HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2014-11-28TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of November 24 - 28, 2014
Tiburon
1. Email — Pamela Dekema —Hurn by di Suvero to be Considered
2. Letter — Lynn S. West — Proposal to Accept "Hurn" Sculpture on Permanent
Loan
3. Email — Ellen Pesavento — "Huru Statue"
4. Letter — Marin Municipal Water District — Pipeline Replacement Project
5. Letter — Tiburon Fire Protection District — Christmas Tree Safety
Regulations
6. Yearly Recap Design Review Submittals — October 2014
7. Monthly Report — Design Review — October 2014
Agendas & Minutes
8. Minutes —Design Review Board —November 6, 2014
9. Action Minutes —Design Review Board— November 20, 2014
10. Agenda — Design Review Board — December 4, 2014
Regional
a) Notice of Public Hearing —Marin Co. Board of Supervisors — Marin County
Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
Agendas & Minutes
b) None
* Council Only
DIGEST /•
Peggy Curran
From: Pamela Dekema <pamela.dekema@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Peggy Curran
Cc: Rayna Bernard; Katie Burke; Jacki Dunn; Diane Green; Janan Huntsberry; Wendy Kahn;
Connie Kinvin; Pam Martori; Hilda Nogueiro-Burns; Carole Sheft; Dana Thor
Subject: Huru by di Suvero to be Considered
Dear Tiburon Town Council:
Thank you for agreeing to place a discussion of this matter on a future agenda. This will be a welcome
opportunity for members of our community to weigh in on the possibility of accepting this generous long-term
loan.
Again, thank you & wishing all a joyous & peaceful year-end season.
Sincerely,
Pamela Dekema
on behalf of Rayna Bernard, Katie Burke, Jacki Dunn, Diane Green, Janan Huntsberry, Wendy Kahn, Connie
Kirwin, Pam Martori, Hilda Nogueiro-Bums, Carole Sheft & Dana Thor
DIGEST a
RECEN D November 18, 2014
Dear Mayor Fredericks, Manager Curran, and Town Council memberf4OV 2 b 2014
Re: Proposal to Accept'Huru' Sculpture on Permanent Loan T�� OF.DBUR CE
As a 15 -year Tiburon resident whose home is situated with south -facing views of Blackie's Pasture,
McKegney Green, and the Knoll, I am writing to express my intense opposition to the prospect that the sculpture'Huru'
might end up marring the natural beauty of that setting. I support the initial conclusion of Manager Curran and the
Council that the work is simply too immense for Tiburon's parks, leading to the decision to reject the McKegney family's
offer of a permanent loan of the sculpture. Assuming this issue ends up in a public hearing process, I hope that you will
stick by your original convictions in making a final decision.
In my opinion, siting this sculpture at Blackie's — orjust south of the Knoll (as apparently suggested by the
director of SF MDMA) - would create an ugly eyesore in one of the loveliest common spaces and most serene focal
points along our town's shoreline. At 55 feet, it would protrude from the landscape like an ominous hulk from a bad
dystopian movie and min the harmony of these beloved settings. As with much of di Suvero's work exhibited in Crissy
Field, I experienced 'Hurn' as a jarring visual assault and would never want to come anywhere near it — which would
complicate my frequent use of the Old Rail Trail for running and walking. Try as I might to appreciate these works, I
cannot overcome the visceral sense of revulsion I feel when coming within sight of them. Based on discussions with
neighbors and friends in other parts of Tiburon, I can assure you that many others share this reaction — even if they are
too polite to say so in a letter or town meeting. While clearly not all Tiburon residents share this reaction, even if only a
sizable portion did, driving them away from a park occupied by'Hum' would be a great irony given George McKegney's
service as the first Chairman of the Parks and Open Space Commission — and reason enough to reject the work.
Predictably, some art professionals have advocated for acceptance of the piece, citing the sculptor's renown,
and others insist that it is "world-class art" that would draw visitors and publicity. However, what draws visitors to this
town is its stunning natural beauty, especially along the Old Rail Trail, and its unobstructed views. Visitors do not come
here looking for world-class art, especially not gigantic public sculpture that would blight the scenery that entices them.
We already have the world-class art of nature in our gorgeous surroundings, which 'Hurn' would detract from rather
than enhance. And even if this controversial sculpture did bring a few extra visitors each year, they could argue about
the work and leave — while residents would have to live with it day in and day out permanently. This town does not
need "Hurn" in order to be a world-class place to live, and one does not need to be an art expert who "understands"
this sculpture to have a valid opinion about displaying it in one of our public parks. Whatever the fame of the sculptor or
the artistic merits of the work, it simply does not rt the scale and aesthetic harmony of Tiburon.
If the issue of accepting this offer will be put through a formal public discussion process, I join others in asking
that story poles be erected to assess the visual impact at any location under serious consideration -- if necessary at the
proponents' expense. I also ask that Town officials make an effort to ensure input from those whose homes have direct
views of these locations. Finally, I ask that Town officials give particular weight to the opinions of those of us who
would be stuck looking at this monstrosity from our windows, yards, and decks every day for the rest of our lives as
Tiburon residents.
