The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2021-03-17 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Town Council March 17, 2021 Special Meeting – 4:50 p.m. Regular Meeting – 5:00 p.m. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Town Council meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96174160379 Webinar ID: 961 7416 0379 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 961 7416 0379 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting using Zoom are linked on the Town’s website and to this agenda. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Council meeting will be distributed electronically to the Town Council and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Council meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. SPECIAL MEETING – 4:50 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Kulik, Councilmember Ryan, Vice Mayor Welner, Mayor Thier INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS •Kelly Turbin, Building Code Appeals Board ADJOURNMENT – to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Kulik, Councilmember Ryan, Vice Mayor Welner, Mayor Thier ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, 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. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of October 7, 2020 regular meeting of the Town Council (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of February 24, 2021 special meeting of the Town Council (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of March 3, 2021 special and regular meetings of the Town Council (Department of Administrative Services) CC-4. 58 Claire Way – Adopt resolution denying appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review for a proposal at 58 Claire Way (Community Development Department) CC-5. Grand Jury Response – Approve Town’s response to the Marin County Civicl Grand Jury Report titled: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin (Office of the Town Manager) CC-6. Ordinance – Adopt ordinance that would prezone 4576 Paradise Drive to RPD (Residential Planned Development (Community Development Department) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions – Consider appointment to the Building Code Appeals Board (Department of Administrative Services) DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-1. Climate Emergency – Discuss adoption of a Climate Emergency Resolution (Office of the Town Manager) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. St Hilary School – Consider appeal of a public facilities fee (street impact fee) imposed by building permit #20-003 for proposed improvements to St. Hilary School (Department of Public Works) Owners/Applicant: St. Hilary School/Adrian J. Gordon Address: 765 Hilary Drive Assessor Parcel No.: 055-253-22 PH-2. 687 Hilary Drive – Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a new single family dwelling at 687 Hilary Drive (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Christian and Basia Terrell Appellant(s): Gary and Marybeth Sheppard Address: 687 Hilary Drive Assessor Parcel No.: 055-211-08 DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-2. Diversity Inclusion Task Force – Discuss appropriate next steps for filling the remaining open seat on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT 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- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town 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 website, 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, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days 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. Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 lstefani@townoftiburon.org 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon’s local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Applicant Name Full Name: Date: Areas of Interest Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Kelly Patrick Turbin 01/21/2021 1 Applicant Information Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit # City State ZIP Code Phone:Email: Why did you select your area(s) of interest? What are your applicable qualifications and experiences? Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. 655 Redwood Highway Suite 308 Mill Valley CA 94941 415-373-9472x11 kelly@tdastructural.com General love for Construction and Math B.S. Civil Engineering Cal Poly San Luis Obispo M.S. Structural Engineering Cal Poly San Luis Obispo CV Attached &855,&8/809$//( .(//<785%,1 W͘͘ 35,1&,3$/(1*,1((5 ('8&$7,21 ĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽĂĐŚĞůŽƌŽĨ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ͕ŝǀŝůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽDĂƐƚĞƌŽĨ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ͕^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ 352)(66,21$/5(*,675$7,21 ZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ ηϳϯϭϳϱ <($562)(;3(5,(1&( ϭϴǇĞĂƌƐŽĨƚŽƚĂů ǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ϭϮǇĞĂƌƐdƵƌďŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ <ĞůůǇdƵƌďŝŶŝƐƉƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŝŶĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ&ŝƌŵ͘,ĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŚŝƐĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐŽĨ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĞŐƌĞĞŝŶŝǀŝůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĂ DĂƐƚĞƌƐŝŶ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĞŐƌĞĞŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ďŽƚŚĨƌŽŵĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͘dŚĞ ĂŶĂĚŝĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŝƐ'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞdŚĞƐŝƐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞŚŝƐ&ŝƌŵΖƐŝŶĐĞƉƚŝŽŶ͕ŚĞŚĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽŶŽǀĞƌϮ͕ϬϬϬĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƐŝŶĐĞŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇΖƐďŝƌƚŚ͘dŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂďƌŽĂĚƐƉĞĐƚƌƵŵŽĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚǇƉĞƐ͕ƐŝǌĞƐ͕ĂŐĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚǇƉĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů͕,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůŝƚǇ͕tŝŶĞƌŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ :25.+,6725< ^ƚĂĨĨŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕,ŝŶŵĂŶŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕ϮϬϬϮͲϮϬϬϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕&ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕^ĂŶŶƐĞůŵŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͕ϮϬϬϱʹ ϮϬϬϵ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕dƵƌďŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕DŝůůsĂůůĞǇ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ϮϬϬϴͲWƌĞƐĞŶƚ 5(/(9$17(;3(5,(1&( ͻZŽƐƐdŽǁŶ,Ăůů^ĞŝƐŵŝĐZĞƚƌŽĨŝƚʹZŽƐƐ͕ ͻEŝŶĞtŽŽĚƐŝĚĞtĂǇͲZŽƐƐ͕ ͻ/ŶĨŝŶŝƚŝŽĨDĂƌŝŶʹ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻ^ƚĂƌĐĂĚĞŵǇͲ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻtŝŶƐƚŽŶWƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŽƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůͲ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻĂǇĨƌŽŶƚͲ,ĂƵŬĞWĂƌŬƌŝĚŐĞZĞƉĂŝƌ͕DŝůůsĂůůĞǇ͕ 38%/,&$7,216 ͞DĂƚĞƌŝĂůĞŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶĨĨĞĐƚƐŽŶ&ůĞǆƵƌĂůĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨ&ŝďĞƌZĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚWŽůǇŵĞƌ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĞĂŵƐ͟ʹĂŶĂĚŝĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ 0$1$*(0(17$1'7($00(0%(56 From:Mark Monterastelli To:Lea Stefani Subject:Late Mail tonight’s Town Meeting Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:19:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a Tiburon resident. Thank you for including this question in tonight’s Town meeting as late mail. The Southern Marin Fire Department can authorize the removal of trees within 150’ ofstructures, or if they determine the tree to be a fire hazard under the fire code (for example, eucalyptus trees). Normally the removal of the trees that require a tree permit, may include arequirement to plant replacement trees. If the trees (including eucalyptus trees) were a part of a PDP approval that highlighted their importance as a natural resource with values related todrainage, shelter, habitat, views, or a visual screen between neighborhoods, is there a process the Town has that addresses the repercussions of these tree removals? What is the criteria used to notify the public? Will the the owners of the lots in the surroundingarea who participated in the original development be notified of the changes and potential impacts noted in the PDP? Thanks, Mark Monterastelli 35 Reedland Woods Way Page 1 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the County Public Health Department’s May 18, 2020 Shelter in Place Order, councilmembers attended this meeting by teleconference. Members of the public were invited to participate in the meeting by live-streaming the meeting on the Town’s website and submitting comments to comments@townoftiburon.org to be included in the public record for the meeting. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Palmer, Community Development Director Dina Tasini, Senior Planner Christy Fong, Jamie Scardina, Interim Chief of Police, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Isaac Nikfar, Chair of Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission (POST) provided an update on a recent POST meeting and said the Commission would like to review the Integrated Pest Management Policy and to create a master plan for the Richardson Bay lineal park as part of the Town’s General Plan update process. PRESENTATION P-1. Introduction of New Town Staff Community Development Director Dina Tasini introduced new Senior Planner Christy Fong. Town Manager Greg Chanis introduced Jamie Scardina, Interim Chief of Police. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of the May 6, 2020 special and regular TownCouncil meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of the May 20, 2020 special and regular TownCouncil meetings (Department of Administrative Services) DR A F T CC-1 Page 2 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 CC-3. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending August 31, 2020 (Department of Administrative Services) CC-4. Marin Emergency Radio Authority Governing Board – Consider adoption of resolution making appointment to the Marin Emergency Radio Authority Governing Board (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: Approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1-4, as written. Moved: Thier, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Ryan, Welner ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Diversity Inclusion Task Force – Consider adoption of a resolution that would establish a Diversity Inclusion Task Force (Office of the Town Manager) Town Attorney Stock said the proposed resolution states the qualifications sought in members of the Diversity Inclusion Task Force, a framework for determining the goals of the task force which are to be ratified by the Council, and appointment of a chair by members of the task force. Mayor Fredericks opened the floor for public comment. Hawi Awash recommended the task force meet monthly before the first Council meeting, that the Mayor chair the task force, and that funding be allocated for task force use. Lynne Feinerman requested there be sufficient public notice of the application process for task force membership and task force meetings. Sara inquired about the application process for being on the task force. Chelsea W. recommended the majority of the community members on the task force be people of color, and that the task force be given authority to demand action and not just be limited to recommendations. Mayor Fredericks requested the following amendments to the resolution: • Section 1, line 3 – change “working to condemn racism, bias, & prejudice” to “working to identify and address racism, bias, and prejudice” • Section 3, line 5 – update to reflect qualified applicants should be full-time residents of Tiburon or Belvedere • Section 3, line 8 added – “Ideally possess some awareness of how the role of systemic racism produces the current inequities the task force will try to address” • Section 3 line 12 – change “oversee” to “provide recommendations to achieve” The Council discussed the composition of the task force, meeting scheduling, selection of a committee chair, and the procedure and timing of the application process. DR A F T Page 3 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 Councilmember Welner agreed with the Mayor’s suggested changes to the resolution wording and suggested adding language to the resolution reflecting the duties of the task force. He felt it was important to address policing directly. Mayor Fredericks felt that policing should not be singled out, but rather that it should be included as one of the issues within the broader topic of diversity and inclusion. The Council discussed the merits of both approaches. MOTION: To adopt the resolution, as amended, incorporating the following amendments: • Section 1, Line 3 – change “working to condemn racism…” to “working to identify and address racism…” • Section 3, Line 5 – Update to reflect that qualified applicants should be full-time residents of Tiburon or Belvedere • Add an additional bullet point to Section 3 stating applicants will “Ideally possess some awareness of how the role of systemic racism produces the current inequities the task force will try to address.” • Section 3, Line 12 – change “oversee” to “provide recommendations to achieve” • To replace the language of Section 5 to read as: “The charge of the committee is to: (1) Provide advice to the Council, Town Manager, and Police Chief regarding diversity and inclusion involving the Police force; (2) Provide advice to the Council regarding ways to improve diversity and inclusion generally in the town of Tiburon” Moved: Welner, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Ryan, Welner Vice Mayor Thier noted her amendments were not considered as part of the previous motion. She moved to reconsider the previous motion. Councilmember Welner seconded the motion to reconsider, and the vote passed unanimously. MOTION: To further amend Section 6 to reflect that the task force will meet monthly, and to amend further Section 4 to reflect that the Mayor will serve as chair of the task force. Moved: Thier, seconded by Welner Councilmember Kulik requested additional discussion on the resolution expressly specifying the Mayor as chair of the task force. Town Attorney Stock said the original draft resolution originally intended for the Council to hold a separate discussion and appointment of a chair. Vice Mayor Thier believed a member of the Council should be chair and felt it should be the Mayor. Welner agreed that the Mayor seemed like an appropriate choice. Mayor Fredericks agreed that the Council should select the chair but thought the discussion and selection should take place at the first task force meeting. MOTION: To amend the motion on the floor to exclude the amendment that Section 4 be updated to reflect that the Mayor will serve as chair of the task force. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan DR A F T Page 4 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Ryan NAYS: Thier, Welner MOTION: To further amend Section 6 to reflect that the task force will meet monthly. Moved: Thier, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Ryan, Welner AI-2. Fine Schedule – Consider adoption of a resolution that would establish administrative citation amounts for violation of Public Health Order (Office of the Town Manager) Town Attorney Stock presented the staff report regarding the July 21 urgency ordinance by the Marin County Board of Supervisors allowing cities to levy fines for violation of the mask ordinance in Marin County. He said the fine schedule has been amended to establish these fines. The Council discussed how the Town would apply these citations, and different options for fines such as a sliding scale or a range of fines, or warnings prior to issuance of fines. Town Manger Chanis stated the Town still promotes education as the primary form of enlisting compliance, but that the application of the fines would most likely be on a case by case basis. Mayor Fredericks opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Adopt a resolution that would establish administrative citation amounts for violation of Public Health Order. Moved: Ryan, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Ryan, Welner AI-3. Regular Meeting Start Time – Consider adoption of resolution that would change the Town Council regular meeting start time while conducting virtual meetings Town Clerk Stefani said that after the Governor’s Executive Orders allowed for virtual meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council adjusted its regular meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. while meeting virtually. The Council recently expressed desire to reconsider the meeting start time. The Council debated continuing with the 5:00 p.m. regular meeting start time or changing the time to start meeting later in the evening. Most agreed that the 5:00 p.m. meeting start time works well in the virtual environment. MOTION: To maintain the 5:00 p.m. start time for regularly scheduled Town Council meetings during the time of the Governor’s Executive Orders allowing for virtual meetings. Moved: Kulik, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner NAYES: Ryan DR A F T Page 5 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 AI-4. Hawthorne Undergrounding Assessment District – Consider approval of the Hawthorne Undergrounding Assessment District final plans, authorize staff to put the project out to bid, and set the construction contingency (Department of Public Works) Councilmember Ryan recused himself from this item because he has material property interest in the matter. Town Manager Chanis reviewed the composition and history of the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District and spoke about the various cost estimates of the project. He said PG&E costs have not been fully established yet. He presented different construction contingency options and spoke briefly about the procedures and chance of a supplemental assessment. Mayor Fredericks asked clarifying questions about the contingency amounts, and when an appropriate time to establish a construction contingency would be. Vice Mayor Thier also asked several clarifying questions about the cost estimates – including the difference in engineer’s cost estimates, PG&E costs, costs of trenching, and mobilization and traffic control. Councilmember Welner commented on the residents’ concerns that a high cost estimate might influence higher bids. He inquired about getting a second engineer’s cost estimate. The Council discussed the merits of seeking another estimate, including cost, scheduling, and how this may impact the timing of the project. Mayor Fredericks opened the floor for public comment. Sara Klein said the project merits scrutiny from the Town due to its size and said there is mistrust of staff by residents. She stressed the importance of the Council aggressively reviewing the current engineer’s estimate because there seems to be a large discrepancy between the cost of this project and similar projects in Belvedere. Darrel Smith also expressed skepticism over the current engineer’s estimate based on other nearby projects and his personal experience. He requested additional review. Elena Stephens stressed the importance of this project for safety reasons and asked the Council to conduct a more thorough review of the current estimate, or seek another estimate, even if there is a time delay. She said she did not believe a supplement assessment would succeed. Ken Weil expressed frustration that the project could be further delayed, and said this project is necessary for the town residents as the neighborhood is a primary backup route and provides crucial access to Del Mar, churches, and preschools. Park Allen felt undergrounding for fire safety, falling electrical wires, and pole safety is critical. He expressed frustration with the lengthy process the project and the inflated estimate costs. DR A F T Page 6 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 Audrey Fancy said undergrounding is a safety issue and it is important for the Town to get powerlines underground. Bahram Seyedin-Noor appreciated efforts from staff but could not understand the lack of critical review of the cost estimate, particularly relative to the cost of similar projects in neighboring Belvedere. Councilmember Welner and Vice Mayor Their spoke about the mistrust of staff, and the final estimate, by the community and stressed the need to find remedy for this. Both suggested a second estimate by an independent body, with no reference to the current estimate, possibly using the same firm that estimated projects in Belvedere. Councilmember Kulik said that the results of a second estimate would coincide with the estimate from PG&E, which is beneficial to the whole process. In seeking a second estimate, the Council requested that staff work expeditiously, and communicate with the proponents of the Hawthorne undergrounding project regarding the vendor to be used to conduct the estimate. MOTION: Get a second independent estimate for the cost of the project from a credible certified cost estimating engineering firm. Moved: Welner, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner RECUSED: Ryan TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS There were none. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TM-1. Update on Town’s Response to COVID-19 Emergency Town Manager Chanis said schools have been given permission to start in person instruction. He said that the County may be moving into a less restrictive state tier in the future. TM-2. Update on recent Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission meeting and associated request Town Manager Chanis said that after numerous meetings, the Council adopted a revised Integrated Pest Management policy (IPM) and directed staff to bring the IPM to the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Commission (POST) as an informational item. POST met in July and September and due to many questions and comments regarding the IPM, unanimously passed a motion requesting the Council to direct POST to undertake a review the Integrated Pest Management policy and to provide suggested updates and edits. DR A F T Page 7 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 Town Manager Chanis also stated that the Commission discussed its desire to be part of the master planning process for Blackie’s Pasture and the Old Rail Trail complex. POST moved to request that Town Council grant POST the ability to create a master plan for the Richardson Bay Linear Park, create clarity around the area’s uses, understand facility needs, and bring the park in line with Town and residents’ needs. Town Manager Chanis asked Council for direction on the requests from POST to agendize these items. Regarding the Integrated Pest Management policy, Mayor Fredericks said the Council had already considered all the issues before it when it had been recently reviewed and approved and heard public comment. She felt the proper time to reconsider the policy was at the normally scheduled review time. She agreed that involvement of POST in the planning of the lineal park is a good idea but should be considered in the context of working with the review and renewal of the Town’s General Plan and perhaps a Recreation Plan – both to avoid duplicative efforts and to ensure there is coherency between plans. Councilmember Welner stated his recollection that the approval of the IPM was in response to certain emergent time sensitive issues, but it is a policy that evolves over time, and additional knowledge and recommendations is useful, so POST’s desire to do that would be welcomed. Councilmember Kulik concurred with Councilmember Welner’s comments and agreed POST does not need direction from Council to take this initiative. He also thought Mayor Fredericks made good points with reviewing larger plans in context with the General Plan. Vice Mayor Thier recalled her time as a member of the POST Commission and commented that as an independent body, it can study topics with more detail at its choosing without Council direction. She felt POST should be encouraged to investigate both topics and report back and advise the Council. She recommended the Council consider holding joint meetings with all the commissions. Town Manager confirmed Council consensus that a review of the Integrated Pest Management Plan by Parks Open Space and Trails Commission is its prerogative. Mayor Fredericks opened the floor for public comment. Rika Gopinath offered to coordinate pest management volunteer efforts for the community. She also felt that to have an Integrated Pest Management plan that is a pesticide free policy is less about having volunteers to do weeding and more determined from clear intention in the policy itself to not use conventional pesticides and look for alternatives. Park Allen spoke in support of the POST Commission’s desire to address the Council with ideas on broader subjects, particularly the parks, because it is a complex, involved issue that members of POST can focus on Chuck Hornbrook had questions about the process of reviewing and approving the Integrated Pest Management policy. DR A F T Page 8 of 8 Town Council Minutes #20-2020 October 7, 2020 Angela McInerney suggested more workshops on the Integrated Pest Management policy to allow for greater public input and comment. She said she would like to see IPM workshops with the ability to have back-and-forth public input. Regarding the linear park, she suggested a moratorium on small piecemeal projects until a more comprehensive plan is developed and in place. All Councilmembers encouraged the additional voices and ideas from POST for the lineal parks, and Town Manager Chanis suggested that Community Development Director Tasini be present at the next POST meeting. There, she could the discuss the General Plan process and timelines, and provide a broader scope and perspective for POST to see how the Planning Department plans to incorporate its input. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. _________________________________ ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK DR A F T Page 1 of 4 Town Council Minutes #03-2021 February 24, 2021 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the County Public Health Department’s May 18, 2020 Shelter in Place Order, councilmembers attended this meeting by teleconference. Members of the public were invited to participate in the meeting by live-streaming the meeting on the Town’s website and submitting comments to comments@townoftiburon.org to be included in the public record for the meeting. SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL TIBURON PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS COMMISSION Mayor Thier called the special joint meeting of the Town Council and the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2021. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner (at 5:08 P.M.), Thier ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kulik ROLL CALL – PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allen, Burr, McInerney, Hornbrook, Nikfar PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Palmer, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-1. Town Council and Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission Joint Meeting – Discuss: 1. Acquisition of Open Spacea.Richardson Bay Sanitation District Ponds Acquisition Update b.Other Potential Open Space 2.General Plan – Maintenance of Open Space and Parks Discussion3. Connection of Open Space and Tiburon Parks, Open Space, and Trails DR A F T CC-2 Page 2 of 4 Town Council Minutes #03-2021 February 24, 2021 4. Communication between the Town Council and the Parks, Open Space and TrailsCommission and other boards or commissions 5. Grant opportunities the Town Council could apply for related to parks, open space, trails Public comment was received by Alison Pence, who spoke in support of additional budget allotment for vegetation management. Mayor Thier requested staff bring forward any grant opportunities to the Town Council and/or Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. No action taken. ADJOURNMENT – to special meeting SPECIAL MEETING – 5:00 P.M. Mayor Their called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2021. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner, Thier ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kulik PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Palmer, Director of Community Development Tasini, Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of January 20, 2021 regular Town Council meeting (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of February 3, 2021 special and regular TownCouncil meetings (Department of Administrative Services) DR A F T Page 3 of 4 Town Council Minutes #03-2021 February 24, 2021 CC-3. Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District – Authorize agreements related to the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District for construction management and inspection, and public outreach services with Coastland and a cultural resources monitoring agreement with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Department of Public Works) CC-4. Leave of Absence – Adopt resolution authorizing a leave of absence for Councilmember Kulik (Office of the Town Attorney) Mayor Thier opened the floor for public comments and there were none. Councilmember Fredericks requested Consent Calendar Item No. 1 (Town Council Minutes) be removed for discussion. Councilmember Ryan said he would recuse himself from on Consent Calendar Item No. CC-3 (Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District) due to a financial interest. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items No. 2 & 4 as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes of January 20, 2021 regular Town Council meeting (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To amend the minutes of January 20, 2021 on page 2 to read “Councilmember Fredericks felt the minutes should reflect what the Council considered in making the decision”, and to adopt the minutes as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik CC-3. Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District – Authorize agreements related to the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District for construction management and inspection, and public outreach services with Coastland and a cultural resources monitoring agreement with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Department of Public Works) Public comment was received by Sara Klein, who questioned the contract amounts. MOTION: To authorize agreements related to the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District for construction management and inspection, and public outreach services with Coastland and a cultural resources monitoring agreement with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Moved: Welner, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Welner, Thier RECUSED: Ryan ABSENT: Kulik DR A F T Page 4 of 4 Town Council Minutes #03-2021 February 24, 2021 ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Diversity Inclusion Task Force – Consider appointment of Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force (Department of Administrative Services) There were no public comments. MOTION: To appoint Mayor Thier as Chair of the Task Force. Moved: Ryan, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner, Thier ABSENT: Kulik MOTION: Appoint Councilmember Fredericks as Vice Chair of the Task Force. Moved: Ryan, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner, Thier ABSENT: Kulik AI-2. Action Minutes – Discuss possible transition to action-style minutes for Town Council meeting and determine which style of minutes is appropriate for Town Council meetings (Department of Administrative Services) Public comment was received by Alessandro Beraldi, who spoke in favor of summary minutes. MOTION: To authorize the use of action minutes for Town Council meetings. Moved: Thier, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Ryan, Welner, Thier NOES: Fredericks ABSENT: Kulik TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ryan reminded the public that Councilmembers are available to be contacted for questions or further comments. TOWN MANAGER REPORT There was none. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:13pm _________________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK DR A F T Page 1 of 5 Town Council Minutes #04-2021 March 3, 2021 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL & REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the County Public Health Department’s May 18, 2020 Shelter in Place Order, councilmembers attended this meeting by teleconference. Members of the public were invited to participate in the meeting by live-streaming the meeting on the Town’s website and submitting comments to comments@townoftiburon.org to be included in the public record for the meeting. SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 P.M. Mayor Thier called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kulik PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Town Clerk Stefani Mayor Thier opened the floor for public comment on the closed session item and there were none. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: (One potential case) Claims filed by Yema Khalif and Hawi Awash on January 25, 2021, on file with the Town Clerk’s Office INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS •Kelly Turbin, Building Code Appeals Board (rescheduled) •Richard Wodehouse, Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT – to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. Mayor Thier called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 3, 2021. DR A F T CC-3 Page 2 of 5 Town Council Minutes #04-2021 March 3, 2021 ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kulik PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Palmer, Director of Community Development Tasini, Senior Planner Fong, Contract Planner Allsep, Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Accounting & Finance Manager Kurakina, Town Clerk Stefani ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY No reportable action. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David Barker asked the Council to put the Mill Valley Refuse Service agreement on a future agenda. Councilmember Fredericks asked that the Council consider writing a letter of support for a proposed bill in the legislature related to vegetation management. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending January 31, 2021 (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as written. Moved: Ryan, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik ACTION ITEMS AI-1. General Plan Update: Development of Guiding Principles – Receive update on recent Community Engagement activities and consider acceptance of proposed General Plan Update Guiding Principles, which will be used to develop and define General Plan goals and policies through the General Plan update process (Community Development Department) Public comment was received by Carolyn Shadan, who expressed the desire for more focus on the effects of sea level rise. No action taken. DR A F T Page 3 of 5 Town Council Minutes #04-2021 March 3, 2021 AI-2. Town Audit Report – Recommendation to accept and file the Town’s FY 2019-20 Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To accept the Fiscal Year 2019-20 annual financial audit report, as prepared by Marcello & Company, CPAs. Moved: Ryan, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik AI-3. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions – Consider reappointment of commissioners whose terms have expired or appointment of new members to boards & commissions (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To appoint Daniel Amir to a 4-year term on the Planning Commission Moved: Welner, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik MOTION: To appoint Paolo Crescini to a 4-year term on the Design Review Board. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik MOTION: To appoint Richard Wodehouse to a 5-year term on the Building Code Appeals Board. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 58 Claire Way – Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval for the construction of exterior alterations and additions to a single-family residence at 58 Claire Way (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: James and Rachel Sergi Appellant(s): Carolyn Shadan Address: 58 Claire Way Assessor Parcel No.: 034-174-11 Public comment was received by: Evelyn Wu spoke in favor of granting the appeal. DR A F T Page 4 of 5 Town Council Minutes #04-2021 March 3, 2021 Mrs. Whitney spoke in support of denying the appeal. MOTION: To deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and to direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. Moved: Welner, seconded by Ryan SUBSTITUTE MOTION: To partially grant the appeal, accepting the modifications as offered by the applicant to reduce the height of the windows by 1 foot. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Thier NAYS: Ryan, Welner ABSENT: Kulik The substitute motion did not carry. MOTION: To deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and to direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. Moved: Welner, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner NAYS: Thier ABSENT: Kulik PH-2. 4576 Paradise Drive – Consider adoption of an ordinance that would prezone property located at 4576 Paradise Drive in unincorporated Tiburon to Residential Planned Development (RPD) – Introduction and first reading of ordinance (Community Development Department) MOTION: To introduce the ordinance and read by title only. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik Mayor Thier read “An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Prezoning Certain Unincorporated Territory Located at 4576 Paradise Drive (Assessor Parcel No. 038-142- 02) and Within Town of Tiburon Sphere of Influence To RPD (Residential Planned Development) Zone”. MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance, waiving additional readings, and set the ordinance for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. Moved: Thier, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Kulik DR A F T Page 5 of 5 Town Council Minutes #04-2021 March 3, 2021 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS There were none. TOWN MANAGER REPORT There were none. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Thier adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. _________________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK DR A F T TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 58 Claire Way: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the Construction of exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family residence in the R-1-B-A zone; James and Rachel Sergi, Owners; Carolyn Shadan, Appellant; File No. DR2020-059; Assessor Parcel No. 034-174-11. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY On March 3, 2021, the Town Council decided to deny an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision on the project at 58 Claire Way. This item for the consideration of a Resolution memorializing that decision. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the Resolution as part of the Consent Calendar. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2021, the Design Review Board conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family residence on a R-1-B-A zoned property at 58 Claire Way. A timely appeal was filed of the Design Review Board’s decision. On March 3, 2021, the Town Council held a public hearing on an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision on this application. After closing the public hearing, the Town Council voted 3-1-1 (One councilmember voted nay and one councilmember was absent) to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal for consideration for adoption at the next meeting. That resolution now comes before the Town Council for adoption. The draft resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. ANALYSIS No further analysis is provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-4 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 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 Council adopt this Resolution (Exhibit 1), as part of the Consent Calendar. EXHIBIT 1. Draft Resolution denying the appeal EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING AN APPEAL BY CAROLYN SHADAN OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A R-1-B-A ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 58 CLAIRE WAY (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-174-11) WHEREAS, on January 21, 2021, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File No. DR2020-059) filed by Rachel and James Sergi (“Applicants’) for exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a R-1-B-A zoned property located at 58 Claire Way; and The official record for this application is hereby incorporated and made part of this Resolution. The record includes, without limitation, staff reports, minutes, application materials, appeal materials, correspondence, and all comments and materials received at any public hearings. WHEREAS, at that hearing, the adjacent property owner at 279 Cecilia Way opposed the application and raised concerns regarding view, light/glare, shade and privacy impacts. The Design Review Board reviewed the plans and determined that the additions will follow applicable design guidelines and the Guiding Principles expressed in Tiburon Municipal Code section 16-52.020 (H). The Board found that the additions are properly laid out on the site and are generously setback from the existing improvements on the adjoining sites, which would mitigate the impacts on view, shade and light/glare that could potentially cause by the project. With the consideration of landscaped and structural screening between properties, privacy is not noted as a concern. WHEREAS, the Design Review Board voted unanimously 5-0 to conditionally approve the project; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2021, owner of 279 Cecilia Way (“Appellant”) filed a timely appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision, objecting to the potential light/glare, shade and privacy impacts caused by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2021, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing, on a de novo basis, on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the application and the Design Review Board’s review and decision on the application. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Town Council voted 3-1-1 (One councilmember voted nay and one councilmember was absent) to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal for the consideration of adoption at the next Town Council Resolution No. DRAFT-2021 MARCH 17, 2021 Page 2 of 2 meeting. The Council determined that the subject application would be consistent with the guiding principles in review of Site Plan and Architectural Review application contained within Section 16-52.020 (H) as the project is appropriately scaled on the site and is designed reasonably to relate with improvements on the adjoining properties. WHEREAS, on March 17, 2021, a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Design Review Board’s approval return to the Town Council. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and form a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby denies the appeal of Carolyn Shadan and approves the Site Plan and Architectural Review application (DR2020-059) for exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family dwelling on a R-1-B-A zoned property located at 58 Claire Way. The conditions of approval that were previously imposed by the Design Review Board will remain in effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 17, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Consider approval of Town’s Response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY For this item, Council will consider approval of the Town’s response to the 2019-2020 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report titled: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Review and approve the proposed response and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury. BACKGROUND On December 14, 2020, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin (Exhibit 1). The report includes numerous findings and recommendations the Town must respond to, with the responses conforming to the format required by Penal Code section 933.05. The Town’s proposed response to the report is attached as Exhibit 2. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance 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. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: CC - 5 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Review and approve the proposed response and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the letter to the Civil Grand Jury. Exhibit(s): 1. 2019-2020 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin. 2. Draft response to 2019-2020 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report titled: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin. Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager EXHIBIT 1 2019–2020 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin December 14, 2020 A Note about the Coronavirus Pandemic The 2019–2020 Marin County Civil Grand Jury is issuing its reports during the unprecedented conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are well aware that Marin County is in crisis and that critical public health concerns, operational difficulties, and financial challenges throughout the county have a greater claim to government attention right now than the important issues raised by this Grand Jury. We are confident that, in due course, Marin will come through this crisis as strong as ever. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin SUMMARY California’s 2020 fire season got off to an early start in mid-August with dry lightning that sparked five of the six largest wildfires in the state’s history.1 As of the end of September, nearly four million acres had burned, 22 major wildfires were still active, and 30 people were dead.2 As fires burned throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, anxious Marin residents sheltered from heavy smoke and kept a wary eye on the Woodward Fire in the Point Reyes National Seashore, hoping they would not be forced to evacuate at a moment’s notice. People worried whether it would be possible to evacuate safely. The Grand Jury chose to investigate this question. Specifically, the jury sought to determine whether Marin’s evacuation needs are considered adequately when government entities plan and build improvements to roads and traffic infrastructure. Funding for transportation-related infrastructure projects is complicated, involving agencies at the local, county, regional, state, and federal levels. The rules and regulations governing these funding sources were largely developed before wildfire was the threat it has become in recent years and before the citizenry was fully aware of the urgent need to be able to evacuate quickly and safely. For instance, the Transportation Authority of Marin was chartered at a time when traffic congestion was high on Marin’s priority list and wildfire evacuation was a remote concern. Times have changed. Today, there is considerable uncertainty about who has the ultimate responsibility for building the transportation infrastructure capable of evacuating Marin residents safely in a rapidly evolving emergency. The Transportation Authority of Marin has not been willing to include evacuation as a criterion when funding roadway projects. The recently created Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority has neither the authority nor the funds to address the infrastructure needs. In fact, the county, towns, and cities have responsibility for public safety, but they have not prioritized evacuation needs when funding public works projects. The Grand Jury recommends the following: ■ Marin’s county, town, and city governing bodies should include evacuation needs among their criteria for evaluating and recommending public works projects, and that they call on the Transportation Authority of Marin to do the same ■ Marin’s county, town, and city governing bodies should address evacuation infrastructure needs as they update their general plans 1 Michael McGough, “5 of the 6 Largest California Wildfires in History Started in the Last 6 Weeks,” Sacramento Bee, September 22, 2020, https://www.sacbee.com/article245917915.html. 2 Phil Helsel, “Deadly Fires in California have claimed at least 30 lives this year,” NBC News, September 30, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deadly-fires-california-have-claimed-least-30-lives-year-n1241632. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 14 ■ The Transportation Authority of Marin should formally establish evacuation as one of its criteria for consideration when planning and funding traffic projects ■ The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority should invite a Transportation Authority of Marin representative to become an at-large, nonvoting member of its Advisory/Technical Committee to support program development, funding, and implementation of improvements to evacuation routes APPROACH The Grand Jury interviewed officials of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority (MWPA), as well as county supervisors, city and town council members, city managers, public works directors, fire and police officials, agency legal counsel, and staff of the Marin County Office of Emergency Services. The Grand Jury reviewed TAM’s charter as well as its response to a previous Grand Jury wildfire report that called on TAM to assume some responsibility for evacuation planning. In addition, it reviewed the authorizing documents of the MWPA, attended public meetings, and examined county and municipal general plans. The Grand Jury investigation focused exclusively on evacuation as it relates to planning, funding, and implementing public works projects on our roads. BACKGROUND Marin County has made progress in addressing the threat of wildfire with the formation and funding of the MWPA that was recommended by the 2018–19 Marin County Civil Grand Jury. With the leadership of fire officials and FIRESafe Marin, county residents are establishing certified Firewise neighborhoods focused on vegetation management and hardening homes against the risk of fire. The MWPA is getting off to a good start with several important initiatives, including inspection, vegetation management, public education, establishment of refuge centers, signage, planning, and mapping. Planning to safely evacuate a community is complex and includes the need to consider public works projects for making rapid evacuation possible along Marin’s narrow and congested roads. The September 2020 Glass Fire forced the sudden evacuation of 68,000 Sonoma County residents and resulted in gridlock on a major route.3 During the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, flames raced at a rate of more than one football field every three seconds.4 In that fire, eight people perished in their cars trying to escape. In Marin, evacuation needs are not routinely included in the criteria used by county and municipal public works departments or TAM to prioritize and finance traffic projects. When it comes to planning and funding public works projects, the primary considerations are the safety 3 Lori A. Carter, Kevin Fixler, Guy Kovner, et al., “Live Updates: More Fire Evacuation Orders Issued for East Santa Rosa,” Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 28, 2020, https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/live- updates-more-fire-evacuation-orders-issued-for-east-santa-rosa/amp/. 4 Judson Jones, “One of California Wildfires Grew So Fast It Burned the Equivalent of a Football Field Every Second,” CNN, November 10, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/us/california-wildfires-superlatives- wcx/index.html. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 14 of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers as well as smooth, efficient traffic flow and congestion management. In numerous jurisdictions, evacuation needs do not make the list of approved criteria that are evaluated when deciding on a project. As one official put it, evacuation is “not on the radar.” Traffic Congestion and Evacuation Challenges Marin’s unique geography creates exceptional challenges for transportation planners across the county. The 2018–2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury presented an extensive list of choke points identified by Marin’s fire districts.5 Some of these are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Choke Points Identified by Fire Districts in 2019 Bolinas Fire Protection District Central Marin Fire Authority Inverness Volunteer Fire Dept. Kentfield Fire Protection District Marin County Fire Department Mill Valley Fire Department Novato Fire Department Ross Valley Fire Department Southern Marin Fire Protection Dist. 5 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Wildfire Preparedness: A New Approach, Appendix C, April 25, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2018-19/wildfire-preparedness--a-new- approach.pdf?la=en. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 14 The problem is compounded when evacuation routes cross multiple jurisdictions where no single agency has authority to make improvements along the entire route. These problems are illustrated at several locations in Marin. For example, Mill Valley’s Miller Avenue and Blithedale Avenue are the primary evacuation routes for more than 15,000 people, almost all of whom live in a fire-prone wildland-urban interface area. Normal traffic there is consistently backed up at three key choke points: the intersection of Camino Alto and East Blithedale, the Highway 101 interchange at Blithedale, and the heavily gridlocked intersection on Shoreline Highway (Highway 1) at Tam Junction. Evacuation to refuge centers near Highway 101 will almost certainly not be possible for many Mill Valley residents. Two of the three choke points that affect Mill Valley lie outside its city limits. To address this problem, multi-jurisdictional cooperation among TAM, Mill Valley, Marin County, and Caltrans will be needed. The two primary emergency exits from San Anselmo and Fairfax are Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue, which pass through many choke points across multiple jurisdictions, including Ross, San Rafael, Larkspur, County of Marin, and the Caltrans interchanges at Highway 101. Similar choke points exist in Sleepy Hollow, where the Butterfield Road escape route runs across the jurisdictions of unincorporated Marin County and San Anselmo. Santa Venetia’s escape route on San Pedro Road crosses unincorporated Marin County, San Rafael, and the Caltrans interchange at Highway 101. Evacuation along Novato Boulevard involves the City of Novato and the county. In addition to the choke points on major arterial routes, natural and constructed obstacles on Marin’s narrow hillside and feeder roads impede safe evacuation. Road narrowing at eastbound East Blithedale Avenue approaching Highway 101. (Photo by Spencer Sias) Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 14 DISCUSSION Planning for safe wildfire evacuation is complicated. It requires multi-agency cooperation to address a multitude of tasks by many different departments and administrators under the direction of Marin’s elected officials. These tasks are performed by county and municipal public works, fire, and law enforcement agencies; the Marin County Office of Emergency Services; and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority; as well as by regional, state and federal agencies. Current thinking among most of the county’s public safety officials is that residents needing to evacuate should get into their cars, drive down to valley floors, and then go to mapped refuge centers. If necessary, evacuees can then move onto highways and out of the county. Refuge centers are typically large parking lots, playing fields at schools and community centers, and shopping malls. Putting aside the question of whether the designated refuge centers are large enough to accommodate all the evacuees from heavily populated areas, the paths to reach these refuge centers could be impassable. In the long run, it will be essential to move traffic through known choke points in order to ensure public safety in a swiftly moving emergency requiring mass evacuation with little or no warning. Fire professionals tell residents that they will be safe in their cars on pavement en route to valley floors or designated refuge centers.6 They stress that residents should evacuate as soon as they are warned to avoid congestion and panic. However, fires often strike suddenly and create the need to move thousands of cars immediately with little or no warning. While Marin’s agencies are implementing many aspects of evacuation planning, they are not considering infrastructure improvements such as the removal of impediments or the widening of roads for evacuees and emergency vehicles. In interviews with the Grand Jury, many officials expressed reluctance to take on these specific evacuation infrastructure challenges because of the enormous costs, potential litigation, environmental complexities, neighborhood resistance, and lack of authority. Furthermore, it is not clear who has responsibility for addressing this critical need. Nevertheless, the dire consequences of failing to address this challenge could result in a catastrophe that far outweighs the cost of improving our roads to support mass evacuation. Political Confusion Marin has political as well as physical impediments to safe evacuation. At present, it is not clear who has the political authority for all of the many aspects of planning and implementing evacuations. In fact, no single governmental entity has the authority or has accepted responsibility for overseeing and executing all of these tasks. In interviews with the Grand Jury, public officials often expressed the belief that some other agency had the responsibility for evacuation. For example, some public works directors and city managers believe that fire and law enforcement are in charge of evacuation and involved in its planning. Transportation officials said that the county’s Office of Emergency Services is in 6 FIRESafe Marin, “Wildfire Evacuation Guide,” accessed November 5, 2020, https://firesafemarin.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=614. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 14 charge. However, when asked, officials from the Office of Emergency Services and law enforcement responded that they focus on evacuation only during active emergencies. The Grand Jury heard from several elected officials that they anticipate that the new wildfire authority will take care of evacuation planning. To add to the muddle, there was often confusion over what planning for evacuation actually entails. No one had a complete grasp of all of the interconnected components, whether it is educating the public, cutting back vegetation, improving mapping and signage, designating refuge centers, executing evacuation during emergencies, or actually building and improving the infrastructure to support a mass evacuation. After completing its investigation, the Grand Jury believes that the ultimate responsibility for road improvements and establishing safe evacuation routes lies with our elected officials, specifically the Marin County Board of Supervisors as well as Marin’s town and city councilmembers. For a fully functional evacuation infrastructure, these officials must execute their local policies and decisions through their public works, fire, and law enforcement departments and agencies while also coordinating with one another across jurisdictions. They must also reach out to the state and federal transportation agencies to seek funds. All of this work will require the support of the Transportation Authority of Marin and the new Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority. No jurisdiction or agency can do this entirely by itself. County, Towns, and Cities It is up to the county and municipalities to propose and build the public works infrastructure needed to support evacuation as well as emergency access by fire equipment and first responders. It is critical that they remediate traffic choke points and improve key narrow roads within their boundaries. They also must look beyond their borders at cross-jurisdictional evacuation routes that will be needed to accommodate mass evacuations. While jurisdictions may have the resources for small projects, they will need to coordinate with one another and regional, state, and federal transportation agencies to obtain the funding required for larger local and cross-jurisdictional projects. Major public works projects can involve enormous expense, generate litigation, and take years to accomplish. However, the Grand Jury believes that even small projects that address evacuation can make a big difference over time. Elected officials through their local public works departments are responsible for building and maintaining a safe road infrastructure for the public, whether they are in automobiles, on bikes, or on foot. Safe, smooth, and efficient traffic flow on an everyday basis is their prime consideration. Evacuation has not been one of the criteria in planning road projects but given the effects of climate change and the rising risk of fire, it cannot be ignored. Public works decisions are often made in response to demands from local residents who lobby for specific improvements in their neighborhoods. The Grand Jury heard from a number of public works directors that they respond to appeals from parents in regard to pedestrian safety. There have not been similar appeals from the public for evacuation-related improvements. The responsibilities of each public works department end at its jurisdictional boundaries. While there has been some informal coordination between cities, there is no formal plan for coordinating traffic flow across cross-jurisdictional evacuation routes. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 14 Each jurisdiction has its own challenges and priorities, and the solutions to those challenges may conflict with evacuation concerns. In some cases, individual jurisdictions have chosen to address local demands for quieter, slower streets by narrowing major routes within their cities. Mill Valley is a good example of trying to balance evacuation with safe traffic flow, aesthetics, and other competing requirements. In 2017, Miller Avenue was re-striped to narrow the road from four lanes to two lanes in order to add a bike lane and needed parking in the downtown area. In 2019, after evacuation concerns were expressed, the city amended the plan to prohibit parking on Miller Avenue on “red flag” days when fire danger is high. This compromise is a recognition of the need to be able to evacuate large numbers of vehicles out of the city in an emergency. Individual governing bodies of the cities, towns, and the county should direct their departments of public works to add evacuation as an important criterion to be considered as part of their normal planning process. This does not need to be an onerous addition. A simple item on a checklist should be included with a short explanation of how evacuation would be impacted. The county and municipal elected officials have the ultimate responsibility for evacuation and public roadways, and they can also strongly influence the policies and decisions of the Transportation Authority of Marin. TAM is a resource and the primary source of funding for transportation infrastructure projects in the county. Its board is composed solely of a councilmember from every town and city as well as all five members of the county’s board of supervisors. Unless the county, towns, and cities prioritize infrastructure work to improve evacuation, this work will not happen. As part of fulfilling their responsibility for evacuation safety, Marin’s board of supervisors and municipal councils should each pass a resolution requesting TAM establish a policy to examine the impact on evacuation of every road project presented to it for funding. County and Municipal General Plans County and municipal general plans lay out each jurisdiction’s vision for long-term development, including its traffic infrastructure. General plans are required by state law, and the law requires that general plans include evacuation as a component of their safety element. Specifically, it states that “the safety element . . . shall also address evacuation routes . . . and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.”7 In addition, the 2015 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Fire Hazard Planning guide recommends that general plans include evacuations.8 Specifically, the guidelines call for: ■ Designating and maintaining safe emergency evacuation routes on publicly maintained roads for all communities and assets at risk 7 California Government Code 65302(g), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65302.&lawCode=GOV. 8 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Fire Hazard Planning, May 2015, p. 21, Fire Hazard Planning: General Plan Technical Advice Series. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 14 ■ Identifying potential circulation improvements necessary to avoid unacceptable community risks The Grand Jury reviewed the general plans of the county and the municipalities and found that evacuation is not adequately addressed. As of October 2020, only Belvedere, Mill Valley, and Novato had included evacuation in their general plans, although several other jurisdictions are in the process of making some changes. California state law also mandates that general plans be updated on a regular basis. These plan updates provide government officials the opportunity to consider evacuation when making decisions involving land use, development, and infrastructure. Given the dangers illustrated by the 2020 wildfire season, the Grand Jury believes that the county, cities, and towns should amend their general plans to explicitly address evacuation issues. Specifically, they should identify the roads within their jurisdictions that create unacceptable community risks and plan to improve them as soon as possible. The Transportation Authority of Marin In its Wildfire Preparedness: A New Approach report, the 2018–19 Marin County Civil Grand Jury made four recommendations calling on the Transportation Authority of Marin to participate in planning, prioritizing, and funding evacuation projects.9 TAM responded to that Grand Jury report by stating that “TAM is a funding agency and does not set local policy.”10 During subsequent interviews, the 2019–2020 Grand Jury heard TAM officials continue to deny that the agency has any role or responsibility for considering evacuation needs in its transportation projects. However, the current Grand Jury believes that the TAM board can and should ensure that evacuation considerations are integrated as a criterion into the planning and funding of all transportation projects. TAM is ideally positioned to help address the county’s evacuation infrastructure needs. It is the only entity in Marin with countywide authority over transportation projects. It is also the primary agency through which Marin’s major transportation projects are developed and funded. Its board is broadly representative of Marin’s jurisdictions, and therefore it can support large cross- jurisdictional projects along Marin’s major evacuation routes. By coordinating grant applications for multi-jurisdictional and countywide evacuation infrastructure projects, TAM can strengthen Marin’s chances of obtaining regional, state, and federal funds. TAM was established as Marin’s official congestion management agency11 and is the major source of funding for many Marin transportation projects, both small and large. It provides funding for roads, bikeways, sidewalks, and pathways. It also supports local transit services and school safety programs. TAM gets funding from local sales taxes and a local vehicle registration fee, as well as from regional, state, and federal grants. 9 Marin County Civil Grand Jury, Wildfire Preparedness: A New Approach, p. 24. 10 Transportation Authority of Marin, “Response to Grand Jury Report “Wildfire Preparedness - A New Approach,” June 27, 2019, https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2018- 19/responses/wildfire-preparedness-a-new-approach/wildfire--tam.pdf?la=en. 11 Transportation Authority of Marin, “Overview,” accessed November 5, 2020, https://www.tam.ca.gov/overview/. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 14 In 2018, Marin’s voters approved Measure AA, a ½-cent sales tax to support local transportation projects. This tax is expected to generate up to $273 million that could be used to improve local roads over the next 30 years.12 This money is prescribed for many purposes, but one such purpose is to make investments to address congestion and improve “traffic flow” on local streets and road corridors. Of the $273 million, TAM estimates that $7.2 million will be available annually for maintenance of Marin’s local transportation infrastructure, including roads, bike paths and walking paths. The measure also makes an additional $1.9 million available on an annual basis to reduce congestion on Highway 101 and adjacent roadways. Local spending in these areas could help to alleviate impediments to safe evacuation. The money could also be used as matching funds to obtain larger regional, state, and federal grants. This can be accomplished within the Measure AA framework approved by Marin’s voters, and it would be in keeping with the vital public interest in having safe evacuation routes. The Grand Jury’s review indicates that TAM has the discretion as well as financial resources to address unanticipated events under existing rules. For example, TAM recently made Quick Build Grants to towns and cities to close streets to traffic so restaurants could provide outdoor dining during the COVID-19 pandemic.13 TAM does not need to amend its charter or amend the expenditure plan for AA funds in order to consider evacuation routes in its funding algorithms. The TAM board is not prohibited from establishing a policy that every project submitted for funding must consider the impact of the project on mass evacuation. TAM’s board can also direct its staff to work with the county and municipalities to ensure that every project proposal includes consideration of the impact on Marin’s evacuation infrastructure. TAM could be more effective if it works directly with the new Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority to help identify and fund evacuation infrastructure projects. TAM has traffic models and an extensive set of data that could be extremely useful for evacuation planning.14 The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority is a new, countywide agency dedicated to all aspects of wildfire prevention and preparation. It is the first agency of its kind in the state and represents a pioneering effort in fire prevention. When it was being formed, the MWPA was presented as the agency that would address Marin’s wildfire prevention, evacuation infrastructure, and planning needs. 12 Transportation Authority of Marin, 2018 Final Expenditure Plan, p.9, accessed October 15, 2020, https://2b0kd44aw6tb3js4ja3jprp6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/TAM_2018FinalExpenditurePlan_062918.pdf. 13 Will Houston, “Marin Grant Program Offers Virus Aid for Outdoor Commerce,” Marin Independent Journal, July 12, 2020, https://www.marinij.com/2020/07/12/marin-grant-program-offers-virus-aid-for-outdoor-commerce/. 14 Transportation Authority of Marin, Travel Demand Model & Traffic Monitoring, accessed October 3, 2020, https://www.tam.ca.gov/planning/travel-demand-model-traffic-monitoring/. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 14 The Measure C initiative placed on the ballot to fund the MWPA specifically stated: Marin Wildfire Prevention Measure. To support coordinated wildfire prevention including early detection, warning and alerts; reducing vegetation; ensuring defensible space around homes, neighborhoods and critical infrastructure; and improving disaster evacuation routes/procedures; shall the Marin Wildfire Prevention Measure, levying up to 10¢ per building square foot tax ($75 per multifamily unit or as described in the full measure) for ten years, providing $19,300,000 annually, with annual inflation adjustments, independent citizen oversight/audits, and low-income senior exemptions, be adopted?15 In addition, the campaign literature promoting Measure C to fund MWPA explicitly promised to address evacuation infrastructure. The image below shows a Measure C campaign flyer describing in the second bullet point that a yes vote on Measure C will “improve evacuation routes and infrastructure for quicker, safer evacuations.” 15 Marin County Registrar of Voters, “March 3, 2020 - Measure C,” emphasis added, https://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv/election-info/election-schedule/page-data/tabs-collection/2020/march- 3/measure/measure-c-tab. Measure C campaign flyer promising, among other statements, that a yes vote would “improve evacuation routes and infrastructure for quicker, safer evacuations.” Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 14 Marin voters approved the ballot initiative with a 71 percent majority. The Grand Jury is concerned that Marin’s public may have a false sense of security regarding evacuation routes, thinking that all issues relating to the matter will be handled by the new government agency. Local officials told the Grand Jury that citizens are not calling on them to improve evacuation routes in current or future infrastructure projects. They are not demanding action on the inevitable, and possibly lethal, road congestion that will occur in the event of a mass evacuation. From its interviews and investigation, the Grand Jury confirmed that not only the public, but others, including some government officials, expect that evacuation improvements will fall under the purview of the MWPA. FIRESafe Marin, a nonprofit organization formed by Marin County’s fire chiefs, produced and distributed a fact sheet about the new agency and described one of its tasks as “improving evacuation routes and infrastructure to enhance traffic flow and promote safe evacuation.”16 Seeming to further support this assumption, the MWPA website states that one of its roles is to “improve disaster evacuation routes for organized evacuation.”17 Despite these assertions, the MWPA does not plan to actually make infrastructure improvements. The MWPA is funding major vegetation management projects, creating evacuation maps, applying for and giving grants, providing defensible space evaluations, and planning many other important tasks. However, it should be clearly understood that the MWPA does not have the political authority to initiate the public works projects to build safe mass evacuation routes, nor does it have sufficient financial resources to fund them. The MWPA is composed of 17 different jurisdictions. Rather than giving the MWPA top-down authority, its formation agreement requires that all its actions are to be achieved through cooperation among its constituent jurisdictions. It cannot impose a requirement for major infrastructure work on the county or any individual jurisdiction. Political authority remains with the towns, cities, and county. Although the tax for the MWPA is expected to raise approximately $19.3 million per year, this amount of money is not enough to cover the cost of any major roadway improvement. The MWPA is planning to fund and execute other evacuation-related projects. For instance, it has allocated $1 million for a traffic study of evacuation routes. This traffic study could be the blueprint for planning future roadway improvements; but beyond this, the agency will not be responsible for executing or funding such work. It would make sense for the MWPA and the Transportation Authority of Marin to coordinate this infrastructure planning work with the towns, cities, and county. To facilitate this coordination, the MWPA should invite a TAM representative to become an at-large, nonvoting member of its Advisory/Technical Committee. 16 FIRESafe Marin, “Local Wildfire Prevention & Mitigation Initiative,” accessed October 4, 2020, https://www.firesafemarin.org/images/articles/mwpa/JPA_FactSheet_Final.pdf. 17 Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, "About Us," accessed October 17, 2020, https://www.marinwildfire.org/about-us. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 14 CONCLUSION Planning, executing, and building for evacuation is an enormous, complex, expensive, and time- consuming task that can only be achieved one step at a time. As a start, to meet the need for safer evacuation, Marin’s officials and agencies should consider evacuation impacts whenever they are planning a new roadway improvement project. Success in this endeavor will require dedicated attention by our elected leaders and cooperation across and within Marin’s jurisdictions as well as the Transportation Authority of Marin and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority. With recognition of the progress made so far and in view of the extensive work that remains to be done, the Grand Jury is recommending the next steps needed to build for evacuation. FINDINGS F1. No single agency or jurisdiction is taking responsibility and authority for building infrastructure for safe evacuation routes across jurisdictions in Marin County. F2. There is confusion in the county as to who has ultimate responsibility and authority for ensuring that Marin has safe evacuation routes. F3. Marin County Board of Supervisors and town and city councils have the responsibility for safe evacuation routing, and they have not sufficiently considered evacuation as a criterion when approving improvements to roads and traffic infrastructure in their jurisdictions. F4. County and municipal administrators, public works, and traffic engineers have not adequately considered mass evacuation as a criterion for planning and funding traffic infrastructure improvements. F5. Most Marin jurisdictions have not yet included urgently needed evacuation plans in their general plans as required by state law and as recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. F6. As Marin’s designated “congestion management agency,” the Transportation Authority of Marin, is best positioned to coordinate and support the funding of public works projects for improving evacuation routes, including cross-jurisdictional evacuation routes. F7. Contrary to its previous responses to the Grand Jury, the Transportation Authority of Marin is not precluded or constrained from incorporating evacuation planning needs as a criterion in its infrastructure projects. F8. The Transportation Authority of Marin’s decision-making process is inadequate unless it includes evacuation as a criterion when funding improvements. F9. The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority’s Advisory/Technical Committee would benefit from having the expertise of the Transportation Authority of Marin to advise on evacuation infrastructure needs. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 14 RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should direct their respective planning and public works departments to include evacuation needs among their criteria for evaluating and recommending public works projects. R2. Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should adopt resolutions calling on the Transportation Authority of Marin to include evacuation needs among the criteria it considers when planning and funding public works projects. R3. In calendar year 2021, the County of Marin and its cities and towns should update the safety elements of their general plans to include evacuation planning. R4. Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Transportation Authority of Marin should establish a criterion requiring that evacuation impacts be examined and stated when planning and funding infrastructure projects. R5. Within 120 days of the date of this report, the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority should invite a Transportation Authority of Marin representative to become an at-large, nonvoting member of its Advisory/Technical Committee to support program development, funding, and implementation of improvements in evacuation routes. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES According to the California Penal Code, agencies required to respond to Grand Jury reports generally have no more than 90 days to issue a response. It is not within the Grand Jury’s power to waive or extend these deadlines, and to the Grand Jury’s knowledge, the Judicial Council of California has not done so. But we recognize that the deadlines may be burdensome given current conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the deadlines are extended or not, it is our expectation that Marin's public agencies will eventually be able to return to normal operations and will respond to this report. In the meantime, however, public health and safety issues are of paramount importance and other matters might need to wait. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as shown below. Where a recommendation is addressed to multiple respondents, each respondent should respond solely on its own behalf without regard to how other respondents may respond. Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 14 Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies: ■ County of Marin Board of Supervisors (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Belvedere City Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Corte Madera Town Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Fairfax Town Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Larkspur City Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Mill Valley City Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Novato City Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Ross Town Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ San Anselmo Town Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ San Rafael City Council (F1–5, R1–R3) ■ Sausalito City Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Tiburon Town Council (F1–F5, R1–R3) ■ Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Directors (F1, F2, F6–F9, R4) ■ Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority Board of Directors (F1, F2, F9, R5) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code Section 933(c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. EXHIBIT 2 1 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Town of Tiburon Report Title: Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Report Date: December 14, 2020 Response By: Town of Tiburon FINDINGS • We agree with Findings numbered: F1 • We disagree wholly or partly with Findings numbered: F2-F5 RECOMMENDATIONS  Recommendations numbered __NA___have been implemented.  Recommendations numbered:__R3___have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.  Recommendations numbered ___NA__have been partially implemented, and remaining parts will be implemented in the future  Recommendations numbered:__R1___require further analysis.  Recommendations numbered:___R2__will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. Date: March 17, 2021 Signed: ___________________________________ Number of pages attached: 3 Office of the Town Manager Town of Tiburon March 17, 2021 The Honorable Andrew Sweet Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Lucy Dilworth, Foreperson Marin County Civil Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin Dear Honorable Judge Sweet and Foreperson Dilworth: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report dated December 14, 2020 (Roadblocks to Safer Evacuation in Marin). The Report directs the Town to respond to Findings F1-F5, and Recommendations R1-R3 FINDINGS AND RESPONSES F1. No single agency or jurisdiction is taking responsibility and authority for building infrastructure for safe evacuation routes across jurisdictions in Marin County. Response- The Town of Tiburon agrees with this finding Although we agree with this finding, we would note this may also be an effective practice. There are many factors associated with evacuation readiness, and it is not clear that insufficient or substandard infrastructure is currently a major impediment to evacuations in Marin. In addition, in Tiburon, several projects related to infrastructure are ongoing or have been completed that will assist in evacuation events. Ongoing projects/programs include: A robust pavement management program to ensure our roads are in good condition, an ongoing roadside vegetation management program, and coordination with local Fire Districts (2) in sponsoring popular ‘chipper days’. In addition to this ongoing work, the Town recently completed a project to provide for backup power at all lighted intersections (CalTrans jurisdiction) within the Town. F2. There is confusion in the county as to who has ultimate responsibility and authority for ensuring that Marin has safe evacuation routes. Response- The Town of Tiburon disagrees with this finding The factors and conditions leading to the need for an evacuation are complex, and vary by jurisdiction and the type of precipitating event. As a result, the responsibility for ensuring any evacuation is conducted safely and efficiently is shared among multiple public entities (County, Cities/Towns, Fire Districts), private entities and individuals. During an event, the evacuation plan/routes would be determined based on the event causing a need to evacuate and its location. Decisions will be made by law enforcement/fire district(s)/EOC and the plan will be executed in the field by Law with the help of fire and DPW personnel. Information will be messaged out by Alert Marin/Nixle, Nextdoor, SNAP radio, E-newsletter and officers with Hi-Lo sirens and a PA system. F3. Marin County Board of Supervisors and town and city councils have the responsibility for safe evacuation routing, and they have not sufficiently considered evacuation as a criterion when approving improvements to roads and traffic infrastructure in their jurisdictions. Response- The Town of Tiburon partially disagrees with this finding. As stated in the comment to Finding 2, the responsibility for ensuring evacuations are conducted safely and efficiently rests with a number of entities including, but not limited to those listed in this Finding. In Tiburon, with regards to ‘approving improvements to roads and traffic infrastructure’, many of the projects undertaken by the Town over the past 5 years will help ensure safe and orderly evacuations if required. In addition, with regards to events involving fire protection/emergency medical service related issues, it is important to note in Tiburon these are not Town functions, but rather are provided by 2 separate independent fire protection districts. The first, Southern Marin Fire Protection District (SMFD), is a member of the newly formed Marin Wildfire Protection Agency (MWPA). The second, Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFD) is not a member of the MWPA. We understand that both districts will be working with the software vendor Zonehaven. This vendor provides a tool designed to be used by law enforcement, fire agencies and Emergency Operations Centers to provide data driven capabilities during an actual evacuation event. Town departments will continue to work with the Fire Districts in coordinating our efforts related to evacuation planning. F4. County and municipal administrators, public works, and traffic engineers have not adequately considered mass evacuation as a criterion for planning and funding traffic infrastructure improvements. Response- The Town of Tiburon disagrees with this finding. The Town will not comment on the practices of other jurisdictions. As to Tiburon specifically, please see responses to F1, F2 and F3 above F5. Most Marin jurisdictions have not yet included urgently needed evacuation plans in their general plans as required by state law and as recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Response- The Town of Tiburon partially disagrees with this finding Again, the Town will not comment on other jurisdictions practices. With regards to Tiburon, the Town has just started the process of updating its General Plan, and intends to include the required information related to evacuations in the updated plan. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES R1. Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should direct their respective planning and public works departments to include evacuation needs among their criteria for evaluating and recommending public works projects. Response- This recommendation requires further analysis In Tiburon, the Department of Public Works is primarily responsible for planning and completing infrastructure projects. In evaluating projects, the DPW consider a wide range of factors in determining how best to allocate limited resources. In addition, as stated earlier, Tiburon fire protection services are covered by 2 separate independent fire districts, both of which will be employing new tools in the area of evacuation planning and execution. Town departments will continue to coordinate with these agencies as we plan projects in the future. R2. Within 180 days of the date of this report, the governing boards of the County of Marin and its cities and towns should adopt resolutions calling on the Transportation Authority of Marin to include evacuation needs among the criteria it considers when planning and funding public works projects. Response- This recommendation will not be implemented as it is unwarranted or unreasonable. The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) assists municipalities in Marin County with the implementation of transportation related projects by identifying sources of funding, and ensuring funding from various State and regional agencies is distributed in a way that is consistent with law and any other agreements in place. In this role, TAM provides assistance in ensuring coordination and communication among Marin communities. However, each jurisdiction, and their governing bodies are best positioned to determine the priorities of the communities they represent. R3. In calendar year 2021, the County of Marin and its cities and towns should update the safety elements of their general plans to include evacuation planning. Response- This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. In 2020, Tiburon embarked on a 2 year process to update its General Plan. When complete, the Safety Element of the updated plan will incorporate information related to evacuation planning, including all required information under State law. Sincerely, Greg Chanis, Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Community Development Subject: Recommendation to Approve final adoption of Ordinance No. ____: Adoption of an ordinance prezoning certain unincorporated territory located at 4576 Paradise Drive (Assessor Parcel No. 038-142-02) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Adopt the attached Ordinance for the prezoning of the property located at 4576 Paradise Drive currently within an unincorporated territory RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Motion to adopt Ordinance and waive any further readings BACKGROUND The Town Council passed first reading of this ordinance following a public hearing on March 3, 2021, waiving any further readings. The Town Council received a staff and applicant presentation, and public comment. After closing the public hearing, the Town Council voted 4-0, with Councilmember Kulik being absent, to waive additional readings and set the ordinance for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. The item now comes before the Town Council for final approval and adoption. This is a consent calendar item. The Council’s motion to adopt this item on the consent calendar will constitute a motion to confirm the waiver of second reading from the previous meeting and adopt the ordinance. Each Councilmember’s vote on the motion to approve this item on the consent calendar will constitute the equivalent of a roll call vote and will be recorded within the ordinance. Should any Councilmember choose to vote differently on this item than other items (if any) on the consent calendar, then the vote on this item should be taken separately from other items appearing on the Consent Calendar such that individual votes may be properly recorded. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-6 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 ANALYSIS On March 17, 2021, the Town Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance to prezone the property located at 4576 Paradise Drive. The Town Council found that the prezoning is consistent with the General Plan and any other plans, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the town and is consistent with the Municipal Code. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no significant fiscal impact to the Town. Beginning with the effective fiscal year of annexation, base property tax revenue will be credited to the Town in an amount equal to 29.5 percent of base property tax revenue held in the County General Fund. This is based on a master agreement with the County of Marin that has been in place since the 1990s. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of the prezoning action is considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Approval of this prezoning application is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as outlined in section 15061 (b)(3), as the prezoning will not include any new development and will only assign a residential zoning designation that is consistent with the existing use of the property and with the Tiburon General Plan land use designation. No other entitlements are requested, and no new development is proposed. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the prezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Move to waive a second reading of Ordinance No.____ and adopt the ordinance. Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Ordinance No. ______ Prepared By: Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development EXHIBIT 1 Draft Ordinance No. XXX N.S., adopted March 3, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. XXX N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PREZONING CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY LOCATED AT 4576 PARADISE DRIVE (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 038-142-02) AND WITHIN TOWN OF TIBURON SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONE The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS. 1. The Town of Tiburon is in receipt of an application (File #R2019-001) filed by Sierra Pines Group LLC, owner of the subject property, to prezone approximately 9.575 acres of land located in the Paradise Drive unincorporated portion of the Town of Tiburon Sphere of Influence and Tiburon Planning Area. 2. On December 12, 2019, the Marin County LAFCo adopted Resolution 19-07 approving annexation of the property to Corte Madera Sanitary District #2. 3. On December 12, 2019, the Marin County LAFCo adopted Resolution No. 19-09 approving annexation of the property to the Town of Tiburon with the condition that the applicant file and complete the Tiburon prezoning process within one year of Marin LAFCo approval of annexation. 4. On December 10, 2020, Marin LAFCo approved a one-year time extension to allow the landowner to complete the prezoning with the Town of Tiburon. 5. The Tiburon Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 13, 2021 and after hearing testimony from interested persons voted to recommend that the Town Council approve the prezoning for reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021-001. 6. The Town Council held one or more duly noticed public hearings at which testimony was received and considered from interested persons. The Town Council also received and considered the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. SECTION 2: FINDINGS. 1. The Town Council finds that the prezoning application is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as outlined in section 15061 (b)(3) because the prezoning is not connected to any other entitlement request and does not include any new development; therefore, no changes to existing site Draft Ordinance No. XXX N.S., adopted March 3, 2021 conditions will occur as a result of the prezoning. 2. The prezoning application generally meets the application and submittal requirements contained in Section 16-68 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Although, the prezoning did not occur prior to Marin LAFCo approving a conditional annexation of the property, as is the typical prezoning process, the submittal of the prezoning application after the Marin LAFCo conditional annexation does not prevent the Town from exercising its discretion to consider the appropriateness of the prezoning request as it relates to the annexation to the Town. 3. The Town Council finds that prezoning of the property to RPD (residential planned development) is in close alignment with the land use category of PD-R “Planned Development - Residential” as reflected in the Town of Tiburon General Plan 2020 Land Use Diagram, and it is consistent with the applicable policies contained in Tiburon General Plan 2020. Prezoning of the property to RPD is also consistent with sound land use planning principles given the size, location and characteristics of the subject property. 4. The Town Council finds that prezoning of the property to RPD (residential planned development) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the Town because this zone is compatible with the existing use of adjacent properties and with the Town’s long-term, intended use of adjacent properties, as reflected in the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The existing use of the site is residential, which is consistent with uses permitted in the RPD zone. The regulations of the RPD zone are designed to insure, to the extent feasible, the conservation of natural resources and the retention of land in its natural or near natural state in order to, among other things, assist in the containment of urban sprawl and protect the community from the hazards of fire, flood, seismic and other catastrophic activity, and to otherwise implement the goals and policies of the general plan. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF PREZONING. The approximately 9.575-acres of land (Assessor Parcel No. 38-142-02), as shown on attached Exhibit “A”, is hereby prezoned to RPD (Residential Planned Development). SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of the court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any Draft Ordinance No. XXX N.S., adopted March 3, 2021 one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon. /// /// /// This Ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the Town Council held on March 3, 2021 and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: __________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Exhibit A: Legal Description and Boundary Map TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Appointments: Building Code Appeals Board Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Town Council will consider making an appointment to the Building Code Appeals Board. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Consider appointment to the Building Code Appeals Board. BACKGROUND The Building Code Appeals Board currently has two existing vacancies. Mr. Kelly Turbin has submitted a qualified application to serve on the Board, and he interviewed with the Council today. His application materials are attached as Exhibit 1. ANALYSIS The Building Code Appeals Board (BCAB) is charged to act as the appeals board from decisions and interpretations of the Building Official regarding non-administrative provisions of the Town’s adopted codes and to render decisions on appeals and other decisions in writing to the Building Official and any appellants. As required by the Board’s bylaws, applicant Kelly Turbin has been deemed professionally qualified to serve on the Board. Additionally, as a structural engineer, Mr. Turbin fills an existing knowledge gap on the current makeup of the Board. The Board currently has two builders and one roofing contractor seated. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: AI - 1 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 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 Council: 1. Consider appointment of Kelly Turbin to the Building Code Appeals Board. Exhibit(s): 1. Kelly Turbin Application Materials Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 lstefani@townoftiburon.org 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon’s local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Applicant Name Full Name: Date: Areas of Interest Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Kelly Patrick Turbin 01/21/2021 1 Applicant Information Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit # City State ZIP Code Phone:Email: Why did you select your area(s) of interest? What are your applicable qualifications and experiences? Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. 655 Redwood Highway Suite 308 Mill Valley CA 94941 415-373-9472x11 kelly@tdastructural.com General love for Construction and Math B.S. Civil Engineering Cal Poly San Luis Obispo M.S. Structural Engineering Cal Poly San Luis Obispo CV Attached &855,&8/809$//( .(//<785%,1 W͘͘ 35,1&,3$/(1*,1((5 ('8&$7,21 ĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽĂĐŚĞůŽƌŽĨ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ͕ŝǀŝůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽDĂƐƚĞƌŽĨ ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ͕^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ 352)(66,21$/5(*,675$7,21 ZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌĞĚWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕ ηϳϯϭϳϱ <($562)(;3(5,(1&( ϭϴǇĞĂƌƐŽĨƚŽƚĂů ǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ϭϮǇĞĂƌƐdƵƌďŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ <ĞůůǇdƵƌďŝŶŝƐƉƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŝŶĐŚĂƌŐĞŽĨŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů ŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ&ŝƌŵ͘,ĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŚŝƐĂĐŚĞůŽƌƐŽĨ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĞŐƌĞĞŝŶŝǀŝůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚĂ DĂƐƚĞƌƐŝŶ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞĞŐƌĞĞŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ďŽƚŚĨƌŽŵĂůWŽůǇ^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽ͘dŚĞ ĂŶĂĚŝĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŝƐ'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞdŚĞƐŝƐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞŚŝƐ&ŝƌŵΖƐŝŶĐĞƉƚŝŽŶ͕ŚĞŚĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽŶŽǀĞƌϮ͕ϬϬϬĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƐŝŶĐĞŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂŶǇΖƐďŝƌƚŚ͘dŚĞƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂďƌŽĂĚƐƉĞĐƚƌƵŵŽĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚǇƉĞƐ͕ƐŝǌĞƐ͕ĂŐĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚǇƉĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů͕,ŽƐƉŝƚĂůŝƚǇ͕tŝŶĞƌŝĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͘ :25.+,6725< ^ƚĂĨĨŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕,ŝŶŵĂŶŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕ϮϬϬϮͲϮϬϬϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕&ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕^ĂŶŶƐĞůŵŽ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͕ϮϬϬϱʹ ϮϬϬϵ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ͕dƵƌďŝŶ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕DŝůůsĂůůĞǇ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ϮϬϬϴͲWƌĞƐĞŶƚ 5(/(9$17(;3(5,(1&( ͻZŽƐƐdŽǁŶ,Ăůů^ĞŝƐŵŝĐZĞƚƌŽĨŝƚʹZŽƐƐ͕ ͻEŝŶĞtŽŽĚƐŝĚĞtĂǇͲZŽƐƐ͕ ͻ/ŶĨŝŶŝƚŝŽĨDĂƌŝŶʹ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻ^ƚĂƌĐĂĚĞŵǇͲ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻtŝŶƐƚŽŶWƌĞƉĂƌĂƚŽƌǇ^ĐŚŽŽůͲ^ĂŶZĂĨĂĞů͕ ͻĂǇĨƌŽŶƚͲ,ĂƵŬĞWĂƌŬƌŝĚŐĞZĞƉĂŝƌ͕DŝůůsĂůůĞǇ͕ 38%/,&$7,216 ͞DĂƚĞƌŝĂůĞŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶĨĨĞĐƚƐŽŶ&ůĞǆƵƌĂůĂƉĂĐŝƚǇŽĨ&ŝďĞƌZĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚWŽůǇŵĞƌ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĞĂŵƐ͟ʹĂŶĂĚŝĂŶ:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ 0$1$*(0(17$1'7($00(0%(56 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Discussion Regarding Possible Climate Emergency Resolution Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Town Council will discuss, and provide staff direction with regards to possible adoption of a Climate Emergency Resolution RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council direct staff with regard to the possible adoption of a Climate Emergency resolution. BACKGROUND Since adoption of the Town’s first Climate Action Plan in 2011, the Town of Tiburon has implemented a wide range of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These measures include: • Installation of photovoltaic solar arrays on both Town Hall and Police Station facilities • Conversion of approximately 125 streetlights to LED fixtures • Purchase of 4 all electric, and 2 hybrid vehicles for the town fleet • Purchase of 100% ‘Deep Green’ power from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) • Adoption of Tier 1 provisions included in the California Green Building Standards Code. Tier 1 provisions are in addition to, and more stringent than the mandatory provisions. In addition to implementing specific projects and programs, many cities and organizations around the world have signed petitions and adopted resolutions supporting a declaration of climate emergency. Today, Council is discussing the possibility of the Town taking similar action. ANALYSIS A Climate Emergency Resolution (CER) declaring a climate emergency will symbolically reinforce the Town’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions and to educate the community about TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: DI-1 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 a climate emergency. Local adoption may inspire other communities, states, and the federal government to follow. A CER may also reinforce the Town’s own adopted GHG reduction goals included in the Town’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) or the General Plan (GP). Both of these plans are currently in the process of being revised/updated. Staff expects the revised/updated CAP will be considered by Council in the next 2 months, with the GP update scheduled to be finished in mid/late 2022. A CER may also commit the Town to providing the community and Council with information as well as directing funds toward climate mitigation work, such as policies, projects and programs that promote community sustainability. Staff has provided examples of three CER’s recently adopted by local agencies. These include resolutions from Fairfax (Exhibit 1), San Anselmo (Exhibit 2) and Corte Madera (Exhibit 3). If the Council wishes to pursue adoption of a climate emergency resolution, staff recommends the Council direct staff to provide a draft resolution and place consideration of the matter on the agenda for a future meeting of the Town Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by discussion of this item. Other cities’ resolutions include the direction for earmarking specific funds for greenhouse gas emissions and other mitigation efforts, so a future resolution before the Council may have a fiscal impact. 