential, pedestrian, and tourist
vista. The Application interferes with each. First, the height increase and noisy
equipment impose on the view, aesthetic quality, and value of the Davis Property.
Second, the height impact, the new bright red awning, and new lighting systems
impose of the surrounding vista for town residents and travelers alike.
At best, the fit between neighborhood character and the proposed changes to the
Caprice need a thorough analysis by the Applicant. Otherwise, these impacts appear to
support denial findings only.
(Guiding Principle 4) Floor area ratio
The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that the Neighborhood Commercial
land use designation shall permit a maximum allowable FAR of 0.37. (Land Use
Element, General Policy DT-12.) Minor floor area additions to properties exceeding FAR
LIU
Ragghlanti 4 f. 1 "1",1 s, I.LP
Page 9 of 14
limits but"a finding must be made that there will be no material adverse effects." (Land
Use Element, General Policy DT-8.)
Here, the Application states that the lot area is 3308 square feet and the gross floor area
will increase by 37 square feet to 3352 square feet. (Application, page 3.) This creates a
floor area ratio of 1.01. Therefore, the Caprice significantly exceeds the applicable FAR
of 0.37.
Even if the floor area ratio is approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the site
plan and architectural review criteria require a finding that there will be no material
adverse effects is required. This finding cannot be made, as there will be a material
adverse effect and furthermore it has not been studied or addressed in the Application.
This Guiding Principle cam-iot be met.
(Guiding Principle 6) Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish
The exterior finish of the Caprice needs to be more carefully considered. This includes
lighting, color, signage changes, roof height, and HVAC equipment and ventilation
system placement. A decision cannot be made without making findings based on
evidence in the record. There is no evidence here, upon which to base a decision.
Additional plans sheets should be submitted to the town to demonstrate the exterior
finish and architectural style in more detail.
This Guiding Principle cannot be met.
(Guiding Principle 10) Appropriate use of building envelope
In our conversations with the applicant and the designer, we are not convinced that the
building envelope have been used to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and
surrounding properties and vistas. The rationale that the roof height must be increased
to accommodate additional insulation and fire sprinklers is an easy argument to hide
behind, but has the Applicant thoroughly investigated where else these materials could
be placed? We are not convinced, and the Board should not be either.
The Applicant must provide sufficient information to the Board, in the record, so that
the Board can determine that the Application meets this Guiding Principal.
It is our understanding that there are alternatives to increasing the roof height. The
piping for the sprinkler system could be located under the roof, within the walls, under
Raggliantl " = .< ': LLP
Page 10 of 14
the building, forward on the roof, or hidden behind the fascia boards at the roof's
border. These designs have not been provided to neighbors or the Board. These
alternative designs should be considered when the Board considers use of the building
envelope.
"It will cost more money" is an easy argument for the Applicant to make. But not
considering more efficient use of the building envelope will cost John and Heidi in the
economic value of the Davis Building.
In summary, the Application does not achieve the Guiding Principles detailed above,
and therefore it should be denied.
Roof height increases may result in significant view obstruction
The Tiburon Code particularly calls out the negative impact of roof height increases as a
consideration for site plan and architectural review. The Code does so, not within
another larger topic, but individually, as a stand-alone consideration for the Board's
review. The focus on roof height increases and the potentially significant view
obstruction on neighboring homes signifies the weight that should be given to the
Board's consideration.
As with other considerations, including the Proposes and Guiding Principles described
above, the Board's finding must be based on the record. Here, there is no record made
by the Applicant. The Application does not show a visual perspective of the roof height
increase from any neighboring property. The Application does not describe the impacts.
The plan set does not even juxtapose the Caprice against a background. The plan set's
exterior elevation of the front does not show Angel Island or the San Francisco Bay in
the Background. Similarly the plan set's east elevation does not show Belvedere Cove
and downtown Tiburon in the background. Based on the Application it is not possible
to understand what the roof height increase is blocking.
This letter, and the images herein, are the only record that addresses this important site
plan and architectural review consideration. The roof height increase and changes to the
roof design of the Caprice will result in significant view obstruction impacts on the
Davis Property, and other neighboring homes. The roof height increase will completely
eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove and downtown Tiburon from the middle unit of
the Davis Property.
In addition, the Applicant must erect story poles, connected by caution tape, at least ten
days in advance. Here, the story poles are up, but they are objectively not connected by
Ragghi anti s, 4 a; LLP
Page 11of14
caution tape, and appear to be less than the applied-for height above the existing
roofline. Most importantly, the fact that there is no tape running along the peak of the
roof fails to demonstrate any sense of the view obstruction that will result from the
height increase.
The Applicant could have presented the Board with an argument, in the form of visual
data and reports in the record, that the roof increase will not cause a significant view
obstruction impact on the Davis Property and others. In fact, this is what we asked the
Applicant to demonstrate to us during this last week. Instead, the Applicant not only
failed to snake an argument to support a finding by the Board, but in addition, the
Applicant objectively failed to meet the town's story pole requirements.
For these reasons, the Board should determine that the record can only support a
finding that the roof height increase will have an unacceptable significant view
obstruction impact on the Davis Property. The Application should be denied.
ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW
In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the Board must apply
the goals and principles of other guidelines. (TMC 16-52.020(J.).) The Board's review
must consider the "installation or relocation of exterior air conditioning or heating
(HVAC) units, generators or similar noise-generating mechanical equipment." (TMC
16-52.020(B)(3).)
On September 6, 2017, the Town revised and updated the Noise Standards for Air
Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical Equipment ("HVAC Noise Standards").
The HVAC Noise Standards state that "[tjhe installation of air conditioning units or
other similar noise-generating mechanical equipment may potentially have adverse
noise and/or unreasonable aesthetic impacts on neighboring properties." (Page 1 of 3.)
Applications must contain sufficient hiforiiiation to make specific findings, including,
but not limited to, the following:
(2) "[T]he proposed equipment would (in aggregate) not generate a maximum A-
weighted sound level of More than 60 decibels (dBA) at any point on a property line.
(Pages 1 and 2 of 3.)
Applicants do not include such "sufficient information" in their plans. They do not have
any information related to IIVAC noise at all. Therefore the application is incomplete.
In addition it is not possible for the Board to make a finding on this subject as is
RU
Ragg zianti i
Page 1.2 of 14
required by the Town Code and the HVAC Noise Standards because they do not have
any information upon which to base their finding. This finding simply cannot be made.
(3) "An applicant shall provide a letter from an acoustical consultant or a mechanical
engineer that demonstrates sound level compliance for installations utilizing noise
control barriers or enclosures." (Page 2 of 3.)
The Applicant simply has not provided such a letter, therefore the application is
incomplete. As the application stands, missing required information, it is not possible
for the Board to make a finding based on sufficient information. The required
information from an appropriate licensed professional is not present or included.
(4) "If the proposed equipment has the potential to create unreasonable aesthetic
impacts, adequate screening shall be provided . . . to substantially conceal the
equipment from adjacent properties and/or the public rights-of way . . . ." (Page 2 of
3.)
While the plans screen some of the equipment, they do not screen all of it. The spirit of
this required finding is clearly that the neighbors and the general public do not want to
see HVAC equipment in the middle of their view of the San Francisco Bay. The rooftop
of the Caprice is designed with HVAC equipment all over it. The equipment is clearly
visible from neighbors, Paradise Drive, and the streets and homes above. It should be
hidden from view. In fact, why is the HVAC equipment placed out of sight underneath
the property instead of on the roof?
The HVAC Noise Standards contain methods for determining sound levels. (Page 3 of
3.) These methods cannot simply be ignored, as they have been.
It is additionally important to consider that The Caprice has almost no setback from the
property line with the Davis Property. The Davis Property has three residential units
within a few feet of the proposes{ JAVAC equipment, including their living rooms and
outdoor decks. This HVAC equipment will have adverse noise and unreasonable
aesthetic impacts on the Davis Property and must be studied and mitigated.
The Application does not meet the HVAC Noise Standards, it does not even include the
mandatory determination by an acoustical consultant or mechanical engineer. The
Application must be denied for these reasons.
Ragg ianti URS LLP
Page 13 of 14
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires government agencies to
consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans or
committing to a course of action on a project. (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, 21001.)
CEQA and its related guidelines contains a list of classes of projects which have been
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt
from review ("Categorical Exemption(s)"). (Pub. Res. Code § 21084, CCR § 15300.)
One such Categorical Exemption is a "Class 1 Exemption" for the repair and minor
alteration of existing structures. (CCR § 15301.) Though Categorical Exemptions are not
absolute ("Exception(s)"). (CCR § 15300.2) An Exception to the Class 1 Exemption is
that it "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource." (CCR1500.2(o.)
A historical resource includes any object, building, structure, site, area which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant. (CCR § 15064.5(a)(3).) The CEQA
guidelines provide additional considerations that may guide a lead agency's
determination. (Id.)
Here, the Application claims a Class 1 Exemption to CEQA, yet a historical resource is
an Exception to the Class 1 Exemption to CEQA and therefore the Categorical
Exemption cannot be used. If the Board decides not to thoroughly consider and study
the environmental impacts of the Application, it must do so with more than a cursory
claim to a Categorical Exemption.
The Board should note that, according to the Staff Report, the structure has been
standing since the 1950's and has been a restaurant since 1961. (DRB Staff Report, page
1 of 8.) This makes the Caprice at least 57 years old, as a restaurant, and older as a
structure. According to the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Caprice is older than
the Town of Tiburon. (Planning Commission Staff Report, page 2 of 6.)
In addition, Fodor's travel guide describes the Caprice as a "Tiburon Landmark" foi-
1,more
or"snore than 50 years." (Fodor's California 2016: with the Best Road Trips.)
At the very least, the Board must take time to study the Caprice in order to determine
that the Caprice is not a historical resource, as the Caprice is older than the town itself
and highlighted internationally as a landmark. The historical significance of the Caprice
must be carefully considered. If it is historic, as we believe it is, additional review must
be done.
Ragghianti ii I I LLP
Page 14 of 14
CONCLUSION
The Application does not meet the Purposes and Guiding Principles required by site
plan and architectural review. The Application does not support a finding that the roof
height increase is less than a significant view obstruction, as is an important
consideration for approval
Specific findings must be made before the Board may approve the Application. In order
to make required findings, the Board must have documentation and studies upon
which it may base those findings. The necessary material has not been provided to the
Board, making those findings impossible to make. As such, we request that the Board
deny this Application.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Jonathan R. Kathrein
CC: Client
Riley F. Hurd III
Mown. of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Sung H. Kwon, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Staff response to neighbor's comment letters dated August 29, 2018 &
September 4, 2018
DATE: September 25, 2018
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The neighbor at 2002 Paradise Drive provided two comment letters. Letter 1, dated
August 29, 2018, was written by Heidi Barnes. Letter 2, dated September 4, 2018, was
prepared by an attorney representing John Davis and Heidi Barnes (hereinafter
"Davis/Barnes"). These two letters will be called the "2002 Paradise Drive letters." This
memo is provided to the Design Review Board (DRB) to provide staff's responses to
and make clarifications regarding the topics raised in the 2002 Paradise Drive letters.
Although this memo follows the format of the second letter, the issues raised in both
letters are addressed in this memo.
Staff has clarified with the applicant that the proposal is limited to a 1-foot increase in
roof height over the existing roof. The existing roof height varies in many locations.
The highest portion of the existing roof is at 30' elevation point. The new maximum roof
height would be limited to 31' elevation point.
Architectural Review
Contention: Davis/Barnes attempt to define the parameters of the Design Review
Board's ability to make determination.
Staff Response: The DRB may approve, deny, or continue a project based on the
information provided. It is up to the DRB and staff to determine if the information
provided is sufficient. If the DRB determines that sufficient information is provided, the
DRB can act upon a proposed project accordingly. Although a member of the public
can request more information, the DRB can reject this request as appropriate.
Design Review Purposes:
Compatibility With The Surrounding Neighborhood (16-52.020 A.1.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend the increase in height would impact views and
additional visual renderings are required.
Page 1 of 7
Staff Response: The DRB is well versed with assessing compatibility with the
neighborhood. As there is already a structure located at 2000 Paradise Drive, the DRB
can determine that a 1-foot height increase would have a de minimis effect on public
views, as the views across the property are already similarly affected by the existing
structure.
The neighbor's main concern is the proposed project's effect on the private views from
their 3-story residential building at 2002 Paradise Drive. This increase in roof height
would not eliminate westward side water views from either the upper or lower units at
2002 Paradise Drive as the Caprice restaurant has long affected those views.
The Town of Tiburon's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings note in Principal 7B that
that blockage of center views is more damaging than blockage of side views. In
addition, the DRB has the authority, if it deems appropriate, to approve project
submittals up to the height limit. Under the Zoning Code, a structure at 2000 Paradise
can be up to 30 feet high, subject to design review.