Respectfully yours,
Lynn S. West
40 Southridge Road West
DIGEST
Peggy Curran
From:
Ellen Pesavento <epesavento@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:20 PM
To:
Peggy Curran
Subject:
Statue
Please, don't bring the statue to our town .... thank you, Ellen Pesavento
Marin Municipal Water District Consumers
RECEIVED
NOV 2 5 2014
TO O=GnBURONICE
Re: Tiburon and Belvedere Pipeline Replacement Project
Dear Consumer:
DIGEST
i
220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169
w%mmarinwatecorg
November 24, 2014
File No. D14022
In mid-December, Maggiora & Ghiiotti will begin installation of a new pipeline in your area. The project is
necessary to ensure the integrity of the District's water distribution system and adequate flow for fire
protection. A map showing the areas of construction is enclosed for your information.
Your service may be interrupted for short periods during construction. The District will notify you 24 to 48
hours in advance of each shutdown by hanging a tag on your front gate or, if you do not have a gate, on
your front doorknob. If a medical condition exists which requires that you receive continuous water
service, please notify me at the number below as soon as possible.
During construction, please be aware of heavy equipment and construction personnel, and follow the
instructions of the contractor's flagmen and signs.. Also, reduce your travel speed to maintain safe
conditions within the construction zone. The Contractor's normal work hours are approximately 8:00 AM
to 5:00 PM. We expect work to be completed by April 9, 2015 assuming no unforeseen difficulties or
inclement weather.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. The Contractor will take all measures possible
to minimize inconveniences associated with construction operations, including excessive noise and
unnecessary traffic delays.
If you have any questions, please call me at (415) 945-1517.
V�truly rs,
Steve Suskind, P.E.
Senior Engineer
cc: Maggiora & Ghilotti
Town Of Tiburon
City of Belvedere
Tiburon Fire Protection District
PG&E
Mill Valley Refuse Service
recycled
recyclable W
RICHARD PE'EJem6erH1,F2014
Dear Merchant,
DIGEST6,
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
TELEPHONE (415) 435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205
RECEWED
f !Ov - 3 2014
TOWN AfiAAJAGERS OFFICc
TOWN OF n ..0
Regulations do not allow natural cut Christmas trees to be displayed in places of public
assembly, such as churches, restaurants, and hotel lobbies, unless the building is
protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Buildings that have a fire sprinkler
system installed are allowed to display a natural cut Christmas tree if the following
conditions are also met:
The support device shall be of adequate size to hold the tree securely in
place, be capable of containing a minimum of a two-day supply of water,
and the water must be maintained 2 inches above the fresh cut. The tree
shall be removed if it becomes dry and brittle.
2. The required width of any portion of a means of egress is not obstructed.
3. Candles and open flames shall not be used on or near a tree, within a
distance equal to the height of the tree.
4. Trees shall be kept away from heat vents, open flame, or other heat
producing devices a distance of the height of the tree or greater.
Artificial Christmas trees shall meet the flame propagation performance criteria of Title
19, Division 1. Meeting the flame propagation performance criteria of Title 19,
Division I shall be documented and certified by the manufacturer in an approved manner.
In addition, exits, exit lights, fire alarm equipment and fire extinguishers shall not be
blocked or concealed in whole or in part.
Thank you for your cooperation and best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.
Sincerely, /
Je sica Power
Fire Inspector
PROTECTING THE COMMUNITIES OF BELVEDEREAND TIBURON
3EST6
N
a
N
O
M
N
M
m
N
U
W
D
O
z
r
N
U
p
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
m
IL
W
O
r
N
O
N
N
N
W
r
N
D
N
2�
W
Q
W
,z
V
(n
W
W
z
r
r
N
O
N
0
�
U
Q
O
O
O
N
O
O
r
O
r
WN
LJ.
�
M
O
N
r
O
M
N
N
O
O
N�
L{.
Q
LU
Q
r
r
N
r
W
(D
O
CO
O
LO
N
ca
W
LL
r
M
r
M
N
N
r
O
co
Z
Q
r
N
r
r
V
r
O
N
W
F
W
LL
z
H
JJ
Q
p
'2
H
Q
z
E
W
z
N
y
HLU
w
w
W
H
N
W
V
¢
>
d
W
p
w
w
LL
W
LL
¢
y
N
J
w
a
Q
(q
r
pF
3EST6
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
11]om["1 IRAV1DIAA
MONTHLY REPORT
OCTOBER 2014
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS:
NUMBER SUBMITTED
2013
•
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
0
2
■
MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
1
2
•
MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
2
2
■
(not eligible for StaffReviem)
■
SIGN PERMITS
0
1
•
TREE PERMITS
3
7
•
VARIANCE REQUESTS
1
2
■
FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS
2
1
•
EXTENSION OF TIME
0
0
STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500
square feet. 13 5
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL
1 0
David and Charito Mittelman appeal from Design Review Board approval for construction of a fence at
515 Hilary Drive
REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary
DATE OF REPORT: November 17, 2014
DIGIMST
NHNUTES #16
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2014
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cousins.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Chong and Kricensky
Absent: Boardmember Emberson
Ex -Officio: Planning Manager Watrous
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous announced that the item for 9 Burrell Court was continued to the
December 4, 2014 Board meeting. He said that the previous night the Town Council heard the
appeal for the fence at 515 Hillary Drive and their decision was to shorten the length of the fence
from 68 feet to 62 feet. Other than this change, they left the fence as approved by the Design
Review Board.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 9 BURRELL COURT: File No. 21422; Firuze Hariri, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants
propose to construct a new second story and additions to the garage, entry and rear of the
house on the ground level, adding 1,734 square feet to the residence. The project would
extend to within 19 feet, 2 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot
minimum front yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. The project would also have a
maximum lot coverage of 22.1 %, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage
permitted in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-302-05. CONTINUED TO
DECEMBER 4, 2014
2. LING SUBDIVISION PROJECT: File No. 714096; Joe Ling, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for a landscaping and lighting plan for a three -lot subdivision. The
project would landscape the extension of the roadway for Stony Hill Road and install one
new pole -mounted street light. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-261-34.