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 that the Town Council: 1. Direct staff with regards to the possible adoption of a Climate Emergency Resolution Exhibit(s): 1. Town of Fairfax Resolution 2. Town of San Anselmo Resolution 3. Town of Corte Madera Resolution Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO DECLARING A CLIMATE AND ECOLOGICAL EMERGENCY IN SAN ANSELMO WHEREAS, the Town Council has an interest in protecting and promoting the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the Town General Plan and Climate Action Plan seeks to improve, enhance, and preserve the environment and to promote the Town’s long-term environmental sustainability and livability; and WHEREAS, the Town Council agrees with the consensus among climate scientists that the climate and ecological crises are underway; and, WHEREAS, in December 2015, all the members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed on to the historic “Paris Agreement” at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate chaos by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius” and “strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change.” WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, the State of California’s Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, which establishes a goal for California to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality (net zero emissions) by 2045 and after that, maintaining net-negative emissions (sequestering more greenhouse gases than are being emitted) and, on the same day, Senate Bill 100 was passed, which sets a 100% clean electricity goal for the state by 2045; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the 4th Annual National Climate Assessment and California’s 4th Climate Change Assessment warned that extreme weather and climate-related events in the United States are worsening, predicting increased drought cycles and heat waves in the western U.S. with a resulting three-fold increase in intensity and magnitude of wildfires, declined water supply and snow pack, increased flooding, impacted agriculture, as well as substantial damages to the U.S. economy and human health, unless greenhouse gas emissions are immediately and dramatically curbed; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees Celsius (October, 2018) to the UNFCCC found that to avoid long lasting or irreversible climate change impacts and stay below 1.5º C warming since the industrial era, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching around 2050 ‘net zero’ emissions (greenhouse gas emissions balanced with carbon Item 7 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 removal from the atmosphere) and roughly 500 billion tons of human-caused CO2 emissions already in the atmosphere must be removed over the decades ahead; WHEREAS, an inadequate response to our climate emergency will threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure due to increased economic and environmental disruptions. These include, but are not limited to: accelerated species extinction rates, food and water shortages, severe storms, longer and hotter heat waves, longer and more severe droughts, growing invasive species and insect problems, accelerated spread of human and environmental pathogens, rising sea levels, increased wildfires, increased floods, and a dramatic increase in refugees from climate impacted lands. WHEREAS, the critical tipping points that we are rapidly approaching must be avoided, as they will have cascading effects that our species may be unable to survive. WHEREAS, common sense and morality indicate that humanity can no longer safely emit GHGs and must demand an emergency mobilization effort to rapidly reach zero emissions across all sectors to safely remove excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; to preserve and restore the Earth’s biodiversity; to implement safety measures to protect all people and species from the consequences of abrupt warming in the near-term; and to cultivate a shift toward climate resiliency that prioritizes conservation, community, and independence from fossil fuels and other petroleum products; and WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo has taken a number of important actions to reduce GHG emissions and enhance quality of life in our community including sustainable land use planning, adoption of green building requirements in 2010, adoption of its first Climate Action Plan in 2011, and securing 100% renewable energy with MCE Deep Green for town facilities in 2014; and WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo, on June 11, 2019, adopted local Climate Action Plan 2030 with and interim Greenhouse Gas emission reduction target of 54% emissions reductions from a 2005 baseline emissions level by the year 2030 (45% below 1990 levels) and goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and to develop, adopt and implement actions that aim to achieve the interim 54% emission reduction target by 2030 and that align with the 2045 carbon neutrality/post-carbon community goal; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2020, the Town Sustainability Commission held a public meeting to consider this resolution and recommended the Town Council adopt this resolution; NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Town Council declares that a climate and ecological emergency threatens our town, region, state, nation, civilization, humanity and the natural world; Item 7 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town of San Anselmo affirms the need for the understanding, participation and collaboration of the broader San Anselmo community for all actions and initiatives the Town may adopt in response to the climate emergency and commits to providing outreach, information and education for San Anselmo residents, businesses, and Town staff on the urgency of climate responses, reduction of GHG emissions, the policies and strategies to advance sustainability and resilience; and to regularly assess its GHG reduction goals, actions and policies and provide progress reports and metrics annually; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council directs the Town Manager to work with staff to include consideration and prioritization of consistency with the Town Climate Action Plan 2030, as amended or updated, in all relevant staff reports, just as it currently considers fiscal impact, General Plan consistency and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council directs the Town Manager to work with staff to earmark specific funds for greenhouse gas and climate change mitigation for the fiscal year 2020-2021 and all subsequent years in which atmospheric carbon and carbon equivalents are in excess of 350 parts per million, the amount considered “safe” by climate experts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town of San Anselmo joins and will advocate for a nation-wide call for a regional, national, and international climate emergency mobilization effort at all levels of government to reverse global warming and the ecological crisis. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council held on _____________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ford Greene, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Carla Kacmar, Town Clerk Item 7 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 43/2020 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CORTE MADERA DECLARING A CLIMATE EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the Town Council is devoted to protecting and promoting the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the Town General Plan and Climate Action Plan seek to improve, enhance, and preserve the environment and to promote the Town’s long-term environmental sustainability and livability; and WHEREAS, the Town Council agrees with the consensus among climate scientists that global climate and ecological crises are underway; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, the State of California’s Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, which establishes a goal for California to achieve greenhouse gas net zero emissions by 2045 and after that sequestering more greenhouse gases than are being emitted and, on the same day, Senate Bill 100 was passed, which set a 100% clean electricity goal for the state by 2045; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the 4th Annual National and California Climate Change Assessments warned that extreme weather and climate-related events in the United States are worsening, predicting increased droughts and heat waves in the western U.S. resulting in increased intensity and magnitude of wildfires, declined snowpack and water supply, increased flooding, impacted agriculture, as well as substantial damages to the economy and human health, unless greenhouse gas emissions are immediately and dramatically curbed; and WHEREAS, global average temperatures are at their highest level since measurements commenced, and the trend is rising further; and WHEREAS, the critical climate tipping points, as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report, that we are rapidly approaching must be avoided, as they will have cascading effects on the survival of our species; and WHEREAS, common sense and morality indicate that humanity can no longer safely emit GHGs and must demand an emergency mobilization effort to rapidly reach zero emissions across all sectors to safely remove excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; to preserve and restore the Earth’s biodiversity; to implement safety measures to protect all people and species from the consequences of abrupt warming in the near-term; and to cultivate a shift toward climate resiliency that prioritizes conservation, community, and independence from fossil fuels and other petroleum products; and WHEREAS, the Town of Corte Madera has taken a number of important actions to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and enhance quality of life in our community including sustainable land use planning, adoption of green building requirements, adoption of its first Climate Action Plan in 2018, and securing 100% renewable energy with MCE Deep Green for town facilities in 2016; and WHEREAS, the Town of Corte Madera is on the verge of adopting a revised and clarified Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020, the Town Climate Action Committee held a public meeting to consider this resolution and recommended the Town Council adopt this resolution. NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Town Council declares that a climate emergency threatens our town, region, state, nation, humanity and the natural world; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town of Corte Madera affirms the need for the understanding, participation and collaboration of the broader Corte Madera community for all actions and initiatives the Town may adopt in response to the climate emergency and commits to providing outreach, information and education for Corte Madera residents, businesses, and Town staff on the urgency of climate responses, reduction of GHG emissions, the policies and strategies to advance sustainability and resilience; and to regularly assess its GHG reduction goals, actions and policies and provide progress reports and metrics at appropriate times; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council directs the Town Manager to work with staff to include support by the Town of Corte Madera in concrete actions that are in concert with County of Marin and the State of California in their common goal to achieve greenhouse gas net zero emissions by 2045. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council directs the Town Manager to work with staff to include consideration and prioritization of consistency with the Town’s Climate Action Plan, as amended or updated, in all relevant staff reports, just as it currently considers fiscal impact, General Plan consistency and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council directs the Town Manager to work with staff to earmark specific funds for greenhouse gas and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town of Corte Madera joins and will advocate for a nation- wide call for regional, national, and international climate emergency mobilization efforts at all levels of government to reverse global warming and the ecological crisis. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the Corte Madera Town Council held on December 1, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________ Eli Beckman, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Rebecca Vaughn, Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Consider Request by Saint Hilary School to Waive Street Impact Fees Associated with Permit BC20-003 Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Saint Hilary School is requesting to waive Street Impact Fees in the amount of $20,000 levied on Permit BC20-003. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Consider the appeal, determine the amount the Project benefits the general public, if any, and approve a fee waiver equal to the benefit of the general public, not to exceed 50% of the calculated fee; or 2. Deny the fee waiver application if the proposed school renovation results in no benefit to those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant’s revenue raising powers. BACKGROUND Saint Hilary School, located at 765 Hilary Drive, submitted an application for the interior renovation of a portion of the existing school building including the library, music, maker space/extended care, and administrative areas for a total of 6,135 SF (Exhibit 1). Town staff approved this application on May 22, 2020 which included fees due for the project (Exhibit 2). On behalf of Saint Hilary School, Adrian Gordon submitted a Notice of Appeal requesting a waiver of the $20,000 Street Impact Fees for the proposed improvements to St Hilary School. (Exhibit 3). The Appellant contests the following: • “Please note that the $20,000 impact fee portion of the $45,839.33 building permit fee levied on St Hilary School regarding permit BC20-003 appears inapplicable considering the nature of the project. • All work will be conducted entirely within the existing building envelope enclosed throughout the project with a small exception. • Project location on the school campus is far from any street. Materials and vehicle parking will take place entirely on school property for the entirety of the project (approximately 4-6 months) with limited use of public streets.” ANALYSIS TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 3, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-1 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 The Street Impact Fees imposed on this Project were applied and calculated consistent with Town Resolution 15-2005, 1% of the building permit project valuation. That Resolution adopted a Street Impact Fee to mitigate for the wear and impact on Town roads that is caused by construction vehicles. The fee is based on Town Engineer's analyses from 1999 and 2005 of annual road rehabilitation costs, and the proportionate share attributable to construction traffic. The Town Engineer's analyses was partially based on a street impact analysis by Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC (HFH) in a study dated October 4, 2004. The Resolution, Town Engineer analyses from 1999 and 2005, and the HFH Study are included as Exhibit 4. According to Resolution 15-2005, the fee was adopted in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The proceeds from the fee are used by the Town to fund the annual pavement maintenance contracts (e.g. slurry seals and overlays). On June 6, 2001, the Council adopted Resolution No. 31-2001 (Exhibit 5) establishing a policy to govern the partial and total waiver of Town fees. Sections 4 through 6 of Resolution No. 31-2001 contain the portions pertaining to fee waiver requests made by non-profit agencies. The applicability of these policies to the subject fee waiver request are described below. Section 4. In considering a fee waiver application, the Council will consider the following factors: A. Whether the applicant is a governmental agency, a charitable non-profit organization, a private individual or a for profit organization. A private individual or for-profit entity shall not be eligible for a fee waiver unless substantially all of the benefit of the project will accrue to a charitable, non-profit organization. The applicant provided the documents in Exhibit 6 to establish that Saint Hilary School is a non-profit organization that is exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Exhibit 6 includes a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) dated November 2, 2020, stating that “the subordinate organizations in the Official Catholic Directory for 2020 are recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code under GEN 0928.” Exhibit 6 also includes pages from the Official Catholic Directory for 2020 which lists St. Hilary School at 765 Hilary Drive in Tiburon as a subordinate organization. B. If the applicant is a non-profit entity with the power to impose dues or fees, or otherwise has the power to raise revenue to fund the project from project beneficiaries, the extent to which the project will benefit residents of the Town of Tiburon that are not subject to such power. For example, if the applicant has dues paying members, the Council will consider waiving fees only to the extent that the project will benefit non-member residents in the Town of Tiburon. While Saint Hilary School is a non-profit entity, it charges tuition for students to attend the school, and therefore has the power to raise revenue from project beneficiaries such as members/students. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 C. The extent to which the project will benefit the general public of the Town of Tiburon. The proposed project will primarily benefit the those either attending or working at the school. Although there may be some benefit to the general public of the Town of Tiburon. Staff cannot determine the extent to which that is the case. Section 5. If the Council finds the applicant is eligible under Section 4.A of this Resolution, and does not have the power to fund the project’s costs by raising revenue from the project’s beneficiaries, the Council may grant a waiver of up to 100% of the otherwise-applicable fees. The Council shall determine the amount of the waiver granted based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by the general public of the Town of Tiburon. Saint Hilary School is eligible under Section 4.A, however it appears they do have the ability to fund the project costs by raising revenue from the project beneficiaries. Because of this, Section 5 does not apply. Section 6. If the Council finds the applicant is eligible under Section 4.B of this Resolution, the Council shall determine the amount of the waiver based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant’s revenue-raising powers. In no event shall the waiver exceed 50% of the otherwise-applicable fees. Saint Hilary School is eligible under Section 4.B., so Section 6 applies. The Council needs to “determine the amount of the waiver based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant’s revenue raising powers.” If Council determines that there is benefit to the renovations that extends to those Town residents that are not subject to the applicant’s revenue raising powers, then Council also needs to establish the percentage of that benefit. According to this section of the resolution, the fee waiver cannot exceed 50% of the calculated fee. FINANCIAL IMPACT If Town Council waives the Street Impact Fee, it will reduce the funding available for future street maintenance programs. 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 that the Town Council: Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 1. Consider the appeal, determine the amount the Project benefits the general public, if any, and approve a fee waiver equal to the benefit of the general public, not to exceed 50% of the calculated fee; or 2. Deny the fee waiver application if the proposed school renovation results in no benefit to those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant’s revenue raising powers. Exhibit(s): 1. Saint Hilary Permit BC20-003 2. Saint Hilary School Fees Due 3. Saint Hilary School Appeal Request 4. Impact Fee Documents 5. Resolution 31-2001 6. Tax Exempt Documentation Prepared By: David Eshoo, Associate Engineer Steven Palmer, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 SR #4850-6554-4401 v1 Subject: 765 Hilary Drive – Notice of Permit Approval and imposition of fees Dear Mr. Gordon, Your permit submittal for permit BC20-003 has been approved and is ready to issue. There is a fee of $40,146.14 due prior to issuance. Please see attached statement of the fees. You may drop off payment at Town Hall at 1505 Tiburon Blvd Monday through Thursday between 8am and 4pm (closed 12-1 for lunch) or mail a check payable to Town of Tiburon. Once we receive payment, I will email you a copy of the approved plans and permit documents. Sincerely, Chelsee Navado Building Permit Clerk Town of Tiburon NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code § 66020, the 90 day approval period in which an applicant may protest any fee as defined by Government Code 66000 and listed in the attached statement has begun. Pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code (TMC) § 14b-8(b), you may appeal a public facilities fee imposed by an administrative determination (e.g. building permit). Such appeal shall be made in writing to the town clerk within ten days of notification of said administrative determination. Appeals must be accompanied by the required filing fee and be on the prescribed town appeal forms available from the town clerk. SR #4850-6554-4401 v1 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15-2005 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON UPDATING THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE STREET IMPACT FEE WHEREAS, on May 5, 1999, the Town Council adopted ResolutionNo. 3330 which established a street impact fee to provide for repair ofroadway damage caused by construction activity; and WHEREAS, the Town commissioned Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC ("HFH") to perform an independent analysis ofthe annual residential street maintenance cost associated heavy vehicle impacts;, resulting in a study dated October 4, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the Town Engineer has concluded that the existing fee does not adequately compensate for the impact caused by construction vehicles based on the HFH Study; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the HFH Study, Town Engineer's updated analysis ofannual road rehabilitation costs and the proportionate share ofsuch costs that are attributable to vehicle traffic associated with demolition, earthwork and other construction activity, all as set furthin his StaffReport, the HFH Study and other infonnation in the evidentiary record; andI""'" WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has adopted an ordinance (codified as Chapter 14B of the Municipal Code) establishing the authority for imposing and collecting Public Facilities Development Fees; and WHEREAS, the Town has provided public notice ofthe proposed impact fee inaccordance with Government Code, ~~66000 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon does hereby resolve as follows: I. The existing street impact fee established by Town Council Resolution No. 3330 sha11 be updated pursuant to the Town Engineer's analysis. 2. The Street Impact Fee shal1 be one percent (1.0%) ofthe building permit project valuation. 3. The fee established herein shall become effective in 60 days and shall be collected and maintained as set forth herein and as required by law. 11 r i---.PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon on April 6, 2005, by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS:None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS:None VVV1Vt:J!,~~ MILES BERGER, Town of Tiburon ATmSY/'}} d7 ~ ' I~ U-14 DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ TO:Mayor and Membersofthe Town Council FROM:Pat Echols, Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer Amend street Impact Fee Resolution and crea~, fU,.se Vehicle Impact Fee " ~, MEETING DATE: April 6, 2005 REVIEWED BY: ..,' SUBJECT: BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION The pavement engineering community widely agrees that refuse and heavy construction vehicles cause the most deleterious effects on roadways, effectively shortening the service life of the pavement. Pursuant to Town Council direction, the Department of Public Works has explored the creation of a refuse vehicle impact fee and reviewed the existing construction vehicle impact fee (also known as the Street Impact Fee). The intent of assessing construction and refuse vehicle impact fees is to compensate for the annual street maintenance costs attributed to these vehicles. Nearly all Marin municipalities have adopted a construction vehicle impact fee typically 1 % of building permit construction valuation). The T own retained Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H) to perform an analysis of the impact of these vehicles on the Town's road system. HF&H also performed this analysis for San Rafael and Mill Valley. San Rafael and Fairfax have adopted a refuse vehicle impact fee based on HF&H's findings and the City of Mill Valley will consider adoption such a fee next month. A copy of HF&H's final report is attached (Exhibit 1). The Town of Tiburon utilizes the Pavement Management Program (PMP) developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The PMP is utilized by most Bay Area municipalities. The PMP assigns a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to all street segments in the Town's road network. PCI values range between o and 100 with 100 representing a new road or newly resurfaced road. PCI values below 70 require a more costly rehabilitation whereas PCI values above 70 require a less expensive rehabilitation strategy such as maintenance seal coating or slurry sealing. The average PCI for Tiburon streets is 62 and is on the decline at the current funding level. By comparison, the average PCI for all Bay Area municipalities is 65. In order to maintain the Town's street network PCI at 70, a funding level of approximately 1,000,000 per year would be required. March 31, 2005 1 of 3 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT Construction Vehicle Street Impact Fee The Town Council adopted the existing construction vehicle street impact fee in 1999. The fee was developed based on impacts estimated by the Town Engineer and amounted to 0.7% of the project valuation for building permits issued by the Town. Staff has re-examined the construction vehicle impact based on updated information provided in the HF&H report. HF&H have estimated that construction vehicles account for 57% the total impact to the Town's streets. Accordingly, the commensurate annual maintenance cost would be 57% of the required annual pavement rehabilitation costs of $1,000,000 (or $570,000). A method to recover the costs related to construction vehicle impacts is to apply the annual expected vehicle impact to the annual cost to maintain our roads at the target PCI. These costs may be captured by assessing a fee on construction related activities occurring in the Town, based on a percentage of the total building permit project valuation. This approach is a logical method because larger projects will have a great impact on our roads and would be assessed at a greater value. Conversely, a small project will result in a smaller fee due to the lesser impacts on the roadway system. Town Building Division records indicate that total building permit improvement valuations totaled $59 million in 2004. Accordingly, the corresponding impact fee that is proportional to building permit project valuation would be applied to all construction related permits issued by the building . ,department in the amount of 1.0% of the estimated construction value ($570,000/$59,200,000 x 100). Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS) provides refuse and recycling services for the Town under a franchise agreement. HF&H have determined that MVRS vehicles account for approximately 11 % of the total impact on residential streets, which equates to $70,000 per year for the proportionate cost of maintaining the Town's residential streets at the target PCI. Accordingly, the Town may elect to assess MVRS an annual impact fee of $70,000 to recover this cost. Staff has prepared draft resolutions for each proposed fee (Exhibits 2 & 3). It is anticipated that staff will work with MVRS to develop an implementation schedule for the refuse vehicle impact fee. Pursuant to Government Code provisions, the construction vehicle impact fee would go into effect 60 days after adoption by the Town Council. MVRS will submit its annual rate application next week and this additional fee will need to be incorporated into their rate structure. March 31, 2005 20f3 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDAliON It is recommended that the Town Council take the following actions: 1. Receive public comment. 2. Adopt the attached resolutions amending the construCtion vehicle street impact fee and establishing a refuse vehicle impact fee. EXHIBITS 1. Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson Final Report 2. Betsy Straus Legal Opinion ' 3. Resolution Amending the Construction Vehicle Street Impact Fee 4 Resolution Establishing a Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee v March 31, 2005 3 of 3 HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Advisory Services to " Municipal Management 2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 990 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 9'15/0/17-6950 FaX: 925jCf77-6955 www.hfh-consultants.com Northern California Southern California Central California Robert D. Hilton, CMC John W. Famkopf, PE Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Sent via e-mail February II, 2005 Mr. Pat Echols Director of PublicWorks/Town Engineer Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Subject:Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Cost Analysis - Final Report Reference Number: 51947 Dear Mr. Echols: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson" LLC (HF&H) was engaged by the Town of Tiburon (Town) to analyze the" impact of residential solid waste, recycling;. and' yard waste vehicles (Refuse Vehicles) on residential street maintenance costs (Le., _maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction costs). This report communicates our results. Also included is a summary of a legal opinion regarding the validity of imposing a Refuse Vehicle impact fee (attached). Our analysis is based on available information related to street maintenance costs, funding sources, traffic volumes, and vehicle profiles for the types of Refuse Vehicles providing service in the City, their weights and axle configurations, and Service frequency. Should there be any future material changes to that information, the City may wish to. review the results of the analysis and change thecalculated impacts and any associated fees that might be established. ' Objectives The objectives of the engagement were to estimate the Town's projected funding required to achieve the City' starget Pavement Condition Index (PO) 1 that is attnbuted to residential Refuse Vehicles. 1 The unit of measure used to rate the condition of pavement. A newly constructed street would have a PCl of 100, while a failed road would have a PCl of 10 or less. 5:\ Clients\ T\ Tiburon, Town of\ 2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\ Report\ Tiburon Final Report 02UOS.doc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr; Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 2 of 9 Background Mill Valley Refuse Service (Company) provides residential solid waste, recycling, and yard waste services in the City. Residential solid waste and recycling service is provided weekly, while yard waste service is .provided bi-weekly. All three services are provided with two- person, rear-loading vehicles that generally make a single pass down each street to provide service (i.e., they service both sides of the street on the same pass). The only exception is in the case of busy streets where two-passes are required to provide service due to safety considerations. The Company also utilizes small, &-cubic-yard, rear-loading vehicles to access certain hard-to-service accounts (e.g., long driveways). These vehicles then deposit their loads into the back of the larger rear-loading vehicles. In general, the larger rear-loading vehicles are in close proximity to the smaller vehicles and utilize the same residential streets. Approach The underlying premise for the analysis is that the weight anc! loading of Refuse Vehicles impose a particular, specific, and quantifiable impact on residential streets. The analysis is based on the fact that the typical residential street is designed to handle a certain amount of vehicle traffic (loading) over its design life. That loading is a function of both the number and weight of vehicles. The lifetime "vehicle loading" that a street can accommodate can be expressed as the total number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). Each vehicle type e.g., Refuse Vehicles, construction vehicles, other trucks and automobiles) can also be converted into an associated FSAL, based on the vehicle's weight and its distnbution among the vehicle's axles. By projecting the type and number of vehicles that will travel on a street over its design life, the total number of FSALs can be calculated, and the street designed to handle that projected loading. Similarly, the relative impact of each type of vehicle on that street can be calculated, based on the percentage of the total ESALsattnbuted to each vehicle type. While the Town currently receives various non-discretionary funds to maintain its streets (e.g., gas ta?< apportionments; traffic congestion relief funds) this funding generally does not cover all costs, and any resulting shortfall must be paid from discretionary funds (e.g., general fund, motor vehicle license fee revenue) andjor available Restricted Balances for Street Purposes i.e., balances of non-discretionary street purpose funding). Our analysis estimates the funding requirement attnbuted to residential Refuse Vehicles at projected maintenance level cost) required to achieve target PO of 70, as reported by the Town. The allocation of 'those costs to residential Refuse Vehicles is based on the above-referenced FSAL ~ysis. 8/4/2004 8:16 AM 5:\ Clients\ T\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 02110S.doc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 3 of9 I Findings Based on current pavement-related expenditures and additional funds required to achieve a PCI of 70, the residential street funding requirement is $651,000. This is calculated by allocating the total funding requirement for all streets amongst the various street types (i.e. residential, collector, arid arterial) by the number miles of each type of street in the Town. As shown in the following table, based on the approach described above, we project that Refuse Vehicles account for approximately 10;9% of the total impact that a typical residential street experiences. Assuming the same percentage of the residential street portion of the funding requirement can be attributed to Refuse Vehicles, this is equivalent to approximately 70,000 annually at the estimated cost to achieve the City's target PCI of 70. Accordingly, if the City wishes to recover the amount necessary to achieve the City's target. PCI, it would assess the Company an annual fee of $70,000. ' RESIDENTIAL STREET IMPACT ANALYSIS 20-yr Lifetime per lane Solid Waste Vehicles 691 345 $28,000 4.4% Yard Waste Vehicles 492 246 $20,000 3.1% Recycling Vehicles 540 270 $22,000 3,4% REFUSE VEHICLE SUBTOTAL 1,723 862 570,000 10.9% Other Trocks 2,215 1,108 $91,000 14.0% Construction Vehicles " 8,979 4,489 $370,000 56.9% utomobiles 2,874 1,437 $118,000 18.2% TOTAL 15,792 7,896 $651,000 100.0% It should be noted that reasonable ranges exist for various key assumptions used in our analysis, and that the analysis is highly sensitive to changes in certain of the key assumptions. A discussion of key assumption sensitivities is provided later in this report. It should also be noted that construction vehicles accoUnt for the majority of the projected impacts, which is consistent with the Town's prior findings in support of the establishment of its Street Impact 8/4/2004 8:16 AM 5:\ Clients\ 1'\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 0211 05. doc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 4 of 9 Fee related to construction vehicles. While this consistency,with the prior analysis eXists, it is important to understand that, the assumptions made regarding the impact of construction vehicles on the Town's roads in this study are not based on data specific to the town, but instead to generic data developed through studies in other Bay Area jurisdictions. Overview Road maintenance is based on deterioration. While roads will deteriorate if simply left unused, most deterioration is associated with use. The damage caused by vehicles increases much more than proportionately with size and weight. Hence, maintenance costs are greater for trips made by heavy vehicles. A single, large truck can cause as much damage as thousands of automobiles, and a truck's configuration can affect the amount of damage as well. If the load is spread over more axles, allowing for less weight on each wheel, then damage is reduced.2 Refuse Vehicles are generally some of the heaviest, if not the heaviest, vehicles regularly' operating on residential streets. Accordingly, Refuse Vehicles contribute significantly to the cost of maintaining those streets. It is generally acknowledged that preventative maintenance is the single most important component of an effective pavement management program and that each dollar spent on ' preventative maintenance now saves as much as five.dollars or more in future costs. The key is to maintain streets and roads in good condition (at a relatively low cost), rather than allowing pavement to deteriorate to the point where extensive rehabilitation or reconstruction becomes necessary. Local roads within the Bay Area have an average PO of 65.3 The Town's streets also have any average PCI of 62, which falls in the category of "Good" (60-74). While this is a generally positive rating, rapid deterioration of pavement typically occurs after roadways drop to. a PO score of 60 or lower.4 Therefore, assuring adequate funding for an effective pavement management program for the City's streets is critical. Delays in preventative maintenance increase the quantity and severity of pavement defects, and result in higher costs during pavement life. Consequently, using only a routine and reactive approach will considerably increase the life cycle costs of the pavement. 5 2 Rufolo, Cost-Based Road Taxation, Cascade Policy Institute, Policy Perspective #5, November 1995. 3 Bay Area Transportation, State of the System 2003; Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans District 4. 4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission "Current ISsues in Pavement Maintenance and Management." July 2002: ' 5 A Pavement Preventative Maintenance Proaram; Larry GaIehouse, P.E., L.S.; Michigan Department of Transportation. 8/4/2004 8:16 AM S:\ Clients\ 1'\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - S1948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 02U05.doc j~ HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 PageS of9 As part of its ongoing efforts to maintain and improve its streets, the Town has established a target PCI of 70. It has estimated that approximately $1,000,000 per year in pavement related costs will be required over the next five years to achieve this level. While this target PCI is a significant improvement over the current rating, it is still well below the range of 80 to 85, considered the most cost effective PCI to maintain.6 Should the City wish to achieve a PCI higher than its current target, additional funding would be required. Methodology The methodology used 'to project the impact of ' Refuse and Construction Vehicles can be summarized as follows: Determine Number of. Vehicle Trips by Vehicle Type HF&H worked with the Town and the Company to develop an understanding of the number of average daily vehicle trips by vehicle type (refuse, construction, other truck, and automobile). During this process, HF&H: consulted with the Company to determine the number of trips their vehicles took on each street within the Town; and reviewed information provided by the Town that reported average daily traffic. Determine the Impact of Each Vehicle Tvpe HF&H collected from the Company and through independent investigation, vehicle weights and profiles for the various. vehicles being studied in this analysis,' Each vehicle type was modeled based on weight, vehicle engineering specifications, axle profile, and average payload. This modeling produced an average ESAL for each vehicle type which was then used to assess the direct impact of each vehicle trip by each vehicle type. Project Maintenance Costs Associated with Each Vehicle Type The Town provided, through their Pavement Management System, a target funding amount of $1,000,000 per year for the next five years to achieve their target PCI of 70, this assumption was used as the basis for the funding requirement; The funding requirement for pavement-related activities was allocated among residential, collector and arterial streets in proportion to the percentage of lane miles for each of those 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 8/4/2004 8:16 AM s:\ Clients\ T\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon -51948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 021105.doc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 6 of 9 street classifications; and The residential street portion of the funding requirement for pavement-related activities was allocated among the various vehicle types in proportion to the calculated impact of each vehicle type, as determined above. Key Assumptions/Inputs The analysis relied in part on the following key assumptions, provided largely by the Town, HF&H, and/ or the Company (supplemented with data from other sources as noted): Residential streets account for approximately 67% of the total residential, collector, and arterial lane miles in the Town; An average of 500 vehicles travel on a typical residential street each day, withl.3% of those vehicles being trucks, and 75% of the trucks being construction related vehicles; Residential solid waste and recycling service is provided weekly; Residential yard waste service is ,provided biweekly; Residential ,solid waste, recycling and yard waste vehicles typically travel on each residential street segment once to provide service (i.e., they service both. sides of the street on a single pass);7 Refuse Vehicle tare weight and payload weight data was provided by the Company; Refuse Vehicle axle weight distribution profiles were based on data provided by vehicle manufacturers for the same or similar vehicle types; Axle weight data for Other Trucks, construction vehicles, and automobiles was based on data from a variety of sources and the impact of these vehicles is highly sensitive to change based on these assumptions; and The Town's funding requirement to reach the target PeI of 70 is $1,000,000 per year over the next five years. Using the assumptions noted above, the portion of the Town's funding requirement associated with residential Refuse Vehicles was calculated 'following the previously descnbed methodology. 7 The analysis does not account for any additional passes due to vehicle routing (e.g., "dead-heading" over a previous~y serviced street). 8j4j20048:16AM , 5:\Clients\ 1'\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 02UOS.doc dIIb ' , HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 7 of 9 Limitations Our analysis is specific to the impact of residential Refuse Vehicles on residential streets and does ,not account for any impacts on collector or arterial streets. 8 Our analysis does not account for the potential impact of any non-vehicle-related faCtors e.g., underground utilities). To the extent any such factors affect street maintenance and rehabilitation costs the impact attributed to the different vehicle types would be affected. Our analysis is based on the various' assumptions noted, including the total number of vehicle trips and average ESALs associated with the various vehicle types. Changes to these assumptions may have a material affect on the analysis.' The impacts of construction vehicles, other trucks, and automobiles stated in this analysis are based on generic ESALs and traffic levels derived from studies in other jurisdictions with varying demographics. The projection of maintenanCe costs needed to achieve the City's target PCI are based on the stated target of 70. Should the City wish to achieve a higher PCI, additional funding would be required. Sensitivity Analysis As noted in the Limltations section above, our analysis is based on a number of key assumptions, and changes to those assumptions may have a material impact on the resulting findings. The following information provides an overview of the relative impact of changes in certain of our key assumptions on the projected impacts associated with residential Refuse Vehicles. Funding Requirement Our analysis is based on a total funding requirement, for all streets, of $1,000,000. Changes to that amount would have a directly proportional effect on the amount allocated to residential Refuse Vehicles (e.g" a change in the funding requirement amount of 10% would result in a 10% change in the amount of costs allocated to residential Refuse Vehicles). 8 While residential Refuse Vehicles also travel on non-residential streets to access residential neighborhoods, and exert an associated impact on those streets, that impact is minimal This is due to the relatively lower number of miles traveled and the relatively higher impact of other vehicle types particularly trucks) on non-residential streets. 8/4/2004 8:16 AM 5:\ Clients\ 1'\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\Report\ Tiburon Final Report 021105.doc A ' HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Refuse Vehicle Trips Changing the I:lumber of trips assumed for Refuse Vehicles has a direct effect on the projected impacts (e.g., the calculated impact for a Refuse Vehicle making two passes down each street segment is twice that of aRefuse Vehicle making only one pass). While the current number of trips associated with residential Refuse Vehicles is well established, changes to the collection, methods (e.g., switching from two-pass rear loader solid waste collection to one-pass fully automated side loader collection) would impact the number of Refuse Vehicle trips and the associated impact. Total Vehicle Trips and Percentage ofVehicle Types Changing the number of totalvehicletrips (without changing the number of Refuse Vehicle trips), affects the projected impacts in roughly inverse proportion (e.g., doubling the number of total vehicle trips reduces the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles by about half, while halving the number of total vehicle tripsroughly doubles the calculated impact). Changing the percentage of total vehicles assumed to be trucks has a material impact on the analysis. The impact of trucks is substantial; therefore, as the percentage of trucks increases, I their relative impact increases, while the relative impact of Refuse Vehicles decreases. There is a similar relationship with automobiles, however, that impact is not as significant ~ue to the lesser relative impact of automobiles. "\ Equivalent Single Axle Loadings (ESAL) Changing the assumed ESAL for Refuse Vehicles has a roughly proportional effect on the calculated impact. If we double the associated FSAL, the impact roughly doubles. Simifarly, if we reduce the assumed ESAL by half, the impact is reduced by about half., While we have attempted to estimate the FSALs for Refuse Vehicles as accurately as pOSSIble, those calculations are highly sensitive to assumed vehicle weights (both loaded and unloaded) and the distribution of that weig)1t among the vehicles axles. The assumptions regarding the ESALs ,of Other Trucks, construction vehicles, and automobiles also affect the calculated impacts associated with Refuse Vehicles. Changes in the assumed ESALs of Other Trucks, construction vehicles; and automobiles have an inverse effect on the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles (i.e., as the assumed ESAL of Other Trucks, construction vehicles, and/ or automobiles increases, the calculated impact of Refuse Vehicles decreases and visa versa). The impact of changes in the Other Truck ESAL, however, is more significant than similar, relative changes in the ESAL of construction vehicles or automobiles, since the overall ESALs of Other Trucks are more significant. 8/4/1JXJ4 8:16 AM 5:\Oients\ T\ Tiburon, Town of\2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\ Report\ Tiburon Finlll Report 02Il0S.doc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Mr. Pat Echols October 4, 2004 Page 9 of9 Legal Opinion In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Los Angeles, the court reaffirmed that: (1) a fee imposed on a user (such as a refuse collection company) rather than a property owner is not ap,rbperty-related fee; and (2) a fee may not exceed the cost of service or facility provided. A legal opinion from Betsy Strauss, Esq., City Attorney for the City .of Rohnert Park and Special Counsel to the League of California Cities found ,that such a fee: Is a (regulatory) fee, not a tax, provided the amount of the fee does not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory program (street maintenance); Is not subject to the procedures and restrictions of Proposition 218, because it is not a property-related fee or charge, since it will not be imposed on property owners for a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership; Would require a study that considers appropriate jurisdiction-specific factors necessary to substantiate the basis of the amount of such a fee; and Would be lawful to include in any new refuse collection franchise, and may be possible to impose during the term of an existing franchise, provided certain conditions are met The legal opinion is attached. 1(,1(,1(,01- 01- 01- 01- We appreciate the opportunity to' be of service to the City. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to call me directly at (925) Cffl-6952, or Rob Hilton at (925) 977-6956. Very truly yours, HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC du~ Robert D. Hilton, CMC President Attachment - Legal Opinion t 8/4/2004 8:16 AM 5:\ Clients\ 1'\ Tiburon;Town of\ 2004\ Tiburon - 51948 RVIF\ Report\ Tiburon Final Report 02110S.doc BETSY ,STRAUSS AttofntJ atLaw 1, VIA FACSIMILE July 19, 2002 William Schoen Hilton Famkopf & Hobson 2940 Spafford Street, Suite 210 Davis, CA 95616 Dear William: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson has requested th&t i provide a legal opinion on the vuIidit'j of imposing a refuse vehicle impact fee. The purpose of this letter is to set forth that opinion.' . The Residential Refuse Vehicle ImDSel Fee,' The residential refuse vehicle impact fee is a fee imposed on a refuse hauler to defray the impact of residential refuse vehicles on the cost of maintaining residential streets. The fee would be imposed upon, and payable by, the city or county's refuse hauler, The fee is based upon the assumption that the weight and loading of refuse vehicles impose a particular, specific, and identifiable impact on residential streets that increases the cost of maintaining those streets and reduces their useful life. The Factual Assumptions The analysis in this letter is based upon the following factual assumptions: I. The useful life ofa typical residential street is 20 years. An average of250 vehicles travel on a typical residential street each day over its lifetime, with 4% of those vehicles being trUcks other than refuse vehicles. 2. Roadway maintenance is based on deterioration. There are three primary causes of roadway damage: aging of asphalt (20%); sun, rain, and other weather conditions (20%); and vehicle impact (60010). 3. The weight of the refuse vehicles (as well as other vehicles) and the number of axles are significant factors in the cak:ulation of impact. The damage caused by vehicles goes up much more than proportionately with size and weight. 4. The impact of a vehicle on a residential street is measured in terms of single axle equivalents (SAE). One car is equal to .0008 SAE. One trash truck, one-half full is equal to 0.379 SAE (or 475 cars). One single fL~le trash truck" one-half full is 1595KingAvenue Napa} CA 94559 707) 253-0435 Fax (707) 258-8892 - lnunibwlCwul.com equal to 2.71 SAE (or 3390 cars). One recycling truck is equal to 0.524 SAE (or 655 cars). 5. There are 5 SAE per day on a typical residential street. Assuming that the useful life ofa typical residential street is 20 years, then there will be 36,500 SAE over the life ofthe street divided between aU cars, all, trash trucks and all othertnlcks. Ifthe SAE for trash tnlcks were removed from the equation, the useful life of the street would be extended if the SAE for aU cars and other trucks remains constant. 6. It costs the same amount to maintain a street over its lifespan, regardless of the length ofthe lifespan. If the length of the lifespan is extended, then the annual cost of street maintenance goes down. There are four legal issues associated with the proposed fee: (1) Is the fee actually a tax that requires voter approval? (2) Is the fee subject to the requirements of Proposition 218? (3) Is the fee preempted by State Jaw? (4) Would imposition of the fee on an existing refuse collection franchisee violate the contracts clause ofthe federal or state Constitution? Fees and Taxes Goveminent levies fall into three categories: taxes, special assessments, and user or regulatory fees. Each class of charge has particular characteristics, limitations. and purposes, I "Tax" is a term without fIXed definition. The word may be construed narrowly or broadly depending on its particular context and the purpose for which the definition is to be used, In its broadest sense, a ta.'X includes all charges upon persons or property for the support ofgovernment or for public purposes, In narrower contexts, the word has been construed to. exclude charges to particular individuals which do not exceed the value ofthe governmental benefit conferred upon or the service rendered to the individuals; and to exclude charges against particular individuals for governmental regulatory activities where the fees involved do not exceed the reasonable cost ofthe regulatory activities. 2 The residential refuse vehicle impact fee is a regulatory fee (rather than a user fee) since the fee is not imposed to "use" residential streets. Rather, the fee is imposed for governmental regulatory activities that are directly related to the fee payer's activities. Ifa business imposes an unusUal burden on city services, a municipality may properly impose fees pursuant to, itS police power to assure that personS responsible pay their fair share of the cost of government. 3 I Special assessmenrs, Dot at issue in this opinion. are made for the purpose ofcompleting a specifIC public improvemenl: in a designated district pursuant to express legislative authority; they are compulsory charges and are, imposed upon specific real propeny todefraytbe cost ofthe proposed local public irnprovemenL. saac v. City ofLos Angeles (19~8) 66 Cal. App. 41h 586, 594.. - , ' Mills v. CormtyofTrinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656. 659. The fonner are c:alled"user fees;" the latter are called ''m!uJatory fees." J Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bf!'lrd ofEqzmlization (1997) IS Cal.4111447, 455. 2 i . Traditionally, courts have determined whether a local government charge denominated a regulatory fee is an exercise of the police power or the power to raise revenue by analyzing the use of the fee involved rather than relying on its label. The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory program in order to be considered a fee rather than a guise for a tax.4 As long as enactments are not in conflict with general laws, tbe power to impose valid regulatory fees is not dependent on any legislatively autborized taxing power but exists pursuant to the direct grant of police power under article Xl, section 7 of the California Constitution.5 CONCLUSION: The residential refuse vehicle impact fee is a (regulatory) fee, not a tax, because the amount of the fee will not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs ofthe regulatory program (street maintenance), Prooosition 218 Fees In November 1996 the voters approved Proposition 218, the Rightto Vote on Taxes Act, The proposition amended the California Constitution, adding article XIIID. Section 3(a)(3) provides that: No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel ofproperty or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except.. ,as provided in this article. Fee" or ~'charge" means "any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed, ,. upon a person as an incident ofproperty oV\tnership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service. "Property-related service" means "a ' public service having a direct relationship to property ownership.,,6 This definition means that not all fees or charges must comply with Proposition 218: Proposition 218 applies only 'to that subset of fees imposed upon a person as an incident ofproperty ownership, or levied for a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership, Proposition 218 only restricts fees imposed directly on property owners in their capacity as such.7 For example, the City ofLos Angeles adopted an ordinance that required owners of all residential rental properties subject to inspectjon under its program to remedy substandard housing conditions, to pay a fee, The City did not comply with the procedures and restrictions of Proposition 218. The Court upheld the fee finding that although property owners paid the fee, the fee was imposed on landlords not in their capacity as landlords, but in their capacity as business owners, The fee was only imposed Mills v. Count)' ofTrinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656. 661. County ofPlumas v, Wheeler (1906) 149 Cal. 758,763. For a cautionary note on whethetthe proposed fee conflicts with the general law, please see page _ ofthis lener. Art. XIlID, ~ 2(h). I Apartment Associalion ofw Angeles COllntyv. Cit)' ofLos Angeles (2001) 24 C81.4111 830,838. J an thase landowners who. chose to. enga,e in the residential rental business, and enly while they were aperating the business. The residential refuse vehicle impact fee will be imposed an a business owner, nat a property awner. The fee is for a public service (raad maintenance) but that service does not have a direct relatianship to. praperty ownership. Road maintenance mare likely has a direct relationship to. the safety of pedestrians and metoris~s. CONCLUSION: The residential refuse vehicle impact fee is nat subject to. the procedures and restrictions af Proposition 218 because it is nat a property-related fee or charge because it will not be imposed an praperty owners far a public service having a direct relatianship to. property awnership. State Preemntian As discussed abave, the authority to. impose a regulatory fee derives directly from the police pawer granted by article XI, section 7 afthe California Canstitution. That sectian pravides that a city ar caunty may adapt ordinances and atherwise regulate in the public interest, as lang as the regulatian is nat in conflict with the general laws of the State. An ardinance is in conflict with the general laws o.fthe State if it (1) contradicts; (2) duplicates; ar (3) enters a subject maner area that has beenfully occupied by state law. When the state determines that a particular subject matter area is ofparamaunt state concern, then the legislature prohibits lacal regulatian in that area to. achieve a uniform statewide approach, The analysis is slightly different for charter cities. Far a general law city, the inquiry stops with the question of whether a canflict exists betWeen the local ordinance and the state law, Ifthere is a conflict, the local ardinance fails. However, the home rule provisian afthe Canstitutian,9 authorize a charter city to exercise plenary authority over municipal affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject anly to canstitutionallimitations. In addition to. explicitly granting charter cities savereignty aver municipal affairs, the home rule pravision recognizes state legislative supremacy aver matters which are not municipal- affairs and are, instead, "statewide concerns," If- there is a contlict between the charter city's local ordinam:e and the statelaw, the charter city ordinance will survive-unless the subject matter area is a "matter of statewide concern. n Only the caurts can answer the question of whether the subject matter is a matter af statewide concern. to , _' In November 1989 the voters appro.ved Propositian 1 ] 1. Among other provisions, this ballot measure increased the excise tax on motor vehicle fuel from $,09 to. $.14; and increased commercial vehicle weight fees by 40% in August 1990 and an additionall 0% in January 1995. ~ommercial vehicle weight fees are paid to. the State by commercial vehicles with a certain minimum weight. The legislature adopted a companion measure d. at p. 840. Cat ConSl. An Xl, Section 5. HI California Federal Savi1rgS andLoan v. CilJ'ofLos A.ngeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d I. 4 4. to Proposition 1 1-1 (SeA 1) that would only take effect if thev:oters approved Proposition Ill. Vehicle Code ~ 9400,8 provid'es: Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, if the voters approve Senate Constitutional Amendment I...no local agency may impose a ta.", permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for extra Jegalloads, after December 31. 1990, unless the local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1. 1989. Vehicle Code ~ 9400.8 occupies the field of charges that may be imposed "for the privilege of using its streets or highways,..." This means thata general law city may not impose a tax, fee or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways. A charter City may adopt such a tax, fee, or other charge unless the subject area - charging for the use ofstreets and highways - is a matter of statewide concern, A court would ultimately detennine whether the state has a more substantial interest in the subject than the charter city. J [ Although it is not possible to predict with certainty how a court would treat the conflict between a charter city's fee for the privilege of using its streets and the prohibition contained in Vehicle Code ~ 9400,8, it would seem reasonable to conclude that because ' this section of the law was adopted in conjunction with a voter-approved stat~ide meaSure, that the state has a more substantial interest in the subject than the charter city. The prohibition contained in Vehicle Code ~ 9400.8 seems intended to ensure that the commercial weight fees increased by Proposition III would be the maximum fees imposed for the privilege of using the streets, Vehicle Code 9 9400,8 was adopted as part of Chapter 1337 of the 1989 Statutes. Section 4 of Chapter 1337 is an uncodified section of the law that provides: Nothing in this act shall be construed to allow local governments to impose fees not otheIWise authorized by statute. The Constitutional grant ofthe police power provides the authority to impose the residential refuse vehicle impact fee. Therefore. it is not necessary to rely on he "act" for authority. The word "statute" is construed to include a reference to the California ' Constitution. CONCLUSION: The proposed residential refuse vehicle impact fee is a regulatory fee not a user fee, (The nature ofthe regulatory fee will be discussed in the section on methodology,) As a regulatorY fee~ it would not violate Vehicle Code ~ 9400,8 because it does not charge refuse trucks for the "privilege of using". streets or highways but rather charges refuse trucks to defray the increased maintenance costS attributable to those trucks. I have been unable to find any interpretation of Vehicle Code ~ 9400.8, Norbave I been able tofind'any interpretation of the uncodified section of Chapter 1337 ofthe 1989 statutes. This causes me to provide a cautionary note: If the phrase "privilege of using its streets,'" in Vehicle Code S 9400,8 is construed broadly. it is possible that a court could determine that the residential refuse vehicle impact fee were such a fee, Cities and II Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 CaI.40 389. 403-404. 5 counties receive a portion ofthe coIJUriercial weight fees. These fi.!nds are' eligible to be used for the same purposes as is the tU on motor vehicle fuel. 12 One of these eligible purposes is street maintenance.13 It is possible to construe the residential refuse vehicle impact fee as a. prohibited fee for the privilege ofusing the streets, since funds generated by the same law in which the prohibition is found, may, be used for street maintenance. I do not think that such an interpretation. would be correct. Any. city or county adopting this fee should include language in the enabling ordinance to distinguish the residential refuse vehicle impact fee from a fee for the privilege of using its streets. Contracts Clause The Constitution prohibits either the state or a local government from passing a law that ' impairs the obligations 'in an existing contract. 14 The City of Santa adopted' a trench cut fee' ordinance and imposed the fee .on gas companies, Southern California Gas has held a franchise to provide gas service to the City of Santa Ana since 1938. The Court assumed that the trench cut fee was a valid exercise ofthe police power. However, the Court in Southern California Gas v. CilJl ofSanta Ana ruled that the franchise right granted to the Gas Company to lay and maintain pipes. and appurtenances in return for payment of a 2% franchise fee was impaired by the imposition of any additional charge by the City. The Court discounted several reSerVations in the 1938 franchise, including .one requiring the franchisee to comply with all subsequently adopted police power regulations. Although not articulated, it seems reasonable to speculate that the fact that the trench cut fee was imposed only on holders of gas franchises influenced the Court and inclined it toward the impairment of contracts argument. The Santa Ana case has been appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals. CONCLUSION: It clearly would be lawful to include the requirement to pay the residential refuse vehicle impact fee in any new refuse collection franchise. There is no contracts clause issue until there is a contract to impair. However, if a local government proposes to adopt this fee during the term of its refuse collection franchise, three steps must be taken: (I) carefully review the language of the franchise agreement to determine whether the contract requires the franchisee to pay subsequently adopted fees; (2) carefully review the language of the franchise agreement to determine whether the agreement implicitly or'explicitly requires the city to maintain the streets (without further, compensation from the franchisee); and (2) follow the progress ofthe Santa Ana case on appeal. Methodol02v. 12 Vehicle Code * 4220:;. 13 CaI.Const.arr. XIX. S";.2. l~ Cal. Const. Art. I S 9: 6 i' . A regulatory fee must be limited to tbe amount necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of the regulatory program, IS Such costs include all ~ose incidentto the system ofsupervision and enforcement, 16 The government bears the burden of proving that a regulatory fee is a valid fee.17 This means that the government must set forth the evidence that supports the nature of the fee, rather than the challenger setting forth the evidence explaining why the fee is invalid, The government must establish (1) the estimated costs of the service or regulatory activity; (2) the portion of those costs attributable to refuse collection vehicles; and (2) the basis for determining the mannedn which the costs are apportioned, so that charges allocated to the payer be8.r a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on the regulatory activity. Courts look to a variety of evidence in detennining whether the agency has satisfied that burden. The record must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fees to be charged and the estimated cost ofthe service or program to be provided; that requirement,may be satisfied, by evidence showing only that the fees will generate substantially less than the anticipated costs, 18 The methodology proposes to isolate the maintenance cost associated with the operation of refuse vehicles on residential streets. Cost is'expressed.as lost savings: Annual maintenance cost savings cannot be realized because ofthe impact of the operation of refuse vehicles on residential streets. The operation ofrefuse vehicles on residential streets increases the local governments' annual maintenance cost by reducing the useful life ofthe residential street, But for the operation ofrefuse vehicles on residential streets, the useful life of the streets would be extended and, therefore, the anriual maintenance cost would go down. Prior to considering adoption ofthe residential refuse vehicle fee, an extensive'stUdy wouJd be required to (I) relate, and if necessary, modify the factual assumptions so as to make them applicable to the city or county adopting the fee; 19 (2) establish the annual cost of maintenance of a residential street; (3) calculate that portion of the cost of maintenance attributable to refuse vehicles; (4) establish the estimated cost offoregoing the adoption ofthe fee; and (5) substantiate the basis for determining the manner in which the costs are apportioned, so that charges allocated to the payer bear a fair and reasonable relatIonship to the payer's burdens on residential streets. I have reviewed some of the material that your initial analysis relies on, including the Ft, Collins' study and the infonnation generated for the City ofPetalwna In my opinion the methodology is sound: However, the factual assumptionS must be confinned against the local conditions in the city or county that proposes to adopt the fee. Your proposal 15 There is some risk that a court would find that maintenance of residential streets is not a "regulatory program.... A regulatory program is often discussed in tenns of licenses. permits, and investigation. It may also be possible to describe the program for which this fee is charged as regulation ofrefuse collection. I~ California Association ofProJessional Scientists (2000) 79 Cal.AppAdL 935, 945. I. Bemtnlonllnvestors v. Beallmont-Cherry Valley Water District (1985)165 Cal.App.3d 227, 235. IS Cily ofDublin v. County ofAlameda {1993) 14 CaI.App.4d1264, 283. 19 For example, determine whether the factual assumptions regarding the number of SAE per day per residential street; the SAE attributable to the refuse trucks used by the locality's franchisee; the percentage of deterioration due to weathcNelated conditions; and the useful life of residential streets. 7 relates the cost of maintaining a residential street to each residential account because refuse vehicles are providing service to'each residential account,20 Therefore your proposal distributes the cost among the residential accounts. I would suggest that.this step not be included in the methodology for two reasons: by spreading the cost over residential refuse accounts,. the fee begins to take on characteristics of a user fee rather than a regulatory fee, If thefee is a user fee that is imposed on the refuse hauler, then (1 ) it potentially rUns afoul ofVehicle Code ~ 9400,8; and (2) the methodology to detennine the amount ofthe fee will be different. Sinee the fee is imposed on the refuse, hauler to defray its impact on the maintenance cost of residential streets, I suggest that the .fee be expressed only in a lump sum amount, CONCLUSION: The proposed methodology, with one exception, is sound and conforms to the principle that a ~gulatory fee must be reasonably related to the fee payer's impact on the regulatory program, I am recommending excluding that step in the methodology that determines the average residential. street maintenance cost per month per residential account. It will be necessary for a city or county proposing to adopt the fee to review its franchise agreement'to determine whether (1) the fee can be passed through to the customer; and (2) ifso, if the pass-through constitutes a rate increase that is inconsistent with the terms of the franchise or. which requires the city or county to undertake rate increase proceedings. ' Proper drafting ofthe enabling ordinance for the residential refuse vehicle impact fee is critical to the legal validity of the fee. ' If you continue to be interested in proposing this fee to your clients, you may wish to consider providing a model ordinance with yom materials, Thank you for the opportunity to work on this very interesting project. Please call me to discuss any questions or comments that you have about the information contained in this letter. .. Sincerely, . c: Bob Hilton 10 The average residential street maintenance cost per month per residential account associated with refuse vehicles is calculated by dividing the annual "cost" by the total n\ltnber of residential accounts, and then dividing by twelve months. 8 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 January 20, 2021 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The purpose of this notice and its attachments is to substantiate the exemption from Federal income tax and State of California franchise income tax of: St. Hilary School 765 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 and the deductibility of gifts, donations, and contributions hereto. The subject entity is part of: (X) The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, a Corporation Sole Federal tax exemption is attained by virtue of the subject entity’s listing in the 2020 Official Catholic Directory, of which copies of pages 1, 1347 – 1352, and 1358 are attached as explained in the Internal Revenue Service group exemption letter dated November 2, 2020, a copy of which is also attached. State exemption is attained by virtue of the attached Franchise Tax Board Letter dated December 7, 2020, a copy of which is also attached. Please note that per the IRS, each subordinate organization under the Group Ruling must use its own EIN, not the USCCB’s EIN, in all filings with the IRS and other financial documents. Very truly yours, Joseph J. Passarello Chief Financial Officer JJP/spp Attachments :Most Reverend IGNATIUS WANG, J.C.D. Retired Auxiliary Bishop of San Francisco; ordained July 4, 1959; appointed Titular Bishop of Sitipa and t~V1:7J~~~:& i~~~&~~~:r ?\~e1~~~·~;.: Holy Name of Jesus Clu.m:.h, 1555 391/,, Aue., &m F'rm1· cisco, CA 94122. Personnel Anohblihol" .... Retired Bishops. . . . . . . . . . . . . Priests: Diocesan A<.tive in Diocese . . . . Priests: Diocesan Adive Out.side Diocese . ~~~~ ~TI:i~sfl~;:l~!1ri~0~: · Number of Diocesan Priests. . ~~f~![!:to'ir:!~~: . Extern Priests in Diocese . Ordinations: Diocesan Priests ............. . Religious Priests ... . Transitional Deacons . . . . . Permanent Deacons in Diocese. Total Brothe~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Sisters. . Parishes Parishes ....... . With Resident Pastor: Resident Diocesan Priests . With~~ticlR:t!~:rt:fn~sts . Administered by Priests . . Missions ................... . Pastoral Centers ......... . Professional .Ministry Penmnnel: Brothers ................. . 1 2 162 5 1 71 239 149 388 46 3 4 2 103 21 527 88 72 16 4 6 11 17 Former Bishops-Rt. Rev. FRANCISCO GARCIA D1£GO Y MORENO, O.F.M., ord. 1808; cons. Bishop of both Californias, Oct. 4, 1840; died in Santa Barbara, April 30, 1846; Most Revs. JOSEPH SAOOC ALEMANY, 0.P., 0.0., <.uns. Bishop of Monterey, Jwrn 30, 1850; appt. first Archbishop of San Francisco, July 29, 1853; resigned and appt. Titular Arehbishop of Pelusio, Dec. 28, 1884; died in Valencia, Spain, April 14, 1888; PA11UCK WILUAM RIORDAN, DD., cons. Titular Archbishop of Cabasa and appt. Coadjutor Archbishop of San Francisco cum jure successionis Sept. 16, 1883; succeeded to Dec. 28, 1884; died in San Francisco, !Re. 27, 1914; G£0RGE MONTGOMERY, 0.0., cons. Titular Bishop ofTmui and appl Coadjutor Bishop of Monterey and Los Angelescumjuresuc<.-essionis April 8, 1894; succeeded w May 6, 1896; appt. Titular Archbishop of Osimo and Coadjutor Archbishop of San Francisco cum jure suc<.'CSsionis March 27, 1903; died in San Francisco, Jan. 10, 1907; EDWARD J. HANNA, 0.0., cons. Titular Bishop of Titopolis and appt. Auxiliary Bishop of 1347 Archdiocese of San Francisco ( Archidioecesis Sancti Frcmcisci.) Most Reverend SALVATOREJ. CORDILEONE,J.C.D. Archbishop of San Francism; ordained July 9, 1982; appointed Auxiliary Bishop of San Diego and Tihllar ~~1;~ of ~~~1:trli~:;u~l &~~~;j M~~~t~~~~ ~!~ stalled ~fay 5, 2009; appointed Archbishop of San Fran-cisco July 27, 2012; in.stalled October 4, 2012. Office: One Peter Yorke Way, &m Frrmcisco, CA 91109·66(12. TIU! Chancery Office: One Peter Yorlze Way, San Fran· cisco, CA 94109·6602. Web: www.sfarch.org Email: i11fo@s{arch.org STATISTICAL OVERVIEW Sisters.. . 41 Welfare Heahh Care Cente~. 13 Total Assisted . 6,136 Homes for the Aged .. .. .. 14 Total Assisted . . 1,628 Dfof:.rA!::~~ .. .. ·•. 3 300 Specialized Homes: 6 Total Assisted . . .. 3.503 S~ial Centers for &ci~I &~~~: 11 Total Assisted . . . . . . . . . . . 81,325 Residential Care of Disabled . 1 Total Assisted . 183 Other Institutions : .. .. .. . .. . I Total Assi.ted . .. .. ...... 4.600 Educational Seminaries, Diocesan . 1 Students from This Di~~~ 7 Students from Other Diocese: . 40 Diocesan Students in Other Semin~ui~ 4 Total Seminarians . 11 Colleges and Univers.itie.s : -2 Total Students. . . . . .. .. 12,2ffi Hit~8I~r!~~~~~ ~n_d_P~~~ .. 4 3,582 Hi¥:,t:Ih~t!d~~~~~ : 9 4,291 San Francisco Dec. 4, 1912; appt. Archbishop of San Francisco, June 1, 1915; resigned and appt. Titular An::hbishop of Gortyna, March 2, 1935; died July 10, 1944; JOHN JOOEPH M11TY, D.D., <.uns. Bishop of Salt Lake City, June 21, 1926; appt. Coadjutor Archbishop of San Francisco rum jure succ:essionis, Jan. 29, 1932; succeeded to Man;h 2, 1935; died Clot. 15, 1961; JOSEPH T. ~~~~~:i;~~~·-rffJl;/~~~lio~r°J;.:v~fa~~h 19, 1941; appt. Coadjutor Bishop of Sacramento rum jure successioni~ Oct. 26, 1955; succeeded to Jan. 14, 195 7; appt. Archbishop of San Francisco, Feb. 21, 1962; appt. Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, Man:-h 19, 1966; retired Feb. 22, 1977; died Oct. 26, 1983; JOHN R. QUINN, D.D., (Retired), appt. Auxiliary Bishop of San Diego, Oct. 21, 1967; <.uns. Titular Bishop of Thisiduo, Dec. 12, 1967; transferred to Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Nov. 18, 1971; appt. An:-hbishop of the Archdio<.'Cse of Oklahoma City, Feb. 6, 1973; appt. Arehbishop of San Fran<.-isco, April 26, 1977; resigned Dec. 27, :Most Reverend WILLJAM J. JUSTICE Retired Auxiliary Bishop of San Francisco; on:iained ~~o~ul1~~a~~~.J1tif:h~;f1:f s!:1~!cis~ April 10, 2008; ordained ~fuy 28, 2008; retired Novem- ber 16, 2017. Office: One Peter Yorlze Way, SanFrrmcisco, CA 94119-6602. ESJ'ABUSHED JULY 29, 1&53. Square Miles 1,016. COOe Address: Roman, San Francisoo. ~~l~1;,ri:1 ff:eti~Sr~;~eef °f:af:;~~~;:11cisco, &m Mateo Patrons of the Archdiocese of San Francisco: St. Francis of Assisi, October4;St. Patrick, Mareh 17. Legal Title: 11ie Roman Catholic Ard1bishop of San Francisco, a Corporation Sole. :0u:;1,~ftat~~tf1~:/if:':;/~ffi;~1d archdiocesan institutio11s, Elementary Schools, Diocesan and Parish 47 Total Students. . . . . . . . . 13,028 Elementary Schools, Private . 7 Total Students. . . _ . . . . 1,978 Catechesis/Relif:ous &l.ucation: . High Schoo Students ........... 1,759 Elementary Students ........... 10.000 Total Sb.ldents under Catholic Inst.rue- tion. Teachers a; ih~ Di~~~:. 46.855 Priests ... 9 Scholastics : .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 2 Brothers. . .. ...... 4 Sisters .. .. .. ·• 37 LayTeac~~: 800 .. .. .. Vital Statistics Rerer:;:~: ~~~J!: <f~:~:. 3.841 .. ... Adult Bal?lism Total~ ...... 211 Ret-eived mto Full Communion 419 First Communions. 4,176 Confirmations. .. .. .. .. ... 2,702 Mat]:fii~lic .. 562 Interfaith. 160 Total Marriag~ : .. .. ·• .... .. .. ..... 722 Deaths ....... 2,168 Total CatholicPop~btio~: 464.009 Total Population . .. .. ..... 1,912,516 1995; died June 22, 2017.; His Eminence WILLIAM J. l..EVADA, S.T.D., on:i. Dec. 20, 1961; appt. Titular Bishop of Capri and Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles March 29, 1983; Episcopal on:i. May 12, 1983; appt. An:hbishop of Portland in Oregon July 1, 1986; installed as Archbishop of Portland in Oregon Sept. 21, 1986; appt. Coadjutor Archbishop of San Francisco Aug. 17, 1995; succeeded to See Dec. 27, 1995; appt. Prefect of Doctrine of the Faith J\fay 13, 2005; created Can:iinal March 24, 2006; retired July 2, 2012; died Sept. 25, 2019; Most Rev. G£ORGE H. N1ED~RAU£R, DD., Ph.D., ord. April 30, 1962; appt. Bishop of Salt Lake City Nov. 3, 1994; Episcopal ordination Jan. 25, 1995; appt. Archbishop of San Francisoo Dec. 15, 2005; in.stalled as Archbishop Feb. 15, 2006; retired July 27, 2012; died May 2, 2017. Chancery a.tu:l Pa.storal Center-One Peter Yorke Way, San Francisco, 94109-6602. Tel: 415-614-5500; Fax: 415-614·5555. Open Mon.·Fri. All applica· tions for dispensations, faculties, etc., and all car- SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) respondence should be addressed: Chancery and Pastoral Center. Office of the Archbishop- Archbishop-'Afost Rev. SALVATORE J. COROILEONE, J.C.D. Priest Secretary to the Archbishop-- Tel: 415-614-5609; Fax: 415-614-5601. Rev. CAl\lERON M FALIER Email: falle~.camero~@starch.org. Executive Assistant to the Archbishop-KA.REN Mcl.<uGHUN, J.D., Tel:415-614-5609; Fax: 415-614-5601; Ad,~i~~:;;;~:':l~~n:;;:roftfc~~} the Archbislrnp- cHAR1 PENSON, Tel: 415-614-5604; Email: pemont@sfarch.org. Vicar General-Rev. STEPHEN H. HOWELL., V.G., Tel:415-614-5611; Email: howell.stephen@sfarch.org. Vicar for Clergy-Very Rev. RA YM UNIJ REYES, Email: reyesr@sfarch.org. Associate Viro.r for Clergy-Very Rev. ANDREW P. SPYROW, Email: spyrmv.andrew@sfarch.org. Manager, Office of the Auxiliary Bislwps, Office of the Vicar for Clergy-ANNABELLE CA. GROH, Tel:415-614-561 I; Fax: 415-614-5613; Email: groha@sfarch.org. Administrative Assistants: SHARON L>:E, Tel: 415-614-5614; Email: lees@sfarch.org; A•1ERLE TALENS, Tel: 415·614·5611; Email: talensm@sfareh.org. Office of the Permanent Diaconate-Tel: 415-614-5531; Fax: 415-614·5555. Deaoon MICHAEL J. GHIORSO, Dir., Email: ghiorsom@sfarch.org; GUY A'1ARs1'0N, Coard., Email: marstonjfiPsfarch.org. Office of Diacrmate Formation-Tel: 415-614-5615; Fax: 415-614-5555. Deacon FlUill TarAH, Dir., Email: totaht@sfarch.org; GUY M.Aru,'TON, Coard., Email: marstong@sfarch.org. Office of Vocations-Rev. CAMERON M. FAU.to.:R, Tel: 415-614·5683; Email: cameron@sfarch.org; CHARI PENSON, Administrative Asst., Tel: 415-614·5684; Email: peruionc@sfareh.org. Episcopal Vicar for the Spanish Speaki12g-Rev. MO!S&'l AGUDO, Tel: 415-614-5591; Email: agudom@sfarch.org. Episcopal Vicar for Pilipi110..<>-Very Rev. EUGENE D. TuNGOL, Tel: 415-614-5590; Email: tungole@sfarch.org. Diredor of tl1£ Office for Conser:. rated Life-Sr. ROSIN A CcNR01Til, P .B.V.M., Dir., Tel: 415-614-5535; Email: conrottor@sfarch.org. Cha1icellor-Rev. Msgr. C. MICHAEL PADAZINSKI, J.C.D., Tel: 415-614-5619; Fax: 415-614-5696; Email: padazinskim@sfarch.org. Vice Chancellor and Tribu1tal Office Manager- ROBE.RT W. GRAJo . .,.IO,J.C.L., Email: graffior@sfarch.org. College of Co1ts1dtors-Most Rev. SALVA1'0RE. J. CORDILEONE, J .C.D.; Revs. S1'EPHEN H. HOWELL, V.G.; MOIS&'l AGUDO; FRANCIS M.P. GARBO, (Philippines); MICHAEL A GREEN\\'EL4 0.Carm.; JOHN J. PIDERIT, S.J., Ph.D.; RAYMUND M. R•'Y&'l; THOMAS M. HAMILTON; CH.ARI.ES PlITHOTA; Very R(..'V. ANDREW P. Sf'YROW. Demis-Revs. THOMAS M. HAMILTON, Sunset Deanery; MICHAEL J. HURLEY, 0.P., Cathed.rnl Deanery; MOIS&S AGUDO, Mission Deanery; Ju.AN GoNZALEZ, S.M., Downtown Deanery; Very Rev. EUGENE D. TuNGOL, Visitation Deanery; Revs. CYRIL J. O'SULLIVAN, Marin Deanery; MICHAEL MA.HONEY, O.F .M.Cap., Central San Mateo Deanery; Lu£U.O N. PAIACPAC, (Philippines) C.oast.side Deanery; ROlANDO S. DE LA ROOA, North San Mateo Deanery; Rev. -Msgr. ST!i.'V£N 0. OrElLINI, South San Mateo Deanery. Council of Priests-Rev. Kli.'VIN KENNEDY, Chair. Censor Lihrorum-Rev. JOHN S. KsI<:LMAN, P .S.S., Ph. D. Vicar General-Rev. STEPHEN H HOWEL4 V.G. Ma1uiger, Office of Vica.r General-ANNABELi..£ C.A GROH, Tel: 415·614·5611. Assi,stant to the Vicar General-SHARON LEI!:, Tel: 415-614-5611. Admillistm.tive Assistant-MERLE TALENS, Tel: 415-614-5611. Moderator of the Curia-Rev. JOHN J. PIDERIT, S.J., Ph.D. Exec.utive Assista11t-D1ANA POWElL, Tel: 415·614·5589; Email: powelld@sfarch.org. Vicar for Admi11istm.tion-_;.Rev. JOHN J. P1DERIT, S.J., Ph.D.; DIANA POW'ElL, Exec. Asst., Tel:415-614-5589; Email: powelld@sfarch.org. Director, Office of Catliolic Identity Assessment and Fonnation-DtL M£1ANIE :M. M01l£Y, Tel: 415-614-5520; Email: moreym@sfarch.org. 1348 Office of Child and Youth Protectio11-Deaccn FRI<:D ToTAH. Safe Environment Coordinator-TWYLA Pow1ms, Tel: 415-614-55 76; Fax: 415-614-5658; Email: powerst@sfarch.org. Victim.Assistance Coorriinator-ROC10 RODRIGUEZ, Tel:415-614-5506; Fax: 415-614-5658; Email: rodriguez@sfarch.org. Di.rector of Finance I Chief Fi1w1tcial Officer-JOOEPH PASSAR!:LLO, Tel: 415-614-5511; Ex~~e~~:l!~j~~ap~~l-Coordinator-SIENA Pi:RI<:Z Tel· 415-614·5510· Email; pe~zs@sfarch.org'. Office of Development-Tel: 415-614·5580; Email: development@sfarch.org. MR. Roo LIN- HARt:S, Di.r.,Email:linharesr@sfarch.org. Director of Steu:arriship-FWRIAN Rm1ERO, Email: romerot@sfareh.org. Det:elopmentAssociate-JENNY DAHL, Email: dahlj@sfarch.org. Archdiocesan Legal Office-Tel: 415-614·5623. PAULA F. CARNl"'Y, Esq., Gen. Counsel, Email: c.ameypffi;farch.org; LARRY R. JANNUZZI, Sr. Gen. Counsel, Email: jannuzzil@sfarch.org. Legal Assistant: PHILIP LAM, Email: lamp@'sfarch.org. Office for the Propagation of the Faith • A Pontifical Mission SocietyGENEVlli.'V£ ELIWNDO, Dir., Tel:415-614·5673; Email: eliz.ondog@sfarch.org. Missiona.ry Childhood Associ.ati.01& · A Po11tifiml Missi.011 Society-GENl'Vlli.'VE ELIZONDO, Dir. & Coonl., Tel: 415-614-5670. Admi11i.strntive Services-JOSE LEoN, Facilities Mgr. for Pastoral Ctr., Email: leonj@sfarch.org; THOM.AS HUIJTS, Tel: 415-614-5532; Email: huijtst@sfarch.org. For Real Estate please oontact Real Property Support Corporation (RPSC). Tel: 415-292..()8()(). OfficeofHmnmi Resources-VICKY SALGADO, Dir., Email: .salgadov@sfarch.org; JOSIE. B£RDA4 Human Resourees Mgr., Email: berdalj@.farch.org ; CHRIS"l'INE EscoBAR, Human Resources M.gr., Email: escobarc..-®sfarch.org; JANICE WARD, Benefits Mgr., Tel: 415-614-5540; Email: wardj@sfarch.org; LASHONDA PERRY, Benefits Adrnin.., Tel: 415-614-5626; Email: perryl@sfarch.org; SU'".lANNE NAZARIO, Human Resources Coord., Tel: 415-614·5540; Email: nazarios@sfarch.org; K&sHIA KEl...Sl"'Y, Payroll Mgr., Tel: 415-614-5539; Email: kelseyk@sfarch.org. Catlioi.ic Cemeteries-MONICA WILLIAMS, :Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1577, Colma, 94014. Tel: 650-756-2060; Fax: 650-757-0752; Email: mjwilliamg:fpholycrosscerneteries.com; Email: moreinfo@holycrosscemeteries.com. Archdiocesan Archives-CHRIS Do.AN, M.L.S., CA., An:hivist, Tel: 650-328-6502; Email: aast@stpsu.org. Office of Ecwnenism. and b&terreligious Affairs- VAC.ANT. MetropoJ.ita11 Tribu11.al mid Office of Cm101Uml Affairs-&m Frmicisco Metropoi.ita11 Tribima/.-011e Peter Yorke \Vay, Smi Francisco, 94109-6602. Tel: 415-614-5690; Fax: 415-614-5696. Judi.cia.l Vicar-Rev. M:Sgr. Ro11.-t'uW A VERGARA, J.C.D., Email: vergarar@sfarch.org. Adjrl/a11t Judicial Vimr--Rev. S'ffif'HEN A Pro~!!~;:{Ji~~jf~*~v. THU.AN V. HOA.NO, J.C.L. Defenders of the Bond-Rev. THU.AN V. HOANG, J.C.L.; DIANE L. BARR, J .C.D.; ROBERT W. GRAHlO, J.C.L. Judges-Rev. Msgr. C. MICHAEL PADAZINSKI, J.C.D., V.G.; Rew. ANGEL N. QUITALIG, J.C.L.; S1>:PHEN ~C.~.ERIWli.,'HER, J.C.L.; KRYSl'YNA AMBORSKI, Trib1uial Auditors-RI<:lNA PARADA; JAN &::HA CHERN. Notary mid Secretary to the Tribu11al-RI<:INA A PARADA. Archbishop's Cabinet-Most Rev. SALVATORE J. C0RDILEONE, J.C.D., Archbishop of San Francisco; Rm1s. STEPHEN H. HOWE.lL, V.G., Vicar Gen.; JOHN J. PIDERIT, S.J., PhJ)., Moderator of the Curia & Vicar for Admin.; Rev. Msgr. ROMUL.0 A VI<:RGARA, J.Cn., Judicial Vicar, Rev. RAYMUND M.. REYES, Vicar for Clergy; Very Rev. ANDR£W P. SPYROW, Assoc. Vicar for Clergy; Rev. CH.ARI.ES Pui1-1arA, andia) Dir. Pastoral Ministry; PAUi.A F. CARNEY, Esq., Legal Counsel; J OOEPH PASSARELW, CFO; MIKE BROWN, Dir. Communications; VICKY SALGADO, Dir. Human Resources; PAM.ELA A LYONS, Supt. Catholic Schools; DR. MI<:LANll<: M.. MORl"'Y, Dir., Offic.-e of Catholic Identity; Ju,MA MENESES, CEO, Catholic Charities; VALERIE &::mtAl.Z, Dir., Human life & Dignity. CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. Departme11.t of Pastoral Ministry-Deaccn FRI<:D ToTAH. Director, Mi11istry to Spa.1Usli Speaking-J..•ffis. CECILIA ARIAS-RIVAS, Tel: 415-614-5573; Fax: 415-614-5658. Office. of Marriage a.11.d Family Life-ED Hof>t·NER, Dir., Tel: 415-614-5547; Fax: 415-614-5658. Office of Youth & Yowig Adult MiJU.stry Coordinator-Tel: 415-.614·5595; Fax: 415-614.5658. CHRIS MARIANO. African American Mi11istry-Rmr. KENNl°'ll-l M. W&S11lA Y, St. Vincent de Paul Church, 2320 Green St., San Francisco, 94123. Tel: 415-922-1010. Chinese Mi1iistry-Rev. P!i."l'ER L. 2'-l:AI, S.V.D., Tel: 415-614-5575; Email: zhaip@lfarch.org. Arab·Am.ericmi Catlwlic Mi1Ustry-Rev. RICHARD VAN Oto.: WATER, St. Thomas More Church, 1300 JuniperoSerra Blvd., San Francisoo, 94132. Tel: 415-452-9634. Polish, Croatian, SloL'enian Mission-Rev. TADE.USZ RUSNAK, S.Ch., Nativity Church, 240 Fell St., San Francisco, 94102. Tel: 415·25Z.5799; Email: trusnak©:.omcast.net. Korean Catholic Mi11istry-St. Michael Korem& Church, 32 Broad St., San Francisco, 94112. Tel: 415-333-1194; Fax: 415-333-1196. Rc-v. JEONG CON Kib-1. To11ga11 Ministry-St n.mothy Clmrch, 1515 Dolan Aue., Sm& Mateo, 94401. Tel: 650-34Z.24 70; Fax: 650~2--8156. Revs. SAJMONE MOALA; KAPIO- lAN I KAKAl...A. Vietnamese CathoJ.ic Mi11ist.ry-Rev. TI<: VAN NGUYEN, St. Thomas the Apostle Church, 3835 Bal"OOa St., San Francisc.'O, 94121. Tel: 415-387-5545. Brazilian MiJU.stry-St. 11wmas More Clmrch, 1300 JwiiperoSerraBfod.., &m Fro11cisco, 94132. Tel: 415-45Z.9634. Saint Raplui.el Church, 1104 Fifth Ave., San Rafael, 94901. Tel: 415-454-8141. VACANT. Burmese MiJUstry-Rev. FRANCIS THAN H1UN, St. Finn Barr Church, San Francisco, 94112. Tel: 415-333-3627. Filipino Ministry-Very Rev. EUGENE 0. TuNC04 Chw-ch of the Epiphany, 827 Vienna St., San Francisco, 94112. Hispa11ic Mi11ist.ry-Rev. MOIS&S AGUDO, St. Charles Borromeo Church, 713 S. Van Ness, San Francisco, 94110. Tel: 415-824-1700; ~·!Rs. CECILIA ARIAS-RIVAS, Tel: 415-614-5573; Email: ariasrivasc@sfarchdiocese.org. Haitimi Mi1Ustry-MR. PIERRE LABOSSIERE, 2822 55th Ave., Oakland, 94605. Email: pierrelabossiere@hotrnail.com. fodonesfon MiJ&istry-MR. DoOI TJAHJADI, Tel: 408-646-0308. Jris~1:~.',istsr-~iipBRfue~!~~Rli~~la~~ Diamond St., San Francisoo, 94114. Tel: 415-282-0141. ltalia1& Mi1&istry- Native American Ministry-MR. ANDY GALVAN, Mission Dolores Basilica, 3321 16th St., San Francisco, 94114. Tel: 415-621-8203, Ext. 15; Email: chocheny@aol.c.'Om. Jgboo:.~~a;& of¥:estl\ll!:W4~~~~h 0;t~,8~a~f Moon Bay, 94019. Tel: 650·726-4674. lg"OO Mass contacts: St. Paul of the Shipwreck Tel: 415-468· 3434. Samoan Mi11istry-MAYA SulSALA, Tel: 866-964-7584, Ext. 20712; Email: maya_suisala@ssa.gov. Office of Religious Edumtion and Youth Minist-ry- Sr. C£LES'ffi ARBUCKL£, S.S.S., Dir., Tel: 415-614-5652; Email: arbuckJec.@sfarchdiocese.org; JANli."1' FoRTUNA, Coord. Special Needs, Tel: 415-614-5655; Email: fortunaj@sfarchdiocese'.org; Sr. GRACIELA MARTINEZ, 0.S.F., Assoc. Dir. Hispanic Ministry & Rel. Educ., Tel: 415-614-5653; Email: martinezg@sfarchdiocese.org; Ms. ANELJTA Rto.:YES, Assoc. Dir. Faith Formation, Tel: 415-614-5651; Email: reyesa@sfarchdiocese.org; VACANT, Assoc. Dir. Youth Ministry & Catechetics, Tel: 415-614-5654. Mi11istry of Consolation-ED HOPt•NER, Tel: 415-614-554 7; Fax: 415-614-5658; Email: hopfnere@sfarchdiocese.org. Office. of Worship-LAURA BERTONE, Dir., Tel: 415-614-5586; Email: bertonel@sfarc.hdiocese.org; MRS. SANDRA KEARNEY, Administrative Asst., Email: kearneys@sfarch.org. Ca.tholic &hools, Department of-Tel: 415-614·5660; Fax: 415-614-5664; ~~l:,~~~fS:!.00~~fp:;;i; A. LYONS, Supt. CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. Catholic Schools. 1H 415-614-5663; Tel: 415-614-5660; SUSANA 1Al'EYRAD£-DRUM- M0ND, Assoc. Supt., Curriculum & Instruction, Tel: 415-614-5665; JONA1HAN ScHILD, Ed.D., Assoc. Supt., Secondary Schools & Student Svcs. PDSO Intl. Student Prog., Tel: 415-614-5667; MHS. CAROL CRl!:WAL, Assoc. Supt., Faith Formation & Leadership, Tel: 415-614-5662; DR. TARA Rou,E, Assoc. Supl, Governanl'e, Tel: 415-614-5666; MR. RODN~"Y YEE, Mgr., Parish & School Financial Sup-~~1.T&~r~~.5A11{!~~J~j~~~~o~i~:~~ 6~~~~ Schools (AMDCSJ EIG & Student Scholarship Prag., Alliance of Mission District Catholic Schools, Educator Incentive Grants Prog., Student Scholar.ohip Program., Tel: 415..()14-5546; Web: '"""'w.sfarehdiocese.or.g/arndcs. Catholic Schools Administrative St.aft: DIAMOND FORD, 1349 Tel: 415-614-5660; .MAH.IA MATA, Tel: 415-614-5661. The Roman CatJwl.ic We/fa.re Corporation of San Fmncisco-(dissolved April 1, 2008). Department of Communications-Tel: 415-614-5638. MIKE BROWN, Dir., Email: browrun@sfan:.h.org; JAN Po11'S, Asst. Dir., Email: pottsj@sfarch.org; JOHN GRAY, Communications Mgr., Email: grayj@sfarch.org. Archdiocesan P11.blicatio11: ·catliolic Smt Frmtcisco"_:Most Rev. SALVATORI!; J. CoRDILEONE, J.CD.; RICK DELVECCHIO, Editor & Gen. Mgr., Tel: 415-614-5647; Email: delvecch.im@sfarch.org. Htuna11 Life & Dignity, Office of-Tel: 415-614-5570; Fas: 415-614-5568; SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) Email: lifeanddignity@sfarch..org; Web: ,.,...,..,.,._sfarch.org/hld. Di.rector-VALERIE SCHMALZ, Tel: 415·614-5571. Administration-ALICE CHAN, Tel: 415-614-5570. Catholic Campaign for Hwnan Developmmt (CCHDJ-Catholic Relief Services (CHS) Coordinator: Tel: 415-614-5570. Gabriel Projoct fPregncw.cy Counseling)- Tel: 800-910-2848. Project Rachel (Post, Abortiott Counseli1tg)- Tel: 415-614-5567. Respoct Life Progrmn-Tel: 415-614-5533. Rest,orative Justice Progran?-Juuo EsooBAR, Coon:!., Tel:415-614-5572. Socia.I Action Coordi.1uitor-1'~1AIITIN FORD, Tel: 415-614-5569. Social Action and Digital Media-M.EUSSA VLACH, Tel: 415-614-5616. CLERGY, PARISHES, MISSIONS AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO (SAN FRANCISCO CouN1Y) I-CATHEDRAL Of" ST. MARY (As.sUMP'IlON) aka St. Mary's Cathedral (1891) 1111 Gough St., 94109. Tel:415-567-2020; Email: info@smcsf.org; Web: W\11/\\'.smcsf.org. Revs. Arturo L. Albano; William C. Nicholas Jr., Parochial Vicar; Deacons Alejandro C. Madero; R Christoph Sandoval Cat:echesi.s Religious Program.--Students 75. 2-ST. AGN<S (1893) 1025 Masonic Ave., 94117. Tel: 415-487-&560; Fax: 415-487..s575; Email: Admin@SaintAgnesSF.com; Web: \11/\vw.SaintAgnesSF.com. RL.>vS. Raymond Allender, S.J.; Joseph Specht, S.J.; Joseph Spieler, S.J., ln Res.; Maureen Beckman, Business Mgr.; Frank Vranich, .Music Min. Catecltesi,s Religious Program.- Email: GraC£...>@3aintAgnesSF.com. Grace Salceanu, D.RE. 3-ALL HAILOWS CHAP.:L OF OUR LADY OJ« LOuRDt!:.S (1886) C1osed.. For sacramental records please contact Our Lady of Lowtles, San Francisco. Chapel-Our La.dy of Lourdes. 4-ST. ANNE (1904) 850 Judah St., 94122. Tel: 415-665-1600; Email: info@stanne-sf.org; Web: '"'"""·.stanne-sf.org. Revs. Daniel Nascimento; Peterson 0. Tieng, Paro- chial Vicar; Most Rev. Daniel F. Walsh, D.D., ln Res.; Rev. Peter L. Zhai, S.V .D., In Res. School-St. Anne School, (Grades PreK..S), 1320 14th Ave., 94122. Tel:415-664-7977; Fas: 415-661-6904; Email: white@stanne.com; Web: '"""'W.stanne.com. Thomas C. Vlh.ite, Prin. (Plus 5 part-time) 26; Stu· dents 305. Catechesi.s Religious Program- Tel: 415-665-1600, Ext. 38; Fas: 415-665-1603. Stu- dents 26. 5-ST.AN11i0NY Of.· PADUA(l893) 3215 Cesar Chavez St., 94110. Tel: 415-647-2704; Fax: 415-647-7282; Email: sanantoniol 893@vahoo.com; Web: www.mis.sionparishes.com. Very Rev. Moises R. Agudo. Chapel-Immaculate Conception Chapel, 3255 Folsom St., 94110. School-St. Antliony-lmmacu/at:e Co1tception Scliool, (Grades K..S), 299 Precita Ave., 94110. Tel: 415-648-2008; Fas: 415-648-1825. Ms. Barbara Moodie, Prin. Lay Teacheis 6; Students 172. Catecltesi,s Religious Program-Students 230. 6-ST. BENEDICT PARISH AT ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH (1913) (Japanese) (Founded 1962 for Deaf and Hearing Impaired). 1801 Octavia, 94109. Tel: 415-567-9855; Email: Zirimenya.Paul@sfarch.org. Rev. Paul Zirime- nya. Catecllesi.s Religious Prograni-Students 12. 7--ST. BONll'"AC£ (1860) (German) 133 Golden Gate Ave., 94102. Tel: 415-863-7515. Revs. Thomas B. West, O.F.M.; John Luat Nguyen, O.F.M.; Bro. Brian Trawick. ln Res., Rev. Hoang T. Trinh, O.F.M.; Bros. Zeno Im; Chris Best, O.F.M.; Henri Djojo; Dick Tandy, O.F.M.; Dennis 0. Du!Ty, 0.F.M.; Hajime Okuhara, O.F .M. Catechesi,s Religious Program-Students 54. 8-ST. BRENDAN aka St. Brendan the Navigator Church (1929) 29 Rockaway Ave., 94127. Tel: 415-681-4225; Email: saintbrendanchw-chsf@gmail.com; Web: www.stbrendanparish.org. Revs. Roger G. Gus- tafson; Celestine Tyowua; Raymond Tyoc:hemba, ln Res.; Paul F. Warren, In Res., <Retired); :Ms. Lisa Rosenlund, Business Mgr. School-St. Brendan School, (Grades K..S), 940 Laguna Honda Blvd., 94127-1239. Tel: 415-731-2665; Fax: 415-731-7207; Email: sb~stbrendansf.com; Web: \\"<Vw.stbrendansf.oom. Ms. Dianne Lakatta, Prin. Lay Teachers 32; Students 311. 9-ST. BRIGID (1863) Closed. For sacramental records please contact St. Vinc.-ent de Paul, San Francisco. 10-ST. CECILIA (1917) 2555 17th Ave., 94116. Tel: 415-664-8481; Web: W\\"<v.stceciliaschool.org. Revs. Rene R. Ramoso; Sebastine Tor Orya Bula, V.C.; Deaoon J. Rory Desmond. In Res., Rev. Msgr. Floro B. Arcamo, (Retired); Revs. Lodovico Joseph Landi, <Retired); Paul Arnoult. School-St. Cecilia. Sdwol., (Grades K..S), 660 Vicente St., 94116. Tel: 415-731-8400; Fas: 415-731-5686; Email: offi.ce@stc.-eciliaschool.org; Web: www.stceciliaschool.org. .Mr. Christopher Uskert, Prin. Lay Teachers 24; Sister Teachers 2; Students 591. 11--ST. CHARU~ BoRR0M£0 (1&87) 713 S. Van Ness Ave., 94110. Tel: 415..824-1700; Fax: 415-824.o844; Email: sancarlosborromeo@sbcglobal.net; Web: W\11/\v.stcharleschurchsf.com. Revs. Moises Agudo, Admin.; Michael J. Konopik, Parochial Vicar; Deacon Juan Michel 12-CHURCH Of." THE EPIPHANY (1914) 827 Vienna St., 94112. Tel: 415·333-7630; Fax: 415-333-1803; Email: tungol.eugene@sfarch..org ; Web: '"'vw.epiphanysf.com. Very Rev. Eugene D. Tungol; RL.>vS. Michael P. Rocha, Parochial Vicar; Rolando A Caverte, ln Res., (Retired); Deacons Ramon Zamora; Ven Gan:.ia. School-School of the Epipha"y, (TK-8) 600 Italy Ave., 94112. Tel:415-337-4030; Fas: 415-337-8583; &r":b/1~~~~~!~~~~~~i~~;r; Diane Elkins, Prin. Lay Teacheis 25; Students 295. Ca.techesi,s Religious Progra1n- Tel: 415-333-7630, Ext.15; Email: jpedroza@epiphanysf.com. Oliver Meneses, D.R.E. Students 295. 13-CORPUS CHRIS'l'I ( 1898) 62 Santa Rosa Ave., 94112. Tel: 415-585-2991; Email: thodukulam.thomas@sfarch.org. Revs. Thomas Anthony Thodukulan, S.D.B.; Jesse Montes; Edwan:I Liptak, S.D.B.; Aloysius J. Pestun, S.D.B., ln Res.; Deacons Alvaro Ortega; Mynor Montepeque. Catechesi,s Religious Progra1n- Email: corpuschristisfo@gmail.com. Sr. Elizabeth Villanueva, F.M.A., D.R.E. Students 167. 14-ST. 0oMINIC(l873) 2390 Bush St., 94115. Tel: 415-567-7824; Fax: 415-567-1608; Web: '"'""'"..stdominics.org; Email: info@stdominics.org. Revs. Justin Charles Gable, O.P., Prior; Michael J. Hurley, O.P.; Isaiah Mary Molano, O.P.; Christopher Wetzel; Bro. Mi· chael James Rivera, Pastoral Assoc..; Deacons Charles McNeil; Dan Rosen; Dino Ornido; Jimmy Salcido. 1n Res., Revs. Anthony R. Rosevear, Q_p_, Novice Master; Anselm Ramelow, O.P.; Di.smas Sayre; Bro. Gre~ry R. Lira, O.P. Ca.tecllesi.s Religious Prograni-Students 158. 15-ST. EDWARD (1916) Closed. For sacramental records please contact St. Dominic, San Francisco. !&-ST. EuzAB•-rH (1912) (CEMJ 449 Holyoke St., 94134. Tel: 415-468-0820; Tel: 415-587-0407. Rev. Charito E. Suan. Ca.tecllesi.s Religious Prograni-Students 70. 17-ST. EMYDIUS(1913)(CEMJ 286Ashton Ave., 94112. Tel: 415-587-7066; Email: stemydius@sbcglobal.net. Revs. William J. Brady; David M. Pettingill, ln Res., (Retired). 18-ST. FINN BARR ( 1926) (CEMJ 415 Edna St., 94112. Tel: 415-333-3627; Fax: 415-333-4090; Email: stfinnbarr@yahoo.com; ~i~i~trfi~~v B~;~li&1!1d~·r(g:~d~~-1<:-s>. 419 Hearst Ave., 94112. Tel: 415-333-1800; Fax: 415-333-9397; Email: m.mortonson@stfinnbarr.org; Web: www.stfinnbarr.org. Mele Morton.son, Prin. Lay Teache~ 11; Students 242. Ca.tecliesi,s Religious Progra1n- Email: juliet@stfinnbarr.org. Juliet Samonte, D.R.E. Students 10. 19-ST. FRANCIS oi<· ~ISi, NATIONAL SHRINE (1849) 610 Vallejo Sl, 94133. Tel: 415-986-4557; Fax: 415-544-9814; Email: frjohn@shrinesf.org. Very Rev. John De La.Riva, 0.F."A~LCap., Rector. 20-ST. GAilRl<L(1941) 2559 40th Ave., 94116. Tel: 415-731-6161; Email: secretary@sgparish.org. Rev. Thomas M. Hamilton. 1n Res., Revs. Zacharias (Freddie) Thomas, (Chap. at Alma Via of San Francis<.~:>); Paul Zirimenya, (Chap. to the DeaO. Res.: 25354oth Ave., 94116. Tel: 415-731-6161; Email: hamilton.thomas@sfarch.org; Email: secretary@sgparish.org. School-St. Ca.bri..el School, 2550 4lst Ave., 94116. Tel: 415·566·0314; Fas: 415-566-3223; Email: office@stgabrielsf.com; Web: W\vw.stgabrielsf.com. Mrs. Gina Beal, Prin. Lay Teachers 24; Students 419. Ca.techesi.s Religious Prograni-Students 380. 21-HOLY CROSS (1887) (Korean), Closed. For inquiries for parish records contact the dl.ancery. 22-HOLY FAMILY CHINESE MISSION aka St. Mary's Chinese Catholic Center-1903 ( 1921) (Chinese) Now a mission of Old St. Mary's CathedraVHoly Family Chinese Mission, San Francisco. 23-HOLY NAME O>' JESUS (1925) 1555 39th Ave., 94122. Tel: 415-664-8590; Fax: 415-759-4293; Email: hnparishsecretacy@gmail.com; Web: holynamesf.org. Rev. Arnold Zamora; :Most Rev. Ignatius C. Wang, J.C.D., In Res.,(Retired). Res.: 3240 Lawton St., 94122. School-Holy Name School,, (Grades K-8), 1560 40t.h Ave., 94122. Tel: 415-731-4077; Fas: 415-731-3328; Web: www.holynamesf.com. Mr. Michael Miller, Prin. Lay Teachers 12; Students 365. Catechesi,s Religious Program-Cristina Ovejera, D.RE. Students 17. 24-S>r. IGNA11US(1855) 650 Parker Ave., 94118. Tel: 415-422-2188; Email: grprice@usfca.edu; Email: gbonfiglio@usfca.edu; Email: info@stignatiussf.org; Web: stignatiussf.org. Revs. Gregory R. Bonfiglio, S.J.; Paul D. Devot, S.J.; John A Coleman, S.J.; Joseph Spieler, S.J.; Travis Russell, S.J; Deacon Eddy Gutierrez. Ca.tecliesi,s Religious Progra1n-Tel: 415422-2195; Email: mjdiamond@usfca.edu; Web: '"'""'v.stignatiussf.org (click Faith Formation). Mark J. Diamond, Dir. of Parish Faith Formation. Preschool 9; Students 151. 25-ST. JAM£<; (1888) 1086 Guerrero St., 94110. Tel: 415-824-4232; Email: stjmscath@aol.com. Rev. Shouraiah Pudota. School-St. James Sclwol, 321 Fair Oaks St., 94110. Tel: 415-647-8972; Fax: 415-64 7-0166; Email: stjmscath@aol.com; Web: www ..saintjamessf.org. Alex Endo, Prin. Lay Teachers 10; Students 144. Catechesi,s Religious Program-Students 23. Mission-Domini.can Sisters of Mission Smt Jose, 1212 Guerrero St., San Francisco Co. 94110. Tel: 415-824-2052; Email: ic.a@icaacademy.org. Lisa Graham, Prin. 2&-ST. JOHN Ol' Goo (1967) 1290 Fifth Ave., 94122. Tel: 415-566-5610; Email: stjohnofgod-sf@sbcglobal.net; Web: \V\11/\v.sjog.net. Rev. Narcis L. Kabipi, Admin. Ca.tecliesi,s Religious Program-Students 12. 27-ST. JOHN THE EvANOEUST (1893) 19St. Mary's Ave., 94112-1098. Tel:415-334-4646; Email: saintjohn£..>vangelist@yahoo.com; Web: \V\ll/\v.saintJohnEvangelist.org. 98 Bosworth St., 94112. Rev. Agnel De Heredia, Ph.D. School-St. Johll School,, 925 Chenery St., 94131. Tel: 415·584·8383; Fas: 415-584-8359; Email: principalsj@stjohnseagles.com; SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) Web: www.stjolmseagles.com. Sr. Shirley Garibaldi, O.S.U., Prin. Lay Teachers 20; Students 208. Catechesi,s Religious Progrom- Tel: 415·334·4646, Ext. 104; Ernail:saintjohn.re@grnail.com. :Mr. Rodrigo Castillo, D.RE. Students 90. 28--ST. JOS~PH (1861) Closed. For sacramental records please contact St. Patrick, San Francisco. 29-ST. KEVIN (1922) 704 Cortland Ave., 94110. Tel:415-648-5 751; Fax: 415-648-4441; Email: stkevins700aol.com; Web: ww\v..stkevinsforg. Revs. Henryk Noga, S.V.D.; DemetrioAguilar,S.V.D., ln Res. Catechesi,s Religious Progrom- 30-ST .. MICHAEL KoREAN CA11-IOLJC CHURCH (1898) (Korean) 32 Broad St., 94112. Tel: 415-333-1194; Fax: 415-333-1196; Email: stmichaelinfo@gmail.com. Rev. Jeong Con Kim. Catechesi,s Religious Program-~fr. Kitae Lee, Youth Min. Students 35. 31-MISSION DoWR•S BASILICA (1776) (CEMJ (Mission San Francisco de Asis), 3321 16th St., 94114. Tel: 415-621-8203; Fax: 415.621·2294; Email: parish@missiondolores.org. Revs. Francis h'1.P. Garbo, (Philippines); Manuel Curso, In Res., (Retired); Francis Than Hb..m, ln Res.; Stephen A Meriwether, J.C.L., ln Res.; Deacons Vicente Cer· vantes; :Mario Zuniga; Mr. Andy Galvan; Mr. Jerome Lenk, Liturgy Dir. Cateche&s Religious Program.- Email: nicaroses3l@gmail.com. Maria Rosales-- Uribe, D.R.E. Students 46. 32-ST. MONICA (1911) Merged with St. Thomas the Apostle, San Francisco to form St. Monica • St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, San Francisco. 33-ST. }.foNICA • S1'. TuOMAS THE A.ro~"TLE PARISH 470 24th Ave., 94121. Tel: 415-751-5275; Email: saknwski.john@sfan:.h.org. Revs. John J. Sakowski; Kevin Kennedy, Parochial Vicar; Law- S~T1~:·t~~AA~?i:°2'~:Ch,(~;snh~;Site) 3835 Balboa St., 94121. &hools-St. Monica. School-5950 Ceacy Blvd., 94121. Tel: 415-751-9564; Fax: 415-751.0781; Email: office@stmonicasf.org; Web: stmonicasf.org. Mr. Vincent Sweeters, Prin. Lay Teachers 24; Stu· dents 209. St. Thom.as the Apostle School, 3801 Balboa St., 94121. Tel: 415-221-2711; Fax 415-221-8611. Judy Borelli, Prin. Lay Te ache~ 34; Students 280. Catechesi,s Religious Program......Sr. Noreen O'Connor, C.S.J., D.R.E. Students 55. 34-Mosr HOLY RIID££MER (1900) 100 Diamond St., 94114-2414. Tel: 415-863.6259; Email: secretary@mhr.org; Web: \o,•ww.mhr.org. Rev. Matthew B. Link, C.PP .S.; Michael Poma, Business .Mgr. Catechesi.s Religious Program,-35-NA11v11Y ( 1902) (Polish-Croatian) 245 Linden St., 94102. Tel: 415-252-5799; Email: parish@sfnativity.org. Rev. Tadeusz Rusnak, S.Ch Catechesi,s Religious Program-Students 6. 36-NOrRE DAME IJES V1CT01RES(lS56)(F'rench) 566 Bush St., 94108. Tel: 415-397.0113; ~ff:~<Ig'l~~r~ ~=-~·a{;:~~~nL~~edif~!~t~.t~CU: Coord.; Daniel Kaatz, RCIA Coord.; -Miriam Kane, Music Min.; Crace Renaud, Music Min. &hool-Notre Dame des Vidoires &hool, (Grades K. 8), 659 Pine St., 94108. Tel: 415-421.()()69; Fax: 415-421-1440; Email: office@ndvsf.org. Mm. Sarah Currier, Prin. Lay Teachers 23; Students 277. 37-0LIJ ST. MARY~ CATHEDRAL & CHINESE MISSION (1854) 660 California St., 94108. Tel: 415·288.J800; Email: frjohn@Jldsaintmarys.org; Web: '""vw.oldsaintmarys.org. Revs.. John Ardis; Thomas A Tavella, C.S.P .; Joseph Scott, C.S.P .; Dea-con Simon Tsui, Pastoral Assoc. In Res., R(.."VS. Rich- ard Chilson, C.S.P., (Retired); Thomas J. Dove, C.S.P., (Retired); Vincent P. Manalo, C.S.P.; Thomas ~Y:~~~p~;~:ii~h;:JEv:m~~·c~~/.;; ~~1;f~-o~:~ K. Landry, C.S.P. &hools-St. Mary &hool. & Chi11ese Catholic Center-836 Kearny St., 94108. Tel: 415·929-4690; Fax: 415-929-4699; Web: \V\1"\'.stmaryschoolsforg. Chi11ese Language School., 838 Kearny St., 94108. Tel: 415-929-4694. Deacon Simon Tsui, Prin, St. Mary's Language School. Hol.y Family Association-Tel: 415-929-4696; Fax: 415-9294698. Juliana Chung, Chair. Cateche&s Religious Program,.... Missio11-Holy Fam.fly Chi11ese Mission. 38-0UR LAIJY Of" FATIMA BY"'lANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1954) 5920 Geary Blvd., 94121. Tel: 415-752-2052; Email: kennedy.kevin@sfarch.org; 1350 Web: ,.,....,.....,_byz.antinecatholic.org. Rev. Kevin Ken- nedy; Deacon Kyrill Bruce E. Pagacz. Res.: 170 24th Ave., 94121. 39-0UR LADY ot· GUADALUPE, Closed. For sacramental records please contact SS. Peter and Paul, San Francisco. 40-0UR LADY 01• LOURDES ( 1942) 1715 Oakdale Ave., 94124. Tel: 415-285-3377. Revs. Daniel E. Carter, Email: dancrter@aol.com; Andrew lbegbulem, Parochial Vlcar. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program-Joint program with St. Paul of the Ship\o,Teck. Students 103. Missio11-All Hallows Chapel, 1440 Newhall St., San Francisco Co. 94124. 41-ST. PATRICK (1851) 756 .Mission St., 94103. Tel: 415-421-3730; Email: information@stpatricksforg. Revs. Roberto A Andrey; Linh T. Nguyen; Deacon Fen:linand Mariano. In Res., Rev. Raphael L. Laizer. Ca.techesi,s Religious Program.-Nenette Murata, D.R.E. Students 90. 42--ST. PAUL (1880) 221 Valley St., 94131. Tel: 415-648-7538; Fax: 415-648-4740; Email: stpaulssf@gmail.com; ~:~~1~i::oi~iir:O:~-J~~p~1~_:B~dl"'~:1l:uJ!~rg- ch;1d Car~t. Patd littlest Angel Pre-Sclwol., Tel: 415-824-5437; Pax: 415-824-5430; Email: littlestangelpresdmol@gmailcom. Ms. Peg Kayser, Prin. Students 35. School-St. Pmd Sclwol, 1690 Church St., 94131. Tel: 415-648-2055; Fax: 415-648-1920 . .Mrs. Katie Kiss, Prin. Lay Teachers 10; Sb.Jdents 222. Ca.teclLesi.s Religious Program-Dorothy Vigna, D.R.E. Students 58. Convent-Novitiate of the Missionaries of Charity, 312 29th St., 94131. Tel: 415-647-1889. 43-ST. PAULOf"11iESHIPWR£CK(1915) 1122 Jamestown Ave., 94124. Tel: 415-468-3434; Email: spswoffice@aol.com; Web: www.stpauloftheshipwreck.org. Revs. Daniel E. Carter; Andrew lbegbulem, Parochial Vicar; Sr. Estela Martinez Padilla, M.F.P., Pastoral Assoc.; Deacons Larry Chatmon; Sergio Gomez. Ca.techesi,s Religious Program-Students 103. 