Allowing the Caprice Restaurant to be updated is a benefit for the Town of Tiburon.
The DRB has authority to determine if the application furthers this purpose.
Retains and strengthens the visual quality and attractive character of the town (16-
52.020 A.2.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the roof height increase and the proposed roof-
top equipment would not strengthen the visual quality and attractive character of the
Town.
Staff Response: A 1-foot increase in the height of the structure would not materially
affect the visual quality and visual character of the town as it would be a de minimis
change from the longstanding conditions associated with the Caprice restaurant. As the
proposed project includes some exterior enhancements, the visual character of the town
would be improved.
The proposed HVAC equipment may be visible from off-site; however, the equipment
will be screened by the existing vegetation, the proposed screen, and the roof ridge.
Staff does not believe any further changes are required.
The DRB has authority to determine if the application furthers this purpose.
Assists project developers in understanding the town's concerns for the aesthetics of
construction (16-52.020 A.5.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the applicant needs to provide a narrative
regarding aesthetics. Davis/Barnes also expressed concerns about e proposed awning
and lighting.
Page 2 of 7
Staff Response: A detailed written description regarding the Town concerns is not
necessary. The DRB can rely on the staff report and the proposed drawings to
determine if a project is appropriate for the Town.
The red awning is proposed to identify the structure as a restaurant rather than a
residence.
The proposed lighting is limited to the front elevation. There are 6 lights proposed
below the eaves and 2 sconces proposed next to the new entry door. The Municipal
Code Section 16-30.070 requires all such lights must be shielded downlighting. See
Municipal Code Section 16-30.070.
General lighting design and development shall comply with the following standards:
A. Exterior lighting shall not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare
or light pollution; yet shall provide adequate illumination for safety and security
purposes.
B. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting.
C. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and shall not utilize frosted glass, and no
lights shall be placed in or directed up into the wells.
D. Baffles, shields or other structural elements may be required to limit light pollution
from exterior lights and skylights.
The DRB can determine if the proposed lights are appropriate. The DRB typically does
not require lighting studies for minor remodel projects like this one and routinely makes
decisions on such design review projects without a lighting study. Due to the limited
number of lights, proposed only on the front elevation, no lighting impacts are
anticipated and thus no lighting study is required.
The DRB has authority to determine if the application furthers this purpose.
Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines,
and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources
(16-52.020 A.6.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that an Architect is required to submit for Site Plan
and Architectural review for a commercial structure.
Staff Response: As noted in the "Consumer's Guide to Hiring an Architect," the Building
Official determines when an Architect or Engineer is required. This applies to the
building permit submittal. For design review, any conceptual design can be considered.
The DRB has authority to determine if the application furthers this purpose.
Design Review Guidelines:
Site Plan Review (16-52.020 H.1.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the additional studies are required for the height
change, changes to lighting, and color scheme.
Page 3 of 7
Staff Response: The Design Review Board can make a determination based on the
proposed plans. No additional studies are required. The DRB can approve the project
based on the plans presented by the applicant
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Site layout in relation to adjoining sites (16-52.020 H.2.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the DRB must deny the proposed project
because it may impact their neighboring property.
Staff Response: The Zoning Code outlines the need for a determination in relationship
to specific criteria. This determination has typically been formalized by a decision to
approve or deny a project. A resolution of approval (attached to staff report) is provided
to the DRB to make the recommended findings of approval.
Although the 2002 Paradise Drive letters contend that the neighboring property will be
affected by the proposed project, the DRB can approve the project. The DRB has the
discretionary authority to approve the proposed project based on their determination
regarding this guiding principle. In addition, the 2002 Paradise Drive letters do not
provide sufficient evidence that the proposed project fails to satisfy the applicable
design criteria or will result in any significant impacts.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Neighborhood Character (16-52.020 H.3.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the proposed project will affect the character of
the neighborhood.
Staff Response: The comment letter claims that neighborhood character would be
affected. This claim alone is not sufficient and the 2002 Paradise Drive letters provide
no evidence that the project proposes a design that bears an unreasonable relationship
to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. Staff contends that the proposed
project would enhance the neighborhood character by providing exterior upgrades to an
older building.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Floor Area Ratio (16-52.020 H.4.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the floor area increase would have material
adverse effects.
Staff Response: The proposed floor area was approved by the Planning Commission
and no timely appeal or challenge to that approval decision was filed. The DRB has no
need to review the appropriateness of the proposed increase in floor area. Any adverse
Page 4 of 7
effects of a 37 square foot addition would be de minimis, as the fagade of the restaurant
to be improved. In addition, the proposed project would reduce the number of seats
which would reduce the number of customers.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish (16-52.020 H.6.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes assert that there is not sufficient information for the DRB to
make a determination.
Staff Response: Although, the DRB can determine if any additional information is
required, the proposed project includes sufficient details for the DRB to find the project
is compatible with this criteria and approve the project.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Appropriate use of building envelope (16-52.020 H.10.)
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the building envelope was not used to limit
impacts.
Staff Response: The building envelope is used in RPD and RMP zones. The subject
site is located in the NC zone. This zone has a 30-foot height limit. The proposed
project does not exceed the height limit. The roof could be raised even higher without
exceeding the height limit.
In terms of design, there are a wide variety of options, including raising the roof even
higher than proposed, that could be approved by the DRB. The commenter is correct
that cost savings for a particular design option is not something the DRB normally
considers. The DRB; however, can approve the project as submitted because the
proposed project does not negatively impact public views and only insignificantly affects
the neighbor's side views across the subject site, which have long included the Caprice
restaurant.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Roof Height increase
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that additional information is required to assess the
proposed project's effects on views.
Staff Response: Staff has clarified that the applicant is limiting the increase in roof
height 1 foot. The commenter claims that increase in roof height would significantly
impact views. The commenter also notes that the HVAC equipment is not screened.
The proposed project, as submitted on September 25, 2018, includes a screen that
would screen the mechanical equipment. As mentioned above, the subject view is a
side view across private property. Center views toward the Bay and Angel Island are
Page 5 of 7
not affected. There is no need to provide additional information about views. The DRB
can review and respond to this claim based on the drawings and/or observing the story
poles.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
Additional Design Review
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that additional review is required for the HVAC
equipment.
Staff Response: The HVAC locations can be reviewed by the DRB. According to the
applicant, the main HVAC equipment includes the make up air unit and the smaller
intake cap. The applicant also notes that the air intake duct is just a duct and does not
include any mechanical equipment. The applicant also proposes a number of vent caps
including a kitchen exhaust fan, the dishwasher exhaust fan, and various other
plumbing vents.
A noise analysis is not necessarily required at this time. The DRB can conditionally
approve the project provided the applicant shows compliance to the maximum sound
levels for HVAC prior to building permit issuance. The Planning Department has a
standard condition of approval that addresses this very issue. The DRB can outline that
the noise analysis be prepared to the show the project's compliance to noise standards,
prior to the issuance of building permit.
The DRB can determine that the proposed project meets this guiding principal.
CEQA
Contention: Davis/Barnes contend that the project is not exempt from CEQA because it
entails a Historic Resource
Staff Response: The Planning Commission deemed the proposed project to be
categorically exempt and to the extent additional analysis is required staff recommends
that the Board similarly determine that the project is exempt pursuant to the Class 1 and
3 categorical exemptions and that none of the exceptions apply. The structure is not a
historical resource because 1) the structure is not listed on the Town of Tiburon's Local
Historic Landmarks list 2) the structure is not listed on the California Historic Resources
list, 3) the structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and (4)
there is no evidence that the structure meets any of the criteria for listing. In addition,
the property owner has noted that they would not consent to listing the property on any
historic list.
The commenter notes the age of the building but provides no substantial evidence of
the historic value of the structure or demonstrates that the project will materially affect
any character defining elements thereof. The age or location of a structure, alone, is
not evidence that it is a protected historical resource.
Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
Davis/Barnes request the DRB deny this project. Staff recommends approval of this
project. See attached resolution for approval. The DRB can determine if any additional
information is required. Without such determination, the DRB can approve the
proposed project as submitted.
Page 7 of 7
'I'Oln'N OF TI UPON !=t.n.!�l!!�!u DIVISION
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICA'T'ION
o Conditional Use Permit o Design Review(.DRB) o Tentative Subdivision Map
o Precise Development Plaut o Design Review(Staff Level) o .Final Subdivision Map
o Accessory Dwelling Unit o Variances) _# o Parcel M.ap
o Zoning Text Amendrrient o floor Area Exception o Lot.Line Adjustment
o Rezoning or Prezoning o "tidelands Permit o Condominium Use Permit
o General flan Amendment o Sign Permit o Junior Accessory Dwelling
o Temporary Use Permit o Tree Perin'it o Other
APPLICANT REQ1j1RED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: ' ' �t��t�b ����c���� PROPERTY SILK:
PARCEL NLMBLI : :-y)i _--1�_° P 6y-•-A-•___---
ZONING: WC—..PtOPE2I ' OWNER:
MAILING D DRI?:S`S:
_ F._.GSL Q'D iA •f -4
PHONE/FAQ NJMI3FIZ.: AIL:
APPLICANT (Other than PrUperty Owner):
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE/.FAX NUMIBER: FIA�
ARCS-IITEC'I'IDESIGNER/ENGINI�('I<_;R -----
MAILING ADDIU4_SS:
PHONE/FAX NUMB} R:------- -- - - -F-MAIL:
'lease indicate with crit asterisk (•`)persons to whom Town correspondence should he sent.
BRIEF DESCRIP'T'ION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
pp &
K'a'Ff�+.qi'a�,z�C.�• •j�p-�"_cY_e..4..b �;,�'��,a" '.h�j'd:". b ��ft1z wTr a. �- h � t .�.e.: 4.r-/ caJ "a ;r'°nn`�-
fyz � F a r',a1
���;�`�� e 3*s_9 � f,,• y q u;:,�,�,�'-3 - s a o > A� �x a � � $�.-�r`e� t'-5 .x'} wry.Yip--
g a
i, the undersigned owner(or authorized agent)of the propc,rty herein described, hereby make application for approval ofthe
plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions oft lie Town Municipal Code,and I hereby
certify that the information given is true and correct to the hest of my knowledge and belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit(or that of my principal), Therefore,if the Town grants the approval,
With or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this
Challenge,with the defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. 1 therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at
the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the"Town harmless from any costs,claims or liabilities
arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that might result fiont the third party
challenge.
,
gDate: `c e
Tile property involving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&IZs),which may restrict the property's use and development.These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT
enforced by the Town of Tiburon.Consequently,development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considcred by
the Town when granting permits.
You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners
association and adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding, with constructian. hollowing this procedure will
minimize the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation.
Signature: ���r } rG -' -— - -.. - Date:
s -
*lf other than ommer, musl have an anthorization letter fi-om the owner of evidence of de facto Control of the prolm'ty or
premises for pwymses of filing this rrpp/ieation
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
Pursuant to California Government Codc Section 65945,applicants may request to receive notice from the Town ofTiburon ofany general(non-parcel-
specific),proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan,'honing Ordinance,Specific Plans.or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits.
If you wish to receive such notice,then you may make a written request to the Director of Comnwnity Development to be included on a mailing I st for
such purposes,and must specify which types ofproposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length oftime you
wish to receive such notices(s),and you must provide to the Town a supply of stamped,sell'addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants
shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the•town for the duration of the bine period requested for receiving such notices.
The notice will also provide the status ofthe proposal and the date ofany public hearings thereon which have been set. The Townwill determine whether
a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application,and send the notice on that basis.Such notice shall be updated at Icastevery six weeks unicss
there is no change to the contents ofthe notice that would reasonably affect your appkation.Requests should
Town of Tiburon 11 W
Community Development Department II
Planning Division �UIU 1��
1505TN 8iburon Boulevard U l
Tiburwr,CA 94920
(4 15)435-7390(Tet) (415)435-2438(rax) PLANNING DUSION
wNm.townoft iburon.orQ
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
Application No.:p�2',f b-- ()1� GP resignation: Fee Deposit: '
i<Jb
Date Received: lQ12o110 Received By:Qy-) Receipt#: IZ,C j'_.