The Town has approved a subdivision for a 5.6 -acre parcel located off Stony Hill Road into three
residential lots, each to be developed with a single family residence. The project is known as the
Ling Subdivision. Conditions of approval on the earlier Precise Development Plan and Tentative
Subdivision Map permits required that the Design Review Board review certain landscaping and
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
1116114
lighting elements of the project during the parcel map/subdivision improvement drawing phase
of the project.
Jim Catlin, architect representing the applicant, said that he read the staff report and
recommendations and was available to answer any questions.
There were no public comments
Boardmember Kricensky stated that the landscaping plan seemed reasonable and looked good.
He noted one concern from a neighbor about the maintenance and upkeep of the landscaping, but
he said that it is normally assumed that the landscape will be maintained. Planning Manager
Watrous said that most of the landscaping will be in common areas and the Precise Development
Plan requires that the HOA for the three homes is responsible for the maintenance.
Vice -Chair Tollini said that the plan struck a nice balance of maintaining the open space feel
while also adding screening. He said that the lighting was tasteful and he saw no need for
additional lights. He liked the selection of native trees.
Boardmember Chong agreed with Boardmember Kricensky's and Chair Tollini's comments that
the project was straightforward.
Chair Cousins asked why the street light was required. Planning Manager Watrous stated that
the street light was required by the Public Works Department as part of the Precise Development
Plan. Chair Cousins said that the plan included a good choice of plants.
ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the request for the Ling Subdivision Project
landscape and lighting plan, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0.
3. 2340 PARADISE DRIVE: File No. 714090; Julia Shumelda, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling.
The project would involve the expansion of an existing deck to the rear of the house and
adding windows. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-191-02.
The applicant is requesting design review approval for construction of additions to an existing
single-family dwelling on property located at 2340 Paradise Drive. The proposal includes
expanding the existing deck to the rear by 144 square feet (24' x 6') with a new glass railing and
modifying several windows on all sides of the existing home. The proposed deck would have a
height of ten feet (10'), which would be at the same height as the existing deck. The proposal
would result in no change to the existing floor area of 2,540 square feet. The proposal would
result in lot coverage of 1,772 square feet (26.6%), which is below the maximum 35% permitted
lot coverage in the R-2 zone.
This application was first submitted for staff -level design review. During the review of this
application, the neighboring property owners at 2350 Paradise Drive and 2336 Paradise Drive
raised objections to the design of the proposed additions. As a result, this application has been
referred to the Design Review Board.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
The public hearing was opened.
Julia Shumelda, owner, said that she has lived in the home for 9 years and had a lot of time to
think about the changes they would make and design updates because the home is 100 years old.
She said that they designed each component to be respectful of neighbors and to stay within the
guidelines of the DRB. She said that she reached out to 13 of her neighbors and received 9 letters
of support and the Dempseys at 2350 Paradise Drive were the only neighbors she did not meet
with. She said that she had hoped to sort out issues with neighbors directly, but the Dempseys
hired a lawyer she has also retained a lawyer to speak tonight.
Ms. Shumelda stated that most of the proposed work was interior and structural and they did not
request any variances. She said that their intention was to extend the current rear deck by 6 feet
and replace the wood railing with a glass railing. She stated that they would like to replace the
existing patio door in the dining room with a slightly larger patio door and add a second patio
door in the kitchen. She said that there was a lot of structural work required in the attic to restore
their storage space and make it code compliant and they intend to replace the south -facing attic
window with a triangular gable window in order to provide ventilation and passive cooling for
the whole house. On the east elevation on the main floor in the kitchen, she said that they plan to
remove the current bank of east -facing windows and replace them with two windows: one 4' x 8'
fixed window and one 3' x 5' operable window. She said that neither the current nor proposed
windows are oriented toward the Dempsey residence and the windows face a hedge, part of their
back yard, and their parking path. Ms. Shumelda expressed her appreciation for the number of
people who have supported her project and said that she was aware that some have taken issue
with some of the design components.