44-ST. J'>.-r>:R ( 1867) 1200 Florida St., 94110. Tel: 415-282-1652; Email: stpeterparish@yahoo.com; Web: w'"""' .stpetersf.com. R(.."VS. Moises Agudo; Fred- ereck "Paolo" Del Carmen, Parochial Vicar; Michael J. Konopik, Parochial Vicar; Rev. Msgrs. John 1'"'. ~~t~t~~d).Res., (Retired); Jose A. Rodriguez, ln &hoo/,.-.St. Peter Sdwol., (Grades K-8). 1266 Florida St., 94110. Tel: 415-647-8662; Fax: 415-647-4618; Email: info@sanpedro.org; Web: www..stpeters.sf.org. Sandra Jimenez, Prin. Lay Teachers 13; Students 252. Ca.techesi,s Religious Program-Students 345 . 45-SS. P'E1'ER ANIJ PAUL (1&84) Otalian) Sts Peter & Paul: 666 Filbert St., 94133. Tel: 415-421-0809; Email: gibboru@st.speterpaul.san-francisco.ca.us; Web: '"'""v.salesiansspp.org. Revs. Gael E. Sullivan, S.D.B., Admin.; Jose Lucero, S.D.B., Parochial Vicar; Albert Mengon, S.D.B., Parochial Vicar; Gustavo Ramirez, Parochial Vicar; Ernest Martinez, ln Res.; Armand Oliveri, S.D.B., ln Res., (Retired). &hool-Saillts Peter and Paul School, (Grades PreK-8), 660 Filbert St., 94133. Tel: 415-421-5219; Fax: 415-421-1831; Email: lharris@.;speterpaulsf.org ; Web: ssp(..>terpaulsf.org. Dr. Lisa Harris, Ecl.D., Prin. Lay Teachers 26; Students 244. Catechesi-s Religious Program-Students 231. 46-ST. i'HILIPTHEAPO&-r"" (1910) 725 Diamond St., 94114. Tel: 415-282-0141; Email: info@saintphilipparish.org; Web: www.saintphilipparish..org. Rev. John Mary Chung, Admin.; Rio Stefanus, Fin: & Business Mgr. ln Res., Revs. Brendan McBride, (Ireland); Patrick J_ Summerhays, In Res. &hool-St. Philip the Apost,le Sc/wo/_, (Grades PreK- 8), 665 Elizabeth St., 94114. Tel:415-824-8467; Fax: 415-282.0121; Email: info@saintphilipschool.org; Web: '"""""' .saintphilipschool.org. M:.S. Mary McKe-(.."Ver, Prin. Lay Teachers 12; Students 223. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program-Students 9. 47-SACRED HEART (1885) Closed. For inquiries for parish records contact the chancery. 43-STAR o,. mE SEA (1894) 4420 Geary Blvd., 94118. Tel: 415-751-0450; Email: admin@starparish.com; Web: starparish.com. Revs. Joseph Ula; Mark V. Taheny, Parochial Vicar; Mathias Wambua, ln Res.; Cameron M. Faller, ln Res, &hool-Star of the Sea Presd1ool, (Grades PreSchool-8), 360 9th Ave., 94118. Students 31. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program.- Tel: 415· 751-0450, Ext. 22. Students 44. 49-ST. STEPHEN (1950) CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. 601 Eucalyptus Dr., 94132-1526. Tel: 415-681-2444, Ext. I; Fax: 415-681-7843; Email: info@SaintStephenSF.org; Web: W\Vw.SaintStephenSF.org. Mailing Address: 451 Eucalyptus Dr., 94132. Revs. Anthony P. LaTorre; Manuel Abad. School-St. Stephen &hool., 401 Eucalyptus Dr., 94132. Tel: 415-664-8331; Fax: 415-242-5608; Web: ststephenschoolsforg. Mrs. Sharon -McCarthy Allen, Prin. Lay Teachern 19; Students 280. Ca.tedle&s Religious Program,.... Tel: 415-681-2444, Ext.4; Email: faithformation®:iaintstephemf.org. Mary Molly Mullaney, D.RE. Students 27. 5o-ST. TuRESA (1880) 1490 19th St., 94107. Tel: 415-285-5272; Email: inf~stteresasforg; Web: stteresasforg. Mailing Address: 390 -Missouri St., 94107-2820. Revs. Michael A Greenwell, O.Carm.; Michael E. Kwiecien, O.Carm.; Deacon Martin Schurr. Ca.teche&s Religious Program,.....Anna Rose Schelstrate, D.R.E. Students 36. 51-ST. THOMASMOR•(l950) 1300 JwiiperoSerra Blvd., 94132. Tel: 415-452·9634; Email: felipe.marvin@sfarchorg. Revs. Marvin Paul Felipe, S.D.B., (Philippines); Richard Van De Water, Parochial Vicar; Deacons Khaled Abu-Alshaer; Arthur Sanchez. Ca.techesi,s Religious Program-Students 26. 57M!1~~H~:S ~~s~~~E ~J;~2kt~eiJ~~i:t~ ~t Thomas the Apostle Parish, San Francisco. 53-ST. VINCENTDEPAUL(J90J) 2320 Green St., 94123. Tel: 415-922-1010; Email: krnartin@svdpsf.com; Web: svdpsforg. Revs. Kenneth M. Westray; Allan Remo, Parochial Vicar; Rev. Msgr. Harry G. Schlitt, In R.,.,., (Retired); Rev. Michael Strange, P.S.S., ln Res. Sdlool-St. Vi11ce11t de Paul &hool., (Grades K-8), 2350 Green St., 94123. Tel: 415-346-5505; Fax: 415-346-0970; Web: svdpsfcom. Mrs. Margu(..'- rite Pini, Prin. Lay Teache~ 15; Sister Teacher l; Students 242. Ca.tedle&s Religious Progrom.-Students 15. 54-VISITACION, CHURCH Of"THE (1907) 655 Sw:mydale Ave., 94134. Tel: 415-494-5517; rawe~~5~~~~~~~:~~~~~~i~~~-n¥1h~~~o~ Hoang, J.C.L. [n Res., Rev. Victoria R. Balagapo, (Retired). School-Our Lady of the Visitacio11, (Grades K-8), 785 Sw:mydale Ave., 94134. Tel: 415-239-.7840; Fax: 415-239-2559; Email: heverhart@olvsf.org; Email: mluk@Jlvsf.org; Web: ,.,....,.....,_olvsf.org. Mm. Hannah Everhart, Prin.; Mr. Michael Luk, Asst. Prin. Clergy8; Lay Teachers 15; Students 250. Ca.techesi.s Religi.ous Program,-l ncludes Our Lady of Zr~sas~~~l~~,!_is£!d~ 1:{8;,~d~.~~;,e~~ ~~~rado St., Brisbane, San Mateo Co. 94005. OillSIDE THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO BEu.10NT, SAN MATEO Co. !-IMMACULATE HEART Ott MARY ( 194 7) 1040 Alameda de las Pulgas, Belmont, 94002. Tel: 650-593-6157; Email: office@ihmbelmont.org; Web: ihmbelmont.org. 1839 Mezes Ave., Belmont, 94002. Revs. Mark :Mazza; Rufino J.O. Gepiga, Paro- chial Vicar; Deacons Steven Hackett; Henry Jacque- Sd~;;;:~,~~r:::J~:1~eart of Ma.ry School., 1000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Belmont, 94002. Tel: 650·593·4265; Fax: 650·593-4342; Email: ihmoffice@ihrnschoolbelmont.org; Web: '"'""v.ilunschoolbelmont.org. Mrs. Teri Grosey, Prin. Lay Teache~ 11; Students 233. Catechesi,s Religious Program-Mrs. Julie Britton· Kanzaki, C.R.E., Dir. Faith Formation. Students 181. 2--ST. MARK (1965) 325 Marine View Ave., Belmont, 94002. Tel: 650-591-5937; Email: st_markschurch@yahoo.com; Web: '"""'"'-saintmarks.us. Rev. An~I N. Quitalig, J.CL.; Deaoon Geran:l F. Quinn, ln Res. Ca.tedle&s Religious Prograni-Tel: 650-591-7072; Email: sm.faithform@yahoo.com. Students 69. BuRUNOAME, SAN .MATEO CO. 1-ST. CATHERINE oi;· SIENA (1908) 1310 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, 94010. Tel: 650-344·6884; Email: stcsiena@yahoo.com; ~;!~e!~~:~~~1 ~r;:;; ~1?cha~i rit~J~Pa!~ chial Vicar. School-St. Ca.therine of Siena. &hool, (Grades K-8), 1300 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, 94010. Tel: 650-344-7176; Fax: 650-344-7426; Email: office@stcatherineofsiena.net; Web: '"'"'v.stcos.c.'Om. Sr. Antonella Manca, M.S.C., Prin. Lay Teachers 21; Students 308; Cle'ID' I Reli· gious Teachers 2. CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. 2-0UR LADYOfo· ANGELS (1926) 1721 Hillside Dr., Burlingame, 94010. Tel: 650-347-7768; Email: parishoffice@olaparish.org ; Web: ala.community. Revs. Mic-ha.el Mahoney, OP.- M.Cap.; Brian McKenna, O.F.M.Cap.; James Stump, O.F.M.Cap., Parochial Vicar, Eu~ne M. Ludwig, 0.- F. M. Cap., In Res. &hool-Our Lady of Allgels &hool., 1328 Ca brillo Ave., Burlingame, 94010. Tel: 65()..343-9200; Fax: 650-343-5260. Amy Costa, Prin. Lay Teachers 19; Students 311. Child Care-Presdwol., 1341 Cortez Ave., Burlingame, 94010. Tel: 650-343-3115; Email: olapreschool@yahoo.com. Lysette Cukar, Dir.; Daniel Martin, Co-Dir. Lay Teachers 8; Students 52. ~~!fi~e~!~{ff/~IT:~~~;J:~~-3:.~~6J~~na Maychrowi.tz, D.RE.; Chris Mariano, Youth Min. & Dir. Confirmation, Tel: 650-343-5809. Students 310. CoLMA, SAN MATEO Co., HOLY ANGELS(!9!4) 107 San Pedro Rd., C-Olma, 94014. Tel: 650-755-0478, Ext. JOO; Email: ning2allen@yahoo.com. Revs. Alex L. Legaspi; J. 1fanuel Estrada; Antonio G. Petilla, In Res., (Retired}; Deacons Lernito Prudenciado; Joseph Rama... School-Holy Angels School, 20 Reiner St., Colma, 94014. Tel: 650-755-0220; Fax: 650-755-0258; Email: srleonarda@aol.com; Email: stangonan@holyangelscolma.org; Web: \V\Vw.holyangelscolma.com. Sr. Leonarda Mon-. tealto, O.P., Prin. Lay Teachers 17; Students 214; g~~~:!:~~?;7o:!:ep:;,!~~Tel: 650.992.5539; Email: holyangelsccd@hotmail.com. Sr.Anita Torres, P.B.V.M., C.RE. Students 248. DALY CtTY, SAN MAT>X> Co. 1-ST. ANDREW (1968) (Filipino) 1571 Southgate Ave., Daly City, 94015. Tel: 650.756.3222; Email: Lahey.Piers@sfan:.h.org. Rev. Piers M. Lahey. Rectory-One Ridgefield Ave., Daly City, 94015. Email: standrew 1968@att.net. Catechesi.s Religious Progmm.-Tel: 650·991·2937; Email: noels@stanclrew.dalycity.org. J\'1s. Michele Bussey, D.R.E. Students 150. 2-0UR LADY Of" MERCV (Westlake) (1954) One Elmwood Dr., Daly City, 94015. Tel: 650-755-2727; Email: olmcatholicchurch@gmaii.com; Web: olmcath.org. Revs. Domingo Orimaco; Gabriel Wankar, Parochial Vicar; Rey V. Culaba, C.S.S.R., ln Res.; Sr. Virginia Bareelona, R.V.,,.'1., Pastoral Assoc.; Deacons :Michael J. Ghiorso; Marcos M. Cobillas. School-Our W.dy of Mercy Sclwol, 7 Elmwood Dr., Daly City, 94015. Telo 650-756-3395; Fax: 650.756.5872; Web: ,..,... .... w.olmbulldogs.com. Mr. ~~~:le!~rf~J;~~-~~~~:_Tes1~i~.~~!ts~c;<1- Fax: 650-756-3457. Sr. Rosabel Sare, D.RE. Stu- dents 185. C01weut-Religious of the Virgin Mary, 01tr lndy of ~~~~L~~~'~R~~~LJ~31'i'E~?i·9~~l5. 60 Wellington Ave., Daly City, 94-014. Tel: 650-755-9786; Email: olphrec.tory@gmail.com; Web: W\V\v.olphparishdc.org. Revs. Augusto E. Vil· lote; Manuel D. lgrobay, Parochial Vicar. School-Our Lady of Perpetual Help School, 80 Wellington Ave., Daly City, 94014. Tel: 650-755-4438 ; Fax: 650-755-7366; Email: info@blphdc.org; Web: \V\\'w.olphdc.org. Corrine Muscat, Prin. Lay Teachers 9; Students 1S3. Calecltesl,s Religious Program-Tel: 650·755-4010; Email: padre_ba@yahoo.com. Students 190. EA8r PALO ALTO, SAN -MATEO Co., ST. FRANCIS Ott AsstSI (1951) 1425 Bay Rd., East Palo Alto, 94303. Tel: 65()..322.2152; Fax: 650·322.7319. Rev. Law· rence C. Goode; Deacon Louis Dixon. 1n Res., Rev. -Msgr. John R Coleman, (Rc..->tired); Rev. Gabriel Flores. Calecltesl,s Religious Program-Tel: 650..325-6236; Fax: 650.322. 7319. Students 614. FAt••·Ax, MARIN Co., ST. RtTA(l930l lOOMarinda Dr., Fairfax, 94-930. Tel:415-456-4815; Email: saintritafairfax@att.nc..->t; Web: www.SaintRitaChurch.org. Rc..>V. Kenneth M. Weare, Ph.D. Calechesi,s Religious Progmm-'Mrs. Carol Bennetts, DRE. Students 52. Foo11<:R CtTY, SAN MAT>X> Co., ST. LuKE(l970l 1111 Beach Park Blvd., Foster City, 94404. 1H 650-345-6660; Faxo 650-345-8167; Email: saintlukefc@gmail.com; Web: saintlukefc.org. Rev. Jonathan Paala; Deacon Mar Tano. Res.: 1388 Halibut St., Foster City, 94404. Catechesi.s Religious Progmm.-Tel: 650-574-9191; Fax: 650-573-7409. Students 140. GREENBRAE, MARIN Co., ST. SEtWmAN ( 1951) 373 Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae, 94-904. 1351 1H 415-461-0704; Email: sebastian94904@yahoo.com; Web: www.sebastian94904.com. Revs. William H. Thornton; Jerry Murphy, Parochial Vicar; Paul E. Perry, In Res., (Retired); Deacons David Previtali; William Twrentine. Ca.tecliesi.s Religious Program-Students 37. HALI'" :MooN BAY, SAN MATEO Co., OuR LADv o..-11-1..: PtIJ,AR (1868l[CE~·n 400 Church St., Half Moon Bay, 94019. Tel: 650-726-4650; Email: offic.'C@:mrladyofthepillar.org. Revs. Jose M. Corral; John T. Jimenez, Parochial Vicar; Charles Onubogu, In Res. Ca.techesis Religious Progmm.-Tel: 650·726-5587. Students 125. Missions-St. Al1t/w11y-(CE11] 696 North St., Pescadero, San Mateo Co. 94-060. Our Lady of Refuge, 146 Sears Ranch Rd., La Honda, San Mateo C-0. 94020. LAGUNITAS, MARIN Co., ST. CECILIA (1937) 450 W. Cintura Ave., P.O. Box 289, Lagunitas, 94938. Tel: 415-488-9799; Email: stcecilia.lagunitas@yahoo.com; Email: stcecilia.lagunitas@gmail.com; Web: W\V\v .stcecilia·lagunitas.org. Rev. Ngo an V. Phan. Ca.techesi.s Religious Progro.m-Mrs. Carol Bennetts, D.R.E.; Margaret Farley, D.R.E. Students 19. Missio11-St. Mary (1867) 4100 Nicasio Valley Rd., Nicasio, Marin Co. 94946. Email: stmary.nicasic@yahoo.com; Email: stmary.nicasic@gmail.com; Web: www.stmary-nicasio.org. LARKSPUR, MARIN Co., ST. PA11uCK (1915) 4011fagnolia, Larkspur, 94-939. Tel:41S.924-0600; Email: parish@stpatricksmarin.org; Web: \V\VW .stpatricksparish.com. 1'failing Address: 114 King St., Larkspur, 94939. Rev. Msgr. C. Mi- chael Padazinski, J.C.D. School-St. Patrick School, (Grades K-8), 120 King St., Larkspur, 94939. Tel: 415-924-0501; Fax: 415-924-3544; Email: contact@..itpatricksmarin.org; Web: stpatricksmarin.org. Angela Hadsell, Prin. Lay Teachers 21; Students 252. Catechesi,s Religious Progmm- Tel: 415-924-0600, Ext.15; Email: l_gramlich@stpatrick.smarin.org; Email: n_mcauliffc...@stpatricksmarin.org. Lisa Gram- lich, D.R.E.; Nicole McAuliffe, D.R.E. Students 141. MENU) PARK, SAN MATEO CO. !-ST. AN'THONY (1951) 3500 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, 94025. Tel: 650-366-4692; Email: stanthonycatholicparisMPlive.com. Revs. Fabio E. :Medina; Jose Eduardo Mendoza; Max Torres, Operations Mgr. Ca.techesi.s Reli.gi.ous Progmni-Tel: 650-365-6071. Asusena Aguilar, D.R.E. Students 315. Clothi11g Distn"bldio11 Center-Free clothing for men &\\umen. Mission-San Jose Obrero, 400 Heller St., Redwood City, San .Mateo C-0. 94063. 2-CHURCH Of" THE NA1'1Vl1Y (1877) 210 Oak Grove Ave., Menlo Park, 94025. Cell: 650- 323-7914; Faxo 650-323-3231; Email: nativityparish@.bcglobal.net; Web: , ...... ..,...v.nativitymenlo.org. Rev. Msgr. Steven D. Otellini; Rc..>v. Patrick J. Driscoll, Parochial Vicar; Deacon Dominick Pelo.!IO. School-Naliuity Catholic School, (Grades PreK-8), 1250 Laurel St., Menlo Park, 94-025. Tel: 650-325-7304; Fax: 650-325-3841; Email: info@nativityschool.com; Web: W\V\\t.nativityschool.com. Lay Teachers 14; Stu- dents 239. ~&~c;1:~~caRH1iict~. rf.R\~S~~~~ ~-853•1009· 3-ST. DENIS 0853; Restored, 1961) 2250 Avy Ave., .Menlo Pari<, 94025. Web: W\V\o,•.stdenisparish.org; Cell: 415-686-9951; Email:wpodell@aol.com. Rev. W. Paul O'Dell. Mission-Our Lady of tlte Wayside (1902) 930 Portola Rd., Portola Valley, San Mateo Co. 94028. Tel: 650-854-5976; Email: odell.paul@.fareh.org. In Res., Rc..>V. Afagr. Jose A. Rodriguez,(Retired}. Catechesi.s Religious Prograni- Telo 650-854-5976, Ext. 102. Lucy Soltau, D.RE. & Youth Min. Students 215. 4-ST. RAYMOND (1950) 1100 Santa Cruz Ave., Menlo Parle, 94-025. Tel: 650-323-1755; Fax: 650-561-3755; ~b:il~..,~~~.::~:O':i~~i;~1iev. Jerome Cudden, O.P.; Deacon Tom Kelly. In Res., Revs. Michael Arna· bisco; Dominic DeLay; Michael Carey; Allen Robert Duston, O.P.; Xavier M. Lavagetto, O.P.; Patrick O'Neil, O.P.; Emmanuel F. Taylor, O.P. Res.: 1231 Arbor Rd., Menlo Parle, 94-025. School-St. Raymond School, (Grades PreK-8), 1211 SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) Arbor Rd., Menlo Park, 94025. Telo 650-322-2312; Fax: 650.322·2910; Email: vmattei@strayrnond.org; Web: www.straymond.org. Ms. Valerie Mattei, Prin. Lay Teachers 29; Sister Teachers 1; Students 270. Ca.tecllesi,s Religious Progmm.-Students 164. MILL VAILEY, MARIN Co., OUR LADY 01'' MT. CARMEL (1910) 3 Oakdale Ave., Mill Valley, 9494-1. Tel: 415·388·4190; Email: officeolmc.@gmail.com; Web: www.mountcarmelmv.org. Rev. Patrick T. Michaels. Ca.tecltesis Religious Progmm.-Students 130. MILLBRAE, SAN MAn:o Co., ST. DuN>-rAN (1940) 1133 Broadway, Millbrae, 94-030. Tel: 650-697-4730; Email: glynn.joseph@.farch.org; Web: saintdunstanchurch.org. Rc..>vs. Joseph Glynn, C.S.Sp.; Diarmuid C. Casey, C.S.Sp., Parochial Vicar; Brendan Hally, C.S.Sp., Parochial Vicar; Alwyn Furtado, C.S.Sp., In Res.; Deacon Richan! £:£::,~t. Dwtsla11 School, 1150 Magnolia Ave., Millbrae, 94030. Telo 650-697-8119; Fax: 650-697-9295; Email: ccalauna n@st.dunstan.org; Web: st.-dunstan.org. Mr. James Spray Jr., Prill. Lay Teachers 18; Students 202. Ca.techesi.s Religious Progmni-Tel: 650-697-7451; Email: stdunstanccd@att.net. Sherre Leone, D.R.E. Students 125. NOVA1'0, MARIN Co. 1-8T.AN11iONYOf." PADUA(1968) 1000 Cambridge St., Novato, 94-94-7. Tel: 415-883-2177; Fax: 415-883-4049; Email: felix_lim@yahoo.com; Web: \\'\V\V.stanthonynovato.org. Revs. Felix Lim; Don Morgan, Ln Res..; Deacon Joseph Brumbaugh. 2-0UR LADY Of" LoR•"TT00892) 1806 Novato Blvd., Novato, 94947. Tel: 415-897-2171 ; Email: church@bllnovato.org; Web: \V\V\v.ollnovato.org. Revs. Brian L. Costello; Tony S. Vallecillo, Parochial Vicar. School-Our Lady of Loretto School., 1811 Virginia Ave., Novato, 94-94-5. Tel: 415-892-8621; Fax: 415-892.9631; Web: school.ollnovato.org. Kathleen Kraft, Prin. Lay Teachers 15; Students 194. Ca.tecllesi.s Religious Progmm.-Tel:415-897..6714; Email: amy@bllnovato.org. Amy Bjorklund Reeder, D.R.E.; Annie Troy, Youth Min., Confirmation Dir., RCIA & Adult Faith Formation. Students 200; Mid· die School 55. 0LEMA, MARIN Co., SACRED HEART (1867) (GEM) 10189 State Rte.!, P.O. Box 70, Olema, 94950. Tel: 415-663-1139; Fax: 415-663-9660; Email: arauz.erick@.farch.org; Email: sacredhearl@horizoncable.com. Rev. Erick E. Arauz. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program-Students 30. Missio!l-St. Mary Magdalelle, 16 Horseshoe Hill, Bolinas, Marin Co. 94924. PACWICA, SAN MA'TEOCO. 1-GooDSHEPl-IERD (1951} 901 Oceana Blvd., Pacifica, 94-044. Tel: 650-355.2593 k~~;.~;:;;5,t~~;;d pac-®.bcglobal. net; Web: \V\V\v.g.schun::hca.org. Rev. Luello N. Palacpac, (Philippines); Deacons Joseph LeBlanc; Ben Sal van; Suzanne Chinn, Pastoral Assoc. School-Good Shepherd School., (Grades PreK-8), 909 Oceana Blvd., Pacifica, 94-044. Tel: 650.359-4544 ·Fax· 650-359-4558· Email: gss.office@g~shepherdschool.us; Web: good.shephen:lschool.us. Andreina Guako, Prin. Lay Teachers 9; Students 150. 2-ST. P•-rER ( 1956) 700 Oddstad Blvd., Pacifica, 94044. Tel: 650-359-6313; Email: stpeterpacifica@eomcast.net; Web: www.stpeterpac:ifica.org. Rev. Jerome P. Foley; Sr. Hilda Sandoval, M.F.P. Ca.tecllesi.s Religious Progmni-Tel: 650~59-5000; Email: strhilda@gmail.com. Sr. Hilda Sandoval, M.F.P., D.R.E. Students 165. PORTOLA VALLEY, SAN MATEO Co., OuR l.AoY oio· 11-1E WAYSIDE (1941) See separate listing. See St. Denis, Menlo Parle. Rev. Msgrs. Jose A. Rodriguez, <Retired); John F. Rodriguez, (Retired). REDWOOD C11Y, SAN MATIW Co. !-ST .. MA TI'HIAS ( 1961) 1685 Cordilleras Rd., Redwood City, 94-062. Tel: 650·366.9544; Email: info@stmatthiasparish.org ; Web: \\'\Vw.sbnatthiasparish.org. Rev. David A Ghiorso; Deacons George A Salinger; Richard P. Foley; David Rolandelli. Child Care-St. Matthias Presdiool, 533 Canyon Rd., Redwood City, 94062. Tel: 650-367-1320; Fax: 650-366-1049; Web: \\'\V\V.Stmatthiasparish.org. Students 61. 2-0UR LADY Of" MOUNT CARMEL( 1887) 300 Fulton St., Redwood City, 94062. SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) Tel: 650-366-3803; Email: parish@mountcarmel.org. Rev. Ulysses L D'Aquila; Deacon ThomasJ. Boyle. Res.: 347 Crnnd St., Redwood City, 94062. School-Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, 301 ~~~ 6~:a~~t C~?db~~i~~~~:!~~s;:e\~:~. M:S. Teresa Anthony, Prin. Lay Teachers 16; Stu· dents 301. Catechesi,s Re/igi.ous Program-Tel: 650·368..SZ37. Students 387. 3-ST. PIUS (1951) 1100 Woodside Rd., Red.wood City, 94061. Tel: 650-361-1411; Email: saint.@pius.org; Web: W\V\\'.pius.org. Revs. Thomas V. Martin; Kyle J. Faller, Parochial Vicar; Edgardo Rodriguez. ln Res., Rev. Gerald D. Coleman, P.S.S., S.T L., Ph.D., (Retired). School-St. Pius School., Tel: 650.3fi8...8327; Fax: 650-368· 7031; Email: n:armll@stpiusschool.org; Web: stpiusschooLorg. Rita Carroll, Prin. Lay Teach· ers 16; Students 271. Catechesi.s Religious Progmm.---Stud.ents 117. RO&;, MARIN CO., ST. ANSELM (1907) 97 Shady Ln., P.O. Box 1061, Ross, 94957. Tel: 415453·2342; Email: infd@sain~elm.org; Web: \11\Yw·.saintanselm.org. Rev. Jose Shaji; Deacons Bernard O'Halloran; F..clwanl. Cwmingham; Robert Yee Meave. &hool-St. Anselm. School, 40 Belle Ave., San Anselmo, 94960. Tel:415454..S667; Fax: 4154544730; Web: stanselmschooLcom. Kim Orendorff, Prin. Lay Teachers 33; Students 256. Catechesi.s Religious Program-Natalie Larraga, DR.E. Students 143. SAN BKUNO, SAN .MATEO CO. I-ST. BRUNO (1912) 555 San Bruno Ave. W., San Bruno, 94066. Tel: 650-588-2121; Email: lupita.stbnmos@gmail.com. Rc..-v. Michael Brillant.es; Deacon Ramon De La Rosa. Catechesi.s Religious Program.- Tel: 650-588-2121, Ext. 114. Kacey Carny, D.R.E. Students 368. 2-ST. ROO<RT (1958) 1380 Crystal Springs Rd., San Bruno, 94066. Tel· 650-589-2800· Em~il: receptiondrsaintroberl.s.org. Revs. John L Greene; Tony S. Vallecillo; Deacon John Meyer. School-St. Robert School,, 345 Oak Ave., San Bruno, 94066. Tel: 650-583-5065; Fax: 650-583-1418; Web: saintrnberl·school.org. Margo Wright, Prin. Lay Teachers 14; Students 317. Cateclle&s Reli.gi.ous Program,......Tel: 650-588-0477. Students 243. SAN CARLOS, SAN MATEO C<l.,ST. CHARL&S (1928) 880 Tamarack Ave., San Carlos, 94070. Tel: 650-591-7349; Email: Parishoffice@stcharlesparish.org; Web: www.stcharlesparish.org. Revs. David A Ghiorso; Samuel Musiimenta, Parochial Vicar; Dea- con Emievon Ernster. &hool-St. Charles School, (Grades K-8), S50 Tamarack Ave., San Carlos, 94070. Tel: 650-593-1629; Fax: 650-593-9723; Email: mannand<@stcharlesschoolsc.org; Web: stcharlesschoolsc.org. -Megan Armando, Prin. Lay Teachers 18; Students 272. s~a~1A'~~~ :~i1t;~~C3~'n-Sttxlents 347. 1-ST. BARTHOWMEW( 1955) 600 Columbia Dr., San Mateo, 94402. Tel: 650-347-0701; Email: stbarts<i!barts.org. Revs. Michael J. Healy; Teodoro P. Magpayo, S.V.D., Paro- chial Vicar. Res.: 300 Alameda de las Pulgas, San Mateo, 94402. Email: Healy.Michael@.farch..org. Catechesi.s Religious Program-Rachel Smit, D..R.E. Students 254. 2-ST. GREOORY (1941) 2715 Hacienda St., San Mateo, 94403. ~~~~!4!@.SS:~::~:;;:~:;lf,29; Web: saintgregmychureh.org. Revs. V. Mark P. Reburiano; Oliver Ortese, Parochial Vicar; Deacons Salvatore Campagna Jr.; Stephen Fox; Robert Leath- ers. School-St. Gregory School, 2701 Hacienda St., San Mateo, 94403. Tel: 650-573-0111; Fax: 650-573-6548; Web: stgregs-sanmateo.org. Laura Miller, Prin. Lay Teachers 15; Students 309. Cateclle&s Religious Progra1n-Students 380. 3-ST. MATI'HEW (1863) One Notre Dame Ave., San Mateo, 94402. Tel· 650-344-7622· Fax· 650-344-4830· Em~il: parish@.t~att.hewcath.org; ' Web: ww,v..stmatthew-parish.org. Rev. Msgr. John J. Talesfore; Revs. Dominic Savio Lee, Parochial Vicar; Alvin Yu, Parochial Vicar; Teresita C.Ontreras, Pasto- ral Assoc. ln Res., Most R(.>v. WilliamJ. Justice; Rev. Thomas M. Parenti, (Retired). School-St. Matthew School, (Grades K-8), 910 S. El 1352 Camino Real, San Mateo, 94402. Tel: 650-343-1373; Fax: 650-343-2046; Email: office@stmatthewcath.org ; Web: W\'l\\'.stmatthewcath.org. Adrian Peterson, Prin. Lay Teachers 26; Students 624. ~~~~:~~C:T~~/?f~~) Program-Students 405. 1515 Dolan Ave., San Mateo, 94401. Tel: 650-342-2468; Email: info@sttims.us; Web: www.sttirns.us. Rev. Alner U. Nambatac, (Phil· ippines); Deacom Faiva Po'oi; Fred Totah.. ln Res., Rev. Kapiolani Kakala. &hool-St. Timot,hy &hool, Tel: 650-342-6567; Fax: 650-342-5913; Web: W\'l\\'.sttimothyschool.org; Email: dallen@.ttimothyschool.org. Ms. Michelle Basile, Prin. Lay Teachers 17; Students 214. Ca.teclle&s Reli.gious Program-Tel: 650-579-0901. Students 203. SAN RAf"AEL MARIN co I-BUSSED, SACRAr.OOrr (1951) Closed. For sacramental records please contact St. Isabella, San Rafael. 2-ST. [SABELLA (Terra Linda) (1961) [CEMJ 1 Trinity Way, P.O. Box 6166, San Rafael, 94903. Tel: 415479-1560; Email: office@stisabellasparish.org; Web: W\vw.stisabellasparish.org. Revs. Cvril J. O'Sullivan; Ephrem Tillya, Parochial Vicar; 1'ony S. Vallecillo, Parochial Vicar; C.Omelius J. Healy, ln Res., (Retired); Deacon Graham Cumming. &hool-St. Isabella School, (Grades K-8), Tel: 415479-3727; Fax: 415-479-9961; Email: snaretW:Wstisabellaschool.org; Web: ww,11t.stisabellaschoolorg. Susan Naret-to, Prin. Lay Teachers 19; Students 220. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program- Email: psr@stisabellasparish..org. Ms. Lyn Gatti, D.R.E. Students 300. 3-ST. RAPHAEL(i817) 1104 Fifth Ave., San Rafael, 94901. Tel: 415454-8141; Email: Frspyro,..@saintraphael.com; Email: kaguilal®saintrnphael.com; Web: \'l\Vw.saintraphael.com. Very Rev. Andrew P. Spyrow; Revs. Wade E. Bjerke, Parochial Vicar; San- tos Rodriguez, Parochial Vicar; Deaoon Eugene B. Snnth. School-St. Raphael School, 1100 Fifth Ave., San Rafael, 94901. Tel: 4154544455; Fax: 415-454-5927; Email: office@straphaelschool.com; Web: www.straphaelschool.com. Lydia C.Ollins, Prin. Lay Teachers 13; Students 231. Ca.techesis Religious Program-Tel: 415-459-7331; Fax: 415-454-8193. Students 557. Mission-St. Syluester, 1115 Point San Pedro Rd., San Rafael, Marin C.O. 94901. Station-San Quentin State Prison, San Quentin, NM. Tel: 415456-8161. 4-ST. SYLVESl'ER (1961) Closed. For sacramental records please contact St. Raphael, San Rafael. SAUSAL11U, MARIN CO., ST. MARY STAR Ott THE SEA (1881) 180 Harrison Ave., Sausalito, 94965. Tel: 415-332·1765; Email: frmike@starofthesea.us. Rev. -Michael F. Quinn. Ca.teche&s Religious Program,- Email: john@starofthesea.us. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO CO. I-ALL SouLS (1913) 315 Walnut Ave., South San Francisco, 94080. Tel: 650-871-8944; Fax: 650-871-5806; Email: pastor@allsoulsparishssf.org; Email: fnnario@allsoulsparishssf.org; Email: sec:retary@allsoulsparishssf.org; Web: w\vw.allsoulsparishssf.org. Revs. Kazimierz Abrahamczyk; :Mario Olea. Schools-All Souls Preschool-Tel: 650-871-1751. Mrs. Carla Malouf Jisrawi, Dir. Lay Teachers 3; Stu- dents 24. All Souls School, (Grades K-8), 4 79 Miller Ave., South San Francisco, 94080. Tel: 650-583-3562; Fax: 65()...952-1167; Email: info®.isfallsoulsschool.org ; Web: W\\'\\'.ssfallsoulsschool.org. Mr. Vincent Riener, Prin. Lay Teachers 20; Students 276. Ca.teclte&sReligious Program-Tel: 650-873--5356; Email: religiouseduc.ation@allsoulsparishssf.org. Ms. Lourdes Yniguez, D.RE. Students 370. 2-ST. AUGU~'TINE (1970) 3700 Callan Blvd., South San Francisco, 94080. Tel: 650-873·2282; Email: Staugustinessf@aol.com; Web: Staugustinessf.org. Revs. Raymund M. Reyes; Eduardo Dura; :Martin S. Njoalu; Deacons Nestor Fernandez II; Virgil Capetti. 3-MATER 00LOROOA(l961) 307 Willow Ave., South San Francisco, 94080. Tel: 650-583·4131; Email: frances@mdssf.org; Web: '"""w.mdssf.org. Revs. Rolando S. De la Rosa; Vito J. Perrone, In Res.; Deacons Alex Aragon; Ro- meo Cruz. ~f!~~~~s t~~~'lJ:s :~~;nFe~:ai&c~~~~l Students 116. CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. 4-ST. VKRONICA (1951) 434 Alida Way, South San Francisco, 94080. Tel: 650-588-1455; Email: churehoffic:e@stveronicassf.com; Web: ,..,....,....,_stveronicassf.com. Rev. Charles Puthota; Deacon Roger Beaudry. School-St. Veronica School, Tel: 65().589-3909; Fax: 650-589-2826; Web: W\\'\V.saintveronicassf.org. Kathryn Lucx:hesi, Prin Lay Teachers 9; Students 291. Ca.tedle&s Religious Program,_ Tel: 650-588-1455, Ext. 305; ~~gi~~lmoxt:i%mFo~!~::&!:d~fSt:l~nts~~n TIBURON, MARIN CO., ST. HtL<RY (1951) 761 Hilary Dr., Tiburon, 94920-1421. Tel: 415435-1122; Email: DianaR@StHilary.Org; Web: '"""""'.StHilary.org. Revs.. William E. Brown; Ernesto M. Jandonero, Parochial Vicar. Sdtool-St .. Hila.ry &hool, 765 Hilary Dr., Tiburon, 94920. Tel: 415-435-2224; Fax: 415-435-5895; Web: '"""""' ..sainthilaryschool.org. Ms. Marie Borde-leau, Prin. Lay Teachers 23; Students 273. Ca.techesi.s Religious Program-Llsa Veto, D..R.E. Students 125. TOMAU:S, MARIN CO., CHURCH m· THK ASSUMPI'ION (1860) (CEM) 26825 Shoreline Hwy., P.O. Box 82, Tamales, 94971- 0082. Tel: 707-878-0028; Email: lopez.juan@sfarch.org. Rev. Juan Manuel Lopez. Ca.teclle&s Religious Prograrn-Tel: 707-878-2208; Email: lopezjuanmanuel585@grnail.com. Students 42. Mission-St. Hele11 (1902) Tel: 650-720-1429; Email: lopezjuanmanuel585@gmail.com. wg:':!\'"r::'.:.~~~':'nt~;,,:,tl~~e';..~~~~1~: Denis, :Menlo Park. Chaplains of' Public Institutions SAN FRANCISCO. St. Francis Hospital. Franciscans from St. Boniface Parish. Ka.iser Hospital Sa1t Fraiicisco. Rev. Michael E. Kwiecien, O.Carm. /Viights of Malta. The Sovereign -Military Order of Malta (Western U.S.A. Association of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta-a Nonprofit la<;~f:H~~,r:/~. ~;,~~i{~.;>_tc:JePti~W~~~a. Sr. Olga Cristobal. St. Mary's Medical Center. Rev. Michael A Greenwell, O.Cann. Sa11 Fra11cisco Fi.re Department. Rev. John L. Greene. Sa11 Fraiicisco General Hospital. Rev. Francis Than Htun. Sa11 Fmncisco Police Department. Rev. Michael J. Healy. Sa11 Fmncisco State Uni.v., Newmaii Center. Rev. -Marvin Paul Felipe,S.D.B., (Philippines). St. Thom.as More Society. (Legal). Rev. Roger G. Gustafson. ~~Sfn~,I~~g!al,c1iITT~~i{~s. Narcis L. Kabipi, Parnassus. Raphael L. Laiz.cr, Mission Bay, Te Van Nguyen, Parnassus.. Young Ladies' Institute. Rev. Thomas M. Hamilton, Grand. Chap. St!...,'ON :MEDICAL CENn:RRev. Quoc Nguyen, O.F.M.Cap. DALY CITY. &ton Hospital. Priests of St. Andrew Parish. MARIN.Serra CfobofMarU1. REDWOOD CITY. Sequoia Hospital. Rev. Malachy Theophilus, 0.SA. SAN -MATEO. Serra Club of Sall Mateo. Vacant. SJ1£riffs Honor Camp mid Medi.um. Security Facility. Served by An:.hdioc:ese and St. Vincent de Paul volunteers, San Mateo District C.Otmcil. SAN QUENTIN. Califor11iaSta.te Prison, Tel: 415454-1460. Rev. George T. Williams, S.J., Chap. On Special Assignment: Rev. A'1sgrs.- Padazinski, C. Michael, J.Cn., Chancellor Vergara, RomuloA.,J.CD., Judicial Vicar VeryRevs.- =·~~~!i": ~l:; fi; ~fe~~h~peaking Spyrow, Andrew P., As.soc. Vicar for Clergy Tungol, Eugene D., Vicar for Filipinos Revs.- Faller, Cameron M., Vocations Hoang, Thuan V., J.C.L., Tribtmal, Office of Tyribnnal. (Part-time) ~~If;~~~f~~~f tL~rfrth~~unal SAN FRANCISCO (SFR) Congregation for the Ihctrine of the Faith, Died Sep. 26, 2019 t Christian, Robert F., o.p., Auxiliary Bishop of San .Francisco, Died Jul. 11, 2019 1358 t Pernia, Jolm R.,(Retired), Died Jan. 11, 2019 t Tarantino, James T., Belmont, CA Saint Mark, Died Apr. 25, 2018 t Deru:h, Richard &.(Retired>. Died Jul. 11. 2019 CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE U.S. t Greenlaw, Martin F.,(Retired), Died Feb. 28, 2018 t Mmris, Jam"" H .• (Retired), Died Sep. 1, 2018 t Pham, Joseph Hung, (Retired), Died Mar. 20, 2018 An asterisk (*) denotes an organization that has established true-exempt status directly with the IRS and is not covered by the USCCB Group Ruling. Office of the General Counsel 3211 FOURTH STREET, NE  WASHINGTON, DC 20017-1194  202-541-3300  FAX 202-541-3337 November 19, 2020 TO: Subordinate Organizations under USCCB Group Ruling (GEN: 0928) SUBJECT: 2020 Group Ruling FROM: Anthony Picarello, General Counsel Madeline Obler, Assistant General Counsel ______________________________________________________________________________ This memorandum relates to the annual Group Ruling determination letter issued to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”) by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the most recent of which is dated November 2, 2020, with respect to the federal tax status of subordinate organizations listed in the 2020 edition of the Official Catholic Directory ("OCD").1 As explained in greater detail below, this 2020 Group Ruling determination letter is important for establishing: (1) exemption of subordinate organizations under the USCCB Group Ruling from federal income tax; and (2) deductibility of contributions to such organizations for federal income, gift, and estate tax purposes. The 2020 Group Ruling determination letter is the latest in a series that began with the original determination letter of March 25, 1946. In the original 1946 letter, the Treasury Department affirmed the exemption from federal income tax of all Catholic institutions listed in the OCD for that year. Each year since 1946, in a separate letter, the 1946 ruling has been reaffirmed with respect to subordinate organizations listed in the current edition of the OCD.2 The annual group ruling letter clarifies important tax consequences for Catholic institutions listed in the OCD, and should be retained for ready reference. Group Ruling letters from prior years establish tax consequences with respect to transactions occurring during those years. UBIT on Fringe Benefits. Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Act of 2019, Public Law 116-94, enacted in December 2019, repealed section 512(a)(7) to the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), which subjected tax-exempt organizations to unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) to the extent they pay or incur expenses for any qualified transportation fringe described in section 132(f) and any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking (the “parking 1 A copy of the most recent Group Ruling determination letter and this memo may be found on the General Counsel's "Tax and Group Ruling” page. 2 Catholic organizations with independent IRS exemption determination letters are listed in the 2020 OCD with an asterisk (*), which indicates that such organizations are not included in the Group Ruling. 2 lot tax”). As the repeal was retroactive to the date of enactment, exempt organizations can request refunds of amounts paid in tax years 2018 and 2019 toward the parking lot tax. Exempt organizations seeking refunds for amounts paid in 2018 may file an amended Form 990-T, and exempt organizations seeking a refund for estimated taxes paid toward the parking lot tax in 2019 are advised to file Form 4466, Corporation Application for Quick Refund of Overpayment of Estimated Tax, to receive a refund of amounts paid toward 2019. Responsibilities under Group Ruling. Diocesan officials who compile OCD information for submission to the OCD publisher are responsible for the accuracy of such information. They must ensure that only qualified organizations are listed, that organizations are listed under their correct legal names, that organizations that cease to qualify are deleted promptly, and that newly-qualified organizations are listed as soon as possible. EXPLANATION 1. Exemption from Federal Income Tax. The latest Group Ruling determination letter reaffirms that the agencies and instrumentalities and educational, charitable, and religious institutions operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, its territories or possessions that appear in the 2020 OCD and are subordinate organizations under the Group Ruling are recognized as exempt from federal income tax and described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code. The Group Ruling determination letter does not cover organizations listed with asterisks or any foreign organizations listed in the 2020 OCD. Verification of Exemption under Group Ruling. The latest Group Ruling determination letter indicates that subordinate organizations are not listed in Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub. 78 data) (“TEOS,” formerly “EO Select Check), and many are not listed in the Exempt Organizations Business Master File extract, or EO BMF . As a result, many subordinate organizations included in the USCCB Group Ruling are not included in various online databases (e.g., GuideStar) that are derived from the EO BMF. This does not mean that subordinate organizations included in the Group Ruling are not tax exempt, that contributions to them are not deductible, or that they are not eligible for grant funding from corporations, private foundations, sponsors of donor-advised funds or other donors that rely on online databases for verification of tax-exempt status. It does mean that a Group Ruling subordinate may have to make an extra effort to document its eligibility to receive charitable contributions. The Group Ruling determination letter states that donors may verify that a subordinate organization is included in the Group Ruling by consulting the Official Catholic Directory or by contacting the USCCB directly. It also states that the IRS does not verify inclusion of subordinate organizations under the Group Ruling. Accordingly, neither subordinate organizations nor donors should contact the IRS to verify inclusion under the Group Ruling. Subordinate organizations should refer donors, including corporations, private foundations, and sponsors of donor-advised funds, to the specific language in the Group Ruling determination letter regarding verification of tax-exempt status and to IRS Publication 4573, 3 Group Exemptions, available on the IRS website at www.irs.gov.3 Publication 4573 explains that: (1) the IRS does not determine which organizations are included in a group exemption; (2) subordinate organizations exempt under a group exemption do not receive their own IRS determination letters; (3) exemption under a group ruling is verified by reference to the official subordinate listing (e.g., the Official Catholic Directory); and (4) it is not necessary for an organization included in a group exemption to be listed in TEOS or the EO BMF. Although not required, organizations in the Group Ruling may be included in the EO BMF, and consequently, online databases derived from it. 2. Public Charity Status. The latest Group Ruling determination letter recognizes that subordinate organizations included in the 2020 OCD are public charities and not private foundations under section 509(a) of the Code, but that all subordinate organizations do not share the same public charity status under section 509(a). Therefore, although the USCCB is classified as a public charity under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(i), that public charity status does not automatically extend to subordinate organizations covered under the Group Ruling. Verification of Public Charity Status. Each subordinate organization in the Group Ruling must establish its own public charity status under section 509(a)(1), 509(a)(2), or 509(a)(3) as a condition to inclusion in the Group Ruling. Certain types of subordinate organizations included in the Group Ruling qualify as public charities by definition under the Code. These are: • churches and conventions or associations of churches under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (generally limited to dioceses, parishes and religious orders); • elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(ii); and • hospitals under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Other subordinate organizations covered under the Group Ruling may qualify under the public support tests of either sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) or section 509(a)(2). Verification of public charity classification under either of the support tests generally can be established by providing a written declaration of the applicable classification signed by an officer of the organization, along with a reasoned written opinion of counsel and a copy of Schedule A of Form 990/EZ, if applicable. Large institutional donors, such as private foundations and sponsors of donor-advised funds, may require this verification prior to making a contribution or grant to be assured that the grantee is not a Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.4 A subordinate organization included in the Group Ruling may want to file Form 8940, Request for Miscellaneous Determination, with the IRS to request a determination that it is a publicly supported charity described in sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) or section 3 For an illustration of how exemption verification works, refer to the “Information for Donors and Grantmakers” link on the USCCB website “Tax and Group Ruling.” page. 4 See Notice 2014-4, 2014-2 I.R.B (January 6, 2014). 4 509(a)(2), or is a Type I or II supporting organization, in order to satisfy private foundations and sponsors of donor-advised funds regarding its public charity status. 3. Deductibility of Contributions. The latest Group Ruling determination letter assures donors that contributions to subordinate organizations listed in the 2020 OCD are deductible for federal income, gift, and estate tax purposes. 4. Unemployment Tax. As section 501(c)(3) organizations, subordinate organizations covered by the Group Ruling are exempt from federal unemployment tax. However, individual states may impose unemployment tax on subordinate organizations even though they are exempt from federal unemployment tax. Please consult a local tax advisor about any state unemployment tax questions. 5. Social Security Tax. All section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, are required to withhold and pay taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) for each employee.5 However, services performed by diocesan priests in the exercise of their ministry are not considered “employment” for FICA (Social Security) purposes.6 FICA should not be withheld from their salaries. For Social Security purposes, diocesan priests are subject to self-employment tax ("SECA") on their salaries as well as on the value of meals and housing or housing allowances provided to them.7 Neither FICA nor income tax withholding is required on remuneration paid directly to religious institutes for members who are subject to vows of poverty and obedience and are employed by organizations included in the Official Catholic Directory.8 6. Federal Excise Tax. Inclusion in the Group Ruling has no effect on a subordinate organization's liability for federal excise taxes. Exemption from these taxes is very limited. Please consult a local tax advisor about any excise tax questions. 7. State/Local Taxes. Inclusion in the Group Ruling does not automatically establish a subordinate organization's exemption from state or local income, sales, or property taxes. Typically, separate exemptions must be obtained from the appropriate state or local tax authorities in order to qualify for any applicable exemptions. Please consult a local tax advisor about any state or local tax exemption questions. 8. Form 990/EZ/N. All subordinate organizations included in the Group Ruling must file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, Form 990-EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, or Form 990-N, e-Postcard, unless they 5 Section 3121(w) of the Code permits certain church-related organizations to make an irrevocable election to avoid payment of FICA taxes, but only if such organizations are opposed for religious reasons to payment of social security taxes. 6 I.R.C. § 3121(b)(8)(A). 7 I.R.C. § 1402(a)(8). 8 Rev. Rul. 77-290, 1977-2 C.B. 26. See also OGC/LRCR Memorandum on Compensation of Religious, (September 11, 2006). 5 are eligible for a mandatory or discretionary exception to this filing requirement. There is no automatic exemption from the Form 990/EZ/N filing requirement simply because an organization is included in the Group Ruling or listed in the OCD. Subordinate organizations must use their own EIN to file Form 990/EZ/N. Do not use the EIN of the USCCB or an affiliated parish, diocese or other organization to file a return. Form 990/EZ/N is due by the 15th day of the fifth month after the close of an organization’s fiscal year.9 The following organizations are not required to file Form 990/EZ/N: (i) churches and conventions or associations of churches; (ii) integrated auxiliaries;10 (iii) the exclusively religious activities of religious orders; and (iv) schools below college level affiliated with a church or operated by a religious order.11 Organizations should exercise caution if they choose not to file a Form 990/EZ/N because they believe they are not required to do so. If IRS records indicate that the organization should file a Form 990/EZ/N each year (for example, the organization receives an IRS notice stating that it failed to file a return for a given year), then the organization may appear on the auto-revocation list notwithstanding its claim to being exempt from the filing requirement. Which form an organization is required to file usually depends on the organization’s gross receipts or the fair market value of its assets. Gross receipts or fair market value of assets Return required Gross receipts normally not more than $50,000 (regardless of total assets) 990-N (but may file a Form 990 or 990-EZ) Gross receipts < $200,000, and Total assets < $500,000 990-EZ (but may file a Form 990) Gross receipts ≥ $200,000, or Total assets ≥ $500,000 990 Special Rules for Section 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations. Every supporting organization described in section 509(a)(3) included in the Group Ruling must file a Form 990 or Form 990-EZ (and not Form 990-N) each year, unless (i) the organization can establish that it is an integrated auxiliary of a church within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 1.6033-2(h) (in which case the organization need not file Form 990/EZ or Form 990-N); or (ii) the organization’s gross receipts are normally not more than $5,000, in which case, the religious supporting organization 9 The penalty for failure to file the Form 990/EZ is $20 for each day the failure continues, up to a maximum of $10,000 or 5 percent of the organization’s gross receipts, whichever is less. However, organizations with annual gross receipts in excess of $1 million are subject to penalties of $100 per day, up to a maximum of $50,000. I.R.C. § 6652(c)(1)(A). There is no monetary penalty for failing to file or filing late a Form 990-N. 10 I.R.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(i); Treas. Reg. § 1.6033-2(h). 11 Treas. Reg. § 1.6033-2(g)(1)(vii). 6 may file Form 990-N in lieu of a Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. Automatic Revocation for Failure to File a Required Form 990/EZ/N. Any organization that does not file a required Form 990/EZ/N for three consecutive years automatically loses its tax-exempt status under section 6033(j). If an organization loses its tax-exempt status under section 6033(j), it must file an application (Form 1023 or Form 1023-EZ) with the IRS to reinstate its tax-exempt status. See the IRS website (charities and non-profits) at www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits / for information on automatic revocation, including the current list of revoked organizations and guidance about reinstatement of exemption. Public Disclosure and Inspection. Subordinate organizations required to file Form 990/EZ12 must upon request make a copy of the form and its schedules (other than contributor lists) and attachments available for public inspection during regular business hours at the organization's principal office and at any regional or district offices having three or more employees. Form 990/EZ for a particular year must be made available for a three year period beginning with the due date of the return.13 In addition, any organization that files Form 990/EZ must comply with written or in-person requests for copies of the form. The organization may impose no fees other than a reasonable fee to cover copying and mailing costs. If requested, copies of the forms for the past three years must be provided. In-person requests must be satisfied on the same day. Written requests must be satisfied within 30 days.14 Public Disclosure of Form 990-T. Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Unrelated Business Income Tax Return, for organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3) (which includes all organizations in the USCCB Group Ruling) is subject to rules similar to those for public inspection and copying of Forms 990/EZ.15 Group Returns. USCCB does not file a group return Form 990 on behalf of any organizations in the Group Ruling. In addition, no subordinate organization under the Group Ruling is authorized to file a group return for its own affiliated group of organizations. 12 Form 990-N is available for public inspection at no cost through the IRS website at www.irs.gov. 13 The penalty for failure to permit public inspection of the Form 990 is $20 for each day during which such failure continues, up to a maximum of $10,000. I.R.C. § 6652(c)(1)(C). 14 I.R.C. § 6104(d). Generally, a copy of an organization's exemption application and supporting documents must also be provided on the same basis. However, since organizations included in the Group Ruling do not file exemption applications with the IRS, nor did the USCCB, organizations included in the Group Ruling should respond to requests for public inspection and written or in-person requests for copies by providing a copy of the page of the current OCD on which they are listed. If a covered organization does not have a copy of the current OCD, it has two weeks within which to make it available for inspection and to comply with in-person requests for copies. Written requests must be satisfied within the general time limits. 15 Only the Form 990-T itself, and any schedules, attachments, and supporting documents that relate to the imposition of tax on the unrelated business income of the organization, are required to be made available for public inspection. 7 For more information, refer to Annual Filing Requirements for Catholic Organizations. 9. Certification of Racial Nondiscrimination by Private Schools in Group Ruling. Revenue Procedure 75-5016 sets forth notice, publication,17 and record keeping requirements regarding racially nondiscriminatory policies with which private schools, including church-related schools, must comply as a condition of establishing and maintaining exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Under Rev. Proc. 75-50 private schools are required to file an annual certification of racial nondiscrimination with the IRS. For private schools not required to file Form 990, the annual certification must be filed on Form 5578, Annual Certification of Racial Nondiscrimination for a Private School Exempt from Federal Income Tax. This form is available at www.irs.gov. Form 5578 must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month following the close of the fiscal year. Form 5578 may be filed by an individual school or by the diocese on behalf of all schools operated under diocesan auspices. The requirements of Rev. Proc. 75-50 remain in effect and must be complied with by all schools listed in the OCD. Diocesan or school officials should ensure that the requirements of Rev. Proc. 75-50 are met since failure to do so could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the school and, in the case of a school not legally separate from the church, the tax-exempt status of the church itself. For more information, refer to Annual Filing Requirements for Catholic Organizations. 10. Lobbying Activities. Subordinate organizations under the Group Ruling may lobby for changes in the law, provided such lobbying is not more than an insubstantial part of their total activities. Attempts to influence legislation both directly and through grassroots lobbying at the federal, state, or local levels are subject to this restriction. The term “lobbying” includes activities in support of or in opposition to referenda, constitutional amendments, and similar ballot initiatives. There is no distinction between lobbying activity that is related to a subordinate organization’s exempt purposes and lobbying that is not. There is no fixed percentage that constitutes a safe harbor for “insubstantial” lobbying. Please consult a local tax advisor about any lobbying activity questions. For more information, refer to Political Activity and Lobby Guidelines for Catholic Organizations. 11.Political Activities. Subordinate organizations under the Group Ruling may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any 16 1975-2 C.B. 587. 17 Revenue Procedure 2019-22, 2019-22 I.R.B. 1260, revised Revenue Procedure 75-50 to include a third method by which a private school may make its racially nondiscriminatory policy known to all segments of the general community the school serves. The school may now display a notice of its racially nondiscriminatory policy on its primary publicly accessible Internet homepage at all times during the tax year (excluding temporary outages due to website maintenance or technical problems) in a manner reasonably expected to be noticed by visitors to the homepage. 8 candidate for public office. Violation of the prohibition against political campaign intervention can jeopardize the organization's tax-exempt status. In addition to revoking tax- exempt status, IRS may also impose excise taxes on an exempt organization and its managers on account of political expenditures. Please consult a local tax advisor about any political campaign intervention questions. For more information, refer to Political Activity and Lobby Guidelines for Catholic Organizations. 12.Group Exemption Number (“GEN”). The group exemption number or GEN assigned to the USCCB Group Ruling is 0928. This number must be included on each Form 990/EZ, Form 990-T, and Form 5578 required to be filed by a subordinate organization under the Group Ruling.18 We advise against using GEN 0928 on Form SS-4, Request for Employer Identification Number, because in the past this has resulted in the IRS improperly including the USCCB as part of the subordinate organization's name in IRS records. 13.Employer Identification Numbers (“EINs”). Each subordinate organizationunder the Group Ruling must have and use its own EIN. Do not use the EIN of the USCCB or an affiliated parish, diocese, or other organization in any filings with IRS (e.g., Forms 941, W-2, 1099, or 990/EZ) or other financial documents. Subordinate organizations may not use USCCB’s EIN in order to qualify for online donations, grants or matching gifts. 18 The IRS has expressed concern about organizations covered under the Group Ruling that fail to include the group exemption number (0928) on their Form 990/EZ/T filings, particularly the initial filing. Internal Revenue Service P.O. Box 2508 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Date: November 2, 2020 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 3211 4th Street, NE Washington, DC 20017-1194 Dear Sir/Madam: Department of the Treasury Person to Contact: R. Meyer ID# 0110429 Toll Free Telephone Number: 8 77-829-5500 Group Exemption Number: 0928 This responds to your July 23, 2020, request for information regarding the status of your group tax exemption. Our records indicate that you were issued a determination letter in March 1946, that you are currently exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are described in sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1 )(A)(i). With your request, you provided a copy of the Official Catholic Directory for 2020, which includes the names and addresses of the agencies and instrumentalities and the educational, charitable, and religious institutions operated by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, its territories, and possessions that are subordinate organizations under your group tax exemption. Your request indicated that each subordinate organization is a non-profit organization, that no part of the net earnings thereof inures to the benefit of any individual, and that no substantial part of their activities is for promotion of legislation. You have further represented that none of your subordinate organizations is a private foundation under section 509(a), although all subordinates do not all share the same sub-classification under section 509(a). Based on your representations, the subordinate organizations in the Official Catholic Directory for 2020 are recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code under GEN 0928. Donors may deduct contributions to you and your subordinate organizations as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to them or for their use are deductible for federal estate and gifts tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of section 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Subordinate organizations under a group exemption do not receive individual exemption letters. Subordinate organizations are not listed in Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub 78 data), and many are not listed in the Exempt Organizations Business Master STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD PO BOX 942857 SACRAMENTO CA 94257-0540 Entity Status Letter Date: ESL ID: Why You Received This Letter According to our records, the following entity information is true and accurate as of the date of this letter. Entity ID: Entity Name: 1.The entity is in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board. 2.The entity is not in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board. 3.The entity is currently exempt from tax under Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 23701 4.We do not have current information about the entity. 5. The entity was administratively dissolved/cancelled on through the Franchise Tax Board Administrative Dissolution process. Important Information •This information does not necessarily reflect the entity's current legal or administrative status with any otheragency of the state of California or other governmental agency or body. •If the entity's powers, rights, and privileges were suspended or forfeited at any time in the past, or if theentity did business in California at a time when it was not qualified or not registered to do business inCalifornia, this information does not reflect the status or voidability of contracts made by the entity inCalifornia during the period the entity was suspended or forfeited (R&TC Sections 23304.1, 23304.5,23305a, 23305.1). •The entity certificate of revivor may have a time limitation or may limit the functions the revived entity canperform, or both (R&TC Section 23305b). Connect With Us Web: ftb.ca.gov Phone: 800.852.5711 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays, except state holidays 916.845.6500 from outside the United States TTY/TDD: 800.822.6268 for persons with hearing or speech impairments FTB 4263A WEB (REV 12-2019) 12/7/2020 3519512569 0025244 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO d. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 16 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 687 Hilary Drive: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new single-family residence in the R-1 zone; Terrell, Owners; Gary and Marybeth Sheppard, Appellants; File No. DR2020-015; Assessor Parcel No. 055-211-08. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is considering an appeal of the Design Review Board’s approval of the proposed project located at 687 Hilary Drive. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends the Town Council hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town’s adopted procedure, close the public hearing, deliberate and consider adopting one of the following options: 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board’s approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 4) Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board’s decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: PH - 2 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 16 PROJECT DATA Address: 687 Hilary Drive Owners: Basia and Christian Terrell Applicant: Richard Berling, Pacific Design Group Appellants: Gary and Marybeth Sheppard (685 Hilary Drive) Assessor’s Parcel: 055-211-08 File Numbers: DR2020-015 Lot Area: 18,388 square Feet Zoning: R-1 (Single-family Residential Zone) General Plan: MH (Medium High Density Residential) Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-year flood zone) SUMMARY On December 3, 2020, the Design Review Board voted 4-1(one boardmember voted no) to conditionally approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new single-family residence located at 687 Hilary Drive. The owners of the property at 685 Hilary Drive, Gary and Marybeth Sheppard (hereafter referred to as “appellants”), have filed a timely appeal of the Board’s decision. The basis of the appeal request prepared by the appellants is attached in Exhibit 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Design Review Board conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a single-family residence on an R-1 zoned property located at 687 Hilary Drive. The subject property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,245 square foot one-story single-family residence with a 382 square foot attached one-car garage. The existing residence was constructed in 1954 with improvements over time. The proposed 3,606 square feet single-family home includes a 667 square foot two-car attached garage, where the maximum of 3,839 square feet is permitted for a lot of this size in the R-1 zone. The project includes three levels. The lowest level is an excavated entryway and garage. To achieve this, the applicant proposes to lower the existing grade and connect with Hilary Drive at the same level for a 200 square foot entry foyer with stairs up to the main home. In addition, the excavated area will also include a 667 square foot attached garage. On the main level, the project includes a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, powder room and a guest room. On the upper level, the project includes a master ensuite bedroom, an ensuite bedroom, two bedrooms and a bathroom. The main level is above the entry foyer, but it is not above the garage at the lowest level. The upper level has an open deck above the entry foyer and it is not above the garage at the lowest level. Thus, the proposed project is a two-story home with a subterranean garage and entry. The proposed residence has a two-story mass on the east, west and north elevations. However, from the street level, the front elevation (south) gives the appearance of a three-stories due to the Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 16 excavated garage and entry. The proposed design incorporates terraced landscape elements and massing that steps up from the street to provide articulation and to offset the impact of perceived three stories, and height impacts at street level. Other exterior improvements include a new driveway, planters and retaining walls by the front elevation, a new terrace above the garage by the east (right), an improvement of the existing lawn by the west (left), new stairs and landing for a new hot tub located on the hillside within the rear yard, and two decks on the upper floor. All decks will be oriented toward the view to the south. The project includes a 20’-6” wide concrete driveway and a 4’ wide pathway that connect Hillary Drive at a location that is centered along the lot frontage. The attached two-car garage will be located in the excavated area that tuck under an upper-level terrace. The project proposes to maintain most of the existing mature landscape onsite, and to replacing minor landscaping in the front yard. Numerous planters and retaining walls are proposed by the driveway at the front of the property. As conditioned, the project will include landscape materials to effectively screen around the sides of hot tub on the landing at the rear side of the property. The project will also include 8 to 10 feet tall shrubbery along the fences on both sides. A portion of the existing perimeter fence will be replaced with a 6’ tall cedar fence. The project, along with exterior improvements, will cover approximately 4,587 square feet (24.9%) of the lot where a maximum of 30% is allowed in the R-1 zone. The main residence will be constructed at the height of 30’ when measured from excavated grade at the lowest level to the top of upper level. The proposed residence has a flat roof and a 3’ wide typical eave. The eave width will extend up to 5’ in some areas to provide overhang for excessive sunlight. Five new skylights will be installed on the roof along with solar panels. Overall, the project is built within the buildable area and is in compliance with the development standards prescribed for properties in R-1 zone district. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board held two separate hearings on the application. The staff reports and minutes of those meetings are attached as Exhibits 3-6. A brief summary of each meeting is as follows: Design Review Board meeting on October 15, 2020 The application was first reviewed at the October 15, 2020, Design Review Board meeting. During the meeting, five nearby neighbors and neighbor’s representative spoke in opposition and one neighbor spoke in support of the project. Most neighbors who objected to the project shared a similar concern: that the proposed home with a three-story appearance was in contrast to a neighborhood that has predominantly one-story appearance. Those neighbors felt the project would not fit well with the low-profiled homes found in the immediate neighborhood. The adjoining neighbors at 685 (the appellants) and 689 Hilary Drive voiced concerns over visual, privacy, noise, sun/shade impacts the proposed project may have on their respective properties. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 16 After receiving public testimony and deliberation on the project plan, the Design Review Board found that the proposed architectural style and exterior meet the Town’s aesthetic design standards. The design approach to create usable space by burying the garage and putting the house above the terraced space is reasonable when considering the unique site characteristics with steep topography at the rear of a relatively large trapezoid shaped lot. Most boardmembers felt that this site presents opportunity for a two-story home since views from the uphill neighbors would not be significantly impacted. Though, boardmembers also expressed concerns regarding the impact of upper floor mass on some of the neighboring structures. The recommendations made at the initial hearing by the Board included: further articulate the side elevations and/or put upper floor mass toward the center, to reduce the perceived bulk, height, and massing from both sides; and further articulate and/or step upper floor mass toward the hillside to reduced perceived bulk and height of the proposed home from the street level; and further sink down the mass and/or the plate height to reduce the overall height; and add a landscape buffer and/or setback upper deck and terrace to reduce perceived mass from the street level; and reorient and/or reduce the size of windows to address privacy and lighting impacts to nearby neighbors; and reorient and/or add screening on the upper floor deck to mitigate privacy impacts; and proposed foliage along the side yards that grow above the fence line. The application was continued to the November 19, 2020, meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the project design. Since project revisions were not received in time for preparation of the packet, the project was subsequently continued to the December 3, 2020, Design Review Board meeting. Design Review Board meeting on December 3, 2020 The revised project plans were reviewed by the Design Review Board at the December 3, 2020, meeting. An overview of the modifications in the revised project plan provided by the applicant was outlined in the staff report as follows: 1. Extend landing area to the lawn on the left (west) side at the main level. 2. Shift and modify massing articulation (from kitchen) on the left (west) side at the main level. 3. Modify massing articulations (from bedrooms and bathrooms) on the left (west) side at the upper level. 4. Reduce the number of windows from the left (west) elevation at the upper level from eight to four windows. Two of the proposed windows have a sill height of 5’. 5. Reduce the number of windows from the right (east) elevation at the upper level from three to one window. 6. Add two new 2’-6” square skylights for a total of five skylights. 7. Modify massing articulation (from expanded hall space and upper deck) on the right (east) side at the upper level. 8. Add a deck toward the back by the left (west) side at the upper level. 9. Include 12’ tall screening hedge to the left (west) and right (east) sides along the fence lines. 10. Include lighting details on floor plans and elevations. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised project plan (Exhibit 10), along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments, and conducted on-site inspections as Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 16 appropriate. On December 3, 2020, after receiving public testimony and making deliberation at the public meeting, the Design Review Board voted four to one to approve the revised project plan, as amended by the following conditions, which were specified in the adopted resolution (Exhibit 2): a. Eliminate proposed recess downlighting under soffit and only allow wall washer. b. Reduce the total number of exterior lighting by 25% from the proposed lighting plan. c. Include landscape materials at a substantial size that would effectively screen around the sides of the hot tub on the landing at the rear side of the property. d. Replace the proposed California Laurel along the property lines on both sides to a tapestry hedge, with a controlled height between 8 to 10 feet, and the species determined following input and discussions with abutting neighbors, with final landscape plan subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. e. Reduce the size and increase the sill height of east (right) facing window in the master bedroom to above 5’ with the goal to respect neighbor’s privacy. f. Eliminate the proposed rear deck that has access from bedroom 1 and bedroom 2. On December 17, 2020, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Town Council may wish to review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). 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. 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. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. 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. 5. 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. 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. 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 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 16 proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize 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. 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. 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 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. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. 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 II (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. HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES The Town Council should also review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (J): Design review guidelines. In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the review authority shall also apply goals and principles, as appropriate to the project, set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines, Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, and any other guidelines adopted by Council, copies of which are available from the planning division. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are four (4) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1: Design Review Board decision was made as an error to allow a three-story house in a predominately one-story neighborhood, which is inconsistent with the applicable land use policies for residential projects in the Town’s General Plan 2020, specifically LU-5, LU-13 and LU-15. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 16 LU- 5: New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhood and open spaces. LU-13: Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristic, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible. LU-15: Remodels, tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Response: Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16-10.040 specifies the Authority and relationship of the zoning ordinance to the general plan. This section states that, ‘This zoning ordinance carries out the policies of the town of Tiburon General Plan, referred to as the "general plan," by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the town, consistent with the general plan. The town council intends that all provisions of this zoning ordinance be consistent with the general plan, and that any land use or development approved in compliance with these regulations will also be consistent with the general plan (where applicable).’ The Town established a zoning map and development standards which implement the general plan. The project, as approved by the Design Review Board, meets the development standards that are prescribed for R-1 zoned properties in the zoning ordinance. The project conforms to the general plan land use designation as medium high density (MH) and is found in conformity with the policy established in the general plan as a whole. The project will continue the land use as a single-family home. The Design Review Board reviewed the project as a two-story home above an excavated garage and entry. From the street level, the proposed structure will have a three-story appearance. Despite the three-story appearance, it is only a two-story building as upper level is stepped back from the lowest level, and further, the proposed height will meet the limitations set forth in the zoning ordinance. After deliberation at two public meetings, the majority of Boardmembers found the project is an appropriate design for a site with unique characteristics: the subject site is large in size, has irregular shape with short frontage, and hilly topography on the rear side, limiting the buildable area and distinguishes this property from other properties in the immediate neighborhood with regular lot shapes and less slope. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 16 While the Board acknowledged that the scale and size of the proposed home is under the maximum floor area allowance for a lot of this size, the evaluation conducted by the Board focused on how the proposed residence will fit into its immediate context that has predominately low-profiled homes with few new second story additions. The Board found the project, as conditioned, is properly laid out on the site, reasonably respects its adjoining neighbors with appropriate setbacks, and has sufficient articulations and stepbacks on the sides and from the street to reduce the perceived mass and height. The Board found the project is designed to be generally compatible with the nearby neighborhood and meets all development standards. During the December 3, 2020, Design Review Board meeting, Boardmember Berger in his remarks stated that the Board’s assessment also considers compatibility as opposed to solely consistency with existing neighborhood character. He noted that the neighborhood character will change over time. The municipal code allows properties in this neighborhood to have more than single-story homes. While Boardmembers Crescini and Kim questioned whether the proposed second floor could be reduced and be centered to the lot for the perception of a smaller building, Vice Chair Chong stated the proposed project is consistent with modern development and favored a design that will support families with children when bedrooms are on the same floor and therefore not requesting a change to the massing or layout of the residence. When reviewing the project for its compatibility with the neighborhood character, the Design Review Board had considered the context of existing conditions and the zoning framework established to implement the general plan. The majority of boardmembers found that the proposed architectural style will enhance the site and is compatible with the highest standards of improvement found in the surrounding neighborhood. Ground #2: Design Review Board decision was made as an error to allow a three-story house in a predominately one-story neighborhood, which is inconsistent with the applicable provisions in the Zoning Code, specifically Section 16-52.020 (H)(3), ‘Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. Staff Response: The appellants raise concerns over the Board’s assessment and contend that the height and bulk of the proposed home will not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings on Hilary Drive and in the vicinity. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 16 On December 3, 2020, after receiving public testimony and making deliberation at the public meeting, the Design Review Board voted four to one to approve the project, as amended by conditions imposed in the resolution. In approving the project, the Board determined that the project will further the purposes set forth in the Zoning Ordinance sections 16-52.020 (A) and satisfy the guiding principles of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H). An excerpt of the resolution adopted by the Design Review Board with reference to Section 16-52.020 (H) (3) is outlined as follows: ‘As noted, residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story addition. Since the proposed residence is located in a portion of the neighborhood with predominantly an appearance of one-story design from the street, the proposed project is designed to step back massing from the street to maintain a reasonable relationship with the existing buildings in the vicinity. The project complies with the setback, lot coverage, gross floor area and height requirements for the R-1 zone. The amount of floor area proposed by the project is appropriate for a lot of this size. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the buildable area and provide generous buffers that exceed the minimum side setback requirement of 8’. The right (east) side setback will be increased from the existing condition of approximately 5’-8” to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback will be reduced from the existing condition of approximately 20’ to 16’-1”. The project will be built at the maximum height of 30’ when the home is designed to integrate into the hillside with two stories of livable area and an excavated garage/entry. Revisions were made to increase façade articulations with the goal of reducing perceived bulk of the project. With the revisions, the Board finds that the project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity.’ The project is proposed to have a flat roofed structure at a maximum grade elevation of approximately 121.5’. According to the topography and boundary survey found in the proposed drawings, the ridge height of the existing home on the right (east) side of the subject site has a grade elevation of approximately 121.0’. The appellants’ property on the left (west) side of the subject property is located at a higher finished grade elevation and the ridge height of the existing home has a grade elevation of approximately 112.6’. The majority of boardmembers found that the subject property, when considering the topography in its surrounding, presented an opportunity for development of more than one-story when view blockage is not an issue. In addition, the proposed project is Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 16 located in an area where nearby homes are not exclusively one-story, including the adjoining property 689 Hilary Drive. The proposed height of the project appears to reasonably relate to the existing buildings in the vicinity. During the two meetings, Boardmembers Kim and Cresini expressed concerns on the proposed massing and referred to the existing two-story homes on the right (east) side of the subject site at 689 Hilary Drive that has an upper-floor mass that is located at the center of the lot. Chair Barringer pointed out that the upper-floor mass of the proposed project is 16’-1” from the left (west) property line (approximately over 35’ from the existing home on the appellants’ property at 685 Hilary Drive) and is 18’-6” from the right (east) property (approximately over 26’ from the existing home at 689 Hilary Drive). He noted that these setbacks provided considerable distance and should be acknowledged as design features that will minimize the effect of massing and intrusion on the neighborhood consistent with the guiding principle. Boardmember Berger also noted that the proposed stepping of the upper levels on the side elevations and the proposed approximately 10’ stepback from the street is significant in an urbanized residential surrounding and will help to reduce perceived mass and height. With increased setbacks and massing articulations, the Board found that the proposed design will bear a reasonable relationship to existing buildings in the vicinity, which is consistent with the guiding principles as outlined in Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.020 (H) (3). Ground #3: Design Review Board decision was made as an error to allow a three-story house in a predominately one-story neighborhood, which is inconsistent with the guidance provided in the ‘Guidance for second story home additions’, specifically on factors like Neighborhood pattern, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade Neighborhood pattern. In neighborhoods consisting of predominant one-story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one-story dwellings. Two-story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods. Privacy. A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow someone to look into the yards or private spaces of their neighbors. These privacy-invading elements of new second story projects should be identified and avoid early in design phase. Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second story can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in nearby yards. Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 16 Staff Response: The ‘Guidance for second story home additions’ is a handout developed by the Community Development Department in 2015 that outlines the factors to be considered by Staff and property owners when adding a second story to an existing one-story home or constructing a new two-story home. Neighborhood pattern. The Hawthorne Terrace subdivision was constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Residences in the Hawthorne Terrance neighborhood are generally varied in shape, size, height and style. Some homes are split-level and two-level forms, the single-family residences near this portion of Hilary Drive are primarily in single-story appearance with low pitch cross-gabled roof. Throughout the years, several homes with second story additions exist in the subdivision. The example in the vicinity is the home that is located right (east) of the subject property. The Board determined that this project site is appropriate to have a development that is more than one-story. Privacy. The Design Review Board expressed concern on privacy after reviewing the initial project plan on the October 15, 2020, meeting. The Board continued the project after making suggestions to advance the project, including to reorient and/or reduce the size of windows to address privacy and lighting impacts to nearby neighbors, reorient and/or add screening on the upper floor decks to mitigate privacy impacts, and propose foliage, at a mature height that will grow above 6’ along the side yards. In the second Design Review Board meeting on December 3, 2020, the applicant presented a revised project plan which reduced the number of windows on the left (west) elevation at upper floor from eight to four windows. Two of the proposed windows have a sill height of 5’ for light and air. The remaining two windows will be located toward the rear side of the proposed home and are orientated away from the appellants’ home with approximately over 45’ in distance. On the right (east) elevation, one window is proposed on the upper floor and is located approximately 48’ from the existing home on the adjoining properties. The Board imposed the condition to further reduce the size and increase the sill height of east (right) facing window in the master bedroom to above 5’ with the goal to further respect the neighbor’s privacy. In regards to the proposed decks, the Board conditioned the project to only allow two upper-decks that are oriented toward the view. One out of the two decks will be visible from the appellants’ property and is approximately 35’ from the appellants’ home. This deck will have a view toward the front yard of the appellants’ site. The other deck is visible from the adjoining property on the right (east) and is located over 26’ from the ground floor of the nearby structure and is located approximately 45’ from the upper floor of the nearby structure. When assessing privacy issues, the Board had considered the 6’ tall fence along the perimeter and existing vegetation. The Board found that additional foliage along the perimeter of the project site will help to reduce the opportunity of Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 16 unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks. The Board imposed an additional condition requiring the project to include a tapestry hedge, with a controlled height between 8-10 feet. The Board encourage that the species be determined with input and discussions with abutting neighbors, but ultimately the final landscape plan was subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. In addition to the contentions made by appellants regarding privacy, neighbors at 689 Hilary Drive have also raised similar concerns. In particular, they claim that a redwood tree near the boundary line between 687 Hilary Drive and 689 Hilary Drive will need to be removed. Those neighbors state that the eventual removal of redwood tree will substantially impact privacy between the properties. At the time of the hearing, no determination had been made whether the redwood tree would need to be removed. As the Design Review Board is not the body to resolve that dispute, the Board considered the application as presented. After deliberation, the Board found the proposed project, as conditioned, will adequately address privacy impacts to nearby neighbors. Sunlight and Shade. In the staff report to the Design Review Board for the October 15, 2020, meeting, a section on Sunlight and Shade was outlined to help facilitate the Board discussion: ‘The project will be built to the maximum height of 30’ allowed in the R-1 zone. Given consideration to the surrounding context with primarily single-story appearance, a shade study was prepared as attached in the project plan on sheet ss1. The shade study is to illustrate how the proposed residence’s layout, massing, and height may have shade impact to the surrounding area at different times of the day and year. The study indicates that direct sun light is reaching most of the surrounding buildings and yards outside the subject site during summer solstice. Winter solstice is the shortest day of the year, which will represent the worst case impacts a proposed structure may have upon nearby land use and structures. The study shows that shade is primarily casting toward the rear of the subject property in the winter solstice. The exception is during morning hours, the adjacent property to the west (left) is expected to have sunlight obstruction. The existing building on the subject property and other existing developments in the neighborhood would normally shade in the northwestern direction onto adjoining areas in the winter solstice during these morning hours. The proposed building height will add to the length of shadow casting onto adjoining area during the same hours. With consideration of natural terrain and existing vegetation, the Board may want to assess whether the added shade impact brought by the proposed residence would negatively impact adjoining properties. Similar analysis was referenced in the staff report for the December 3, 2020, Design Review Board meeting. In that meeting, Boardmember Berger Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 13 OF 16 commented that the project will block some sunlight at certain times of the day, but not in parts of the house they expect most of the sunlight. Chair Barringer stated that the project is roughly 16’ from the left (west) property line and the upper floor has sufficient setback to not create a significant sunlight issue. Vice Chair Chong visited appellants’ property and noted that some windows will lose some views and sunlight. When he assessed the proposed location of upper-floor mass, he found that it is appropriately setback from the appellants’ home to mitigate these issues. Most of the boardmembers also acknowledged the existing vegetation and proposed hedge will contribute to the issue of sunlight blockage to nearby properties. The Board found that the project, as conditioned, will achieve the goal of maintaining privacy while minimizing the amount of sunlight that would be lost. The Design Review Board conditionally approved the project after considering the factors outlined in the ‘Guidance for second story home additions’, particularly on Neighborhood Pattern, Privacy and Sunlight and Shade. Ground #4: Design Review Board decision was made as an error to allow a three-story house with two active spaces/outdoor decks that will generate noise and light pollution onto the appellants’ property, which is inconsistent with the guidance provided in the Hillside Design Guidelines. Specifically, Goal 2, Principle 9 states that, ‘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. Staff Response: The proposed outdoor space facing the appellants’ property is consistent with the existing condition. The proposed project will improve the existing lawn by expanding toward the hillside to allow more functional and level outdoor space. The location and size of the proposed outdoor space facing the appellants’ property appears to serve similar function as the current conditions. The proposed project will improve access from the house toward this outdoor space. As conditioned, all excess downlighting under the soffit will be replaced by wall scones. The proposed total number of exterior lighting is also required to be reduced by 25% from the proposed light plan to allow lighting for safe access. This outdoor space will be bounded by an 8’ wide landscape buffer. As conditioned, the project will have a tapestry hedge with a controlled height between 8-10 feet in this landscape buffer. The proposed small landing with a hot tub is located on the hill at the rear side of the property. On the December 3, 2020, Design Review Board meeting, the Board had carefully assessed the location of this landing and evaluated the potential noise and privacy impacts that this landing would bring to nearby neighbors. Boardmembers noted that the landing will be high up on elevation but Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 14 OF 16 it is setback at a considerable distance from nearby neighbors. To mitigate potential privacy and noise issues, the Board imposed condition to include landscape materials at a substantial size that would effectively screen around the sides of the hot tub on the landing at the rear side of the property. The other proposed outdoor space is not visible from the appellants’ property and is located on the right (east) side of the home. With hilly terrain at the rear side that limits the availability of outdoor space on this property, the project is designed to utilize the terraced area above the excavated garage as open space. This design approach will orientate building mass away from the street. The majority of the Boardmembers found it is a reasonable design approach for this site. Similar to the left (west) side, this outdoor space will be bounded by an 8’ wide landscape buffer. As conditioned, the project will have a tapestry hedge with a controlled height between 8-10 feet in this landscape buffer. The comments made by boardmembers relating to the proposed decks can be found in previous section of this report. As conditioned, the Board found that the project includes outdoor spaces with appropriate distance, sufficient landscape and reasonable lighting, that will address noise and light pollution onto the appellants’ property. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board considered the application as required by TMC 16-52.020(E) and reviewed the project to determine and make findings on whether the proposed use and structure furthered the purposes and satisfied 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. In reaching their conclusion to approve the project, the Design Review Board imposed reasonable conditions it determined necessary in order to make the findings required by the municipal code. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, multiple letters have been received from nearby neighbors to speak in opposition of the project and/or in support of the appeal (Exhibit 7). The applicant had submitted a letter in respond to the appeal request (Exhibit 8). Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 15 OF 16 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 the December 3, 2020 Design Review Board, as part of its review of the project and approval of the construction of a new single-family dwelling, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). To the extent further analysis is required, staff recommends that the Town Council similarly determine that with respect to the limited Site Plan and Architectural Review approval at issue the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the same Class 3 categorical exemptions, and that no exceptions to the exemptions apply. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines § 15303 – New Construction/Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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. 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) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwellings surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The property and existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties because 1) the existing structure is not listed on the Town’s Local Historic Landmarks list; 2) the existing structure is not listed on the California Historic Resources list; 3) the existing structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and 4) there is no evidence that the property meets any of the criteria for the listing. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board approve new homes in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council conduct a public hearing on this matter, deliberate and then consider adopting one of the following options: Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 16 OF 16 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board’s approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 4) Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board’s decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal. 2. Design Review Board Action Letter with Final Conditions of Approval. 3. December 3, 2020 Design Review Board Staff Report with attachments and late mail. 4. October 15, 2020 Design Review Board Staff Report with attachments and late mail. 5. Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Design Review Board meeting. 6. Minutes of the October 15, 2020 Design Review Board meeting. 7. Multiple Public Comment Letters to Support the Appeal since the December 3, 2020 Design Review Board meeting. 8. Applicant’s Response Letter to the Appeal Request, received on March 11, 2021. 9. Resolution 17-2010 Appeal procedures. 10. Approved Site Plan and Architectural Drawings, reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 3, 2020. EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 17 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 Agenda Item: PH-1 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Christy Fong, Senior Planner Subject: 687 Hilary Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-211-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owners; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and exterior improvements would contain approximately 3,606 square feet of floor area and cover 4,587 square feet (24.9%) of the lot. Continued from the November 19, 2020 meeting. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 687 HILARY DRIVE OWNER: BASIA AND CHRISTIAN TERRELL APPLICANT: RICHARD BERLING, PACIFIC DESIGN GROUP ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 055-211-08 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-015 LOT SIZE: 18,388 square feet ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 PSA DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 (EXTENDED) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting design review for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 687 Hilary Drive. The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,245 square foot one-story single-family residence with an attached garage that was constructed in the 1950s with improvements over time. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 17 This application was first reviewed at the October 15, 2020 Design Review Board meeting (Attachment 2). At that meeting, five nearby neighbors and neighbor’s representative presented to speak in opposition and one neighbor spoke to support the project. Most neighbors who objected to the project shared a similar concern, that the proposed home with a three-story appearance would not fit well with the low-profiled homes found in the immediate neighborhood. The adjoining neighbors at 685 and 689 Hilary Drive voiced concerns over visual, privacy, noise, sun/shade impacts the proposed project may have on their respective properties. On October 15, 2020, the Design Review Board held a properly noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and discussed the project plans. In general, the Board found that the proposed architectural style and exterior finishes meets the Town’s aesthetic design standards. The design approach to create usable space by burying the garage and putting the house above the terraced space is reasonable when considering the unique site characteristics with steep topography at the rear of a relatively large trapezoid shaped lot. Most board members felt that this site presents opportunity for a two-story home since views from the uphill neighbors would not be significantly impaired. Though, members also expressed concern regarding the impact of the upper floor mass on some of the neighboring structures. The Board directed the project architect to revise the drawing and refine the project to mitigate massing, height, and privacy impacts, particularly to abutting neighbors on both sides. In summary, the suggestions made by board members including, but are not limited to: - Further articulate the side elevations and/or put upper floor mass toward the center, to reduce the perceived bulk, height, and massing from both sides; and - Further articulate and/or step back upper floor mass toward the hillside to reduce perceived bulk and height of the proposed home from the street level; and - Further sink down the mass and/or lower the plate height to reduce the overall height; and - Add a landscape buffer and/or setback upper deck and terrace to reduce perceived mass from the street level; and - Reorient and/or reduce the size of windows to address privacy and lighting impacts to the nearby neighbors; and - Reorient and/or add screening on the upper floor decks to mitigate privacy impact; and - Propose foliage, at the mature height that will grow above 6’ along the side yards. Comments made by each board member can be found in the excerpt of the meeting minutes, which is included as Attachment 4 of this staff report. Consideration by the DRB was continued to the November 19, 2020 meeting. Project revisions were not received in time for preparation of the packet, the project was subsequently continued to the December 3, 2020 meeting. The applicant has submitted a revised plan and a letter summarizing the proposed changes (Attachment 5). An overview of the applicant’s proposed modifications to the project design is outlined as follows: 1. Extend landing area to the lawn on the left (west) side at the main level. 2. Shift and modify massing articulation (from kitchen) on the left (west) side at the main level. 3. Modify massing articulations (from bedrooms and bathrooms) on the left (west) side at the upper level. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 17 4. Reduce the number of windows from the left (west) elevation at the upper level from eight to four windows. Two of the proposed windows have a sill height of 5’. 5. Reduce the number of windows from the right (east) elevation at the upper level from three to one window. 6. Add two new 2’-6” square skylights for a total of five skylights. 7. Modify massing articulation (from expanded hall space and upper deck) on the right (east) side at the upper level. 8. Add a deck toward the back by the left (west) side at the upper level. 9. Include 12’ tall screening hedge to the left (west) and right (east) sides along the fence lines. 10. Include lighting details on floor plans and elevations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The revised project would result in minor changes with respect to floor area and lot coverage from the original proposal. The newly proposed gross floor area is 3,606 square feet (previous proposal was 3,483 square feet), when the maximum of 3,839 square feet is permitted. The newly proposed lot coverage is 4,587 square feet, 24.9% (previous proposal was 4,448 square feet, 24.2%), when the maximum of 30% is allowed. Similar to the previous proposal, the current 3,606 square foot single-family home has three levels. The proposed home includes a 667 square foot two-car attached garage and foyer at the lower level in the excavated area; a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, powder room and a guest room on the main level; a master ensuite bedroom, an ensuite bedroom, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper level. The garage level will be lowered from the existing grade to connect with Hillary Drive at street level. The proposed residence has a two-story mass on the east, west and north elevations. From the street level, the front elevation (south) will have a three-story appearance with an excavated garage. The proposed design incorporates terraced landscape elements and massing that steps up from the street to provide articulation and to offset the impact of perceived height impact at street level. Other exterior improvements include new driveway, planters and retaining walls by the front elevation, a new terrace above the garage by the east (right), an improvement of the existing lawn by the west (left), new stairs and landings to a new hot tub located at the hillside within the rear yard, and two decks on the upper floor. All decks will have metal guardrails in charcoal color and are oriented toward the view. The current project, along with exterior improvements, covers approximately 4,587 square feet (24.9%) of the lot. The main residence will be constructed at the maximum height of 30’ tall with a flat roof and 3’ wide typical eave. The eave width will extend up to 5’ in some areas to provide overhang for excessive sunlight. Five new skylights will be installed along with solar panels. The project is built within the building envelope and complies with the development standards in respect to allowable floor area, lot coverage, setbacks and height as prescribed in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed 20’-6” wide concrete driveway and a 4’ wide pathway would connect with Hillary Drive at a location that is centered along the lot frontage. The attached two-car garage will be located in the excavated area that tuck under an upper-level terrace. The project proposes to maintain most of the existing mature landscape on site and to replace minor landscaping in the front yard. Numerous planters and retaining walls are proposed by the driveway at the front of the Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 17 property. A portion of the existing perimeter fence will be replaced with a 6’ tall cedar fence. New exterior lighting will be installed by the access points from the main residence and along the pathways in the front and back of the new home. The proposed colors and material include a combination of fiber cement siding, concrete and Dryvit outsulation finishes with earth tone colors of grays and tan beige, accented with gray trim and fascia. The proposed roof will be constructed in built-up membrane. The project proposes fleetwood windows in charcoal color and wood doors in natural oak-like color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet a4 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 5). PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on September 14, 2020 The property is located on a relatively large and trapezoid shaped lot on Hilary Drive. The frontage of the subject lot is approximately 56’ in length, which is shorter than most of the adjoining homes in the area, who have frontages ranging from 73’ to 83’ in length. While the right-side property line is perpendicular to the front lot line, the left-side property line has obtuse angle from the front lot line. The lot has an average slope of 30.55% and slopes downward from the project north to the south. The subject lot area is 18,388 square feet, where abutting properties have the lot areas of approximately 8,700 square feet with a frontage of 98’ in length on the west (left) and 12,000 square feet with the frontage of 75’in length on the east (right) along Hilary Drive. Homes in the area have views toward other homes in Tiburon, the Richardson Bay and the Harbor Point. The properties along the rear property line (north) are situated uphill from the subject property. The neighbors to the south across Hilary Drive are located slightly downhill from the subject property. To the east (right), 689 Hilary Drive, is rectangular in shape and has an average slope of 26.01% and the lot is narrower in width comparing to the subject property. This property is currently occupied by a two-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 22’-10”. To the west (left), 685 Hilary Drive, has a reversed trapezoid shape in comparison to the subject property, the lot has an average slope of 16.67% with a wider frontage and is narrower towards the rear property line. This property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 12’. N Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 17 ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Building placement on the lot During the October 15, 2020 DRB meeting, the majority of the Board members supported tucking the garage below grade and placing the house above the terraced area to create usable space, and considered it is a reasonable design approach for this project given the site characteristics. Those characteristics include an irregular lot with trapezoid shape and short frontage, combined with minimal flat area and steep topography toward the rear that limit the developable area on the site. Hence, the project proposes a house to locate at the center of the lot with massing stepped back from the street and open areas on both sides. Since nearby neighbors have expressed concern that the project may potentially result in additional noise from the proposed outdoor active spaces, the Board may want to assess whether the proposed project would meet the applicable standards and guidelines with the goal to maintain acoustic privacy from neighboring homes within an urbanized residential neighborhood context. Roof style, massing and form In the last DRB meeting, the Board proposed design refinement for the project to further reduce the perceived mass and height of the upper floor, particularly on the left (west) side. The proposed reconfiguration of bedrooms and bathrooms on the upper floor would increase articulations and further break down the large expanse of single-plane wall on this side. By adding an upper deck in the back, the revised design aims to shorten the overall wall length of the upper floor. In addition, the proposed modifications increase articulation on the upper floor from the right (east) side. Staff noted that the proposed side articulations would project outward and would further cantilever over the lower floor plane. With consideration of setback and additional shrubbery along the fence lines, the Board may want to discuss whether the revised project would achieve the goal of reducing mass and perceived height on the sides. View and privacy Proposed modifications would not only increase articulations on the upper floor; they would also reduce the number of side-facing windows to relief the neighbors’ concerns on privacy and lighting. Since the upper decks were noted as privacy concern in the previous meeting and some board members had suggested adding screening and/or orienting the decks away from the neighbors, the Board may want to assess whether privacy would remain as an issue with the current proposal. Sunlight and shade As noted in the previous staff report, the existing building on the subject property and other existing developments in the neighborhood would normally shade in the northwestern direction onto adjoining areas in the winter solstice during morning hours. The proposed building height will add to the length of shadow casting onto adjoining area during the same hours. With consideration of natural terrain, the proposed setback, the existing and the proposed vegetation, the Board may want to assess whether the added shade brought by the proposed residence would negatively impact adjoining properties. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 17 Hillside Design Guidelines The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines may be used in evaluating the characteristics of the property. Staff recommends the Board to analyze the current project to ensure general conformance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “reduce effective visual bulk of a structure and to avoid monumental and excessively large dwelling.” (See below illustrations). The proposed residence is designed with flat roof and with massing that is setback from the street level, which will help to reduce the visual bulk and height when seen from below and from distance. The two-story appearance is primarily visible from the side elevations. On the east (right) elevation, most of the two-story massing is setback from the property line with an open terrace above the garage. The two-story massing will be visible on the west (left) elevation. The new residence is oriented toward the center of the lot with reduced setback on the west (left) from the existing condition and the proposed second-floor massing will cantilever over the lower-floor wall plane, the perceived bulk of the new residence will become apparent. Staff recommends stepping back the upper-floor massing from the lower-floor plane to ensure proper relation with the one-story structure on the adjoining lot. The Board may wish to assess the current proposal or impose conditions to the project ensuring the general conformance with this principle. Goal 1, Principle 2 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “use roofs of lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels.” (See below illustrations). Proposed residence is intended to minimize the effect on hillside by fitting the building into the ground. The project will utilize the area above the excavated garage and entry to create open spaces, which will terrace the building and avoid decks to hang from the hillside with unattractive long pole supports. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 17 Goal 1, Principle 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid large expanse of any material in a single plane. On downhill elevations, break up masses of building with horizontal and vertical elements.” (See below illustrations). The proposed design utilizes a mix of siding materials, which includes concrete, fiber cement and dryvit outsulation. Change of materials is apparent when massing is changing plane vertically to reduce visual bulk. The current project proposes increased articulations on both sides to avoid large single expanse of wall surface. On the front and downhill elevation, the project proposes to setback horizontal elements with open terrace and decks to break up building mass and reduce visual bulk. Goal 1, Principle 4 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof forms, to increase the integration of dwelling and site.” (See below illustrations). The project is designed to follow the natural hillside contour and is located on a relatively flat land toward the front of the property. The proposed flat roof form will not increase the effective bulk of the building as it follows the general slope of the hill. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed building form with overhanging eaves are well integrated into the hillside or impose conditions as deem appropriate to achieve this goal. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 17 Goal 1, Principle 5 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours with horizontal building elements to increase integration of dwelling unit and site.” (See illustrations below). As noted, the proposed residence is designed with open areas on both sides to relate with adjoining structures at the main level. Upper massing is stepped back from the front elevation when the site is sloped up from the street to the back. The project includes horizontal elements to integrate the building with the site. Goal 1, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid massive roof overhangs and cantilevers on downhill faces of buildings.” (See illustrations below). The project is designed with flat roof, which will reduce the bulk of the building from distance. The design guidelines encourage smaller overhangs for individual floors or windows that will help break-up mass, while protecting the structure against excess sunlight. Staff recommends to reduce the eave width to an extent that would provide reasonable sunlight protection. The Board may wish to assess whether the reduction of proposed overhang would help to reduce the visual bulk of the building and impose conditions as deem necessarily. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 17 Goal 2, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “control window placement for sun, privacy and view. In general, avoid large expanses of floor to ceiling glass and ‘picture windows’; ‘frame’ views with carefully thought out windows; avoid placing windows where they will look right into someone else home”. (See illustrations below). The proposed residence includes large span of windows and patio doors on the front elevation to take advantage of the view. The project is revised to reduce the number of side-facing windows on the upper level to limit view toward neighboring homes. Staff found that upper floor deck shall follow similar, arguably stricter, principles comparing to windows for the goal of maintaining neighbors’ privacy. The Board may wish to assess the current project, impose conditions, or provide guidance to redesign the upper decks that would ensure view and privacy concerns are adequately addressed. Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “plan active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors” (See below illustrations). The project site is constrained with the natural topography toward the rear side of the site. Consistent with other guiding principles in the Hillside Design Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 17 Guidelines, the proposed residence would cut into the hillside that further limits usable outdoor spaces at the rear side of the property. As a result, the project is designed to relocate automobile parking area at street level, to maintain the existing lawn on the left (west), to utilize the terraced area above the garage on the right (east) and to create a small landing at the rear part of the site as open spaces. The proposed active spaces will be located within the building envelope away from the setback areas and will be screened by fence and vegetation. The Board may wish to assess whether these open spaces would create unreasonable noise nuisance to nearby neighbors in the urbanized residential context or impose conditions to improve noise-screening as deem appropriate. Goal 3, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict” (See below illustrations). The proposed hot tub will be located on a landing that cut into the hillside. Aside from the main dwelling, the proposed landing and the hot tub are designed as a vista point on the property. The design intent is to locate this landscape feature and ancillary use into the hillside with screening vegetation. The Board may wish to discuss whether this landing would raise privacy and noise impact toward adjoining neighbors and impose conditions as deem necessarily. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 17 Zoning The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site will continue to be occupied by a single-family residence. The new residence will utilize the development potentials that are prescribed for properties zoned as R-1 district. The project includes a primary residence and ancillary landscape that are designed to support modern living in an urbanized neighborhood and would improve the site while respecting its unique characteristics. The project is designed with a structure that supports its intended use and appears to be generally compatible with other new single-family homes in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The project proposes a combination of hardscape and landscape as improvements to the street frontage, which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The project is designed in a contemporary style and is consistent with current construction and development trends. The project will improve the overall attractiveness of the site with updated structures and landscape. The proposed architectural form is common for new single-family residences found in Tiburon. The project will support and enhance the visual quality of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. The proposed project includes an addition of terraced landscaped planters within the front yard. New landscape materials are proposed throughout the site, particularly within the side yards of the new residence and around the new landing in the rear yard. All of the mature trees on the property are proposed to be protected. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will alter the existing driveway location and add a new pedestrian pathway from the street to the residence. It is common for residences to access the street with a driveway and a pathway in the neighborhood. The interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways will not be impacted negatively by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The new home will be built in an architectural design and construction finishes that are common for single-family homes in the town as whole. The proposed materials and colors are in the earth tone palettes that are designed to blend in with the hillside environment. The proposed construction is consistent with the Town’s aesthetics standards. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 12 of 17 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 project will comply with all required development standards. The proposed project does not appear to negatively affect community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources. Upon review of file records and receiving public testimony, the project, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance to the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and other applicable architectural review guiding principles as a whole. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with 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 project proposes the replacement of the existing one-story single-family home on an 18,388 square foot trapezoid-shaped lot with a new single-family residence at a height of 30’. The existing lot has an average slope of 30.55% toward the rear part and has relatively flat area toward the front of the property. Hence, the project will lower the existing grade in the front to allow a garage, driveway and pathway connecting at the same level to the street. Terraced landscape will be located in the front yard. Proposed livable area will be placed at the center of the lot to utilize the terraced area above. Open spaces will be located by both sides of the new residence. A new landing will be built on the rear hillside within the buildable area to accommodate the proposed hot tub. With the exception of new stairways to the proposed landing, the rear yard will remain in its natural state. The project will comply with all development standards that are prescribed for a R-1 zoned property. The project will offer sufficient buffer from adjoining buildings as the proposed placement results in setbacks that exceed the minimum setback requirement for the property. The design approach to create usable space by burying the garage below grade and putting the house above the terraced space is found reasonable when considering the site characteristics. The project appears to have proper site plan relation to its site and promote orderly development of the community. The project will provide safe and reasonable access that would not create detrimental impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. 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. Working with a deep trapezoid shape lot with a short frontage, the proposed residence will orientate to the center of the lot and extend toward the rear side of the property on a relatively flat area. The proposed structure will not cause unreasonable view obstruction to nearby neighbors. Light and air will be provided through the proposed open spaces on both sides of the structure. The proposed residence will configure parking and street access at the lower level and to locate livable space on the top. The proposed residence Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 13 of 17 will have a two-story appearance on the sides facing the existing one-story home on the left side of the site and an existing two-story home on right side adjoining this property. The project layout includes an upper floor massing that is setback from the property lines with articulations on both sides to avoid a large single expanse of wall surfaces. The Board may wish to assess whether the revised project has proper relation with adjoining sites and impose conditions as deem appropriate. In addition, the revised project would reduce the number of side-facing windows and alleviate concerns regarding privacy. Some windows are revised with high windowsill height to limit the opportunity for casual viewing onto neighboring properties. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed second-floor decks, landing and spa at the rear part of the site, and open spaces on both sides would impose potential privacy and noise issues toward nearby neighbors when considering setback, proposed vegetation and fence, and natural topography of the site. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. As noted, residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story addition. Since the proposed residence is located in a portion of the neighborhood with predominantly an appearance of one-story design from the street, the proposed project is designed to step back massing from the street to maintain a reasonable relationship with the existing buildings in the vicinity. The project would comply with the setback, lot coverage, gross floor area and height requirements for the R-1 zone. The amount of floor area proposed by the project is appropriate for a lot of this size. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the buildable area and provide generous buffers that exceed the minimum side setback requirement of 8’. The right (east) side setback will be increased from the existing condition of approximately 5’-8” to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback will be reduced from the existing condition of approximately 20’ to 16’-1”. The project will be built at the maximum height of 30’ when the home is designed to integrate into the hillside with two stories of livable area and an excavated garage/entry. Revisions were made to increase façade articulations with the goal of reducing perceived bulk of the project. The Board may wish to determine whether the current project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. 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. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 14 of 17 The project would include 3,606 square feet of calculated floor area, which would be 233 square feet below the maximum floor area (3,839 square feet) allowed for a lot of this size. 5. 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. The project proposes to remove three small palm trees and replace existing landscaping in the front and protect mature vegetation. As the property slopes downwards toward the street, the project would alter approximately 289 cubic yards of soil to accommodate the new driveway, pathway, garage, entry, lawn expansion, a portion of the new residence and the new landing on the hillside. 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 architectural design is contemporary with a flat roof in simple geometric forms and shapes. The exterior finishes comprise of gray concrete with gray and tan beige siding, black metal guardrails, gray roof, natural wood doors and fleetwood windows in charcoal color. The architectural style and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in the Town and other areas in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 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, minimize 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. The landscape plan shows a variety of landscape materials with many of the existing mature trees to be remain on site, particularly the redwood and elm trees. The project includes terraced planters and landscape materials to screen and to create a buffer for existing neighbors and from the street. The proposed landscape changes, with screening hedge along the fence line on both sides, will mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. 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. New exterior lighting will be installed throughout the exterior of the home and path lights along pathways and stairs for safe access. All lights will be shielded down lighting with no clear glass. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 15 of 17 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 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. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed project will utilize and expand on the existing building foundation. The new home would be more vertical than the existing home. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the improvements of the new home. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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 proposal is not located in an RPD and or RMP zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is characterized as a new single-family dwelling; therefore, solar panels would be required. The new home would have to comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code requirements. 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 II (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 project is located in the R-1 zone. The proposed structures would comply with all zoning requirements. In conclusion, the proposed residence does not appear to be detrimental to surrounding views or safety within the neighborhood. The proposed project is in compliance with all the development standards as outlined for properties in the R-1 zoned district and the proposed building is designed in a manner that is consistent with other new single-family development in the Town. The proposed design appears to consider the unique lot characteristic and the natural constraints of the subject property. The project has utilized various design approaches to reduce the perceived bulk and height of the building with the intent to respect the existing development in the neighborhood vicinity that currently has a predominant appearance of one-story design. As described above, the current project appears to be in general conformance with many of the purposes of site plan and architectural review and other applicable guiding principles. The story poles are modified based on the revised project plan. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the adjusted story poles, assess the current project plan, evaluate the design Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 16 of 17 issues. If deemed appropriate, the Board may impose conditions to ensure the project is in conformance with the purposes and guiding principles of site plan and architectural review and other applicable guiding principles found in the Hillside Design Guideline as a whole. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, multiple letters are received from nearby neighbors to speak in opposition of the project (Attachments 6-18). The property owners and their representatives from the abutting properties at 685 Hilary Drive (Attachment 14-18) and the property owner of 689 Hilary Drive (Attachment 13-14) wrote to oppose the project due its height, bulk and mass, inconsistency with the neighborhood character, potential impacts with privacy, noise, light and sun shade. The property owner of 689 Hilary Drive commented that a redwood tree on the subject property may be causing damage to their home and may require removal. The project proposes to protect all mature vegetation, including the redwood tree, to be part of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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. 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) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve new homes in an established residential neighborhood. Other examples include 681 Hawthorne Drive, 484 Washington Court, 173 Stewart Drive. Design Review Board Meeting December 3, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 17 of 17 RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions, it is recommended that the attached resolution and conditions be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with conditions of approval 2. October 15, 2020 Design Review Board staff report (report only)1 3. Late mail received for the October 15, 2020 Design Review Board meeting 4. Excerpt of October 15, 2020 Design Review Board meeting minutes 5. Submitted plans and response letter by Pacific Design Group, Inc., received on November 11, 2020 6. Neighbor’s letter from 682 Hilary Drive, received on November 2, 2020 7. Neighbor’s letter from 695 Hilary Drive, received on November 9, 2020 8. Neighbor’s letter from 692 Hilary Drive, received on November 9, 2020 9. Neighbor’s letter from 20 Mara Vista, received on November 9, 2020 10. Neighbor’s letter from 686 Hilary Drive, received on November 9, 2020 11. Neighbor’s letter from 13 Mara Vista, received on November 10, 2020 12. Neighbor’s letter from 691 Hilary Drive, received on November 11, 2020 13. Neighbor’s letter from 689 Hilary Drive, received on November 12, 2020 14. Neighbor’s letter from 685 and 689 Hilary Drive, received on November 23, 2020 15. Neighbor’s letter from 685 Hilary Drive, received on November 23, 2020 16. Neighbor’s letter from the representative of 685 Hilary Drive, received on November 24, 2020 17. Neighbor’s letter from 685 Hilary Drive, received on November 24, 2020 18. Neighbor’s letter from 685 Hilary Drive, received on November 24, 2020 (second letter) 1 October 15, 2020 Design Review Board staff report and attachments are accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=466 ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX (Draft) A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW APPROXIMATELY 3,606 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 667 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY IMPROVEMENTS IN AN R-1 ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 687 HILARY DRIVE ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 055-211-08 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File #DR2020-015) for construction of an approximately 3,606 square foot single-family residence with a 667 square foot attached garage and improvements that include retaining walls, terrace, lawn improvement, spa, exterior stairs and landing and other landscape features. The application consists of the following: 1. Application form and supplemental materials received on March 16, 2020; and 2. Site plan, elevations and materials board prepared by Pacific Design Group received on November 11, 2020. B. The Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on this project on October 15, 2020 and December 3, 2020. The Board reviewed plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications). C. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the October 15, 2020, and December 3, 2020, staff reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding properties. D. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 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 ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 2 any significant adverse environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances or involves an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, a hazardous waste site, damage to a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. E. The Design Review Board further finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the October 15, 2020, and December 3, 2020, staff reports and the attachment thereto, as well as the data submitted, supplemented by public comment and on-site inspections, and deliberations at the meeting, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and thus will further the purpose set forth in subsection 16-52.020(A), and satisfy the applicable criteria of subsection 16-52.020(H). 16-52.020(A) Purposes • Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site will continue to be occupied by a single-family residence. The new residence will utilize the development potentials that are prescribed for properties zoned as R-1 district. The project includes a primary residence and ancillary landscape that are designed to support modern living in an urbanized residential neighborhood and would improve the site while respecting its unique characteristics. The project is designed with a structure that supports its intended use and appears to be generally compatible with other new single-family homes in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The project proposes a combination of hardscape and landscape as improvements to the street frontage, which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Retains and strengthens the visual quality of an attractive character of the town. The project is designed in a contemporary style and is consistent with current construction and development trends. The project will improve the overall attractiveness of the site with updated structures and landscape. The proposed architectural form is common for new single-family residences found in Tiburon. The project will support and enhance the visual quality of the Town. • Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. The proposed project includes an addition of terraced landscaped planters within the front yard. New landscape materials are proposed throughout the site, particularly within the side yards of the new residence and around the new landing in the rear yard. All of the mature trees on the property are proposed to be protected. • Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 3 The proposed project will alter the existing driveway location and add a new pedestrian pathway from the street to the residence. It is common for residences to access the street with a driveway and a pathway in the neighborhood. The interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways will not be impacted negatively by the project. • Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The new home will be built in an architectural design and construction finishes that are common for single-family homes in the town as whole. The proposed materials and colors are in the earth tone palettes that are designed to blend in with the hillside environment. The proposed construction is consistent with the Town’s aesthetics standards. • Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The project will comply with all required development standards. The proposed project does not appear to negatively affect community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources. Upon review of file records and receiving public testimony, the Board found the project, as conditioned, is in substantial conformance to the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and other applicable architectural review guiding principles as a whole. 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles • 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 project proposes the replacement of the existing one-story single-family home on an 18,388 square foot trapezoid-shaped lot with a new single-family residence at a height of 30’. The existing lot has an average slope of 30.55% toward the rear part and has relatively flat area toward the front of the property. Hence, the project will lower the existing grade in the front to allow a garage, driveway and pathway connecting at the same level to the street. Terraced landscape will be located in the front yard. Proposed livable area will be placed at the center of the lot to utilize the terraced area above. Open spaces will be located by both sides of the new residence. A new landing will be built on the rear hillside within the buildable area to accommodate the proposed hot tub. With the exception of new stairways to the proposed landing, the rear yard will remain in its natural state. The project complies with all development standards that are prescribed for a R-1 zoned property. The project will offer sufficient buffer from adjoining buildings as the placement results in setbacks that exceed the minimum setback requirement for the property. The design approach to create usable space by burying the garage below grade and putting the house above the terraced space is found reasonable by the Board when considering the site characteristics. The project has proper site plan relation to its site and promotes orderly development of the community. The project will provide safe and reasonable access that would not create detrimental impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 4 • 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. Working with a deep trapezoid shape lot with a short frontage, the proposed residence will orientate to the center of the lot and extend toward the rear side of the property on a relatively flat area. The proposed structure will not cause unreasonable view obstruction to nearby neighbors. Light and air will be provided through the proposed open spaces on both sides of the structure. The proposed residence will configure parking and street access at the lower level and to locate livable space on the top. The proposed residence will have a two-story appearance on the sides facing the existing one-story home on the left side of the site and an existing two-story home on right side adjoining this property. The project layout includes an upper floor massing that is setback from the property lines with articulations on both sides to avoid a large single expanse of wall surfaces. In addition, the revised project reduces the number of side-facing windows and relieves privacy concerns. Further protecting such privacy concerns, some of the side windows were revised with high windowsill height to limit the opportunity for casual viewing onto neighboring properties. Considering the setback, proposed vegetation and fence, and natural topography of the site the proposed second-floor decks, landing and spa at the rear part of the site, and open spaces on both sides do not unreasonably impose privacy and noise issues toward nearby neighbors.. • Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. As noted, residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story addition. Since the proposed residence is located in a portion of the neighborhood with predominantly an appearance of one-story design from the street, the proposed project is designed to step back massing from the street to maintain a reasonable relationship with the existing buildings in the vicinity. The project complies with the setback, lot coverage, gross floor area and height requirements for the R-1 zone. The amount of floor area proposed by the project is appropriate for a lot of this size. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the buildable area and provide generous buffers that exceed the minimum side setback requirement of 8’. The right (east) side setback will be increased from the existing condition of approximately 5’-8” to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback will be reduced from the existing condition of ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 5 approximately 20’ to 16’-1”. The project will be built at the maximum height of 30’ when the home is designed to integrate into the hillside with two stories of livable area and an excavated garage/entry. Revisions were made to increase façade articulations with the goal of reducing perceived bulk of the project. With the revisions, the Board finds that the project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. • 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. The project would include 3,606 square feet of calculated floor area, which would be 233 square feet below the maximum floor area (3,839 square feet) allowed for a lot of this size. • 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. The project proposes to remove three small palm trees and replace existing landscaping in the front and protect mature vegetation. As the property slopes downwards toward the street, the project would alter approximately 289 cubic yards of soil to accommodate the new driveway, pathway, garage, entry, lawn expansion, a portion of the new residence and the new landing on the hillside. • 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 architectural design is contemporary with a flat roof in simple geometric forms and shapes. The exterior finishes comprise of gray concrete with gray and tan beige siding, black metal guardrails, gray roof, natural wood doors and fleetwood windows in charcoal color. The architectural style and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in the Town and other areas in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The architectural style and exterior finish will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. • 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, minimize 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. ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 6 The landscape plan shows a variety of landscape materials with many of the existing mature trees to be remain on site, particularly the redwood and elm trees. The project includes terraced planters and landscape materials to screen and to create a buffer for existing neighbors and from the street. The proposed landscape changes, with screening hedge along the fence line on both sides, will mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the project. • 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. New exterior lighting will be installed throughout the exterior of the home and path lights along pathways and stairs for safe access. All lights will be shielded down lighting with no clear glass. • 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 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. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed project will utilize and expand on the existing building foundation. The new home would be more vertical than the existing home. • Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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 project is not located in an RPD and or RMP zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. • Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is characterized as a new single-family dwelling; therefore, solar panels would be required. The new home would have to comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code requirements. • Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 7 recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The project is located in the R-1 zone and the structures comply with all zoning requirements. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File No. DR2020-015) for the reasons set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on December 3, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: _______________________________ CEDRIC BARRINGER, CHAIR TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: ______________________________ DINA TASINI, SECRETARY ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DRAFT) 687 HILARY DRIVE File # DR2020-015 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. 3. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant 4. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on December 3, 2020, as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated November 11, 2020, stamped “Approved by Design Review Board December 3, 2020”, 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan that addresses, parking, traffic control, construction management, construction staging, scheduling, construction equipment, washout, road/access maintenance and repair and other concerns to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Community Development Director. 6. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 9 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. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All exterior HVAC units and generators shall comply with the Town’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 this noise standards at the property line, noise baffles or other sound reduction shall be required to reduce the sound levels at the property lines and may require a separate Design Review application. 12. Any structures located within a required setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height at any point. 13. Any new 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. All new fencing, walls and footings shall be located entirely on the subject property. 14. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 10 (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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. If any existing landscaping that is not proposed to be removed is subsequently removed during construction, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan to Planning Division staff for review and approval of additional adequate landscaping, prior to a Final Inspection. The Planning Division staff may refer any subsequent landscaping plan to the Design Review Board. Public Works Department 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 19. 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. 20. All work shall comply with Best Management Practices to prevent storm water contamination 21. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 11 a. This project is creating and replacing 2,500 square feet or more impervious surface area, the site must implement at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town’s Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. There are two runoff requirements: one Town requirement to reduce the peak flow rate to pre-development conditions which has been met, and a separate BASMAA requirement to reduce the total volume of runoff from the site. Since the project is creating or replacing more than 2,500 sf of impervious area, it will need to do something to reduce the total volume of the runoff (not just reduce the peak flow rate). The acceptable options may include a Bioretention facility or you could also sheet flow the drainage across vegetated areas, but the areas need to have slopes, soil types, and vegetation that are conducive to allowing an inch of rainfall to infiltrate without eroding the soil. A final grading and drainage plan is required prior to building permit issuance implementing the BASMAA requirement. b. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign-off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and “certifies” that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor’s parcel number. c. This project involves displacement of over 50 cubic yards of earth (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) and the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town’s website. Link: http://townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms-Documents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-rain-event erosion control inspections. 22. Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 12 23. Provide a final grading and drainage plan along with drainage calculations to support the drainage system design prior to building permit issuance. 24. Subdrainage must be shown, not only on the structural cross-sections, but also on the plans including alignment and discharge locations. 25. All retaining walls shall be backdrained. 26. Any new fencing will need to be located on the property. All footings and posts will need to be located within the property line and not encroaching onto neighboring property or the Town Right-of-Way. 27. All paved and unpaved finished surfaces shall be positively drained. Finished slopes and elevations shall be shown on the plans. 28. Show details of dissipater systems. 29. The grade around the perimeter foundation of the home shall be sloped away from the foundation. Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) 30. Throughout the duration of project construction, all requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District shall be met. 31. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new residences including garages conforming to NFPA Std. 13D, TFPD Policy 429.5, and as modified by the Fire Marshal. Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to installation. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District at (415) 945-1530. An upgrade for the domestic water meter may be needed. Additional sizing may be required due to available pressures and fire flow. 32. Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas prior to final inspection by Building Division. 33. An irrigated greenbelt Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) Fuels Management Plan conforming to the standards of the Tiburon Fire Protection District shall be prepared and implemented at the site. The VMP-Fuels Management Plan shall conform to Marin County Fire Prevention Officer's Standard #220 and Fire Safe Marin principles. The plan shall be incorporated into the landscape plan for the project and submitted to the Fire Marshal for review prior to implementation. A Vegetation Management In non-WUI areas shall be prepared in accordance with TFPD Code Section 435.5 directly to the ATTACHMENT 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx Draft December 3, 2020 13 TFPD. The submission shall be email to mlantier@tiburonfire.org. No Fire Department Sign-off can occur without the VMP in place and inspected. Other Agencies 34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 35. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 37. 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. --End of Conditions of Approval-- TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 16 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 Agenda Item: PH-3 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Christy Fong, Senior Planner Subject: 687 Hilary Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-221-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and exterior improvements would contain approximately 3,483 square feet of floor area and cover 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 687 HILARY DRIVE OWNER: BASIA AND CHRISTAIN TERRELL APPLICANT: RICHARD BERLING, PACIFIC DESIGN GROUP ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 055-211-08FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-015 LOT SIZE: 18,388 square feet ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)FLOOD ZONE: XDATE COMPLETE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020PSA DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 13, 2020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 687 Hilary Drive in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,245 square foot one-story single-family residence with an attached garage that was constructed during the post-WWII period in the 1950s with improvements over time. Attachment 2 Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 16 The proposed 3,483 square foot single-family home has three levels, which includes a 667 square foot two-car attached garage and foyer at the lower level in the excavated area; a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, powder room and a guest room on the main level; a master ensuite bedroom, an ensuite bedroom, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper level. The garage level will be lowered from the existing grade to connect with Hillary Drive at street level. The proposed residence has a two-story mass on the east, west and north elevations. From the street level, the front elevation (south) will have a three-story appearance with an excavated garage. The proposed design incorporates terraced landscape elements and massing that steps up from the street to provide articulation and to offset the impact of perceived height impact at street level. Other exterior improvements include new driveway, planters and retaining walls by the front elevation, a new terrace above the garage by the east (right), an improvement of the existing lawn by the west (left), new stairs and landings to a new hot tub located at the hillside within the rear yard, and two decks on the upper floor. All decks will have metal guardrails in charcoal color and are oriented toward the view. The project, along with exterior improvements, covers approximately 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. The main residence will be constructed at the maximum height of 30’ tall with a flat roof and 3’ wide typical eave. The eave width will extend up to 5’ in some areas to provide overhang for excessive sunlight. Three new skylines will be installed along with solar panels. The project is built within the building envelope and complies with the development standards in respect to allowable floor area, lot coverage, setbacks and height as prescribed in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed 20’-6” wide concrete driveway and a 4’ wide pathway would connect with Hillary Drive at a location that is centered along the lot frontage. The attached two-car garage will be located in the excavated area that tuck under an upper-level terrace. The project proposes to maintain most of the existing mature landscape on site and to replace minor landscaping in the front yard. Numerous planters and retaining walls are proposed by the driveway at the front of the property. A portion of the existing perimeter fence will be replaced with a 6’ tall cedar fence. New exterior lighting will be installed by the access points from the main residence and along the pathways in the front and back of the new home. The proposed colors and material include a combination of fiber cement siding, concrete and Dryvit outsulation finishes with earth tone colors of grays and tan beige, accented with gray trim and fascia. The proposed roof will be constructed in built-up membrane. The project proposes fleetwood windows in charcoal color and wood doors in natural oak-like color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet a4 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 2). Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 16 PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on September 14, 2020 The property is located on a relatively large and trapezoid shaped lot on Hilary Drive. The frontage of the subject lot is approximately 56’ in length, which is shorter than most of the adjoining homes in the area, who have frontages ranging from 73’ to 83’ in length. While the right-side property line is perpendicular to the front lot line, the left-side property line has obtuse angle from the front lot line. The lot has an average slope of 30.55% and slopes downward from the project north to the south. The subject lot area is 18,388 square feet, where abutting properties have the lot areas of approximately 8,700 square feet with a frontage of 98’ in length on the west (left) and 12,000 square feet with the frontage of 75’in length on the east (right) along Hilary Drive. Homes in the area have views toward other homes in Tiburon, the Richardson Bay and the Harbor Point. The properties along the rear property line (north) are situated uphill from the subject property. The neighbors to the south across Hilary Drive are located slightly downhill from the subject property. To the east (right), 689 Hilary Drive, is rectangular in shape and has an average slope of 26.01% and the lot is narrower in width comparing to the subject property. This property is currently occupied by a two-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 22’-10”. To the west (left), 685 Hilary Drive, has a reversed trapezoid shape in comparison to the subject property, the lot has an average slope of 16.67% with a wider frontage and is narrower in depth. This property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 12’. ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Building placement on the lot The subject lot is large in size compared to other properties in the vicinity, providing an opportunity for development of a home with greater gross floor area. Minimal flat area on the lot and steep topography toward the rear of the site limit the available developable area. This topography makes development more practical toward the front of the property, as it does not necessitate a steep cut N Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 16 into the hill with construction of large retaining walls. Development on a trapezoid shaped lot with a steep natural slope at the rear constrains the project. Hence, the project proposes a house to locate at the center of the lot with open areas on both sides. The proposed front setback is 22’, which is similar to the general patterns found in the neighborhood. The Board may want to comment on whether the proposed residence has proper relation to its site. Roof style, massing and form Residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are generally varied in shape, size, height and style. With some split-level and two-level forms, the single-family residences near this portion of Hillary Drive are primarily in single-story appearance with low pitch cross-gabled roof. The proposed residence will be covered by a flat roof with overhang eaves. A garage is proposed to be located on an excavated area that connects at the same level as Hilary Drive with two floors of living spaces above. The project includes terraced planters at the front, as well as open terrace and lawn at the upper level on both sides to offset the perceived impact of height and massing at street level. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed building forms and roof style would effectively reduce the perceived height and bulk of the new residence with consideration of the neighborhood context. View and privacy The proposed residence does not appear to limit view enjoyed by nearby properties, particularly to uphill neighbors. Considering the proposed setback and landscaping condition, staff found that upper floor windows could be reduced in size, frosted and/or have higher sill height to further limit the opportunity of causal viewing onto neighboring livable areas. The Board may assess whether the proposed design will raise potential privacy concerns from neighboring properties, particularly the orientation of upper floor decks and windows. Sunlight and shade The project will be built to the maximum height of 30’ allowed in the R-1 zone. Given consideration to the surrounding context with primarily single-story appearance, a shade study was prepared as attached in the project plan on sheet ss1. The shade study is to illustrate how the proposed residence’s layout, massing, and height may have shade impact to the surrounding area at different times of the day and year. The study indicates that direct sun light is reaching most of the surrounding buildings and yards outside the subject site during summer solstice. Winter solstice is the shortest day of the year, which will represent the worst case impacts a proposed structure may have upon nearby land use and structures. The study shows that shade is primarily casting toward the rear of the subject property in the winter solstice. The exception is during morning hours, the adjacent property to the west (left) is expected to have sunlight obstruction. The existing building on the subject property and other existing developments in the neighborhood would normally shade in the northwestern direction onto adjoining areas in the winter solstice during these morning hours. The proposed building height will add to the length of shadow casting onto adjoining area during the same hours. With consideration of natural terrain and existing vegetation, the Board may want to assess whether the added shade impact brought by the proposed residence would negatively impact adjoining properties. Hillside Design Guidelines The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines may be used in evaluating the characteristics of the property. Staff recommends the Board to analyze the project to ensure general conformance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “reduce effective visual bulk of a structure and to avoid monumental and excessively large dwelling.” (See below illustrations). The proposed residence is designed with low-profiled flat roof and with massing that setbacks from the street level, which will help to reduce the visual bulk and height when seen from below and from distance. The two-story appearance is primarily visible from the side elevations. On the east (right) elevation, most of the two-story massing is setback from the property line with an open terrace above the garage. The two-story massing will be visible on the west (left) elevation. Since the new residence is oriented toward the center of the lot with reduced setback on the west (left) from the existing condition and the proposed second-floor massing will cantilever over the lower-floor wall plane, the perceived bulk of the new residence will become apparent. Staff recommends stepping back the upper-floor massing from the lower-floor plane to ensure proper relation with the one-story structure on the adjoining lot. The Board may want to explore other design alternatives that would achieve the same goal and which are consistent with this principle of the design guidelines. Goal 1, Principle 2 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “use roofs of lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels.” (See below illustrations). Proposed residence is intended to minimize the effect on hillside by fitting the building into the ground. The project will utilize the area above the excavated garage to create open spaces, which will terrace the building and avoid decks to hang from the hillside with unattractive long pole supports. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid large expanse of any material in a single plane. On downhill elevations, break up masses of building with horizontal and vertical elements.” (See below illustrations). The proposed design utilizes a mix of siding materials, which includes concrete, fiber cement and drtvit outsulation. Change of materials is apparent when massing is changing plane vertically. The Board may want to assess whether the use of materials effectively breaks down the mass and reduce visual bulk of the proposed residence. On the downhill elevation, the proposed project steps back on the upper floor to break up the building mass horizontally. The Board may also wish to assess whether the proposed building forms would reduce the perceived mass. Goal 1, Principle 4 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof forms, to increase the integration of dwelling and site.” (See below illustrations). The project is designed to follow the natural hillside contour and is located on a relatively flat land toward the front of the property. The proposed flat roof form will not increase the effective bulk of the building as it follows the general slope of the hill. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed building form with overhanging eaves are well integrated into the hillside or suggests alternatives to achieve this goal. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 5 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours with horizontal building elements to increase integration of dwelling unit and site.” (See illustrations below). As noted, the proposed residence is designed with open areas on both sides to relate with adjoining structures on the main level. Upper massing is stepped back from the front elevation. The Board may want to assess whether horizontal articulation on the side elevations would help the building to better integrate with the site. Goal 1, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid massive roof overhangs and cantilevers on downhill faces of buildings.” (See illustrations below). The project is designed with flat roof, which will reduce the bulk of the building from distance. The design guidelines encourage smaller overhangs for individual floors or windows that will help break-up mass, while protecting the structure against excess sunlight. Staff recommends to reduce the eave width to an extent that would provide reasonable sunlight protection. The Board may wish to assess whether the reduction of proposed overhang would help to reduce the visual bulk of the building. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 16 Goal 2, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “control window placement for sun, privacy and view. In general, avoid large expanses of floor to ceiling glass and ‘picture windows’; ‘frame’ views with carefully thought out windows; avoid placing windows where they will look right into someone else home”. (See illustrations below). The proposed residence includes large span of windows and patio doors on the front elevation to take advantage of the view. Staff found that the windows on the side elevations, particularly on the upper level, can reduce in size, increase in windowsill heights and/or use of frosted glazing to ensure views are not oriented toward neighboring homes. The Board may wish to provide other suggestions to ensure the project would address view and privacy concerns. Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “plan active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors” (See below illustrations). The project site is constrained with the natural topography toward the rear side of the site. Consistent with other guiding principles in the Hillside Design Guidelines, the proposed residence is intended to cut into the hillside which would further limit usable outdoor spaces at the rear side of the property. As the result, the project is designed to include Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 16 open spaces on the sides with sufficient setback from adjoining buildings. The Board may wish to discuss how these open spaces would be screened and controlled for acoustic privacy to nearby neighbors. The Board may also wish to comment on whether the landing at the rear hillside would raise potential noise issues. Goal 3, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict” (See below illustrations). The proposed hot tub will be located on a landing that cut into the hillside. Aside from the main dwelling, the proposed landing and the hot tub are designed as a vista point on the property. The design intent is to locate this landscape feature and ancillary use into the hillside with screening vegetation. The Board may wish to discuss whether this landing would raise privacy impact toward adjoining neighbors. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed residence would create any visual, privacy, sunshade, or lighting impacts on the adjacent neighbors. In addition, the Board may comment on the massing/bulk of the proposed structure relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 16 Zoning The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site will continue to be occupied by a single-family residence. The new residence will utilize the development potentials that are prescribed for properties zoned as R-1 district. The project would improve the site with a primary residence and ancillary landscape that are designed to support modern living in an urbanized neighborhood. The project is designed with a structure that supports its intended use and appears to be generally compatible with other new single-family homes in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The project is designed in a contemporary style that is consistent with current construction and development trends. The project will improve the overall attractiveness of the site with updated structures and landscape. The proposed architectural form is common for new single-family residences found in the Town; however, the project will some design differences with the homes in the immediate vicinity. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed project is designed to be compatible with the immediate surrounding, as well as retaining and strengthening the visual quality and character of the town as a whole. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. The proposed project includes an addition of terraced landscaped planters within the front yard. New landscape materials are proposed throughout the site, particularly within the side yards of the new residence and new landing in the rear yard. All of the mature trees on the property will be retained. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will alter the existing driveway location and add a new pedestrian pathway from the street to the residence. It is common for residences to access the street with a driveway and a pathway in the neighborhood. The interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways will not be impacted negatively by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The new home will be built in an architectural design and construction finishes that are common for single-family homes in the town as whole. The proposed materials and colors are in the earth tone palettes that are designed to blend in with the hillside environment. The proposed construction is consistent with the Town’s aesthetics standards. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 16 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 project will comply with all required development standards. The proposed project does not appear to negatively affect community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources. Upon review of file records and receiving public testimony, the Board may provide feedback on the project’s substantial conformance to the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and other applicable architectural review guiding principles as a whole. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with 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 project is to replace the existing one-story single-family home that is located on an 18,388 square foot lot with a new single-family residence at a height of 30’. The existing lot has an average slope of 30.55% toward the rear part of the property. The project will lower the existing grade in the front to allow a garage, driveway and pathway connecting at the same level to the street. Terraced landscape will be located in the front yard. Open spaces will be located by both sides of the new residence. A new landing will be built on the rear hillside within the buildable area to accommodate the proposed hot tub. With the exception of new stairways to the proposed landing, the rear yard will remain in its natural state. The project appears to have proper site plan relation to its site, with safe and reasonable access that would not create detrimental impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. The Board may want to assess whether the project, with alteration to existing grade at the front that is different from other existing development at this portion of Hillary Drive on the uphill side, will promote orderly development in the community. 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. Working with a deep trapezoid shape lot with a short frontage, the proposed residence will orientate from existing footprint to extend toward the rear side of the property on relatively flat area. The proposed structure will not cause unreasonable view obstruction to the nearby neighbors. Light and air will be provided through the proposed open spaces on both sides of the structure. The proposed residence will be configured to have parking and street access at the lower level and to locate livable space on the top. The proposed residence will have a two-story appearance on the sides facing the existing one-story home on the left side of the site and an existing two-story home on right side adjoining this property. To allow proper transition from the proposed two-story structure to the existing one-story home on the west (left), staff found that other design alternatives may include “stepping back” the second-floor mass from the lower floor plane on this side. Although the proposed Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 12 of 16 residence offers sufficient setback and there are existing and proposed vegetation along the side property lines, the proposed upper-floor windows and decks shall be orientated away to the most possible extent and avoid casual viewing toward neighboring properties. Staff recommends reducing the size of side facing windows, increase the windowsill height and/or frosted window treatment to limit the opportunity for casual viewing. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed second-floor windows and decks would impose potential privacy issue toward nearby neighbors. When evaluating the location of the proposed improvements, the Board may wish to also discuss whether the project has a site layout that is properly related to the existing improvements on adjoining sites. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. As noted, residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story addition. Since the proposed residence is located in a portion of the neighborhood that has an appearance of one-story design from the street, the board may wish to discuss whether the proposed height, size and bulk of the project would bear a reasonable relationship with the existing buildings in the vicinity. The project would comply with the setback, lot coverage, gross floor area and height requirements for the R-1 zone. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the building envelope, the right (east) side setback will be increased from the existing condition of approximately 5’-8” to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback will be reduced from the existing condition of approximately 20’ to 16’-1”. The project will be built at the maximum height of 30’. The new home is designed to integrate into the hillside in two stories with an excavated garage and entry. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed height of the project would be compatible with nearby structures. In addition, staff found one design approach to reduce the perceived bulk of the proposed project is to reduce the width of the overhang eaves, particularly when facing the street. Currently, the proposed overhang eaves are in a range of 3’ to 5’ wide. Along with other design adjustments, the Board may want to assess whether the proposed height and the proposed articulated massing/forms are sufficient to reduce perceived bulk of the building with the goal to respect the character of existing buildings in the vicinity and to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 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. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 13 of 16 The project would include 3,483 square feet of calculated floor area, which would be 356 square feet below the maximum floor area (3,839 square feet) allowed for a lot of this size. 5. 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. The project proposes to remove three small palm trees and replace existing landscaping in the front. As the property slopes downwards toward the street, the project would alter approximately 289 cubic yards of soil to accommodate the new driveway, pathway, garage, entry, lawn expansion, a portion of the new residence and the new landing on the hillside. 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 architectural design is contemporary with a flat roof in simple geometric forms and shapes. The exterior finishes comprise of gray concrete with gray and tan beige siding, black metal guardrails, gray roof, natural wood doors and fleetwood windows in charcoal color. The architectural style and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in the Town and other areas in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. However, the proposed architectural form, height and bulk and exterior finishes are different from those homes in the immediate surrounding area. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed design will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 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, minimize 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. The landscape plan shows a variety of landscape materials with many of the existing mature trees to be remain on site, particularly the redwood and elm trees. The project includes terraced planters and landscape materials to screen and to create a buffer for existing neighbors and from the street. The proposed landscape changes will introduce positive changes and enhance privacy for the adjacent neighbors. 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. New exterior lighting will be installed throughout the exterior of the home and path lights along pathways and stairs for safe access. All lights will be shielded downlighting with no clear glass. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 14 of 16 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 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. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed project will utilize and expand on the existing building foundation. The new home would be more vertical than the existing home. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the improvements of the new home. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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 proposal is not located in an RPD and or RMP zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is characterized as a new single-family dwelling; therefore, solar panels would be required. The new home would have to comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code requirements. 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 II (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 project is located in the R-1 zone. The proposed structures would comply with all zoning requirements. In conclusion, the proposed residence does not appear to be detrimental to surrounding views or safety within the neighborhood. The proposed project is in compliance with all the development standards as outlined for properties in the R-1 zoned district and the proposed building is designed in a manner that is consistent with other new single-family development in the Town. The proposed design appears to consider the unique lot characteristic and the natural constraints of the subject property. The project has used various design approaches to reduce the perceived bulk and height of the building. As described above, staff has identified several areas for design refinement, particularly other design approaches that would enable the project to have a reasonable relationship with the immediate adjoining sites and would further reduce the perceived height, size, and bulk of the project with the goal to minimize intrusion on the neighborhood, particularly at this portion of Hilary Drive. Staff recommends the Board to provide other constructive guidance so the project Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 15 of 16 will be in better compliance with the purposes of site plan and architectural review and other applicable guiding principles. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, multiple support letters are received from nearby neighbors (Attachments 3-12). The property owners and their representatives from the abutting properties at 685 Hilary Drive (Attachment 13-14) and the property owner of 689 Hilary Drive (Attachment 15) wrote to oppose the project due its height, bulk and mass, inconsistency with the neighborhood character, potential impacts with privacy, noise, light and sun shade. Some nearby neighbors wrote with opposition (Attachment 16-17) and multiple neighbors in the vicinity had signed petitions to object the proposed project (Attachment 18). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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. 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) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve new homes in an established residential neighborhood. Other examples include 681 Hawthorne Drive, 484 Washington Court, 173 Stewart Drive. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 16 of 16 RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Board to provide design guidance to the applicant that would advance the project toward approval. If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions or deny the project, the Board may direct staff to draft such conditions and resolution, which would be presented at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and supplemental forms, received on March 16, 2020 2. Project Plans prepared by Pacific Design Group, Inc., received on September 14, 2020 3. Neighbor’s letter from 27 Mara Vista, received on September 12, 2020 4. Neighbor’s letter from 690 Hilary Drive, received on September 13, 2020 5. Neighbor’s letter from 681 Hilary Drive, received on September 13, 2020 6. Neighbor’s letter from 40 Del Mar Drive, received on October 4, 2020 7. Neighbor’s letter from 670 Hilary Drive, received on October 5, 2020 8. Neighbor’s letter from 685 Hawthorne Drive, received on October 5, 2020 9. Neighbor’s letter from 672 Hilary Drive, received on October 6, 2020 10. Neighbor’s letter from 687 Hawthorne Drive, received on October 7, 2020 11. Neighbor’s letter from 3 Rock Hill Drive, received on October 7, 2020 12. Neighbor’s letter from 669 Hathorne Drive, received on October 8, 2020 13. Neighbor’s letter from the property owner of 685 Hilary Drive, received on September 28, 2020 and September 30, 2020 14. Neighbor’s letter from the representative of 685 Hilary Drive, received on September 28, 2020 15. Neighbor’s letter from 689 Hilary Drive, received on October 6, 2020 16. Neighbor’s letter from 694 Hilary Drive, received on September 24, 2020 17. Neighbor’s letter from 692 Hilary Drive, received on September 26, 2020 18. Signed petition from multiple neighbors opposing the project SUBMITTED BY: GARY AND MARYBETH SHEPPARD RESIDENTS OF 685 HILARY DRIVE OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT: 687 HILARY DRIVE DRB FILE NO: DR2020 -015 DRB HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2020 PHOTOGRAPHS DEMONSTRATING LOSS OF PRIVACY AT 685 HILARY DUE TO DESIGN OF 687 HILARY Attachment 3 LOOKING FROM OFFICE TOWARD 687 HILARY LOOKING FROM BEDROOM TOWARD 687 HILARY (STORY POLES VISIBLE IN WINDOW AND CLERESTORY) LOOKING FROM FAMILY ROOM TO 687 HILARY (BLACK LINE TRACKS ORANGE TAPE BETWEEN STORY POLES) LOOKING FROM FAMILY ROOM TO SITE WHERE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AREA AND HOT TUB WILL BE LOCATED Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com October 8, 2020 Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board and Tiburon Planning Staff Re: Terrell Design Review 687 Hillary Drive Response to Architect James Malott’s comments and opinions, dated September 25, 2020, regarding the above referenced property. We have reviewed the Malott Architects submission. As a preface to our responses, we want to briefly explain this project. The Terrell family is seeking to replace their old, outdated, small, 1250 square foot, 1950’s era FHA residence, with a new residence better suited to the modern lifestyle of a family of five. The current structure is sited on an irregular-shaped lot. The useable flat area is limited and inefficient. The steep-sloping driveway lacks adequate vehicle parking, and the two car garage utilizes the majority of the existing, small level area. The existing residence is poorly constructed, uninsulated, and is without air conditioning, all resulting in extreme hot and cold temperature fluctuations throughout the structure. Additionally, the existing residence has a deficient and inaccessible, poorly drained, under-floor crawl space with maintenance and rodent problems. Numerous design iterations were explored to arrive at the most optimal approach. The proposed project has been designed to be within all Tiburon Zoning Codes and Standards, requests no variances, and uses a California contemporary style in its design. The limited view corridors, due to neighboring foliage, have been optimized and the site disturbance has been minimized. The project proposes an energy efficient building envelope, water efficient plumbing and drought-tolerant landscaping. The on-site mature Redwood tree will be protected. Our responses to the itemized comments in Malott Architects submission are as follows: Existing Conditions: 1. Terrell Lot: We agree with the identification of existing conditions, a -e, and would point out that each of these existing conditions direct the design of the residence that is proposed. This is a large lot, (240% above average), however 70% is sloped, it is wedged shaped, with a street frontage of 56’, (smallest in the neighborhood), is the most atypical lot in the subdivision, and of great importance to the overall design, has one of the smallest flat areas. We appreciate Mr. Malott’s understanding of the existing physical constraints on the property. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 2. Community Texture: a. This is a general statement that, when combined with the Malott submission 3. Character of Residences, a., becomes obvious that WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. b. The project proposes a front yard setback and landscaping consistent with the surrounding area with the closest component of the residence, the face of the garage, set back 22’ from the property line, with an additional 6’ to 8’ of setback to the existing curb, where a 15’ front yard setback is required. c. The proposed project recognizes the limited side yards in the surrounding area which is why the closest component of the residence to 687 Hilary Drive has been set back 18’-6” from the property line, where an 8’ side yard setback is required and 5’-7” is existing. Additionally, a side yard setback of over 16’, at the closest angled apex of the structure to the common property line of 685 Hilary Drive, is provided where an 8’ side yard setback is required. The proposed footprint of the residence maintains and respects the existing siting between the existing adjacent structures. d. As stated in Existing Conditions, 1.a., 70% of the lot is up-sloped, generally too steep for normal human activities, which is why the proposed spa is located in the existing slope access path and viewing area, minimizing impacts to the natural visual buffers between adjacent neighbors on all sides of the property. 3. Character of Residences: a-c. These comments have been addressed in 2., Community Texture: a. d. The proposed Upper Level addition of the residence is setback 20’-6” from the face of the garage, which is over 22’ from the front property line. This is more than double the 10’ upper level setbacks that are noted to be in the immediate area. e. The proposed project incorporates an extensive, drought tolerant landscape plan that handsomely blends the proposed residence into the existing streetscape. f. The proposed project is not designed to be a ‘traditional’ home as described in 3. Character of Residences, a., for reasons explained in 2. Community Texture, a., however the proposed residence utilizes ‘traditional’ materials with horizontal, painted ship-lap siding, use of warm gray concrete and natural wood accents. g. The neighborhood is in transition and is not homogeneous. A neighborhood is more than just the residences one or two parcels away, in this case, the number of unlike structures within any given block in this area is eclectic at best with dissimilar characters, colors, sizes, forms and materials. It is worth noting that five of the houses immediately neighboring 687 Hilary range in size from 2,200 square feet to 5,300 square feet, three of the homes are two story. One is an Italian mansion, two are shingled, one has only a carport visible from the street. The proposed project stylistically adheres to a more desirable and sought-after home by modern families. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com Site Planning Critique: 1. The Existing Conditions clearly outline the design parameters and constraints that this lot presents. The proposed project is L-shaped utilizing the narrow front width of the lot by placing a portion the structure’s mass at a right angle into the lot, and not ‘cross-lot’, parallel to the street frontage, on the limited lot width with one of the smallest flat areas. Locating the L-shape structure in the middle of the narrowing trapezoidal lot, and placing the other half of the mass deeper into the lot, minimizes the front elevation façade and provides generous side yard buffers between the adjacent neighbors. The window count is accurately broken down into two facades as follows: 685 Hilary Drive: 8 windows, 2 on the Main Level that are unseen by the existing grade differential and fence, 2 that are in bedrooms at the rear of the structure that are beyond the building footprint of 685 Hilary Drive, and 4 small windows, set with bottom sill heights of 5’-0” to block any downward view into the neighbor’s yard. 689 Hilary Drive: 4 windows, 2 in the Upper Level Master Bedroom and Master Bedroom Entry, both 40’ away from the common property line, and 2 Bedroom windows at the rear of the structure, both 18’-6” away from the common property line, one is on the Main Level and is unseen by fencing and landscaping. The proposed siting of the residence in the middle of the small, flat area of the lot provides the maximum privacy, light and noise reduction for the adjacent neighbors. Additionally, existing mature landscaping exists along the adjacent mutual property lines with an extensive landscape plan proposed to augment the existing privacy screening. It is important to note: This project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three-story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all Town of Tiburon Zoning Codes, design requirements and criteria. 2. There are no three story elements in the proposed residence. The residence on the small flat area has an overall height of 21’-6”. The adjacent residence’s one story elements are approximately equal to half of the proposed residence’s height, and would always have this height differential relationship with any two story proposal. Additionally, the proposed flat roof provides more light and air to the neighbors than any suggested sloped roof which would also increase the height of the proposed structure. 3. This has been addressed in response 2. Community Texture, d. and the desire to not have extensive retaining walls, excessive dirt off-haul, natural drainage course impacts and a larger building footprint with more visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned above, the proposed home size is modest in relation to both the site, some of the neighboring properties, and at 18.9%, does not exceed the 30% lot coverage ratio directed by the Zoning Code. 4. There is an extensive Landscape Plan, sheet L1, that includes a vegetation/management plan for the entire site that has been vetted and approved by the Tiburon Fire Department. 5. This big ‘juvenile’ redwood tree, 36” in diameter, 60’ tall, is in good health, provides visual privacy between the residences and is not proposed to be removed as part of this project. It also provides context between the residences as viewed from Hilary Drive. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 6. This has been addressed, see Site Planning Critique: 3., above. Furthermore, the cost of steep, upslope hillside construction is prohibitive. The driveway to the house would occupy most of the usable flat space, which is utilized in the proposed project as either yard or living space. Pushing into the hillside behind the neighboring two story home with heavy foliage would diminish any view opportunity. Building Critique: 1. This response is completely opinionated. This is a modern residential style with elegant details, thoughtful transitions, mixed exterior finishes, undulating wall planes for shadow contrasts, reflecting an interior floor plan layout that is functional, efficient and engaging for a family to enjoy and utilize in the modern world we now live in. It is important to note that both Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Malott expressed appreciation for the proposed design during a meeting held at our office to discuss the project. 2. There is no three story element proposed by this project. All two story elements are either cored on top of each other or are adjacent to a single story element. The north wall is not one plane as indicated, but is broken into three separate planes with square footages of 460 square feet, 112 square feet and 270 square feet respectfully. This totals 842 square feet, much less than the 1,034 square foot, single plane north façade noted in Mr. Malott’s comment. Again, it is obvious that WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. 3. The cantilevered roof overhangs have been designed to passively control heat gain and are sized according to solar studies to provide relief from the southern exposure between the spring and fall equinox. They additionally augment the proposed style and offer deep shadow lines for contrast and articulation on the exterior elevations. 4. The Upper Level window impacts have been discussed in Site Planning Critique: 1. 5. There is no three story element. The garage is buried in a subterranean manner to minimize the impact of its bulk on the narrow entrance to the site, and has been lowered to street level to allow the residence full use of the smallest flat area in the surrounding area, and to not have automobiles drive up onto the hill, reducing the area for the residence that would be given up to garage space, a driveway, and automobile circulation. Additionally, both adjacent neighbors will no longer have automobile noise, lights and activities on the same level as their living and bedroom spaces. The street level grades are already set and the existing driveway grades are presently cut into the upslope hill. 6. This has been addressed in 3. Character of Residence: f. The main volume of the residence is only 27’ wide and has all two story elements broken up with either cantilevered wall planes, material breaks, roof decks or wall shifts. There are no unrelieved monumental elevations. The proposed residence’s height is compatible, (within 6 inches), with the neighboring two-story property that was constructed in 2005. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com Critique of Architectural Submission: 1. The submission includes photos of a model used to understand the concept of the design only, and has been included simply as a tool to help understand the proposed project. It was not meant to be a ‘Disney-esque’ town model of the community. 2. An accurate shade study has been submitted that shows the impacts of the spring, summer, fall and winter equinox, at 9am, 12pm and 3pm. The limited winter impacts of solar access, per Mr. Malott’s calculations, are until 10am for 685 Hilary Drive, and between 2pm and 4pm for 689 Hilary Drive. This is usually considered a minor impact in relation to the balance of the year where no impacts from the proposed project are created. There will always be a two story element proposed for this site as the smallest flat area in the neighborhood has no other area to expand. If the structure is to be more spread out on the flat area, the two story elements would be located closer to the adjacent properties, thereby greatly increasing the impacts of solar loss. Additionally, during these times of the year, the existing mature landscaping, located along the common property lines, generate more shade and shadow than the proposed structure as evidenced by the shade study. 3. There are no requirements in the Town of Tiburon Design Review submittal guidelines requesting ‘neighborhood’ site sections. The submitted site sections accurately show the relationship between the proposed project and the adjacent structures as required in the guidelines. 4. The topographical survey was prepared in a 1”=10’ scale. The proposed Site Plan was prepared in the same scale to reflect an accurate understanding of the proposed project and the existing conditions. The Landscape Plan was prepared at a larger scale, 1/8”=1’-0”, to be able to illustrate all of the extensive landscape requirements proposed. In order to be able to include, as directed by the Town of Tiburon’s planning department, Site Sections that illustrate the entire length, or width, of the property with the edge of the adjacent properties structure indicated, the 3/16” = 1’-0”scale for the plans was utilized. Mixed scales throughout plan sets are common to be able to provide detailed and accurate representations of the proposed project. 5. The story pole plan, vetted prior to installation by the Town of Tiburon Planning Department, indicate the top of the proposed deck floor lines as the proposed railings are porous and will not be perceived as a solid mass. 6. The submitted design review package includes a Grading and Drainage plan, sheet GD1, that illustrates the existing drainage patterns on the upslope hill behind the residence are to remain, including the 5’-0” wide drainage easement located between 685 Hilary Drive and the subject property. Additionally, the Grading and Drainage plan illustrates how the hillside runoff is collected behind the proposed site and building retaining walls and distributed to the existing drainage system in Hilary Drive. 7. The residence is proposed to include air conditioning as evidenced by the callout for the air condensing pad location noted on the Site Plan, sheet 2. The air conditioning unit installed will meet all Town of Tiburon noise and sound requirements. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 8. The selected spa is self-contained and will meet all Town of Tiburon noise and sound requirements. 9. This has been addressed in Site Planning Critique: 4. 10. The uphill wall of the proposed residence is partially buried into the steep upslope. For the reasons Mr. Malott has stated, the depth of the proposed residence into this upslope has been limited to accommodate, provide for, and minimize these potential concerns. The proposed design illustrates how this issue has been incorporated into the project by using a retaining wall as the building wall along the uphill slope. The Site Section, B/a6, the Grading and Drainage Plan, GD1, and the retaining wall detail, 2/2, clearly delineate this requirement. 11. The proposed exterior lighting is to be minimal. The exterior light locations are indicated on the Exterior Elevations, sheets a4 and a5, and the selected fixtures are shown on the Photographs sheet, p1. 12. This has been addressed in Critique of Architectural Submission: 8. 13. This has been addressed in Site Planning Critique: 5. 14. There has been a Soils Report prepared verifying the proposed project’s building requirements will be accommodated by the existing soils conditions. Concluding Thoughts: 1. The critique and response are completely opinionated. This is a modern styled residence with elegant details, thoughtful transitions, mixed exterior finishes, undulating wall planes for shadow contrasts, with a specific site placement to provide maximum distances from the adjacent neighbors while utilizing the small flat area, remove the automobile requirements from the small flat area, and respect the steeply up-sloped rear yard hillside. Again, it is important to note: This project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all design requirements and criteria. 2. The WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle, especially of a family with three children. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. The Tiburon Design Review Board will be reviewing future projects in this area, possibly with less consideration given to the surrounding neighborhood than this proposed project, as there are similar homes to 687 Hilary Drive in the surrounding area requiring renovation and/or reconstruction. The neighborhood is in transition and is not homogeneous. A neighborhood is more than just the residences one or two parcels away, in this case, the number of unlike structures within any given block in this area is eclectic at best with dissimilar characters, colors, sizes, forms and materials. 3. This is a subjective comment, and has no merit on the proposed project. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 4. Again, this critique is completely opinionated. 5. This is a subjective, opinionated comment. The two residences shown below, one directly north of the project at 27 Mara Vista, and one directly east of the project at 40 Del Mar, are the tapestry of the neighborhood that has been discussed in this project’s planning stages. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 6. Again, it is important to note that this project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all design requirements and criteria as established by The Town of Tiburon. 7. This is a subjective, opinionated comment. 8. The proposed project meets the criteria set forth in this comment. We trust you find this response complete. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ed Blankenship, AIA Richard Berling, AIA + LEED AP TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 1 10/15/20 EXCERPT OF MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Design Review Board meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Board members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Please click the link below to join the webinar: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/92691043041 Webinar ID: 926 9104 3041 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 926 9104 3041 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting are available on the Town’s website. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to Staff by email at drbcomments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Board meeting will be distributed electronically to the Board and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Board meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. The meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Cedric Barringer. A.ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cedric Barringer, Vice Chair Bryan Chong; Boardmember Miles Berger (arrived late), Paolo Crescini and Suzanne Kim Absent: None Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Senior Planner Christy Fong and Community Development Aide Kris Bernard ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Attachment 4 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 11 10/15/20 PH-3 687 HILARY DRIVE; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-211-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 3,483 square feet of floor area and cover 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. Chris Terrell, homeowner, introduced his wife Basia Terrell and thanked the Board, staff and their architects and neighbors for their review, support and input. Basia Terrell, homeowner, said they are a family of five and have gone through the migration from San Francisco to Tiburon. When they first bought the house, they never intended to keep the small structure built in 1954. Within 8 weeks of moving into the 1200 square foot house, she learned they were pregnant with twins and since then have been very cramped. Her husband works, sleeps and showers within a 3-foot diameter space of the existing structure and the pandemic has added pressure and difficulties. They are thrilled about the design and plans and worked for 12 months with the architecture team. They have also met with neighbors and knows there are concerns. She never thought it would be controversial but is open-minded and waiting to hear feedback from the Board. She then introduced their architects. Ed Blankenship, architect, Pacific Design Group, thanked Town staff for their assistance and for getting to this point of presenting the home design. He referred to the survey and described the existing hilly lot, the existing home located in the small flat area of the oversized lot, the driveway and garage force the home to encroach onto the right and set distance from the home to the left. The proposed design intent is to place automobile access off the flat area. They propose taking the garage and lowering it to the Hilary Drive entrance on the property which would remove it from the top of the property and remove lights, noise and smells away from both neighboring homes. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 12 10/15/20 He then presented the garage in the front at 20+ feet back from Hilary Drive to respect front yard setback requirement, stating they have maintained the large redwood tree to the top and right and centered the home on the small area between the left and right sides of the property lines. They have increased the setbacks to the home on the right which is now 5’7” to over 18’ at the closest spot which is where the redwood tree is located. The home on the right has a garage on the right and some bedrooms to the back behind the garage area, so the bedroom on their upper and lower level in the back is adjacent to the bedrooms to the house on the right. To the left, they have tried to maintain the existing setback and yard area to their neighbors, the Sheppards, to give privacy as much distance as they could. There is also an increased landscape plan along that side and drainage channel. The house has been sited to center and pushed back into the hillside. He presented and described the lower floor plan, with garage and entry at the main level, and the staircase going up to the upper floor. There are no three story elements and it is all two story or one story on the layout. The area above the garage is to be used as an outdoor gathering area which is the adult side as opposed to the left side which is the children’s side which is accessible from the dining/family room. He then presented the upper level and said they have a split level exiting to go into the backyard because the house has been pushed into the hillside a sufficient distance without damaging the hillside. There are two bedrooms and a bath to the left for the two children and to the right another bedroom and ensuite for the other children and the master that comes to the front which is quieter. There are concerns with the second floor with window placements. He presented the window system running along the western flanking wall with high windows, the two-bedroom windows are for egress and other windows on the far right are oriented to the hillside or to the front. Mr. Blankenship then presented the elevations, stating they have used wood, stucco, concrete and steel railings to give a modern look. A major issue in the neighborhood relates to what is considered a neighborhood home and a modern contemporary home, and the Terrells were of a mind that this is a style they love and he thinks it is the way the neighborhood will eventually continue to grow. This is the first in the neighborhood which is difficult, and the existing style and size of homes in the neighborhood changes dramatically within a matter of a few homes. He then spoke about the home’s blending, pop-outs, breaking up wall masses, dark colored earth tones, and overall attractiveness of the home. The back side faces uphill and there are no neighbors impacted by this given they are sitting so much higher. To the opposite or eastern home, they have a nice pattern of concrete, stucco and window treatment with siding and harmoniously break up wall planes of the house, and the roof is flat with solar panels. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 13 10/15/20 Boardmember Berger requested Mr. Blankenship return to Sheet A-4 elevation and the south elevation, stating he thinks the shadows in the courtyard are incorrect. The balcony is shading across the windows but the whole wing on the west side should be shading the rest of the courtyard, but it does not. Mr. Blankenship apologized for this error and clarified the full courtyard side would be in shadow. He believes the shadow line would begin from the roof line, break at the top and would clip the edge of the deck on the left side. Chair Barringer asked Mr. Blankenship to speak to the landscaping. Mr. Blankenship stated they unfortunately left the landscape plan out of the packet. He described it, stating there is an extensive plan from the redwood tree all the way along in that planter area. From the tree down to the garage is a hedge row of different plants which grow from 6-8 feet along that side. To the right is the garage and driveway. On the left side, the landscaping hedge and infill trees runs all along in the drainage area down. At the left side of the wood deck in the triangle pocket by the three retaining walls, this is all heavily landscaped on both sides, as well. The plan provides landscaping to shield both neighbors and he pointed out that the Sheppard’s plan does not have the existing trees shown in their drawing. He also pointed to the story poles #18 and #19 which are the overhangs that come out off the top of the building. When looking at this site and seeing the story poles reflecting those, it gives a false impression of much larger mass and bulk than the home really is. He concluded his presentation, stating that their home has been situated into the middle of the lot, preserving as much as the flat area for living space for a family of 5 so they have some yard area and adult space. They lowered the garage down. There are no three-story elements, as the entry to the left is tucked underneath a two-story element of staircase with a deck on top of it, and the two-story house behind it is within the guidelines. There are no variances or special requests, and they feel this would be a wonderful addition to the Town. Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Jim Malott, architect representing Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard at 685 Hilary Drive, stated he wrote the design guidelines for hillside housing in 1981 which are being used by the Town. He cited three issues: 1.Damages to adjacent residences in the form of privacy. The house has a looming sense of being above the homes on both sides and will completely look down on all adjacent windows and side yards. At night, the house has many large windows and will be over the tops of the 6-foot fences between the residences, resulting in the loss of privacy. There will be a loss of winter sun and the outdoor activity space has pushed the noisy areas of the house to the sides adjacent to the property lines and the huge sound walls will reflect the sound into the adjacent yards; TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 14 10/15/20 2.Damage to the neighborhood. This is a three-story house visually and the site pattern language usage of the property is sad and does not conform to anything in the neighborhood in that it pushes the side yards to the point of being activity spaces. From the front, he pointed to a concrete mote that is dugout to the street and a dugout driveway. It covers 65% of the frontage of the house. The massing of the house is blocky and effectively is a house on house, both 1750 square feet. It is twice as large as the average for the neighborhood. The design is insensitive in that the materials, forms, massing, texture have nothing to do with the existing neighborhood. The modern style of the house is not the issue, but rather the blocky massing and the use of the site and the house takes from the neighborhood. 3.Damage to the Town. This accelerates the small house loss in Tiburon if approved. The community character is ignored. The three-story element declares open season for contractors, developers, and wealthy buyers. There are other options available and the simplest and most efficient is a U-shaped house on the property with a second story master suite at the back of the lot on the uphill side overlooking the courtyard and out to the view. This would have almost no effect on the neighbors and would have the same amount of square footage. Otherwise, an 11-foot-high fence will be needed on each side of the yard to provide privacy. Ken Weil said he has lived at 686 Hilary Drive for 11 years, stated this is a great neighborhood. People are inclusive and respectful of one another. The style of the homes vary somewhat and this is his first opportunity to comment about the design. He said style does not bother him, but from a mass and bulk standpoint, the primary issue is the setting of the proposed home noting that there are 17 one-story homes going from Rockhill Road to Mar Vista. Practically, he is concerned about the amount of noise with the adult and children space and balcony space, and said the homes are so compact that he easily hears his neighbors across the street. Therefore, he is very concerned about privacy. The three levels are not harmonious at all with the other homes. When they look out their bedrooms window to the front, they look at the roofline of 687 Hilary Drive and will not see that but instead, a mass of a house. The design is like a block, one level on top of another level on top of another level. He would love to see the owners get what they want in terms of space, but he objects to the impact it has on the immediate neighborhood. Thomas Unger said he lives at 689 Hilary Drive or to the east. They are happy to have gained the Terrells to the neighborhood and their comments are to provide context about what the impact of the plans are. Their home was purchased about 11 years ago from the architect builder and he spoke about the design as a master bedroom on the second floor with the view of Richardson Bay. After the DRB met and considered the neighbor’s feedback there was a significant change to the plan resulting in what is there today and they think their home is really a precedent for second story additions within the Hillary Drive area. They kept large windows to the lower floors facing only front and back. There were no decks off the second floor. Second story windows are small and high to protect privacy. They have talked about mass and bulk in the design but for them, the impacts are moving the backyard to the side yard which will be adjacent to their bedrooms and disruptive to their TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 15 10/15/20 privacy. As well, the second story windows look right into their house into several rooms. For their home, those windows were moved higher in the elevation and not full length to maintain privacy on both sides. Mary Beth Sheppard said she and her husband Gary have lived at 685 Hilary Drive, next door to the project, for 33 years and they love their sense of privacy, light, and the character of the neighborhood. This design checks all of the boxes of what not to do when proposing a multi- story house in a one-story neighborhood, and said the design fails to take steps to reduce mass, bulk and height, adds 8 glass windows on the upper level that will look directly into their home, 4 more windows and glass doors on the lower level which will shine light into their home, adds two outdoor decks that will look.at their home and garden, adds an outdoor entertainment area that also looks into their property. She presented Slide 3 showing her looking up at the story poles but the photos do not show the orange tape between the poles so she tracked the tape with the black lines. She urged the Board to come to their home and into their garden to see how much they are impacted and then presented a series of photos showing the inside of their home’s rooms. They applicants are trying to save money by not building into the hillside and this does not mean they should be able to build the largest house possible that ignores the privacy of neighbors and damages them. She cited several solutions to reduce the mass and bulk and asked for complete re-design. She thanked 15 neighbors who supported them in strong opposition to this project and the Terrells are a wonderful family that needs more space and they support their effort to expand their home as long as it does not damage their home and loss of privacy. Rob Riley stated he lives across the street at 690 Hilary Drive and, when they bought their home, they loved the neighborhood and designs from the 1950’s but also like the modern designs as seen up the hill. When standing in his yard, he sees houses built on the hill and most of those actually are in line with the design that the Terrells want to build. He thinks it is fantastic when there are neighborhoods that are modernized in a thoughtful way and looking to fit the needs of a modern family. He thinks the new home will also make it welcoming for future families as well. He did not have any privacy issues with the design when looking at it. He has seen the pictures and what has been shared with the story poles, orange ropes, and it creates a perception as if the house is larger than it really is because of the overhangs. Building a garage into the level that Hilary Drive is on makes sense and is not really part of the house and where the family lives, so this is a smart approach so as not to tear up the land, the hill or wildlife, etc. In summary, they think the architect has designed something beautiful and voiced his support for both the older styles and newer styles of the homes. Richard Sidleman said he and his wife live at 14 Mara Vista Court and they can see the story poles from their bedroom, but the great virtue of Tiburon is its natural beauty, its solitude, and its privacy. As they look at the poles, it is clear that the privacy and solitude of the Sheppards on one side will be adversely affected and subject to inspection and mooting of their own enjoyment to a point they would not support. The Sheppards privacy will be like living next door to a tenement which would be very much unlike the life they chose, or anyone would want to choose in Tiburon. Therefore, they oppose this project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 16 10/15/20 Rebuttal – Applicant Basia Terrell, homeowners, thanked all speakers and she pointed out the number of participants and families that have written letters of support as well to the Board. They had reached out to 10 and then stopped. She heard Mr. Mallot very clearly, but she is trying to respond. With regard to the side yards, there are no side yards. The picture of Mary Beth Sheppard was from her side yard towards her property. The fact one can say there are now side yards in this neighborhood is contrary to both her property as well as to Mr. Unger’s property, where there is a deck to the front of the house with a fire pit. It might not be used, but it does exist. They were careful in the placement of the yards and said there are two different spaces to enjoy because they do not want to expose one neighbor or the other. Creating a U-shaped house creates a bunker or tries to shield both neighbors and they will then receive a response about their windows being closer to one property or the next. So, they took this into consideration. She stated they met with Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard in May and wants to reach consensus. The pictures Mrs. Sheppard put up in the slide were helpful, and in looking at them, there is a huge amount of foliage. They have several trees on their property line some of which are on their side which are over 30 feet tall, a very robust oak that covers the vast majority of the back space which is also set back at 16 or more feet. If they were to push the house back, there would be a lot of impact to the overall design. The reason they live in Tiburon is because of the bay views. They are trying to alter the brick wall by creating an entryway that opens to the beautiful bay view, and from the second story, being able to see the view and the bridge. If they were pushed further back, they would be behind foliage on Mr. Unger’s property as well as the two-story home to their left. She finds it hypocritical because it is due to Mr. Sheppard’s effort many decades ago that they were zoned into two stories. So, she expects on the left side which is Mr. Unger’s property which is two stories and in her lifetime they will be dealing with a two-story structure on the right side. She does not accept the arguments of speakers and thinks having to go through this is quite damaging to relationships. Just because the master bedroom and architecture were damaged by the prior owners of the property, it should not be something that influences the decision-making here. They would have welcomed decks and more windows and she honestly thinks when Mr. Sheppard’s property becomes two stories it will be more modern and will be a flat roof, so it cannot just be a box. It will have to have decks and she is perplexed and hopes this refutes some of the points that were addressed. Mr. Blankenship stated he has spent a lot of time with the Terrells trying to work through their design requirements as well as the design requirements that the Town has in place, which is one of the reasons they are not asking for any variances or special conditions, or exceptions to lot coverage, floor area or height. He also stated that The Terrells have spent a lot of time agonizing about what the impacts of every decision that they make on this home will bring. This is not a design that was done quickly. It has been going on for at least 8 or 9 months to try to accommodate not only their needs but also blend into the hillside and try to accommodate privacy for the left and right side TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 17 10/15/20 neighbors who are those here they are most concerned about. In conclusion, they are available to answer any questions of the Board. Boardmember Berger said he likes the design and thinks it is quite attractive and does many of the things Mr. Malott’s hillside design guidelines indicate. The guidelines are brilliantly written and beautifully illustrated that they have been an understandable guide to people in Tiburon for 30 years and will continue for a long time to come. He thinks the house seems to step up the hill and the masses are articulated brilliantly and he agrees with the comments about keeping the car down below and putting the house above. He also really likes the front yard hardscape and landscape combination which is beautifully broken up. For a house like this there is not a wholesale design change that would be indicated; however, the Board is always looking for the small changes that can make a big difference for neighbors but would make almost no difference for the applicant. He drew a sketch on the site plan to explain and he referred to A-2 or A-3 it will explain it as well. He visited the Sheppards home and said there are some problems on that residence that could be changed with a simple modification of the house. The elevations on that side are interesting in that they change materials, but it is a very blocky elevation on the side nearest to the Sheppards. In addition, the windows from the bedrooms on the second floor will be quite bright looking into the Sheppards’ property in the evening and even during the day from a privacy point of view. He thinks this should be addressed. If they took the bedroom on the second floor that is nearest to the backside and move it to the courtyard on the second floor. There could be a post and they could come out underneath it and it would provide some shade and cover, and it could have a view of the bay from there while still having access to the bathroom that would remain. The bedroom that remains behind the second bedroom that now has all of its windows pointed at the Sheppards could have windows that look into the back or hillside which would be superior. This is a quick revision and it does not lower the square footage at all for the applicant. Instead of having a solid mass on the side, it would have a mass that breaks up. So, breaking up the mass on the Sheppards’ side, getting rid of a lot of the large windows and taking advantage of looking into the hillside instead of looking out to the Sheppards. The windows in the master bathroom could be adjusted as well and it looks as though the deck on the master might benefit the Sheppards by having a little screening partition so when they are out there, they are not looking back at the Sheppards and the light also might not go to the Sheppards. He would like to see the design come back with changes like this that could improve its neighborliness to the neighbors and asked not to change the style one bit. Boardmember Kim said she likes the architecture and elevations on the plans and having the parking tucked under is clever. Her concern is the juxtaposition of this massing to its neighbors. It towers over both of them and this is clear. So, she is not sure how to address that but the neighbor has a second floor but it is to the center of the property and not towards the edges, and this is how the shading and privacy issues could be mitigated—by pushing that to the center. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 18 10/15/20 While not ideal, she asked if there is a way to sink the entire mass down and what that could do in terms of the overall height and relationship with the two. She likes the architecture, the style, the articulation of the masses and materials which was nicely done. She just believes the home is higher than any other building and it needs to be addressed. Vice Chair Chong said this project was a bit of a rollercoaster for him. He began reviewing the plans and he loves the design and would not change the style of architecture. When he first looked at the plans it looked like a home which was enveloped with almost a forest and he drove out with the expectation of seeing a lot more foliage. He saw the story poles which are definitely jarring at first, so he had to recalibrate where the house is compared to the corners. Over the years, the Board has reviewed quite a few projects in this neighborhood and the streets are really stacked. The thought of having a two-story in this neighborhood first was thought would never work, but after seeing one spot in the back where there is the hill, if going two houses to the left the hill comes down and this would severely impact an uphill neighbor and the same thing happens when going to the right. After spending a little time walking around there, he was able to get his head around a two-story. In looking at other neighborhoods that have wrestled with one-story versus two-story, Belveron is very anti-two-stories within the center. There is a split on what happens at the edges, and then there are areas like this court which are out of the way enough that it does not impact anybody and people tend to be okay with it. The way this lot is in the back is that it is unusually large compared to the surrounding lots so it affords the ability to do a little more at least in the back but he questioned if there is a two-story design that he could get behind and he thinks he could but it would definitely need to minimize some of the impact there on the two next door neighbors. He suggested using what Boardmember Berger suggested plus a little more work on some windows and other techniques that can be used to minimize impacts. Regarding whether he would be supportive of a two-story in this spot, he thinks he would be. Boardmember Crescini said he took a quick look at the drawings and then visited the site. His gut reaction was “holy cow” because it is so drastically different to the surroundings that he really does not know if he likes this as compared to the cottage-like neighborhood, but in the future the Board will see more of these go and the whole landscape will change. What struck him first was that everybody has little driveways that go up the hill. They choose to bring the garage to the street level which he finds is okay. What he does not understand is that they are also bringing the entrance to the house at ground level. He asked if they could dig the front of the street just for the driveway but leave the slope as is and go up to the entrance. The thing that makes it look like three-stories is that there is the entrance, the big window, and the upper floor, and the pop out of the terrace in front does not have eaves. The neighbor’s house is a two-story house, but the second story is in the roof, so it is not so towering. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 19 10/15/20 He likes the design, but it is too massive, so he thinks the pop out of the terrace in the front and stairs is not doing enough to break up the mass. Another consideration is for the rest of the floor plan besides the pop out, the two stories are one on top of the other and stacked. There is no breakdown or variation in the outline of the building which is against the design guidelines. If they do not want to dig into the hill, they dug into the hill in front to get to the entrance, so he asked to cut the same amount on the back of the hill and try to push backwards the upper part of the building. He found it bizarre that they have the entrance right at ground level but there are stairs where there is the main view in their living room. He asked that once they create the entrance at the living room level rather than the garage level, then they can consider extending the other part of the back of the house that currently goes from the first floor to the second floor to ascend down below to the level of the garage so if they are coming in from the garage, they can take the back stairs. Visitors are outside on the steps and they get to the entry at the living room level. So, instead of stepping that far to get access to the house, he suggested leaving it as it, plant it and screen it. He noticed there was a beautiful Cypress tree there that will be demolished but he thinks it could remain partially inside the house without hiding the view from the house to the bay. He commended the owners for committing themselves not to ask for a variance for floor area or coverage, and while the building is within the guidelines, it is too high as compared to the neighbors. He suggested lowering the plate of the building, try to break up the mass, and the big eaves might be contributing to the mass especially when seen from down below, but he likes eaves but asked that they be less and follow the outline of the building. For the rest, the layout of the second floor should keep in consideration privacy issues and therefore, limit the number of windows on the sides of the property. Additionally, he likes the materials a lot but thinks the building is too massive especially when seen from the street. Chair Barringer echoed comments of Boardmembers on what an elegant style is and thinks the architects have done a nice job in pushing and pulling a bit and varying the materials which helps break up mass. He likes Boardmember Berger’s suggestion and without being specific on the redesign, there is a lot of room on the lot coverage and he does not see why the second floor cannot push back 6 feet which would make a tremendous difference on the appearance of the mass from the street. The applicants could also consider pushing the turf area back another 2 feet and had some grasses in addition to the creeping fig vine, and have some planting that goes up that portion for the upper deck which would break things up and soften the appearance and cut the light a bit. Most of the hedges are listed as mature height at 6 feet and if this is the case, he would like something a little bit taller there to grow above the fence height. Other than the one lighting fixture cut sheet there is not much information on the lighting. There are a couple of path lights, and he would like more clarity on what is happening here in the yard. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 20 10/15/20 Otherwise, the design is elegant. Burying the garage breaks things up and creates some additional usable space. He thinks it is relatively close and along the lines of what Boardmember Berger requested as well as other Boardmembers to reduce the mass from the street by pushing the second floor or playing with the second floor. Boardmember Kim said in contextualizing the height in the neighborhood this design is higher, but also part of the issue is that there are 2-foot walls which creates the sense these are massive pieces. She suggested playing with the surfaces and break away the second floor from the first floor. She understands why there is a structural reason for this, but she thinks the second floor could be shifted or pushed back. Boardmember Berger clarified that the massing from the street does not bother him too much and if the top floor pushes back and does more stepping would be fine. He was more concerned about the massing along the sides and the idea of taking the back bedroom, pulling it off, replacing it with a lower roof and moving it to the courtyard against the shadow spot to a cantilevered or suspended piece in the middle of the courtyard and up high in that corner which would further break up the two story wall on that side. A few simple moves will cut light, reduce massing and increase articulation of the house for the benefit of the neighbors and not to the detriment of the applicant. He likes everyone’s comments and thinks they could make some changes in this direction. Vice Chair Chong agreed with the sides that are the problem. Chair Barringer said it sounds like the Board is leaning towards a motion towards continuance. Ms. Tasini suggested a continuance to November 19, 2020 which would allow the applicants to prepare redesigns and to allow staff to put the packet together. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) to continue the matter to November 19, 2020 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Director Tasini announced there was a request from Boardmembers to provide 11 x 17 hard copies, and staff will be asking this from applicants in the future and will place them in Boardmember mailboxes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com November 10, 2020 Town of Tiburon Planning Department Christy Fong, Contract Planner 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 687 Hilary Drive Dear Christy, Please find the following plan modifications, based on our response, to the comments from the Design Review Commissioners at the October 15, 2020 Design Review Hearing: 1.Floor Plan Modifications: The two Upper Level Bedrooms are now both located at the rear of the residence with their primary views facing the upslope hillside. Both Bedrooms access a small deck also facing the upslope hillside. The Bath that services these two Bedrooms has been relocated to the Western portion of the structure. Relocating one Bedroom to the Southeast side of the Residence is not viable as the area for enclosure is too small to construct a code-compliant Bedroom. This area, however, was enclosed to provide a more spacious area to enter and egress from the stairway as well as access all Upper Level Bedrooms. 2. The previously proposed eight windows on the West facing Upper Level Elevation, totaling 102 sf, have been reduced to 3 windows, totaling 39 sf, a 62% reduction of glazing area. Two of the three windows are located in Bathrooms and have a sill height of 5’-0”. The third window is located at the Northern most portion of the entire Western facing wall. 3. Two proposed windows on the Eastern facing Upper Level Elevation, totaling 48 sf, one in the Guest/Office and one in the Master Bedroom transition entrance, have been removed. 4. 12’-0” high screening hedges have been added to the East and West fence lines. We trust you find this response complete. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Richard Berling, AIA + LEED AP Ed Blankenship, AIA November 11, 2020 Attachment 5 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E R E S I D E N C E T E R R E L L T I B U R O N C A L I F O R N I A site Vicinity IndexProject Description DataOwner: Chris & Basia Terrell687 Hillary DriveTiburon, CaliforniaAP# 055-021-08Occupancy: R-3Construction Type: V-BStories: 3Zone: R1Lot area: 18,388 sfAverage Slope: 30.55%FAR Allowed: 10% of 18,388 sf + 2,000 sf = 3,839 sf + 600 sf garage (not counted) = 20.87%Existing Residence:Living: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sf - 600 sf = 0Total: 1,245 sf = 6.8%Proposed Residence:Entry Level: 200 sfGarage: 667 - 600 sf (not counted) = 67 sfMain Level: 1,708 sfUpper Level: 1,631 sfTotal Proposed Residence: 3,606 sf = 19.61%Lot Coverage Allowed: 30% x 18,388 sf = 5,516 sfExisting Lot Coverage:Residence: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sfDriveway: 720 sfTotal: 2,347 sf /18,388 sf = 12.7%Proposed Lot Coverage:Driveway: 830 sfResidence: 1,591 sfTerrace/Garage:1,284 sfUpper Floor Cantilever: 157 sfUpper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfUpper Floor Guest/Bedroom Decks: 90+52 = 142 sfRoof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfRoof Over 4'-0": 325 sfLanding to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,587 sf /18,388 sf = 24.94%Grading Quantities:Amount of Cut: 340 CYAmount of Fill: 51 CYOffhaul: 289 CYImpervious Coverage:Existing: 3,080 sfProposed Net Increase: 2,145 sfFinished Condition: 5,225 sfRequired Setbacks:Front Yard: 15'-0"Rear Yard: 20% to 25'-0"Side Yard: 8'-0"Existing Setbacks:Front Yard: 24'-6"Rear Yard: 95'-6"Right Side Yard: 20'-0"Left Side Yard: 5'-6"Proposed Setbacks:Front Yard: 22'-0"Rear Yard: 74'-0"Right Side Yard: 18'-6"Left Side Yard: 16'-1"Allowed Max. Height: 30'-0"Existing Height: 12'-0"Proposed Height: 30'-0"Existing Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesRequired Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesProposed Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spaces Codes2019 California Residential Code California Electrical Code California Mechanical Code California Plumbing Code California Energy Code California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Standards Code2019 California Residential Energy Efficiency Conditions1 Coverp1 Photographsp2 View Perspective - Main Deckp3 View Perspective - Guest Deckp4 View Perspective - SpaSiteC1 Survey2 Site PlanGD1 Grading & Drainage Plan3 Site Sections4 Roof Planss1 Shade StudyL1 Landscape Plan/Vegetation ManagementECN Erosion Control NotesArchitecturee1 Existing Planse2 Existing Elevationsa1 Proposed Entry/Garage Levela2 Proposed Main Levela3 Proposed Upper Level Floora4 Proposed Elevations / Material Sample Boarda5 Proposed Elevationsa6 Proposed SectionsThe proposed project removes an existing 1,245 sf singlefamily residence with an attached 382 sf two-car garage.The proposed project constructs a 3,606 sf single familyResidence with a 267 sf Entry/Garage Level, a 1,708 sfMain Level, and a 1,631 sf Upper Level. C o v e r 1 This project requires compliance with MMWD,Water Conservation Ordinance # 430.Site Plan based on a Survey prepared by DMGEngineering, Inc., Engineers/Surveyors.Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,483 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :6,966 /100 : 6.9 KW required1 KW per 100 sf690 sf : 6.9 KW provided v i i i . E a v e o r c o r n i c e v e n t s s h a l l n o t b e i n s t a l l e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d b u r n i n g e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 3 . v i i i . V e n t o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , w h e r e a l l o w e d , s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e , o r s h a l l b e s c r e e n e d w i t h c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h n o t l e s s t h a n 1 / 1 6 o r g r e a t e r t h a n 1 / 8 o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 2 . i x . E x t e r i o r w i n d o w s , w i n d o w w a l l s , g l a z e d d o o r s , a n d g l a z e d o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r d o o r s s h a l l b e i n s u l a t i n g g l a s s u n i t s w i t h a m i n i m u m o f o n e t e m p e r e d p a n e , o r g l a s s b l o c k u n i t s , o r h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g o f n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 1 0 , o r c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 2 . § R 3 2 7 . 8 . 2 . 1 . x . E x t e r i o r d o o r a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 1 o r s h a l l b e o f a p p r o v e d n o n c o m b u s t i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r s o l i d c o r e w o o d h a v i n g s t i l e s a n d r a i l s n o t l e s s t h a n 1 3 / 8 ″ t h i c k w i t h i n t e r i o r p a n e l s n o l e s s t h a n 1 ¼ ″ t h i c k , o r s h a l l h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 7 4 . C R C R 3 2 7 . 8 . 3 ( E x c e p t i o n : N o n c o m b u s t i b l e o r e x t e r i o r f i r e - r e t a r d a n t t r e a t e d w o o d v e h i c l e a c c e s s d o o r s . ) W i l d l a n d U r b a n I n t e r f a c e i . P r i o r t o b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f i n a l a p p r o v a l t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e v e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e s c r i b e d i n C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 C a l i f o r n i a G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . C R C § R 3 2 7 . 1 . 5 i i . R o o f i n g a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r l i s t i n g s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e r s i n s t a l l a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n s . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . i i i . E x t e r i o r w a l l c o v e r i n g s h a l l e x t e n d f r o m t h e t o p o f f o u n d a t i o n t o t h e r o o f , t e r m i n a t i n g a t 2 " n o m i n a l s o l i d w o o d b l o c k i n g b e t w e e n r a f t e r s a n d r o o f o v e r h a n g , o r t e r m i n a t e a t t h e e n c l o s u r e o f e n c l o s e d e a v e s . i v . W h e n p r o v i d e d , v a l l e y f l a s h i n g s s h a l l b e n o t l e s s t h a n 0 . 0 1 9 ″ ( N o . 2 6 g a l v a n i z e d s h e e t g a g e ) c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t m e t a l i n s t a l l e d o v e r a m i n i m u m 3 6 ″ w i d e u n d e r l a y m e n t c o n s i s t i n g o f o n e l a y e r o f N o . 7 2 A S T M c a p s h e e t r u n n i n g t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f t h e v a l l e y . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 3 . v . A l l u n d e r f l o o r a r e a s e n c l o s e d t o g r a d e w i t h e x t e r i o r w a l l s s h a l l b e c o v e r e d a s r e q u i r e d f o r e x t e r i o r w a l l s . U n d e r s i d e o f a l l e x p o s e d f l o o r s , e x p o s e d s t r u c t u r a l c o l u m n s , b e a m s a n d s u p p o r t i n g w a l l s t o b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h e x t e r i o r i g n i t i o n - r e s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l s o r h e a v y t i m b e r v i . R o o f g u t t e r s s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e m e a n s t o p r e v e n t t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f l e a v e s a n d d e b r i s i n t h e g u t t e r . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 4 . v i i R o o f a n d a t t i c v e n t s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a , o r s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d b y c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h 1 / 1 6 m i n . a n d 1 / 8 m a x . o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 2 . Notes: N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 2 0 P h o t o g r a p h s p 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E ConcreteRecessed Path LightBega 22-135LED: 2700 Lumens Artisan Shiplap SidingDryvit Fleetwood CharcoalWoodFountainRailingWall Luminaire Bega 33-344LED: 2700 Lumens V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e M a i n D e c k p 2 View Perspective - Main DeckEastFountain I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e G u e s t D e c k p 3 View Perspective - Guest Deck I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E East S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e S p a p 4 View Perspective - Spa I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E EastSoutheast S o u t h w e s t W e s t 4 " p l u m , t b r . ( e ) 3 6 " r e d w o o d S58°36'00"W - 160.00' j o i n t p o l e N23 ° 5 7 ' 1 6 " E - 1 9 6 . 5 5 ' N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W - 1 7 0 . 0 0 ' H I L L A R Y D R I V E ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 2 . 2 f f ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k ( e ) w o o d f e n c e ( e ) w i r e f e n c e 6 " o a k 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6 " o a k 7 " o a k (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum ( 4 ) 7 " p l u m 5 " p l u m 4 " o a k ( 4 ) 7 " o a k 9 " o a k 6 " o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . ( e ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) w a t e r m e t e r 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 R E S I D E N C E M a i n L e v e l 1 0 1 . 0 F . F . ( e ) r e s i d e n c e , t b r . ( n ) c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) g u y w i r e e a s e m e n t 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 15'-0" setback 8'-0"setback 25'-0" setback 9 1 . 9 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p h o t t u b w a t e r f e a t u r e 1 2 1 . 0 1 1 7 . 0 1 1 3 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 ( n ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 4 . 5 ( e ) e l e c t r i c m e t e r , t o b e r e l o c a t e d s y n t h e t i c t u r f 1 0 1 . 5 L = 5 6 . 2 7 ' ; R = 9 3 0 . 0 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 1 . 0 w o o d d e c k 1 0 1 . 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 G A R A G E ( b e l o w ) 9 1 . 0 F . F . T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 c o n d e n s i n g u n i t o / c o n c r e t e p a d u p S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n a / 3 Site Section a / 3 ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k 22'-0" c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p u p u p s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 2 5 . 0 c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w l i n e o f b u i l d i n g w a l l l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g 1 8 ' - 6 " 8 ' - 6 " concrete stairs& landing, typ. T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 6 ' - 0 " 5'-0" typ. 1 6 ' - 1 " 1 9 ' - 2 " 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 concrete retainingwall, typ. ( e ) w o o d f e n c e , t b r . ( e ) b l d g 3 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 c o n c r e t e e n t r y w a l k w a y c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence m e m b r a n e r o o f s k y l i g h t , t i n t e d / n o l i g h t s , t y p . N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W 2 . 0 2 ' 2 - # 2 2 ( e ) f e n c e , t b r . 2-#2s3 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f (e) wire fence ( e ) w i r e f e n c e ( e ) w o o d s t e p s , t b r . ( n ) w o o d s t e p s t o h o t t u b ( n ) c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s o n r o o f ( n ) d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 5'-0" 2 - # 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 9 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 2 2 2 3 ' - 0 " 2 - # 1 2 T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line ( n ) 6 0 " x 8 4 " h o t t u b b y M a r q u i s , " T h e N a s h v i l l e " 1 8 1 9 h a n d r a i l s a n d g u a r d r a i l s a s r e q u i r e d . 9 2 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 6 . 5 9 4 . 5 2 - # 3 2 6 7 8 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 7 2 0 S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n li n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s P r o p o s e d G r o s s F l o o r A r e a : 3 , 4 5 6 s f C u t / F i l l Q u a n t i t i e s : C u t : 3 4 0 C Y F i l l : 5 1 C Y O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y N o t e : B a s e d o n a s u r v e y p r e p a r e d b y D y l a n G o n s a l v e s , D M G E n g i n e e r i n g . L i c e n s e d S u r v e y o r # 8 4 7 5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,539 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :7,078 /100 : 7 KW required1 KW per 100 sf700 sf : 7 KW provided Story Pole Schedule#elevationgrade98.098.013.5'21.5'1101.02345101.0111.5111.5121.5 91.0100.0 98.0 10.0'height3.0'13.5'151716111.5121.5 106.017.5'104.0 5.5'6121.520.5'101.07121.520.5'101.0121.519.5'8103.0910121.5121.5 19.5'102.0101.020.5'121.5121.5 101.014121.5101.020.5'111213121.5101.0101.0 20.5'20.5'20.5'19 18121.5121.5 20.5'101.0 23.5'98.0 121.517.5'104.0101.020111.510.5'CAE DFG IBDDDFHA Driveway: 830 sfB Residence: 1,591 sfC Terrace/Garage:1,284 sfD Upper Floor Cantilever: 30 + 42 + 46 + 39 = 157 sfE Upper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfF Upper Floor Guest/Bedroom Decks: 90 + 52 = 142 sfG Roof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfH Roof Over 4'-0": 325 sf I Landing to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,587 sf /18,388 sf = 24.94%"X""Y"(heel)eq.min.8""t"eq."T"SLAB T.O."H""A" bar cont. see sched.#4@18"o.c. horiz. barslab on grade, see plan waterproofing(miradrain/equal)3/4" drainrock rigid perf.pipe (in filter fabric)"C" bars cont. @top & bott.see sched."B" bars cont.@ top & bott.see schedule slope heal 14":12"#5Ø dowel @ 9" o/c Retaining Wall Schedule "A" #5@12"#4@12"6'-8"5'-8"4' TO 6'0' TO 4'"H""X"1'-8"12""T"1'-8""Y"12""C" #4@12"#5@12""B" 10""t"8"#5@12"#4@12"#6@12"6'-10"6' TO 10'1'-8"12"#5@12"10"#6@12"No.1233'-6"2" x 2" metal posts@ 6'-0" o/c1 12" x 34" metal rails@<4" o/c, typ.2" x 1" @ top/bottom Handrail and Guardrail Requirements:1. The top of handrails shall not be less than 3 4 i n c h e s nor more than 38 inches above the nosin g o f t h e t r e a d . Ends shall be returned to the wall.2. Stairway: minimum tread 11", maximum r i s e 7 " , maximum variation 3/8".3. Handrail (circular) graspability shall not be l e s s t h a n 1 1/4 inches nor more than 2 inches in cro s s s e c t i o n a l dimension. Handrail height shall not be le s s t h a n 3 4 " nor more than 38". Handrails shall return s m o o t h l y t o wall.4. Guardrail to be a minimum height of 42" a l o n g open-sided walking surfaces, mezzanine s , p l a t f o r m s , stairways, ramps and landings located 3 0 " a b o v e f l o o r or grade below. Openings between rails s h a l l b e l e s s than 4 inches. Support posts shall compl y w i t h minimum load required by Section 1607. 7 C B C 200 lb. minimum applied in any direction a l o n g a n y point. I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 S i t e P l a n / A r e a D i a g r a m & D e t a i l s a s n o t e d S i t e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1/Guardrail2/Retaining Wall Lot Coverage Diagram Story Pole ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6"oak 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6"oak7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5"plum4"oak(4)7"oak 9"oa k 6"oak4"oak 6 " o a k 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 100 130120110 ( e ) s t o r m d r a i n 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 TW 104.5 d s d s d s d s d s d s d s d s ( n ) d r a i n a g e l i n e ( n ) 4 " S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h , t y p . (n) 4 " P V C p e r f o r a t e d d r a i n l i n e 2 l a t e r a l , t y p . j o i n t p o l e 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 5'-0" T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"(e) BUILDING 5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line(n ) 4 " Ø S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o ( n ) d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h disp e r s i o n t r e n c h , 6 " p e r f o r a t e d p i p e i n 12"x12 " w / d r a i n r o c k i n fil t e r f a b r i c , t y p i c a l 2 / g d 1 dispersion trench,12"x12" w/drain rock infilter fabric, typical2/gd1 S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n l i n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s drain rock to extend 12"min. beyond "T" dissipaterin all directions4"Ø SDR35 PER PLAN I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E g d 1 G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " G r a d i n g a n d D r a i n a g e P l a n t w 1 0 0 . 0 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 1 0 1 . 5 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 9 6 . 0 b w 9 2 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 0 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 1a/Typical Fiber Roll Installation 1b/Fiber Roll Entrenchment Detail A r e a o f c u t : 3 4 0 C Y A r e a o f f i l l : 5 1 C Y A m o u n t o f O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y G r a d i n g A m o u n t s : 2/Dispersion Trench P/L P / L m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 19'-7" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 29'-6" @ entry 12'-7" 25'-0"required setback 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 74'-1"proposed setback l a n d i n g t o p o f e n t r y l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1'-6" m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' e n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' t o p o f m a i n l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 1 0 . 5 ' ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 23'-0" 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9'-6"top of plate 120.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5' P / L 8'-0"9'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5'entry level ff 92.0' 30'-0" maximum height 30'-0" maximum height envelopeP/L 8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 23'-0"proposed setback 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k top of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 9 ' - 6 " top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2'(e) BUILDING102.2 ff r o o f r i d g e h t . @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 S i t e S e c t i o n 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' - 0 " B / S i t e S e c t i o n A / S i t e S e c t i o n l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s 4 ' - 0 x 4 ' - 0 " s k y l i g h t , t y p . 3 w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k l i n e o f r o o f a t e n t r y line of w a l l a t u p p e r l e v e l 3 ' - 0 " o v e r h a n g u . n . o . 5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5'-0" l i n e o f g a r a g e a t e n t r y l e v e l ( d o t t e d ) m e m b r a n e r o o f m e m b r a n e r o o f 3 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 9 18 1 9 6 7 8 1 3 15 1 6 1 7 wood deck2'-6 x2'-6"skylight, typ. 2 2 0 P h o t o v o l t a i c E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n S y s t e m 3 , 5 3 9 s f G r o s s A r e a x 2 w a t t s / s f : 7 , 0 7 8 / 1 0 0 : 7 K W r e q u i r e d 1 K W p e r 1 0 0 s f 7 0 0 s f : 7 K W p r o v i d e d S t o r y P o l e S c h e d u l e # e l e v a t i o n g r a d e 9 8 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 3 . 5 ' 2 1 . 5 ' 1 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 4 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 1 1 . 5 1 1 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 0 . 0 ' h e i g h t 3 . 0 ' 1 3 . 5 ' 1 5 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 6 . 0 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 5 . 5 ' 6 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 7 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 9 . 5 ' 8 1 0 3 . 0 9 1 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 9 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 4 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 1 9 1 8 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 . 5 ' 9 8 . 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 1 1 1 . 5 1 0 . 5 ' A A R o o f O v e r h a n g ( o v e r 5 ' - 0 " ) : 3 2 5 s f I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 R o o f P l a n 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Roof Pla n F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S h a d e S t u d y n t s s s 1 ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6"oak 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6" o a k 7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5"plum4"oak(4)7"oak 9 " o a k 6" o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k ( e ) ( 3 ) 9 " o a k + 1 5 ' (e) 7" o a k +12' ( e ) 1 2 " p i n e + 2 0 ' 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 C D 4 5 S C 4 1 F P 4 1 U C 8 1 5 E F 2 5 S C 2 1 L D 3 1 F P 1 1 E F 1 5 E F 1 5 C D 2 5 F P 2 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 L D 3 1 L D 1 1 L D 2 1 S C 3 1 S C 1 1 S C 1 1 L D 6 1 F P 1 1 F P 1 1 P I s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f ( n ) l a w n ( e ) l a w n s c o r e d c o n c r e t e p a t i o s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g w o o d d e c k s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence 1 L 1 1 2 Y W 1 1 F P 2 1 UC1315(e) BUILDING102.2 ff ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f E F 1 5 T r e e P r o t e c t i o n a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n N o t e s 1 . B e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f a n y c l e a r i n g , e x c a v a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r o t h e r w o r k o n t h e s i t e , o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , e v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s h a l l b e s e c u r e l y f e n c e d - o f f a t t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e , o r o t h e r l i m i t a s m a y b e d e l i n e a t e d i n t h e r e q u i r e d t r e e p r o t e c t i o n p l a n . S u c h f e n c e s s h a l l r e m a i n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n p l a c e f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e w o r k u n d e r t a k e n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . 2 . I f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g a n y s i t e w o r k , w i l l e n c r o a c h u p o n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , s p e c i a l m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e u t i l i z e d , a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t , t o a l l o w t h e r o o t s t o o b t a i n n e c e s s a r y o x y g e n , w a t e r , a n d n u t r i e n t s . 3 . U n d e r g r o u n d t r e n c h i n g s h a l l a v o i d t h e m a j o r s u p p o r t a n d a b s o r b i n g t r e e r o o t s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . I f a v o i d a n c e i s i m p r a c t i c a l , h a n d e x c a v a t i o n u n d e r t a k e n u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t i s r e q u i r e d . T r e n c h e s s h a l l b e c o n s o l i d a t e d t o s e r v i c e a s m a n y u n i t s a s p o s s i b l e . 4 . C o n c r e t e o r a s p h a l t p a v i n g s h a l l n o t b e p l a c e d o v e r t h e r o o t z o n e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p e r m i t t e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t . 5 . A r t i f i c i a l i r r i g a t i o n s h a l l n o t o c c u r w i t h i n t h e r o o t z o n e o f o a k s , u n l e s s d e e m e d a p p r o p r i a t e o n a t e m p o r a r y b a s i s b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t t o i m p r o v e t r e e v i g o r o r m i t i g a t e r o o t l o s s . 6 . C o m p a c t i o n o f t h e s o i l w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e a v o i d e d . 7 . A n y e x c a v a t i o n , c u t t i n g , o r f i l l i n g o f t h e e x i s t i n g g r o u n d s u r f a c e w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e s h a l l b e m i n i m i z e d a n d s u b j e c t t o s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t m a y i m p o s e . R e t a i n i n g w a l l s s h a l l l i k e w i s e b e d e s i g n e d , s i t e d , a n d c o n s t r u c t e d s o a s t o m i n i m i z e t h e i r i m p a c t o n s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . 8 . O i l , g a s , c h e m i c a l s , o r o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s t h a t m a y b e h a r m f u l t o t r e e s s h a l l n o t b e s t o r e d o r d u m p e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a n y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , o r a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n o n t h e s i t e f r o m w h i c h s u c h s u b s t a n c e s m i g h t e n t e r t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 9 . I n n o c a s e s h a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s o r d e b r i s b e s t o r e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 1 0 . S i l t f e n c i n g o r s o i l d i k e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o a n y s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n o r c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p r o j e c t t o p r e v e n t t h e b u i l d u p o f s e d i m e n t w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 1 . I n a r e a s w h e r e c u t s a r e t o b e m a d e f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f u t i l i t i e s o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s a d j a c e n t t o t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a , t h e a f f e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e r o o t p r u n e d p r i o r t o e x c a v a t i o n . R o o t p r u n i n g s h a l l b e d o n e w i t h a s a w o r s i m i l a r t o o l t h a t w i l l m i n i m i z e d a m a g e t o r e m a i n i n g r o o t s . 1 2 . V e h i c u l a r s t o r a g e , e q u i p m e n t s t o r a g e , m a t e r i a l s t o r a g e , w a s h o u t a c t i v i t i e s , t r e n c h i n g , p l a c e m e n t o f f i l l m a t e r i a l , r e m o v a l o f s o i l , o r a n y o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s t h a t m a y b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e h e a l t h o f t h e t r e e a r e s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 3 . P r u n i n g t o p r o v i d e c l e a r a n c e f o r s t r u c t u r e s , v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d b y a l i c e n s e d a r b o r i s t a n d s h a l l c o n f o r m t o A N S I t r e e p r u n i n g s t a n d a r d s . I R R I G A T I O N S P E C I F I C A T I O N S : 1 . I r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s h a l l b e c o m p r i s e d o f a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d v a l v e s . T h e s y s t e m w i l l b e d r i p i r r i g a t i o n . T h e s o u r c e o f w a t e r w i l l b e M M W D w a t e r . 2 . A l l p i p i n g s h a l l b e S C H 4 0 P V C a n d b u r i e d a t a d e p t h o f 1 2 " . 3 . T h e o n e ( 1 ) I r r i g a t i o n Z o n e i s t o b e s u p p l i e d b y M M W D w a t e r . M U L C H I N G S P E C I F I C A T I O N S 1 . A l l l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s t o b e m u l c h e d w i t h f i r e r e s i s t a n t , i n o r g a n i c , n o n - c o m b u s t i b l e m u l c h e s s u c h a s s t o n e o r g r a v e l . 2 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s t o b e c l e a r e d a n d g r u b b e d o f w e e d s , r o c k s , a n d d e b r i s . T h e s e i t e m s s h a l l b e r e m o v e d f r o m s i t e p r i o r t o p l a n t i n g . 3 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s s h a l l r e c e i v e a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f w e e d p r e - e m e r g e n c e p r i o r t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f b a r k m u l c h . N o t e : P r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e l a n d s c a p e p l a n a n d i r r i g a t i o n p l a n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l b y M a r i n M u n i c i p a l W a t e r D i s t r i c t . T h i s p r o j e c t r e q u i r e s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h M M W D , W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n O r d i n a n c e # 4 3 0 . A Vegetation Management Plan designedin accordance with Tiburon Fire ProtectionDistrict is required. A separate deferredpermit shall be required for this plansubmitted directly to the Fire Departmentfor review.Narrative1. There are currently small coast live oaks, a 36" Øredwood, a 12"Ø pine and a few othermiscellaneous native shrub species throughout theproperty. The intent is to properly maintain theexisting trees.Long Term Maintenance Schedule / Goals3. All weeds and grasses shall be cut regularly.Mowers, saws and yard maintenance equipmentshall be equipped with spark arrestors. Areas to bemowed shall be checked for rocks or metal to avoidsparking of mower blades.4. Vegetation shall be trimmed to within 10'-0” ofroadways as required for defensible areas. Treesshall be trimmed so as to not hang lowerthan 15'-0” above the roadway.5. Dead and dying vegetation shall be seasonallyremoved to reduce vegetation and ladder fuels.6. Coordinate with adjacent property owners tomaintain tree canopies, vegetation and ladder fuelson an annual basis.7. Re-seed disturbed areas with non-pyrophiticgroundcover. No native grasses will be plantedwithin the defensible zone.Vegetation Management Plan:symbolxxquantitycontainerplant Landscape Key:LDEFCD SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANTTYPEFrench Lavender3'-0'Echium FastuosumPride of MaderaCeanothus QTY.SIZEMATUREHEIGHTMATUREWIDTH15561 gal5 gal SHRUBS 687 Hillary Drive Plant Listevergreenevergreen21Lavandula DentataPratia Isotoma GROUND COVERPI 3'-0'6'-0'6'-0'Dark Starevergreen6'-0'6'-0'5 galUC15 galUmbellularia Californicaevergreen12'-0'10'-0'YWYucca Whipplei611evergreen2'-0'2'-0'1 galSC1 galSalvia Clevelandiievergreen4'-0'4'-0'7FP1 galFicus PumilaevergreenCreeping FigBlue Star Creeperevergreen 1 Gal @ 3'-0" o.c.California LaurelNote:Prior to installation, the landscape plan and irrigation plan issubject to review and approval by Marin Municipal WaterDistrict.1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.2X8 bottom 2X6 topvaries6'-0" maxmin. embed 2'-0"1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.varies6'-0" max2X8 bottom 2X6 topmin. embed 2'-0"Aspect E: SW : 5Slope : 31% : 8Fuel Type (0-30 ft) : 3 (grasses)Fuel Type (31-100 ft) : 2 (mostly brush)Total Hazard Points : 18 Minimum Horizontal Clearance in Feet:50'x50'x100'Hazard Assessment I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E L 1 L a n d s c a p e P l a n 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " Landsca p e P l a n 50' x 50' x 100'Defensible Zone 5 0 ' x 5 0 ' x 1 0 0 ' D e f e n s i b l e Z o n e 1/Fence Detail1/2" = 1'-0" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E E r o s i o n C o n t r o l & S t o r m W a t e r P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n N o t e s e c n K I T C H E N B R K F S T L I V I N G G A R A G E E N T R Y B A T H D I N I N G B D R M 1 B D R M 2 M S T R B D R M M B T H I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g R o o f P l a n e 1 E x i s t i n g F l o o r / R o o f P l a n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g F l o o r P l a n I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n e 2 E x i s t i n g E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n 3 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n 4 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n 2 1 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 9'-0"10'-6" e n t r y 9 2 . 0 g a r a g e ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 5 m e c h a n i c a l ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 6 . 0 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 p l a n t e r p l a n t e r planter p l a n t e r p l a n t e r A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 3 2 0 A m a i n p a n e l 4 5 ' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2 3 ' - 6 " 4 5 ' - 0 " 10'-0"29'-6" 10'-0"11'-8"29'-6" 10'-0"12'-9"5'-7" 4 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 6 " 9 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 5 " 3'-6"5'-0" 5 0 ' - 0 " planter planter planter planter d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) p o r c h ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 9 5 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" planter concreteretainingwall, typ. l i n e o f r e s i d e n c e a b o v e 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s m e c h . a c c e s s d o o r s line of entryroof above 2 ' - 0 " 1 2 " ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e s i d e w a l k planter recessed e x t e r i o r LED fixtur e , t y p . w a l l m o u n t L E D d o w n l i g h t , t y p . u p F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : N o t e : 1 . R e f e r t o M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n f o r r e f l e c t e d c e i l i n g l a y o u t s . 2 . R e f e r t o E l e v a t i o n s f o r w i n d o w t y p e s . 3 . R e f e r t o S c h e d u l e S h e e t f o r d o o r , w i n d o w , a n d f i n i s h s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 4 . A l l e x t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 6 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c , u n l e s s n o t e d . I n t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 4 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c u n l e s s n o t e d . 5 . A l l w a l l s t o b e d i m e n s i o n e d t o f a c e o f s t u d o r o u t s i d e f a c e o f c o n c r e t e . 6 . 5 / 8 " G y p s u m B o a r d t h r o u g h o u t , t y p i c a l . U s e 5 / 8 " T y p e " X " t a p e d G y p s u m B o a r d a t a l l w a l l s a n d c e i l i n g i n G a r a g e f o r o n e - h o u r f i r e r a t i n g . T e x t u r e t o b e L e v e l 4 S m o o t h W a l l . 7 . V e r i f y h o s e b i b b r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d l o c a t i o n s w i t h O w n e r a n d p r i o r t o p l u m b i n g l a y o u t . 8 . S i n k s u s e d f o r s o a k i n g , w a s h i n g , o r p r e p a r i n g o f f o o d s h a l l b e d r a i n e d b y m e a n s o f i n d i r e c t w a s t e o r v e n t p i p e a n d a l l w a s t e s d r a i n i n g b y t h e m s h a l l d i s c h a r g e i n t o a i r g a p . 9 . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y s e l e c t i o n o f a l l p l u m b i n g f i x t u r e s w i t h O w n e r . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 1 0 . V e r i f y m o u n t i n g h e i g h t s f o r a l l c e i l i n g a n d w a l l - m o u n t e d l i g h t f i x t u r e s . 1 1 . M i n i m u m c l e a r w i d t h o f e x i t i n g d o o r s s h a l l b e 3 2 " W . m i n i m u m a n d 8 0 " H . m i n i m u m . 1 2 . C e r a m i c t i l e @ s h o w e r a n d t u b n o l e s s t h a n 7 2 " a b o v e d r a i n i n l e t E n e r g y F e a t u r e s 1 . C e i l i n g , w a l l , a n d f l o o r i n s u l a t i o n a s s p e c i f i e d o n a p p r o v e d p l a n s . 2 . W e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g o f a l l w i n d o w s a n d e x t e r i o r d o o r s . 3 . C a u l k i n g o f s o l e p l a t e s , j o i n t s a r o u n d w i n d o w a n d d o o r f r a m e s , a n d p l u m b i n g a n d e l e c t r i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , f l o o r s , a n d c e i l i n g . 4 . B a c k d r a f t d a m p e r s o n a l l e x h a u s t f a n s . 5 . A l l w i n d o w s t o b e L o w - E d o u b l e g l a z e d t h e r m o - i n s u l a t e d . S a n i t a r y N o t e P r i o r t o p e r m i t i s s u a n c e , p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r , o r e x c l u s i o n f r o m , t h e R o s s V a l l e y S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t ( R V S D ) r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a v i d e o o f t h e e x i s t i n g s e w e r l a t e r a l . T h i s i s r e q u i r e d w h e r e a r e m o d e l h a s a v a l u e o f 7 5 , 0 0 0 o r g r e a t e r , o r t h e r e m o d e l c o m p r i s e s t h e a d d i t i o n o f a b a t h r o o m . A E n t r y L e v e l : 2 0 0 s f B G a r a g e : 6 6 7 s f - 6 0 0 ( n o t c o u n t e d ) = 6 7 s f B A I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 1 E n t r y / G a r a g e L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Entry/Garage Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m living 1 0 1 . 0 f f dining101.0 ff kitchen w a t e r f e a t u r e b a t h laundry/mudroom g u e s t s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 0 . 9 f f s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 5 1 ' - 0 " 27'-0" 6 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 55'-6"46'-0"9'-6" 55'-6" 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0"25'-6"10'-0" 4 8 ' - 6 " 5'-0" 2 3 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 7'-6" l i n e o f d e c k a b o v e t w o - w a y f i r e p l a c e line of overhangaboveline of entryroof below l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w w o o d d e c k o p e n t o b e l o w ddw r e f sink wsink d n u p dndn up u p 30'-0"8'-6"2'-6" ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' line of overhangabove l i n e o f o v e r h a n g a b o v e recessed exteriorLED fixture, typ.line of overhangabove p l a n t e r A A M a i n L e v e l : 1 , 7 0 8 s f F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 2 M a i n L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Main Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m d n 1 5 ' - 0 " d e c k b a t h bedroom 1 b e d r o o m 3 w a r d r o b e m a s t e r b e d r o o m m a s t e r b a t h b e d r o o m 2 l i n e n h a l l 1 1 1 . 5 f f d e c k s k y l i g h t s o p e n t o b e l o w 11'-6" t u b shower A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0" 2'-6" 1 2 ' - 6 " 1 4 ' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2'-0"53'-6"9'-6" 55'-6" 8 ' - 6 " 7'-6" 5 3 ' - 0 " 6'-0"20'-0"9'-6" 4 3 ' - 6 " 5 1 ' - 0 " 1 . 2 . 5'-0" f i r e p l a c e 6'-6"7'-0"4'-6"11'-6" l i n e n closet 1 1 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 6 " 4'-6" 2'-6" bathskylight s k y l i g h t 14'-0" c l o s e t line of wallbelow l i n e o f w a l l b e l o w deck s k y l i g h t 6 ' - 6 " r e c e s s e d e x t e r i o r L E D f i x t u r e , t y p . r e c e s s e d e x t e r i o r L E D f i x t u r e , t y p . limit ofoverhang A U p p e r L e v e l : 1 , 6 3 1 s f A F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 3 U p p e r L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m Upper Level garage ff 91.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5'entry level ff 92.0' P / L 8'-0"9'-6"9'-0"top of plate 120.5'roof 121.5'30'-0" maximum height envelope @ building beyond8'-0"setback required 9 3 1 2 1 1 6 7 1 5 1 0 8 6 8 7 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . natural grade 100.0' 3'-6" 6'-0" 3'-6" p l a n t e r , t y p . 2 2 " h i g h r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k r e q u i r e d P/L(e) BUILDING102.2 ff ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e a t f a c e o f g a r a g e t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e @ b u i l d i n g b e y o n d (e) natural gradeat face of garage r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' 9 ' - 6 " 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 3 B H i l l a r y D r i v e t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' P / L 9'-6"9'-0" m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . 2 2 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 9 8 . 5 ' f . g . 9 6 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' f.g. 30'-0" @ garage overhang ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 30'-0" maximum height envelope r e t a i n i n g w a l l b e y o n d 9 2 . 0 ' f . g . 9 4 . 0 ' f . g . e n t r y f o y e r 9 2 . 0 ' f f t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' 1'-6" 9 4 . 5 ' t w 9 2 . 0 ' t w 9 6 . 5 ' t w 1 2 ' h . s c r e e n i n g h e d g e 6 ' - 0 " h f e n c e 36 2498 111 Materials/ColorsRoof: Built-up membrane, Class ATrim, Fascia: Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Fiber Cement, Artisan Ship Lap, Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Benjamin Moore, "Buff"Siding: Dryvit Outsulation, "Buff"Concrete: Tinted, Warm Gray with Lugs at 24" on centerWindows: Fleetwood, "Charcoal"Skylight: Velux, tintedEntry Door: Wood, "Natural"Garage Door: Wood , "Natural"Entry Light: Bega, Wall sconce, "Charcoal"Metal Rail: Benjamin Moore, "Charcoal"Photovoltaic Panels: By Sharp or equal, Roof Mount 571012 3B I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E West a 4 South P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 10Material Board Entry Light2/33B/48/9 8/115 9'-6"9'-0" P/L u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 97.5' f.g. 7 4 ' - 1 " s e t b a c k 1 2 4 113 1 6 7 5 5 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 101.0' f. g . 22'-0" line of gara g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' 23'-4"22'-0"setback 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e g a s f i r e p l a c e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e l a n d i n g 1 0 4 . 5 ' 30'-0" max. ht. envelope ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 6'-0" h fence 12'h. screening hedge ( e ) r e d w o o d t r e e 9'-6"9'-0" P/L m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 101.0' f.g. 1 0 4 . 0 ' f . g . 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 20'-6" P / L (e) natural grade ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 18'-6"setback 3 5 ' - 6 ' s e t b a c k 12" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 5 E a s t North main level ff 101.0' 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 9 ' - 6 " 9'-6"upper level ff 111.5'top of plate 120.5'9'-0"8'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5' 30'-0" maximum height entry level ff 92.0'30'-0" maximum height envelope8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 23'-0"proposed setbacktop of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e P/L P / L ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e (e) BUILDING102.2 ff top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yardtop of entry level plate ff 100.0'g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' upper level ff 111.5'top of pv panels 123.0' m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 20'-0" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 30'-0" maximum height envelope 30'-0" maximum height 13'-0" 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k landing 1'-6"main level ff 101.0'(e) natural gradee n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' 23'-0"top of plate 120.5'roof 121.5'top of main level plate ff 110.5'104.5' f.g. 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 6 A/SectionB/Section Attachment 6 1 Christy Fong From:Robert Chandler Sent:Sunday, November 8, 2020 3:12 PM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Dr. Review Nov. 11, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Fong and members of The Design Review Board. The proposed three story home at 687 Hilary Dr. is just too massive for Hawthorn Terrace community of single story homes. Per Tiburon General Plan of Residential Land Use Element 2020 LU-5 New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. LU-13 Neighborhood Character shall be of material consideration and preserved in construction projects. LU-15 Remodels,tear downs,/rebuilds shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The plans as submitted for design and review do not correspond with development standards of Tiburon and Hawthorne Terrace community. Please reject the revised plans as submitted. The proposed house is just way too big. Respectfully submitted, Gloria and Robert Chandler 695 Hilary Drive Attachment 7 1 Christy Fong From:Dominic Dimare Sent:Monday, November 9, 2020 9:37 AM To:Christy Fong Cc:Mary Beth Bond-Shephard Subject:Design Review Board Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Design Review Board ‐ Regarding Project 687 Hilary Drive Tiburon, Ca. This is our second letter to you regarding the 687 Hilary Drive proposal. In it we had expressed our concerns regarding the projects neighbors loss of privacy and light, We watched the Design Board deliberate the pros and cons of the design with much interest. We thought the focus on the architectural vision of the design and its mass and placement most interesting. Yes, the design is of importance but we think that not enough discussion on its impact on the street was truly addressed. The design to us is still overwhelming from the street even when considering any set backs. We think further consideration of the project should proceed not just on its architectural merits but more in regards as how it meets the town’s zoning regulations as stipulated in the “General Plan.” Here we make reference to section LU‐5 which stipulates the “New Development Shall Be In Harmony With Adjacent Neighborhoods…” This is the core of our concerns. There are a number of other stipulations (Lu‐12, LU ‐13, and LU‐15) in the General Plan that should be considered when discussing the upcoming evaluation of the 687 Hilary Drive project. It is our sincere hope that the city’s “General Plan” will play a vigorous part in the upcoming discussion and evaluation of the 687 project. Margaret & Dominic Di Mare Attachment 8 1 Christy Fong From:Steve Callender Sent:Monday, November 9, 2020 3:41 PM To:Christy Fong Subject:Letter of opposition to 687 Hilary Drive Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mary & Steve Callender 20 Mara Vista Ct Tiburon, CA 94920 11/8/2020 SUBJECT: Letter of opposition to 687 Hilary Drive Emailed to cfong@townoftiburon.org Members of the Design Review Board: My wife Mary and I have lived at 20 Mara Vista Ct for 22 years. We write now to share our strong concerns about the proposed new home at 687 Hilary St. We share a property line with the 678 Hilary lot and our houses are diagonally related, ours being uphill to the NorthWest. We have always been charmed by the small village aspect of our neighborhood. The houses are generally modest and cozy. The neighborhood has history. It was the home to workers on the Railroad. It was also home to Franklin J. Buscher, who was the well liked and well regarded Fire Chief of the Tiburon Fire Department for 34 years. His home was on Hilary across the street from 687. The proposed new home, from our view, looks to be way out of scale for the neighborhood. Further, it appears that the proposed outdoor hot tub will likely be a source of noise that will come right up the hill to us. We believe that the lighting from the skylights and from the quantity of windows that will be visible to us at fairly close range will be a blight on the night for us. So for us, the issues presented by the proposed construction are three fold: excess light, disturbing noise, and a structure very much out of character with the charm and history of the neighborhood especially with regard to its towering size and its boxlike appearance. Sincerely, Steve & Mary Callender Attachment 9 To: Design Review Board From: Ken and Christine Weil, 686 Hilary Drive Subject: Objections to 687 Hilary Drive Plans Date: November 9, 2020 At the October 15 meeting of the Design Review Board plans for 687 Hilary Drive were on the agenda. We carefully listened to the presentations and input of the Design Review Board and the public. We look forward to seeing how the plans have been modified to reflect the input at the DRB meeting. Our focus is specific to the neighborhood of eighteen houses on Hilary Drive between Rock Hill Road and Mara Vista Court. Our primary issues that we want addressed are as follows: Neighborhood Character Neighborhood Character is specifically cited in the Town’s zoning code. The design for a three-story structure nearly twice the size of the average size home in the neighborhood would be impactful. Even in the unlikely scenario that all the remaining 17 homes were expanded to their maximum allowable lot coverage, 687 Hilary would still be a three -story structure 50% larger than the average size house in the neighborhood. (See attachment 1) Almost half of the homes are downhill houses that will likely remain single level homes because adding a second story would block the water views of uphill neighbors including 687 Hilary. The design as presented at the October 15 meeting will negatively impact the character of the immediate community and tower over neighbors’ homes. Modifications to the design should be incorporated to minimize the disproportionate mass and bulk of the design for 687 Hilary Drive in comparison to the present homes and even possible future expansion of neighborhood homes. Privacy As cited in the Town’s Guidance second story homes can impact the privacy of adjacent homes… “creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks”. In particular 685 and 689 homes will be affected with the current design. Light Pollution and Acoustic Noise Upper level decks and entertainment areas will generate noise and light pollution. Despite assurances to the contrary the current design will negatively impact neighbors. Mitigations are needed. At the October 15 meeting individual Members of Design Review Board suggested multiple suggestions and changes to the the Mass, Height, Hillside cutback and mitigations to lessen the impact on neighbors. We hope the revised plan will respect the input of the Members of the Design Review Board as well as neighbors seeking to protect their quality of life and the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Ken and Christine Weil Attachment 10 1 Comparison Sq. FT. of Homes Hilary Drive Sq. FT. House Terrell Proposed Sq. Ft. 699 2,021 697 2,059 695 1,688 693 1,377 691 1,154 689 2,948 687 1,233 685 2,186 683 1,771 681 1,606 696 1,534 694 1,534 692 1,364 690 2,310 688 1,534 686 2,083 684 1,675 682 1,707 Average Sq. Ft. House 1,766 3,483 2 Hypothetical Comparison - Full 30% Lot Coverage Hilary Drive Sq. FT Lot Maximum Sq. Foot House Based upon 30% Lot Coverage Proposed Terrell Property 699 7,380 2,214 697 9,147 2,744 695 9,350 2,805 693 7,820 2,346 691 12,196 3,658 689 12,000 3600 687 685 8,690 2,607 683 8,000 2,400 681 7,754 2326 696 8,298 2,489 694 8,300 2,490 692 8,300 2,490 690 9,000 2,700 688 8,000 2,400 686 7,600 2,280 684 7,500 2,250 682 7,200 2,160 Average Sq. FT. Based on 30% lot coverage 2,586 3,843 1 Christy Fong From:Bill Rankin Sent:Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:36 AM To:Christy Fong Subject:For the Design Review Committee re. 687 Hilary Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. November 10, 2020 To: Members of the Design Review Board, c/o cfong@townoftiburon.org Subject: 687 Hilary Drive Dear Members, My wife, Sally, and I are very grateful for the diligence and conscientiousness of your October 15 scrutiny of the dubious proposed design of the 687 Hilary Drive property. We strongly encourage your continued concern about this design, and your continued respect for the 2020 Tiburon “General Plan,” particularly LU‐5, 12, 13, and 15. Identically, we urge your continued respect for the town’s “Zoning Code,” particularly Sections 16.52.020.H1, 2, 3, 6, and 8. We believe that the massive size and bulk of the current proposed design implicitly ignores or expressly defies the letter and spirit of the above‐mentioned products of reasonable and community‐minded deliberation. Thank you for considering our concern for the integrity of our neighborhood. Very truly yours, William and Sally Rankin 13 Mara Vista Court Tiburon Attachment 11 1 Christy Fong From:Edward and Alana Dubost Sent:Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11:55 AM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Drive CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ladies and Gentlemen, This is to urge you to reject the proposed project to replace the home at 687 Hilary Drive. My wife and I are the owners of the home at 691 Hilary Drive (two doors away). After seeing the story poles that outline the proposed building, as well as the architect’s drawings, it is apparent to us that this massive building is not compatible with the design, size, and scale of the homes in our neighborhood. Although the proposed design may be appropriate for other neighborhoods, it is not in harmony with the rest of this neighborhood. If approved, this project, in its current form, would have a negative impact on the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Please do not approve this design. Thank you for your consideration, Edward and Alana Dubost Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Thomas and Catherine Unger 689 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 92657 October 6,2020 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Re: PROJECT: 687 HILARY DRIVE APPLICANTS: CHRISTIAN AND BASIA TERRELL Dear Design Review Board: Thomas and I own the house at 689 Hilary Drive which we purchased from the builder/ architect in July, 2008. In short, we needed to ﬁnd a comfortable home for our family that didn’t require renovation. We chose the renovated 689 Hilary because it is well situated to downtown, has great community schools, offers easy access to the bike/ walking path and no renovation required. In addition, the charm of the Hawthorne Terrace area with its quiet streets, private enclosed dwellings offered a family friendly neighborhood along with a bit of nature close to the city. It is actually possible to see stars at night from our backyard. Currently, we temporarily divide our time between Orange County and Tiburon for family reasons. During a recent stay in Tiburon, we had the opportunity to meet with Chris and Basia Terrell to discuss their vision for their new home. They are a lovely family and good neighbors. From that initial meeting, in their home, it was clear that the current living space for their family of ﬁve cannot service their needs and a larger home would be an obvious solution. The Terrell’s were very open and transparent about the plans and we left the meeting with a copy of the plans to review. We expressed interest in seeing a curbside virtual video to have a better understanding of how the home will actually ﬁt in the neighborhood. Since that meeting Basia has kept us updated on the movement of the proposed project, timing of the story pole placement and where they were in the queue for the Design Review Board. We did hope to see the virtual video before this meeting but since that wasn’t available we relied on the story poles, pictures and plans to base our sense of the project. Our current home, 689 Hilary, was purchased 11 years ago from the architect/builder. We learned from the architect and different neighbors that the original design had a full second story with decks and sliding glass doors windows to the front & back, full windows on both sides and plumbing for a second story bathroom, all designated to be a Master Bedroom suite with view. After the design review board applied the polices, codes, guidelines and restrictions for Hawthorne Terrace, and heavily considering neighborhood feedback including neighbors front and sides, the completed structure is what currently exists today. This essentially makes it a precedent and blueprint for other second story structures on the street. 1 Thomas and Catherine Unger 689 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 92657 October 6,2020 The resulting architectural design of our home has similar features to housing communities with zero lot lines, and more importantly, character to that of the homes on Hilary Drive. Large windows are kept to the lower ﬂoor, front and back; there are no decks off the second ﬂoor. Second story side windows are small, celestial/transom or opaque to protect privacy for the adjacent homes, yet still provide light inside. Another light and privacy protecting feature of our home is that the second story is signiﬁcantly set back from the 1st story roof lines to permit light and avoid expansive imposing walls. The compromise the architect made based on the community’s feedback was done to maintain neighborhood privacy and architectural continuity, essentially rendered the second ﬂoor to be a loft-like space from the original bedroom plan. This was all accomplished without adding tall fences or hedges, which would have impacted adjacent neighbor light and horizon sight lines. From what we have read and understand, the process of renovating our home along with the tight lot lines of the homes on Hilary Drive, the effort in design was carefully considered to maintain as much privacy as possible, protect quality of light, and balance nature of the local homes with structure. Every renovation in the 11 years we have lived on Hilary has had to build within the same parameters. Objections: Structure Mass creates a fundamental change to the living order and ﬂow of our home and the neighborhood. 1.Mass and bulk: a 30ft high, 3,456 sqft. three story building is inconsistent with the homes on Hilary Drive. Impacts what we see when we look out of our windows facing the east side of 687: a.We will see mostly tall stucco walls, large windows, roof and solar panels. b.The day and evening light into the house, tree tops and blue sky will be obstructed. (i)A stepped story design would shift the living space over a larger piece of the property parcel maintaining the mid-century modern cottage feel of the community. 2.Backyard moved to the Eastside of the property. Moving the backyard/ entertainment area to the east-side of the property impacts the cohesiveness of the community and living style of the rest of the neighboring homes. Most homes on Hilary have the main yard in the back. 2 Thomas and Catherine Unger 689 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 92657 October 6,2020 3.Privacy intrusion: Floor to ceiling windows, two balconies, deck and grass on the east side facing our home will take away the privacy from our front court yard as well as the two bedrooms facing 687 east-side. There will likely be direct views into our two bedrooms, hall and living space. Hillside entertainment spaces a.East side/front: 2nd ﬂoor: sliding glass doors looks directly into our master bedroom window b.East side/front: 3rd ﬂoor: deck looks directly into our front garden and master bedroom. c.East side: Large window and deck will be able to look directly into our bedroom window, with view through to the hall to the bathroom and living room 4.Noise emissions and light: The proposed new location of the main outdoor living/ entertainment area. A deck, grass and play area run the length of our shared East side. This looks to be the hub of all outdoor activity for the Terrell family of ﬁve. The proposed layout will impose restrictions on the use of our ofﬁce/bedroom and additional bedroom based on the activity level and noise. 5.The homes all along Hilary have tight lot lines and clearly designed with like spaces (e.g.. bedrooms) mirroring each other to provide compatible consistent living for each resident. Bedroom windows face each other because it is likely that people will use bedrooms as a similar function. b.East side 2nd ﬂoor: Four large sliders and one door opens onto the deck directly across from our bedroom windows c.East Side 3rd ﬂoor: One standard size window and two larger windows facing our bedrooms d.East Side 3rd ﬂoor: Full slider opens onto the deck. Full view of our front courtyard and Master Bedroom window. e.East-side outdoor ﬁreplace: Will congregate evening social activities adjacent to two bedrooms. 6.Light Reduction: The building height and bulk will reduce the amount of day-light to our east facing side bedrooms, ofﬁce, and upstairs loft space. 7.Design: A three story house in a community of single mid-century cottage modern is out of character for the area. The majority of the homes on the block are set back from the street to the back of the property with trees and greenery giving the community a balance between nature and dwellings. They also closely maintain the design character across the neighborhood; even our home is consistent with the design, including rooﬂines, second story set-backs minimizing bulk, mass, and sight- lines. 3 Thomas and Catherine Unger 689 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 92657 October 6,2020 Outdoor Air-conditioning Units: The only air-conditioning 689 Hilary has is old school, windows open for cross ventilation. Having an air-conditioning unit located outside on the ground level will place a noise burden on those that have no other option to cool their home. Drainage system concerns: There are many natural springs on the hillside and disrupting the working ecosystem will impact properties on either side. We would like to conﬁrm what those water mitigation efforts will be and how that may impact our property. Hillside Entertainment Area: Entertainment area should be shielded for everyones privacy, no sound system, lighting, or hot tub. Construction Request: 1 Speciﬁed work hours and parking 2. No outbuildings, dumpsters, or equipment located in front of our home. Without significantly revising the design, the proposed house will trespass on our privacy, and personal sanctuary which will ulUmately diminish the value and our quality of living in our home. Thank you for your Ume and consideraUon. Regards, Thomas Unger & Catherine Unger 4 Christy Fong From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:54 PM Christy Fong Gary Sheppard Project: 687 Hilary Drive: Additional Materials In Support of Objections Earlier Submitted by Gary and Marybeth Sheppard, 685 Hilary Drive. 687 MATCH PHOTOS.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Fong, please accept that attached six pages as additional materials in support of the objections of Gary and Marybeth Sheppard to the 687 Hilary Drive Project now under review. A bit of explanation: 1.(a) Page A is a color photo of me standing in my side yard, facing the existing 687 Hilary house, with story poles in place. (b)Page Bis a drawing by our architect, Mr. Malott, that can be placed next to Page A, to show the dimensions of the new Project as it will be viewed from the sideboard of 685 Hilary Drive. For reference, the number of each story pole shown on the drawing. Please compare the drawing to the existing house shown in photo Page A. (c)The dimensions on the drawing match the dimensions and scale shown in Applicant's plans. 2.(a) Pages C and D are color photos of the existing 687 Hilary, with story poles in place, taken from Hilary Drive. Please print both of these pages, then match them together with clear tape at the Match Points shown on the photos. A full picture of the existing house at 687 Hilary emerges. (b)Pages E and Fare drawings by our architect, Mr. Malott, Please print both of these pages, then match them together with clear tape at the Match Points shown on the drawings. For reference, the number of each story pole is shown on the drawings. A complete picture emerges as to how the new 687 Project will appear from the street, Please compare the drawings Pages E and F to the existing 687 Hilary shown in photos on Pages C and D. (c)The dimensions on the drawings match the dimensions and scale shown in Applicant's plans. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, would you be kind enough to let me know by return email that you received this email and the attachments. Regards, Gary C. Sheppard 1 Notice of Objections of Adjacent Neighbors Project: 687 Hilary Drive Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 November 12, 2020 Submitted by: Catherine and Thomas Unger 689 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, •The immediate priority for this communication is to notify the DRB that the redwood tree on the Terrell property may need to be removed due to damage created to our home at 689 •In this document, we are providing our view of the impact of the potential removal of the tree •Copies of the notification to the Terrell’s are found within the appendix •We will provide the Terrell’s and the DRB updates on the assessment as soon as it becomes available to us •We continue to strongly object to the design proposed for 687 •Our previously submitted letter to the DRB dated Oct. 6, 2020, clearly states our objections and, to date, none of these have been adequately consider or addressed by the homeowners or architect •First letter to DRB attached (Appendix) •We find inconsistencies with the proposed plans for 687 with Tiburon’s land use policies as well as other Policies, Zoning Codes and Guidelines. These are well articulated in the Sheppard communication to the DRB, which we have attached for reference (Appendix) •We would like these to be addressed by the DRB or Terrell’s before any decision is made •This document will provide the DRB with supplemental comments and visuals to articulate and further support our main objections •We additionally are including references and documentation from the DRB for 689 Hilary (our home) which mirrors the identical concerns currently expressed by the neighborhood and neighbors for the 687 design. •These documents show that the design of 689 was adapted by the architect/owner, resulting in a home that fits the neighborhood and maintained livability for all •A working precedence for key principles exists November 12, 2020 Sincerely, Catherine and Thomas Unger Homeowners, 689 Hilary Drive Unger: November 12, 2020 2 Contents •Issues requiring the potential removal of the redwood tree on 687: background and impact •Further articulation and visualizations for the basis of objection to current proposed design and plans •Supporting materials regarding: Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light •Precedence for a workable solution and principles •Hot tub •Summary •Appendix: Supporting or referenced documentation Unger: November 12, 2020 3 General plan and landscape plan will be impacted due to the potential removal of the redwood on the 687 property (Correspondence within the Appendix) •We found damage to the foundation, bedroom slabs and bathroom tiles to our home at 689 •A contractor and arborist, separately, have confirmed the damage is as a result of roots from the redwood on 687 •The contractor suggested the best course of action is to seek the advice of an attorney •We retained the firm of Keegan and Harrison, San Rafael (11/3) •Terrell’s notified by the Unger’s Monday 11/9 •Lynde Seldon III of Keegan and Harrison provided the Terrell’s a notification and plan steps to assess and remediate the damage (11/13) Redwood Tree Unger: November 12, 2020 4 Impact of the potential removal of the redwood •The likely removal of the redwood will have a significant impact on privacy as the current plans depend upon the tree •Sound, light and mass issues will be exacerbated by prospective tree removal •It is premature for us to approve home design or landscaping given the impact of redwood removal •As this is a recent development, and we need time to sort the issue •We have retained a certified arborist and will submit recommendations to the DRB as soon as available •We will not find two story screening as viable or acceptable •It will not be in place quickly enough to offset privacy impacts •Two story screening will necessarily be on or very near the lot line and will block whatever remaining light might survive being blocked by the massive house and create a claustrophobic effect. This will create a narrow tunnel on one side of the screening and a noisy side yard on the other. •This is hardly a fair trade for a privacy problem created by the Terrell’s incongruous design Redwood Tree Unger: November 12, 2020 5 View from 689 Hilary: Issues of mass, bulk, balcony, doors and windows impacting privacy Glass Door Windows Balcony 687 East Elevation 689 Bedroom Perspective Story-poles Story-pole Balcony Loss of privacy; impact from loss of Redwood Unger: November 12, 2020 6 Redwood Summary of our objections Objection Impact / Consideration Mass and bulk Excessive visual mass and bulk of second story: There are options to reduce impact Lacks harmony to adjacent neighborhoods; Looming and large Does not preserve neighborhood character Height Impact on the neighborhood exacerbated by proximity to street Consider impact of solar adding more height Privacy Glass (windows and doors)Located on the sides impacting neighbors (vs. front or rear); reduce the number of windows and size Light pollution, specifically originating from upper levels; reduce size of the windows on the second floor, Balconies and decks Front: Neighborhood privacy, noise and light pollution; social area Side: Privacy issues for adjacent neighbors: beds, living spaces, windows and yards; eliminate the deck of the back bedroom Outdoor entertainment Inconsistent with the neighboring living model –neighbors have no options Relocated to the eastside of the house impacting neighbors bedrooms; Hot tub on hillside Environmental Noise from equipment Unclear where A/C equipment and spa pumps will be located; sound due to elevated position Loss of sunlight Morning and evening impact on lighting General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 7 The design entirely ignores the environment to the detriment of the next-door neighbors and the neighborhood at large •The proposed home is unsuited for this location and neighborhood •It is a hilltop, trendy, show-piece design, inconsistent with the character of the Hawthorne neighborhood •The entire objective of the design seeks to accomplish the single goal of capitalizing on views and light •Accomplished at the expense of the neighbors •It will invite additional similar “hill-top view boxes” to one side of Hilary •Homes on the downside will not afforded the same design options •View-boxes on one side –cottages on the other? •The proposed home is 3 times the size of the current home, incongruous to the neighborhood in every way •Imposes on its immediate neighbors in every way possible •Imposes a questionable, hulking design unlike any other in the neighborhood •Repositions living spaces in direct conflict to the design of homes in this neighborhood •Likely to set a new unfortunate precedent* which will result in years of protracted litigation •Invites incoming homeowners seek to create whatever they think they are entitled to as opposed to attempting to find a balance between the existing neighborhood and their need *Should 689 Hilary not serve as a precedent; a successful outcome with the neighbors for over 11 years General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 8 Square footage: Squeezing a home too large for the useful portion of the lot •Although apparently compliant with applicable codes regarding floor area ratios, the Terrells were able to artificially inflate the size of the proposed home due to the awkwardly shaped and largely unusable lot •While the calculations of the lot provide for the proposed square footage, the formula cannot take into account the fact that they are squeezing a home much too large for the useful portion of the lot •The proposed house is nearly 3 times the size of the current home.By any measure that is an extreme increase in size –it’s not as if the usable lot is 3 times larger General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 9 Mass from the street view •The first floor entrance and garage exacerbate the imposing front box wall of the house which, given the incongruous design of the house, concentrates mass and bulk to the street view •The design is trendy and unlike any other homes in the neighborhood •Today it will look unlike any of the surrounding homes, arguably in isolation, it may be attractive to some. •In the future, it will be out of style AND look like none of the other homes •This design might make sense in other neighborhoods •In a longstanding, side-by-side suburban neighborhood with substantially similar homes, the proposed design will always be out of sync and, in time, will beg the question: how did this happen? To proceed with such a radical design within this neighborhood, it would have been prudent to provide the neighbors with a virtual view that could offer realistic visualizations and provide a sense of the neighborhood, broader street view, to more adequately inform and aid with impressions and opinions General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 10 Mass of second story •The second story proposed is, other than height, nothing like that achieved at 689: •Set back off the street and shifted to the middle of the roofline •Does not include bedrooms because of the privacy issues •Terrell’s house, as designed, is incongruous to the homes of this section of Hilary General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 11 Every home on the block with the front oriented to Hilary has its living areas off the back of the house •Homes have back yards not side yards •The proposal of a large front yard and deck is an imposition to adjacent neighbors to the side and front •A side yard is a further imposition to us (689 Hilary) and will set a negative precedent •The orientation of the design places large windows and doors facing neighbors increasing noise and light pollution •Accomplished at the expense of neighbors that will not be renovating to accommodate the change 689 687 Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light Unger: November 12, 2020 12 The orientation of the design places large windows and doors facing neighbors increasing noise and light pollution –not the back Facing 689 687 Rear facing Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light Compare to 689: •Small windows ensuring privacy, minimizing light and sound •Larger windows located to street and rear of property 689687 Unger: November 12, 2020 13 View from 689 Hilary lower bedroom: Privacy issues due to direct view into bedroom and further into living space of 689 Bedroom Window Bathroom Family room & dining table Story-poles Doorway 689 Bedroom Perspective 687 East Elevation Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light Unger: November 12, 2020 14 View from 689 Hilary: Issues of mass, bulk, balcony, doors and windows impacting privacy Glass Door? Window Balcony 687 East Elevation 689 Bedroom Perspective Story-poles Story-pole Balcony Loss of privacy; impact from loss of Redwood Unger: November 12, 2020 15 Side Balcony: Unnecessary light and privacy intrusion to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed side balcony is not “primary living area” that would, for example, be entitled to view protection if someone’s tree were to obstruct that view (Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 15.) •A design element, nor the desire for the superfluous balcony should not impose an unnecessary light and privacy intrusion simply to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed balcony is in part obtained by looking across the 689 property Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light Unger: November 12, 2020 16 View from 689 Hilary Upstairs loft: Windows and above roofline solar panels Unger: November 12, 2020 17 Bedroom Window Story poles Loss of privacy, Unsympathetic consideration of noise and light •There is only one window upstairs at 689 facing 687; this will be the view •The original design plan for 687 will have 3 full sized windows (1 not shown in this angle) facing 689 687 Faces similar if not identical issues to those in the DRB Application for 689 Hilary Drive, May 2005 regarding proposed second story addition and balcony (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution Unger: November 12, 2020 18 Resulting design changes to 689 Hilary in response to neighbor and DRB concerns and issues. (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution Unger: November 12, 2020 19 689 Hilary: Further design changes following neighborhood input: •Second story reduced in scale due to privacy and sunlight issues on neighboring properties •Minimal, small transom and celestial windows used on second story loft space. •No front balcony or deck in order to maintain privacy for neighbors across the street Precedence for a workable solution Unger: November 12, 2020 20 DRB Report on 689, May 2005 689 Resolved with an agreeable solution -Minimizing impact of mass and bulk Precedence for a workable solution Windows small and/or set high to provide privacy Like-for-like living spaces to address noise/light Backyard in the back, bedrooms on the side Resolved with neighbors agreeing –owner comprising Workable for 12+ years Unger: November 12, 2020 21 Hot tub: Unaddressed design matter •There is simply no justification for the hillside location that overrides the loss of tranquility and privacy •There are no other similar hillside recreational areas •Hot tubs are typically located in the back of the house •Noise is isolated due to house walls •There will be, with certainty, nuisance and noise complaints resulting from entertainment and children playing in the hot tub •Sounds regularly arise in the are surrounding TPC and BTC as the noise travels through the valley or neighborhood •Noise will emanate from equipment, which due to its exposed location, will be more prominent •We refer to the Shepard Notice of Objections (page 4) referencing Town of Tiburon Administrative Policy and Procedures for Noise Standards (Appendix) General considerations and objections Unger: November 12, 2020 22 Summary •Comments in this document are based on the design presented to us prior to the initial DRB meeting; no subsequent updates have been provided to inform us of considerations, changes or responses made by the homeowner to the DRB and community’s input •While there is not a single objection that is more significant than another, clearly, the issue of the redwood tree and the impact on privacy is now paramount •The homeowners and architect previously inadequately considered the impact of privacy, noise and light on adjacent neighbors –those are now exacerbated due to the potential removal of the redwood tree on the side facing 689 •In addition to the elevated urgency of privacy, our objections remain identical to those we initially articulated, and have provided more detail within this document. They are: •Mass, bulk, height •Design that entirely ignores the environment to the detriment of the next-door neighbors and the neighborhood at large •Location of windows, balconies, doors and entertaining spaces that show little regard or courtesy to neighbors •Squeezing a home too large for the useful portion of the lot •Reorientation of living and entertaining spaces without regard to neighbors or neighborhood; deviation from the normal arrangement on Hilary with living and outdoor entertaining areas off the back of the house •687 has the luxury of designing to a desired lifestyle; this desire imposes itself on existing neighbors who have no interest of redesigning their homes or taking on the expense because of the desires of a new homeowner •Design goals to achieve a desired bulk or mass (e.g. side balcony, as well as others) that impose an unnecessary light and privacy intrusion simply to promote an unprotected view Unger: November 12, 2020 23 Appendix •Communication from Keegin and Harrison to Terrell’s regarding redwood tree •Notice of Objections of Adjacent Homeowners –Unger, Oct 6, 2020 •Notice of Objections of Adjacent Homeowners –Sheppard, Sept 28, 2020 •With regard to references for 687 Hilary relative to compliance with: •Town of Tiburon Administrative Policy and Procedures for Noise Standards •Tiburon’s policies governing use of residential land: Residential Land Use Element of the Tiburon 2020 General Plan •Tiburon Municipal Code –Zoning Code •Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling •Staff Report: Design Review Board, Site plan and architectural review for 689 Hilary Drive (April 21, 2005; May 19, 2005; August 4, 2020) Unger: November 12, 2020 24 Design Review Board November 23, 2020 Town of Tiburon c/o Christy Fong, Senior Planner Re: 687 Hilary Drive (DRB File No. DR2020-015) Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Catherine Unger (689 Hilary) and I (Marybeth Sheppard, 685 Hilary) are the property owners immediately adjacent to the Project at 687 Hilary Drive. The next Design Review Board Meeting is Thursday, December 3rd. We urge you and welcome you to come and visit our side and backyards to see the impact of this project to our homes. What you see from our properties is not visible from the street. Please come to our properties to see what we see. This is extremely important to us and if the issues are not mitigated the damage to us will be huge and permanent. We wish you and your families health and a Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Best Regards, Marybeth Sheppard and for Catherine Unger Marybeth: 415-279-9178); marybeth.bond@gmail.com Catherine: 415-754-5723); ungerc1@comcast.net Attachment 14 1 GARY AND MARYBETH SHEPPARD 685 HILARY DRIVE TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 November 24, 2020 Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Re: FURTHER OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER Project: 687 Hilary Drive (APN #055-021-08) Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell File No.: DR2020-015 Date of DRB Hearing: November 19, 2020 Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife Marybeth and I own the property at 685 Hilary Drive (“685 Hilary”) and have lived there since 1987. Our one story house is situated adjacent to and shares a boundary with 687 Hilary Drive (“Project”). This letter outlines our further objections to the Project. All lots in the Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood, including the Project, are encumbered with a Declaration of Restrictions Hawthorne Terrace Unit No. 3 recorded in the Official Records of Marin County on May 19, 1954 in Book 867 at Page 59 (“Declaration of Restrictions”) (copy attached). The prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Restrictions run with the land and apply to the Project. (i)Declaration of Restrictions. 1.Paragraph 1 of the Declaration of Restrictions provides as follows: “All plots in the tract shall be known and described as residential plots, and no structures shall be erected on any residential plot other than single-family dwellings, not to exceed two stories in height and a one or two car garage.” 2.Paragraph 5 of the Declaration of Restrictions provides as follows: “No buildings, other than family dwelling units and appurtenant outhouses, including garages for private use, shall be erected, constructed or maintained on said property, nor shall any building constructed or erected on said property be used for any purpose other than a private dwelling house or appurtenant outhouse, including garage for private use, and more particularly and without the intent of the foregoing restrictions.” (ii)Facts. 1.Three-Story House Prohibited. Applicants intend to build a three story house at 687 Hilary. Page 1 (upper left-hand corner) of the Revised Plans dated November 11, 2020 confirm that Attachment 15 2 the new house will have “Stories: 3”; and at various places the Plans make reference to the Entry/Garage Level, the Main Level, and the Upper Level – three stories. The Plans demonstrate that each of the three stories will have robust floor to ceiling heights. From the street, it is a three-story house. The Declaration of Restrictions prohibits construction of a three-story house. 2. Hillside Entertainment Landing and Hot Tub Prohibited. The Applicants intend to construct an outdoor entertainment landing and hot tub on the hillside portion of their lot, inclusive of retaining walls and gates. These buildings1 do not constitute a private dwelling house nor an appurtenant outhouse or garage. The Declaration of Restrictions prohibits construction of this outdoor entertainment area and hot tub. (iii) Conclusion. The Declaration of Restrictions prohibits construction of a three-story house on the Project lot and prohibits construction of any non-dwelling structure such as the outdoor entertainment landing and hot tub on the hillside. The planned Project violates paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Declaration of Restrictions and are prohibited. The Project must not be approved and the Application denied. Regards, Gary C. Sheppard Marybeth Bond-Sheppard 1 Tiburon Zoning Code Section 16-100.020.B defines a “building” as any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy; and Tiburon Zoning Code Section 16-100.020.S. defines “structure” as anything that is built or constructed and requires a location on the ground, including a building, accessory building, or edifice of any kind . . .. 3 4 5 6 Attachment 16 1 GARY AND MARYBETH SHEPPARD 685 HILARY DRIVE TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 November 24, 2020 Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Re: OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER Project: 687 Hilary Drive (APN #055-021-08) Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell File No.: DR2020-015 Date of DRB Hearing: December 3, 2020 Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife Marybeth and I own the property at 685 Hilary Drive (“685 Hilary”) and have lived there since 1987. Our one story house is situated adjacent to and shares a boundary with 687 Hilary Drive (“Project”). This letter outlines our objections to the Project. We respectfully request that the Design Review Board (“DRB”) members evaluate (a) whether Applicant’s made sufficient changes to the height, mass and bulk of the Project necessary to mitigate loss of privacy, noise and light intrusions at 685 Hilary, and (b) whether the Project complies with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Code, Permit Guide, Guidance re Second Story Additions, and Hillside Design Guidelines (the “Development Standards”)1. When you do, we are confident you will conclude that the minimal changes Applicant’s made to the Project since the first hearing on October 15, 20202 failed in any meaningful way to mitigate our loss of privacy, failed to mitigate the numerous noise and light intrusion issues, and that the Project fails to comply with the requirements of the Development Standards. At the October 15, 2020 hearing, the members of the DRB made a number of recommendations for changes to the Project, as follows: A.Height: (i)Reduce the height of the structure as it towers over the neighbors. (Ms. Kim; Mr. Crescini) (ii)Reduce height of building because it is too high compared to neighbors, it is much higher than any other building. (Ms. Kim; Mr. Crescini) 1 For convenience, a copy of the Development Standards are attached to the end of this letter. 2 See “Revised Plans” dated November 11, 2020. Attachment 17 2 B. Mass: (i) Break up mass by lowering the plate. (Mr. Crescini) (ii) Break up and soften the mass from the street. (Mr. Crescini; Mr. Barringer) (iii) Push the upper level 6 – 8 feet back. (Mr. Barringer) (iv) Sink the entire mass into the ground. (Ms. Kim) (v) Reduce size of eaves as they contribute to mass. (Mr. Crescini) (vi) Break upper level free from main level, then shift and push back. (Ms. Kim) (vii) The building is too massive especially from the street; the pop-out terrace in the front is not enough to break up mass. (Mr. Crescini) (viii) Problem is in the Sheppard side. Massing on that side is very blocky. Break up mass on the Sheppard side, get rid of big windows, adjust bathroom windows. (Mr. Berger) (ix) Get rid of mass on Sheppard side by moving bedroom from the left side to the right side courtyard. (Mr. Berger) C. Hillside: (i) Cut back into hillside. (Mr. Crescini) (ii) Do more on the hillside. (Mr. Chong) D. Impacts on Neighbors: (i) Mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbors, more than moving a bedroom from one side of the house to the other. (Mr. Chong) (ii) Install screen partitions on front decks between 685 Hilary and the Project. (Mr. Berger) (iii) Recommend not demolishing beautiful tree in front. (Mr. Crescini) (iv) Eliminate windows and doors to side yards. (Mr. Crescini) (v) Landscaping must be higher than 6 feet, must go above fence height. (Mr. Barringer) (vi) Push turf area over garage back two feet and install more planting. (Mr. Barringer) (vii) More clarity in yard lighting plan. (Mr. Barringer) What changes were made by the Applicants? Very few indeed! Other than reducing the number of windows on the third story upper level facing the Sheppard side (from 8 to 4), Applicants ignored virtually all of the other recommendations of the DRB. For example: 1. Applicant’s refused to reduce the mass of the house facing the Sheppard side by moving a bedroom from the Sheppard side to the right side courtyard. 2. Applicant’s refused to reduce the height of the house. 3. Applicant’s refused to reduce the mass of the house but actually increased it. 4. Applicant’s refused to break up or soften the mass from the street. 5. Applicant’s refused to push the house back into the hillside or do more on the hillside. 6. Applicant’s refused to reduce the size of the eaves. 3 7. Applicant’s refused to mitigate the loss of privacy or noise and light pollution to 685 Hilary caused by placement of opening glass windows and doors on the second story main level. 8. Applicant’s refused to mitigate the loss of privacy or noise and light pollution to 685 Hilary caused by the placement of one full-size opening bedroom window, two opening bath windows, and one recessed full-size opening glass door on the third story upper level. 9. Applicant’s refused to mitigate the loss of privacy or noise and light pollution to 685 Hilary caused by placement of the two outdoor decks at the front of the house, and by the outdoor entertainment landing, hot tub and stairway on the hillside. They even refused the simple recommendation of Installing screen partitions on front decks between 685 Hilary and the Project. 10. Applicant’s refused to mitigate the loss of sunlight and creation of shade at 685 Hilary. Astonishingly, Applicant’s not only refused to make the vast majority of the recommendations of the DRB, they went in the opposite direction and actually increased the square footage of the Project from the original ask of 3,483 square feet (in the September 14, 2020 plans) to the current ask of 3,606 square feet, an increase of 123 square feet. Today’s hearing is about far more than the architectural style of the Project, it is about the direct and quantifiable damage the Project will have on our home and lives for many years to come. We ask the members of the DRB consider what their own reaction would be if such a huge house were built next to and so close to their home, looking into their office and bedroom and family room, overlooking their patio and garden area, and blocking their sunlight. You cannot see the damage to our property from the street. The only way to see the damage is from our backyard. Please come to our backyard and see the Project from our perspective. See how the story poles tower over our home, see how the decks and windows will look directly into our home. See the photos on pages 11- 14 of this letter. Our specific objections to the Project are set forth below: 1. THREE STORY HOUSE IN PREDOMINANTLY ONE STORY NEIGHBORHOOD. a. Facts: (i) The Project is located in the neighborhood known as Hawthorne Terrace Unit Three (map recorded on May 14, 1954). There are 34 houses in Hawthorne Terrace Unit Three. Twenty-nine of those houses (85%) are one story houses. Hawthorne Terrace Unit Three is a predominantly one story neighborhood. (ii) Applicants intend to construct a three story house in this one story neighborhood. Page 1 of the Revised Plans (in the upper left hand corner) recites “Stories: 3”. The rendering attached to the Revised Plans clearly indicate it is a three story structure, with a lower level, main level, and upper level, one on top of the other. Whether you call them stories or levels, from the street, it is a three story house. That the lower level is somewhat offset from 4 the two stacked upper levels does not change that fact. b. Violation of Development Standards: (i) The three story character of the Project, and the height, mass and scale of the Project, are not in harmony with nor are they compatible with, the size and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood, in violation of Tiburon’s land use policy set forth in LU-5, LU-12, LU-13 and LU-15 of the General Plan (see below). (ii) The height, size, mass and bulk of the Project do not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity, in violation of Section 16.52.020.H.3 of Tiburon’s Zoning Code (see below). (iii) The second and third stories of the Project loom over our one story home at 685 Hilary, and is not articulated to avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that appear massive from our home at 685 Hilary, in violation of the guidelines set forth in paragraph 5 of Guidance re Second Story Additions (see below). See photos on pages 11 – 14 of this letter. 