Date Deemed Complete: c5 r`Zon By: 9
Acting Body: Action: Date:
Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance#
- —--6--
SUrr>r.r:�tn:,vraf.Ar�rr.rC�tra�n1'vralr rnrr,l-lrn•orr:lr.rr:rt•iru�N 7zmNnr-
rrtrtntnro ,trrr<o<iznr<, r,u,r.5
MINOR ALTERATION SUPPLr-[VIENT
P|eaoefill inthe information requested below:
1, Briefly desciibe the proposed prqect (attach se aratp sheet )
2, Lot area insquare feet(Section 10'100,O20<4)*: Zoning:
3, Square footage of Landscape Area:
4, Impervious Surface Area Calculations ( (in cubi rd
a) Existing Impervious Surface Area: :; < 0
b) Completed Project Impervious Surface Area:
c) Land Area (in square feet)to be disturbed/clearecfdurin'g construction:
d) Amount of Grading or Earth Movement involved.(total in cubic yards):
5. Proposed use of,site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.):
Existing
Proposed
8. Describe any changes to parkingincluding number of parking spaces,turnaround or maneuvering
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED:ADDITION: PROPOSED CAL- PERZONE
Setbacks from
property line
(Section 16-
Front
Rear ft ft. ft.
ft
Left Side
Maximum Height ft ft.
Lot Coverage
Lot Coverage as
Percent of Lot Area %
Gross Floor Area
*Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title|Y. Chapter 16 (Zoning)
LATE MAIL
t I#AU.
r, �www posard broe k + associates
PLANNING (.lit/ISIf. N �
September 17,2018
John Davis and Heidi Barnes(Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive)
c/o Ragghianti Freitas LLP
Attention:Jonathan Kathrein
1101 5th Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
RE: The Caprice,2000 Paradise Drive,Tiburon,CA 94920
PB+A Review of"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
Dear John and Heidi:
POSARo BROEK+ASSOCIATES(PB+A)was contacted by Jonathan R.Kathrein(Ragghianti Freitas LLP)on September 12,2018,in
connection with the above referenced project. We were subsequently asked to review the design review set of plans prepared by Hitchcock
Design Studio dated August 14,2018(Delta Plan Check Response II"),and the subsequent revised set dated September 24,2018(Delta
"Design Review").
PB+A is an interdisciplinary firm of architects,engineers, and construction managers specializing in the design,investigation,analysis,
testing,and remediation of building systems in historic and contemporary structures.Over the last twenty-five years,PB+A and its
principals have successfully completed thousands of investigative,testing,and repair projects throughout the United States involving
virtually every type of building system and construction materials,structural system,and architectural component.
PB+A understands that the Owners of the adjoining property(2002 Paradise Drive)are concerned about having established views of the
Tiburon and Belvedere waterfronts obstructed by the new proposed roof height increase at the 2200 Paradise property,otherwise known as
the Caprice Restaurant.
As part of our review,PB+A also reviewed the Town of Tiburon"Hillside Design Guidelines"particularly with respect to safeguarding the
views of existing properties.
Below is a summary of PB+A's review of the two sets of plans,the Land Development Application,the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines,
and our proposed considerations to allow the Owners of the adjacent property to retain their views of the Tiburon and Belvedere
waterfronts.
AUGUST 14,2018 SET OF PLANS(DELTA"PLAN CHECK RESPONSES II")
1. The height limits on the Cover Sheet for the existing and proposed do not correspond to the roof heights listed on the elevation
drawings.The cover sheet lists a change from 28.7'(Existing)to 29.7'(proposed). This deviates from the 30.0'(existing)and 31.0'
(proposed)on the elevations. We further understand that the Neighborhood Commercial Zone only allows a maximum of 30.0'in
height.
2. The land survey on the Meridian Surveying Engineering Inc.sheet 1 of 1 shows the ridge peak at 30.0'at the street side of the ridge,
and 29.7'at the bay side of the ridge peak.This indicates that the roof ridge is sloped from front-to-back by approximately 4". The
view of Tiburon and Belvedere waterfronts for the Owners at 2002 Paradise Drive is principally at the back portion of the Caprice
property(i.e.,the lower section of roof ridge).
3. The ducting through the roof for the dishwasher,range,and other mechanical appear to exit straight up through the roof from the plan
below and therefore do not require any ducting within the roof framing cavity(as stated on the Cover Sheet and Proposed Roof Plan).
c M �z
F�,W,f..:
.m .,. " ;,,
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
4, The Food Service drawings as indicated on the Upper Level Plan have not been provided,however,the Building Section sheet
indicates the range abuts the gridline 4 with the exhaust hood directly above.
5. The Building Section—Longitudinal#2 does not modify the ceiling height dimensions for the proposed plan at the West Dining Room,
and the ceiling height has clearly been raised.The Kitchen-109 and Egress—104 spaces also appear to have increased in ceiling
height.The ceiling height dimensions called out are not at the correct elevation nor dimensioned at the new heights.
6. The Proposed Roof Plan does not indicate the direction of slope on the low slope roof section or how the roof drains.
7. As shown on the Exterior Elevations-North Elevation,the proposed roof height on the West elevation appears to have also increased
in height,but the elevations are not noted.
8. As shown on the Exterior Elevations-North Elevation,the concrete footing on the east elevation has increased in height,but no
notations are included to indicate this change. The same change shows up on the Exterior Elevations—West Elevation sheet.
9. The sheet"Exterior Elevations—South Elevation"call out repairs and waterproofing to the existing piles,but do not indicate the height
increase of the piles.
SEPTEMBER 24,2018 SET OF PLANS(DELTA"DESIGN REVIEW")
1. The height limits on the Cover Sheet for the existing and proposed do not correspond to the roof heights listed on the elevation
drawings.The cover sheet heights were changed and now state 27.3'(Existing)to 28.3'(proposed). This deviates from the 30.0'
(existing)and 31.0'(proposed)on the elevations.
2. The Proposed Floor Plan—Upper Level now has a more developed Kitchen plan including indicating the dishwasher location and
ranges. These locations indicate that the roof exhausts are directly above these appliances.Therefore,the reasoning for adding
ducting in the new 2x8 roof rafters has not been adequately substantiated.
3. The egress hallway on the Proposed Upper Level should be properly dimensioned for code minimums. Typically,exit corridors must
have a minimum clear width of 44"and may need to be larger due to the occupant load.This width needs to be clarified by the
Architect to determine that no walls need to be adjusted within the current setbacks.
4. The Lattice/Privacy Screen on the roof plan has been extended slightly towards both the Bay and Street sides of the roof.A new
secondary screen is now placed in front of the dishwasher vent but is not called out. It is unclear if the current story poles show this
extension and how the view of the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive may be adversely affected.
5. The roof exhausts on the North Elevation now appear to be higher than the August 14,2018 set of plans and the long screen/lattice
has been relocated closer to the ridge.The Satellite dish has also been added.
6. The pier extensions on all elevation drawings have not been called out(only states a repair and waterproofing),In fact,these notes
have been deleted from the previous version.
7. The north,west,and south elevation drawings all call out the ridge peak at 31.0'. The ceiling at the low slope roof areas(both ends)
on the South Elevation has been raised and there is no indication of these new elevations.Between the siding increase above the
window heads,and raised roof framing,this increases the heights well over 1 foot.It is unclear if the builder installed story poles on
these sections of roof.
8. The screen on the West Elevation proposed,Sheet A2.2 is now much higher than the existing or previous version of the plans.No
elevation is indicated from the top of the screen. The satellite dish has also been added to the new drawing.
9. The East Elevation—Proposed,sheet A2.4 shows this taller screen,but no height is indicated. This new taller screen will obstruct the
existing views of downtown Tiburon for the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive.
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
10. On Sheet A2.4, East Elevation—proposed,the ridge peak is listed as 30.7'(see note above regarding ridge peak of 31'for the other
three elevation drawings). It is presumed that if new 2x8 framing is installed,the roof ridge would be straightened at the 31'elevation.
It is unclear if the story poles on the south elevation are at this actual 31'height,and the 2002 Paradise Drive owners view obstruction
will be worsened.
11. On Sheet A2.4,the notes for the repairs to the concrete piers are still present,but there are no indications to the increased heights.
12. On Sheet A3.2 Building Sections—Proposed,the screen height has increased from the August 14,2018 set of plans,as have the
exhaust fans on the east portion of the roof.
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
1. This original application fails to mention that the roof height will be raised to 31'. It does show a 1-foot increase in height,
but has the original height at 27.3'and the proposed height at 28.3 feet.
2. Under the Minor Alternation section,Item#1,it mentions a"new roof"but fails to mention that the roof framing would be
replaced with deeper framing,or raising the interior ceiling heights(as graphically shown on the current September 24,2018
set of drawings). The current reasoning by the Applicant for the deeper roof framing is in order to accommodate a new fire
sprinkler system and insulation in order to comply with Title 24.
TOWN OF TIBURON"DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE DWELLINGS"
1. These guidelines were found on the Town of Tiburon Website. There are also Downtown Design Guidelines,but the Caprice
Restaurant appears to be outside of the zone deemed as"Downtown".
2. In"Goal 3—Preserve Access to Views",#1 to#7,in the introduction paragraph it states"No single item,with regard to his dwelling,is
more precious to the resident of Tiburon than his view.The view may be panoramic or a slot between two other dwellings. It may look
at the San Francisco Bay or Mount Tamalpais,at the Forest Glen or across a meadow to a nearby attractive neighborhood.The nature
of the view and the preservation of it make up about a third of the discussions before the Board of Adjustments and Review."
3. Principle 3: "Views should be preserved as much as possible within reason".It further states"The neighborhood and the developer or
architect of the new dwelling must work together to obtain the best solution between slot views,view corridors,and panoramic views.
Remember,the slot view is just as important to the person who owns it as the 360°panoramic view is to its Owner." The Owners of
2202 Paradise Drive view their view of downtown Tiburon and the Tiburon/Belvedere waterfronts as an important"slot"view.
4. Principle 4—View Quality is Usually More Important than View Quantity. The Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive view their view of the
Tiburon/Belvedere waterfront as a"quality"view.The proposed roof height increase takes away the view of the bay water at this view
point.
5. Principle 5—Horizontal View Arc states that"most views in Tiburon are horizontal".It is for this very reason that the 2202 Paradise
Drive Owners cherish their horizontal view of the Tiburon/Belvedere waterfront,which would be adversely obstructed if the Caprice
roof height were raised.
6. Principle 7—Partial View Blockage Should be Avoided Whenever Possible. The footnote to this provision further clarifies"View
Protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling(e.g.,Living Room,Dining Room, Family Room,Great Room,
Kitchen,and decks associated with these rooms)". The view that is being blocked at the 2002 Paradise Drive property for the second
floor unit is frog n the common Entry atrium and the Kitchen, Dining,and deck areas of Unit#2. Each of these spaces constitute as
defined by the Guidelines,a"primary living area".
Caprice Restaurant
PB+A Review of the"Design Review Revised Plan Submittal"
September 28,2018
Page 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the documents prepared by the Caprice designer,the Town of Tiburon,the current story poles installed at the roof
of the Caprice property,it is PB+A's opinion that the height increase at the Caprice property does not conform to the Design Guidelines
provided by the Town of Tiburon and will adversely impact the existing and established views of the Owners of 2002 Paradise Drive
(adjacent property).
Furthermore,the plans prepared to date for these renovations by Hitchcock Design Studio appear to be incomplete and contain multiple
inconsistencies with respect to ceiling and roof heights at the upper level of the Caprice property from the previously issued plans to the
Tiburon Planning Department,some of which were not requested during the plan check process.The inconsistencies misrepresent the
actual height of the applicant's proposed project to the benefit of the applicant.
PROPOSED CONSIDERATIONS
The following proposed considerations would protect the 2002 Paradise Drive Owner's existing views of downtown Tiburon and the Tiburon
/Belvedere waterfronts without compromising the applicant's proposed project.
1. The Architect and Structural Engineer may be able to use the new 2x8 roof framing,as desired,but can cut them back at the ridge,by
use of collar or tension ties and additional blocking. This minor change would keep the existing ridge peak at 29.7'and 30',but allow
the installation of new fire sprinklers and insulation(purported to be the reason for the height increase).
2. The applicant should have a land surveyor certify that the installed story poles are at the correct elevations and placement.
3. The revised architectural plans should include all ceiling and roof heights for review by the Town of Tiburon in making their final review
and approvals.
4. The revised architectural plans should adjust the height and location of the privacy screens/lattice at the north roof area so as to not
increase the existing view obstructions. The new mechanical hoods/fans should not increase in height so as to require this higher
screen/lattice.
5. The revised architectural plans should include all other necessary notations to describe the proposed work(e.g.,reason for increasing
the concrete foundations on the piles at the bay elevation).
6. The Applicant through their designer should also provide the structural engineering drawings prepared by Prowest Structural
Engineering and the Mechanical drawings prepared by ACIES Engineering with respect to the new roof fans/hoods.