Brad Nelson, Ms. Shumelda's fiance, thanked the neighbors for writing letters in support of their
project. He responded to the three neighbors and one attorney who raised specific issues about
the project. In response to the Dempsey's concerns about the deck, he presented photos showing
the proposed deck extension as viewed from the Dempsey's home. He said that the photos
demonstrated that the story poles for the 6 foot deck extension with glass railings would not
intrude into the Dempsey's primary views, secondary views, or obscure landmarks in any way.
He said that the story poles are so far in the periphery of the Dempseys' view that he was
surprised this has been raised as an issue. Mr. Nelson stated that the Dempseys' attorney asserted
that the photos taken by staff were insufficient and he invited the DRB to visit and view the story
poles from a seated position on the second floor of the Dempsey home. Mr. Nelson stated that
they used the photos taken by staff as a neutral third party at what they believed to be appropriate
positions.
Mr. Nelson stated that their proposal would add a minor amount of visible window area for the
Dempseys and they believe the concerns about light and privacy were unfounded. He presented
another photo taken by staff which illustrates the current window and what the expanded window
would entail. He said that very little of the additional window area would be visible from the
Dempsey property. He stated that the current kitchen windows emanate the same amount of light
that would come from the new windows because they are oriented toward the hedge in their yard
and not toward the Dempseys' living space. He said that the expanded windows would not be
used to egress the home as neither the current nor proposed deck wrap around to the side of the
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
house where these windows are located. He felt that it was unreasonable for them to be limited
by the Dempsey's future plans for their own deck. He stated that the day after the staff report
was submitted, the Dempseys significantly trimmed a property line hedge and this was the first
time in the 6 years they have trimmed the hedge. He believed that trimming was intended to
accentuate a supposedly protected view, but he believed that all of the findings for the approval
of this project can still easily be made. He felt that it was in the best interest of both themselves
and the Dempseys to maintain the hedges, and a recent conversation about maintenance between
the owners has taken place.
Mr. Nelson also responded to the concerns of the Stevens, who are directly west of the property.
He said that that neighbor has a 540 square feet deck and has taken issue with the proposed 360
square foot deck extending 15 feet from the home. He stated that the deck extension would only
be visible from a small portion of the neighbors' deck when turning 90 degrees and away from
the existing views. He felt that this was not the type of scenario that the Hillside Design
Guidelines seek to protect.
Mr. Nelson responded to the uphill neighbors and clarified that their objection was a result of a
misunderstanding of the plans. He said that the attic has been and will be used only for storage
and would not be habitable space.
John Sharp, attorney representing Peter and Tracy Dempsey, said that he wanted to focus on
objective methods such as the design ordinance and hillside guidelines and evidence required to
support findings. He said that the views that have been discussed are important views to the
Dempseys. He said that he was aware of the photographs taken by staff and staff s opinions
regarding the lack of impact on these views. He said that the Hillside Design Guidelines
illustrations did not specifically fit the Demspeys' concerns and do not represent the impediment
to that view that would occur if this project is approved, as the Dempseys' living areas were
designed to enjoy views from a seated position.
Mr. Sharp said that the proposed windows would look directly onto the Dempsey's living room
and have an enormous impact on their quality of life, which was intended to be protected by the
Tiburon Municipal Code and Hillside Guidelines. He addressed the hedge trimming and said that
the hedges have been pruned on a schedule of 5 years and there was no attempt to manipulate
landscaping. He believed that it was not good planning or design to consider landscaping as a
solution to the magnitude of the impact of these windows. He invited the Board to consider the
purpose of a 4' x 8' window looking in the direction of the Dempsey's living room. He said that
they believe the impact of the windows and the deck extension fail to allow the findings to be
made that are necessary to approve the project and requested the application be denied.
Richard Woodhouse stated that this house is in his view from above and he supported the project
as presented.
Riley Hurd, attorney for the applicant, said that he also strongly believes in findings and
evidence and that evidence exists tonight in the form of photographic evidence, the staff report,
plans, and site visits. He noted Mr. Sharp's reference to goal 3, principal 7 of the Hillside Design
Guidelines, which states that "partial view blockage should be avoided wherever possible." Mr.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
Hurd suggested that the photos denote that it is not a view and therefore it cannot be blocked. He
stated that the windows would not look at the Dempsey's living room and he pointed to a photo
showing how much can actually be seen of the windows from the living room. He said that the
size of the window does not indicate that it will be used as a door and it would be perfectly
acceptable to make a condition of approval that the window not be used as a door. He stated that
the hedge was only ever pruned by his clients since they have lived there and was done on a
schedule. He said that the trimming seemed to have added to the argument of the seating versus
standing views from the house. He believed that if the hedge was even 2 feet lower than the
photos it would not make a difference and the findings could be made to approve the project. He
asked that the Board to approve the project.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Chong stated that he visited the site and stood in the kitchen and the new window
would be in relatively the same location as the existing window but would come out a little bit
further. He said that only a very small sliver of window could be seen in the Dempsey's
residence. He did not think that this would be a place people will stand and view that sliver and
he was therefore not bothered by the window. He said that he also did not seethe view impact.
concerns. He understood that this would be a slightly larger deck but the photograph is
representative of what the Dempseys would see. He said that the extension would have the
potential to block a little more roofline and some of the homes that sit at the bottom of the hill.