2. MASS AND BULK. a. Facts: (i) An over 23 foot high above grade wall will tower over 685 Hilary. The combination of a 2 foot cantilever plus a 3 foot roof overhang beyond the cantilever (i.e., 5 feet from the wall) exacerbates this mass. The roof overhang at story pole 18 will be 11 feet from our property line. The wall facing 685 Hilary will be approximately 55-1/2 feet long and will cover approximately 1,265 square feet. (ii) No other house in the neighborhood has the mass and bulk as that proposed for the Project. The new house will have at least 1,000 more square feet of floor area than any other house in the neighborhood. (iii) The large size of the Project lot (18,388 square feet) permits construction of a 3,606 square foot house. In reality, however, the three story house (essentially a tall, large, vertically sided box) will be constructed almost entirely on the small (5,560 square foot) flat portion of the lot, leaving the vast majority of the large (12,828 square foot) hillside portion of the lot unused. Simply put, the house is a vertically sided three story box, designed to gain the maximum square footage at the expense of the neighbors. b. Violation of Development Standards: (i) The height, mass and scale of the Project are not in harmony with nor are they compatible with, the size and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood, in violation of Tiburon’s land use policy set forth in LU-5, LU-12, LU-13 and LU-15 of the General Plan (see below). (ii) The height, size and bulk of the Project do not bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity, in violation of Section 16.52.020.H.3 of Tiburon’s Zoning Code (see below). (iii) The Project looms over our one story home at 685 Hilary, and is not articulated to avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that appear massive from our home at 685 Hilary, in violation of the guidelines set forth in paragraph 5 of Guidance re Second Story Additions (see below). (iv) The Project is not cut into the hillside to reduce effective visual bulk, it is not terraced into the slope, it has large expanses of materials in a single plane, and does not 5 follow hillside contours and slope to increase integration of the dwelling into the hillside, in violations of Goal 1, Principles 1 – 5 of the Hillside Guidelines (see below). 3. PROJECT BLOCKS SUNLIGHT AND CREATES SHADE AT 685 HILARY. a. Facts: During November, December and January of each year, the sun rises in the east, transits the sky at a low angle in the south, then sets in the west. Due to its height, mass and bulk, the new house will, during the morning hours of the winter months, block a great deal of the sunlight from the clerestory windows and bedroom and office windows along the southeastern side of our house and from our patio/backyard area, and will cast portions of our garden and growing areas along the south side of our property into shade. b. Violation of Development Standards: (i) The height of the Project will block sunlight from 685 Hilary during the morning hours of the winter months, in violation of Paragraph 4 of Guidance re Second Story Additions (see below). (ii) The location of the massive Project on the lot will block sunlight from 685 Hilary, in violation of Section 16.52.020.H.2 of the Zoning Code (see below). 4. LOSS OF PRIVACY; NOISE AND LIGHT POLUTION. a. Facts: (i) Glass Windows and Doors on Sidewall Facing 685 Hilary. A. The sidewall of the Project on the Sheppard side will have a number of opening glass windows and doors facing 685 Hilary. B. On the third story Upper Level, the opening glass windows, looking out from the bedroom and master bath will face our home, and the full-size glass door (recessed) will face our home. When open, these windows will provide an outlet for the transmission of noises from those rooms (i.e., running water from sinks, showers and toilets, activities in the children’s bedrooms) which will be heard at 685 Hilary, and will emit noise, light and glare into 685 Hilary at night. C. On the second story Main Level, the opening glass windows and floor-to-ceiling panel of opening glass doors will provide a direct path for transmission of sound to 685 Hilary and will be a constant source of light and glare into 685 Hilary. (ii) Outdoor Entertainment Area, Hot Tub and Stairway on Hillside. A. A concrete outdoor entertainment area and hot tub, separate from the new house, will be constructed high on the hillside portion of the lot. Folks walking from the lawn area and from the house up the hillside steps to the outdoor entertainment and hot tub area and back down will have a view into our family room, patio, bedroom window and office window at 685 Hilary, yet no permanent view shielding near the stairway is provided. The existing brush screen on the hillside is a fire hazard and will eventually have to be removed. A permanent solution (such as a berm or other shield) is required, as volunteer trees, plants and brush are temporary and can and likely will be changed, and will change if an extended drought condition affects our area again. B. Light and noise from folks using the outdoor entertainment and hot tub will be focused down the hillside to 685 Hilary. If a sound system and/or a lighting system is installed in that area, noise and light pollution will be reflected off concrete walls and 6 directed at 685 Hilary. The heating and pumping systems serving the hot tub will create noise with timers starting pumps at any time of the day or night, 24/7. (iii) Outdoor Decks on Front of House. A. An outdoor deck will be added off the second story Main Level over the garage (serving the living and dining rooms) and overlooking the street, and a second outdoor deck will be added off the third story Upper Level (serving the master bedroom) and overlooking the street. The second story Main Level deck (and possibly the third story Upper Level deck serving the master bedroom) will become a hub of social activity creating light and noise pollution directed at 685 Hilary and onto the street and neighboring houses. When folks congregate on the second story Main Level deck and/or on the third story Upper Level master bedroom deck, they will be able to see directly into our office window, front yard, side yard and garden area. B. Hilary Drive is a quiet residential street; it does not have streetlights. There are no second or third story decks overlooking Hilary Drive where folks could congregate and create noise and light pollution. If the street-facing outdoor decks for the Project are approved, suddenly this quiet residential street and our home would be subject to light and noise pollution, which would change the character of the Neighborhood and cause us to lose our privacy. (iv) Outdoor Social Activities in the Side Yard. By relocating typical backyard social activities to the side yard between the Project and 685 Hilary (e.g., BBQ parties, outdoor dining events exacerbated by the opening glass doors to the dining room allowing for more participants, cocktail parties, kid’s play area, dog area, etc.), a significant new source for noise, music, loud talk, kid’s playing, and dog barking will have been created which will directly impact our home. Our houses are very close together, and the increased use of this outdoor area will be a nightmare for us. Noise that would have remained at comfortable levels in the old backyard (because it was farther away from our own backyard and because the noise was partially absorbed by the rear wall of the existing house) will now be “in our face”. Side yards in our neighborhood are generally not used to host social activities due to the narrow setbacks between the homes and the property lines. A few outdoor social activities occur at the front of several homes in the neighborhood, but the vast majority of outdoor social activities occur in backyard areas. By repurposing the side yard into a social venue, and by creating such easy access into and out of the house via the glass doors, excessive noise will become a constant that will cause us to lose our privacy. b. Violation of Development Standards. (i) Glass Windows and Doors on Sidewall Facing 685 Hilary. The placement of the opening glass windows and doors on the sidewall facing 685 Hilary will cause us to lose privacy and become sources for significant noise and light pollution directed at 685 Hilary, in violation of the requirements of Sections 16.52.020.H.2., 3., and 8. of the Zoning Code; the requirements of Paragraph 3 of the Guidance re Second Story Additions; and Goal 2, Principles 6 and 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines (see below). (ii) Outdoor Entertainment Area, Hot Tub and Stairway on Hillside. The placement of the outdoor entertainment area, hot tub and stairway on the hillside violate Tiburon’s land use policies set forth in LU-5, LU-12, LU-13 and LU-15 of the General Plan; violate the requirements of Sections 16.52.020.H.2. and 8 of the Zoning Code; violate the 7 guidance set forth in the Permit Guide; violate the guidelines set forth in paragraph 3 of the Guidance re Second Story Additions; and violates the guidelines set forth in Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines (see below). As the Plans do not indicate where the central air conditioning equipment for the house or the pumps for the hot tub will be located, or how they will be shielded, these items may also violate the requirements of Tiburon’s Administrative Policy and Procedure for Noise Standards for Air Conditioning Units and Similar Mechanical Equipment dated September 6, 2017. (iii) Outdoor Decks on Front of House. Placement of an outdoor deck off of the second story Main Level and a second outdoor deck off of the third story Upper Level will violate the land use policies set forth in LU-5, LU-12, LU-13 and LU-15 of the General Plan; will violate the requirements of Sections 16.52.020.H.2., 3. and 8 of the Zoning Code; will violate the guidance set forth in the Permit Guide; will violate paragraph 3 of the Guidance re Second Story Additions; and ignores the guidelines set forth in Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines (see below). (iv) Outdoor Social Activities in the Side Yard. The creation of a new outdoor social area in the side yard between the Project and 685 Hilary violates Tiburon’s land use policies set forth in LU-13 and LU-15 of the General Plan; violate the requirements of Sections 16.52.020.H.2. and 3 of the Zoning Code; violate the guidance set forth in the Permit Guide; and violates the guidelines set forth in Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines (see below). 5 . CONCLUSION. The Project will irrevocably destroy our privacy and inundate us with noise and light pollution. In addition, the Project violates and/or ignores virtually every one of Tiburon’s Development Standards applicable to tear-downs/rebuilds in well-established, predominantly one story neighborhoods. While the architectural style of the Project may be acceptable to some, it is hard to imagine how construction of a three story, thirty foot high, 3,606 square foot vertically sided box on the smallest portion of the Project lot in a one story neighborhood complies with the Development Standards. The Project will damage our home, will damage the neighborhood, and ultimately will damage Tiburon. The Project is too big, too tall, too massive, too large, it does not fit in the neighborhood, it damages our home, and it violates the Development Standards. We ask that Applicant’s be required to redesign the Project to substantially mitigate the damage it will do to our home, or deny the Project. Regards, Gary C. Sheppard Marybeth Bond-Sheppard 8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. As set forth in the Permit Guide below, the purpose of the Town of Tiburon Design Review process is, among other things, to determine compliance with the Town’s zoning regulations. The following Development Standards have direct application to that purpose and the Project: a. General Plan: Tiburon’s policies governing the use of residential land are set forth Residential Land Use Element of the Tiburon 2020 “General Plan” which provides as follows: LU- 5: “New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces.” LU-12: “The Town shall encourage projects that enhance its character and image through the development and design review processes. Monotony in design, and massive or inordinately large or bulky structures and site coverage that overwhelm or that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, shall be avoided.” LU-13: “Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible.” LU-15: “Remodels, tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood.” b. Zoning Code: Sections 16.52.020.H.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of the “Zoning Code” provides that the review authority shall determine whether the project meets the following criteria: “1. Site Plan Adequacy. Proper relationship 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.” “2. Site Layout In Relation to Adjoining Sites. The location of the 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.” “3. Neighborhood Character. The height, size, and/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.” “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 9 stark contrast with its surroundings.” “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.” c. Permit Guide: The Town of Tiburon Design Review Permit Guide dated July 2016 (“Permit Guide”) provides as follows: “The purposes of the Town of Tiburon Design Review process are to promote orderly development; preserve the unique visual character of the Town; and determine compliance with the Town’s zoning regulations. New structures and additions and/or alterations to existing buildings are reviewed for consistency with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and to ensure proper relation to their sites and adjacent uses. Issues commonly addressed during the Design Review process are potential view blockage impacts, loss of privacy, compatibility with surrounding neighborhood character, and the overall size and scale of a project.” d. Guidance Re Second Story Additions: Tiburon’s Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider dated February 2015 (“Guidance re Second Story Additions”) provides as follows: “Paragraph 1. Neighborhood Pattern. In neighborhoods consisting of predominantly one-story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one-story dwellings. Two-story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” “Paragraph 3. Privacy. A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow someone to look into the yards or private spaces of their neighbors. These privacy-invading elements should be identified and avoided early in the design process.” “Paragraph 4. Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second story can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in nearby yards.” “Paragraph 5. Mass and Bulk. A second story can often loom over a one story home or on a downhill house. Two-story projects should be designed and articulated to avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby properties.” 10 e. Hillside Design Guidelines: The Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling prepared by architect James S. Malott and dated October 1981 (“Hillside Design Guidelines”) provide as follows: Goal 1, Principle 1: “Cut buildings into hillside to reduce effective visual bulk.” Goal 1, Principle 2: “Terrace buildings using the slope. Use roofs of lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels.” Goal 1, Principle 3: “Avoid large expanses of any material in a single plane. On downhill elevations, break up masses of building with horizontal and vertical elements.” Goal 1, Principle 4: “Follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof forms, to increase the integration of dwelling and site.” Goal 1, Principle 5: “Follow hillside contours with horizontal building elements to increase the integration of dwelling and site.” Goal 2, Principle 6: “Control window placement for sun, privacy and view. . . . Avoid placing windows where they will look right into someone else’s home. Instead, use skylights or smaller, well placed windows for specific views and light.” Goal 2, Principle 9: “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.” 11 VIEW OF PROJECT FROM BACKYARD OF 685 HILARY 12 VIEW OF PROJECT FROM INSIDE OFFICE OF 685 HILARY 13 VIEW OVER ROOF OF EXISTING PROJECT LOOKING AT 685 HILARY. HILARY DRIVE IS ON THE LEFT. 14 VIEW OVER ROOF OF PROJECT LOOKING TOWARD 685 HILARY. HILARY DRIVE IS ON THE LEFT. 1 GARY AND MARYBETH SHEPPARD 685 HILARY DRIVE TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 November 24, 2020 Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Re: MAJOR LANDSCAPING/TREE PROBLEM DISCOVERED IN REVISED PLANS Project: 687 Hilary Drive (APN #055-021-08) Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell File No.: DR2020-015 Date of DRB Hearing: December 3, 2020 Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife Marybeth and I own the property at 685 Hilary Drive (“685 Hilary”) and have lived there since 1987. Our one story house is situated adjacent to and shares a boundary with 687 Hilary Drive (“Project”). We recently received the Revised Plans of the Applicant’s dated November 11, 2020. We were extremely distressed to discover that Applicant’s now plan to install 13 Umbellularia Californica aka California Bay Laurel trees along the fence on the property line. Page L-1 of the Revised Plans describes these California Laurel trees as having a Mature Height of 10 feet and a Mature Width of 12 feet. We are not sure if Applicant’s or their Architects were simply unaware of the facts, but virtually every learned description on the subject describes the California Bay Laurel tree as having an average height ranging from 30 feet to 70 feet and some can grow to over 100 feet high, have large crowns that can spread up to 50 feet away from the trunk, and are extremely susceptible to a fungal rot called “heart rot”. If these trees were planted on the property line between our houses and were allowed to grow, in 5 – 10 years our home would be completely shaded by the trees, year round. This is an intolerable suggestion and it must be immediately stopped. The damage caused by these trees could be enormous. Regards, Gary C. Sheppard Marybeth Bond-Sheppard Attachment 18 KEEG IN c, HARRISON lLPSENT VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL December 3, 2020 Basia and Christian Terrell 687 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Re.: Thomas and Catherine Unger, 689 Hilary Drive ATTOHN[Y<; /\T L/\W Demand for 687 Hilary Redwood removal and damages caused by infiltrating Redwood roots Dear Mr. and Mrs. Terrell: This letter serves as a follow-up to my November 11, 2020 and a demand for damages to my clients' property caused by your redwood tree (''Redwood") located on the south side of your property along the prope1ty line between your home and the Ungers' home. (Nov. 11, 2020 letter, attached as Exhibit "A.") We received the attached arborist report from Urban Forestry Associates ("Arborist"), and a repair estimate for the Ungers' home from Hawthorne Company ("Hawthorne"). (December 2, 2020 Arborist Rep01t, attached as Exhibit "B"; November 18, 2020 Contractor Estimate, attached as Exhibit. "C.") In short, the Redwood must be removed and the Ungers home repaired. YOUR LIABILITY IS UNA VOIDABLE The roots of the Redwood, many of which are surface-level and clear to the naked eye, are cmTently infiltrating and damaging the Ungers' house. The Redwood constitutes a legal nuisance subject to abatement, and the root invasion constitutes a trespass to the Ungers' house for which you are legally responsible. (See Bonde v. Bishop ( 1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 1; Mattos v. Mattos (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 41; Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 92.) Accordingly, your liability for the damages to the Ungers' home, as well as compensation for the Ungers' annoyance and discomfort, is assured. Cou1lhou,e S�1a1c • 1000 Fourth Slrccl. Suilc (,00 • S;1n R:1li1d. Cahlu111in 9•1901 • Tdcµhon<: (115) 456--WQQ. F.ii. (·11 :>)-156 1921 • n·1\w.l,cq�111h:irrt,onw111 PH-1 KEEGIN HARRISON!! I' November 11, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Basia and Christina Te1Tell 687 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Terrell: My office represents Thomas and Catherine Unger, your neighbors at 689 Hilary Drive, with respect to the large redwood tree (the "Redwood") between your homes. As you may have noticed, the Redwood's trunk and roots have spread significantly over the past few years during your ownership of 687 Hilary. Roots spreading from the trunk of the Redwood are currently visible on the surface of the side yard between the homes and can also be seen running under the house. The Ungers recently noticed several roots from the Redwood has pushed up the floor (and presumably the foundation) of the first floor causing a noticeable ridge in the guest bedroom and bathroom closest to the tree. As a result of the root-caused ridge) the wall and tile in the bathroom are cracking as the tree root appears to be pushing upward. This letter is to inform you the Ungers are currently investigating the Redwood's condition as well as estimated costs of the necessary repairs and mitigation against future root incursion and will serve you sh01ily with a formal demand for damages. Your Redwood constitutes a legal nuisance subject to abatement and the invasion of roots constitute a trespass to the Ungers' house for which you are legally responsible. (See Bonde v. Bishop (1952) l I 2 Cal.App.2d l,· Mattos v. Mattos ( 1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 41; Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District ( 1998) 206 Cal.App.3cl 92.) Although the Ungers have not ascertained the total sum of damages, the cost to repair the damage will likely exceed $100,000 based upon early evaluation by a construction contractor. A report will follow. The fence between the properties and the lawn on my clients' side yard closest to the tree will also require repair or replacement. The Ungers will also be entitled to general damages for loss of enjoyment, annoyance and discomfort in addition to the damage caused by the tree's roots. (See Heninger v. Dunn (1980) EXHIBIT 4 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 16 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 Agenda Item: PH-3 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Christy Fong, Senior Planner Subject: 687 Hilary Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-221-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and exterior improvements would contain approximately 3,483 square feet of floor area and cover 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 687 HILARY DRIVE OWNER: BASIA AND CHRISTAIN TERRELL APPLICANT: RICHARD BERLING, PACIFIC DESIGN GROUP ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 055-211-08 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-015 LOT SIZE: 18,388 square feet ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 PSA DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 13, 2020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 687 Hilary Drive in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,245 square foot one-story single-family residence with an attached garage that was constructed during the post-WWII period in the 1950s with improvements over time. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 16 The proposed 3,483 square foot single-family home has three levels, which includes a 667 square foot two-car attached garage and foyer at the lower level in the excavated area; a kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, powder room and a guest room on the main level; a master ensuite bedroom, an ensuite bedroom, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper level. The garage level will be lowered from the existing grade to connect with Hillary Drive at street level. The proposed residence has a two-story mass on the east, west and north elevations. From the street level, the front elevation (south) will have a three-story appearance with an excavated garage. The proposed design incorporates terraced landscape elements and massing that steps up from the street to provide articulation and to offset the impact of perceived height impact at street level. Other exterior improvements include new driveway, planters and retaining walls by the front elevation, a new terrace above the garage by the east (right), an improvement of the existing lawn by the west (left), new stairs and landings to a new hot tub located at the hillside within the rear yard, and two decks on the upper floor. All decks will have metal guardrails in charcoal color and are oriented toward the view. The project, along with exterior improvements, covers approximately 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. The main residence will be constructed at the maximum height of 30’ tall with a flat roof and 3’ wide typical eave. The eave width will extend up to 5’ in some areas to provide overhang for excessive sunlight. Three new skylines will be installed along with solar panels. The project is built within the building envelope and complies with the development standards in respect to allowable floor area, lot coverage, setbacks and height as prescribed in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed 20’-6” wide concrete driveway and a 4’ wide pathway would connect with Hillary Drive at a location that is centered along the lot frontage. The attached two-car garage will be located in the excavated area that tuck under an upper-level terrace. The project proposes to maintain most of the existing mature landscape on site and to replace minor landscaping in the front yard. Numerous planters and retaining walls are proposed by the driveway at the front of the property. A portion of the existing perimeter fence will be replaced with a 6’ tall cedar fence. New exterior lighting will be installed by the access points from the main residence and along the pathways in the front and back of the new home. The proposed colors and material include a combination of fiber cement siding, concrete and Dryvit outsulation finishes with earth tone colors of grays and tan beige, accented with gray trim and fascia. The proposed roof will be constructed in built-up membrane. The project proposes fleetwood windows in charcoal color and wood doors in natural oak-like color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet a4 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 2). Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 16 PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on September 14, 2020 The property is located on a relatively large and trapezoid shaped lot on Hilary Drive. The frontage of the subject lot is approximately 56’ in length, which is shorter than most of the adjoining homes in the area, who have frontages ranging from 73’ to 83’ in length. While the right-side property line is perpendicular to the front lot line, the left-side property line has obtuse angle from the front lot line. The lot has an average slope of 30.55% and slopes downward from the project north to the south. The subject lot area is 18,388 square feet, where abutting properties have the lot areas of approximately 8,700 square feet with a frontage of 98’ in length on the west (left) and 12,000 square feet with the frontage of 75’in length on the east (right) along Hilary Drive. Homes in the area have views toward other homes in Tiburon, the Richardson Bay and the Harbor Point. The properties along the rear property line (north) are situated uphill from the subject property. The neighbors to the south across Hilary Drive are located slightly downhill from the subject property. To the east (right), 689 Hilary Drive, is rectangular in shape and has an average slope of 26.01% and the lot is narrower in width comparing to the subject property. This property is currently occupied by a two-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 22’-10”. To the west (left), 685 Hilary Drive, has a reversed trapezoid shape in comparison to the subject property, the lot has an average slope of 16.67% with a wider frontage and is narrower in depth. This property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family residence at a height of approximately 12’. ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Building placement on the lot The subject lot is large in size compared to other properties in the vicinity, providing an opportunity for development of a home with greater gross floor area. Minimal flat area on the lot and steep topography toward the rear of the site limit the available developable area. This topography makes development more practical toward the front of the property, as it does not necessitate a steep cut N Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 16 into the hill with construction of large retaining walls. Development on a trapezoid shaped lot with a steep natural slope at the rear constrains the project. Hence, the project proposes a house to locate at the center of the lot with open areas on both sides. The proposed front setback is 22’, which is similar to the general patterns found in the neighborhood. The Board may want to comment on whether the proposed residence has proper relation to its site. Roof style, massing and form Residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are generally varied in shape, size, height and style. With some split-level and two-level forms, the single-family residences near this portion of Hillary Drive are primarily in single-story appearance with low pitch cross-gabled roof. The proposed residence will be covered by a flat roof with overhang eaves. A garage is proposed to be located on an excavated area that connects at the same level as Hilary Drive with two floors of living spaces above. The project includes terraced planters at the front, as well as open terrace and lawn at the upper level on both sides to offset the perceived impact of height and massing at street level. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed building forms and roof style would effectively reduce the perceived height and bulk of the new residence with consideration of the neighborhood context. View and privacy The proposed residence does not appear to limit view enjoyed by nearby properties, particularly to uphill neighbors. Considering the proposed setback and landscaping condition, staff found that upper floor windows could be reduced in size, frosted and/or have higher sill height to further limit the opportunity of causal viewing onto neighboring livable areas. The Board may assess whether the proposed design will raise potential privacy concerns from neighboring properties, particularly the orientation of upper floor decks and windows. Sunlight and shade The project will be built to the maximum height of 30’ allowed in the R-1 zone. Given consideration to the surrounding context with primarily single-story appearance, a shade study was prepared as attached in the project plan on sheet ss1. The shade study is to illustrate how the proposed residence’s layout, massing, and height may have shade impact to the surrounding area at different times of the day and year. The study indicates that direct sun light is reaching most of the surrounding buildings and yards outside the subject site during summer solstice. Winter solstice is the shortest day of the year, which will represent the worst case impacts a proposed structure may have upon nearby land use and structures. The study shows that shade is primarily casting toward the rear of the subject property in the winter solstice. The exception is during morning hours, the adjacent property to the west (left) is expected to have sunlight obstruction. The existing building on the subject property and other existing developments in the neighborhood would normally shade in the northwestern direction onto adjoining areas in the winter solstice during these morning hours. The proposed building height will add to the length of shadow casting onto adjoining area during the same hours. With consideration of natural terrain and existing vegetation, the Board may want to assess whether the added shade impact brought by the proposed residence would negatively impact adjoining properties. Hillside Design Guidelines The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines may be used in evaluating the characteristics of the property. Staff recommends the Board to analyze the project to ensure general conformance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “reduce effective visual bulk of a structure and to avoid monumental and excessively large dwelling.” (See below illustrations). The proposed residence is designed with low-profiled flat roof and with massing that setbacks from the street level, which will help to reduce the visual bulk and height when seen from below and from distance. The two-story appearance is primarily visible from the side elevations. On the east (right) elevation, most of the two-story massing is setback from the property line with an open terrace above the garage. The two-story massing will be visible on the west (left) elevation. Since the new residence is oriented toward the center of the lot with reduced setback on the west (left) from the existing condition and the proposed second-floor massing will cantilever over the lower-floor wall plane, the perceived bulk of the new residence will become apparent. Staff recommends stepping back the upper-floor massing from the lower-floor plane to ensure proper relation with the one-story structure on the adjoining lot. The Board may want to explore other design alternatives that would achieve the same goal and which are consistent with this principle of the design guidelines. Goal 1, Principle 2 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “use roofs of lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels.” (See below illustrations). Proposed residence is intended to minimize the effect on hillside by fitting the building into the ground. The project will utilize the area above the excavated garage to create open spaces, which will terrace the building and avoid decks to hang from the hillside with unattractive long pole supports. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid large expanse of any material in a single plane. On downhill elevations, break up masses of building with horizontal and vertical elements.” (See below illustrations). The proposed design utilizes a mix of siding materials, which includes concrete, fiber cement and drtvit outsulation. Change of materials is apparent when massing is changing plane vertically. The Board may want to assess whether the use of materials effectively breaks down the mass and reduce visual bulk of the proposed residence. On the downhill elevation, the proposed project steps back on the upper floor to break up the building mass horizontally. The Board may also wish to assess whether the proposed building forms would reduce the perceived mass. Goal 1, Principle 4 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof forms, to increase the integration of dwelling and site.” (See below illustrations). The project is designed to follow the natural hillside contour and is located on a relatively flat land toward the front of the property. The proposed flat roof form will not increase the effective bulk of the building as it follows the general slope of the hill. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed building form with overhanging eaves are well integrated into the hillside or suggests alternatives to achieve this goal. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 16 Goal 1, Principle 5 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “follow hillside contours with horizontal building elements to increase integration of dwelling unit and site.” (See illustrations below). As noted, the proposed residence is designed with open areas on both sides to relate with adjoining structures on the main level. Upper massing is stepped back from the front elevation. The Board may want to assess whether horizontal articulation on the side elevations would help the building to better integrate with the site. Goal 1, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “avoid massive roof overhangs and cantilevers on downhill faces of buildings.” (See illustrations below). The project is designed with flat roof, which will reduce the bulk of the building from distance. The design guidelines encourage smaller overhangs for individual floors or windows that will help break-up mass, while protecting the structure against excess sunlight. Staff recommends to reduce the eave width to an extent that would provide reasonable sunlight protection. The Board may wish to assess whether the reduction of proposed overhang would help to reduce the visual bulk of the building. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 16 Goal 2, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “control window placement for sun, privacy and view. In general, avoid large expanses of floor to ceiling glass and ‘picture windows’; ‘frame’ views with carefully thought out windows; avoid placing windows where they will look right into someone else home”. (See illustrations below). The proposed residence includes large span of windows and patio doors on the front elevation to take advantage of the view. Staff found that the windows on the side elevations, particularly on the upper level, can reduce in size, increase in windowsill heights and/or use of frosted glazing to ensure views are not oriented toward neighboring homes. The Board may wish to provide other suggestions to ensure the project would address view and privacy concerns. Goal 2, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourage applicants to “plan active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors” (See below illustrations). The project site is constrained with the natural topography toward the rear side of the site. Consistent with other guiding principles in the Hillside Design Guidelines, the proposed residence is intended to cut into the hillside which would further limit usable outdoor spaces at the rear side of the property. As the result, the project is designed to include Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 16 open spaces on the sides with sufficient setback from adjoining buildings. The Board may wish to discuss how these open spaces would be screened and controlled for acoustic privacy to nearby neighbors. The Board may also wish to comment on whether the landing at the rear hillside would raise potential noise issues. Goal 3, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that “privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict” (See below illustrations). The proposed hot tub will be located on a landing that cut into the hillside. Aside from the main dwelling, the proposed landing and the hot tub are designed as a vista point on the property. The design intent is to locate this landscape feature and ancillary use into the hillside with screening vegetation. The Board may wish to discuss whether this landing would raise privacy impact toward adjoining neighbors. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed residence would create any visual, privacy, sunshade, or lighting impacts on the adjacent neighbors. In addition, the Board may comment on the massing/bulk of the proposed structure relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 16 Zoning The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project site will continue to be occupied by a single-family residence. The new residence will utilize the development potentials that are prescribed for properties zoned as R-1 district. The project would improve the site with a primary residence and ancillary landscape that are designed to support modern living in an urbanized neighborhood. The project is designed with a structure that supports its intended use and appears to be generally compatible with other new single-family homes in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The project is designed in a contemporary style that is consistent with current construction and development trends. The project will improve the overall attractiveness of the site with updated structures and landscape. The proposed architectural form is common for new single-family residences found in the Town; however, the project will some design differences with the homes in the immediate vicinity. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed project is designed to be compatible with the immediate surrounding, as well as retaining and strengthening the visual quality and character of the town as a whole. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. The proposed project includes an addition of terraced landscaped planters within the front yard. New landscape materials are proposed throughout the site, particularly within the side yards of the new residence and new landing in the rear yard. All of the mature trees on the property will be retained. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will alter the existing driveway location and add a new pedestrian pathway from the street to the residence. It is common for residences to access the street with a driveway and a pathway in the neighborhood. The interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways will not be impacted negatively by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The new home will be built in an architectural design and construction finishes that are common for single-family homes in the town as whole. The proposed materials and colors are in the earth tone palettes that are designed to blend in with the hillside environment. The proposed construction is consistent with the Town’s aesthetics standards. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 16 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 project will comply with all required development standards. The proposed project does not appear to negatively affect community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources. Upon review of file records and receiving public testimony, the Board may provide feedback on the project’s substantial conformance to the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and other applicable architectural review guiding principles as a whole. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with 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 project is to replace the existing one-story single-family home that is located on an 18,388 square foot lot with a new single-family residence at a height of 30’. The existing lot has an average slope of 30.55% toward the rear part of the property. The project will lower the existing grade in the front to allow a garage, driveway and pathway connecting at the same level to the street. Terraced landscape will be located in the front yard. Open spaces will be located by both sides of the new residence. A new landing will be built on the rear hillside within the buildable area to accommodate the proposed hot tub. With the exception of new stairways to the proposed landing, the rear yard will remain in its natural state. The project appears to have proper site plan relation to its site, with safe and reasonable access that would not create detrimental impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. The Board may want to assess whether the project, with alteration to existing grade at the front that is different from other existing development at this portion of Hillary Drive on the uphill side, will promote orderly development in the community. 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. Working with a deep trapezoid shape lot with a short frontage, the proposed residence will orientate from existing footprint to extend toward the rear side of the property on relatively flat area. The proposed structure will not cause unreasonable view obstruction to the nearby neighbors. Light and air will be provided through the proposed open spaces on both sides of the structure. The proposed residence will be configured to have parking and street access at the lower level and to locate livable space on the top. The proposed residence will have a two-story appearance on the sides facing the existing one-story home on the left side of the site and an existing two-story home on right side adjoining this property. To allow proper transition from the proposed two-story structure to the existing one-story home on the west (left), staff found that other design alternatives may include “stepping back” the second-floor mass from the lower floor plane on this side. Although the proposed Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 12 of 16 residence offers sufficient setback and there are existing and proposed vegetation along the side property lines, the proposed upper-floor windows and decks shall be orientated away to the most possible extent and avoid casual viewing toward neighboring properties. Staff recommends reducing the size of side facing windows, increase the windowsill height and/or frosted window treatment to limit the opportunity for casual viewing. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed second-floor windows and decks would impose potential privacy issue toward nearby neighbors. When evaluating the location of the proposed improvements, the Board may wish to also discuss whether the project has a site layout that is properly related to the existing improvements on adjoining sites. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. As noted, residences in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story addition. Since the proposed residence is located in a portion of the neighborhood that has an appearance of one-story design from the street, the board may wish to discuss whether the proposed height, size and bulk of the project would bear a reasonable relationship with the existing buildings in the vicinity. The project would comply with the setback, lot coverage, gross floor area and height requirements for the R-1 zone. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the building envelope, the right (east) side setback will be increased from the existing condition of approximately 5’-8” to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback will be reduced from the existing condition of approximately 20’ to 16’-1”. The project will be built at the maximum height of 30’. The new home is designed to integrate into the hillside in two stories with an excavated garage and entry. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed height of the project would be compatible with nearby structures. In addition, staff found one design approach to reduce the perceived bulk of the proposed project is to reduce the width of the overhang eaves, particularly when facing the street. Currently, the proposed overhang eaves are in a range of 3’ to 5’ wide. Along with other design adjustments, the Board may want to assess whether the proposed height and the proposed articulated massing/forms are sufficient to reduce perceived bulk of the building with the goal to respect the character of existing buildings in the vicinity and to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 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. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 13 of 16 The project would include 3,483 square feet of calculated floor area, which would be 356 square feet below the maximum floor area (3,839 square feet) allowed for a lot of this size. 5. 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. The project proposes to remove three small palm trees and replace existing landscaping in the front. As the property slopes downwards toward the street, the project would alter approximately 289 cubic yards of soil to accommodate the new driveway, pathway, garage, entry, lawn expansion, a portion of the new residence and the new landing on the hillside. 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 architectural design is contemporary with a flat roof in simple geometric forms and shapes. The exterior finishes comprise of gray concrete with gray and tan beige siding, black metal guardrails, gray roof, natural wood doors and fleetwood windows in charcoal color. The architectural style and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in the Town and other areas in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. However, the proposed architectural form, height and bulk and exterior finishes are different from those homes in the immediate surrounding area. The Board may want to discuss whether the proposed design will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 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, minimize 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. The landscape plan shows a variety of landscape materials with many of the existing mature trees to be remain on site, particularly the redwood and elm trees. The project includes terraced planters and landscape materials to screen and to create a buffer for existing neighbors and from the street. The proposed landscape changes will introduce positive changes and enhance privacy for the adjacent neighbors. 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. New exterior lighting will be installed throughout the exterior of the home and path lights along pathways and stairs for safe access. All lights will be shielded downlighting with no clear glass. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 14 of 16 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 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. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed project will utilize and expand on the existing building foundation. The new home would be more vertical than the existing home. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the improvements of the new home. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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 proposal is not located in an RPD and or RMP zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is characterized as a new single-family dwelling; therefore, solar panels would be required. The new home would have to comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code requirements. 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 II (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 project is located in the R-1 zone. The proposed structures would comply with all zoning requirements. In conclusion, the proposed residence does not appear to be detrimental to surrounding views or safety within the neighborhood. The proposed project is in compliance with all the development standards as outlined for properties in the R-1 zoned district and the proposed building is designed in a manner that is consistent with other new single-family development in the Town. The proposed design appears to consider the unique lot characteristic and the natural constraints of the subject property. The project has used various design approaches to reduce the perceived bulk and height of the building. As described above, staff has identified several areas for design refinement, particularly other design approaches that would enable the project to have a reasonable relationship with the immediate adjoining sites and would further reduce the perceived height, size, and bulk of the project with the goal to minimize intrusion on the neighborhood, particularly at this portion of Hilary Drive. Staff recommends the Board to provide other constructive guidance so the project Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 15 of 16 will be in better compliance with the purposes of site plan and architectural review and other applicable guiding principles. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, multiple support letters are received from nearby neighbors (Attachments 3-12). The property owners and their representatives from the abutting properties at 685 Hilary Drive (Attachment 13-14) and the property owner of 689 Hilary Drive (Attachment 15) wrote to oppose the project due its height, bulk and mass, inconsistency with the neighborhood character, potential impacts with privacy, noise, light and sun shade. Some nearby neighbors wrote with opposition (Attachment 16-17) and multiple neighbors in the vicinity had signed petitions to object the proposed project (Attachment 18). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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. 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) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve new homes in an established residential neighborhood. Other examples include 681 Hawthorne Drive, 484 Washington Court, 173 Stewart Drive. Design Review Board Meeting October 15, 2020 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 16 of 16 RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Board to provide design guidance to the applicant that would advance the project toward approval. If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions or deny the project, the Board may direct staff to draft such conditions and resolution, which would be presented at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and supplemental forms, received on March 16, 2020 2. Project Plans prepared by Pacific Design Group, Inc., received on September 14, 2020 3. Neighbor’s letter from 27 Mara Vista, received on September 12, 2020 4. Neighbor’s letter from 690 Hilary Drive, received on September 13, 2020 5. Neighbor’s letter from 681 Hilary Drive, received on September 13, 2020 6. Neighbor’s letter from 40 Del Mar Drive, received on October 4, 2020 7. Neighbor’s letter from 670 Hilary Drive, received on October 5, 2020 8. Neighbor’s letter from 685 Hawthorne Drive, received on October 5, 2020 9. Neighbor’s letter from 672 Hilary Drive, received on October 6, 2020 10. Neighbor’s letter from 687 Hawthorne Drive, received on October 7, 2020 11. Neighbor’s letter from 3 Rock Hill Drive, received on October 7, 2020 12. Neighbor’s letter from 669 Hathorne Drive, received on October 8, 2020 13. Neighbor’s letter from the property owner of 685 Hilary Drive, received on September 28, 2020 and September 30, 2020 14. Neighbor’s letter from the representative of 685 Hilary Drive, received on September 28, 2020 15. Neighbor’s letter from 689 Hilary Drive, received on October 6, 2020 16. Neighbor’s letter from 694 Hilary Drive, received on September 24, 2020 17. Neighbor’s letter from 692 Hilary Drive, received on September 26, 2020 18. Signed petition from multiple neighbors opposing the project Attachment 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E R E S I D E N C E T E R R E L L T I B U R O N C A L I F O R N I A site Vicinity IndexProject Description DataOwner: Chris & Basia Terrell687 Hillary DriveTiburon, CaliforniaAP# 055-021-08Occupancy: R-3Construction Type: V-BStories: 3Zone: R1Lot area: 18,388 sfAverage Slope: 30.55%FAR Allowed: 10% of 18,388 sf + 2,000 sf = 3,839 sf+ 600 sf garage (not counted) = 20.87%Existing Residence:Living: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sf - 600 sf = 0Total: 1,245 sf = 6.8%Proposed Residence:Entry Level: 200 sfGarage: 667 - 600 sf (not counted) = 67 sfMain Level: 1,687 sfUpper Level: 1,529 sfTotal Proposed Residence: 3,483 sf = 18.94%Lot Coverage Allowed: 30% x 18,388 sf = 5,516 sfExisting Lot Coverage:Residence: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sfDriveway: 720 sfTotal: 2,347 sf /18,388 sf = 12.7%Proposed Lot Coverage:Driveway: 830 sfResidence: 1,584 sfTerrace/Garage:1,302 sfUpper Floor Cantilever: 62 sfUpper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfUpper Floor Guest Deck: 72/2 = 36 sfRoof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfRoof Over 4'-0": 340 sfLanding to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,448 sf /18,388 sf = 24.2%Grading Quantities:Amount of Cut: 340 CYAmount of Fill: 51 CYOffhaul: 289 CYImpervious Coverage:Existing: 3,080 sfProposed Net Increase: 2,145 sfFinished Condition: 5,225 sfRequired Setbacks:Front Yard: 15'-0"Rear Yard: 20% to 25'-0"Side Yard: 8'-0"Existing Setbacks:Front Yard: 24'-6"Rear Yard: 95'-6"Right Side Yard: 20'-0"Left Side Yard: 5'-6"Proposed Setbacks:Front Yard: 22'-0"Rear Yard: 74'-0" Right Side Yard: 18'-6"Left Side Yard: 16'-1"Allowed Max. Height: 30'-0"Existing Height: 12'-0"Proposed Height: 30'-0"Existing Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesRequired Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesProposed Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spaces Codes2019 California Residential Code California Electrical Code California Mechanical Code California Plumbing Code California Energy Code California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Standards Code2019 California Residential Energy Efficiency Conditions1 Coverp1 Photographsp2 View Perspective - Main Deckp3 View Perspective - Guest Deckp4 View Perspective - SpaSiteC1 Survey2 Site PlanGD1 Grading & Drainage Plan3 Site Sections4 Roof Planss1 Shade StudyL1 Landscape Plan/Vegetation ManagementECN Erosion Control NotesArchitecturee1 Existing Planse2 Existing Elevationsa1 Proposed Entry/Garage Levela2 Proposed Main Levela3 Proposed Upper Level Floora4 Proposed Elevations / Material Sample Boarda5 Proposed Elevationsa6 Proposed SectionsThe proposed project removes an existing 1,245 sf singlefamily residence with an attached 382 sf two-car garage.The proposed project constructs a 3,456 sf single familyResidence with a 267 sf Entry/Garage Level, a 1,671 sfMain Level, and a 1,518 sf Upper Level. C o v e r 1 This project requires compliance with MMWD,Water Conservation Ordinance # 430.Site Plan based on a Survey prepared by DMGEngineering, Inc., Engineers/Surveyors.Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,483 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :6,966 /100 : 6.9 KW required1 KW per 100 sf690 sf : 6.9 KW provided v i i i . E a v e o r c o r n i c e v e n t s s h a l l n o t b e i n s t a l l e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d b u r n i n g e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 3 . v i i i . V e n t o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , w h e r e a l l o w e d , s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e , o r s h a l l b e s c r e e n e d w i t h c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h n o t l e s s t h a n 1 / 1 6 o r g r e a t e r t h a n 1 / 8 o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 2 . i x . E x t e r i o r w i n d o w s , w i n d o w w a l l s , g l a z e d d o o r s , a n d g l a z e d o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r d o o r s s h a l l b e i n s u l a t i n g g l a s s u n i t s w i t h a m i n i m u m o f o n e t e m p e r e d p a n e , o r g l a s s b l o c k u n i t s , o r h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g o f n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 1 0 , o r c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 2 . § R 3 2 7 . 8 . 2 . 1 . x . E x t e r i o r d o o r a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 1 o r s h a l l b e o f a p p r o v e d n o n c o m b u s t i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r s o l i d c o r e w o o d h a v i n g s t i l e s a n d r a i l s n o t l e s s t h a n 1 3 / 8 ″ t h i c k w i t h i n t e r i o r p a n e l s n o l e s s t h a n 1 ¼ ″ t h i c k , o r s h a l l h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 7 4 . C R C R 3 2 7 . 8 . 3 ( E x c e p t i o n : N o n c o m b u s t i b l e o r e x t e r i o r f i r e - r e t a r d a n t t r e a t e d w o o d v e h i c l e a c c e s s d o o r s . ) W i l d l a n d U r b a n I n t e r f a c e i . P r i o r t o b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f i n a l a p p r o v a l t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e v e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e s c r i b e d i n C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 C a l i f o r n i a G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . C R C § R 3 2 7 . 1 . 5 i i . R o o f i n g a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r l i s t i n g s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e r s i n s t a l l a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n s . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . i i i . E x t e r i o r w a l l c o v e r i n g s h a l l e x t e n d f r o m t h e t o p o f f o u n d a t i o n t o t h e r o o f , t e r m i n a t i n g a t 2 " n o m i n a l s o l i d w o o d b l o c k i n g b e t w e e n r a f t e r s a n d r o o f o v e r h a n g , o r t e r m i n a t e a t t h e e n c l o s u r e o f e n c l o s e d e a v e s . i v . W h e n p r o v i d e d , v a l l e y f l a s h i n g s s h a l l b e n o t l e s s t h a n 0 . 0 1 9 ″ ( N o . 2 6 g a l v a n i z e d s h e e t g a g e ) c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t m e t a l i n s t a l l e d o v e r a m i n i m u m 3 6 ″ w i d e u n d e r l a y m e n t c o n s i s t i n g o f o n e l a y e r o f N o . 7 2 A S T M c a p s h e e t r u n n i n g t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f t h e v a l l e y . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 3 . v . A l l u n d e r f l o o r a r e a s e n c l o s e d t o g r a d e w i t h e x t e r i o r w a l l s s h a l l b e c o v e r e d a s r e q u i r e d f o r e x t e r i o r w a l l s . U n d e r s i d e o f a l l e x p o s e d f l o o r s , e x p o s e d s t r u c t u r a l c o l u m n s , b e a m s a n d s u p p o r t i n g w a l l s t o b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h e x t e r i o r i g n i t i o n - r e s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l s o r h e a v y t i m b e r v i . R o o f g u t t e r s s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e m e a n s t o p r e v e n t t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f l e a v e s a n d d e b r i s i n t h e g u t t e r . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 4 . v i i R o o f a n d a t t i c v e n t s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a , o r s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d b y c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h 1 / 1 6 m i n . a n d 1 / 8 m a x . o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 2 . Notes: S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 2 0 A t t a c h m e n t 2 P h o t o g r a p h s p 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E ConcreteRecessed Path Ligh t Bega 22-135LED: 2700 Lumens Artisan Shiplap SidingDryvit Fleetwood CharcoalWoodFountainRailingWall Luminaire Bega 33-344LED: 2700 Lumens V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e M a i n D e c k p 2 View Perspective - Main DeckEastFountain I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e G u e s t D e c k p 3 View Perspective - Guest Deck I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E East S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e S p a p 4 View Perspective - Spa I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E EastSoutheast S o u t h w e s t W e s t 4 " p l u m , t b r . ( e ) 3 6 " r e d w o o d S58°36'00"W - 160.00' j o i n t p o l e N 2 3 ° 5 7 ' 1 6 " E - 1 9 6 . 5 5 ' N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W - 1 7 0 . 0 0 ' H I L L A R Y D R I V E ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 2 . 2 f f ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k ( e ) w o o d f e n c e ( e ) w i r e f e n c e 6 " o a k 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6 " o a k 7 " o a k (2)5"plum5"plu m (4)5"plum (2)6"plum ( 4 ) 7 " p l u m 5 " p l u m 4 " o a k ( 4 ) 7 " o a k 9 " o a k 6 " o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . ( e ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) w a t e r m e t e r 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 R E S I D E N C E M a i n L e v e l 1 0 1 . 0 F . F . ( e ) r e s i d e n c e , t b r . ( n ) c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) g u y w i r e e a s e m e n t 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 15'-0" setback 8'-0"setback 25'-0" setback 9 1 . 9 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p h o t t u b w a t e r f e a t u r e 1 2 1 . 0 1 1 7 . 0 1 1 3 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 ( n ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 4 . 5 ( e ) e l e c t r i c m e t e r , t o b e r e l o c a t e d s y n t h e t i c t u r f 1 0 1 . 5 L = 5 6 . 2 7 ' ; R = 9 3 0 . 0 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 1 . 0 w o o d d e c k 1 0 1 . 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 G A R A G E ( b e l o w ) 9 1 . 0 F . F . T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 c o n d e n s i n g u n i t o / c o n c r e t e p a d u p S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n a / 3 Site Se c t i o n a / 3 ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k 22'-0" c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p u p u p s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 2 5 . 0 c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w l i n e o f b u i l d i n g w a l l l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g 1 8 ' - 6 " 8 ' - 6 " concrete stairs& landing, typ. T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 6 ' - 0 " 5'-0" typ. 1 6 ' - 1 " 1 9 ' - 2 " 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 concrete retainingwall, typ. ( e ) w o o d f e n c e , t b r . ( e ) b l d g 3 2 1 4 5 8 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 c o n c r e t e e n t r y w a l k w a y c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence m e m b r a n e r o o f s k y l i g h t , t i n t e d / n o l i g h t s , t y p . N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W 2 . 0 2 ' 2 - # 2 2 ( e ) f e n c e , t b r . 2-#2s3 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f (e) wire fence ( e ) w i r e f e n c e ( e ) w o o d s t e p s , t b r . ( n ) w o o d s t e p s t o h o t t u b ( n ) c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s o n r o o f ( n ) d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s w a l l m o u n t d o w n l i g h t , t y p . s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 5'-0" 2 - # 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 0 9 1 5 1 6 1 7 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 2 2 2 3 ' - 0 " 2 - # 1 2 T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line ( n ) 6 0 " x 8 4 " h o t t u b b y M a r q u i s , " T h e N a s h v i l l e " 1 8 1 9 h a n d r a i l s a n d g u a r d r a i l s a s r e q u i r e d . 9 2 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 6 . 5 9 4 . 5 2 - # 3 2 3'-6" 2 " x 2 " m e t a l p o s t s @ 6 ' - 0 " o / c 1 1 2 " x 3 4 " m e t a l r a i l s @ < 4 " o / c , t y p . 2 " x 1 " @ t o p / b o t t o m S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n l i n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s P r o p o s e d G r o s s F l o o r A r e a : 3 , 4 5 6 s f C u t / F i l l Q u a n t i t i e s : C u t : 3 4 0 C Y F i l l : 5 1 C Y O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,483 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :6,966 /100 : 6.9 KW required Story Pole Schedule# elevation grade98.098.013.5'21.5'1 101.02345101.0111.5111.5121.5 91.0100.0 98.0 10.0'height3.0'13.5'151716111.5111.5101.0 9.0'92.0 98.013.5'98.0 13.5'6 121.517.5'104.07 121.517.5'104.0121.517.5'8104.0910121.5121.5 19.5'102.0101.0 20.5'121.5121.5 101.014 121.5 101.0 20.5'111213121.5 101.0101.0 20.5'20.5'20.5'19 18121.5121.5 20.5'101.0 23.5'98.0"X""Y"(heel)eq.min.8""t"eq."T"SLAB T.O."H""A" bar cont. see sched.#4@18"o.c. horiz. barslab on grade, see plan waterproofing(miradrain/equal)3/4" drainrock rigid perf.pipe (in filter fabric)"C" bars cont. @top & bott.see sched."B" bars cont.@ top & bott.see schedule slope heal 14":12"#5Ø dowel @ 9" o/c Retaining Wall Schedule "A" #5@12"#4@12"6'-8"5'-8"4' TO 6'0' TO 4'"H" "X"1'-8"12""T"1'-8""Y"12""C" #4@12"#5@12""B" 10""t"8"#5@12"#4@12"#6@12"6'-10"6' TO 10'1'-8"12"#5@12"10"#6@12"No.123 C BAEDFGH IA Driveway: 830 sfB Residence: 1,584 sfC Terrace/Garage:1,302 sfD Upper Floor Cantilever: 62 sfE Upper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfF Upper Floor Guest Deck: 72 sfG Roof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfH Roof Over 4'-0": 340 sfI Landing to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,448 sf /18,388 sf = 24.2%Handrail and Guardrail Require m e n t s : 1. The top of handrails shall n o t b e l e s s t h a n 3 4 i n c h e s nor more than 38 inches a b o v e t h e n o s i n g o f t h e tread. Ends shall be retu r n e d t o t h e w a l l . 2. Stairway: minimum tread 1 1 " , m a x i m u m r i s e 7 " , maximum variation 3/8".3. Handrail (circular) graspa b i l i t y s h a l l n o t b e l e s s t h a n 1 1/4 inches nor more than 2 i n c h e s i n c r o s s s e c t i o n a l dimension. Handrail heig h t s h a l l n o t b e l e s s t h a n 3 4 " nor more than 38". Han d r a i l s s h a l l r e t u r n s m o o t h l y to wall.4. Guardrail to be a minimu m h e i g h t o f 4 2 " a l o n g open-sided walking surfa c e s , m e z z a n i n e s , platforms, stairways, ram p s a n d l a n d i n g s l o c a t e d 30" above floor or grade b e l o w . O p e n i n g s b e t w e e n rails shall be less than 4 i n c h e s . S u p p o r t p o s t s s h a l l comply with minimum lo a d r e q u i r e d b y S e c t i o n 1607.7 CBC 200 lb. minimum applied i n a n y d i r e c t i o n a l o n g a n y point. I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 S i t e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " S i t e P l a n 1/Guardr a i l 2/Retaining Wall Lot Coverage Diagram N o t e : S i t e P l a n b a s e d o n a S u r v e y p r e p a r e d b y D M G E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . , E n g i n e e r s / S u r v e y o r s . ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6 " o a k 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6 " o a k 7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5 " p l u m 4 " o a k ( 4 ) 7 " o a k 9 " o a k 6 " o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 ( e ) s t o r m d r a i n 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 TW 1 0 4 . 5 d s d s d s d s d s d s d s d s d s ( n ) d r a i n a g e l i n e ( n ) 4 " S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h , t y p . ( n ) 4 " P V C p e r f o r a t e d d r a i n l i n e 2 l a t e r a l , t y p . j o i n t p o l e 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 5'-0" T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"(e) BU I L D I N G 5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line ( n ) 4 " Ø S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o ( n ) d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h , 6 " p e r f o r a t e d p i p e i n 1 2 " x 1 2 " w / d r a i n r o c k i n f i l t e r f a b r i c , t y p i c a l 2 / g d 1 dispersion trench,12"x12" w/drain rock infilter fabric, typical2/gd1 S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n l i n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s drain rock to extend 12"min. beyond "T" dissipaterin all directions4"Ø SDR35 PER PLAN I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E g d 1 G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " G r a d i n g a n d D r a i n a g e P l a n t w 1 0 0 . 0 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 1 0 1 . 5 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 9 6 . 0 b w 9 2 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 0 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 1a/Typical Fiber Roll Installation 1b/Fiber Roll Entrenchment Detail A r e a o f c u t : 3 4 0 C Y A r e a o f f i l l : 5 1 C Y A m o u n t o f O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y G r a d i n g A m o u n t s : 2/Dispersion Trench P/L P / L m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 19'-7" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 29'-6" @ entry 12'-7" 25'-0"required setback 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 74'-1"proposed setback l a n d i n g t o p o f e n t r y l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1'-6" t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' e n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' t o p o f m a i n l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 1 0 . 5 ' ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 23'-0" 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9'-6"top of plate 120.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5' P / L 8'-0"9'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' p a t i o m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5'entry level ff 92.0' 30'-0" maximum height 30'-0" maximum height envelope8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k P/L 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 24'-6"proposed setbacktop of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 1 1 0 . 5 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 9 ' - 6 " (e) BUILDING102.2 ff top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' r o o f r i d g e h t . @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 S i t e S e c t i o n 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' - 0 " B / S i t e S e c t i o n A / S i t e S e c t i o n l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s 4 ' - 0 x 4 ' - 0 " s k y l i g h t , t y p . 3 w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k l i n e o f r o o f a t e n t r y li n e o f w a l l a t m a i n l e v e l 3 ' - 0 " o v e r h a n g u . n . o . 5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 3 2 1 4 5 8 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 l i n e o f g a r a g e a t e n t r y l e v e l ( d o t t e d ) m e m b r a n e r o o f m e m b r a n e r o o f 9 1 0 1 6 1 5 76 1 7 P h o t o v o l t a i c E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n S y s t e m 3 , 4 8 3 s f G r o s s A r e a x 2 w a t t s / s f : 6 , 9 6 6 / 1 0 0 : 6 . 9 K W r e q u i r e d 1 K W p e r 1 0 0 s f S t o r y P o l e S c h e d u l e # e l e v a t i o n g r a d e 9 8 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 3 . 5 ' 2 1 . 5 ' 1 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 4 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 1 1 . 5 1 1 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 0 . 0 ' h e i g h t 3 . 0 ' 1 3 . 5 ' 1 5 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 . 5 1 1 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 9 . 0 ' 9 2 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 3 . 5 ' 9 8 . 0 1 3 . 5 ' 6 1 2 1 . 5 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 7 1 2 1 . 5 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 7 . 5 ' 8 1 0 4 . 0 9 1 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 9 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 4 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 1 9 1 8 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 . 5 ' 9 8 . 0 A A R o o f O v e r h a n g ( o v e r 5 ' - 0 " ) : 3 4 0 s f I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 R o o f P l a n 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Roof P l a n F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S h a d e S t u d y n t s s s 1 ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6"oak 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6 " o a k 7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5"plu m 4"oak(4)7"o a k 9 " o a k 6 " o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k ( e ) ( 3 ) 9 " o a k + 1 5 ' ( e ) 7 " o a k + 1 2 ' ( e ) 1 2 " p i n e + 2 0 ' 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 C D 4 5 S C 4 1 F P 4 1 B T 2 5 B T 3 5 A A 2 5 A A 1 5 E F 2 5 S C 2 1 L D 3 1 F P 1 1 E F 1 5 E F 1 5 E F 1 5 C D 2 5 F P 2 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 L D 3 1 L D 1 1 L D 2 1 S C 3 1 S C 1 1 S C 1 1 L D 6 1 F P 1 1 F P 1 1 P I s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f ( n ) l a w n ( e ) l a w n s c o r e d c o n c r e t e p a t i o s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g w o o d d e c k s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence 1 L 1 1 2 B T 2 5 B T 3 5 A A 2 5 A A 1 5 Y W 1 1 F P 2 1 T r e e P r o t e c t i o n a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n N o t e s 1 . B e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f a n y c l e a r i n g , e x c a v a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r o t h e r w o r k o n t h e s i t e , o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , e v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s h a l l b e s e c u r e l y f e n c e d - o f f a t t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e , o r o t h e r l i m i t a s m a y b e d e l i n e a t e d i n t h e r e q u i r e d t r e e p r o t e c t i o n p l a n . S u c h f e n c e s s h a l l r e m a i n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n p l a c e f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e w o r k u n d e r t a k e n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . 2 . I f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g a n y s i t e w o r k , w i l l e n c r o a c h u p o n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , s p e c i a l m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e u t i l i z e d , a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t , t o a l l o w t h e r o o t s t o o b t a i n n e c e s s a r y o x y g e n , w a t e r , a n d n u t r i e n t s . 3 . U n d e r g r o u n d t r e n c h i n g s h a l l a v o i d t h e m a j o r s u p p o r t a n d a b s o r b i n g t r e e r o o t s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . I f a v o i d a n c e i s i m p r a c t i c a l , h a n d e x c a v a t i o n u n d e r t a k e n u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t i s r e q u i r e d . T r e n c h e s s h a l l b e c o n s o l i d a t e d t o s e r v i c e a s m a n y u n i t s a s p o s s i b l e . 4 . C o n c r e t e o r a s p h a l t p a v i n g s h a l l n o t b e p l a c e d o v e r t h e r o o t z o n e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p e r m i t t e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t . 5 . A r t i f i c i a l i r r i g a t i o n s h a l l n o t o c c u r w i t h i n t h e r o o t z o n e o f o a k s , u n l e s s d e e m e d a p p r o p r i a t e o n a t e m p o r a r y b a s i s b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t t o i m p r o v e t r e e v i g o r o r m i t i g a t e r o o t l o s s . 6 . C o m p a c t i o n o f t h e s o i l w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e a v o i d e d . 7 . A n y e x c a v a t i o n , c u t t i n g , o r f i l l i n g o f t h e e x i s t i n g g r o u n d s u r f a c e w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e s h a l l b e m i n i m i z e d a n d s u b j e c t t o s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t m a y i m p o s e . R e t a i n i n g w a l l s s h a l l l i k e w i s e b e d e s i g n e d , s i t e d , a n d c o n s t r u c t e d s o a s t o m i n i m i z e t h e i r i m p a c t o n s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . 8 . O i l , g a s , c h e m i c a l s , o r o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s t h a t m a y b e h a r m f u l t o t r e e s s h a l l n o t b e s t o r e d o r d u m p e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a n y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , o r a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n o n t h e s i t e f r o m w h i c h s u c h s u b s t a n c e s m i g h t e n t e r t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 9 . I n n o c a s e s h a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s o r d e b r i s b e s t o r e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 1 0 . S i l t f e n c i n g o r s o i l d i k e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o a n y s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n o r c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p r o j e c t t o p r e v e n t t h e b u i l d u p o f s e d i m e n t w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 1 . I n a r e a s w h e r e c u t s a r e t o b e m a d e f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f u t i l i t i e s o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s a d j a c e n t t o t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a , t h e a f f e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e r o o t p r u n e d p r i o r t o e x c a v a t i o n . R o o t p r u n i n g s h a l l b e d o n e w i t h a s a w o r s i m i l a r t o o l t h a t w i l l m i n i m i z e d a m a g e t o r e m a i n i n g r o o t s . 1 2 . V e h i c u l a r s t o r a g e , e q u i p m e n t s t o r a g e , m a t e r i a l s t o r a g e , w a s h o u t a c t i v i t i e s , t r e n c h i n g , p l a c e m e n t o f f i l l m a t e r i a l , r e m o v a l o f s o i l , o r a n y o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s t h a t m a y b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e h e a l t h o f t h e t r e e a r e s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 3 . P r u n i n g t o p r o v i d e c l e a r a n c e f o r s t r u c t u r e s , v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d b y a l i c e n s e d a r b o r i s t a n d s h a l l c o n f o r m t o A N S I t r e e p r u n i n g s t a n d a r d s . I R R I G A T I O N S P E C I F I C A T I O N S : 1 . I r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s h a l l b e c o m p r i s e d o f a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d v a l v e s . T h e s y s t e m w i l l b e d r i p i r r i g a t i o n . T h e s o u r c e o f w a t e r w i l l b e M M W D w a t e r . 2 . A l l p i p i n g s h a l l b e S C H 4 0 P V C a n d b u r i e d a t a d e p t h o f 1 2 " . 3 . T h e o n e ( 1 ) I r r i g a t i o n Z o n e i s t o b e s u p p l i e d b y M M W D w a t e r . M U L C H I N G S P E C I F I C A T I O N S 1 . A l l l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s t o b e m u l c h e d w i t h f i r e r e s i s t a n t , i n o r g a n i c , n o n - c o m b u s t i b l e m u l c h e s s u c h a s s t o n e o r g r a v e l . 2 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s t o b e c l e a r e d a n d g r u b b e d o f w e e d s , r o c k s , a n d d e b r i s . T h e s e i t e m s s h a l l b e r e m o v e d f r o m s i t e p r i o r t o p l a n t i n g . 3 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s s h a l l r e c e i v e a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f w e e d p r e - e m e r g e n c e p r i o r t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f b a r k m u l c h . N o t e : P r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e l a n d s c a p e p l a n a n d i r r i g a t i o n p l a n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l b y M a r i n M u n i c i p a l W a t e r D i s t r i c t . T h i s p r o j e c t r e q u i r e s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h M M W D , W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n O r d i n a n c e # 4 3 0 . A Vegetation Management Plan designedin accordance with Tiburon Fire ProtectionDistrict is required. A separate deferredpermit shall be required for this plansubmitted directly to the Fire Departmentfor review.Narrative1. There are currently small coast live oaks, a 36" Øredwood, a 12"Ø pine and a few othermiscellaneous native shrub species throughout theproperty. The intent is to properly maintain theexisting trees.Long Term Maintenance Schedule / Goals3. All weeds and grasses shall be cut regularly.Mowers, saws and yard maintenance equipmentshall be equipped with spark arrestors. Areas to bemowed shall be checked for rocks or metal to avoidsparking of mower blades.4. Vegetation shall be trimmed to within 10'-0” ofroadways as required for defensible areas. Treesshall be trimmed so as to not hang lowerthan 15'-0” above the roadway.5. Dead and dying vegetation shall be seasonallyremoved to reduce vegetation and ladder fuels.6. Coordinate with adjacent property owners tomaintain tree canopies, vegetation and ladder fuelson an annual basis.7. Re-seed disturbed areas with non-pyrophiticgroundcover. No native grasses will be plantedwithin the defensible zone.Vegetation Management Plan:symbolx xquantitycontainer plant Landscape Key:LDEFCD SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMEPLANTTYPEFrench Lavender3'-0'Echium FastuosumPride of MaderaCeanothusArtemisia QTY. SIZEMATUREHEIGHTMATUREWIDTH15561 gal5 gal SHRUBS 687 Hillary Drive Plant Listevergreenevergreen5Lavandula DentataPratia Isotoma GROUND COVERPI 3'-0'6'-0'6'-0'Dark Starevergreen6'-0'6'-0'5 galBT5 galBerberis Thubergiideciduous6'-0'6'-0'35 gal AAPowis Castleevergreen3'-0'6'-0'YWYucca Whipplei611evergreen2'-0'2'-0'1 galSC1 galSalvia Clevelandiievergreen4'-0'4'-0'7FP1 galFicus PumilaevergreenCreeping FigBlue Star Creeperevergreen 1 Gal @ 3'-0" o.c.Japanese BarberryNote:Prior to installation, the landscape plan and irrigation plan issubject to review and approval by Marin Municipal WaterDistrict.1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.2X8 bottom 2X6 topvaries6'-0" maxmin. embed 2'-0"1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.varies6'-0" max2X8 bottom 2X6 topmin. embed 2'-0"Aspect E: SW : 5Slope : 31% : 8Fuel Type (0-30 ft) : 3 (grasses)Fuel Type (31-100 ft) : 2 (mostly brush)Total Hazard Points : 18 Minimum Horizontal Clearance in Feet:50'x50'x100'Hazard Assessment I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E L 1 L a n d s c a p e P l a n 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " La n d s c a p e P l a n 50' x 50' x 100'Defensible Zone 5 0 ' x 5 0 ' x 1 0 0 ' D e f e n s i b l e Z o n e 1/Fence Detail1/2" = 1'-0" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E E r o s i o n C o n t r o l & S t o r m W a t e r P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n N o t e s e c n K I T C H E N B R K F S T L I V I N G G A R A G E E N T R Y B A T H D I N I N G B D R M 1 B D R M 2 M S T R B D R M M B T H I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g R o o f P l a n e 1 E x i s t i n g F l o o r / R o o f P l a n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g F l o o r P l a n I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n e 2 E x i s t i n g E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n 3 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n 4 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n u p 2 1 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 9'-0"10'-6" e n t r y 9 2 . 0 g a r a g e ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 5 m e c h a n i c a l ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 6 . 0 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 p l a n t e r p l a n t e r planter p l a n t e r p l a n t e r A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 3 2 0 A m a i n p a n e l 4 5 ' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2 3 ' - 6 " 4 5 ' - 0 " 10'-0"29'-6" 10'-0"11'-8"29'-6" 10'-0"12'-9"5'-7" 4 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 6 " 9 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 5 " 3'-6"5'-0" 5 0 ' - 0 " planter planter planter planter d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) p o r c h ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 9 5 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" planter concreteretainingwall, typ. l i n e o f r e s i d e n c e a b o v e 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s m e c h . a c c e s s d o o r s line of entryroof above 2 ' - 0 " 1 2 " ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e s i d e w a l k planter F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : N o t e : 1 . R e f e r t o M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n f o r r e f l e c t e d c e i l i n g l a y o u t s . 2 . R e f e r t o E l e v a t i o n s f o r w i n d o w t y p e s . 3 . R e f e r t o S c h e d u l e S h e e t f o r d o o r , w i n d o w , a n d f i n i s h s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 4 . A l l e x t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 6 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c , u n l e s s n o t e d . I n t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 4 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c u n l e s s n o t e d . 5 . A l l w a l l s t o b e d i m e n s i o n e d t o f a c e o f s t u d o r o u t s i d e f a c e o f c o n c r e t e . 6 . 5 / 8 " G y p s u m B o a r d t h r o u g h o u t , t y p i c a l . U s e 5 / 8 " T y p e " X " t a p e d G y p s u m B o a r d a t a l l w a l l s a n d c e i l i n g i n G a r a g e f o r o n e - h o u r f i r e r a t i n g . T e x t u r e t o b e L e v e l 4 S m o o t h W a l l . 7 . V e r i f y h o s e b i b b r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d l o c a t i o n s w i t h O w n e r a n d p r i o r t o p l u m b i n g l a y o u t . 8 . S i n k s u s e d f o r s o a k i n g , w a s h i n g , o r p r e p a r i n g o f f o o d s h a l l b e d r a i n e d b y m e a n s o f i n d i r e c t w a s t e o r v e n t p i p e a n d a l l w a s t e s d r a i n i n g b y t h e m s h a l l d i s c h a r g e i n t o a i r g a p . 9 . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y s e l e c t i o n o f a l l p l u m b i n g f i x t u r e s w i t h O w n e r . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 1 0 . V e r i f y m o u n t i n g h e i g h t s f o r a l l c e i l i n g a n d w a l l - m o u n t e d l i g h t f i x t u r e s . 1 1 . M i n i m u m c l e a r w i d t h o f e x i t i n g d o o r s s h a l l b e 3 2 " W . m i n i m u m a n d 8 0 " H . m i n i m u m . 1 2 . C e r a m i c t i l e @ s h o w e r a n d t u b n o l e s s t h a n 7 2 " a b o v e d r a i n i n l e t E n e r g y F e a t u r e s 1 . C e i l i n g , w a l l , a n d f l o o r i n s u l a t i o n a s s p e c i f i e d o n a p p r o v e d p l a n s . 2 . W e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g o f a l l w i n d o w s a n d e x t e r i o r d o o r s . 3 . C a u l k i n g o f s o l e p l a t e s , j o i n t s a r o u n d w i n d o w a n d d o o r f r a m e s , a n d p l u m b i n g a n d e l e c t r i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , f l o o r s , a n d c e i l i n g . 4 . B a c k d r a f t d a m p e r s o n a l l e x h a u s t f a n s . 5 . A l l w i n d o w s t o b e L o w - E d o u b l e g l a z e d t h e r m o - i n s u l a t e d . S a n i t a r y N o t e P r i o r t o p e r m i t i s s u a n c e , p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r , o r e x c l u s i o n f r o m , t h e R o s s V a l l e y S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t ( R V S D ) r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a v i d e o o f t h e e x i s t i n g s e w e r l a t e r a l . T h i s i s r e q u i r e d w h e r e a r e m o d e l h a s a v a l u e o f 7 5 , 0 0 0 o r g r e a t e r , o r t h e r e m o d e l c o m p r i s e s t h e a d d i t i o n o f a b a t h r o o m . A E n t r y L e v e l : 2 0 0 s f B G a r a g e : 6 6 7 s f - 6 0 0 ( n o t c o u n t e d ) = 6 7 s f B A I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 1 E n t r y / G a r a g e L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Entry/Garage Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m living 1 0 1 . 0 f f dining101.0 ff kitchen w a t e r f e a t u r e b a t h laundry g u e s t s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 0 . 9 f f s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 5 0 ' - 6 " 27'-0" 6 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 55'-6"46'-0"9'-6" 55'-6" 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0"25'-6"10'-0" 4 8 ' - 6 " 5'-0" 2 3 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 5 0 ' - 6 " l i n e o f d e c k a b o v e t w o - w a y f i r e p l a c e line of overhangaboveline of entryroof below l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w w o o d d e c k o p e n t o b e l o w ddw r e f sinkwsink d n u p dndn up u p 28'-0"8'-0"2'-0"2'-0" ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' A M a i n L e v e l : 1 , 6 8 7 s f B D e c k : 7 2 s f / 2 = 3 6 s f A B F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 2 M a i n L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Main Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m d n 1 8 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 10'-0"13'-0"4'-0"8'-0" w o o d d e c k b a t h b a t h b e d r o o m b e d r o o m w a r d r o b e m a s t e r b e d r o o m wc m a s t e r b a t h b e d r o o m l i n e n l i n e n h a l l 1 1 1 . 5 f f 6 ' - 6 " w o o d d e c k s k y l i g h t s o p e n t o b e l o w 5'-0" s k y l i g h t tubsho w e r A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0" 2'-0" 1 2 ' - 6 " 1 4 ' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2'-0" 5 0 ' - 6 " 55'-6"9'-6" 55'-6" 8 ' - 6 " 7'-0" 4 8 ' - 6 " 6'-0"20'-0"9'-6" 35'-6" 4 3 ' - 6 " 5 0 ' - 6 " 1 . 2 . 3 . 6'-0"shelvesline of wall below f i r e p l a c e A A U p p e r L e v e l : 1 , 5 2 9 s f F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 3 U p p e r L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m Upper Level garage ff 91.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5'entry level ff 92.0' P / L 8'-0"9'-6"9'-0"top of plate 120.5'roof 121.5' 9 1 2 3 1 1 6 7 1 5 8 1 0 6 8 7 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . natural grade 100.0' 3'-6" 6'-0" 3'-6" p l a n t e r , t y p . 2 2 " h i g h r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . 8'-0"setback required 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k r e q u i r e d P/L(e) BUILDING102.2 ff ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e a t f a c e o f g a r a g e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e @ b u i l d i n g b e y o n d 30'-0" maximum height envelope @ building beyond(e) natural gradeat face of garage r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' 9 ' - 6 " 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 3 B H i l l a r y D r i v e P / L 9'-6"9'-0" m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 9 8 . 5 ' f . g . 9 6 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' f.g.21'-6" 30'-0" @ garage overhang ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 2 2 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 30'-0" maximum height envelope 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . r e t a i n i n g w a l l b e y o n d 9 2 . 0 ' f . g . 9 4 . 0 ' f . g . e n t r y f o y e r 9 2 . 0 ' f f t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' 1'-6" 9 2 . 0 ' t w 9 4 . 5 ' t w 9 6 . 5 ' t w 2698 14 Materials/ColorsRoof: Built-up membrane, Class ATrim, Fascia: Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Fiber Cement, Artisan Ship Lap, Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Benjamin Moore, "Buff"Siding: Dryvit Outsulation, "Buff"Concrete: Tinted, Warm Gray with Lugs at 24" on centerWindows: Fleetwood, "Charcoal"Skylight: Velux, tintedEntry Door: Wood, "Natural"Garage Door: Wood , "Natural"Entry Light: Bega, Wall sconce, "Charcoal"Metal Rail: Benjamin Moore, "Charcoal"Photovoltaic Panels: By Sharp or equal, Roof Mount 11 37510123B I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E West a 4 South P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 10Material Board Entry Light2/33B/48/9 8/115 9'-6"9'-0" P/L u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 1 2 4 113 1 6 7 1 0 5 5 97.5' f.g. 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 101.0' f. g . 22'-0" line of gara g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' 23'-4"22'-0"setback 7 4 ' - 1 " s e t b a c k 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e g a s f i r e p l a c e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e l a n d i n g 1 0 4 . 5 ' 30'-0" max. ht. envelope ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 9'-6"9'-0" P/L m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' 101.0' f.g. 1 0 4 . 0 ' f . g . 104 . 5 ' f . g . 20'-6" P / L (e) natural grade ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 18'-6"setback 3 5 ' - 6 ' s e t b a c k 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 12" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 5 E a s t North 9'-6"top of plate 120.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5'8'-0"9'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' p a t i o m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5'entry level ff 92.0' 30'-0" maximum height 30'-0" maximum height envelope8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 24'-6"proposed setbacktop of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e P/L P / L ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e (e) BUILDING102.2 ff top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 9 ' - 6 " 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 20'-0" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 30'-0" maximum height envelope 30'-0" maximum height 13'-0" 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k landingtop of entry level plate ff 100.0'1'-6"main level ff 101.0' g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' e n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' (e) natural grade 23'-0"top of plate 120.5'upper level ff 111.5'roof 121.5'top of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5'104.5' f.g. 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 6 A/Secti o n B/Section Christy Fong From: Sent: To: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 4:09 PM Christy Fong Subject: Fwd: Regarding plans for 687 Hilary Drive CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forwarding as I believe I had a typo in the email address the first time around - thanks! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rajni Natesan <> Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:48 PM Subject: Regarding plans for 687 Hilary Drive To: <Ccfong@townoftiburon.org>, <dtasini@townoftiburon.org> Dear Christy and Dina, Hope you both are doing well in these crazy times! My name is Rajni and my family and I live at 672 Hilary Drive, just down the street from the new construction planned at 687 Hilary Drive. I understand there have been some concerns from neighbors regarding the proposed plans for 687, and I thought I'd reach out and perhaps voice another perspective. From our vantage, we feel it would be great to have an investment in higher quality and updated homes in the Hawthorne Terrace area - currently the homes are original 1980s or earlier builds, and the majority are quite dated. We are in full support of allowing for change to occur and for home improvements to be made to update and add value to the neighborhood. Design aside, even updates like soundproofing for work-at-home/school-at-home or better insulation and circulation for times of wildfire smoke enable families (with children, no less!) to continue to live comfortably given both the pandemic and the environmental changes. We would love to see this project be fulfilled and, as neighbors, we support the careful design, styling, and conservative square footage that have been offered up in the plans. Appreciate your ear and your consideration, and of course for the leadership you bring to our community. Warm regards, Rajni Rajni Natesan, MD, MBA 1 Christy Fong From: Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:36 AM To: Cc: Subject: Support for the plans proposed at 687 Hilary Drive CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mrs. Fong and Mrs.Tasini, I live at 669 Hawthorne Drive in Tiburon and am writing to provide support to my neighbor at 687 Hilary Drive who is attempting to build a beautiful modern house in our neighborhood. I have reviewed all the plans published on the Tiburon planning website submitted September 14th and l_was vef\{ impressed with their overall aesthetic, the reasonable footprint on the very large lot that they own and tpe general design of the building. I think it will be a fabulous addition to the look and feel of our community. I own one of the early modern homes built in Tiburon'and I fully.(mderstand the high degree·of pushback there can be initially to homes that don't look exactly like the cookie cutter homes built 50 years ago. Since my house was built in 2001 we have seen an increasingly larger number of houses builfin the modern style: n is my belief that modern houses fit exceedingly well in the neighborhood and are a breath of fresh air from the traditional Spanish, craftsmen, cape cod and other older styles of houses. Diversity of style should be somethi�g that we should all embrace and I see no reason why the style of the house should not fit in versus any other style of house that is being considered. Over the years my house has become very popular with other individuals looking to replicate a more modern house and I often see people driving up to my cul de sac to take pictures and admire the architecture. I firmly believe after reviewing the submitted design plans that the planned design at 687 Hilary Drive will acquire similar positive attention. I would also mention that it is critically important that we as a community invest in the young families that invest in our town. Having four kids myself aged 6, 9, 11 and 13 I was once in their shoes with a very young family that needed more room and an open modern floor plan. I sincerely hope we as a community will continue to encourage new families to put roots in our town. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Daryl Smith Daryl Smith 1 Christy Fong From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 4:54 PM Christy Fong Gary Sheppard Project: 687 Hilary Drive: Additional Materials In Support of Objections Earlier Submitted by Gary and Marybeth Sheppard, 685 Hilary Drive. 687 MATCH PHOTOS.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Fong, please accept that attached six pages as additional materials in support of the objections of Gary and Marybeth Sheppard to the 687 Hilary Drive Project now under review. A bit of explanation: 1.(a) Page A is a color photo of me standing in my side yard, facing the existing 687 Hilary house, with story poles in place. (b)Page Bis a drawing by our architect, Mr. Malott, that can be placed next to Page A, to show the dimensions of the new Project as it will be viewed from the sideboard of 685 Hilary Drive. For reference, the number of each story pole shown on the drawing. Please compare the drawing to the existing house shown in photo Page A. (c)The dimensions on the drawing match the dimensions and scale shown in Applicant's plans. 2.(a) Pages C and D are color photos of the existing 687 Hilary, with story poles in place, taken from Hilary Drive. Please print both of these pages, then match them together with clear tape at the Match Points shown on the photos. A full picture of the existing house at 687 Hilary emerges. (b)Pages E and Fare drawings by our architect, Mr. Malott, Please print both of these pages, then match them together with clear tape at the Match Points shown on the drawings. For reference, the number of each story pole is shown on the drawings. A complete picture emerges as to how the new 687 Project will appear from the street, Please compare the drawings Pages E and F to the existing 687 Hilary shown in photos on Pages C and D. (c)The dimensions on the drawings match the dimensions and scale shown in Applicant's plans. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, would you be kind enough to let me know by return email that you received this email and the attachments. Regards, Gary C. Sheppard 1 SUBMITTED BY: GARY AND MARYBETH SHEPPARD RESIDENTS OF 685 HILARY DRIVE OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT: 687 HILARY DRIVE DRB FILE NO: DR2020 -015 DRB HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2020 PHOTOGRAPHS DEMONSTRATING LOSS OF PRIVACY AT 685 HILARY DUE TO DESIGN OF 687 HILARY LOOKING FROM OFFICE TOWARD 687 HILARY LOOKING FROM BEDROOM TOWARD 687 HILARY (STORY POLES VISIBLE IN WINDOW AND CLERESTORY) LOOKING FROM FAMILY ROOM TO 687 HILARY (BLACK LINE TRACKS ORANGE TAPE BETWEEN STORY POLES) LOOKING FROM FAMILY ROOM TO SITE WHERE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AREA AND HOT TUB WILL BE LOCATED Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com October 8, 2020 Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board and Tiburon Planning Staff Re: Terrell Design Review 687 Hillary Drive Response to Architect James Malott’s comments and opinions, dated September 25, 2020, regarding the above referenced property. We have reviewed the Malott Architects submission. As a preface to our responses, we want to briefly explain this project. The Terrell family is seeking to replace their old, outdated, small, 1250 square foot, 1950’s era FHA residence, with a new residence better suited to the modern lifestyle of a family of five. The current structure is sited on an irregular-shaped lot. The useable flat area is limited and inefficient. The steep-sloping driveway lacks adequate vehicle parking, and the two car garage utilizes the majority of the existing, small level area. The existing residence is poorly constructed, uninsulated, and is without air conditioning, all resulting in extreme hot and cold temperature fluctuations throughout the structure. Additionally, the existing residence has a deficient and inaccessible, poorly drained, under-floor crawl space with maintenance and rodent problems. Numerous design iterations were explored to arrive at the most optimal approach. The proposed project has been designed to be within all Tiburon Zoning Codes and Standards, requests no variances, and uses a California contemporary style in its design. The limited view corridors, due to neighboring foliage, have been optimized and the site disturbance has been minimized. The project proposes an energy efficient building envelope, water efficient plumbing and drought-tolerant landscaping. The on-site mature Redwood tree will be protected. Our responses to the itemized comments in Malott Architects submission are as follows: Existing Conditions: 1. Terrell Lot: We agree with the identification of existing conditions, a -e, and would point out that each of these existing conditions direct the design of the residence that is proposed. This is a large lot, (240% above average), however 70% is sloped, it is wedged shaped, with a street frontage of 56’, (smallest in the neighborhood), is the most atypical lot in the subdivision, and of great importance to the overall design, has one of the smallest flat areas. We appreciate Mr. Malott’s understanding of the existing physical constraints on the property. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 2. Community Texture: a. This is a general statement that, when combined with the Malott submission 3. Character of Residences, a., becomes obvious that WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. b. The project proposes a front yard setback and landscaping consistent with the surrounding area with the closest component of the residence, the face of the garage, set back 22’ from the property line, with an additional 6’ to 8’ of setback to the existing curb, where a 15’ front yard setback is required. c. The proposed project recognizes the limited side yards in the surrounding area which is why the closest component of the residence to 687 Hilary Drive has been set back 18’-6” from the property line, where an 8’ side yard setback is required and 5’-7” is existing. Additionally, a side yard setback of over 16’, at the closest angled apex of the structure to the common property line of 685 Hilary Drive, is provided where an 8’ side yard setback is required. The proposed footprint of the residence maintains and respects the existing siting between the existing adjacent structures. d. As stated in Existing Conditions, 1.a., 70% of the lot is up-sloped, generally too steep for normal human activities, which is why the proposed spa is located in the existing slope access path and viewing area, minimizing impacts to the natural visual buffers between adjacent neighbors on all sides of the property. 