7. In conjunction with review of the Mechanical plans,and assuming that the existing exhaust fans are still operational,a sound test to
establish existing STC sound levels should be established and the new fans should meet or be less than the current sound levels.The
same should apply to the exhaust odors and filtration,
Contact us if you have any questions or if you would like us to conduct a site visit prior to the October 4 hearing or review additional
documents.
Sincerely,
fTpmred Ekko,k Sign l—
Adam Posard,A.I.A.LEED®AP
Principal
Sent via E-ma'I
Enclosure: Town of Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines
LATE MAIL #401 ("ems
October 1, 2018
i 1_1Nl~IING DIVISION
Subject: The Caprice at 2000 Paradise Drive
Dear Tiburon Design Review Board,
The new owners of the Caprice Restaurant, which is right next door to my brother's and my
residential property at 2002 Paradise Drive, have recently submitted a design plan for their
renovations.They propose raising their commercial roof, which will be covered with heating
and cooling equipment.This will significantly diminish the panoramic views from our triplex, a
property that has been in our family for 35 years, and my primary source of income.
The applicant defends the height increase by saying, "it's only a foot."This one-foot increase in
height is enough to completely eliminate the view of Belvedere Cove from our middle unit and
atrium, as well as reduce the natural sunlight in our lower unit.The change has a major impact
on the character and value of our property, both in rental income and resale value.
The new owners of the Caprice could adjust the design to eliminate intrusion to our property,
but so far have refused. We recently hired Posard Broek &Associates:A firm with licensed
architects, engineers, and general building contractors, who specialize in the design,
investigation, analysis, testing and remediation of building systems in historic and
contemporary structures. They have analyzed the Caprice plans and found no compelling
grounds on which the roof needs to be raised. Posard Broek has concluded there are other
ways to provide insulation, ventilation and a new sprinkler system without raising the roof and
obstructing our view. Further more, the story poles are presently at 10 inches, even though the
Caprice plans are asking for 12 inches. Originally, the story poles were set at 8 inches. There
continues to be inconsistencies with the Caprice plans and the owners have not provided any
evidence that the roof needs to be raised.
We oppose any height increase to the Caprice. In addition, we request that the Design Review
Board study the increase in height more carefully, The increase is significant. A robust study
including a land surveyor needs to be done to confirm existing heights and their accuracy. In
addition, the applicant must repair the required story poles that once again appear too short.
As the story poles stand today, they do not adequately demonstrate the increase to the roof
height and its impact on its neighbors, namely 2002 Paradise Drive.And most significantly, the
Caprice owners should submit alternative plans, which include accomplishing what is required,
without raising their roof. It is all in the structural engineering.There are other options and
better options that will be fair to all.
There has been constant deception presented by the new Caprice owners:
1. Inconsistent numbers on plans. There is total misrepresentation or fudging. And it is unclear
if the height will go over one foot, upon construction.
2. Inaccurate ever-changing story pole heights
3. The Caprice owners keep changing their story. I have now spoken with them and the owners
said the Caprice is a hobby for them, they don't care if they make money or how long it takes to
open the restaurant. They said they would just go to their house in France for a year and hang
out. Meanwhile, the triplex at 2002 Paradise is my bread and butter. My sole income. A
property that my parents left my siblings and me.
4. In addition,the roof equipment has enlarged and is directly on our side of the Caprice. The
screen in front has increased one foot in height and eighteen inches in length toward the water.
This unsightly obstruction will again affect our water and town views from our atrium and units,
along with diminishing the natural sunlight. Again, there are lower grade options that have not
been presented and should be.
S. We are concerned that the Caprice is a historic structure, with great significance to the Town
of Tiburon and the neighborhood, and deserves to be studied and carefully preserved. The
Caprice was built as a home in the 1950's. The property was purchased by Kirby Atterbury in
1962 and turned it into a restaurant, which he named after his daughter, Caprice. In the last 56
years there have been no changes to the exterior, with the exception of paint and the addition
of a few planter boxes.The Caprice acts as a landmark, reflecting the town of Tiburon in that
era.
We have tried to handle this in a neighborly fashion. A few months ago, I invited the Caprice's
new owners by the triplex to discuss our concerns. While they did slip by for a short visit, they
were not interested in seeking a solution. They said they were moving forward with their plans,
with no consideration for our loss.
It is my understanding one of the concerns of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, is to
protect the view of home owners.
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 4th. I invite and encourage all Members of the
Design Review Board to visit our triplex Wednesday, October 3rd or Thursday, October 4th.
Times are flexible. And please, to Members that visited earlier, I ask you return as the story
poles were incorrect, only at 8 inches when you last visited. However,they are still 2 inches
short and should be raised to 12 inches by Wednesday morning.
I will be flying into town to meet with Members on Wednesday and Thursday at the property. If
those dates do not work, please let me know. Again, any time at your convenience.
Please call me at 310-279-0968 or email me atitE i�ir(i)hr uiir to arrange a
viewing.
Thanks so very much,
Heidi Barnes
2002 Paradise Drive, Tiburon
heidi@heidibarnesrealty.com
310-279-0968
LATE MAIL #AJ
Suir Kwon
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Sung Kwon
Subject: Opposition toThe Caprice DR2O18-074
Attachments: br Tiburon DRB Barnes Davis Caprice Opposition for Oct 4DRB92818RFH.pdf
Sung,
Good morning. As you know, we continue to attempt to resolve our concerns with the applicant and continue to be
unsuccessful.
After engaging our own experts, we are convinced that the roof height increase is not necessary but desired by the
applicant, as is clear because they are increasing the clear ceiling height too. If their plans are accurate,the roof height
will exceed 30 feet, and they most seek a variance. We are unclear how the hearing can proceed given that there is no
variance application and the hearing has not been noticed for nvariance.
I have attached our letter ufopposition for the hearing tonight.Would you mind circulating ittothe DR8 members?
Best regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan R. Kathrein, Esq.
RAG8H\ANT| I FRE|TAS LLP
11O15th Avenue,Suite 1OO
San Rafael, CA 9490I
Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 131
Fax: 415.453.8269
Email:
Website:
CONFIDENTIALITY N0T[E
This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole
use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing,
or the taking of any action in reliance upon this coMmunication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent
disclosure shall not compromise or waive the, attorney client privileges asiuthis oommunicadon or otherwise. (See
State Compensation Insurance Fund V.VVP5' Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App, 4th 644j If you have received this communication
in error, please contact the sender at: . Thank You.
LIU
Ragghiant;i IFreitaS LLP
Attorneys at Law
1101 511,Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269
jkathrein@rflawllp.com www.rflawIlp.com
October 4, 2018
Via E-Mail Only
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: The Caprice - Opposition to DR2018-074
October 4th Design Review Board hearing
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
Our office continues to represent John Davis and Heidi Barnes ("Neighbors"), the
owners of 2002 Paradise Drive in Tiburon ("Davis Property"). The Davis Property
shares its southwest property line with 2000 Paradise Drive ("The Caprice"), owned by
2000 Paradise LLC and Jerry Dal Bozzo as its president ("Applicants"). We are writing
to request that the Design Review Board ("Board") deny application number DR2018-
074 for site plan and architectural review ("Application"). Any roof height increase and
rooftop HVAC will cause our clients significant harm due to significant impacts on
critical water views and associated noise pollution.
This Application can be summarized as a statement from the Applicants to the
Neighbors as "improving the ambiance of The Caprice is more important than your
view and the quiet enjoyment of your residential property." We hope the Board does
not endorse this statement for the following reasons.
1. The Application requires a variance, as stated in the July 21, 2018 letter to Ms.
Hitchcock from the Planning Manager, because the Applicants have supplied
contradictory and incomplete roof heights, which exceed the 30-foot
Neighborhood Commercial zone limit. Because a variance has not been sought,
and because the notice for the DRB's meeting did not reference a variance, there
is no way approval can occur at this time.
Ragghianti Fire itas LLP
Page 2 of 9
2. Applicants must certify current heights before commencing any work because
they have demonstrated in their placement of story poles and contradicting plan
set information that they have a tendency toward inaccuracy in their favor.
3. Applicants have not demonstrated noise level compliance as is required by the
Town's Noise Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical
Equipment.
4. The projects violate the "Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside
Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and
Remodeling." The Application specifically ignores the required protection of
views of Belvedere Lagoon.
For these reasons, expanded upon below, and the reasons detailed in our letter to the
Board dated September 4, 2018 and incorporated herein, we must request that the Board
deny the Application. This request comes after extensive efforts to work with the
applicant to resolve this matter in advance of the hearing.
1. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED
The Caprice is zoned Neighborhood Commercial ("NC"). The Tiburon Municipal Code
("Code") sets a maximum height for the NC zone at 30 feet. (TMC 16-22.040, Table 2-3.)
The Height Measurement guidelines state, "No building or structure shall be erected or
altered to exceed the height limit established for the zone in which the structure is
located." (TMC 16-30.050(A).) "IIeight is the plumb vertical distance, measured using a
plane, established by the lower of the natural or finished grade at the perimeter of the
exposed exterior surface of the building, structure, fence or wall." (TMC 16-30.050(B).)
However, Sheet A2.3 of the plan set for The Caprice, submitted to the Town on
September 25, 2018 ("Current Plan Set"), shows the new height of the roof peak as 30.7
feet. Since, 30.7 feet is in excess of the 30-foot height limit in the NC zone, this height is
not allowed without a variance.
Ragghianti (Frei taS LLP
Page 3 of 9
ELEVATION EXISTING
--'--
U '_0 DOD-' ,E En i
------- --- -------
Tit-"t,w,
Figure:30.7 foot roof height
In addition, the letter from the Planning Manager to Ms. Hitchcock, dated July 21, 2018
("July 21st Letter"), states, "Please also note the height of the structure and the 30-foot
height limit from the mean high tide line.L Please note that the increase in roof height
may require a Variance." (July 21st Letter, item 1.) In the Current Plans, the roof height
remains above M feet, and the Applicants have not applied for a variance.
Without a variance, which is not sought or on the agenda, this increase in roof height
does not conform with the requirements of the NC zone and the project carulot be
approved.
2. NEED TO CERTIFY CURRENT ROOF HEIGHT
The story poles currently in place at The Caprice are inaccurate, thereby resulting in
ineffective notice of the actual project scope. The story poles do not accurately reflect a
1-foot increase in roof height, but instead only show 10 inches. The image below shows
the story poles reflect a 10 inch, not 12 inch, increase. In this particular case, 2 inches is a
meaningful discrepancy given how close the roof already is to blocking remaining
water views.
RagghiantliFreitaS LLP
Page 4 of 9
T ~
Figure: Current, but inaccurate, story poles
In this instance, every inch counts. When coupled with the contradicting heights in the
Current Plan Set, the two inches causes a greater impact -- The view of Belvedere
Lagoon from the Davis Property disappears. This is demonstrated by the photo below:
................. .a�s
r
9:'�+3� ��' .F'"� ,�' -�'e�. .� "� Cyt �-v> yh �r�� e - ; , b �""�' ��✓,��` `""rv,�,1:
I t
rs
Figure: Current, but inaccurate, story poles
1W
RagghiantilFrettas 1,LP
Page5of9
It is unclear where the roof will actually end up, because the Applicants do not certify
current roof heights, so everything is just an estimate. This inaccuracy is exacerbated by
the fact that when we last wrote to the Board, the Applicants did not have story poles in
place, as is required by the Code. Now story poles are in place, but inaccurate, thereby
representing something less than the actual negative effect of the height increase of The
Caprice.
In addition, the plans themselves show a hidden height increase in the building, even
below the additional roof height. Notice the height increase in the actual structure,
below the roofline, in Sheet A2.3 in the Current Plan Set below. It is apparent, if one
follows the height measurement across the page horizontally.
r
17 71
Figure: The building grows taller, not just the roof
In Sheet A3.2, below, one can see that in the entry level, the height of the proposed
design no longer matches the height of the base of the roof in the existing structure. In
other words, the Applicants are also increasing the height of the walls.
41�1-37 0'-IF", ---
(E)
t
�
(C) RCOF REhK
1 cumr Lry r.c&a raNnc nr
Cf11M.T If\fl f.C.C.9 DOIF&WW---t`- —
m dr Ih NINL; I:LV j
I
_ I
r",LfVYL FF.C-
7 ENTRY LEVEL FFE
tV:iP lClSl F.:.L� -
Ragghi anti FreaaS LLP
Page 6 of 9
I
- (N) ROOF PEArK
+.,O.G• [„rar�cu�.r,uc.c nr.uo x.�
(G) ROOF PEAK --
mom
EIIIAY it'sEl r._.E.o franc tON
DINING WEST
i
+�8.6 Eliikr LL'Jt:rl.k'. .