He said that he was unable to get into the Dempseys' home to view the impact and he was
curious to see if any of the other Boardmembers were able to view the impact from that home.
Boardmember Kricensky said that he was able to enter 2350 Paradise Drive to see the view
impact. He said he believed that the Dempseys consider the landforms in the view to be
important and when sitting inside the residence patio umbrellas on the new deck could block
views of those landforms. He said that looking at the entire view corridor and the Hillside Design
Guidelines, the deck extension would take out a small portion of the view in the corner and
would not be much of an infringement. He questioned the need for the proposed large windows
but stated that he agreed with staff regarding the view blockage.
Vice -Chair Tollini stated that he visited the applicant's property as well as the adjacent
neighbors' properties. He felt that the impact to 2336 Paradise Drive was a slight privacy impact
but was far away and it would be unlikely for neighbors to be able to see each other on the decks
at the same time. He said that there was no meaningful and effective way of maintaining the
same privacy as when the houses were unimproved bungalows that are close together and people
want to build larger decks. He appreciated the concerns of 2336 Paradise Drive but he did not
think that this would have a meaningful privacy impact. He said that the impact on 2350 Paradise
Drive was greater. He agreed with what was said regarding the Hillside Design Guidelines, but
given how close the houses are, the extension would not block a significant view but it would
crowd into the view of the land mass which is part of the Golden Gate Bridge view. He said that
the impact would be created but could be mitigated by either bringing the deck in a little or
angling the corner. He suggested that a 45 degree angle be taken out of the extension so it would
have a lot less impact on the neighbors. He did not think that the angle would meaningfully
diminish the quality of the improvement from the applicant's standpoint. He did not understand
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
the reason for the full height window in that location because all that was visible was rooftops
and hedge. He said that the window would not impact neighbors much and would provide light,
but he would be in favor of shrinking the glazing on the corner.
Boardmember Kricensky said the dimensions of the attic show that it could only be used for
storage.
Chair Cousins believed that staff fully looked at the views in terms of a strict interpretation of the
Hillside Design Guidelines and believed that the view obstruction would be minor based on that
interpretation. He liked the suggested of cutting the comer of the deck at a 45 degree angle and
suggested the applicant consider that. He said that he visited the Dempseys' home and sat in a
chair and he felt that the photographs were relevant. He thought that the 45 degree angle on the
deck would help limit any umbrellas that could be placed on that portion of the deck. He said
that the proposed windows would not affect privacy because the existing windows run the full
length of that side. He noted that the proposal would put a breakfast bar in that location and
would therefore make it less likely for people to be standing in that location looking out the
windows. He agreed that there would be more light coming out of the window, but noted its
length would be reduced. He said that he liked the window architecturally and did not believe. . .
that it should be cut back.
Boardmember Chong agreed that angling the corner of the deck would substantially lessen the
potential for view blockage. Chair Cousins said that the light from the new window would be
more of an issue than the actual privacy impact. Boardmember Tollini said that it would be more
of an impact on the feeling of privacy rather than an actual privacy impact.
Boardmember Chong asked if the applicant was open to cutting the corner of the deck at a 45
degree angle. Mr. Nelson said they would accept the 45 degree angle but implored the Board to
keep the window because it would not change anything in terms of light or privacy.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the request for 2340 Paradise Drive is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached
conditions of approval, and the additional condition of approval that the southeastern corner of
the extension of the deck shall be cut back at a 45 degree angle from the point of the existing
deck. Vote: 4-0.
4. 2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 21426; Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two-
family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a Floor Area
Exception. The applicants propose to construct additions to the rear of the existing
structure, adding 1,493 square feet to the two-family dwelling. The project would extend
to within 6 feet of the both side property lines, which is less than the 8 foot minimum side
yard setback required in the R-2 zone. The project would also have a total floor area of
3,848 square feet, which is greater than the floor area ratio of 3,128 square feet for a
property of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-201-32.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing two-family dwelling, with
variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a floor area exception, on property located at 2312
Spanish Trail. Currently the property is improved with a three-story two-family dwelling, along
with a detached garage in the rear of the property facing Vista Del Mar Lane, and a detached
shed within the Town right-of-way along Spanish Trail.The proposal would expand the living
area for both dwelling units by adding to the sides and rear of the building. The additions would
expand the living room and second bedroom on the main level, expand the master bedroom suite
on the upper level, and add a second bedroom and bathroom to the dwelling unit on the lower
level. The existing detached garage would be expanded from its current substandard depth of 15
feet, 8 inches to a new depth of 18 feet, 6 inches. An existing parking pad to the side of the
garage would be expanded and paved.