3. Character of Residences: a-c. These comments have been addressed in 2., Community Texture: a. d. The proposed Upper Level addition of the residence is setback 20’-6” from the face of the garage, which is over 22’ from the front property line. This is more than double the 10’ upper level setbacks that are noted to be in the immediate area. e. The proposed project incorporates an extensive, drought tolerant landscape plan that handsomely blends the proposed residence into the existing streetscape. f. The proposed project is not designed to be a ‘traditional’ home as described in 3. Character of Residences, a., for reasons explained in 2. Community Texture, a., however the proposed residence utilizes ‘traditional’ materials with horizontal, painted ship-lap siding, use of warm gray concrete and natural wood accents. g. The neighborhood is in transition and is not homogeneous. A neighborhood is more than just the residences one or two parcels away, in this case, the number of unlike structures within any given block in this area is eclectic at best with dissimilar characters, colors, sizes, forms and materials. It is worth noting that five of the houses immediately neighboring 687 Hilary range in size from 2,200 square feet to 5,300 square feet, three of the homes are two story. One is an Italian mansion, two are shingled, one has only a carport visible from the street. The proposed project stylistically adheres to a more desirable and sought-after home by modern families. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com Site Planning Critique: 1. The Existing Conditions clearly outline the design parameters and constraints that this lot presents. The proposed project is L-shaped utilizing the narrow front width of the lot by placing a portion the structure’s mass at a right angle into the lot, and not ‘cross-lot’, parallel to the street frontage, on the limited lot width with one of the smallest flat areas. Locating the L-shape structure in the middle of the narrowing trapezoidal lot, and placing the other half of the mass deeper into the lot, minimizes the front elevation façade and provides generous side yard buffers between the adjacent neighbors. The window count is accurately broken down into two facades as follows: 685 Hilary Drive: 8 windows, 2 on the Main Level that are unseen by the existing grade differential and fence, 2 that are in bedrooms at the rear of the structure that are beyond the building footprint of 685 Hilary Drive, and 4 small windows, set with bottom sill heights of 5’-0” to block any downward view into the neighbor’s yard. 689 Hilary Drive: 4 windows, 2 in the Upper Level Master Bedroom and Master Bedroom Entry, both 40’ away from the common property line, and 2 Bedroom windows at the rear of the structure, both 18’-6” away from the common property line, one is on the Main Level and is unseen by fencing and landscaping. The proposed siting of the residence in the middle of the small, flat area of the lot provides the maximum privacy, light and noise reduction for the adjacent neighbors. Additionally, existing mature landscaping exists along the adjacent mutual property lines with an extensive landscape plan proposed to augment the existing privacy screening. It is important to note: This project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three-story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all Town of Tiburon Zoning Codes, design requirements and criteria. 2. There are no three story elements in the proposed residence. The residence on the small flat area has an overall height of 21’-6”. The adjacent residence’s one story elements are approximately equal to half of the proposed residence’s height, and would always have this height differential relationship with any two story proposal. Additionally, the proposed flat roof provides more light and air to the neighbors than any suggested sloped roof which would also increase the height of the proposed structure. 3. This has been addressed in response 2. Community Texture, d. and the desire to not have extensive retaining walls, excessive dirt off-haul, natural drainage course impacts and a larger building footprint with more visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned above, the proposed home size is modest in relation to both the site, some of the neighboring properties, and at 18.9%, does not exceed the 30% lot coverage ratio directed by the Zoning Code. 4. There is an extensive Landscape Plan, sheet L1, that includes a vegetation/management plan for the entire site that has been vetted and approved by the Tiburon Fire Department. 5. This big ‘juvenile’ redwood tree, 36” in diameter, 60’ tall, is in good health, provides visual privacy between the residences and is not proposed to be removed as part of this project. It also provides context between the residences as viewed from Hilary Drive. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 6. This has been addressed, see Site Planning Critique: 3., above. Furthermore, the cost of steep, upslope hillside construction is prohibitive. The driveway to the house would occupy most of the usable flat space, which is utilized in the proposed project as either yard or living space. Pushing into the hillside behind the neighboring two story home with heavy foliage would diminish any view opportunity. Building Critique: 1. This response is completely opinionated. This is a modern residential style with elegant details, thoughtful transitions, mixed exterior finishes, undulating wall planes for shadow contrasts, reflecting an interior floor plan layout that is functional, efficient and engaging for a family to enjoy and utilize in the modern world we now live in. It is important to note that both Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Malott expressed appreciation for the proposed design during a meeting held at our office to discuss the project. 2. There is no three story element proposed by this project. All two story elements are either cored on top of each other or are adjacent to a single story element. The north wall is not one plane as indicated, but is broken into three separate planes with square footages of 460 square feet, 112 square feet and 270 square feet respectfully. This totals 842 square feet, much less than the 1,034 square foot, single plane north façade noted in Mr. Malott’s comment. Again, it is obvious that WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. 3. The cantilevered roof overhangs have been designed to passively control heat gain and are sized according to solar studies to provide relief from the southern exposure between the spring and fall equinox. They additionally augment the proposed style and offer deep shadow lines for contrast and articulation on the exterior elevations. 4. The Upper Level window impacts have been discussed in Site Planning Critique: 1. 5. There is no three story element. The garage is buried in a subterranean manner to minimize the impact of its bulk on the narrow entrance to the site, and has been lowered to street level to allow the residence full use of the smallest flat area in the surrounding area, and to not have automobiles drive up onto the hill, reducing the area for the residence that would be given up to garage space, a driveway, and automobile circulation. Additionally, both adjacent neighbors will no longer have automobile noise, lights and activities on the same level as their living and bedroom spaces. The street level grades are already set and the existing driveway grades are presently cut into the upslope hill. 6. This has been addressed in 3. Character of Residence: f. The main volume of the residence is only 27’ wide and has all two story elements broken up with either cantilevered wall planes, material breaks, roof decks or wall shifts. There are no unrelieved monumental elevations. The proposed residence’s height is compatible, (within 6 inches), with the neighboring two-story property that was constructed in 2005. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com Critique of Architectural Submission: 1. The submission includes photos of a model used to understand the concept of the design only, and has been included simply as a tool to help understand the proposed project. It was not meant to be a ‘Disney-esque’ town model of the community. 2. An accurate shade study has been submitted that shows the impacts of the spring, summer, fall and winter equinox, at 9am, 12pm and 3pm. The limited winter impacts of solar access, per Mr. Malott’s calculations, are until 10am for 685 Hilary Drive, and between 2pm and 4pm for 689 Hilary Drive. This is usually considered a minor impact in relation to the balance of the year where no impacts from the proposed project are created. There will always be a two story element proposed for this site as the smallest flat area in the neighborhood has no other area to expand. If the structure is to be more spread out on the flat area, the two story elements would be located closer to the adjacent properties, thereby greatly increasing the impacts of solar loss. Additionally, during these times of the year, the existing mature landscaping, located along the common property lines, generate more shade and shadow than the proposed structure as evidenced by the shade study. 3. There are no requirements in the Town of Tiburon Design Review submittal guidelines requesting ‘neighborhood’ site sections. The submitted site sections accurately show the relationship between the proposed project and the adjacent structures as required in the guidelines. 4. The topographical survey was prepared in a 1”=10’ scale. The proposed Site Plan was prepared in the same scale to reflect an accurate understanding of the proposed project and the existing conditions. The Landscape Plan was prepared at a larger scale, 1/8”=1’-0”, to be able to illustrate all of the extensive landscape requirements proposed. In order to be able to include, as directed by the Town of Tiburon’s planning department, Site Sections that illustrate the entire length, or width, of the property with the edge of the adjacent properties structure indicated, the 3/16” = 1’-0”scale for the plans was utilized. Mixed scales throughout plan sets are common to be able to provide detailed and accurate representations of the proposed project. 5. The story pole plan, vetted prior to installation by the Town of Tiburon Planning Department, indicate the top of the proposed deck floor lines as the proposed railings are porous and will not be perceived as a solid mass. 6. The submitted design review package includes a Grading and Drainage plan, sheet GD1, that illustrates the existing drainage patterns on the upslope hill behind the residence are to remain, including the 5’-0” wide drainage easement located between 685 Hilary Drive and the subject property. Additionally, the Grading and Drainage plan illustrates how the hillside runoff is collected behind the proposed site and building retaining walls and distributed to the existing drainage system in Hilary Drive. 7. The residence is proposed to include air conditioning as evidenced by the callout for the air condensing pad location noted on the Site Plan, sheet 2. The air conditioning unit installed will meet all Town of Tiburon noise and sound requirements. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 8. The selected spa is self-contained and will meet all Town of Tiburon noise and sound requirements. 9. This has been addressed in Site Planning Critique: 4. 10. The uphill wall of the proposed residence is partially buried into the steep upslope. For the reasons Mr. Malott has stated, the depth of the proposed residence into this upslope has been limited to accommodate, provide for, and minimize these potential concerns. The proposed design illustrates how this issue has been incorporated into the project by using a retaining wall as the building wall along the uphill slope. The Site Section, B/a6, the Grading and Drainage Plan, GD1, and the retaining wall detail, 2/2, clearly delineate this requirement. 11. The proposed exterior lighting is to be minimal. The exterior light locations are indicated on the Exterior Elevations, sheets a4 and a5, and the selected fixtures are shown on the Photographs sheet, p1. 12. This has been addressed in Critique of Architectural Submission: 8. 13. This has been addressed in Site Planning Critique: 5. 14. There has been a Soils Report prepared verifying the proposed project’s building requirements will be accommodated by the existing soils conditions. Concluding Thoughts: 1. The critique and response are completely opinionated. This is a modern styled residence with elegant details, thoughtful transitions, mixed exterior finishes, undulating wall planes for shadow contrasts, with a specific site placement to provide maximum distances from the adjacent neighbors while utilizing the small flat area, remove the automobile requirements from the small flat area, and respect the steeply up-sloped rear yard hillside. Again, it is important to note: This project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all design requirements and criteria. 2. The WWII FHA homes, originally designed in 1950, are no longer adequate to meet the needs of a modern family’s lifestyle, especially of a family with three children. A 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,250 square foot residence with an 11’ roof ridge is no longer desired. The Tiburon Design Review Board will be reviewing future projects in this area, possibly with less consideration given to the surrounding neighborhood than this proposed project, as there are similar homes to 687 Hilary Drive in the surrounding area requiring renovation and/or reconstruction. The neighborhood is in transition and is not homogeneous. A neighborhood is more than just the residences one or two parcels away, in this case, the number of unlike structures within any given block in this area is eclectic at best with dissimilar characters, colors, sizes, forms and materials. 3. This is a subjective comment, and has no merit on the proposed project. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 4. Again, this critique is completely opinionated. 5. This is a subjective, opinionated comment. The two residences shown below, one directly north of the project at 27 Mara Vista, and one directly east of the project at 40 Del Mar, are the tapestry of the neighborhood that has been discussed in this project’s planning stages. Pacific Design Group, Inc. 265 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Larkspur, California 94939 415-927-9500 Office 415-927-9505 Fax architects@pacificdesigngroup.com 6. Again, it is important to note that this project has no special requests, no variances are required, it is not a three story structure, all two story elements do not overlap, and the proposed project is compliant with all design requirements and criteria as established by The Town of Tiburon. 7. This is a subjective, opinionated comment. 8. The proposed project meets the criteria set forth in this comment. We trust you find this response complete. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ed Blankenship, AIA Richard Berling, AIA + LEED AP EXHIBIT 5 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 1 12/3/20 EXCERPT OF MINUTES #14 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2020 On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Design Review Board meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Board members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Please click the link below to join the webinar: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/99740559221 Webinar ID: 997 4055 9221 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 997 4055 9221 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting are available on the Town’s website. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Board meeting will be distributed electronically to the Board and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Board meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. The meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Cedric Barringer. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cedric Barringer, Vice Chair Bryan Chong; Boardmembers Miles Berger, Paolo Crescini and Suzanne Kim Absent: None Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini, Christy Fong, Senior Planner, Town Attorney Eli Flushman and Community Development Aide Kris Bernard ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 2 12/3/20 STAFF BRIEFING – Community Development Director Tasini asked if each Boardmember would be open to having a Town email where packets and emails could be sent twice monthly, and staff will still provide hard copies. She also spoke about COVID-19 protocols and restrictions to stay safe whenever visiting Town Hall. MINUTES Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of November 19, 2020 Boardmember Berger commented that he was absent for the first few minutes of the meeting but then arrived and was present for the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Tasini stated staff will make this modification. It was M/S (Kim//Chong) to approve the DRB minutes of November 19, 2020, as amended. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1 687 Hilary Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-211-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. Continued from the November 19, 2020 meeting Town Attorney Eli Flushman stated that based on all materials presented, including mail and comments from the prior meeting, some of the mail and comments refer to private agreements which are not enforced by the Town of Tiburon. He reiterated that the Town does not enforce CC&Rs and HOA agreements. One of the documents received was a Declaration of Restrictions, and this is a type of CC&Rs which the Town does not enforce. He stated that the DRB has a specific role and it is not here to resolve all disputes in a neighborhood. Tonight, before the Board are a Site Plan and Architectural Review. The Board’s job is to review the application and determine whether the proposed uses and structures will further the purposes of Section 16-52.020(A) and satisfy the criteria of Section 16-52.020(H), and staff has provided a staff report detailing those issues. If the DRB finds, based on evidence in the record, that the project would be contrary to those purposes or not meet the criteria it should deny the application or it can approve it, subject to specified conditions or modifications, or also approve it outright. The Board can impose reasonable conditions it determines are necessary to make the required findings in which to ensure the principles, guidelines, provisions and standards will be met. He also noted the Zoning Code was adopted with a number of stated purposes, including in that is to provide a framework for the physical development of the Town in such a manner to preserve its essential residential character consistent with the General Plan. He also reiterated TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 3 12/3/20 that the Board also must find the proposed or a proposed development is in compliance with single-family homes. Basia Terrell, owner, thanked everybody who took the time to come out on site and she introduced Ed and Richard Berling from Pacific Design Group to talk about the modifications done to the plans. Ed Blankenship, Pacific Design Group, Applicant, introduced architect Richard Berling and he thanked staff and surrounding neighbors for their input. He described the main level floor plan, the bedrooms and revisions made, movement of windows, upper floor plan and removal of windows from bedroom 3 and the pop out area. He then described the west side and window exposure and reductions from 102 square feet down to 39 square feet, revisions of the landscape plan to English Laurels along the right side beneath the redwood tree and along the left side property line to grow a 12-foot high solid green hedge, with 5 or less feet between them. Chair Barringer questioned lighting. Mr. Blankenship referred to the upper level floor plan and said down lighting has been located in roof overhangs. The lights can be seen on the front and side decks, with more limited lighting on the walls and entry. They believe these changes improve the overall flow of the house while still holding true to the original design element. Boardmember Kim said she visited the site and confirmed that the story poles were changed and certified by a surveyor. Chair Barringer had no questions, and he opened the public comment period. Public Comments: Jim Malott, architect representing Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard, said he wrote Tiburon’s design guidelines for hillside housing to help the Town avoid and solve problems like those created by the present proposal. No major changes have been proposed since the October 26th hearing and the house as designed damages neighbors, the neighborhood, and Tiburon. He spoke of the home’s size, said the changes make the project more damaging and not less, and disagreed with the minor changes, noting there were still privacy issues. He said large 12-foot-high hedges will create a dark trench along both property lines and asked the DRB to address these issues. He urged the DRB to deny the design and have the architect start over. Gary Sheppard displayed a slide presentation and said he and his wife Mary Beth live at 685 Hilary Drive. He spoke about the direct damage this huge structure will have on their home and lives for many years, recommendations made by planning staff which have not been addressed and include noise, privacy, shade impacts, façade articulations which are not characteristic of the one-story homes in the neighborhood, and he asked that the DRB deny the project. Mary Beth Sheppard presented a slide show and said the DRB made various recommendations to mitigate issues of height, mass, bulk, loss of privacy and noise and light intrusion at the October TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 4 12/3/20 meeting, which she described. The applicants chose to reduce the number of windows but did not reduce height, mass, bulk, or separate the upper level from the main level and push it back into the hillside, did not address loss of privacy, noise or light pollution caused by four windows and doors on the upper-level side wall, said there are an additional five windows and glass doors on the main level, outdoor decks and the outdoor entertainment landing area up the hill with a hot tub and stairway. Reduction of sunlight will kill their lemon trees and vegetable garden in their side yard and the applicants ignored the vast recommendations of the DRB. She then displayed a slide that would represent a 24-foot wall next to her office where light will be blocked. The project damages their house, the neighborhood and Tiburon and noted eight of their immediate neighbors submitted letters to the DRB for this hearing objecting to the project, so there is neighborhood-wide opposition. Ken Weil said he and his wife live at 686 Hilary Drive. They renovated and expanded their house within the Town’s codes, the limitations of their lot and in keeping with the harmony of their section of the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. At the last DRB meeting, the Boardmembers recommended mitigations to reduce impacts and he believes more are needed. He asked the Board to refer to their letter of November 9, 2019 regarding the 17 adjacent parcels. These lots and homes are modest, and the design’s mass and bulk will loom, be out of character and proportion with adjacent neighbors. Half of the homes are downhill properties and must remain one-story homes, because of water view blockage. He asked for more work to make this home fit with the community, cited noise, light pollution and acoustic noise from entertainment areas, and he asked the DRB to deny the project or require the applicant to make changes per the October DRB meeting by Boardmembers. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period and returned to the applicant for rebuttal. Rebuttal – Applicant Basia Terrell, owner, stated she will ask the architects to address the more technical comments provided by speakers, but with regard to Mr. Weil’s comments in his letter regarding the size of the home, she is a neighbor next to a 2,900 square foot home on the right side at 689 Hilary Drive. The Sheppard’s house is over 2,000 square feet. The property directly north or above her is more than 5,000 square feet. She does not feel they are proposing a house that is out of scale of what is being constructed or exists in the neighborhood. She understands the homes in front bear much smaller constraints because they are on much smaller lots. From the beginning, they were focused on not asking for a single variance. This is the lot they selected for its possibilities and they are not going to interfere with other people’s views. With building a two-story property, she does not see how they will be out of sight of neighboring properties. They have spent considerable time going over the iterations of the different designs prior to the first proposal, as well as taking comments from Boardmembers. They heard loud and clear there was reception to the design, understand the concerns of the Sheppards, and said they spent time integrating and contemplating on these comments. She asked Richard Berling to talk about how they have taken suggestions and considered them. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 5 12/3/20 Richard Berling, Pacific Design Group, thanked the Board and neighbors for their input. The empathy for change is part of architecture and he will not review their previous discussions on how they arrived at the original design they have now augmented, the lot size and the small opening they have for a garage. While he hears discussion about bulk, mass and height, the home has been designed to be a two-story home with an offset garage, and the height is not perceived from all angles as a 30-foot building. The house is entirely within the guidelines of the zoning ordinance and it now becomes an architectural style question. The floor plan is efficient and works well on the site. The areas generated to the west are an existing area that are already being used by the children, and the other side has been used by adults. So, there has been thought as to these areas. Regarding the plantings, the bushes will not grow more than 12 feet and can be limited and conditioned to be 8 or 10 feet, but the English Laurel will actually grow to a very attractive hedge for both neighbors and can be limited for light intrusion. They took all comments seriously and tried to incorporate all suggestions into the new design. Director Tasini stated Thomas Unger has his hand raised and she asked if the Chair would allow additional public comments now. It was M/S (Barringer/Chong) to re-open the public comment period for additional speakers as well as allow additional rebuttal comments by the applicant. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Thomas Unger displayed a slide show and voiced objection to the plans, stating the redwood tree between their properties needs to be removed which will severely impede privacy between the two properties. He displayed a view from the balcony that will look into their bedroom window, a different direction showing the upstairs bedroom window which looks straight into the transom window into the bedroom and house, the changes made by the applicant which adds another three feet to their balcony. He said the Tiburon code speaks to neighbors’ privacy and light protection. He asked that the balcony be removed and replaced with an architectural railing. Mass is a critical issue, and the revised landscape plan calls for a series of California Laurels. Their height gets to 65 feet, with 12 to 24 inches per year, with an 18-30-inch trunk and the root system wide and spreading. Also, if they plant along the property line, the landscaping will go into and on their property. When standing in front, the future house is sitting above grade and he does not understand why it should be brought down to the level grade and thinks this single action would solve many issues. Lastly, he asked why the applicant needs to move the backyard to the side and front. Putting entertainment space with light and noise will create a major issue, and he presented views and since he ran out of time, asked the DRB to look at remaining slides. Chair Barringer called on the applicants for rebuttal comments. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 6 12/3/20 Chris Terrell, owner, said his background is in architecture and building construction and this is one of the most ridiculous projects he has been involved with in a long time, mostly because of the reactions from neighbors. They were very open and accommodating and had neighbors at their home and they did not raise huge concerns. At the end of the day, as a design board there are zoning and building codes and the comments and portrayal of the project do not make sense. He likened these to stall tactics and said they do not appreciate the amount of opposition because they have also received support. Basia Terrell, owner, referred to the comment about the redwood tree needing to be removed and said they have engaged an arborist who had found the tree to be exceptionally healthy. It is stunning and beautiful, and it would break her heart if it were to be removed. They have two kids that have lived in Tiburon their entire life and they love their neighbors, and she never has been more at odds and is heartbroken. She hopes the DRB will consider their home which has taken two years to come before the Board, and she thanked the Board for their time and consideration. Mr. Terrell referred to comments regarding the height and said that they did not lower the height. He asked the Board to understand that the existing level that the home sits on now is roughly at 100. Their home is proposed to have a floor level of 101 to get them 8 inches off of the ground, which he believes is normal. Additionally, they have pushed the building into the hillside 4 to 6 feet so they have tried to situate the house in the middle of the property, push it back into the hill, and they still believe in lowering the garage so it has street access and not incur driving up the small lot. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period and returned discussion to the Board. Boardmember Kim said she does not mind the garage and where it is situated because it is below grade. She does not mind the style of the architecture; however, she does have problems with the new balcony in the back because it opens up privacy issues. The other issues with the new plans are the downlights at the eaves at the three balcony locations, as the lights will be shining down on neighbors. Disappointing is that there were small moves on the mass and height, so she feels like there are still some things that could be worked out. It is that it is 30 feet at the edges. The way she looks at the building next door which sets a precedent for her is that the second story is in the center. She articulated this at the last meeting—there is no separation at the first and second level and the mass follows from below to above with little movement around the edges. This is the issue. If the mass were centered in the center, she thinks the applicant could mitigate the view and shade issues. It could still be at 30 feet but not have all of the mass concentrated up to the second floor. She said loves redwood trees, but they have shallow roots and will be in a tight setting like this. They know redwood trees fall and this is another concern and liability. Town Attorney Flushman stated the issue with the redwood tree is a dispute between the neighbors there. The neighbor’s attorney is making these allegations and they can resolve that between themselves. He asked that the Board focus their comments on the landscape design. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 7 12/3/20 Boardmember Kim again asked the applicant to consider that redwood trees have shallow roots. She thinks the building is beautiful, but it is not quite the right massing for this context. Boardmember Berger said he agrees with Boardmember Kim--that the building is beautiful, and they had said it could be even better. He concurred with Boardmember Kim about the balcony. With hillside development, he does not see a deck in the back would be used or that it needs to be there. He thinks the stepping of the side massing treatment and larger pieces on the second floor as compared to spaces under, as well as changes in material were successful. Many projects the Board saw a few weeks ago had side elevations that were deadly, but this one is quite activated and good. The applicant also eliminated the windows that seemed to be the most problematic as far as privacy and light pollution, so the architects took a good building and made it even better. It technically is a three-story building, and he agrees with Boardmember Kim that the garage is the base and then there are two stories on top of that. The Board’s job is really compatibility as opposed to consistency. Things in Tiburon are going to change over time, and they hope the Sheppards will stay in their home for decades to come, but he has a feeling that once the Sheppards leave that property, there will be a second story on that house. Therefore, he likes the changes made, but the question is hedge or not. His own neighbors on one side have a hedge and he loves it. It is quite tall, and it does block some light at certain times of the day but not in parts of the house they expect most of the light. Therefore, he asked if a hedge is the right answer for this location, as he is unconvinced one way or the other. He would rather see something of a tapestry of different plantings that are much lower than a row of Laurel. Chair Barringer said he lives in Belveron East and also has a small 7,000 square foot lot and they have hedging on both property lines at 8 or 9 feet and maintain it at that height. He does not think there will be a big light issue because the Sheppards are 16 feet away. And, while he understands their concerns, he thinks it is a conundrum. It will block more of the building but also light, so perhaps there is a happy median. Boardmember Berger added that the applicant’s house angles away from the Sheppards and this is why he would not think a hedge is the right answer. By opening the area up, it will give a sense of greater space. Vice Chair Chong said he visited the property today and had a chance to visit the Sheppards next door. A hedge will definitely have an impact on the side yard. There is definitely a window that will lose some view and light. In looking at the balance between the side yard versus allowing an applicant the ability to put on a second story, it is clearly the right place to build it and he is definitely okay with a second story in this location. He also agrees the side elevations are a lot better than other applications the Board has seen. Everybody who spoke had something he agreed with and something he disagreed with. It is great that the project asks for no variances, but if someone builds a 30-foot home that blocks a TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 8 12/3/20 neighbor’s view of the Golden Gate Bridge they are not allowed to do this just because they are allowed to build a 30 foot home. So, they must take into consideration all factors. The only piece causing him some heartache is the hot tub sitting up on the hill. The base of it sits at 125 feet of elevation. If someone sits on the edge of the hot tub, they will be at 130 feet talking over bubbling water. If this came through with a roof deck with a hot tub on top, he would definitely not be okay with that, so he would not be okay with one sitting on a hill that has the potential to impact the two neighbors. Boardmember Crescini said the modifications to the side of the building have improved the privacy issues and the architect eliminated most of the windows. The problem is that these are adjustments to a design that he does not think belongs there. He found the design not right for the site as proposed. He appreciates the applicant following all of the standards and the last time he said the house is really three stories high which is not seen in that neighborhood. In the guidelines, it says to step back into the hillsides. So, to him, from the street it is a three-story high house and he asked to step it back. One thing the guidelines state is to put a roof on the lower floor that brings in the style. He likes the design of the house and the rendering in the front page is very nice, but he would have appreciated it if the applicant could put the model into a real photo because there is no context around that house. When going to the site, he realizes that this house does not belong at its proposed location. Therefore, it is possible to achieve the same program that the applicant would like to carry through, but it needs to be done differently. He does not think an adjustment would be enough to correct this lack of belonging of the building in that neighborhood. He looks at each of the hillside requirements and, on one hand, this project obeys all zoning, development standards, etc. but, when he looks at the project towards the hillside guidelines, none of them are met. He also referred to the staff report and going one by one he did not think any of them are met. An example is that there are contemporary houses with sloped roofs. For a big eave they need to consider whether the eave is necessary and whether it is having an impact on the neighbors. The eaves on the left are completely unnecessary because it is a north facing elevation and it is also contributing towards creating sun shadows on the neighbors. By removing it, it leaves 5 feet of mass eliminating shadows. On the front, there should be a big eave because they have chosen to have 8-foot windows, so if they bring down the header to 7 feet, put on a fascia top and create a shading device on the elevation this is basically what is being suggested with the hillside guidelines Goal 2, Principle 6. Therefore, he thinks the project needs to be completely revised to be more in line with the neighborhood and hillside guidelines. Boardmember Berger said he gets the sense when looking at the front elevation there is the garage in front and then the living room piece and courtyard step back and then the bedroom steps back further. For him, it is not stepping back significantly but he gets the sense it is in three different steps as it proceeds back from the street. He asked if this was not enough or unconvincing for Boardmember Crescini. Chair Barringer noted it is about 10 feet for each step. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 9 12/3/20 Boardmember Crescini said there are two aspects. There are the same floor plans stacked on two floors and this creates mass. This gets capped by the roof that squeezes everything and contributes to the mass. He thinks the design is beautiful but not the right one for this place from the choice of the big overhang. He thinks they can mitigate the situation by creating a roof on top of the first floor so it steps back and it is a composition on different volumes rather than a big volume with something popping in and out. Chair Barringer said he thinks the glazing reductions on the side elevations do a lot in reducing the privacy intrusion issues as do the screening hedge. If there is a mutually agreeable solution between the neighbors to replace the species of the hedge, he has no strong opinions on it. However, it seems to him that the presence of a hedge is a benefit to some of the privacy concerns although there will be some loss of light. There were some comments made in the materials about 85% of the neighborhood being single-story so he does not personally feel there is an issue with a two-story and he sees this as a two-story because the garage and front door is so set into the grade. The neighborhood is a mixture of styles and he thinks there are other home examples that are even more prominent from the street, and this proposal does a much better job of screening and breaking the mass up from the street. This site also provides some challenges in the front being narrow. Conditions or suggestions that he could see being applied would be the hot tub question. He suggested the hedge row go up the hill more to protect the privacy of the neighbors to the right. He tends to agree with Boardmembers Kim and Berger about the deck. He also did not see the deck for Bedroom 3 in the front being used a lot, and while it breaks up the elevation, he thinks the windows could match the window to the left and there could just be the roof. Personally, he thinks the project is approvable with some conditions and he respects and agrees that the applicants have taken great care to abide with the rules in the zoning code. The worst case scenario with privacy issues is the sides, but the project is over 16 feet from the next property line and on the right side it is 18’6”. He thinks this should be considered because that is not what is seen all the time in Tiburon. Boardmember Kim said she did not see the same thing in the way Chair Barringer distinguishes the problems, as single versus double and one-story versus two stories. There is no problem with having two stories. There is no problem with the size. She thinks there are two divisions on the Board right now. The design is well-articulated, and she thinks the side elevations are much better than what the Board has seen. She is leaning towards Boardmember Crescini’s comments—it is one large, two-story mass and it has small carve-outs here and there. There was articulation on the elevations to be fair, but she wanted to see a break-up of the first floor. In looking at the building next door, they could not build a two-story elevation on the side. They had to have that set back not only from the front but to the side. They were able to achieve the square footage, but the strategy was to take the massing of the second floor and to conceal it by putting it in the center of the lot which allowed TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 10 12/3/20 for the perception of a smaller building. So, this is why she was looking for a solution in this iteration where that was broken up. This is her biggest contention. There are also little things going on. She thinks the three balconies should be eliminated. There are downlights coming out of the eaves which should be eliminated. A hedge of Laurels at 12 feet is problematic and believes they will create a shadow and block light. She was unsure about the hot tub as she was not sure how much it would be used, but it is a problem if looking directly up. A hedge will not separate how it looks into another yard, given its elevation. Vice Chair Chong said he did not comment on the hedge and agrees it is the way to go having a tall hedge of the same species so there could be improvement there. Regarding moving bulk to the center, there was a letter that had a number of examples in other neighborhoods of smaller upper floors. He has never been a big fan of those because it ends up being a master suite that sits on top. It ends up moving bedrooms downstairs, and having kids downstairs usually does not work. Therefore, he was not sure how they could move things to the center without removing some of the bedrooms upstairs. Lastly, he said the Unger’s slide on 14 or 15 had the shots of some of the elevations from the bedroom. It is pretty clear there is one window that would end up behind the redwood tree or branches, but there is another one that seems like it is the window before going out on the balcony that would look right into that bedroom and could be solved with a clerestory window or a higher window on that elevation. If this was done, he asked if Boardmembers with some conditions might be able to get towards approval. Boardmember Berger asked which window on the floor plans Vice Chair Chong was referring to. Boardmember Kim noted it is the side window of the master bedroom. She thinks it is also the window of the new pop-out of the master bedroom in the corner adjacent to the fireplace, facing the street. Boardmember Berger said with conditions he can approve the project and he went through his reasoning. He referred to the plans and dimensions for the hot tub deck and said the nearest corner to the Sheppard’s residence is about 105 feet and way above it, and he commented that sound goes up. Also, many people in town have hot tubs. He then referred to the stepping and thinks 10 feet is a significant amount of stepping and it is workable. He would summarize reasons as he could approve with conditions, stating he thinks the stepping is consistent with Tiburon’s goals, the articulation on the side yards is excellent, the hot tub is 105 feet from the nearest corner of the Sheppard’s residence and it is a good position in the yard. The front deck makes sense where owners will be able to watch the bay and it is not a place where they could have a party. The conditions would be ones he heard: 1) that the neighbors meet and arrive at a series of ideas for a tapestry style hedge made up of a variety of plantings that can be controlled for height and that would run further up the side yard; 2) that the deck on the back side be eliminated and exchanged for a roof element to emphasize changes in the mass; and 3) that downlights be reduced by half in all locations. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 11 12/3/20 Chair Barringer agreed with the lights, but suggested a condition to specify wall washers versus down lighting and thinks there could be a reduction of 25% and not 50%. Boardmember Berger agreed and given the quality of the design and the large side yards and articulation, he made a motion to approve the project with these conditions. Boardmember Kim said she liked Boardmember Crescini’s suggestion for removal of the eaves on the one side. It impinges upon the light issue. Director Tasini asked the Board to amend the landscaping such that all parties can work together and the Director serve as the approving body, and Boardmembers concurred. Boardmember Kim asked about the glazing in the master bedroom that looks directly into the neighbor’s bedroom and side of their house and deck. She referred to Slide 14 of the previous presentation. Boardmember Berger noted that in modernism, the idea is for light to come from two sources and it makes a big difference. The effect could be gained by removing the window and putting a vertical and smaller window back. Then, the windows in the front would lighten up the room without the offending view into the bedroom across the way. Chair Barringer suggested reducing the size of the proposed window. Vice Chair Chong said his issue is the ability to look out that window and this is why people do not want a two-story next to them because they can look straight down into someone’s bedroom. He suggested it be a window above 6’5”. Boardmember Berger said he would agree with either of those suggestions—either a vertical window by the entry door or a high window. Chair Barringer suggested a sill of 5 feet or above since the other sills in the bathroom are 5’. Boardmember Berger suggested using the concept without specifics and say to cut the view capacity of the window towards the neighbor’s property. Vice Chair Chong said he was still uneasy about the hot tub given privacy and noise issues. When hot tubs sit at ground levels, sound is capable of traveling up and over a fence or landscaping, but when it is a clear shot on a hill into another area it creates noise. Boardmember Berger noted the hot tub is 105 feet from the nearest corner to the Sheppard’s house. Vice Chair Chong said the hot tub also sits closer to the other neighbor, and privacy was not his concern but rather sound impacts. Boardmember Kim suggested requiring landscaping on the side of it to deaden noise. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #14 12 12/3/20 Vice Chair Chong said the reason a hot tub is put on the hill is because hot tubs are not the prettiest thing to look at out of the bedroom window or sitting on the lawn. Having it lower provides less impact for the neighbors. Boardmember Kim asked if the hot tub would be in the ground, and then she recognized it is sitting on a concrete pad with half walls. Boardmember Berger pointed out that the red line is the distance from the back corner of the Sheppards at 105 feet and the blue line is the distance to the other neighbors of about 70 feet. It is a distance by Tiburon’s standards to be significant and meaningful. Chair Barringer said he could support a condition for planting on the sides of the hot tub pad which might make a difference for the neighbors. Regarding elimination of down lighting and replacement with the wall washers, he asked and confirmed with Boardmember Berger that the lighting should be reduced by 25%. For safety reasons, the motion detectors could remain. Boardmember Kim referred to the tapestry of hedges and she asked if it will be porous, thick, or asked if the Board wanted to condition its height, etc. Boardmember Berger suggested saying between 8 and 10 feet of a tapestry hedge, not a single variety, and with staff approval. Boardmember Crescini said he was still not in support and said often times applicants spend a lot of time and money and they go on and on. This project could have been brought forward in a study session. But he could not approve the project, given that in his opinion, none of the design guidelines have been met. It was M/S/C (Berger/Chong) to determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopt the resolution approving the project, subject to conditions, with the following added conditions that: 1) the neighbors meet and arrive at a series of ideas for a tapestry style hedge made up of a variety of plantings of 8 to 10 feet that can be controlled for height and that would run further up the side yard, subject to approval by the Community Development Director; 2) the balcony in the back side be eliminated and exchanged for a roof element to emphasize changes in the mass; 3) downlights be switched to wall washers and their number reduced by 25%; 4) substantial planting around the sides of the hot tub for privacy; and 5) raise the side window in the master bedroom and reduce it significantly in size to improve privacy for the neighbor on the right side. Roll Call Vote: 4-1 (Crescini voted no). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. EXHIBIT 6 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 1 10/15/20 EXCERPT OF MINUTES #11 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2020 On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Design Review Board meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Board members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Please click the link below to join the webinar: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/92691043041 Webinar ID: 926 9104 3041 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 926 9104 3041 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting are available on the Town’s website. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to Staff by email at drbcomments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Board meeting will be distributed electronically to the Board and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Board meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. The meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Cedric Barringer. A.ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cedric Barringer, Vice Chair Bryan Chong; Boardmember Miles Berger (arrived late), Paolo Crescini and Suzanne Kim Absent: None Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Senior Planner Christy Fong and Community Development Aide Kris Bernard ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None Attachment 6 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 11 10/15/20 PH-3 687 HILARY DRIVE; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-211-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 3,483 square feet of floor area and cover 4,448 square feet (24.2%) of the lot. Chris Terrell, homeowner, introduced his wife Basia Terrell and thanked the Board, staff and their architects and neighbors for their review, support and input. Basia Terrell, homeowner, said they are a family of five and have gone through the migration from San Francisco to Tiburon. When they first bought the house, they never intended to keep the small structure built in 1954. Within 8 weeks of moving into the 1200 square foot house, she learned they were pregnant with twins and since then have been very cramped. Her husband works, sleeps and showers within a 3-foot diameter space of the existing structure and the pandemic has added pressure and difficulties. They are thrilled about the design and plans and worked for 12 months with the architecture team. They have also met with neighbors and knows there are concerns. She never thought it would be controversial but is open-minded and waiting to hear feedback from the Board. She then introduced their architects. Ed Blankenship, architect, Pacific Design Group, thanked Town staff for their assistance and for getting to this point of presenting the home design. He referred to the survey and described the existing hilly lot, the existing home located in the small flat area of the oversized lot, the driveway and garage force the home to encroach onto the right and set distance from the home to the left. The proposed design intent is to place automobile access off the flat area. They propose taking the garage and lowering it to the Hilary Drive entrance on the property which would remove it from the top of the property and remove lights, noise and smells away from both neighboring homes. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 12 10/15/20 He then presented the garage in the front at 20+ feet back from Hilary Drive to respect front yard setback requirement, stating they have maintained the large redwood tree to the top and right and centered the home on the small area between the left and right sides of the property lines. They have increased the setbacks to the home on the right which is now 5’7” to over 18’ at the closest spot which is where the redwood tree is located. The home on the right has a garage on the right and some bedrooms to the back behind the garage area, so the bedroom on their upper and lower level in the back is adjacent to the bedrooms to the house on the right. To the left, they have tried to maintain the existing setback and yard area to their neighbors, the Sheppards, to give privacy as much distance as they could. There is also an increased landscape plan along that side and drainage channel. The house has been sited to center and pushed back into the hillside. He presented and described the lower floor plan, with garage and entry at the main level, and the staircase going up to the upper floor. There are no three story elements and it is all two story or one story on the layout. The area above the garage is to be used as an outdoor gathering area which is the adult side as opposed to the left side which is the children’s side which is accessible from the dining/family room. He then presented the upper level and said they have a split level exiting to go into the backyard because the house has been pushed into the hillside a sufficient distance without damaging the hillside. There are two bedrooms and a bath to the left for the two children and to the right another bedroom and ensuite for the other children and the master that comes to the front which is quieter. There are concerns with the second floor with window placements. He presented the window system running along the western flanking wall with high windows, the two-bedroom windows are for egress and other windows on the far right are oriented to the hillside or to the front. Mr. Blankenship then presented the elevations, stating they have used wood, stucco, concrete and steel railings to give a modern look. A major issue in the neighborhood relates to what is considered a neighborhood home and a modern contemporary home, and the Terrells were of a mind that this is a style they love and he thinks it is the way the neighborhood will eventually continue to grow. This is the first in the neighborhood which is difficult, and the existing style and size of homes in the neighborhood changes dramatically within a matter of a few homes. He then spoke about the home’s blending, pop-outs, breaking up wall masses, dark colored earth tones, and overall attractiveness of the home. The back side faces uphill and there are no neighbors impacted by this given they are sitting so much higher. To the opposite or eastern home, they have a nice pattern of concrete, stucco and window treatment with siding and harmoniously break up wall planes of the house, and the roof is flat with solar panels. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 13 10/15/20 Boardmember Berger requested Mr. Blankenship return to Sheet A-4 elevation and the south elevation, stating he thinks the shadows in the courtyard are incorrect. The balcony is shading across the windows but the whole wing on the west side should be shading the rest of the courtyard, but it does not. Mr. Blankenship apologized for this error and clarified the full courtyard side would be in shadow. He believes the shadow line would begin from the roof line, break at the top and would clip the edge of the deck on the left side. Chair Barringer asked Mr. Blankenship to speak to the landscaping. Mr. Blankenship stated they unfortunately left the landscape plan out of the packet. He described it, stating there is an extensive plan from the redwood tree all the way along in that planter area. From the tree down to the garage is a hedge row of different plants which grow from 6-8 feet along that side. To the right is the garage and driveway. On the left side, the landscaping hedge and infill trees runs all along in the drainage area down. At the left side of the wood deck in the triangle pocket by the three retaining walls, this is all heavily landscaped on both sides, as well. The plan provides landscaping to shield both neighbors and he pointed out that the Sheppard’s plan does not have the existing trees shown in their drawing. He also pointed to the story poles #18 and #19 which are the overhangs that come out off the top of the building. When looking at this site and seeing the story poles reflecting those, it gives a false impression of much larger mass and bulk than the home really is. He concluded his presentation, stating that their home has been situated into the middle of the lot, preserving as much as the flat area for living space for a family of 5 so they have some yard area and adult space. They lowered the garage down. There are no three-story elements, as the entry to the left is tucked underneath a two-story element of staircase with a deck on top of it, and the two-story house behind it is within the guidelines. There are no variances or special requests, and they feel this would be a wonderful addition to the Town. Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Jim Malott, architect representing Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard at 685 Hilary Drive, stated he wrote the design guidelines for hillside housing in 1981 which are being used by the Town. He cited three issues: 1.Damages to adjacent residences in the form of privacy. The house has a looming sense of being above the homes on both sides and will completely look down on all adjacent windows and side yards. At night, the house has many large windows and will be over the tops of the 6-foot fences between the residences, resulting in the loss of privacy. There will be a loss of winter sun and the outdoor activity space has pushed the noisy areas of the house to the sides adjacent to the property lines and the huge sound walls will reflect the sound into the adjacent yards; TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 14 10/15/20 2.Damage to the neighborhood. This is a three-story house visually and the site pattern language usage of the property is sad and does not conform to anything in the neighborhood in that it pushes the side yards to the point of being activity spaces. From the front, he pointed to a concrete mote that is dugout to the street and a dugout driveway. It covers 65% of the frontage of the house. The massing of the house is blocky and effectively is a house on house, both 1750 square feet. It is twice as large as the average for the neighborhood. The design is insensitive in that the materials, forms, massing, texture have nothing to do with the existing neighborhood. The modern style of the house is not the issue, but rather the blocky massing and the use of the site and the house takes from the neighborhood. 3.Damage to the Town. This accelerates the small house loss in Tiburon if approved. The community character is ignored. The three-story element declares open season for contractors, developers, and wealthy buyers. There are other options available and the simplest and most efficient is a U-shaped house on the property with a second story master suite at the back of the lot on the uphill side overlooking the courtyard and out to the view. This would have almost no effect on the neighbors and would have the same amount of square footage. Otherwise, an 11-foot-high fence will be needed on each side of the yard to provide privacy. Ken Weil said he has lived at 686 Hilary Drive for 11 years, stated this is a great neighborhood. People are inclusive and respectful of one another. The style of the homes vary somewhat and this is his first opportunity to comment about the design. He said style does not bother him, but from a mass and bulk standpoint, the primary issue is the setting of the proposed home noting that there are 17 one-story homes going from Rockhill Road to Mar Vista. Practically, he is concerned about the amount of noise with the adult and children space and balcony space, and said the homes are so compact that he easily hears his neighbors across the street. Therefore, he is very concerned about privacy. The three levels are not harmonious at all with the other homes. When they look out their bedrooms window to the front, they look at the roofline of 687 Hilary Drive and will not see that but instead, a mass of a house. The design is like a block, one level on top of another level on top of another level. He would love to see the owners get what they want in terms of space, but he objects to the impact it has on the immediate neighborhood. Thomas Unger said he lives at 689 Hilary Drive or to the east. They are happy to have gained the Terrells to the neighborhood and their comments are to provide context about what the impact of the plans are. Their home was purchased about 11 years ago from the architect builder and he spoke about the design as a master bedroom on the second floor with the view of Richardson Bay. After the DRB met and considered the neighbor’s feedback there was a significant change to the plan resulting in what is there today and they think their home is really a precedent for second story additions within the Hillary Drive area. They kept large windows to the lower floors facing only front and back. There were no decks off the second floor. Second story windows are small and high to protect privacy. They have talked about mass and bulk in the design but for them, the impacts are moving the backyard to the side yard which will be adjacent to their bedrooms and disruptive to their TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 15 10/15/20 privacy. As well, the second story windows look right into their house into several rooms. For their home, those windows were moved higher in the elevation and not full length to maintain privacy on both sides. Mary Beth Sheppard said she and her husband Gary have lived at 685 Hilary Drive, next door to the project, for 33 years and they love their sense of privacy, light, and the character of the neighborhood. This design checks all of the boxes of what not to do when proposing a multi- story house in a one-story neighborhood, and said the design fails to take steps to reduce mass, bulk and height, adds 8 glass windows on the upper level that will look directly into their home, 4 more windows and glass doors on the lower level which will shine light into their home, adds two outdoor decks that will look.at their home and garden, adds an outdoor entertainment area that also looks into their property. She presented Slide 3 showing her looking up at the story poles but the photos do not show the orange tape between the poles so she tracked the tape with the black lines. She urged the Board to come to their home and into their garden to see how much they are impacted and then presented a series of photos showing the inside of their home’s rooms. They applicants are trying to save money by not building into the hillside and this does not mean they should be able to build the largest house possible that ignores the privacy of neighbors and damages them. She cited several solutions to reduce the mass and bulk and asked for complete re-design. She thanked 15 neighbors who supported them in strong opposition to this project and the Terrells are a wonderful family that needs more space and they support their effort to expand their home as long as it does not damage their home and loss of privacy. Rob Riley stated he lives across the street at 690 Hilary Drive and, when they bought their home, they loved the neighborhood and designs from the 1950’s but also like the modern designs as seen up the hill. When standing in his yard, he sees houses built on the hill and most of those actually are in line with the design that the Terrells want to build. He thinks it is fantastic when there are neighborhoods that are modernized in a thoughtful way and looking to fit the needs of a modern family. He thinks the new home will also make it welcoming for future families as well. He did not have any privacy issues with the design when looking at it. He has seen the pictures and what has been shared with the story poles, orange ropes, and it creates a perception as if the house is larger than it really is because of the overhangs. Building a garage into the level that Hilary Drive is on makes sense and is not really part of the house and where the family lives, so this is a smart approach so as not to tear up the land, the hill or wildlife, etc. In summary, they think the architect has designed something beautiful and voiced his support for both the older styles and newer styles of the homes. Richard Sidleman said he and his wife live at 14 Mara Vista Court and they can see the story poles from their bedroom, but the great virtue of Tiburon is its natural beauty, its solitude, and its privacy. As they look at the poles, it is clear that the privacy and solitude of the Sheppards on one side will be adversely affected and subject to inspection and mooting of their own enjoyment to a point they would not support. The Sheppards privacy will be like living next door to a tenement which would be very much unlike the life they chose, or anyone would want to choose in Tiburon. Therefore, they oppose this project. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 16 10/15/20 Rebuttal – Applicant Basia Terrell, homeowners, thanked all speakers and she pointed out the number of participants and families that have written letters of support as well to the Board. They had reached out to 10 and then stopped. She heard Mr. Mallot very clearly, but she is trying to respond. With regard to the side yards, there are no side yards. The picture of Mary Beth Sheppard was from her side yard towards her property. The fact one can say there are now side yards in this neighborhood is contrary to both her property as well as to Mr. Unger’s property, where there is a deck to the front of the house with a fire pit. It might not be used, but it does exist. They were careful in the placement of the yards and said there are two different spaces to enjoy because they do not want to expose one neighbor or the other. Creating a U-shaped house creates a bunker or tries to shield both neighbors and they will then receive a response about their windows being closer to one property or the next. So, they took this into consideration. She stated they met with Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard in May and wants to reach consensus. The pictures Mrs. Sheppard put up in the slide were helpful, and in looking at them, there is a huge amount of foliage. They have several trees on their property line some of which are on their side which are over 30 feet tall, a very robust oak that covers the vast majority of the back space which is also set back at 16 or more feet. If they were to push the house back, there would be a lot of impact to the overall design. The reason they live in Tiburon is because of the bay views. They are trying to alter the brick wall by creating an entryway that opens to the beautiful bay view, and from the second story, being able to see the view and the bridge. If they were pushed further back, they would be behind foliage on Mr. Unger’s property as well as the two-story home to their left. She finds it hypocritical because it is due to Mr. Sheppard’s effort many decades ago that they were zoned into two stories. So, she expects on the left side which is Mr. Unger’s property which is two stories and in her lifetime they will be dealing with a two-story structure on the right side. She does not accept the arguments of speakers and thinks having to go through this is quite damaging to relationships. Just because the master bedroom and architecture were damaged by the prior owners of the property, it should not be something that influences the decision-making here. They would have welcomed decks and more windows and she honestly thinks when Mr. Sheppard’s property becomes two stories it will be more modern and will be a flat roof, so it cannot just be a box. It will have to have decks and she is perplexed and hopes this refutes some of the points that were addressed. Mr. Blankenship stated he has spent a lot of time with the Terrells trying to work through their design requirements as well as the design requirements that the Town has in place, which is one of the reasons they are not asking for any variances or special conditions, or exceptions to lot coverage, floor area or height. He also stated that The Terrells have spent a lot of time agonizing about what the impacts of every decision that they make on this home will bring. This is not a design that was done quickly. It has been going on for at least 8 or 9 months to try to accommodate not only their needs but also blend into the hillside and try to accommodate privacy for the left and right side TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 17 10/15/20 neighbors who are those here they are most concerned about. In conclusion, they are available to answer any questions of the Board. Boardmember Berger said he likes the design and thinks it is quite attractive and does many of the things Mr. Malott’s hillside design guidelines indicate. The guidelines are brilliantly written and beautifully illustrated that they have been an understandable guide to people in Tiburon for 30 years and will continue for a long time to come. He thinks the house seems to step up the hill and the masses are articulated brilliantly and he agrees with the comments about keeping the car down below and putting the house above. He also really likes the front yard hardscape and landscape combination which is beautifully broken up. For a house like this there is not a wholesale design change that would be indicated; however, the Board is always looking for the small changes that can make a big difference for neighbors but would make almost no difference for the applicant. He drew a sketch on the site plan to explain and he referred to A-2 or A-3 it will explain it as well. He visited the Sheppards home and said there are some problems on that residence that could be changed with a simple modification of the house. The elevations on that side are interesting in that they change materials, but it is a very blocky elevation on the side nearest to the Sheppards. In addition, the windows from the bedrooms on the second floor will be quite bright looking into the Sheppards’ property in the evening and even during the day from a privacy point of view. He thinks this should be addressed. If they took the bedroom on the second floor that is nearest to the backside and move it to the courtyard on the second floor. There could be a post and they could come out underneath it and it would provide some shade and cover, and it could have a view of the bay from there while still having access to the bathroom that would remain. The bedroom that remains behind the second bedroom that now has all of its windows pointed at the Sheppards could have windows that look into the back or hillside which would be superior. This is a quick revision and it does not lower the square footage at all for the applicant. Instead of having a solid mass on the side, it would have a mass that breaks up. So, breaking up the mass on the Sheppards’ side, getting rid of a lot of the large windows and taking advantage of looking into the hillside instead of looking out to the Sheppards. The windows in the master bathroom could be adjusted as well and it looks as though the deck on the master might benefit the Sheppards by having a little screening partition so when they are out there, they are not looking back at the Sheppards and the light also might not go to the Sheppards. He would like to see the design come back with changes like this that could improve its neighborliness to the neighbors and asked not to change the style one bit. Boardmember Kim said she likes the architecture and elevations on the plans and having the parking tucked under is clever. Her concern is the juxtaposition of this massing to its neighbors. It towers over both of them and this is clear. So, she is not sure how to address that but the neighbor has a second floor but it is to the center of the property and not towards the edges, and this is how the shading and privacy issues could be mitigated—by pushing that to the center. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 18 10/15/20 While not ideal, she asked if there is a way to sink the entire mass down and what that could do in terms of the overall height and relationship with the two. She likes the architecture, the style, the articulation of the masses and materials which was nicely done. She just believes the home is higher than any other building and it needs to be addressed. Vice Chair Chong said this project was a bit of a rollercoaster for him. He began reviewing the plans and he loves the design and would not change the style of architecture. When he first looked at the plans it looked like a home which was enveloped with almost a forest and he drove out with the expectation of seeing a lot more foliage. He saw the story poles which are definitely jarring at first, so he had to recalibrate where the house is compared to the corners. Over the years, the Board has reviewed quite a few projects in this neighborhood and the streets are really stacked. The thought of having a two-story in this neighborhood first was thought would never work, but after seeing one spot in the back where there is the hill, if going two houses to the left the hill comes down and this would severely impact an uphill neighbor and the same thing happens when going to the right. After spending a little time walking around there, he was able to get his head around a two-story. In looking at other neighborhoods that have wrestled with one-story versus two-story, Belveron is very anti-two-stories within the center. There is a split on what happens at the edges, and then there are areas like this court which are out of the way enough that it does not impact anybody and people tend to be okay with it. The way this lot is in the back is that it is unusually large compared to the surrounding lots so it affords the ability to do a little more at least in the back but he questioned if there is a two-story design that he could get behind and he thinks he could but it would definitely need to minimize some of the impact there on the two next door neighbors. He suggested using what Boardmember Berger suggested plus a little more work on some windows and other techniques that can be used to minimize impacts. Regarding whether he would be supportive of a two-story in this spot, he thinks he would be. Boardmember Crescini said he took a quick look at the drawings and then visited the site. His gut reaction was “holy cow” because it is so drastically different to the surroundings that he really does not know if he likes this as compared to the cottage-like neighborhood, but in the future the Board will see more of these go and the whole landscape will change. What struck him first was that everybody has little driveways that go up the hill. They choose to bring the garage to the street level which he finds is okay. What he does not understand is that they are also bringing the entrance to the house at ground level. He asked if they could dig the front of the street just for the driveway but leave the slope as is and go up to the entrance. The thing that makes it look like three-stories is that there is the entrance, the big window, and the upper floor, and the pop out of the terrace in front does not have eaves. The neighbor’s house is a two-story house, but the second story is in the roof, so it is not so towering. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 19 10/15/20 He likes the design, but it is too massive, so he thinks the pop out of the terrace in the front and stairs is not doing enough to break up the mass. Another consideration is for the rest of the floor plan besides the pop out, the two stories are one on top of the other and stacked. There is no breakdown or variation in the outline of the building which is against the design guidelines. If they do not want to dig into the hill, they dug into the hill in front to get to the entrance, so he asked to cut the same amount on the back of the hill and try to push backwards the upper part of the building. He found it bizarre that they have the entrance right at ground level but there are stairs where there is the main view in their living room. He asked that once they create the entrance at the living room level rather than the garage level, then they can consider extending the other part of the back of the house that currently goes from the first floor to the second floor to ascend down below to the level of the garage so if they are coming in from the garage, they can take the back stairs. Visitors are outside on the steps and they get to the entry at the living room level. So, instead of stepping that far to get access to the house, he suggested leaving it as it, plant it and screen it. He noticed there was a beautiful Cypress tree there that will be demolished but he thinks it could remain partially inside the house without hiding the view from the house to the bay. He commended the owners for committing themselves not to ask for a variance for floor area or coverage, and while the building is within the guidelines, it is too high as compared to the neighbors. He suggested lowering the plate of the building, try to break up the mass, and the big eaves might be contributing to the mass especially when seen from down below, but he likes eaves but asked that they be less and follow the outline of the building. For the rest, the layout of the second floor should keep in consideration privacy issues and therefore, limit the number of windows on the sides of the property. Additionally, he likes the materials a lot but thinks the building is too massive especially when seen from the street. Chair Barringer echoed comments of Boardmembers on what an elegant style is and thinks the architects have done a nice job in pushing and pulling a bit and varying the materials which helps break up mass. He likes Boardmember Berger’s suggestion and without being specific on the redesign, there is a lot of room on the lot coverage and he does not see why the second floor cannot push back 6 feet which would make a tremendous difference on the appearance of the mass from the street. The applicants could also consider pushing the turf area back another 2 feet and had some grasses in addition to the creeping fig vine, and have some planting that goes up that portion for the upper deck which would break things up and soften the appearance and cut the light a bit. Most of the hedges are listed as mature height at 6 feet and if this is the case, he would like something a little bit taller there to grow above the fence height. Other than the one lighting fixture cut sheet there is not much information on the lighting. There are a couple of path lights, and he would like more clarity on what is happening here in the yard. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #11 20 10/15/20 Otherwise, the design is elegant. Burying the garage breaks things up and creates some additional usable space. He thinks it is relatively close and along the lines of what Boardmember Berger requested as well as other Boardmembers to reduce the mass from the street by pushing the second floor or playing with the second floor. Boardmember Kim said in contextualizing the height in the neighborhood this design is higher, but also part of the issue is that there are 2-foot walls which creates the sense these are massive pieces. She suggested playing with the surfaces and break away the second floor from the first floor. She understands why there is a structural reason for this, but she thinks the second floor could be shifted or pushed back. Boardmember Berger clarified that the massing from the street does not bother him too much and if the top floor pushes back and does more stepping would be fine. He was more concerned about the massing along the sides and the idea of taking the back bedroom, pulling it off, replacing it with a lower roof and moving it to the courtyard against the shadow spot to a cantilevered or suspended piece in the middle of the courtyard and up high in that corner which would further break up the two story wall on that side. A few simple moves will cut light, reduce massing and increase articulation of the house for the benefit of the neighbors and not to the detriment of the applicant. He likes everyone’s comments and thinks they could make some changes in this direction. Vice Chair Chong agreed with the sides that are the problem. Chair Barringer said it sounds like the Board is leaning towards a motion towards continuance. Ms. Tasini suggested a continuance to November 19, 2020 which would allow the applicants to prepare redesigns and to allow staff to put the packet together. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) to continue the matter to November 19, 2020 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Director Tasini announced there was a request from Boardmembers to provide 11 x 17 hard copies, and staff will be asking this from applicants in the future and will place them in Boardmember mailboxes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. EXHIBIT 7 1 Christy Fong From:ROBIN MCNALLY Sent:Saturday, February 27, 2021 4:28 AM To:Christy Fong Cc:Marybeth Bond Subject:687 Hilary Dr CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. January 25, 2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Christy Fong ROBIN MCNALLY 682 HILARY DRIVE TIBURON, CA 94965 Subject: To Town Council Members. Re: 687 Hilary Drive. Support for Sheppard Appeal. DRB File # DR2020‐015 Dear Ms. Fong and Design Review Members: I am writing this letter as a longtime resident of the Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood and a close neighbor to the 687 Hilary Drive proposed expansion. Having moved into this neighborhood in October of 1994 I have witnessed many changes. While there have been several expansions, most have, after careful review, been modified with great sensitivity to the impacts these changes might impose on the affected residents. Special consideration has been given to the effect of light, view blockage, and adequate setbacks to avoid encroachments to impacted parties privacy. While footprints have been increased, most have been respectful to the harmonious shared enjoyment of our neighborhood. Now, more than ever our homes have become not only workspaces but our sanctuaries. Hawthorne Terrace homes have for the most part offered their inhabitants privacy and integration with nature. Residents have been respectful of their neighbor’s rights to their views and kept this in mind when proposing changes and additions. The proposed demolition and reconstruction or the property at 687 Hilary Drive seems to have been designed with very little consideration of the project’s imposing effects on the properties directly adjacent to it. In addition, it is setting a precedent for massive lot coverage and greatly increased height in an area of mostly single level homes. The proposed 3 story home with 30 foot walls will stand in sharp contrast to the neighborhoods primarily single level residences. If this property is allowed to go through at this level it will set a precedent for tightly compacted homes with little regard for the natural beauty and tranquility of the area. Windows that peer into the houses and yards of neighbors should be avoided. Living space that encroaches upon another’s enjoyment of their own property should also be reconsidered. While I am all for improving our neighborhood, I feel that the insensitive nature of this project will do little to enhance the integrity of our community. Please take these matters to heart when reviewing the design of this massive and imposing structure. Sincerely yours, Robin McNally March 1, 2021 Exhibit 7 1 Christy Fong From:Bill Rankin Sent:Saturday, January 30, 2021 7:20 PM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Dr. (DRB File #2020-15) Appeal by Sheppard of DRB Approval of Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of the Town Council, We, Bill and Sally Rankin of 13 Mara Vista Court, Tiburon, write in support of the appeal filed by Gary and Marybeth Sheppard objecting to the Design Review Board granting of an application to construct a three‐story, 30 foot high house at 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon. We strongly support the appeal and respectfully ask that the decision of the DRB be overruled. When viewed from the street, the proposed structure would rise three stories and apparently contain over 3,600 square feet ‐‐ approximately three times the current size of the building. It is difficult for us to imagine anyone, including the Sheppards, wishing to live next door to such an overpowering structure. Moreover we believe that despite the "I want" emphasis in current U.S. culture, a modicum of respect for one's neighbors should mean honoring the integrity of incumbent neighborhood designs, patterns, and values. Very truly yours, Bill and Sally Rankin February 1, 2021 1 Christy Fong From:Jill Sideman <jillsideman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:40 AM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Drive (DRB File #2020-15) Appeal By Sheppard of DRB Approval of Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Members of the Town Council We, Jewel Sideman and Richard Sideman of 14 Mara Vista Court, Tiburon, are writing in support of the appeal filed by Gary and Marybeth Sheppard, objecting to the Design Review Board’s granting of an application to construct a three‐ story, 30 foot high house at 687 Hilary Drive. We strongly support the appeal and ask that the decision of the Design Review Board be overruled. The proposed building at 687 Hilary Drive is completely out of scale with all other houses in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. From the street, it appears to be a hulking blocky structure, unlike any of its surrounding neighbors. We observed the story poles when they were up and were shocked at the height. Almost all of the homes along this block of Hilary are single‐story, so this proposed building really violates the spirit and feel of the neighborhood. We believe that the excess height and the large number of windows will substantially damage the privacy and enjoyment of its neighbors’ properties. At the first Design Review Board hearing, there were several suggestions made by Board members that would have reduced the impacts of the proposed building; it is not clear whether any of these have been included in a revised design. Please overrule the Design Review Board’s approval decision and charge the building’s proponents to revisit this design and make it fit into its surroundings and respect the privacy of its neighbors. Respectfully, Jewel and Richard Sideman February 8, 2021 1 Christy Fong From:Steve Callender Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:47 AM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Dr. (DRB File #2020-15) Appeal by Sheppard of DRB Approval of Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Subject: 687 Hilary Dr. (DRB File #2020‐15) Appeal by Sheppard of DRB Approval of Project. Date: February 3, 2021 To: Members of the Town Council We, Mary and Steve Callender of 20 Mara Vista Court, are writing to support the appeal filed by Gary and Marybeth Sheppard, objecting to the Design Review Board’s approval of the construction of a three‐story, 30 foot high house at 687 Hilary Drive. We strongly support the appeal and ask that the decision of the Design Review Board be overruled. Our home at 20 Mara Vista Court, which overlooks the Sheppards and which abuts the 687 Hilary property, has an interesting feature. The railing on the deck that faces Hilary is enclosed by a 3½ foot high privacy screen (probably it is T1‐11). When we purchased the home in 1998, we were told by the prior owners that the town had insisted that the deck be enclosed that way so as to maintain the privacy of the down hill neighbors. In the current case, addressed by this letter, it seems to us that the principle of neighborly privacy has been abandoned by the Design Review Board. Have Tiburon’s privacy rules been changed in the past 20 years? Physicians operate on the principle of “First Do No Harm”. There is no doubt in this case that harm will be done. Is there a countermeasure for this harm? Has the Board considered what remedy might obviate this harm … have the house pushed back into the hillside to reduce its height profile and/or perhaps the windows on the Sheppard side of the house could be eliminated? We have addressed other issues of concern in an earlier letter (attached here as well). With regards, Mary & Steve Callender Prior Letter: Sent November 9, 2020 SUBJECT: Letter of opposition to 687 Hilary Drive February 4, 2021 2 Emailed to cfong@townoftiburon.org Members of the Design Review Board: My wife Mary and I have lived at 20 Mara Vista Ct for 22 years. We write now to share our strong concerns about the proposed new home at 687 Hilary St. We share a property line with the 678 Hilary lot and our houses are diagonally related, ours being uphill to the NorthWest. We have always been charmed by the small village aspect of our neighborhood. The houses are generally modest and cozy. The neighborhood has history. It was the home to workers on the Railroad. It was also home to Franklin J. Buscher, who was the well liked and well regarded Fire Chief of the Tiburon Fire Department for 34 years. His home was on Hilary across the street from 687. The proposed new home, from our view, looks to be way out of scale for the neighborhood. Further, it appears that the proposed outdoor hot tub will likely be a source of noise that will come right up the hill to us. We believe that the lighting from the skylights and from the quantity of windows that will be visible to us at fairly close range will be a blight on the night for us. So for us, the issues presented by the proposed construction are three fold: excess light, disturbing noise, and a structure very much out of character with the charm and history of the neighborhood especially with regard to its towering size and its boxlike appearance. Sincerely, Steve & Mary Callender 1 Christy Fong From:Rajni Natesan Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:54 PM To:Dina Tasini; Christy Fong Subject:Re: Regarding plans for 687 Hilary Drive CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Christy and Dina, We are writing to follow up from our prior letter (dated October 6th, 2020) regarding the proposed remodel of the home at 687 Hilary Drive. Since our prior correspondence, we have been approached by the immediate neighbors (at 685 HIlary Drive) of the property in question. They shared their concerns about the construction, indicating that the size of and positioning of the new construction would impact the sunlight and privacy into their home. Given their concerns, we would like to clarify our previous letter: in our prior correspondence, we indicated our support for the remodel and noted that we believe it is important to generally update and improve homes to support property prices and steady evolution of the area. We continue to believe that there can and should be different styles of homes in the neighborhood and that remodels and renovations are meaningful in maintaining property values. However we also believe that it is important for design and construction decisions to be in harmony with neighbors. Given that we are not directly impacted by the proposed construction at 687 Hilary Drive, we don't believe we can comment on the specific impact on the neighboring homes. This should be a decision made between the neighbors, supported by the town. Thank you for considering this amendment to our letter. Best regards, Rajni Natesan & Prashanth Ravishankar 672 Hilary Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:48 PM Rajni Natesan wrote: Dear Christy and Dina, Hope you both are doing well in these crazy times! My name is Rajni and my family and I live at 672 Hilary Drive, just down the street from the new construction planned at 687 Hilary Drive. I understand there have been some concerns from neighbors regarding the proposed plans for 687, and I thought I'd reach out and perhaps voice another perspective. From our vantage, we feel it would be great to have an investment in higher quality and updated homes in the Hawthorne Terrace area ‐ currently the homes are original 1980s or earlier builds, and the majority are quite dated. We are in full support of allowing for change to occur and for home improvements to be made to update and add value to the neighborhood. Design aside, even updates like soundproofing for work‐at‐home/school‐at‐home or better February 3, 2021 2 insulation and circulation for times of wildfire smoke enable families (with children, no less!) to continue to live comfortably given both the pandemic and the environmental changes. We would love to see this project be fulfilled and, as neighbors, we support the careful design, styling, and conservative square footage that have been offered up in the plans. Appreciate your ear and your consideration, and of course for the leadership you bring to our community. Warm regards, Rajni Rajni Natesan, MD, MBA 1 January 20, 2021 Town Council, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 re: Appeal of Design Review Board decision, December 10, 2020 for 687 Hilary Drive, File number DR2020-015 Dear Town Council, We are submitting this letter and attached document in support of the Appeal of the Design Review Board approval decision on December 10, 2020 for the plans for 687 Hilary Drive. Our support of the appeal of the DRB approval is on the basis of several inconsistencies: 1.The goals and objectives the Town of Tiburon has for the purpose of the DRB and DRB process, including ensuring compliance with Tiburon’s General Plan, Zoning Codes, Guidelines 2.A decision inconsistent with evidence, stated issues and recommendations of the DRB members throughout the process 3.With the established precedence of design requirements and conditions applied to previous home remodels on Hilary Drive Additionally, our appeal also considers: 4.A specific item that only relates to us (689 Hilary), namely privacy issues with regard to proposed hedges/trees along our property, and the potential removal of the large redwood tree on 687 Hilary that serves both as privacy and visual screen between the properties. January 20, 2021 2 Our specific objections and concerns to the issues identified above are: 1: Goals and objectives of the DRB (Attachment: slide 18) The Town of Tiburon states that the purpose of the DRB process has is to: (A) Promote orderly development; preserve the unique visual character; ensure compliance to the Town’s zoning regulations (B) Further, review should ensure consistency with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood; ensure proper relation to their sites and adjacent uses (C) Finally, address issues of loss of privacy, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character and overall size and scale of a project In consideration of the points above, we provide the following: Item (A) is thoroughly addressed in the Sheppard Appeal, which we fully support. The Town’s Ordinances, Zoning Codes and Guidelines were constructed for a purpose and should be applied equally and uniformly to all residents. We agree there are significant inconsistencies with the plan and Ordinances, Codes and Guidelines. We will not go into additional detail in this document as the Sheppard’s have more than adequately covered these items in their Appeal. Item (B): We, the Sheppards, many neighbors of the Hawthorne Community and some of the DRB members themselves, voiced concern of the break with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and relationship to adjacent home uses. § The neighborhood is predominantly single-story homes. § Homes generally have common design styles and elements. o Renovations and ground-up construction (such as ours) have found ways to adhere to the character of the neighborhood while simultaneously improving the size and modernized living requirements (Attachment slide 38). The design proposed for 687 is in every way, inconsistent with the objective of maintaining aesthetic character and relationship to adjacent properties. 3 o The Hawthorne community and especially homes on Hilary Drive have consistent design elements that include: overall design character, roof-lines, alignment of like living spaces (ground floor). The plans for 687 have nothing in common with any home in the immediate area. § Homes in the neighborhood locate their entertainment spaces in the back (Slide 11) to allow for privacy, minimize noise, etc. to the adjacent neighbors § Homes in the neighborhood do not have balconies or large windows looking onto streets or adjacent neighbor living spaces (this was one of the basis for the appeal on our home at 689) Item (C): The DRB has essentially sidestepped nearly all of the elements of its mandate when approving the design for the 687 property. Privacy: • The current plan violates privacy of the immediate, adjacent neighbors. On the east- side of 689 Hilary, there will be a balcony on 687 property peering directly into 2 of our bedrooms (slide 4, 6 and 7) • Entertainment spaces for 687 have been moved from the rear to the front and side, immediately adjacent to 689 two bedrooms. (slide 12) • Hot-tub entertaining space on a hillside that will affect the privacy of these bedrooms and has minimal design considerations to minimize noise due to activity, equipment and people. Ensure proper relation to their sites and adjacent uses • Placing entertainment space next to bedrooms of the neighboring home is not a proper relation of site to adjacent neighbors (slide 11 and 12) o On warm days, there is not an option to close windows to avoid noise from the entertainment area • The 687 design will be a three story structure in size, bulk, and location and elevation of windows in relation to the immediate neighbors and the general Hawthorne community (We will address this further in the design changes for the 689 Hilary two-story property further below) 4 • No home in this neighborhood has unbroken 2-story plus height walls imposing on its neighbors as 687 does to neighbors on both sides. • No home is built above grade (slide 10) o The plans for 687 are merely to maximize the benefit of views at the expense of privacy, light, noise and towering facades on both adjacent neighbors. o The sight-line from the street is inconsistent to any house of the street. § Following the first DRB meeting, there was minimal to no changes to the design in accordance with the DRB’s suggestions to find ways to shrink, sink, or move entertaining spaces, etc. Instead, they expanded the deck and square footage. 2: Decisions inconsistent with evidence and stated comments of some of the DRB members themselves and neighbors During the initial DRB review of the proposed plans for 687 Hilary, the DRB members themselves articulated a number of design issues, for example; “needs to be addressed”, “too high in comparison to neighbors” (slide 15 for summary of selected DRB comments). Few if any of these requests appear to have been considered in the revision of the design presented to the DRB on December 10, 2020. For example, the DRB comments (Slide 15) clearly state that elements of the proposed plan are: § “against design guidelines” § Inconsistent with the objectives of the design review process: address mass, privacy, bulk, height, etc. The decision of the DRB is completely inconsistent and ignores the assessment and recommendations itself concluded for the proposed design of 687 Hilary. Further, the DRB provided the owners and architects with solutions that would potentially lessen the impact. The DRB decision to approve is inconsistent with its own assessment of the plan. 3: Against established precedence of design conditions applied to previous home on Hilary Drive 5 We are the owners of the two-story home at 689 Hilary Drive. We purchased the completed house as it stands, but were also made aware of the history of the house with regard to neighbor concerns, the DRB process and final approved design. The proposed initial design for 689 Hilary (Slide 16) appears to be quite similar to those proposed for 687 Hilary: bedrooms placed on the second floor, large windows and balconies, 2-story walls adjacent to neighbors During the DRB and Town Appeal, neighbors articulated concerns similar to those presented by the current community, and reiterated here, for 687 Hilary: conflicting design with regard to the neighborhood, bulk, mass, height, loss of privacy. A redesign (slide 17) for the 689 Hilary was required and the revised plans resulted in a home that was: o Consistent and aligned with the Town’s considerations o Workable for neighbors: consistent design character, second story mass moved inwards, similar living spaces located on the ground floor (bedrooms) and entertainment to the back; no privacy issues due to balconies or windows Our point is that 689 Hilary is an example of a workable solution and process (Slide 29 lower right; slide 31, 38, 39) - the Town did not allow significant changes to occur to the local community and neighbors. The architect, owner and the community found solutions that worked and maintained all of the requirements of the Town: privacy, consistency, compatibility. The Town adhered to its principles for the design review process; it was applied equally and uniformly. 4. Loss of a critical privacy element An important element of the plan for 687 Hilary is a redwood tree on the property that is close to the property line between the two homes. We recently noticed the intrusion of roots into our property that has caused damage to the foundation and slab of our home. The assessment of two certified Arborists are that the tree will need to be removed; remediation action required to 6 repair our home would likely, irreversibly damage the redwood, according to industry establish formulas. This does not consider work and impact from construction on the side of 687 Hilary. The removal of this tree will be a key privacy and screening element of the plan, compounding issues between the two properties (Slide 3, 4, 9). The issue is currently in the resolution process and we will not know the status of the tree until this issue is formally resolved. Designs must assume a worst case impact of the loss of the tree on our privacy, sight-lines and noise/light pollution. As an adjacent resident and a member of the Hawthorne community, we support the appeal of the DRB approval of the plans for 687 Hilary. We request that the Town is consistent to the principles and requirements of its Ordinances and Codes. We also request the Town adhere to the contract it has established for the DRB process, and that they are uniformly applied. Sincerely, Thomas and Catherine Unger 689 Hilary Drive, Tiburon, CA Notice of Objections of Adjacent Neighbors Project: 687 Hilary Drive Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell Design Review Board Town of Tiburon1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 DRB Meeting, December 3, 2020 Submitted by: Catherine and Thomas Unger689 Hilary DriveTiburon, CA 94920 Presentation to DRB 12/2/20 Reflects removal of 2 windows We remain opposed to the revised plans •Failure to listen and address many of the perspectives or suggestions of the DRB or neighbors: •Height, mass, scale •“Sink it” •Privacy, noise and light pollution •Increased impact with the potential removal of the redwood tree •The proposed plans are •Radical design to the character of the neighborhood •Bring entertainment spaces and windows forward and to the side of the house •Windows and balconies that interfere with privacy Summary 2 General plan and landscape plan will be impacted due to the potential removal of the redwood on the 687 property (Correspondence in our submitted file) •Waiting a final report from a certified arborist •Initial assessment (2) is that any work on our property to address damages to the foundation and slab will likely adversely impact the tree •Compounded by work at 687 •The redwood is a central privacy screen between the two homes •Removal of the tree will compound issues of privacy and screening of the height, mass and bulk of the house •Additional impact arising due to hillside improvements walkways and spa Redwood Tree 3 View from 689 Hilary: Issues of mass, bulk, balcony, doors and windows impacting privacy Glass Door Balcony 689 Bedroom Perspective Story-poles Story-pole Balcony Loss of privacy; impact from loss of Redwood 4 Redwood 687 East Elevation Nov 11, 2020 View from 689 Hilary lower bedroom: Privacy issues due to direct view into bedroom and further into living space of 689 Bedroom Window Bathroom Family room & dining table Story-poles Doorway 689 Bedroom Perspective Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 5 687 East Elevation Nov 11, 2020 NOTE: Reduced in size per 12/10/20 DRB Review Added 3’ to deck? 6 Rec Nov. 11, 2020Rec Sept. 14, 2020 Side Balcony: Unnecessary light and privacy intrusion to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed side balcony is not “primary living area” that would, for example, be entitled to view protection if someone’s tree were to obstruct that view (Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 15.) •A design element, nor the desire for the superfluous balcony should not impose an unnecessary light and privacy intrusion simply to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed balcony is in part obtained by looking across the 689 property Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 7 “If there is no deck I have a massing issue that I can't otherwise resolve.” -687 Homeowner 10/16/20 “If there’s a deck we have no privacy which we can’t otherwise resolve” -689 Homeowner No alterations to reduce mass from the street view General considerations and objections 8 Future overgrowth of privacy shrubs? Mass continuing the length of the property We have invited the DRB to view the impact from the neighbor’s perspective 9 Trees?House General considerations and objections Umbellularia californica Many issues stem from an interest to maximize view at the expense of the immediate neighbors and neighborhood 10 Is there a reason the house must be situated above grade –when no other property in the neighborhood does? General considerations and objections Every home on the block with the front oriented to Hilary has its living areas off the back of the house –why alter the norm and impact the living spaces of others? •Homes have back yards not side yards •The proposal of a large front yard and deck is an imposition to adjacent neighbors to the side and front •A side yard is a further imposition to us (689 Hilary) and will set a negative precedent •The orientation of the design places large windows and doors facing neighbors increasing noise and light pollution •Accomplished at the expense of neighbors that will not be renovating to accommodate the change 689 687 Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 11 689 Hilary has 3 windows on the side facing 687 –only source of fresh air and daylight –all facing the entertaining space Whereas most houses have bedrooms facing each other, 689 bed and living areas are exposed to noise and light from entertaining spaces 12 View from 689 Hilary Upstairs loft: Windows and above roofline solar panels 13 Bedroom Window Story poles Loss of privacy, Unsympathetic consideration of noise and light •There is only one window upstairs at 689 facing 687; this will be the view •Sits above entertainment spaces –noise and light impact The design entirely ignores the environment to the detriment of the next-door neighbors and the neighborhood at large •The proposed home is unsuited for this location and neighborhood •It is a hilltop, trendy, show-piece design, inconsistent with the character of the Hawthorne neighborhood •The entire objective of the design seeks to accomplish the single goal of capitalizing on views and light •Accomplished at the expense of the neighbors •It will invite additional similar “hill-top view boxes” to one side of Hilary •Homes on the downside will not afforded the same design options •View-boxes on one side –cottages on the other? •The proposed home is 3 times the size of the current home, incongruous to the neighborhood in every way •Imposes on its immediate neighbors in every way possible •Imposes a questionable, hulking design unlike any other in the neighborhood •Repositions living spaces in direct conflict to the design of homes in this neighborhood •Likely to set a new unfortunate precedent* which will result in years of protracted litigation •Invites incoming homeowners seek to create whatever they think they are entitled to as opposed to attempting to find a balance between the existing neighborhood and their need *Should 689 Hilary not serve as a precedent; a successful outcome with the neighbors for over 11 years General considerations and objections 14 Minutes from the previous DRB meeting for 687 Hilary •the home is higher than any other building and it needs to be addressed (p48) •too massive, so he thinks the pop out of the terrace in the front and stairs is not doing enough to break up the mass (p49) •There is no breakdown or variation in the outline of the building which is against design guidelines •try to push backwards the upper part of the building •while the building is within the guidelines, it is too high as compared to the neighbors •He suggested lowering the plate of the building, try to break up the mass, and the big eaves might be contributing to the mass especially when seen from down below, but he likes eaves but asked that they be •likes the materials a lot but thinks the building is too massive especially when seen from the street •does not see why the second floor cannot push back 6 feet which would make a tremendous difference on the appearance of the mass from the street (49) •could also consider pushing the turf area back another 2 feet •Berger requested as well as other Boardmembers to reduce the mass from the street by pushing the second floor or playing with the second floor (50) •She suggested playing with the surfaces and break away the second floor from the first floor. •taking the back bedroom, pulling it off, replacing it with a lower roof and moving it to the courtyard against the shadow spot to a cantilevered or suspended piece in the middle of the courtyard and up high in that corner which would further break up the two story wall on that side. A few simple moves will cut light, reduce massing and increase articulation of the house for the benefit of the neighbors and not to the detriment of the applicant. •Relocated bedrooms to the back •Previously proposed eight windows on the West facing Upper Level Elevation, totaling 102 sf, have been reduced to 3 windows, totaling 39 sf, a 62% reduction of glazing area. •Two proposed windows on the Eastern facing Upper Level Elevation, totaling 48 sf, one in the Guest/Office and one in the Master Bedroom transition entrance, have been removed •12’-0” high screening hedges have been added to the East and West fence lines •No changes to mass, height, scale, noise/light pollution •Nominally addressing privacy issues •INCREASED square footage by 123 sq. ft. •ADDED 3’ to bedroom deck •Selection of “screening hedge” Umbellularia californica that can achieve height: 60 -75 feet and width: 60 -75 feet •Property line to side wall of 689 is 9’?? 