ENTRY LEVEL FTE
10KN tGYfl,
Figures: The building grows taller,not just the roof
3. NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The 'town of Tiburon adopted Noise Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar
Mechanical Equipment ("Noise Standards"), revised by the Director of Community
Development as recently as September 9,201.7. (Noise Standards, page 3.)
The purpose of the Noise Standards is to "provide guidance for the review and
approval of zoning permits for heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) units. . .
(Noise Standards, Purpose, page 1.) The Noise Standards "require sufficient
information" to find that "the proposed equipment (in aggregate) would not generate a
maximum A-weighted sound level of more than 60 decibels (dBA) at any point on the
property line." (Noise Standards, Policy, pages 1 and 2.)
The Application is deficient and does not meet this requirement because it does not
provide any inforniation related to the noise level generated by the rooftop HVAC
equipment located just feet from the property line, and just feet from the three
residential units at the Davis Property. Applicants do not provide equipment types or
noise ratings. Applicants do not provide any information about noise, and do not
provide how it will be limited at the property line.
The Noise Standards demonstrate in detail how the sound levels are calculated. (see
Noise Standards, Methods for Determining Sound Levels, page 3.) This information
must be provided for this application to even be considered.
Ragghlanti (ij reit:as LI.P
Page 7 of 9
4. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and General Design
Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling ("Design Guidelines") have been a
fundamental guiding document for the Board since October 1981. (Hillside Design
Guidelines, Introduction.) As is clear from the tale, the Design Guidelines include
remodeling. Four important principles should be carefully considered here.
a) Goal 2, Principle 9 - Acoustic privacy is important to all residents.
The Applicants are moving and replacing HVAC equipment closer to the Davis
Property. Applicants have not considered acoustic impacts in any of their
application materials. This new equipment will be within feet of the three
neighboring residences. It must be studied. In the very least, specifications must
be provided to the Board.
b) Goal 2, Principle 13 - Height limits are strictly adhered to. "Variances are
exceptions to the law and are hard to justify." (emphasis in original.)
As the plans for the The Caprice identify, the height of the building will be in
excess of the height limit for the NC zone. The Applicants must adhere to the
Design Guidelines as well as the Code requirements. An exception should not be
made here.
c) Goal 3, Principle 3 - Views should be preserved as much as possible within
reason.
The principle states that the neighborhood and the developer and architect must
work together within reason. Here, there has been a failure to work together.
There have been meetings, but no attempt to compromise. The Applicants will
block the view of their Neighbors and that has been the end of the conversation.
This approach does meet the requirements of this principle.
Ragghianti I Frei LLP
Page 8 of 9
d) Goal 3, Principle 7 - Partial view blockage should be avoided wherever possible.
Subsection D specifically says, "blockage of important objects in the view
(Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more
difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks."
(emphasis added.)
Here, the blockage is of Belvedere Lagoon. The Design Guidelines state that this
is "difficult to accept." This blockage cannot be minimized by saying that the
Davis Property also has a view of Angel Island.
In fact, Subsection F puts the burden on the designer to make a complete
presentation of the view blockage that is being presented. Here, the Applicants
have not made any presentation depicting the view blockage. We requested a
visual rendering, and at one point were promised one. Applicants have made no
visual demonstration of the view blockage. They do not meet this requirement.
5. CONCLUSION
There is a simple theme here. The Applicants still have not articulated why they must
increase the roof height. They have never pointed to a specific requirement. Our clients
have made reasonable request, including that if the height is increased, it not include
raising the center peak of the roof.
Our clients simply seek certainty - certainty about the height increase, and certainty
about the noise generated. This certainty comes from accurate plans, and accurate post-
project measurements.
If the Board chooses to approve this Application after a properly noticed variance
hearing, against the will of the Neighbors, the Board should condition approval on two
studies being complete: (1) a certification of the current height, by a land surveyor, with
correct elevations, and a certification of a post-construction height; and (2) an HVAC
study to determine the volume, size, and odors emitted from the proposed rooftop
equipment.
The Town and the Neighbors need specific benchmarks given the tolerances involved.
We request that the Board deny this Application.
Ragghlantl WreitaS LLP
Page 9 of 9
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Jonathan R. Kathrein
CC: Client
Riley F. Hurd III
Sung Kwon LATE MAIL 41
-1-
From: Jonathan Kathrein <jkathrein@rflawllp.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 11:34 AM
To: Sung Kwon
Cc: Riley Hurd
Subject: Proposed Conditions of Approval for DRB draft Resolution 2018-03
Attachments: Barnes Davis - Design Review Board proposed conditions - the Caprice 10.3.18.pdf
Sung,
Our clients propose the attached conditions of approval.The attached letter clarifies conditions already required by the
applicants, and ensures that any work performed on The Caprice is consistent with the applicants' representations, their
application materials, their plans, and the Town Code.
This should help frame the discussion tonight.
Best regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan R. Kathrein, Esq.
RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP
1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
Tel:415.453.9433 ext. 131
Fax:415.453.8269
Email: jkathrein@rflawllp.com
Website: littp://www.rflawllp.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole
use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing,
or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent
disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See
State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999)70 Cal.App. 4th 644.) if you have received this communication
in error, please contact the sender at: jkathrein@rflaw]1p.com<mai Ito:ikathrein@rflawlIp.com>. Thank you.
1
Ragghianti IFr eitaS LLP
Attorneys at Law
1101 511,Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsimile 415.453.8269
jkathrein@rflawllp.coin w ww.rflawJ1p.com
October 4, 2018
Via E-Mail Only
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: The Caprice - Proposed Conditions of Approval for DR2018-074
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
John Davis and Heidi Barnes, the owners of 2002 Paradise Drive in Tiburon, propose
the following be added to Resolution No. 2018-03 (Draft), "Section 3. Conditions of
Approval." John and Heidi believe these are critical components of the project, known
as application number DR2018-074 for site plan and architectural review at 2000
Paradise Drive ("The Caprice"), without which, they vigorously oppose the project.
• In addition to proposed Conditions of Approval 17 and 18, a licensed
surveyor certify the height of the building, and report such heights to the
Town of Tiburon Director of Community Development, both before and
after construction, to be completed not more than one year after Design
Review Board Approval. Should the height survey reveal that a height
increase any greater than 1-foot, applicant shall immediately take any and
all remedial measures to reduce the height increase to a maximum of 1-
foot.
• The approved height increase is limited to b inches unless the Town of
Tiburon Building Inspector requires an additional increase, a maximum of
12 inches.
Ragghianti I 1`reitaS LLP
Attorneys at Law
110-1 511,Avenue,Suite 100
San Rafael,CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
Jonathan R.Kathrein facsuuile 415.453.5269
jkathrein@rflawllp.com 1www.11law11P.co1n
• A qualified specialist perform noise testing and confirm, after installation
and while running at full power/speed, that rooftop HVAC equipment is
compliant with the Town of Tiburori's presently effective Noise Standards
for Air Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical Equipment. If said
e uipment is over the limit, applicant shall install any and all required
mitigation measures to reduce the noise to a compliant level in a manner
that does not further impede views from the neighboring property.
• Maintain the present size of the screen shielding the rooftop HVAC
equipment, instead of enlarging it, and reasonably engage John Davis and
Ieidi Barnes in the screen placement.
Very Truly Yours,
Jonathan R. Kathrein
CC: Client
Riley F. Iurd III
Regarding level 3 and the garage door, he was with Vice Chair Cousins; that many people would
want a 3 car garage and being on a hillside will leave only one place for storage which will be
inside the garage.
Chair Chong said it did not seem there was enough support for approval tonight and he
summarized comments that the Board was supportive of the garage door and glazing, asked that
materials should blend in with the environment better with use of the wood carried throughout.
that level 3 serves both the dining and living area and should be worked on, and level 2 is the
master bedroom so there will be no parties there on the deck.
Chair Chong suggested working with staff and with the fifth Boardmember at the next meeting
it sounds as though there is a split vote with Boardmembers Kricensky and Emberson being
close to support.
Boardmember Kricensky asked to also add the covenant for the tree plantings. Mr. Kwon
explained that if trees die at 88 Rolling Hills' property after the project was built a view would
open up for 8 Rolling Hills and the homeowners want to be sure they could replant if they die.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) to continue the matter to November 1, 2018. Vote:
4-0.
Town Attorney Ben Stock requested Chair Chong to reintroduce 136 Sugarloaf Drive and asked
the DRB to call for and take any public testimony prior to making another motion.
1. 136 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: Assessor's Parcel No. 058-311-10; Michael Sillman & Pat
Skipper, Owners; Adoption of resolution denying Site Plan and Architectural Review for
construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced side setback and excess building height; File Nos. DR2018-053, VAR2018-011,
& VAR2018-016 [SK]
Chair Chong asked for a motion to reconsider the approval.
ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Kricensky) to reconsider 136 Sugar Loaf Drive. Vote: 4-0.
Chair Chong opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Cousins) to adopt draft Resolution denying the site plan and
architectural review and deny variances for the reduced side yard setback and excess building
height. Vote: 4-0.
ACTION ITEMS
3. 2000 PARADISE DRIVE: Assessor's Parcel No. 059-172-46; 2000 Paradise LLC,
Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a 37 square foot
addition to existing commercial building. Exterior changes also include raising the roof
EXHIBIT NCS.
-±-..
Town of Tiburon Design Revieiv Board Minutes of Oclober 4, 2018 Page 8
by 1 foot, a new awning, and window changes. File No. DR2018-074 [SK] (Continued
from September 6, 2018)
Planning Manager Sung Kwon reminded everyone that story poles are present to help identify the
scope of the project and they do not have to be exact but close enough. The only time a
certification would be needed would be for new residential or new commercial buildings, and this
is not a new commercial building. He said staff also has photographic evidence that the string of
the story pole was at 12" at the ridgeline.
Audrey Hitchcock, applicant, said she is representing the owners of the Caprice, Jerry and Jennifer
Dal Bozzo, and present the proposal for one of Tiburon's favorite but under-utilized restaurants,
the Caprice. The Caprice was built in the 1950's as a modest residence. Hosting dinners for
families and friends in the early 1960's it was granted a CUP and opened its doors as the Caprice.
She discussed its construction and shortcomings, and said attempts to renovate over time have
been pursued. In 2008 a design to convert it to a banquet hall and add an additional story,
increasing its height to 30 feet was submitted and denied. In 2012, an application for some modest
outdoor seating and modest improvements to the front was granted but never completed. The
Caprice has gone 52 years with little to no improvements and its success and condition on a steady
decline.
Early this year it was purchased by the Dal Bozzo's and are noted for their success in restaurants in
the Bay Area going back to the 1970's. Mr. Dal Bozzo was involved with the Cliff House and
since then they have owned and opened noteworthy restaurants including the Crab House,
Calzone's, Solito's, the Stinking Rose, the Dead Fish, Franciscans, the Old Clam House and Oso
Steak House. They have been clear that the approach to the Caprice was 1) country charm and 2)
to make as few minor changes to the existing structure as possible. They have worked with
engineers and consultants and assistance from the Town to bring the structure up to code, which
she described. They have also met with the Fire Department to comply with codes and
improvements have dictated much of the proposal.
The most notable visual changes is the addition of a roof, which she described, stating the current
highest point of the font of the building is 127" which is 18' below the 30' height limit. There
are some ceiling heights as low as 7'9". In an effort to maintain the existing exterior and some
interior charm from the exposed rafters and to not lower the ceiling, they propose adding the new
roof framing on top of the exposed interior rafters. They propose raising the height of the building
a maximum of 12" but are working with mechanical and structural to keep this as low as possible
in consideration of the neighbors and the Town's enjoyment of the view. Changing the current
pitch and raising the ridge higher will allow them to have a shingle roof and the owners want to
maintain the existing form and pitch to not impact neighbors. This proposal still keeps the building
17' below the 30' height limit in the front and overall average of about 4.5' below the height limit.
This, along with allowing them to maintain some of the interior charm and rafters and in areas with
constrained ceiling heights also provide head height necessary for mechanical equipment and
minimum cavities for insulation, sprinkler systems, duct work, lighting and wiring. To meet Title
24 along with insulation they are also replacing the existing single paned windows with new
aluminum double paned windows. They are adding a second egress and moving the front door.
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 9
Jennifer Dal Bozzo has taken the lead in the aesthetics and finishes and has chosen a modest color
scheme with white with grey and red accents. The siding will be white and the trim and the roof
will be taupish grey and the new awning will be a classic red to distinguish it as a restaurant in a
modest but classic way. The new colors will be clean and simple and help distinguish it from
residences at 2002 Paradise Drive. They intend to drape and surround the front with flowering
plants and vines and have added minimal lighting to keep it romantic, unimposing and understated.