The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage to 3,219 square feet (28.5%) which is
less than the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zone (35.0%). The proposed additions
would result in a gross floor area of 3,848 square feet which would be 720 square feet above the
maximum pemritted gross floor area for a property of this size. Therefore, the applicant has
requested a floor area exception. The proposed additions would follow the existing footprint of
the structure, which is situated within 6 feet of both side property lines. As an 8 foot side yard
setback is required in the R-2 zone, variances are requested for reduced side yard setbacks.
The public hearing was opened.
Ralph Key, designer, said that the proposal was designed to improve a 100 -year old house and
great care was taken in developing a design in consideration to the immediate neighbors and also
the neighborhood at large. He said that they decided on an addition that would preserve as much
of the existing footprint as possible in order to respect the neighborhood. He said that they could
not construct an addition without extensive excavation to the north, so they decided to construct
the addition downhill, stepping down the slope on the side. He said that the additions would
follow the existing setback of the house. He said that the project would be aesthetically pleasing
when viewed from Vista Del Mar Lane, rather than the eyesore that currently exists. He said that
the project would provide off-street parking in response to the concerns of the neighbors. He said
that the floor area exception of 466 square feet was consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood. He said that the exception of 720 square feet mentioned in the staff report
includes the storage shed that is uninhabitable because of the ceiling height and should not be
included, so he requested that the shed area be removed from the FAR calculations. He said that
the applicants offered to meet with neighbors and made every attempt to respect neighbors'
needs. He stated that the vegetation screening would go far to screen the neighboring houses and
stated that the owners have no intentions to remove any screening.
Malcolm Wittenberg, owner, said that he went to neighbors' homes and he had some issues
regarding the staff report which stated that the project would somewhat block views from
neighbor's kitchens. He stated that he visited the neighbor at 2356 Spanish Trail and was able to
take photos from inside that home. He presented those photos, which were taken from the
kitchen, and stated that the project would have no impact on those views, with the worst case
scenario showing the story poles off to the right with no blockage of any water views. He
disagreed with the comment in the staff report regarding existing shrubbery acting as a buffer
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
between the properties that would be removed, saying that he had no intention to remove that
shrubbery and was willing to work with the neighbor to add to that shrubbery to accomplish the
goal of additional screening. He stated that the shed is not tall enough to be considered a
structure and is unheated, and he therefore felt that it should not be counted toward the floor area
ratio, adding that it was not counted as part of a previous design review application on this
property by the previous owner.
Mr. Wittenberg stated that they were cognizant of neighbors when they designed the project and
did everything possible to respect their view corridors. He said that the only portion of their
neighbor's view that would be at all impacted is a bedroom. He shared three photos from the
bedroom window with the Board, as well as a Google map image of the terrain. He noted that the
house at 2356 Spanish Trail was built about 50 years after his own, and instead of building it up
the hill and angling is directly towards the bay, it was built as close as possible to his residence
and then angled to look directly over his property, with a corner of the roof actually extending
over the property line. He stated that the distance between the closest corner of that house to his
own is six feet. He said that due to this proximity, any addition to his own house creates a
situation making it almost impossible to avoid any impact on the neighboring property. He said
that they followed the contour of the hill and notched the addition to respect the .view corridor of
the neighboring house.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if the story poles were installed to the height of the finished floor
level or to the top of the railing. Mr. Key said that they represent the finished floor level.
Chair Cousins asked if there was any justification or reason for the floor area exception other
than the dispute regarding the shed. Mr. Key responded that the project was designed to meet the
current needs of his client to have the additional floor area for both their own living situation and
for the second unit. Mr. Wittenberg said that they purchased the house with the idea that it would
be remodeled because it is substandard, including a circular stairway in the middle of the family
room blocking the view area.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if the shed was included in the FAR. Planning Manager Watrous
stated that it was included in the FAR because staff was not aware that the ceiling height was that
low. If the ceiling height is less than 7 feet then it would not be included in the FAR.
Boardmember Tollini asked who owns the land that the shed is built upon. Mr. Wittenberg said
that the Town of Tiburon owns that strip of land and stated that that was one of the reasons they
could not expand in that direction.
Riley Hurd, representing Mr. Wodehouse and Ms. Dunbar, said that this project was the opposite
of the previous project. He believed that the applicant missed the main issues, as although views
are a concern, the main issues are bulk, mass, a gigantic wall, too big of a house, and too close of
a house. He said that sunlight and the privacy would be obliterated by a gigantic wall. He said
that the owners are planning to step the construction down the hill rather than excavate. He said
that this is a lot that should not be near the maximum floor area and should not have an
exception. He said that the intersection of the two lots is unique, but both of the homeowners
were aware of that when they purchased the homes. He did not believe that the variance findings
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16
11/6/14
could be made and if the variance was granted there would be a negative impact on the
neighboring home that would be made worse because of the proximity of the two houses.
Arlene Schneidewind stated that she lives above the property and contacted Michael Heckman,
architect, because the story poles were not in the correct position. She referred to their letter and
stated that they are concerned about the size of the house. She said that there are other big houses
on the street but they are more subtle and lower. She was also concerned that they would be
looking down on all of the decks. She stated that this is a dark part of the neighborhood and
putting windows on that side of the house would allow a lot of light impact on her living room,
dining room, and bedroom on that side of her house.