15 What the DRB requested/suggested:How the Architect and homeowner responded: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/umbcal/all.htmlhttps://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/Umbellularia-californica 687 Faces similar if not identical issues to those in the DRB Application for 689 Hilary Drive, May 2005 regarding proposed second story addition and balcony (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution 16 Resulting design changes to 689 Hilary in response to neighbor and DRB concerns and issues. (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution 17 What is the DRB’s contract with Tiburon homeowners impacted by proposed renovations? 18 •According to the minutes of the prior DRB meeting –few if any of your recommendations have been addressed •Too high, to much mass, “against design guidance”, loss of privacy, sink it down •The proposed plans in every way go against your and the Town of Tiburon’s DR stated purpose: •No consistency to aesthetic character •Lack of proper relation •Loss of privacy •Incompatible with surrounding neighborhood character •Incompatible size and scale •Unaddressed questions regarding compliance to multiple Tiburon Administrative Policies for noise, residential land use, Municipal codes and design guidelines https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1125/Design-Review-Process-Permit-Guide Too many unaddressed issues Notice of Objections of Adjacent Neighbors Project: 687 Hilary Drive Applicants: Christian and Basia Terrell Design Review Board Town of Tiburon1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 DRB Meeting, December 3, 2020 Submitted by: Catherine and Thomas Unger689 Hilary DriveTiburon, CA 94920 Submitted to DRB: for DRB meeting that was subsequently rescheduled and ahead of availability of revised plans Dear Design Review Board, •The immediate priority for this communication is to notify the DRB that the redwood tree on the Terrell property may need to be removed due to damage created to our home at 689 •In this document, we are providing our view of the impact of the potential removal of the tree •Copies of the notification to the Terrell’s are found within the appendix •We will provide the Terrell’s and the DRB updates on the assessment as soon as it becomes available to us •We continue to strongly object to the design proposed for 687 •Our previously submitted letter to the DRB dated Oct. 6, 2020, clearly states our objections and, to date, none of these have been adequately consider or addressed by the homeowners or architect •First letter to DRB attached (Appendix) •We find inconsistencies with the proposed plans for 687 with Tiburon’s land use policies as well as other Policies, Zoning Codes and Guidelines. These are well articulated in the Sheppard communication to the DRB, which we have attached for reference (Appendix) •We would like these to be addressed by the DRB or Terrell’s before any decision is made •This document will provide the DRB with supplemental comments and visuals to articulate and further support our main objections •We additionally are including references and documentation from the DRB for 689 Hilary (our home) which mirrors the identical concerns currently expressed by the neighborhood and neighbors for the 687 design. •These documents show that the design of 689 was adapted by the architect/owner, resulting in a home that fits the neighborhood and maintained livability for all •A working precedence for key principles exists November 12, 2020 Sincerely, Catherine and Thomas Unger Homeowners, 689 Hilary Drive 20 Contents •Issues requiring the potential removal of the redwood tree on 687: background and impact •Further articulation and visualizations for the basis of objection to current proposed design and plans •Supporting materials regarding: Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light •Precedence for a workable solution and principles •Hot tub •Summary •Appendix: Supporting or referenced documentation 21 General plan and landscape plan will be impacted due to the potential removal of the redwood on the 687 property (Correspondence within the Appendix) •We found damage to the foundation, bedroom slabs and bathroom tiles to our home at 689 •A contractor and arborist, separately, have confirmed the damage is as a result of roots from the redwood on 687 •The contractor suggested the best course of action is to seek the advice of an attorney •We retained the firm of Keegan and Harrison, San Rafael (11/3) •Terrell’s notified by the Unger’s Monday 11/9 •Lynde Seldon III of Keegan and Harrison provided the Terrell’s a notification and plan steps to assess and remediate the damage (11/13) Redwood Tree 22 Impact of the potential removal of the redwood •The likely removal of the redwood will have a significant impact on privacy as the current plans depend upon the tree •Sound, light and mass issues will be exacerbated by prospective tree removal •It is premature for us to approve home design or landscaping given the impact of redwood removal •As this is a recent development, and we need time to sort the issue •We have retained a certified arborist and will submit recommendations to the DRB as soon as available •We will not find two story screening as viable or acceptable •It will not be in place quickly enough to offset privacy impacts •Two story screening will necessarily be on or very near the lot line and will block whatever remaining light might survive being blocked by the massive house and create a claustrophobic effect. This will create a narrow tunnel on one side of the screening and a noisy side yard on the other. •This is hardly a fair trade for a privacy problem created by the Terrell’s incongruous design Redwood Tree 23 View from 689 Hilary: Issues of mass, bulk, balcony, doors and windows impacting privacy Glass Door Windows Balcony 687 East Elevation 689 Bedroom Perspective Story-poles Story-pole Balcony Loss of privacy; impact from loss of Redwood 24 Redwood Summary of our objections Objection Impact / Consideration Mass and bulk Excessive visual mass and bulk of second story: There are options to reduce impact Lacks harmony to adjacent neighborhoods; Looming and large Does not preserve neighborhood character Height Impact on the neighborhood exacerbated by proximity to street Consider impact of solar adding more height Privacy Glass (windows and doors)Located on the sides impacting neighbors (vs. front or rear); reduce the number of windows and size Light pollution, specifically originating from upper levels; reduce size of the windows on the second floor, Balconies and decks Front: Neighborhood privacy, noise and light pollution; social area Side: Privacy issues for adjacent neighbors: beds, living spaces, windows and yards; eliminate the deck of the back bedroom Outdoor entertainment Inconsistent with the neighboring living model –neighbors have no options Relocated to the eastside of the house impacting neighbors bedrooms; Hot tub on hillside Environmental Noise from equipment Unclear where A/C equipment and spa pumps will be located; sound due to elevated position Loss of sunlight Morning and evening impact on lighting General considerations and objections 25 The design entirely ignores the environment to the detriment of the next-door neighbors and the neighborhood at large •The proposed home is unsuited for this location and neighborhood •It is a hilltop, trendy, show-piece design, inconsistent with the character of the Hawthorne neighborhood •The entire objective of the design seeks to accomplish the single goal of capitalizing on views and light •Accomplished at the expense of the neighbors •It will invite additional similar “hill-top view boxes” to one side of Hilary •Homes on the downside will not afforded the same design options •View-boxes on one side –cottages on the other? •The proposed home is 3 times the size of the current home, incongruous to the neighborhood in every way •Imposes on its immediate neighbors in every way possible •Imposes a questionable, hulking design unlike any other in the neighborhood •Repositions living spaces in direct conflict to the design of homes in this neighborhood •Likely to set a new unfortunate precedent* which will result in years of protracted litigation •Invites incoming homeowners seek to create whatever they think they are entitled to as opposed to attempting to find a balance between the existing neighborhood and their need *Should 689 Hilary not serve as a precedent; a successful outcome with the neighbors for over 11 years General considerations and objections 26 Square footage: Squeezing a home too large for the useful portion of the lot •Although apparently compliant with applicable codes regarding floor area ratios, the Terrells were able to artificially inflate the size of the proposed home due to the awkwardly shaped and largely unusable lot •While the calculations of the lot provide for the proposed square footage, the formula cannot take into account the fact that they are squeezing a home much too large for the useful portion of the lot •The proposed house is nearly 3 times the size of the current home.By any measure that is an extreme increase in size –it’s not as if the usable lot is 3 times larger General considerations and objections 27 Mass from the street view •The first floor entrance and garage exacerbate the imposing front box wall of the house which, given the incongruous design of the house, concentrates mass and bulk to the street view •The design is trendy and unlike any other homes in the neighborhood •Today it will look unlike any of the surrounding homes, arguably in isolation, it may be attractive to some. •In the future, it will be out of style AND look like none of the other homes •This design might make sense in other neighborhoods •In a longstanding, side-by-side suburban neighborhood with substantially similar homes, the proposed design will always be out of sync and, in time, will beg the question: how did this happen? To proceed with such a radical design within this neighborhood, it would have been prudent to provide the neighbors with a virtual view that could offer realistic visualizations and provide a sense of the neighborhood, broader street view, to more adequately inform and aid with impressions and opinions General considerations and objections 28 Mass of second story •The second story proposed is, other than height, nothing like that achieved at 689: •Set back off the street and shifted to the middle of the roofline •Does not include bedrooms because of the privacy issues •Terrell’s house, as designed, is incongruous to the homes of this section of Hilary General considerations and objections 29 Every home on the block with the front oriented to Hilary has its living areas off the back of the house •Homes have back yards not side yards •The proposal of a large front yard and deck is an imposition to adjacent neighbors to the side and front •A side yard is a further imposition to us (689 Hilary) and will set a negative precedent •The orientation of the design places large windows and doors facing neighbors increasing noise and light pollution •Accomplished at the expense of neighbors that will not be renovating to accommodate the change 689 687 Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 30 The orientation of the design places large windows and doors facing neighbors increasing noise and light pollution –not the back Facing 689 687 Rear facing Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light Compare to 689: •Small windows ensuring privacy, minimizing light and sound •Larger windows located to street and rear of property 689687 31 View from 689 Hilary lower bedroom: Privacy issues due to direct view into bedroom and further into living space of 689 Bedroom Window Bathroom Family room & dining table Story-poles Doorway 689 Bedroom Perspective 687 East Elevation Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 32 View from 689 Hilary: Issues of mass, bulk, balcony, doors and windows impacting privacy Glass Door? Window Balcony 687 East Elevation 689 Bedroom Perspective Story-poles Story-pole Balcony Loss of privacy; impact from loss of Redwood 33 Side Balcony: Unnecessary light and privacy intrusion to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed side balcony is not “primary living area” that would, for example, be entitled to view protection if someone’s tree were to obstruct that view (Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 15.) •A design element, nor the desire for the superfluous balcony should not impose an unnecessary light and privacy intrusion simply to promote an unprotected view •The view from the proposed balcony is in part obtained by looking across the 689 property Loss of privacy; unsympathetic consideration of noise and light 34 View from 689 Hilary Upstairs loft: Windows and above roofline solar panels 35 Bedroom Window Story poles Loss of privacy, Unsympathetic consideration of noise and light •There is only one window upstairs at 689 facing 687; this will be the view •The original design plan for 687 will have 3 full sized windows (1 not shown in this angle) facing 689 687 Faces similar if not identical issues to those in the DRB Application for 689 Hilary Drive, May 2005 regarding proposed second story addition and balcony (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution 36 Resulting design changes to 689 Hilary in response to neighbor and DRB concerns and issues. (Copy in Appendix) Precedence for a workable solution 37 689 Hilary: Further design changes following neighborhood input: •Second story reduced in scale due to privacy and sunlight issues on neighboring properties •Minimal, small transom and celestial windows used on second story loft space. •No front balcony or deck in order to maintain privacy for neighbors across the street Precedence for a workable solution 38 DRB Report on 689, May 2005 689 Resolved with an agreeable solution -Minimizing impact of mass and bulk Precedence for a workable solution Windows small and/or set high to provide privacy Like-for-like living spaces to address noise/light Backyard in the back, bedrooms on the side Resolved with neighbors agreeing –owner comprising Workable for 12+ years 39 Hot tub: Unaddressed design matter •There is simply no justification for the hillside location that overrides the loss of tranquility and privacy •There are no other similar hillside recreational areas •Hot tubs are typically located in the back of the house •Noise is isolated due to house walls •There will be, with certainty, nuisance and noise complaints resulting from entertainment and children playing in the hot tub •Sounds regularly arise in the are surrounding TPC and BTC as the noise travels through the valley or neighborhood •Noise will emanate from equipment, which due to its exposed location, will be more prominent •We refer to the Shepard Notice of Objections (page 4) referencing Town of Tiburon Administrative Policy and Procedures for Noise Standards (Appendix) General considerations and objections 40 Summary •Comments in this document are based on the design presented to us prior to the initial DRB meeting; no subsequent updates have been provided to inform us of considerations, changes or responses made by the homeowner to the DRB and community’s input •While there is not a single objection that is more significant than another, clearly, the issue of the redwood tree and the impact on privacy is now paramount •The homeowners and architect previously inadequately considered the impact of privacy, noise and light on adjacent neighbors –those are now exacerbated due to the potential removal of the redwood tree on the side facing 689 •In addition to the elevated urgency of privacy, our objections remain identical to those we initially articulated, and have provided more detail within this document. They are: •Mass, bulk, height •Design that entirely ignores the environment to the detriment of the next-door neighbors and the neighborhood at large •Location of windows, balconies, doors and entertaining spaces that show little regard or courtesy to neighbors •Squeezing a home too large for the useful portion of the lot •Reorientation of living and entertaining spaces without regard to neighbors or neighborhood; deviation from the normal arrangement on Hilary with living and outdoor entertaining areas off the back of the house •687 has the luxury of designing to a desired lifestyle; this desire imposes itself on existing neighbors who have no interest of redesigning their homes or taking on the expense because of the desires of a new homeowner •Design goals to achieve a desired bulk or mass (e.g. side balcony, as well as others) that impose an unnecessary light and privacy intrusion simply to promote an unprotected view 41 Appendix •Communication from Keegin and Harrison to Terrell’s regarding redwood tree •Notice of Objections of Adjacent Homeowners –Unger, Oct 6, 2020 •Notice of Objections of Adjacent Homeowners –Sheppard, Sept 28, 2020 •With regard to references for 687 Hilary relative to compliance with: •Town of Tiburon Administrative Policy and Procedures for Noise Standards •Tiburon’s policies governing use of residential land: Residential Land Use Element of the Tiburon 2020 General Plan •Tiburon Municipal Code –Zoning Code •Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling •Staff Report: Design Review Board, Site plan and architectural review for 689 Hilary Drive (April 21, 2005; May 19, 2005; August 4, 2020) 42 1 Christy Fong From:Dominic Dimare Sent:Friday, January 29, 2021 2:48 PM To:Christy Fong Subject:The DRB Fille # DR 2020-015 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. TO: TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DOMINIC AND MARGARET DI MARE, 692 HILARY DRIVE, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, 94929 SUBJECT; DRB FILE 2020‐015 ‐ IN SUPPORT OF THE SHEPPARD APPEAL. THIS IS OUR THIRD LETTER TO THE CITY OF TIBURON REGARDING THE 687 HILARY DRIVE PROPOSAL. IN IT WE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROJECTS NEIGHBORS LOSS OF PRIVACY AND LIGHT. WE WATCHED THE DESIGN BOARD DELIBERATE THE PROS AND CONS OF THE DESIGN WITH MUCH INTEREST. WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE DIALOGUE WHICH SEEMED TO BE FOCUSED MOSTLY WITH THE ARCHITECTS VISION AND ITS IDEAS. WE HAD HOPED THAT THE MAIN FOCUS WOULD BE CENTERED WITH THE DESIGN AND IT MASS AND NOT ITS ATTRACTIVENESS. YES WE DO BELIEVE THE DESIGN IS OF SOME IMPORTANCE BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THOUGHTFUL OF THE REVIEW BOARD TO REALLY HAVE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY THE IMPACT ON THE COMMONALITY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES. THE DESIGN TO US IS OVERWHELMING FROM THE STREET LEVAL EVEN WHEN CONSIDERING ANY SET BACKS. WE WOULD TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS PROJECT, NOT BE BASED ON ITS AESTHETICS, BUT HOW IT RELATES TO THE TOWN’S ZONING REGULATIONS. IN PARTICULAR, THE “GENERAL PLAN, SECTION LU ‐ 5” THAT STIPULATES THAT “NEW DEVELOPMENTS SHALL BE IN HARMONY WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD…’’ THIS, FOR US, IS MOST IMPORTANT AND THE CORE OF OUR CONCERN. IN NO WAY DOES THS PROJECT EVEN MAKE AN EFFORT TO REFLECT ITS NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER STIPULATIONS (L‐12, LU‐13, AND LU‐15) IN THE GENERAL PLAN THAT WE THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN CONSIDERING YOUR REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT. IT IS OUR SINCERE HOPE THAT THE CITY’S ’“GENERAL PLAN”S PLAYS A VIGOROUS PART IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION AND REVALUATION OF THE 687 PROJECT. DOMINIC & MARGARET DI MARE 692 HILARY DRIVE, TIBURON, CA., 994920 January 29, 2021 1 Christy Fong From:Robert Chandler Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 1:15 PM To:Christy Fong Subject:687 Hilary Drive Appeal by Sheppard of DRB Approval of Project 2/17/21 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Re; DRB File # 2020-15 We, Robert Chandler and Gloria Chandler live at 695 Hilary Dr. and are immediate neighbors. We support the appeal by Marybeth and Gary Bond. We object to The Design and Review Board allowing to build a three story 30 foot house at 697 Hilary Dr. We agree with the next door neighbors (Bonds) and ourselves the design approved by Tiburon Design and Review Board be overruled. Our neighborhood is Hawthorne Terrace. As the name implies we are a cluster of terraced homes. The proposed housing structure is too tall and too massive compared to other homes in Hawthorne Terrace. It defies the concept of terraced homes. It is not terraced period! As proposed, this structure (house?),does not coincide with most of our housing tract. Our homes were built in 1954 with clear CCR's which prohibit massive multistory homes. Please approve the appeal as filed with the Sheppards and prohibit this ponderous structure from being built. Respectfully submitted, Gloria and Robert Chandler 695 Hilary Drive [42 years] Tiburon Ca 94920 February 1, 2021 Ken and Christine Weil 686 Hilary Drive In Support of Gary and Marybeth Sheppard’s Appeal Re: 687 Hilary Drive March 10, 2021 Town Council Town of Tiburon Dear Town Council, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the appeal regarding 687 Hilary Drive. While the proposed plan did not require a variance, it is our opinion that the process did not sufficiently take into account the impact on the privacy of immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the precedent set for future projects. We would not be writing to Town Council if this project was just about an increased roof line by a few feet or the architectural style of a house, but rather it is a proposal for a new second- story house situated toward the front of a large trapezoid shaped lot in an area of single-story homes on Hilary Drive. There is only one house on Hilary Drive from Mara Vista Court to the entrance to St. Hilary’s driveway that has a partial second- story. We would not be supporting an appeal if it was just about adding several hundred square feet or even doubling the size of the house. This project almost triples the size of the current house. According to the Town’s senior planner’s report, the house “from the street will have a three-story appearance with an excavated garage.” The sizes of the immediate adjoining properties are a fraction of the size of the 687 Hilary plot and, therefore, all the other homes will always remain much smaller and 687 more impactful. At the October 15, 2020 meeting of the Design Review Board each member suggested a number of revisions to mitigate massing, height and privacy impacts. Subsequently the applicant implemented only some of the recommendations presented at the December 19 meeting and, at the same time, increased the square footage of the home by 123 sq. ft. We support the appeal of Gary and Marybeth Sheppard. Regards, Ken and Christine Weil March 10, 2021 Christy Fong From: Robert Chandler Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2021 1:15 PM To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org> Subject: 687 Hilary Dr. Construction Sheppard Appeal of 3‐17‐2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Regarding DRB # 2020-15 Dear Mr. Bernard; Please see our following e-mail sent to Christy Fong. This planed construction of a house is just too big and doesn't coincide with the Hawthorne Terrace architecture and single story homes. Please deny the construction as planned. Respectfully, Gloria and Robert Chandler Dear Ms. Fong and members of The Design Review Board. The proposed three story home at 687 Hilary Dr. is just too massive for Hawthorn Terrace community of single story homes. Per Tiburon General Plan of Residential Land Use Element 2020 LU-5 New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. LU-13 Neighborhood Character shall be of material consideration and preserved in construction projects.pro LU-15 Remodels,tear downs,/rebuilds shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.mp The plans as submitted for design and review do not correspond with development standards of Tiburon and Hawthorne Terrace community.Ti Please reject the revised plans as submitted. The proposed house is just way too big Respectfully submitted, Gloria and Robert ChandlerRe 695 Hilary Drive March 10, 2021 EXHIBIT 8 Rifkind Law Group 1010 B Street, Suite 200, San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 785-7988 * www.rifkindlawgroup.com Leonard A. Rifkind len@rifkindlawgroup.com 1 March 11, 2021 By Email Only Mayor Holli P. Thier, hollithiertiburontowncouncil@gmail.com Vice Mayor Jon Welner, jwelner@townoftiburon.org Councilmember Alice Fredericks, afredericks@townoftiburon.org Councilmember David Kulik, dkulik@townoftiburon.org Councilmember Jack Ryan, jryan@townoftiburon.org Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Christy Fong, cfong@townoftiburon.org Senior Planner Planning Division Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 687 Hilary Drive File No. DR2020-015 Design Review Appeal Dear Mayor Their, Councilmembers and Ms. Fong: I.Introduction. Our firm represents Basia and Christian Terrell, owners of 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon, who retained Pacific Design Group (“PDG”) to design a new 3,606 square foot single-family residence. On December 3, 2020, the Design Review Board (“DRB”), at the second public hearing for this project, approved design review on a four out of five vote to approve a new residential home. Adjacent neighbors have appealed. The issues are not surprising, with the standard air, light, and privacy concerns, as well as opposition to the trending modern design. Upon review, the Council will easily be able to make the mandatory design review findings and deny the appeal. March 11, 2021 Exhibit 8 Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 2 II. Statement of Facts. 687 Hilary is presently a single-story residence, consisting of an approximately 1,154 square feet structure, built in 1954, located on one of the larger lots (0.46 acre) on Hilary Drive. The Terrells seek to replace the existing residence with a new two-story 3,606 square foot residence. The DRB approved design requires no variances or exceptions. On October 15, 2020, the DRB conducted the first public hearing. • DRB member, Miles Berger led the discussion recommending relocation of one bedroom to avoid privacy issues for the adjacent neighbors at 685 Hilary (Sheppard). Mr. Berger further stated, “I really like this design -- quite attractive, does a lot of things that Mr. Malott Hill Side Guidelines indicate -- the house steps up the hill, masses articulated brilliantly, and I agree with keeping cars below and living spaces above; materials are terrific too.” Finally, Mr. Berger stated, “Overall quite a nice design . . . don’t change the style one bit; it is lovely as it is.” Mr. Berger suggested moving one of the back bedrooms to cantilever over the courtyard area, to reduce windows facing NW neighbors. • DRB Vice Chair, Bryan Chong supported the two-story design, and stated, “I love the design and there is nothing I would change in the least with the style of the architecture.” Mr. Chong supported a two-story design in this location stating, “The way this lot is in the back it is unusually large compared to the surrounding lots so I think it affords ability to do more." He further stated, "It is rare you can do a project this large and not impact an uphill neighbor, but the uphill neighbor is so far up I don't think there is an issue there." • DRB member, Suzanne Kim stated, “I like the architecture on the plans and the elevation on the plans and having the parking tucked under is very clever and I appreciated that idea.” • DRB Chair, Cedric Barringer stated, “I think it is an elegant color palette, elegant style and the architects have done a nice job with materials and breaking up the mass.” Mr. Barringer further stated, “I think burying the garage does break things up and creates additional usable space. It is a nice move.” Mr. Barringer also wanted the second floor stepped back to reduce massing appearance. • DRB member, Paolo Crescini stated, “I took a very quick look then I went to visit the site so drastically different with surroundings cottage like other buildings but down the road we will see more [buildings like] these go and the whole landscape will change.” He stated, “I like the materials, color pallet and the style.” PDG listened carefully to the DRB comments and made the following changes to the design after the first DRB public hearing: Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 3 1. Reviewed impact of moving upstairs bedrooms and cantilevering the whole bedroom. Decided to instead swap the back bedroom facing the NW neighbor with a bathroom. Resulting with two back bedrooms facing the hill rather than the neighbors. 2. Modified massing articulation with extended cantilevering space over the courtyard as suggested by DRB on the right (east) side at the upper level. 3. Reduce the number of windows from the left (west) elevation at the upper level from eight to four windows. Two of the proposed windows have a sill height of 5’. 4. Reduce the number of windows from the right (east) elevation at the upper level from three to one window. 5. To compensate for window reduction, added two new 2’-6” square skylights for a total of five skylights. 6. As a result of upper floor changes described in 1-5, some modifications needed to be implemented on the lower floor: • Extend landing area to the lawn on the left (west) side at the main level. • Shift and modify massing articulation (from kitchen) on the left (west) side at the main level. 7. To enhance back side articulation, add a deck toward the back/hillside by the left (west) side at the upper level. 8. Include 12’ tall screening hedge to the left (west) and right (east) sides along the fence lines. 9. Include lighting details on floor plans and elevations. On December 3, 2020, the DRB held its second public hearing and approved the project on a four out of five vote. A summary of the DRB’s members’ comments includes: • DRB Member Berger, responding to DRB member Kim’s comments on the changes, said “I thought it was successful. So many projects, one we saw a few weeks ago where side elevations were deadly. This one is quite activated and quite good. They eliminated the windows that were most problematic as far as privacy and light pollution is concerned to the neighbors.” He continued: “The architects deserve commendation. They took quite a good building and made it even better, I got it, I saw it, I felt it they mightily tried to take our suggestions to heart.” I agree with Suzanne, the garage is the base and there are two stories on top of that. It does not bother me. Perhaps I am more accommodating of the Tiburon that will be as opposed to staying with the Tiburon the way it is. Our job is more about compatibility as opposed to consistency. Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 4 I like the changes, they were in the right direction….I like the little bump out over the courtyard. It is highly articulated, and it is a harmonious project. It is so much better than things we have approved in the past. I am happy with it. Let me summarize why I would be willing to approve it: the stepping is consistent with Tiburon goals; I think the articulation especially on the side yards is excellent. The hot tub is 105 feet from the nearest corner of Sheppards' residence ...I think it is as good of a position as it could be. I think the front deck, the one towards the street, is one that actually makes sense to me. To watch the bay from the adult room. It is coming off the master bedroom, it is not the place you are going to have a party. It is the kind of place you might sit and have a cup of coffee and watch the sun go down. I liked it quite a bit and I don't think it is a problem. • Vice Chair Chong: “I went out back out to the property again today just to make sure to get another perspective a second time. I got a chance to visit Shepherds’ home next door. It is definitely going to have an impact. But if I look at what it is going to have an impact on it is that side yard and there is a window that will lose some of its view and some light, but if I look at the balance of that side yard or allowing the applicant to build the second story it is clearly the right place to build it. You can go through different versions of what you can do. You can do one story that stretches to the front and sides of the yard. I do not think that's the best way to go. You could build it straight up the hill. That is definitely not the way to go. So, I go back to my original comments from last meeting. I am definitely OK with a second story in this location". He continued: "the side elevations are activated, I think that's what Miles said. I definitely agree the side elevations are a lot better than a lot of applications we have seen more recently that were more plain vanilla than this." • DRB Chair Barringer made a very clever observation: “There were some comments made in the materials ‘the majority of the neighborhood or 85% is single story’ but there is 15% that is not. I do not see there is an issue with two story and I see this as a two story for all intents and purposes myself, because the garage and front door is so set into the grade. Some comments about the contemporary aspects of the house. The neighborhood is a mixture of styles. I think there are a couple of examples in the neighborhood that are even more prominent from the street,…this proposal does a better job of screening and breaking the mass from the street.” He later added “The fact this is a bigger lot than the majority of its neighbors allows for a bigger house within the zoning rules. I do not see the fact that this is a bigger house is a huge issue. It is not twice as big as the next biggest house, there are some houses 3,000 sq ft it is a mixture and if you think about Tiburon in the future. A 3,000 sq ft house is quite normal for a family of four or five. I do not see size as an issue.” Lastly, he analyzed applicants’ attempt at positioning the structure “the privacy on the side, at the worst case scenario on the left it is over 16 feet from the property line on the right side is over 18.6. I think this Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 5 should be considered; it is not what we see all the time. I think they have gone through great lengths to pull the building back. On the left foot, 16.3 is distance at the corner but the majority of the house is 18ft plus from the property line. • DRB Board Member Kim “There is no problem with two stories. It is articulated, using materials. Side elevations are much better than we have ever seen. The question is it is one mass with little carve outs here and there...my contention is it is copy and paste. I wanted to see a break on the first floor. Vice Chair Chong did provide rationale which seemed to convince Ms. Kim as she voted for the project. His response was: “Susanne talked about moving stuff to the center and one of the letters that came in had a number of examples of homes with smaller upper floors. I have never been a fan of those. It generally ends up being a master suite… it usually ends up moving bedrooms downstairs. For people with kids and having your kids on the same floor, having a master suite upstairs where the parents are and having all your kids downstairs, does not accomplish the goal of having bedrooms together.” • DRB Member Crescini. “The design is beautiful, but not the right one for this place.” On December 17, 2020, neighbors Gary and Marybeth Sheppard appealed the DRB approval. The Sheppard’s threw the proverbial kitchen sink into their 25-page appeal, contending the DRB approval fails to comply with the general plan, zoning code, Second Story Home Addition Factors, and the Hillside Guidelines. Sifting through the verbiage, their main points of contention seem to be neighborhood character, wanting to lock the neighborhood into 1950’s era architecture of single-story ranch house design. As the DRB articulated, the trend is consistent with the proposed design. DRB Member Berger perhaps addressed this issue best when he stated at the December 3, 2020 public hearing, “Our job is more about compatibility as opposed to consistency. Things will change.” III. Second Story Home Additions – Factors to Consider (“Factors”). In 2015, the Planning Department prepared its “factors” for second story additions.” (Copy attached as Exhibit A). Factors include: • Neighborhood Pattern. In particular, the Factors called out the Bel Aire and Belveron East neighborhoods as inappropriate for second story improvements. The proposed project has 4 of 8 immediate neighbors1 with two stories including the immediate adjacent property at 689 Hilary (Unger Residence also opposing). Half of the immediate neighbors are homes with second stories (see table in 1 We could not confirm if potentially the 5th of the eight neighbors which has some elements of a second story has conditioned space downstairs so it was not counted. Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 6 Exhibit B, attached). Second stories do exist in this neighborhood and as the board members agreed are prevalent in new construction and are likely to occur more frequently in the future. • Views. The project does not block any landmark views or views of any kind. • Privacy. Every effort has been made by PDG to avoid privacy impacts to neighbors. Fifty percent (50%) of windows to both the NW and SE sides of the home have been removed from the initial design, with a total of four facing NW and two facing SE. This leaves a very limited number of windows on the second floor of the design apart from those directly facing the bay. • Sunlight and Shade. PDG has prepared a shade study (copy attached as Exhibit C), that demonstrates that the appellants’ property at 685 Hilary will not suffer from appreciable and material increase in shade. • Mass and Bulk. The DRB uniformly endorsed the design. The design of tucking the garage below grade reduces mass and bulk. • Lot Characteristics. 687 Hilary is a larger sized lot (0.43 acres / 18,388 sq ft), that is zoned for two story. Its trapezoid shape, steep hillside, and as one of the narrowest frontage lots on Hillary Drive, make it a little more challenging to design; however, the architects have been complimented on taking advantages of the flat portions, minimizing site disturbance and at the same time balancing owner’s requirements and designing a modern structure in the middle of the accessible part of the lot in an attempt to push away from both neighboring sides and compliment both sides with yards and gardens. IV. Hillside Design Guidelines (HDG) Are Not Applicable. The project is located on the flat portion of the lot and PDG, as the applicant, suggests that the HDG not apply to this project. Further, the HDG, created in the early 1980’s, after some 40 years, should be considered for review and revision to reflect modern trends of replacing old housing stock with new modern designs. Even if the HDG do apply, all DRB Members concluded the design is well articulated to reduce massing and has reduced glazing in the side elevations to reduce the privacy impacts to neighbors. V. Design Review Guiding Principles (Findings). Tiburon Municipal Code section 16-52.020(H) requires Council make the following findings: Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 7 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. Finding No. 1. The residence is located on the flat portion of the lot towards the center to reduce impacts and provide buffers as much as possible on the neighbors. The project complies with all development standards for a R-1 zoned property. 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. Finding No. 2. Constrained by a trapezoid shaped lot with short street frontage, the location of the footprint in the center of the lot will not create view obstruction, and provides reasonable light and air on each side of the residence. The upper floor is set back and articulated on both sides to avoid excessive mass and bulk appearance. Side windows have been reduced to increase privacy, and windowsill heights increased. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/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. Finding No. 3. Residences in the neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled with second story additions. The amount of floor area proposed by the project is appropriate for a lot of this size. The proposed structure will be centered to the lot within the buildable area and provides generous buffers that exceed the minimum side setback requirement of 8’, with the right (east) side setback equal to 18’-6” and the left (west) side setback equal to 16’-1”. 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. Finding No. 4. The project has 3,606 square feet of floor area, 233 square feet less than the maximum floor area permitted. Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 8 5. 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. Finding No. 5. The project will protect mature vegetation. 289 cubic yards of soil will be removed to accommodate the new driveway, pathway, garage, entry, lawn expansion, a portion of the new residence, and the new landing on the hillside in an effort to reduce mass, bulk, view and light impacts. Plans have also integrated and preserved all of the mature trees on the lot, including the redwood tree and oak at the back and a pine tree in the front lot. 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. Finding No. 6. The architectural design represents the trend of contemporary design with a flat roof in simple geometric forms and shapes. The exterior finishes are comprised of gray concrete with gray and tan beige siding, black metal guardrails, gray roof, natural wood doors and windows in charcoal color. The architectural style and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in Town and other areas in the neighborhood. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 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, minimize 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. Finding No. 7. The landscape plan is professional and seeks to preserve existing mature trees. The proposed landscape changes, with screening hedge along the fence line on both sides, mitigates the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. 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. Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 9 Finding No. 8. All lights are shielded downlighting with no clear glass, thus reducing impacts. 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 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. Finding No. 9. This is new construction of a single-family home in a single-family zone, meeting and satisfying all zoning requirements. Upgrading aging housing stock is a benefit to the Town. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are 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. Finding No. 10. The proposal is not located in a RPD and/or RMP zone. The project complies with all zoning constraints and development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. Finding No. 11. Solar panels are required for new single-family residences. The project will comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code. 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 II (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. Finding No. 12. The project is located in the R-1 zone. The proposed structures would comply with all zoning requirements. Tiburon Town Council/Senior Planner Christy Fong Terrell Residence, 687 Hilary Drive, Tiburon March 11, 2021 Page 10 VI. Conclusion. This is not a close case for design review approval. The project has been strongly endorsed and approved by the DRB and has been consistently described by DRB as a very beautiful design. All 12 findings can be made as described above. The project, despite protestations by the adjacent neighbors, does not create any material impacts to light, views and privacy, or inconsistency with the neighborhood and in fact represents the future. This design represents the ongoing wave of contemporary design with large windows and flat roofs currently being constructed all over Marin County. Respectfully submitted, RIFKIND LAW GROUP By:__________________________ Leonard A. Rifkind LAR/lb cc: clients Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415-435-7390 Fax: 415-435-2438 www. townoftiburon. orq SECOND STORY HOME ADDITIONS FACTORS TO CONSIDER Homeowners are sometimes interested in either adding a second story to their existing one-story dwelling in Tiburon or in constructing a new two-story home. Although the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance generally sets a maximum potential height of 30 feet in residential zones, there are many instances in which a second story would be inappropriate and would not likely be approved. Tiburon has a Design Review process for most construction projects, including any proposal to add new floor area to an existing home or to construct a new dwelling. For projects that would create a new second story, the following factors are considered in determining whether a second story is appropriate in that location: •Neighborhood pattern. In neighborhoods consisting of predominantly one-story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established developmentpattern of the area. In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of theBelveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one-story dwellings. Two-storyproiects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods. •Views. Residents cherish their views in Tiburon. It doesn't take much for a new house or building addition to block views of the_Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, the bay, or otherlandmark views. A second story can often diminish precious views from nearby homes. In such cases, neighbors will likely object to the project and it is unlikely to be approvedthrough the Design Review process. •Privacy. A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow someone to look into the yards or privatespaces of their neighbors. These privacy-invading elements of new second story projects should be identified and avoided early in the design phase. •Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second story can blocksunlight into a neighbor's home or create too much shade in nearby yards. •Mass and bulk. A second story can often loom over a one-story home or a downhill house.Two-story projects should be designed and articulated to avoid large, uninterrupted spacesthat would appear massive from nearby properties. •Lot characteristics. The size and physical characteristics of a property can make it difficult to approve a second story. A steep lot could make a two-story home look even larger whenviewed from below, and a two-story home on a flat lot could tower over its one-story neighbors. EXHIBIT A The Town of Tiburon often encourages alternative design solutions to a two-story project in order to accommodate an appropriately sized single-story home on a lot. The Tiburon Design Review Board has historically supported alternative project designs to avoid the impacts on surrounding properties often caused by second stories, including designs with increased setbacks for second stories or only partial second stories. The Board will consider granting a variance for homes to spread out more on a site and allow for a design that minimizes impacts and fits into the established neighborhood character. In addition, the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines booklet provides direction on appropriate project designs for homes throughout Tiburon and gives visual examples of preferred design elements. Town staff encourages homeowners to talk to their neighbors who may be affected by their project at the outset of the design process, and then keep them advised of any substantive changes as the design takes shape. Installing preliminary "story poles" or other visual aids for a project can often help identify whether a project design will create problems for neighbors and can promote discussion about possible design solutions that will make the project work better for everyone. If you have any questions about two-story projects in Tiburon, Planning Division staff is happy to meet with you to discuss whether a second story design would be appropriate for your property. The Tiburon Planning Division is available at Town Hall Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and can be reached by telephone at (415) 435-7390. February 2015 EXHIBIT B Second Story and Square Footage Analysis of the Neighborhood Map Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Existing New House Appellant Opposing No opposition No opposition No opposition Opposing No Opposition No Opposition 687 Hilary 687 Hilary 685 Hilary 20 Mara Vista 24 Mara Vista 50 Del Mar 40 Del Mar* 689 Hilary 690 Hilary 688 Hilary Average Parcel: 055-211-08 055-211-08 055-183-28 055-183-29 055-183-21 055-211-32 055-211-31 055-211-07 055-212-01 055-182-16 Number of Stories 1 n/a 2 2 2 2 1 1 Construction / Remodel Year 1954 1954 1954 1964 1998 2016 2005 1954 1954 Land Sq. Ft. 19,888 19,888 8,690 11,300 9,280 37,400 30,306 12,000 9,000 8,000 15,747 Lot Acres 0.46 0.46 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.86 0.70 0.28 0.21 0.18 0.36 Number of Bedrooms 3 5 3 2 3 4 6 4 4 3 4 Number of Bathrooms 2 4 3 3 2 5 5 4 3 2 3 Living Area Sq. Ft. 1,154 3,416 2,070 2,218 1,791 5,325 5,190 2,948 2,220 1,534 2,912 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.06 0.17 0.24 0.20 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.20 3 PM 12 PM 9 AM SUMMER JUNE 21 12 PMSPRING MARCH 21 12 PM FALL SEPTEMBER 21 12 PM WINTER DECEMBER 21 12 PM ss.1 Shade Study TE R R E L L RE S I D E N C E 68 7 H i l a r y Ti b u r o n , C A EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT 9 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 ofvarious 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 171 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 PROCEDURE 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 ofpermits. Ifthe 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 0311712010 EXHIBIT 6 Exhibit 9 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice ofAppeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. a) Ifthe applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional stafftime 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. Ifthe 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 ofthe 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 0311712010 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 ofDecision 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 ofdiligence, 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 0311712010 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 staffmembers and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staffwill make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days ofthe close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal ofthe 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. STOR Y POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review ofthe 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) dgys 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 0311712010 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 IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E R E S I D E N C E T E R R E L L T I B U R O N C A L I F O R N I A site Vicinity IndexProject Description DataOwner: Chris & Basia Terrell687 Hillary DriveTiburon, CaliforniaAP# 055-021-08Occupancy: R-3Construction Type: V-BStories: 3Zone: R1Lot area: 18,388 sfAverage Slope: 30.55%FAR Allowed: 10% of 18,388 sf + 2,000 sf = 3,839 sf+ 600 sf garage (not counted) = 20.87%Existing Residence:Living: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sf - 600 sf = 0Total: 1,245 sf = 6.8%Proposed Residence:Entry Level: 200 sfGarage: 667 - 600 sf (not counted) = 67 sfMain Level: 1,708 sfUpper Level: 1,631 sfTotal Proposed Residence: 3,606 sf = 19.61%Lot Coverage Allowed: 30% x 18,388 sf = 5,516 sfExisting Lot Coverage:Residence: 1,245 sfGarage: 382 sfDriveway: 720 sfTotal: 2,347 sf /18,388 sf = 12.7%Proposed Lot Coverage:Driveway: 830 sfResidence: 1,591 sfTerrace/Garage:1,284 sfUpper Floor Cantilever: 157 sfUpper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfUpper Floor Guest/Bedroom Decks: 90+52 = 142 sfRoof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfRoof Over 4'-0": 325 sfLanding to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,587 sf /18,388 sf = 24.94%Grading Quantities:Amount of Cut: 340 CYAmount of Fill: 51 CYOffhaul: 289 CYImpervious Coverage:Existing: 3,080 sfProposed Net Increase: 2,145 sfFinished Condition: 5,225 sfRequired Setbacks:Front Yard: 15'-0"Rear Yard: 20% to 25'-0"Side Yard: 8'-0"Existing Setbacks:Front Yard: 24'-6"Rear Yard: 95'-6"Right Side Yard: 20'-0"Left Side Yard: 5'-6"Proposed Setbacks:Front Yard: 22'-0"Rear Yard: 74'-0"Right Side Yard: 18'-6"Left Side Yard: 16'-1"Allowed Max. Height: 30'-0"Existing Height: 12'-0"Proposed Height: 30'-0"Existing Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesRequired Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spacesProposed Parking Spaces:Covered: 2 spaces Codes2019 California Residential Code California Electrical Code California Mechanical Code California Plumbing Code California Energy Code California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Standards Code2019 California Residential Energy Efficiency Conditions1 Coverp1 Photographsp2 View Perspective - Main Deckp3 View Perspective - Guest Deckp4 View Perspective - SpaSiteC1 Survey2 Site PlanGD1 Grading & Drainage Plan3 Site Sections4 Roof Planss1 Shade StudyL1 Landscape Plan/Vegetation ManagementECN Erosion Control NotesArchitecturee1 Existing Planse2 Existing Elevationsa1 Proposed Entry/Garage Levela2 Proposed Main Levela3 Proposed Upper Level Floora4 Proposed Elevations / Material Sample Boarda5 Proposed Elevationsa6 Proposed SectionsThe proposed project removes an existing 1,245 sf singlefamily residence with an attached 382 sf two-car garage.The proposed project constructs a 3,606 sf single familyResidence with a 267 sf Entry/Garage Level, a 1,708 sfMain Level, and a 1,631 sf Upper Level. C o v e r 1 This project requires compliance with MMWD,Water Conservation Ordinance # 430.Site Plan based on a Survey prepared by DMGEngineering, Inc., Engineers/Surveyors.Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,483 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :6,966 /100 : 6.9 KW required1 KW per 100 sf690 sf : 6.9 KW provided v i i i . E a v e o r c o r n i c e v e n t s s h a l l n o t b e i n s t a l l e d u n l e s s t h e y a r e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d b u r n i n g e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 3 . v i i i . V e n t o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , w h e r e a l l o w e d , s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e , o r s h a l l b e s c r e e n e d w i t h c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h n o t l e s s t h a n 1 / 1 6 o r g r e a t e r t h a n 1 / 8 o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 . 2 . i x . E x t e r i o r w i n d o w s , w i n d o w w a l l s , g l a z e d d o o r s , a n d g l a z e d o p e n i n g s i n e x t e r i o r d o o r s s h a l l b e i n s u l a t i n g g l a s s u n i t s w i t h a m i n i m u m o f o n e t e m p e r e d p a n e , o r g l a s s b l o c k u n i t s , o r h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g o f n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 1 0 , o r c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 2 . § R 3 2 7 . 8 . 2 . 1 . x . E x t e r i o r d o o r a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l c o n f o r m t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S F M 1 2 - 7 A - 1 o r s h a l l b e o f a p p r o v e d n o n c o m b u s t i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r s o l i d c o r e w o o d h a v i n g s t i l e s a n d r a i l s n o t l e s s t h a n 1 3 / 8 ″ t h i c k w i t h i n t e r i o r p a n e l s n o l e s s t h a n 1 ¼ ″ t h i c k , o r s h a l l h a v e a f i r e - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i n g n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 m i n u t e s w h e n t e s t e d a c c o r d i n g t o A S T M E 2 0 7 4 . C R C R 3 2 7 . 8 . 3 ( E x c e p t i o n : N o n c o m b u s t i b l e o r e x t e r i o r f i r e - r e t a r d a n t t r e a t e d w o o d v e h i c l e a c c e s s d o o r s . ) W i l d l a n d U r b a n I n t e r f a c e i . P r i o r t o b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f i n a l a p p r o v a l t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e v e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e s c r i b e d i n C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 C a l i f o r n i a G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . C R C § R 3 2 7 . 1 . 5 i i . R o o f i n g a s s e m b l i e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r l i s t i n g s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e r s i n s t a l l a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n s . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . i i i . E x t e r i o r w a l l c o v e r i n g s h a l l e x t e n d f r o m t h e t o p o f f o u n d a t i o n t o t h e r o o f , t e r m i n a t i n g a t 2 " n o m i n a l s o l i d w o o d b l o c k i n g b e t w e e n r a f t e r s a n d r o o f o v e r h a n g , o r t e r m i n a t e a t t h e e n c l o s u r e o f e n c l o s e d e a v e s . i v . W h e n p r o v i d e d , v a l l e y f l a s h i n g s s h a l l b e n o t l e s s t h a n 0 . 0 1 9 ″ ( N o . 2 6 g a l v a n i z e d s h e e t g a g e ) c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t m e t a l i n s t a l l e d o v e r a m i n i m u m 3 6 ″ w i d e u n d e r l a y m e n t c o n s i s t i n g o f o n e l a y e r o f N o . 7 2 A S T M c a p s h e e t r u n n i n g t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f t h e v a l l e y . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 3 . v . A l l u n d e r f l o o r a r e a s e n c l o s e d t o g r a d e w i t h e x t e r i o r w a l l s s h a l l b e c o v e r e d a s r e q u i r e d f o r e x t e r i o r w a l l s . U n d e r s i d e o f a l l e x p o s e d f l o o r s , e x p o s e d s t r u c t u r a l c o l u m n s , b e a m s a n d s u p p o r t i n g w a l l s t o b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h e x t e r i o r i g n i t i o n - r e s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l s o r h e a v y t i m b e r v i . R o o f g u t t e r s s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e m e a n s t o p r e v e n t t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f l e a v e s a n d d e b r i s i n t h e g u t t e r . § R 3 2 7 . 5 . 4 . v i i R o o f a n d a t t i c v e n t s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o r e s i s t t h e i n t r u s i o n o f f l a m e a n d e m b e r s i n t o t h e a t t i c a r e a , o r s h a l l b e p r o t e c t e d b y c o r r o s i o n - r e s i s t a n t , n o n c o m b u s t i b l e w i r e m e s h w i t h 1 / 1 6 m i n . a n d 1 / 8 m a x . o p e n i n g s o r e q u i v a l e n t . § R 3 2 7 . 6 2 . Notes: N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 2 0 E x h i b i t 1 0 P h o t o g r a p h s p 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E ConcreteRecessed Path LightBega 22-135LED: 2700 Lumens Artisan Shiplap SidingDryvit Fleetwood CharcoalWoodFountainRailingWall Luminaire Bega 33-344LED: 2700 Lumens V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e M a i n D e c k p 2 View Perspective - Main DeckEastFountain I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e G u e s t D e c k p 3 View Perspective - Guest Deck I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E East S o u t h e a s t Southwest W e s t V i e w P e r s p e c t i v e S p a p 4 View Perspective - Spa I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E EastSoutheast S o u t h w e s t W e s t 4 " p l u m , t b r . ( e ) 3 6 " r e d w o o d S58°36'00"W - 160.00' j o i n t p o l e N23 ° 5 7 ' 1 6 " E - 1 9 6 . 5 5 ' N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W - 1 7 0 . 0 0 ' H I L L A R Y D R I V E ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 2 . 2 f f ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k ( e ) w o o d f e n c e ( e ) w i r e f e n c e 6 " o a k 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6 " o a k 7 " o a k (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum ( 4 ) 7 " p l u m 5 " p l u m 4 " o a k ( 4 ) 7 " o a k 9 " o a k 6 " o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . ( e ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 w o o d r e t . w a l l , t b r . c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) w a t e r m e t e r 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 R E S I D E N C E M a i n L e v e l 1 0 1 . 0 F . F . ( e ) r e s i d e n c e , t b r . ( n ) c o n c r e t e r o l l c u r b & g u t t e r ( e ) g u y w i r e e a s e m e n t 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 15'-0" setback 8'-0"setback 25'-0" setback 9 1 . 9 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p h o t t u b w a t e r f e a t u r e 1 2 1 . 0 1 1 7 . 0 1 1 3 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 1 0 9 . 0 ( n ) l a w n 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 4 . 5 ( e ) e l e c t r i c m e t e r , t o b e r e l o c a t e d s y n t h e t i c t u r f 1 0 1 . 5 L = 5 6 . 2 7 ' ; R = 9 3 0 . 0 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 1 . 0 w o o d d e c k 1 0 1 . 0 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 G A R A G E ( b e l o w ) 9 1 . 0 F . F . T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 c o n d e n s i n g u n i t o / c o n c r e t e p a d u p S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n b / 3 S i t e S e c t i o n a / 3 Site Section a / 3 ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k 22'-0" c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( n ) p l a n t e r , t y p . u p u p u p u p s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 2 5 . 0 c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w l i n e o f b u i l d i n g w a l l l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g 1 8 ' - 6 " 8 ' - 6 " concrete stairs& landing, typ. T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 6 ' - 0 " 5'-0" typ. 1 6 ' - 1 " 1 9 ' - 2 " 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 concrete retainingwall, typ. ( e ) w o o d f e n c e , t b r . ( e ) b l d g 3 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 c o n c r e t e e n t r y w a l k w a y c o n c r e t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence m e m b r a n e r o o f s k y l i g h t , t i n t e d / n o l i g h t s , t y p . N 3 1 ° 2 4 ' 0 0 " W 2 . 0 2 ' 2 - # 2 2 ( e ) f e n c e , t b r . 2-#2s3 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f (e) wire fence ( e ) w i r e f e n c e ( e ) w o o d s t e p s , t b r . ( n ) w o o d s t e p s t o h o t t u b ( n ) c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s o n r o o f ( n ) d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . s u r f a c e m o u n t p a t h l i g h t s , t y p . 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 5'-0" 2 - # 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 9 2 - # 2 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 1 2 2 - # 2 2 2 3 ' - 0 " 2 - # 1 2 T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line ( n ) 6 0 " x 8 4 " h o t t u b b y M a r q u i s , " T h e N a s h v i l l e " 1 8 1 9 h a n d r a i l s a n d g u a r d r a i l s a s r e q u i r e d . 9 2 . 5 9 4 . 5 9 6 . 5 9 4 . 5 2 - # 3 2 6 7 8 1 3 1 5 1 6 1 7 2 0 S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n li n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s P r o p o s e d G r o s s F l o o r A r e a : 3 , 4 5 6 s f C u t / F i l l Q u a n t i t i e s : C u t : 3 4 0 C Y F i l l : 5 1 C Y O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y N o t e : B a s e d o n a s u r v e y p r e p a r e d b y D y l a n G o n s a l v e s , D M G E n g i n e e r i n g . L i c e n s e d S u r v e y o r # 8 4 7 5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation System3,539 sf Gross Area x 2 watts/sf :7,078 /100 : 7 KW required1 KW per 100 sf700 sf : 7 KW provided Story Pole Schedule#elevationgrade98.098.013.5'21.5'1101.02345101.0111.5111.5121.5 91.0100.0 98.0 10.0'height3.0'13.5'151716111.5121.5 106.017.5'104.0 5.5'6121.520.5'101.07121.520.5'101.0121.519.5'8103.0910121.5121.5 19.5'102.0101.020.5'121.5121.5 101.014121.5101.020.5'111213121.5101.0101.0 20.5'20.5'20.5'19 18121.5121.5 20.5'101.0 23.5'98.0 121.517.5'104.0101.020111.510.5'CAE DFG IBDDDFHA Driveway: 830 sfB Residence: 1,591 sfC Terrace/Garage:1,284 sfD Upper Floor Cantilever: 30 + 42 + 46 + 39 = 157 sfE Upper Floor Main Deck: 224 sfF Upper Floor Guest/Bedroom Decks: 90 + 52 = 142 sfG Roof Overhang Entry Porch: 24 sfH Roof Over 4'-0": 325 sf I Landing to Spa: 10 sfTotal: 4,587 sf /18,388 sf = 24.94%"X""Y"(heel)eq.min.8""t"eq."T"SLAB T.O."H""A" bar cont. see sched.#4@18"o.c. horiz. barslab on grade, see plan waterproofing(miradrain/equal)3/4" drainrock rigid perf.pipe (in filter fabric)"C" bars cont. @top & bott.see sched."B" bars cont.@ top & bott.see schedule slope heal 14":12"#5Ø dowel @ 9" o/c Retaining Wall Schedule "A" #5@12"#4@12"6'-8"5'-8"4' TO 6'0' TO 4'"H""X"1'-8"12""T"1'-8""Y"12""C" #4@12"#5@12""B" 10""t"8"#5@12"#4@12"#6@12"6'-10"6' TO 10'1'-8"12"#5@12"10"#6@12"No.1233'-6"2" x 2" metal posts@ 6'-0" o/c1 12" x 34" metal rails@<4" o/c, typ.2" x 1" @ top/bottom Handrail and Guardrail Requirements:1. The top of handrails shall not be less than 3 4 i n c h e s nor more than 38 inches above the nosin g o f t h e t r e a d . Ends shall be returned to the wall.2. Stairway: minimum tread 11", maximum r i s e 7 " , maximum variation 3/8".3. Handrail (circular) graspability shall not be l e s s t h a n 1 1/4 inches nor more than 2 inches in cro s s s e c t i o n a l dimension. Handrail height shall not be le s s t h a n 3 4 " nor more than 38". Handrails shall return s m o o t h l y t o wall.4. Guardrail to be a minimum height of 42" a l o n g open-sided walking surfaces, mezzanine s , p l a t f o r m s , stairways, ramps and landings located 3 0 " a b o v e f l o o r or grade below. Openings between rails s h a l l b e l e s s than 4 inches. Support posts shall compl y w i t h minimum load required by Section 1607. 7 C B C 200 lb. minimum applied in any direction a l o n g a n y point. I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 2 S i t e P l a n / A r e a D i a g r a m & D e t a i l s a s n o t e d S i t e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1/Guardrail2/Retaining Wall Lot Coverage Diagram Story Pole ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6"oak 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6"oak7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5"plum4"oak(4)7"oak 9"oa k 6"oak4"oak 6 " o a k 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 100 130120110 ( e ) s t o r m d r a i n 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 . 5 9 0 . 0 9 0 T W 1 1 3 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 T W 1 2 0 . 5 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 2 5 . 5 T W 1 3 1 . 0 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 0 4 . 5 T W 1 1 4 . 5 TW 104.5 d s d s d s d s d s d s d s d s ( n ) d r a i n a g e l i n e ( n ) 4 " S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h , t y p . (n) 4 " P V C p e r f o r a t e d d r a i n l i n e 2 l a t e r a l , t y p . j o i n t p o l e 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 5 ( e ) B U I L D I N G 5'-0" T W 1 1 3 . 0 5'-0"(e) BUILDING 5' wide drainage easementboth sides of property line(n ) 4 " Ø S D R 3 5 t i g h t l i n e t o ( n ) d i s p e r s i o n t r e n c h disp e r s i o n t r e n c h , 6 " p e r f o r a t e d p i p e i n 12"x12 " w / d r a i n r o c k i n fil t e r f a b r i c , t y p i c a l 2 / g d 1 dispersion trench,12"x12" w/drain rock infilter fabric, typical2/gd1 S I T E N O T E S : P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n 1 . V e r i f y p r o p e r t y l i n e s a n d c o r n e r s , s e t b a c k s , e a s e m e n t s 2 . I d e n t i f y e x c a v a t i o n d a n g e r p o i n t s i n c l u d i n g u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a n d d r a i n a g e 3 . N o t i f y a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o f i m p e n d i n g s i t e w o r k 4 . S c h e d u l e p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n m e e t i n g w i t h c o n c e r n e d p a r t i e s t o r e v i e w s i t e w o r k p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 5 . C o n t r a c t o r t o p r o v i d e s i t e w o r k c o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e S i t e P r e p a r a t i o n , C l e a r i n g , P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n 1 . I d e n t i f y e x i t i n g s h r u b s a n d t r e e s t o r e m a i n , t o b e r e l o c a t e d , o r r e m o v e d 2 . I d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g p l a n t s t o b e p r o t e c t e d D e m o l i t i o n 1 . P r e p a r e o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n a n d t i m e l i n e f o r d e m o l i t i o n t o b e c o m p l e t e d 2 . I d e n t i f y a l l u t i l i t i e s t o b e p r o t e c t e d a n d c u t o f f 3 . P r o t e c t a l l p u b l i c a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y G r a d i n g a n d E x c a v a t i o n 1 . P r o t e c t u n d e r g r o u n d a n d o v e r h e a d u t i l i t y l i n e s , p i p e , c a b l e , a n d c o n d u i t s f r o m d a m a g e 2 . I d e n t i f y , m a r k , a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g s e w e r a n d d r a i n l i n e s f r o m d a m a g e 3 . P r o v i d e b a r r i e r s a n d c o v e r s n e c e s s a r y f o r s a f e t y a n d t o p r o t e c t r e m a i n i n g w o r k 4 . P r o v i d e s h o r i n g a n d b r a c i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y s i t e c o n d i t i o n s 5 . V e r i f y l o c a t i o n s t o p r e s e r v e a n d s t o r e t o p s o i l 6 . F o u n d a t i o n a n d f o o t i n g t r e n c h e s t o b e u n i f o r m i n w i d t h a n d d i r e c t i o n 7 . E x c a v a t i o n s t o b e c l e a n e d o f d e b r i s a n d l o o s e d i r t a n d k e p t c l e a n b e f o r e c o n c r e t e i s p o u r e d 8 . R e m o v e d i r t , r o c k , o r o t h e r d e b r i s t h a t s p i l l o n t o p a v i n g o r p l a n t i n g a r e a s 9 . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y d r a i n a g e t o p r e v e n t p o n d i n g , e r o s i o n , o r s p i l l o v e r 1 0 . I n s p e c t f o u n d a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s b e f o r e p o u r s f o r a d h e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d d r a w i n g s S u b s u r f a c e a n d S u r f a c e D r a i n a g e 1 . L o c a t e a n d i d e n t i f y e x i t i n g d r a i n l i n e l o c a t i o n s a n d t i e - i n s b e f o r e t r e n c h i n g 2 . I n s u r e t r e n c h e l e v a t i o n s a n d s l o p e s a r e a m p l e f o r f i n a l d r a i n s t o m e e t s p e c i f i e d s l o p e s 3 . T e s t p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s a n d j o i n t s b e f o r e b a c k f i l l i n g 4 . P r o v i d e d r a i n a g e f o r r o o f w a t e r a n d s u r f a c e r u n o f f 5 . I d e n t i f y w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d b y p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t o r s a n d l o c a l u t i l i t y c o m p a n i e s U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s S e w e r : 1 . I n s t a l l a n d p r o p e r l y s l o p e d s e w e r p i p e a s s p e c i f i e d 2 . P l a c e a n d c a p s e w e r c l e a n o u t s i n a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s W a t e r : 3 . P r o v i d e t i e s , a n c h o r s , a n d t h r u s t b l o c k s a t t u r n s , c l o s e d e n d s , a n d a t l a r g e o u t l e t s t o p r e v e n t p i p e m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e m o m e n t u m o f w a t e r f l o w N a t u r a l G a s : 4 . G a s l i n e t r e n c h e s a r e n o t t o b e s u b j e c t t o t r a f f i c b y h e a v y e q u i p m e n t 5 . E x c a v a t i o n a n d p r e s s u r e t e s t s a r e g i v e n f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P G & E r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o d e s E a r t h w o r k 1 . B a c k f i l l a n d c o m p a c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n f o r c o m p l e t e , c o n s i s t e n t w o r k 2 . H o l e s f r o m r o o t s t u m p r e m o v a l p i t s t o b e f i l l e d a n d c o m p a c t e d 3 . T e r m i t e a n d o t h e r s o i l s p r o t e c t i o n t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o b a c k f i l l 4 . C o m p a c t a l l f i l l i n 6 " - 1 2 " i n c r e m e n t s 5 . W a t e r p r o o f f o u n d a t i o n w a l l s t h o r o u g h l y b e f o r e b a c k f i l l 6 . B a c k f i l l i n g c a n n o t d a m a g e w a t e r p r o o f i n g i n a n y w a y 7 . C o r r e c t l y r e p l a c e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s , m o n u m e n t s , a n d s t a k e s i f m o v e d o r d a m a g e d d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n , b a c k f i l l i n g , a n d g r a d i n g 8 . S l o p e g r a d e 2 % t o 1 0 ' - 0 " m i n i m u m f r o m f o u n d a t i o n . N o w a t e r s h a l l f l o w o n n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s E r o s i o n C o n t r o l 1 . R e f e r t o s h e e t E C N f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s drain rock to extend 12"min. beyond "T" dissipaterin all directions4"Ø SDR35 PER PLAN I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E g d 1 G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " G r a d i n g a n d D r a i n a g e P l a n t w 1 0 0 . 0 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 1 0 1 . 5 b w 9 8 . 0 t w 9 6 . 0 b w 9 2 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 0 . 0 t w 9 4 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 t w 9 2 . 0 b w 9 1 . 0 1a/Typical Fiber Roll Installation 1b/Fiber Roll Entrenchment Detail A r e a o f c u t : 3 4 0 C Y A r e a o f f i l l : 5 1 C Y A m o u n t o f O f f h a u l : 2 8 9 C Y G r a d i n g A m o u n t s : 2/Dispersion Trench P/L P / L m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 19'-7" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 29'-6" @ entry 12'-7" 25'-0"required setback 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 74'-1"proposed setback l a n d i n g t o p o f e n t r y l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1'-6" m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' e n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' t o p o f m a i n l e v e l p l a t e f f 1 1 0 . 5 ' ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 23'-0" 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . 9'-6"top of plate 120.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5' P / L 8'-0"9'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5'entry level ff 92.0' 30'-0" maximum height 30'-0" maximum height envelopeP/L 8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 23'-0"proposed setback 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k top of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 9 ' - 6 " top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2'(e) BUILDING102.2 ff r o o f r i d g e h t . @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 3 S i t e S e c t i o n 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' - 0 " B / S i t e S e c t i o n A / S i t e S e c t i o n l i n e o f r o o f o v e r h a n g p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s p h o t o v o l t a i c p a n e l s 4 ' - 0 x 4 ' - 0 " s k y l i g h t , t y p . 3 w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k l i n e o f r o o f a t e n t r y line of w a l l a t u p p e r l e v e l 3 ' - 0 " o v e r h a n g u . n . o . 5'-0" 5 ' - 0 " 5'-0" l i n e o f g a r a g e a t e n t r y l e v e l ( d o t t e d ) m e m b r a n e r o o f m e m b r a n e r o o f 3 2 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 9 18 1 9 6 7 8 1 3 15 1 6 1 7 wood deck2'-6 x2'-6"skylight, typ. 2 2 0 P h o t o v o l t a i c E n e r g y G e n e r a t i o n S y s t e m 3 , 5 3 9 s f G r o s s A r e a x 2 w a t t s / s f : 7 , 0 7 8 / 1 0 0 : 7 K W r e q u i r e d 1 K W p e r 1 0 0 s f 7 0 0 s f : 7 K W p r o v i d e d S t o r y P o l e S c h e d u l e # e l e v a t i o n g r a d e 9 8 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 3 . 5 ' 2 1 . 5 ' 1 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 4 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 1 1 . 5 1 1 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 9 8 . 0 1 0 . 0 ' h e i g h t 3 . 0 ' 1 3 . 5 ' 1 5 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 6 . 0 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 5 . 5 ' 6 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 7 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 9 . 5 ' 8 1 0 3 . 0 9 1 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 9 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 4 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 . 5 1 0 1 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 2 0 . 5 ' 1 9 1 8 1 2 1 . 5 1 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 5 ' 1 0 1 . 0 2 3 . 5 ' 9 8 . 0 1 2 1 . 5 1 7 . 5 ' 1 0 4 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 2 0 1 1 1 . 5 1 0 . 5 ' A A R o o f O v e r h a n g ( o v e r 5 ' - 0 " ) : 3 2 5 s f I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 R o o f P l a n 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Roof Pla n F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E S h a d e S t u d y n t s s s 1 ( 2 ) 4 " t r e e 6 " t r e e 7 " t r e e ( 2 ) 7 " t r e e 5 " o a k 6"oak 9 " o a k 7 " o a k 6 " o a k 6" o a k 7"oak (2)5"plum5"plum(4)5"plum (2)6"plum(4)7"plum 5"plum4"oak(4)7"oak 9 " o a k 6" o a k 4 " o a k 6 " o a k ( e ) ( 3 ) 9 " o a k + 1 5 ' (e) 7" o a k +12' ( e ) 1 2 " p i n e + 2 0 ' 1 4 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 130120110 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 2 9 4 9 6 9 8 9 0 C D 4 5 S C 4 1 F P 4 1 U C 8 1 5 E F 2 5 S C 2 1 L D 3 1 F P 1 1 E F 1 5 E F 1 5 C D 2 5 F P 2 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 Y W 1 1 L D 3 1 L D 1 1 L D 2 1 S C 3 1 S C 1 1 S C 1 1 L D 6 1 F P 1 1 F P 1 1 P I s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f ( n ) l a w n ( e ) l a w n s c o r e d c o n c r e t e p a t i o s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g w o o d d e c k s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g s c o r e d c o n c r e t e l a n d i n g ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) n a t i v e g r a s s e s ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' w o o d d e c k w o o d d e c k limits of (n) fence 1 L 1 1 2 Y W 1 1 F P 2 1 UC1315(e) BUILDING102.2 ff ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f E F 1 5 T r e e P r o t e c t i o n a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n N o t e s 1 . B e f o r e t h e s t a r t o f a n y c l e a r i n g , e x c a v a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , o r o t h e r w o r k o n t h e s i t e , o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , e v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s h a l l b e s e c u r e l y f e n c e d - o f f a t t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e , o r o t h e r l i m i t a s m a y b e d e l i n e a t e d i n t h e r e q u i r e d t r e e p r o t e c t i o n p l a n . S u c h f e n c e s s h a l l r e m a i n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n p l a c e f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e w o r k u n d e r t a k e n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . 2 . I f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g a n y s i t e w o r k , w i l l e n c r o a c h u p o n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , s p e c i a l m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e u t i l i z e d , a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t , t o a l l o w t h e r o o t s t o o b t a i n n e c e s s a r y o x y g e n , w a t e r , a n d n u t r i e n t s . 3 . U n d e r g r o u n d t r e n c h i n g s h a l l a v o i d t h e m a j o r s u p p o r t a n d a b s o r b i n g t r e e r o o t s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . I f a v o i d a n c e i s i m p r a c t i c a l , h a n d e x c a v a t i o n u n d e r t a k e n u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t i s r e q u i r e d . T r e n c h e s s h a l l b e c o n s o l i d a t e d t o s e r v i c e a s m a n y u n i t s a s p o s s i b l e . 4 . C o n c r e t e o r a s p h a l t p a v i n g s h a l l n o t b e p l a c e d o v e r t h e r o o t z o n e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p e r m i t t e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t . 5 . A r t i f i c i a l i r r i g a t i o n s h a l l n o t o c c u r w i t h i n t h e r o o t z o n e o f o a k s , u n l e s s d e e m e d a p p r o p r i a t e o n a t e m p o r a r y b a s i s b y t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t t o i m p r o v e t r e e v i g o r o r m i t i g a t e r o o t l o s s . 6 . C o m p a c t i o n o f t h e s o i l w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e a v o i d e d . 7 . A n y e x c a v a t i o n , c u t t i n g , o r f i l l i n g o f t h e e x i s t i n g g r o u n d s u r f a c e w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e s h a l l b e m i n i m i z e d a n d s u b j e c t t o s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e p r o j e c t a r b o r i s t m a y i m p o s e . R e t a i n i n g w a l l s s h a l l l i k e w i s e b e d e s i g n e d , s i t e d , a n d c o n s t r u c t e d s o a s t o m i n i m i z e t h e i r i m p a c t o n s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e s . 8 . O i l , g a s , c h e m i c a l s , o r o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s t h a t m a y b e h a r m f u l t o t r e e s s h a l l n o t b e s t o r e d o r d u m p e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a n y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e , o r a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n o n t h e s i t e f r o m w h i c h s u c h s u b s t a n c e s m i g h t e n t e r t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 9 . I n n o c a s e s h a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s o r d e b r i s b e s t o r e d w i t h i n t h e n o n - i n t r u s i o n z o n e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d / o r p r o t e c t e d t r e e . 1 0 . S i l t f e n c i n g o r s o i l d i k e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o a n y s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n o r c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e p r o j e c t t o p r e v e n t t h e b u i l d u p o f s e d i m e n t w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 1 . I n a r e a s w h e r e c u t s a r e t o b e m a d e f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f u t i l i t i e s o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s a d j a c e n t t o t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a , t h e a f f e c t e d t r e e s s h a l l b e r o o t p r u n e d p r i o r t o e x c a v a t i o n . R o o t p r u n i n g s h a l l b e d o n e w i t h a s a w o r s i m i l a r t o o l t h a t w i l l m i n i m i z e d a m a g e t o r e m a i n i n g r o o t s . 1 2 . V e h i c u l a r s t o r a g e , e q u i p m e n t s t o r a g e , m a t e r i a l s t o r a g e , w a s h o u t a c t i v i t i e s , t r e n c h i n g , p l a c e m e n t o f f i l l m a t e r i a l , r e m o v a l o f s o i l , o r a n y o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s t h a t m a y b e d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e h e a l t h o f t h e t r e e a r e s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d w i t h i n t h e t r e e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a . 1 3 . P r u n i n g t o p r o v i d e c l e a r a n c e f o r s t r u c t u r e s , v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d b y a l i c e n s e d a r b o r i s t a n d s h a l l c o n f o r m t o A N S I t r e e p r u n i n g s t a n d a r d s . I R R I G A T I O N S P E C I F I C A T I O N S : 1 . I r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s h a l l b e c o m p r i s e d o f a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d v a l v e s . T h e s y s t e m w i l l b e d r i p i r r i g a t i o n . T h e s o u r c e o f w a t e r w i l l b e M M W D w a t e r . 2 . A l l p i p i n g s h a l l b e S C H 4 0 P V C a n d b u r i e d a t a d e p t h o f 1 2 " . 3 . T h e o n e ( 1 ) I r r i g a t i o n Z o n e i s t o b e s u p p l i e d b y M M W D w a t e r . M U L C H I N G S P E C I F I C A T I O N S 1 . A l l l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s t o b e m u l c h e d w i t h f i r e r e s i s t a n t , i n o r g a n i c , n o n - c o m b u s t i b l e m u l c h e s s u c h a s s t o n e o r g r a v e l . 2 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s t o b e c l e a r e d a n d g r u b b e d o f w e e d s , r o c k s , a n d d e b r i s . T h e s e i t e m s s h a l l b e r e m o v e d f r o m s i t e p r i o r t o p l a n t i n g . 3 . A l l p l a n t i n g a r e a s s h a l l r e c e i v e a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f w e e d p r e - e m e r g e n c e p r i o r t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f b a r k m u l c h . N o t e : P r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e l a n d s c a p e p l a n a n d i r r i g a t i o n p l a n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l b y M a r i n M u n i c i p a l W a t e r D i s t r i c t . T h i s p r o j e c t r e q u i r e s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h M M W D , W a t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n O r d i n a n c e # 4 3 0 . A Vegetation Management Plan designedin accordance with Tiburon Fire ProtectionDistrict is required. A separate deferredpermit shall be required for this plansubmitted directly to the Fire Departmentfor review.Narrative1. There are currently small coast live oaks, a 36" Øredwood, a 12"Ø pine and a few othermiscellaneous native shrub species throughout theproperty. The intent is to properly maintain theexisting trees.Long Term Maintenance Schedule / Goals3. All weeds and grasses shall be cut regularly.Mowers, saws and yard maintenance equipmentshall be equipped with spark arrestors. Areas to bemowed shall be checked for rocks or metal to avoidsparking of mower blades.4. Vegetation shall be trimmed to within 10'-0” ofroadways as required for defensible areas. Treesshall be trimmed so as to not hang lowerthan 15'-0” above the roadway.5. Dead and dying vegetation shall be seasonallyremoved to reduce vegetation and ladder fuels.6. Coordinate with adjacent property owners tomaintain tree canopies, vegetation and ladder fuelson an annual basis.7. Re-seed disturbed areas with non-pyrophiticgroundcover. No native grasses will be plantedwithin the defensible zone.Vegetation Management Plan:symbolxxquantitycontainerplant Landscape Key:LDEFCD SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPLANTTYPEFrench Lavender3'-0'Echium FastuosumPride of MaderaCeanothus QTY.SIZEMATUREHEIGHTMATUREWIDTH15561 gal5 gal SHRUBS 687 Hillary Drive Plant Listevergreenevergreen21Lavandula DentataPratia Isotoma GROUND COVERPI 3'-0'6'-0'6'-0'Dark Starevergreen6'-0'6'-0'5 galUC15 galUmbellularia Californicaevergreen12'-0'10'-0'YWYucca Whipplei611evergreen2'-0'2'-0'1 galSC1 galSalvia Clevelandiievergreen4'-0'4'-0'7FP1 galFicus PumilaevergreenCreeping FigBlue Star Creeperevergreen 1 Gal @ 3'-0" o.c.California LaurelNote:Prior to installation, the landscape plan and irrigation plan issubject to review and approval by Marin Municipal WaterDistrict.1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.2X8 bottom 2X6 topvaries6'-0" maxmin. embed 2'-0"1x6 cedar4X4 posts @ 6'-0" o.c.varies6'-0" max2X8 bottom 2X6 topmin. embed 2'-0"Aspect E: SW : 5Slope : 31% : 8Fuel Type (0-30 ft) : 3 (grasses)Fuel Type (31-100 ft) : 2 (mostly brush)Total Hazard Points : 18 Minimum Horizontal Clearance in Feet:50'x50'x100'Hazard Assessment I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E L 1 L a n d s c a p e P l a n 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " Landsca p e P l a n 50' x 50' x 100'Defensible Zone 5 0 ' x 5 0 ' x 1 0 0 ' D e f e n s i b l e Z o n e 1/Fence Detail1/2" = 1'-0" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E E r o s i o n C o n t r o l & S t o r m W a t e r P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n N o t e s e c n K I T C H E N B R K F S T L I V I N G G A R A G E E N T R Y B A T H D I N I N G B D R M 1 B D R M 2 M S T R B D R M M B T H I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g R o o f P l a n e 1 E x i s t i n g F l o o r / R o o f P l a n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g F l o o r P l a n I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E 1 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n e 2 E x i s t i n g E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h w e s t E l e v a t i o n 3 / E x i s t i n g N o r t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n 4 / E x i s t i n g S o u t h e a s t E l e v a t i o n 2 1 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 9'-0"10'-6" e n t r y 9 2 . 0 g a r a g e ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 5 m e c h a n i c a l ( c o n c r e t e ) 9 6 . 0 9 1 . 5 9 1 . 0 9 0 . 5 p l a n t e r p l a n t e r planter p l a n t e r p l a n t e r A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 3 2 0 A m a i n p a n e l 4 5 ' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2 3 ' - 6 " 4 5 ' - 0 " 10'-0"29'-6" 10'-0"11'-8"29'-6" 10'-0"12'-9"5'-7" 4 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 6 " 9 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 5 " 3'-6"5'-0" 5 0 ' - 0 " planter planter planter planter d r i v e w a y ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) p o r c h ( s c o r e d c o n c r e t e ) 9 1 . 9 5 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" planter concreteretainingwall, typ. l i n e o f r e s i d e n c e a b o v e 2 - 9 ' x 1 8 ' s p a c e s m e c h . a c c e s s d o o r s line of entryroof above 2 ' - 0 " 1 2 " ( n ) 4 ' - 0 " w i d e s i d e w a l k planter recessed e x t e r i o r LED fixtur e , t y p . w a l l m o u n t L E D d o w n l i g h t , t y p . u p F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : N o t e : 1 . R e f e r t o M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n f o r r e f l e c t e d c e i l i n g l a y o u t s . 2 . R e f e r t o E l e v a t i o n s f o r w i n d o w t y p e s . 3 . R e f e r t o S c h e d u l e S h e e t f o r d o o r , w i n d o w , a n d f i n i s h s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 4 . A l l e x t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 6 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c , u n l e s s n o t e d . I n t e r i o r w a l l s t o b e 2 x 4 D . F . f r a m i n g @ 1 6 " o / c u n l e s s n o t e d . 5 . A l l w a l l s t o b e d i m e n s i o n e d t o f a c e o f s t u d o r o u t s i d e f a c e o f c o n c r e t e . 6 . 5 / 8 " G y p s u m B o a r d t h r o u g h o u t , t y p i c a l . U s e 5 / 8 " T y p e " X " t a p e d G y p s u m B o a r d a t a l l w a l l s a n d c e i l i n g i n G a r a g e f o r o n e - h o u r f i r e r a t i n g . T e x t u r e t o b e L e v e l 4 S m o o t h W a l l . 7 . V e r i f y h o s e b i b b r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d l o c a t i o n s w i t h O w n e r a n d p r i o r t o p l u m b i n g l a y o u t . 8 . S i n k s u s e d f o r s o a k i n g , w a s h i n g , o r p r e p a r i n g o f f o o d s h a l l b e d r a i n e d b y m e a n s o f i n d i r e c t w a s t e o r v e n t p i p e a n d a l l w a s t e s d r a i n i n g b y t h e m s h a l l d i s c h a r g e i n t o a i r g a p . 9 . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y s e l e c t i o n o f a l l p l u m b i n g f i x t u r e s w i t h O w n e r . C o n t r a c t o r t o v e r i f y l o a d r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . 1 0 . V e r i f y m o u n t i n g h e i g h t s f o r a l l c e i l i n g a n d w a l l - m o u n t e d l i g h t f i x t u r e s . 1 1 . M i n i m u m c l e a r w i d t h o f e x i t i n g d o o r s s h a l l b e 3 2 " W . m i n i m u m a n d 8 0 " H . m i n i m u m . 1 2 . C e r a m i c t i l e @ s h o w e r a n d t u b n o l e s s t h a n 7 2 " a b o v e d r a i n i n l e t E n e r g y F e a t u r e s 1 . C e i l i n g , w a l l , a n d f l o o r i n s u l a t i o n a s s p e c i f i e d o n a p p r o v e d p l a n s . 2 . W e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g o f a l l w i n d o w s a n d e x t e r i o r d o o r s . 3 . C a u l k i n g o f s o l e p l a t e s , j o i n t s a r o u n d w i n d o w a n d d o o r f r a m e s , a n d p l u m b i n g a n d e l e c t r i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n s i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s , f l o o r s , a n d c e i l i n g . 4 . B a c k d r a f t d a m p e r s o n a l l e x h a u s t f a n s . 5 . A l l w i n d o w s t o b e L o w - E d o u b l e g l a z e d t h e r m o - i n s u l a t e d . S a n i t a r y N o t e P r i o r t o p e r m i t i s s u a n c e , p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r , o r e x c l u s i o n f r o m , t h e R o s s V a l l e y S a n i t a r y D i s t r i c t ( R V S D ) r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a v i d e o o f t h e e x i s t i n g s e w e r l a t e r a l . T h i s i s r e q u i r e d w h e r e a r e m o d e l h a s a v a l u e o f 7 5 , 0 0 0 o r g r e a t e r , o r t h e r e m o d e l c o m p r i s e s t h e a d d i t i o n o f a b a t h r o o m . A E n t r y L e v e l : 2 0 0 s f B G a r a g e : 6 6 7 s f - 6 0 0 ( n o t c o u n t e d ) = 6 7 s f B A I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 1 E n t r y / G a r a g e L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Entry/Garage Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m living 1 0 1 . 0 f f dining101.0 ff kitchen w a t e r f e a t u r e b a t h laundry/mudroom g u e s t s c o r e d c o n c r e t e 1 0 0 . 9 f f s y n t h e t i c a s t r o t u r f A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 B / a 6 5 1 ' - 0 " 27'-0" 6 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 55'-6"46'-0"9'-6" 55'-6" 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0"25'-6"10'-0" 4 8 ' - 6 " 5'-0" 2 3 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 0 " 7'-6" l i n e o f d e c k a b o v e t w o - w a y f i r e p l a c e line of overhangaboveline of entryroof below l i n e o f g a r a g e b e l o w w o o d d e c k o p e n t o b e l o w ddw r e f sink wsink d n u p dndn up u p 30'-0"8'-6"2'-6" ( e ) 3 6 " Ø r e d w o o d + 6 0 ' line of overhangabove l i n e o f o v e r h a n g a b o v e recessed exteriorLED fixture, typ.line of overhangabove p l a n t e r A A M a i n L e v e l : 1 , 7 0 8 s f F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 2 M a i n L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " Main Level F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m d n 1 5 ' - 0 " d e c k b a t h bedroom 1 b e d r o o m 3 w a r d r o b e m a s t e r b e d r o o m m a s t e r b a t h b e d r o o m 2 l i n e n h a l l 1 1 1 . 5 f f d e c k s k y l i g h t s o p e n t o b e l o w 11'-6" t u b shower A / a 6 A/a6 B / a 6 2'-0"3'-0"15'-0" 2'-6" 1 2 ' - 6 " 1 4 ' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 6 " 2'-0"53'-6"9'-6" 55'-6" 8 ' - 6 " 7'-6" 5 3 ' - 0 " 6'-0"20'-0"9'-6" 4 3 ' - 6 " 5 1 ' - 0 " 1 . 2 . 5'-0" f i r e p l a c e 6'-6"7'-0"4'-6"11'-6" l i n e n closet 1 1 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 6 " 4'-6" 2'-6" bathskylight s k y l i g h t 14'-0" c l o s e t line of wallbelow l i n e o f w a l l b e l o w deck s k y l i g h t 6 ' - 6 " r e c e s s e d e x t e r i o r L E D f i x t u r e , t y p . r e c e s s e d e x t e r i o r L E D f i x t u r e , t y p . limit ofoverhang A U p p e r L e v e l : 1 , 6 3 1 s f A F l o o r P l a n N o t e s : r e f e r t o S h e e t a 1 I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E a 3 U p p e r L e v e l 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " F l o o r A r e a D i a g r a m Upper Level garage ff 91.5'main level ff 101.0'upper level ff 111.5'entry level ff 92.0' P / L 8'-0"9'-6"9'-0"top of plate 120.5'roof 121.5'30'-0" maximum height envelope @ building beyond8'-0"setback required 9 3 1 2 1 1 6 7 1 5 1 0 8 6 8 7 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 5 ' f . g . natural grade 100.0' 3'-6" 6'-0" 3'-6" p l a n t e r , t y p . 2 2 " h i g h r e t a i n i n g w a l l , t y p . g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' 8 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k r e q u i r e d P/L(e) BUILDING102.2 ff ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e a t f a c e o f g a r a g e t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e @ b u i l d i n g b e y o n d (e) natural gradeat face of garage r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' 9 ' - 6 " 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yard ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 3 B H i l l a r y D r i v e t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' P / L 9'-6"9'-0" m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . 2 2 ' - 0 " s e t b a c k 9 8 . 5 ' f . g . 9 6 . 0 ' f . g . 100.0' f.g. 30'-0" @ garage overhang ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 30'-0" maximum height envelope r e t a i n i n g w a l l b e y o n d 9 2 . 0 ' f . g . 9 4 . 0 ' f . g . e n t r y f o y e r 9 2 . 0 ' f f t o p o f p v p a n e l s 1 2 3 . 0 ' 1'-6" 9 4 . 5 ' t w 9 2 . 0 ' t w 9 6 . 5 ' t w 1 2 ' h . s c r e e n i n g h e d g e 6 ' - 0 " h f e n c e 36 2498 111 Materials/ColorsRoof: Built-up membrane, Class ATrim, Fascia: Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Fiber Cement, Artisan Ship Lap, Benjamin Moore, "Overcoat"Siding: Benjamin Moore, "Buff"Siding: Dryvit Outsulation, "Buff"Concrete: Tinted, Warm Gray with Lugs at 24" on centerWindows: Fleetwood, "Charcoal"Skylight: Velux, tintedEntry Door: Wood, "Natural"Garage Door: Wood , "Natural"Entry Light: Bega, Wall sconce, "Charcoal"Metal Rail: Benjamin Moore, "Charcoal"Photovoltaic Panels: By Sharp or equal, Roof Mount 571012 3B I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E West a 4 South P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 10Material Board Entry Light2/33B/48/9 8/115 9'-6"9'-0" P/L u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' r o o f 1 2 1 . 5 ' 97.5' f.g. 7 4 ' - 1 " s e t b a c k 1 2 4 113 1 6 7 5 5 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . 101.0' f. g . 22'-0" line of gara g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' 23'-4"22'-0"setback 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e g a s f i r e p l a c e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e l a n d i n g 1 0 4 . 5 ' 30'-0" max. ht. envelope ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 6'-0" h fence 12'h. screening hedge ( e ) r e d w o o d t r e e 9'-6"9'-0" P/L m a i n l e v e l f f 1 0 1 . 0 ' u p p e r l e v e l f f 1 1 1 . 5 ' t o p o f p l a t e 1 2 0 . 5 ' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e 101.0' f.g. 1 0 4 . 0 ' f . g . 1 0 4 . 5 ' f . g . 20'-6" P / L (e) natural grade ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 18'-6"setback 3 5 ' - 6 ' s e t b a c k 12" I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 a r c h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E P r o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 5 E a s t North main level ff 101.0' 1 0 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) B U I L D I N G 1 0 0 . 0 f f 9 ' - 6 " 9'-6"upper level ff 111.5'top of plate 120.5'9'-0"8'-0"roof 121.5' k i t c h e n m a s t e r b a t h m e c h a n i c a l p a d f f 9 6 . 0 ' m a s t e r b e d r o o m g a r a g e 20'-6"9'-6" 100.0' n.g.garage ff 91.5' 30'-0" maximum height entry level ff 92.0'30'-0" maximum height envelope8'-0"required setback 8 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 1 8 ' - 6 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k 23'-0"proposed setbacktop of pv panels 123.0'top of main level plate ff 110.5' 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t e n v e l o p e P/L P / L ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e (e) BUILDING102.2 ff top of ridge 112.6'mail level ff 102.2' r o o f r i d g e h e i g h t @ u p p e r l e v e l 1 2 1 . 0 ' g a r a g e l e v e l f f 1 0 0 . 0 ' t o p o f r i d g e @ g a r a g e 1 1 1 . 6 ' 19'-0" @ front yard8'-0" @ rear yardtop of entry level plate ff 100.0'g a r a g e f f 9 1 . 5 ' upper level ff 111.5'top of pv panels 123.0' m a s t e r b e d r o o m l i v i n g 20'-0" 9 8 . 0 ' n . g . 9 1 . 5 f . g . 9 0 . 5 ' f . g . 9 1 . 9 ' f . g . 9 1 . 0 ' f . g . ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e ( e ) n a t u r a l g r a d e 3 0 ' - 0 " m a x . h e i g h t e n v e l o p 30'-0" maximum height envelope 30'-0" maximum height 13'-0" 1 5 ' - 0 " r e q u i r e d s e t b a c k 12" 2 2 ' - 0 " p r o p o s e d s e t b a c k landing 1'-6"main level ff 101.0'(e) natural gradee n t r y l e v e l f f 9 2 . 0 ' 23'-0"top of plate 120.5'roof 121.5'top of main level plate ff 110.5'104.5' f.g. 9 8 . 0 ' f . g . I s s u e D a t e 2 6 5 M a g n o l i a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 0 L a r k s p u r , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 9 3 9 4 1 5 - 9 2 7 - 9 5 0 0 arc h i t e c t s @ p a c i f i c d e s i g n g r o u p . c o m P a c i f i c D e s i g n G r o u p , I n c . T e r r e l l R e s i d e n c e 6 8 7 H i l a r y D r i v e T i b u r o n , C a l i f o r n i a A P # 0 5 5 - 0 2 1 - 0 8 A R C H I T E C T U R E B u i l d i n g S e c t i o n s 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " a 6 A/SectionB/Section TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Diversity Inclusion Task Force: Discussion of Filling Remaining Open Seat Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will discuss appropriate next steps for filling the remaining seat open on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Provide feedback about next steps on filling the Task Force seat. BACKGROUND The Diversity Inclusion Task Force was created by the Council in October 2020 and is made up of 5 members of the Town Council and 5 at-large members of the public. The Council appointed the 5 at-large members on February 3, 2021. Following the appointments, one of the appointed members informed staff she will be unable to accept the appointment (Exhibit 1), leaving one open seat remaining to be filled by the Council. ANALYSIS On February 3, 2021, the Council appointed Anh Sundstrom to serve on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force. She has informed staff she is regrettably unable to accept the appointment, leaving one seat left to be filled by the Council. Staff recommends the Council consider one of the following courses of action: 1. Consider the appointment based on the applicant pool from the first round of interviews. A list of all applicants, and the results of the Council’s previous deliberation when considering appointments, is attached as Exhibit 2. 2. Establish a smaller pool of applicants based on the existing pool and conduct second interviews of those applicants prior to appointment. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 Agenda Item: DI-2 Town Council Meeting March 17, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 3. Direct staff to notice a vacancy on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force, accept new applications for the position, and schedule interviews with the Council. Based on the Council’s direction, staff will take the necessary follow-up steps and return to the Council at a future meeting. The Council is not being asked to make the appointment today. 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 Council provide feedback on appropriate next steps for filling the Task Force seat. Exhibit(s): 1. Letter from Anh Sundstrom re: Diversity Inclusion Task Force 2. List of applicants and tally Sheet from February 3, 2021 Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk From:Anh Sundstrom To:Lea Stefani Subject:Diversity Task Force: Anh Sundstrom Date:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:42:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Lea, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. First of all I want to sincerely thank the Town Council for their confidence in my candidacy for this committee. I appreciate it so very much. My close friends and family know that I haven’t taken this decision lightly, but unfortunately I am unable to move forward with my appointment to the task force for personal reasons. I hope for this committee’s success and for progress to be made in our town, and will continue to participate as a member of this community. Best, Anh Sundstrom Fredericks Ryan Thier Welner Total Votes Result Erin Accurso X 1 Andrew Allen Hawi Awash X X 2 Pam Bonnie X 1 Kathleen Burke Karla Burkitbayeva X 1 Erin Burns X X 2 Karen Carrera X X 2 Phillip Ellsworth X 1 Lynn Feinerman Lorraine Gemigniani X 1 Noah Griffin X X X X 4 APPOINTED Anette Harris X X X X 4 APPOINTED Ruben Kalra X X 2 Olivia Kress X Uma Lerner X X 2 Sara Maurer Colin O’Brien Diane Raleigh X 1 Karen Rasmussen John Rodriguez Dan Schwager Carolyn Shadan Leela Stake X X X X 4 APPOINTED Anh Sundstrom X X X 3 APPOINTED Lalita Waterman ROUND 1 Fredericks Ryan Thier Welner Total Votes Result Hawi Awash Erin Burns X 1 Karen Carrera X X 2 Ruben Kalra X X X 3 APPOINTED Uma Lerner X X 2 ROUND 2