The Dal Bozzo's feel that by keeping the structure as known and by adding charm and romance,
capitalizing on the location and stunning views and impressive menu, residents can once again
have the Caprice as one of the best restaurants in Town.
Those who have reached out asking when it will be reopened, it is clear that many residents are
excited for it to be opened once again. Ms. Hitchcock then presented an existing picture and a
view coming up Paradise Drive with the proposal and looking across from the parking lot at the
proposal.
With regard to the raising of the roof, she worked hard with staff to understand mean high tide
line, but from the water's edge the roof height limit is measured from the mean high tide line
which is at 5.17 feet at sea level and 30' above that she pointed to, showing they are well below
the 30' height limit. In the front of the building it is measured from a combination of grade and the
mean high tide level. She displayed the 30' elevation showing they are still substantially below
that.
Lastly, in an effort to screen some of the mechanical equipment from 2002 they originally said
they would leave the existing screening and it was then requested they look at adding larger
screening to hide the equipment. Now that there have been some meetings and discussions they
are entirely open to what neighbors in 2002 wanted the screen to be. In the front they have moved
the front door to the center per the fire code and added another egress on the side of the building.
Boardmember Kricensky clarified the height and said given on the water side the ridge is at 297"
and the mean high tide is 5.17 feet, this would be a building height of 24'5". On the cover sheet,
she lists the building height as 27'3".
Ms. Hitchcock said this was an error on the cover sheet. They started the project with surveys and
documentation she had obtained from the previous owner and after they completed the new survey
and different numbers were provided to her, she revised the elevations and forgot to revise the
cover sheet.
Boardmember Kricensky referred to a couple of the sections and said it appears the ceiling height
is raised in some areas. He asked how this could be done while still having the extra foot above it
while still raising the roof one foot.
Ms. Hitchcock apologized and said this is another error. As she pointed out at a recent meeting,
the dimensions always supersede the graphics. She noted there is one dimension on the side that
says 7'9" but they are not raising the ceiling at all. It is remaining exactly where it is and she will
make revisions to that building section. She was not sure how this came about and thought the
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 10
section might have come from a different as-built drawing, but she will go back and determine
why it is not lining up, but again confirmed they are not raising the ceiling.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if any engineering has been done for seismic, insulation and any
ductwork so she knows all one foot is all that will be needed to accommodate that.
Ms. Hitchcock said yes; they are working with engineers and they have recommended R30 which
they can fit into a 2x10 ceiling joist.
Chair Chong opened the public comment period.
Doreen Davis said she lives at 1345 Mar West and spoke at the Planning Commission in June. As
the Board knows the Caprice Restaurant is not located in the downtown commercial area of
Tiburon or in Fishermen's Wharf in San Francisco, but in a residential neighborhood. While the
applicants pride themselves on their other restaurants in heavily trafficked touristy areas, Tiburon
is not Fishermen's Wharf and a bright red awning is incompatible with the surrounding residential
area and the character of a neighborhood restaurant.
In June, the Planning Commission's decision was based upon the applicant's submission of
misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information including the claim that the roof height increase
is required for installation of seismic upgrades, ductwork and sprinklers. In addition, throughout
the process they have inaccurately placed story poles in their favor, not correctly representing the
actual height and view blockage impact to date. While everybody would agree that the Caprice is
long overdue for an update and this is not what she is here to argue, there is absolutely not benefit
to increasing the height of the roof for either the neighbors or neighborhood. Furthermore, the
applicants have shown complete unwillingness to consider alternative, viable options which would
have minimal impact on neighbors' views and the aesthetic character of the surrounding area.
More importantly, these plans continue to reflect inaccurate, misleading, incomplete and
inconsistent information setting a dangerous precedence. Therefore, she respectfully requested the
DRB not approve the design plans without submission of complete and accurate information, the
installation of story poles that at least reflect the actual view blockage, especially as it relates to
Belvedere Lagoon.
Dr. John Davis said he is present with his sister Heidi Barnes and his wife, Doreen and said they
all want the Caprice to do well but not at their expense. He and Ms. Barnes assumed the watch on
the Tiburon triplex in 2014 and their parents bought the property in 1985. In view of the recent
staff report, it is outrageous and unacceptable to approve the changes to the restaurant. He recited
goal 3 of the design goals for hillside dwellings, as "No single item with regard to this dwelling is
more precious to the residents of Tiburon than is view. Principles: Provide view, view quality,
horizontal views, protection is most important for primary living areas of the dwelling which
include living rooms, dining rooms, family rooms, great rooms, kitchens and decks of these
rooms."
He said from 2002 Paradise Drive, affected views include the atrium, the common area, and on
unit 2 on the same level the living room, dining room, kitchen as well as two balconies, and these
are prime living areas. They respectfully request the DRB denies the Dal Bozzo's request.
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 11
h1 going back in history in 2008, his mother faced the same battle when Chung Cook tried to add a
second level to the Caprice and it was denied in a heated battle and he thanked the DRB. Now, 10
years later they are here requesting popping up the roof again and while not as high it is still
unacceptable. They had no idea this was going on and there was no courtesy call, email or letter
and they found out from a tenant who spoke with his sister who told her there were story poles
going up on the Caprice next door. The view from the Tiburon triplex over the Caprice has been
in existence for 60 years and is a view of Belvedere Bay. Their parents have owned the property
for 33 years and the Dal Bozzo's bought the property less than 8 months ago, and this is not right
to make this change.
He said the staff report is flawed by two key points: "A one foot height increase will not adversely
affect the triplex in terms of light or air." It is not light or air but the view and this will take away
their entire view of Belvedere Bay. Lastly, his concern is deception with the plans, noting they
want an elevation of 1'3" and the story poles were 8" which is unacceptable. The focus is on
increasing 37 s.f. out front which is okay but the roof increase is not right, as well as adding 4,400
square feet of internal volume to the restaurant at neighbors' expense which is also not acceptable.
He did not believe they needed to pop up the roof at their expense and he asked to deny the
request.
Heidi Barnes said she lives at 2002 Paradise Drive and she thanked staff and the DRB. She is
grateful her brother and Doreen are supporting her and said the triplex is a very special place to
them, as it has been in their family 35 years. Her parents lived there for years until they passed
away and they prided themselves on their home and atrium they built. They left it to the family and
she plans to leave it to their children. She has lived there numerous times over the 35 years as well
and they have had many family events there and plans to come back and live here and rent out the
other two units when she is able to do so. Their ties go back 7 generations and she spoke of her
great, great grandfather as one of the first Supreme Court Judges of the state of California and all
relatives live here. She has always felt Tiburon is a wonderful community and they all look after
one another, work together to resolve issues and they have tried to be neighborly with the Dal
Bozzo's but she invited them by the property in the beginning trying to explain their concern and
work things out but they were not interested and said they were moving forward with their plans
regardless.
Her father was a big developer and always took into consideration of others surrounding him and
the Dal Bozzo's continue to change their story regarding the inches they need, the story poles from
8" to 10" and she measured this afternoon with a Boardmember present and it is at 10" so there are
many inconsistencies. She met with the Dal Bozzo's twice to no avail and even after they hired a
professional architectural engineering building firm who is present tonight, they concluded they
absolutely do not have to raise the roof level to comply with code and not the sprinkler system,
insulation, ventilation and there are other options. They would not consider any options and she
said this is her livelihood and all she has, but the Dal Bozzo's have numerous restaurants. The
view is panoramic and even though it is not the main view it is very important to her. Her
background is hospitality and real estate and she asked not to allow them to raise the roof.
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October-4, 2018 Page 1
Phil Worman, PBA, said they are an interdisciplinary firm of architects, engineers and builders
specializing in the analysis, investigation and remediation of building systems. Their feeling about
the roofline question is that there are probably 5 or 6 options that are available to mitigate and in
fact do away with any need to raise the roof. One obvious approach would be to put the utilities
and insulation on the underside of the roof and not affect the roofline whatsoever. If they took a
hybrid approach and put insulation on top of the roof for a portion and once they get to the ridge
taper the sleepers down, they could then soffit underneath on the inside and impact the interior of
the space very little and not raise the roofline.
He pointed out that it does not require a 2x10 to accommodate R30. He noted closed cell spray
foam is approximately R6 per inch and they would need 5" to achieve an R30 rating for the roof.
Certainly there are sprinklers to be considered and he understands the approach of wanting that 12"
but he thinks it is unreasonable in this case, especially considering the view impact. The small
change in the roofline has a tremendous impact on the view angle and thus on the view. He would
say it is entirely reasonable to either leave the ridgeline exactly where it is or to impact it
minimally, and certainly another alternative would be to insulate on the underside of the roof and
on the top side of the roof, taking care of R12 by adding an inch or two on the underside and take
care of the rest of it on top and be able to run the sprinkler system as well within the sleepers on
the roof if that is helpful.
Lastly, there is no reason to raise the roofline and he thinks it is reasonable to ask that the
architects and engineers go back to the drawing board and think creatively about ways to leave the
ridgeline in place.
Eric Artman said he has lived in Tiburon 22 years, 14 of which a few residences down from the
Caprice at 2038 Paradise Drive. One area of concern is about the roof and he supports the earlier
comments that the roof does not need to block. In terms of mechanical equipment it is an
annoyance to the site lines and noise. Given the situation with the lower level that will only be
used for storage and office space, some of this could have been hollowed out and made as an
opening to put the HVAC and cooling equipment there. The advantage is that air is cooler, is
shaded from the sun, it would be more efficient and also not be in the way of sight lines and create
noise for neighbors. Putting it on the roof is just lazy architecture.
His bigger concern is the street front. Several years ago the Town got hit with a seven figure
lawsuit where a bicyclist came off of the hill, hit some bad pavement and injured himself severely
and the Town was sued. This is a very congested area and in thinking Uber drivers will drop
people off across the street by the parking lot where the valet stand will be is a farce. They will
still pull up right in front. What this does is push the canopy or covered space outside the front
door farther out into the street which pushes all idling cars and everybody else farther out into the
street and narrows the street. He distributed a diagram that shows a green arrow where the
centerline used to be before the Town irresponsibly added a couple of parking spaces by the sewer
plant and narrowed the space, forcing traffic even closer to the Caprice and pushing out with an
awning and putting cars in the area which will pull up. He thinks the owners are gaining floor
space by pushing congestion farther closer to the street.
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 13
Additionally, the dimensions of the awning are not specified but do not show up and he is
concerned it will grow and get closer and wider. Lastly, the trash enclosure is built on City
property and the new trash enclosure in the plans is not within the property line and he thinks there
needs approval of an encroachment permit, as well and he believes the DRB cannot approve the
project as proposed. In terms of the staff report, it constantly states the present height is 30' and
going to 31' will not violate the limit, which he does not understand.
Boardmember Kricensky clarified that 31' is not a dimension but an elevation and it is an elevation
from sea level. The height of the building is measured from the mean high tide which is over 5
feet above that, so the building height is 24 1/2'.
Mr. Artman recognized this explanation, but the staff report is inaccurate and does not make sense,
but he is concerned about construction on Town property.
Jonathan Kathrein representing Heidi Barnes and John Davis, owners of 2002 Paradise Drive,
thanked Mr. Kwon for his work on the project and said they are here tonight because this
application is not ready for the Board's consideration and should be continued. It is incomplete
and full of inconsistencies. Details are changing tonight and there are admitted errors. The plan set
contains many heights that do not match, others are not identified, and on page 5 and 6 of his letter
he showed a visual of increased interior ceiling height below the roof and if this is an error, it
needs to be corrected before it is considered. The story poles are 10" and not 12" and the code
dictates that the application must be continued which is on page 3 of his first letter.
The noise standards require sufficient information to find the proposed equipment does not
generate above 60 decibels and there has not been any noise study. If the new roof is 307" the
project needs a variance and if not, it needs to be explained. Ms. Hitchcock mentioned the height
but not the height in the back.
Tonight the Board is being asked to make findings based on information it does not have. Beyond
the roof height there are many inconsistencies and as Ms. Hitchcock stated. there are errors in the
plan. He asked the Board to deny this application or at least demand full and accurate information
before considering it.
Rebuttal—Applicant
Jennifer Dal Bozzo said she is co-owner with her husband at the Caprice and said they have a lot
of respect for iconic restaurants and it is the reason they are involved with this project. They have
made every attempt to work with neighbors and have met with them on three separate occasions
and their attorney and they have not budged from their original suggestion that they do not
increase the roofline whatsoever. It has been difficult and all they would like to do is maintain the
original character of this restaurant and bring it back to a fine dining establishment it has been
known for.