Paul Mussche said that they see the story poles from their two bedrooms. He spoke of the
detached shed in the Town right-of-way and said that as they come down the driveway there is a
recess for a car to be parked that could make access difficult when the car is not parked close
enough to the fence. He asked for clarification of what it means that the shed is in the Town's
right-of-way. Planning Manager Watrous clarified the shed is in the Town's right-of-way but it is
not in the roadway, so it does not interfere with any cars driving back and forth. He said that it is
very unusual to see a shed in such.alocation but it has been in that location for many years since ....
before the current owners purchased the property.
Jennifer Dunbar said that they are the next door neighbors to the east. She stated that the
proposed additions would severely impact her home. She said that the story poles show that the
additions would block sunlight and primary views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the bay. She
said that the sheer size and volume of the addition and roof pitch would shadow her kitchen,
deck, and bedroom. She said that she hears the neighbors now having dinner on the patio, and the
houses are so close she can hear their conversations word for word. She said that the three .
proposed decks would be right in their view line. She said that she was concerned about patio
furniture, activity, and nighttime lighting which would affect their privacy and views. She asked
the DRB to help curtail this project and requested that her privacy and enjoyment of her home
not be taken away.
Sue Zimmerman said she lives just below the subject property and said that while she had no
view concerns she was concerned about the bulk, mass, and sheer size of the project. She said
that the house would be gorgeous but just too large. She said that looking uphill at the house it
would look almost a five -story building. She stated that the previous plans for the property
showed the height of the building at 34.2 feet and she requested looking into the correct height, it
would then require a height variance. She said that the house would go straight up vertically and
be very large at the top, which would make it appear more massive. She requested that the
magnolia tree that currently screens the lower two floors be preserved. She stated that the
existing garage is very minimally used because of the long distance and suggested a Spanish
Trail location for more convenient parking.
Mr. Key said that they measured the height from the existing grade of the patio and it was 29 feet
6 inches. He said that a five -story fagade would only occur if one viewed the project in one
dimension. He said that the second level would actually be stepped back from the lower level
and would therefore not appear to be a monolith, with the top level recessed a further 18 feet. He
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 9
11/6/14
said that they met with staff about the parking situation and were told that any parking
constructed in the right-of-way would be open to the public. He noted that the shed is below the
height of the road by at least 11 feet.
Boardmember Chong asked if any other design ideas were considered in the design process. Mr.
Key stated that they explored building in other areas, but these could not be developed without
going into the setback or extensive excavation, and he felt there is only one way to go to be
consistent with the hillside guidelines. He noted that the neighbor to the left was just given a
variance for a project to lessen its impact. He compared the floor area exception request with
other houses in the area and showed that it is in scale with the neighborhood.
Mr. Wittenberg said that this house is a little over 2,100 square feet and would be increased to
3,500 square feet and they are asking for a 466 square foot exception. He stated that Ms.
Zimmerman's house on Vista Del Mar Lane is not directly below the project and is in fact very
far from it. He said that the house would be larger because of the topography of the land. He said
that one of the reasons the garage was not used in the past is because it is too short, and one of
the reasons for their proposal was to increase its size so a car may actually be parked in it. He
pointed out they are adding two additional parking spaces on the property itself to try to make
the property more functional and relieve concerns about limited street parking.
The public hearing was closed.
Chair Cousins said that this is a very difficult site because of the juxtaposition of the houses, but
this situation must be accepted and any design must take that into account. He did not believe
that the design was an acceptable starting point and would have an enormous impact on the home
at 2356 Spanish Trail. He stated that the reason variances are usually granted is to gain some
other benefit, but in this instance the project would go three stories high immediately in front of
another house and he believes that it is a non-starter. He could not support the variances or
exception with the impact of the house in the proposed location. He suggested that the applicants
needed to work harder to fit in the design with those of their neighbors.
Boardmember Kricensky agreed with Chair Cousins and said that there must have reasons for
other floor area exceptions in the area, but he could not find any reasons for this particular
request. He said that the impact on the neighbor's bedroom would be substantial and would put
the room in a canyon with sun and light blocked by a three-story wall. He said that from the
kitchen, views through the magnolia tree of the Golden Gate Bridge would be blocked by the 42 -
inch deck railing. He felt that the three-story east wall would be too massive. He said that
setback variances are often granted for utilizing existing foundations, but this project would
involve new construction beyond the existing footprint and he cannot support the variance
request for that reason.
Boardmember Chong pointed out that the neighboring house would probably not be approved in
today's environment and he believed that this was a good lesson. He agreed with Boardmember
Kricensky that the neighboring bedroom would be put in a canyon by this construction. He said
that the project would decimate the Golden Gate Bridge view from the bedroom and create the
feeling of a corridor. He believed that there was a way to improve this home and gain additional
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 10
11/6/14
floor area without creating such an extremely tall building. He said that the design needed
serious reworking.