Ms. Hitchcock said there has been mention of 30.7 feet and originally when she put the 1 foot roof
on she realized that the roof was crooked and she asked the contractor if he thought they should
straighten the roof and he said yes. It went to 30.7 feet but when the issues came up with the
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 14
neighbors they spoke with the contractor and agreed with the clients to leave the roof crooked so
they added 1 foot at one end and 1.3 feet at another end to straighten it out. Now, they are leaving
it crooked so it is maintaining the 1 foot all across.
With regard to the mechanical equipment and the dBs they are looking into that and have their
mechanical team providing information that the decibels will be at or below what they are, but she
believes this is something for the building department and they go out and ensures this happens.
She can provide evidence of the story poles at 12". They put them up months ago for the CUP and
the wind knocked them down but for the last 18 days the story poles have been at 12" which she
can provide evidence for. They looked at foam insulation and also at potentially going down to
2x6 rafters at the ridge only but the neighbors were unhappy with that accommodation and wanted
them not to raise the ridge at all. Because they are nervous about something happening with the
building department or insulation not being thick enough they wanted to be at least granted the 12"
to accommodate insulation. They have been saying all along that they will certainly come down if
at all possible.
She also pointed out that they are removing the mechanical equipment. On existing elevations they
are taking off substantial pieces of mechanical equipment that are old and defunct and are
condensing it down to a smaller area and she thinks it is a remarkable improvement. She referred
to the existing conditions where there is equipment scattered all over the roof and they have
condensed it and completely cleaned up the view.
Vice Chair Cousins stated there is a dimension for the width of the canopy on the cover sheet but
he asked if there is a width on the projection of the canopy somewhere.
Ms. Hitchcock referred to the roof plan, but could not locate it and said she was sure it was on one
drawing, but it is 5 feet. Vice Chair Cousins said they could include it as a condition if it was not
found in writing.
Chair Chong said there was a public comment about the red awning and he asked if other colors
had been considered.
Ms. Dal Bozzo stated they decided to use a red awning because they wanted to distinguish it as a
restaurant in this area. The building is often mistaken as a part of 2000 because the previous owner
painted it the same color.
Vice Chair Cousins asked if there was a color sample that defines what shade the red is.
Ms. Hitchcock presented the material board and stated it is a deep red.
Boardmember Emberson said the color looks a bit bright but she knows there was a problem
because people would not know Caprice was a restaurant so this might be a good choice so people
know where they are going. She visited the property and she is 5'9" and there is a diminimous
amount of blockage in what is possibly a 180 degree view. Therefore, she does not see much of a
view blockage and can support the project as presented, although if another Boardmember had a
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 15
comment about the colors she would be interested but likes the white with the grey but the bright
red might be too much.
Boardmember Kricensky said when he walked in he did not lose hardly any view. If someone is
57" they would lose the view, but if they were less than that they lose it now, so there is a small
range in between where it blocks the view. It is a 180 degree view and he thinks the Board needs
to be sensitive to the fact that it needs to be upgraded and he was supportive of it.
In terms of the red awning he could go either way. He thought there are awnings across the street
that are brick red. What he would like to see is that there are a few too many error in the drawings
for him to approve it tonight. He thinks they should be corrected, noting there are variances in the
ceiling height so the Board knows what it is and it will not change. Now, it is one way on existing
and another way on proposed with no dimension. Therefore, he asked that this be rectified. In
terms of whether it is one foot or 6" or something else, he would like to see a detail of what the
roof is.
Vice Chair Cousins said to address the view impact, the hillside design guidelines primarily deal
with preservation of views when there is one building higher up the hill than the other building.
When there are two buildings side by side they do not really have views over each other because
they could be the same height so they cannot say one person will have a view over the other
building. If it is a vacant lot they would enjoy that view until such time until someone builds on it,
but it is not a right to have that view.
In this instance, the residence has had a view over the Caprice but it is not a view the hillside
design guidelines is to preserve but a borrowed view. They have it for the time being and
obviously the Caprice asked earlier if they could have an entire story addition which was too
much. But, he thinks a 12" extension has a very limited impact on the totality of the view from
those apartments. The waterfront view is completely unaffected but it is just the view aside across
the building and he thinks the view is going to be considerably improved because of all of the
equipment being taken off and there will be a new roof instead of an industrial complex. It will be
a lot nicer and anyone who comes in for the first time will not notice that 12" has disappeared.
He would not have a problem saying that because it is an existing building, but he was surprised
when he looked at the story poles and they were not 12" high and he could see at the eave level
they were only 10" but if someone said what the Board is asked to review is a maximum increase
of 12" on that existing roof, he thinks he could say he had enough information to see what it looks
like. If the existing roof construction is to be maintained in place which he understands is what is
proposed then they will have that and they can go in and measure from the existing roof
construction. Therefore, if this is what is proposed he did not see why the Board could not
approve it tonight. But, if the existing structure is taken down, he would like to see more
information.
Boardmember Kricensky said this is the reason he wanted things corrected because he is afraid of
what they will find or get into and once it is finally engineered and they find out what is up there
and how good it is, they will know. He agreed that the site plan has been surveyed and the ridge
heights on the front and back have been set.
Toren of Tiburon Design Review Board Minutes of October 4, 2018 Page 16
Vice Chair Cousins said he thinks the Board should add a condition saying the canopy is
projecting a maximum of 5 feet and the color could be more of a burgundy color but it is very
small and he thinks the red is okay and appropriate for a restaurant. He did not think the size was
huge.
Boardmember Kricensky said he was sensitive regarding comments about the drop-off and the
location but this will happen anyway and the curb will keep the car from getting any closer to the
building so he did not see it would be any worse than it is now.
Chair Chong said he was in agreement with comments about the awning and the need to improve
the existing structure, but he disagrees with what feels like is a minimal impact on the view. He
thinks it is quite a bit of an impact. When walking into the front door, this is the entrance for all
three of the units. The first thing one does is look across to the water view that includes extending
the water view all the way across. The one foot would eliminate that entire water view. He went
into Unit 2 and not everybody is not 5'10 or over and if someone is 5'3" it literally eliminates the
entire Corinthian Yacht Club boat harbor and half of the Corinthian Yacht Club. People have
made arguments that the Golden Gate Bridge is a protected view and the Eifel Tower over the
years, but an entire unit would have one foot of view and eliminating an entire harbor and all the
water view to that side of the bay.
Boardmember Emberson noted that they would also maintain their other 180 degree view.
Chair Chong noted these are both dwellings that have been there for a while and he thought there
might have been some negotiating at some point as to how high they needed to go to even see over
the Caprice, so he definitely thinks in this case inches matter. When he got on the DRB 11 years
ago the first house he visited was on Gilmartin and it was stacked hills and looking over and it was
the difference of opening up a sliver of water and the Sausalito Shoreline for the upper neighbor.
While it is just inches and that close and impactful to a bay or harbor, he thinks it makes a
difference.
Therefore, they are not raising the interior ceiling heights so he asked if there was a way to work in
some areas a foot or two and not have any impact, noting it is just the center ridge that sticks up.
He asked if there was a way from an insulation standpoint so it does not impact the ridgeline.
Boardmember Kricensky said there is a way and it is not simple but it can be done.
Vice Chair Cousins said they could certainly get around the thermal insulation and possibly the
sprinklers but he was not sure how they would get to the structural improvements because they
would lose the continuity of the structure without taking the actual roof off and re-engineering
something.
Boardmember Emberson questioned whether the property at 2000 Paradise has a right to do
anything to their property and she thinks they do. They could argue that those who live in the
triplex are lucky it is a restaurant and not someone buying it to build a house because then the
Board would be looking at something very different. She asked whether a property owner have to
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Minute. of October 4, 2018 Page 17
go through such lengths so there is no increase at all to his roof at greater expense to himself just
because what she still views as a side view and not a major view.
Chair Chong said the Board regularly requires applicants to drop a house two feet into the hillside
which requires two feet of excavation which is a way to preserve another neighbor's view.
Boardmember Emberson reiterated that she thinks it is a slot or side view at best and not a primary
view. She could easily argue that because the primary view is out at the front of the building and
not the windows on the side and she did not think the Board should require the architect to
redesign the building because of a 12" increase that is on the side of a building. If it was on front
of the building she would be more worried about it.
Vice Chair Cousins said they still see the Corinthian Yacht Club and Belvedere Island and a sweep
of the panorama and they are losing some water depending on a person's height. And, if it is in the
lobby it is in passing anyway and not a principal or primary area.
Chair Chong said he still disagreed, noting it is a sun room and kind of the front entryway for all
three units.
Boardmember Emberson said she would argue that when walking through they would see the bay
and Angel Island.
Boardmember Kricensky reiterated that he would like to see the plans corrected. Vice Chair
Cousins noted the Board is discussing whether 12" is a reasonable increase to the height and he
and Boardmember Emberson think it is. Boardmember Kricensky said he thinks it is as well. Vice
Chair Cousins said, however, it did not seem as though the plans are approvable tonight, given the
discrepancies need to be corrected.
Boardmember Kricensky suggested the Board could condition the project to state that it is a
maximum of one foot and less if they could lower it based upon the survey of the two ridge points,
and it is only at the ridge they are talking about, and that all ceiling heights remain the same unless
they get lower. The mechanical equipment noise concerns will be for the building department.
Chair Chong noted over the years the Board has addressed acoustical issues and some pool
equipment and he asked staff for their opinion on mechanical units. Mr. Kwon clarified that for
commercial buildings it is 65 decibels as measured at the property line.
ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Ernberson) that the DRB find that the project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to the same Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions, and that no exceptions
to the exemptions apply and to approve the proposed project, subject to the standard conditions
outlined in the draft resolution for approval ,ith additional conditions that 1) there be no
increase in internal ceiling heights; 2) the increase at the ridge is a maximum of 12" above the
surveyed dimensions of the existing roofline heights; and 3) that the awning shall be a maximum
of 5 feet. Vote: 3-1 (Chong opposed).
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Allinutes of October 4, 2018 Page 18
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
GRANTING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSAL TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 2000
PARADISE DRIVE BY 37 SQUARE FEET, RAISE THE ROOF BY 1 FOOT, CONSTRUCT
A NEW AWNING, AND MAKE WINDOW CHANGES ON THE WEST ELEVATION
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-172-46
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Design. Review Board has received and considered a design review application (File
#DR2018-074) for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a 37 square
foot addition. Exterior changes also include raising the roof by 1 foot, constructing a new
awning, and making window changes on the west elevation. The application consists of
the following:
1. Application form and supplemental materials received June 20, 2018.
2. Plans received September 25, 2018.
The application and official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of
this resolution. The record includes, without limitation, the staff reports, minutes,
application materials, and all comments and materials received prior to or at the public
hearing.
B. The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public meeting on October 4, 2018, and
heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3 categorical
exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303. The Design Review Board
further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply, as there is no
evidence that the project will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts,
presents unusual circumstances or involves let alone will cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.
D. The Design Review Board finds, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the October 4, 2018 staff report and the attachments thereto, that the project,
as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with all
applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
EXH1B1TN0-_5'__
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 1
E. The Design Review Board finds that no aspect of the project,including its additional square
footage or roof height increase would have a material adverse effect on the surrounding
area or the Town of Tiburon.
F. The Design Review Board finds that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes
of and guiding principles under Section 16-52.020H of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby conditionally approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review Application
(File#DR2018-074). The conditions of approval adopted by the Design Review Board are listed
below.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval. .
Community Development Department
1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be
responsible for defending against this challenge, with defense counsel subject to the
Town's approval. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the
Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval,
including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third
party challenge.
3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved
by the Design Review Board on October 4, 2018, as may be amended by these conditions
of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated September 25 2018,
stamped "Approved by Design Review Board October 4, 2018", as determined in the
discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
4. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be
materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are
made to the approved Design Review drawings,the permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building
Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes,such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted construction
drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to
the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division
Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will
require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project that have not been
explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 2
process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is
not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
5. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall
demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures must be down-light type fixtures with
shielding.
6. At the time of building permit submittal, a photovoltaic energy system shall be shown on
the drawings in compliance with the requirements of Section 16-40.080 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code and shall be installed and operational prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or building permit final sign-off.
7. At the time of building permit submittal/planning conformance check,it shall be confirmed
that all skylights will be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner(minimum 25%), and
- no-lights shall,be placed.in the wells of the skylights. Installation in accordance with the
approved plans shall be documented prior to final building inspection sign-off.
8. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of
Action", including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project, shall be copied
onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings.
9. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Town's Noise Standards
Policy for Air Conditioning Units.
www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/I 050/HVAC-and-Similar-Mechanical-
Equipment-Noise-Policy. If the units exceed any noise standards at the property line,noise
baffles or other sound reduction measures shall be required to reduce the sound levels at
the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application. Compliance with
all applicable noise standards shall be established prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. Throughout project construction, fencing and/or walls located within a required setback
shall not exceed six feet (6') in height at any point, measured from grade on both sides of
the fence/wall, except where allowed by Municipal Code section 16-30.040(B)(2). All
new fencing, walls and footings shall be located entirely on the subject property.
11. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on
the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The
sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials
intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following
information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name
and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all
times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site.
12. Prior to under-floor inspection, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor of the structure
foundation is required to be submitted to the Building Division. Required documents shall
include: 1) graphic documentation accurately locating the building on a site plan; 2)
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 3
specific distances from property lines and other reference points to the foundation as
appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea level of the foundation walls and slabs.
No additional inspections will be provided until the confirming survey results have been
submitted.
13. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection sign-off, all
landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The
installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field
inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, flood proofing shall be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Town of Tiburon Building Official.
15. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall obtain a sign permit for the restaurant name
sign.
16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals
from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
17. The height limit increase shall be limited to 1 foot. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the
applicant shall clearly show (to the satisfaction of staff) that height limit will only be
increased by 1-foot.
18. Prior the final inspection, the applicant shall obtain a height survey to show that the height
increase was limited to 1-foot.
19. All work shall be limited to the subject property.
20. There shall be no increase in the internal ceiling heights.
21. The proposed height along the ridge shall be a maximum of 12 inches above the survey
dimensions of the existing heights of the building.
22. The awning shall project a maximum of no more than 5 feet.
Public Works Department
23. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the
following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans:
■ An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town's
road right-of-way,including,but not limited to,utility trenching,installation of new
utility connections,and modifications to the driveway apron.The plans shall clearly
identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be
obtained prior to conducting such work.
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 4
Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD)
24. Throughout the duration of project construction, all requirements of the Fire Protection
District shall be met, including but not limited to the following:
■ Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Is Required per NFPA 13. An automatic fire
sprinkler system is required to be installed conforming to NFPA Std. 13. Plans and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to
installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District to apply for fire service
connection. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire flow.
■ System Supervision Required. All automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems,flow
switches, and control valves shall be monitored by an approved UL Central Station
company, zoned and enunciated as required by the California Fire Code.
■ Knox Key Access Required. 'Knox' key access shall be installed at the premises
conforming to TFPD Policy 423.1.
■ A Vegetation Management Plan(VMP) con orming to the policies:of the Tiburon Fire
District shall be prepared and implemented at the site. The VMP-Fuels Management
Plan shall conform to Tiburon Fire Protection Policy 433.5. The plan shall be
incorporated into the landscape plan for the project and submitted to the Fire Marshal
for review prior to implementation. The plan shall be implemented prior to building
final.
■ Exit Signage redlined to state " This Exit shall remain unlocked When Occupied." The
sticker that stated "...during Business Hours" is no longer compliant to the 2016 Code.
■ Hood and Duct Extinguishing Systems. California Mechanical Code, California Fire
Code, State Fire Marshal Building Standards and Regulations, Conformance Required.
This will apply to the commercial cook line and duct system and be covered under the
Building Permit process.
Other A14encies
25. The applicant shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from Sanitary District No. 5 and
pay all applicable fees(including connection&fixture fees)prior to construction. Sanitary
District 45 permit issued before construction starts:
■ Sewer line lateral video (Section. 9610)
■ Check valve installation/confirmation (Section. 4612)
■ All remodels, new construction or any work over $50k(Section. 4408. & # 611. (a)
o for Residential and Commercial projects
o Connection fees for additional bath/kitchen/laundry fixtures
o Require set of existing plans, as well as proposed plans, for comparison purposes
■ Any bathroom or kitchen remodel work (Section. 4901.)
■ New Construction: Connection fees for new lot/home Residential and Commercial
■ For Commercial Properties w/Kitchens: installation/confirmation of grease trap or
interceptor
■ Payment for new fixture fees and permit
■ Permit issue for all outside sewer work lateral repairs or replacements to city main
sewer
House sales:
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 5
■ Real estate agents must provide the Sanitary District with a sewer line lateral video
before sale of a property, this is to review the condition of sewer lateral. The Sanitary
District inspector will determine if the line needs a repair or replacement. (Section.
#408 & #611 (b) )
■ Check Valve installation/confirmation
■ All final projects with the city must have a Sanitary District final walk through and
job card sign off.
26. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall
submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of
MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on October 4, 2018,
by the followin vote:
AYES: Cousins, Emberson, Kricensky
NAYS: Chong
ABSENT: Kim
{
BR AN NG, CHAI
TIB D SIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
SUNG H. KWON NG SECRETARY
Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2018-03 October 4, 2018 6
Jennifer Dal Bozzo
420 Columbus Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94133
jendalbozzo@comcast.net
415-244-9405
January 7, 2019
Tiburon Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Tiburon Town Council:
This letter is in reference to the Appeal submitted by Heidi Barnes and John Davis of
2002 Paradise Blvd. Tiburon, against the favorable ruling provided by the Tiburon
Design Review Board on October 4, 2018 for The Caprice, located at 2000 Paradise
Blvd., Tiburon. The application for The Caprice was submitted by Audrey Hitchcock,
architect, on behalf of Jerry and Jennifer Dal Bozzo and Dante Serafini.
I am writing this letter in order to reiterate facts in support of the favorable ruling by the
Tiburon DRB. Also, to describe the interaction we have experienced in communicating
with Ms. Barnes.
First of all, the general reception by the Town of Tiburon community has been one of
overwhelming support for the new ownership of The Caprice. We receive emails and
phone calls almost daily requesting the re-opening date. Unfortunately, our ability to
open has been increasingly slowed down by one party, the Landlords of 2002 Paradise
Drive, who are appealing on insufficient basis.
Our party, the Dal Bozzo's and Dante Serafini, became interested in The Caprice
restaurant, because of the charm and reputation it offered. With this in mind, minor but
necessary construction was decided upon in order to maintain the integrity of the
original restaurant while bringing the building up to code.
We have worked with our architect, Audrey Hitchcock, and several engineers in order to
create a design which brings The Caprice up to current code standards, with minimal
invasiveness, and maintains the character and integrity of the restaurant's original
aesthetic, both exterior/interior. We have also worked with The Town of Tiburon to
understand Height Limits and Exceptions, and the guiding principles for Site Plan &
Architectural Review. Our plans are predicated on the fact that this is to remain a
romantic, intimate restaurant while meeting Principles as previously outlined by the
Town of Tiburon.
EXHIBIT N .
We are not requesting a variance, nor our we requesting to meet the height limit overall.
We are only requesting what we understand to be within the parameters of the Tiburon
Municipal Code 16-30.050.
The Dal Bozzo's first learned of Ms. Barnes resistance to our project at the public
hearing of the Tiburon Planning Department, which was held on June 14th, 2018. She
was not present, nor was her partner, Mr. Davis. A family member, Doreen Davis, came
to represent 2002 Paradise as she stated Ms. Barnes was living in Beverly Hills and did
not mention Mr. Davis. Doreen Davis asked me, Jennifer, for my cell phone number
which I willingly provided.
Weeks later, on June 28th, 2018, Ms. Barnes called and requested a meeting at her
property - 2002 Paradise, she was only in Tiburon for the weekend, inspecting one of
the rental units. The Dal Bozzo's obliged and arrived in the lobby of her building as
requested on Sat. June 30th at 11 am. Ms. Barnes did not arrive at the appointment in
the lobby as specified. We, The Dal Bozzo's, waited 45 mins. and went to the
apartment upstairs in which she ultimately came to the door after appearing to be
awoken by us.
In any case, the appointment commenced and Ms. Barnes proceeded to tell us about
her concerns of the impact on her side (not primary) view over the restaurant if the
restaurant roof height is increased by any measure. The Dal Bozzo's tried to explain
our limitations and understand her concerns. In an attempt to maintain a positive
neighborly relationship, The Dal Bozzo's offered to keep the roof height increase as
minimal as possible, explained the improvements of removing and/or replacing old
equipment, and willingness to provide improved screening. Ms. Barnes was unwilling to
consider any of The Dal Bozzo's concerns or limitations. An agreement was not met.
The Tiburon DRB hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. 6th. A few days prior to
this meeting, Ms. Barnes Attorney, Ragghianti & Freitas, LLP requested a meeting. The
Dal Bozzo's then had our attorney contact her attorney and a meeting was scheduled
for Sept. 5th. At this meeting no agreement could be met because we felt Ms. Barnes
and her attorney's were making threatening demands with no willingness to consider
our limitations or intended scope of renovation. Her team then sent a letter to the Town
of Tiburon which delayed our DRB hearing until Oct. 4th.
The week of and prior to the DRB hearing on Oct. 4th, Mr. Sung Kwon contacted us
requesting a meeting with Ms. Barnes. We complied, hoping to prevent protest at the
DRB hearing. She brought an architect who was trying to demonstrate how we can
meet the needs of Ms. Barnes but he did not seem to recognize the intended scope of
our project. After much back and forth, Ms. Barnes did positively relay to Mr. Kwon and
to us, that she thought she can agree to our commitment of raising the roof as minimally
as possible. This was the last discussion before the DRB hearing. However, at the the
DRB hearing, Ms. Barnes and her team took the opposite approach of unequivocally
opposing our proposal for The Caprice renovations.
One issue that was repeatedly brought up by Ms. Barnes and her family is that the story
poles were inaccurate. This is incorrect. The story poles were accurately placed. The
misunderstanding arises from the fact that the proposed increase is from the top of the
rooftop, not from the top of the 2" trim piece surrounding the rooftop. Therefore, if
looking at the story pole from the street, it appears as only a 10" increase, this is in fact
equivalent to a 12" increase from the rooftop because the 2" trim piece is blocking the
lower portion of the story pole. Tiburon Staff has also clarified that story poles need to
be approximate, not exact. But we contend that every effort has been made to be as
accurate as possible.
It is our feeling that much of this letter is a reiteration of facts that have been previously
presented, but it seems important to explain the Dal Bozzo's effort towards Ms. Barnes
in an attempt to reach a compromise. We believe the proposed renovation is well
within the limitations granted by the Tiburon General Plan. We also hope to create an
updated restaurant that will be a benefit to the entire community, including the landlords
and tenants of 2002 Paradise Drive. A restaurant that will contribute to the distinctive
character and ambience of the Tiburon waterfront.
We respectfully request that The Tiburon Town Council support The Tiburon Staff
Recommendation and uphold The Tiburon Design Review Board decision.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Dal Bozzo
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING,
RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND
SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various
commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with
respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878
and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to
update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March
17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No.
2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council
Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing,
scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals.
APPEAL PRO CED URE
1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review
authority(e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the
Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of
Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with
the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision
being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits.
If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business,
the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for
public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal
period filing date has passed.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution:No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 1
EXHIBIT NO-
2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set
forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule.
(a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be
refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or
costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the
applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at
actual cost if outside consulting is required.
(b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with
no refund or additional billing required.
3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following:
(a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or
other applicable regulations; or
(b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of
discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not
supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper.
If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal
issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the
review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision.
4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal
form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address
grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form.
5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described
below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would
not apply.
(a) Town Staff may make a brief(approximately 10 minute) presentation of the
matter and then respond to Town Council questions.
(b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more
than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant
may divide up the twenty(20) minutes between various speakers or have only one
speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to
Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty(20) minute
time limit.
(c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more
than twenty(20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant
may divide up the twenty(20) minutes between various speakers or have only one
speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 2
Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty(20)minute
time limit.
(d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than
three (3)minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's
association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item
for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor.
(e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
(f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin
deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public
testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council.
8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal,
it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the
findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The
decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if
the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may:
(a) Continue the appeal to a future date;
(b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further
hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and
unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or
(c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations
prior to further Town Council consideration.
9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice
of Decision to the applicant and appellant.
RECONSIDERA TION
If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant
new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have
been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due
to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to
prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption
of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on
the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the
motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and
if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 3
SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS
1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals
will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen
(15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager,
the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the
complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers,
agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to
establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the
appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will
promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date.
2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above
in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the
continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager.
3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town
Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal
appearance.
STORY POLES
For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a
story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as
follows:
1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of
poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by
Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections.
2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons,
caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a
distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions
and configurations of the proposed construction.
3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the
date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council.
4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of
the public hearing date.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 4
5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final
decision by the Town Council.
APPLICABILITY
This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the
extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may
hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff-
level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different
deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz
CHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE COPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 5