Chair Tollini said he really liked the design of the house, but he generally agreed with the other
Boardmembers. He stated that the neighboring house at 2356 Spanish Trail is part of the existing
neighborhood and puts a constraint on what can be done on this property. He said that expanding
the house to anywhere close to the floor area ratio will be a challenge. He was unaware of any
floor area exception given to such a large R-2 lot. He said that if the additions were within the
existing footprint or expanded more on the lower level where the floor area would not be visible
then that might be more acceptable, but the proposed floor area would be easy to see and very
large. He acknowledged that the applicants will have a difficult time coming up with something
that will work on the site and not have large impacts on the neighbors. He stated that the story
poles should show the height of the railing. He reiterated that it will be a challenge for a project
that will be close to the FAR for this site.
Boardmember Chong said it would have to be a fairly dramatic redesign for the Board to
consider approving the project.
Vice -Chair Tollini said that he was surprised that the entire project still depends on parking at the
lower location and walking to the main living area and was not being corrected to allow a garage
on that side of the property.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to
the December 4, 2014 meeting. Vote: 4-0.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #15 OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2014 DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD MEETING
Boardmember Chong requested correcting the call to order to reflect that the meeting was
opened by Chair Cousins.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2014
meeting, as amended. Vote: 4-0.
F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11
11/6/14
DIGEST
TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard November 20, 2014
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #17
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7. 00 PM
Present: Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini and Boardmember and Kricensky
Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Emberson
Ex -Officio: Planning Manager Watrous
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None
STAFF BRIEFING (if any) None
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
587 VIRGINIA DRIVE: File No. 21424; Ryan Aytay, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants
propose to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new attached two -car
garage, along with a new master second bedroom and foyer. The project would increase
the house size by751 square feet and the garage size by 101 square feet. The project
would extend to within 10 feet, 6 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the
20 foot minimum front yard setback required in the R-1 zone. The project would also
have a maximum lot coverage of 42.4%, which is greater than the 30.0% o maximum lot
coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-091-03. Approved 3-0
MINUTES
2. Regular Meeting of November 6, 2014 Approved 3-0
ADJOURNMENT At 7.15 PM
Design Review Board
November20,2014
Page 1
v
DIGEST
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
F.11002007_1
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Regular Meeting
Design Review Board
December 4, 2014
7:00 P.M.
Chair Cousins, Vice Chair Tollini, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Kricensky
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under
this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board is not able to undertake extended
discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be
referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Design Review Board agenda. Please
limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on
the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item.
STAFF BRIEFING (if any)
OLD BUSINESS
2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 21426; Malcolm and Bonnie Wittenberg, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing two-
family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and a Floor Area
Exception. The applicants propose to construct additions to the rear of the existing
structure, adding 1,493 square feet to the two-family dwelling. The project would extend
to within 6 feet of the both side property lines, which is less than the 8 foot minimum side
yard setback required in the R-2 zone. The project would also have a total floor area of
3,848 square feet, which is greater than the floor area ratio of 3,128 square feet for a
property of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-201-32. [DW] CONTINUED TO
DECEMBER 18, 2014
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
2. 9 BURRELL COURT: File No. 21422; Firuze Hariri, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants
propose to construct a new second story and additions to the garage, entry and rear of the
house on the ground level, adding 1,734 square feet to the residence. The project would
extend to within 19 feet, 2 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 30 foot
minimum front yard setback required in the RO-2 zone. The project would also have a
maximum lot coverage of 22.1 %, which is greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage
permitted in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-302-05. [DW]
Design Review Board
December 4, 2014
Page 1
`6.
3. 1897 MAR WEST STREET: File No. 21425; Brian and Joann McCullough, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-
family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess building
height. The applicants propose to construct additions to the front of the existing structure,
adding an elevator and a new driveway and parking area. The project would extend to
within 7 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which is less than the 15 foot minimum
side yard setback required in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a building height
of 45 feet, 10 inches, which is greater than the 30 foot maximum building height limit in
the R-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-121-10. [DW]
4. 120 STEWART DRIVE; File No. 21427; Robert and Lori Winslow, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct
deck and pergola additions to the rear of the existing structure. The project would have a
total lot coverage of 37.2%, which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage
allowed in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-091-13. [KO]
MINUTES
5. Regular Meeting of November 20, 2014
n I I) lei 0rak,iaa)gII
Design Review Board December 4, 2014 Page 2
COUNTY OF MARIN
iGEST
QJ
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
.............................................. __........ ...........PLANNING ... I.Y...I.S.I.ON--
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Marin County Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
Date
Subject Area
Time
December 9, 2014
Review and consider adopting the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element and the Addendum to
the 2013 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
1:30 p.m.*
*Please note the proposed hearing time is an estimate only and may be subject to change.
BACKGROUND: Over the course of the current and prior housing element planning periods, County staff has been
engaged in a community discussion about potential housing sites and development densities for nearly two years and has
hosted more than a dozen public meetings on the subject. As the public outreach process for the Draft 2015-2023
Housing Element continues, the County encourages interested residents to view the documents on the County's Housing
Element webpage, including answers to frequently asked questions.
The purpose of the Housing Element is to achieve an adequate supply of decent, safe and affordable housing for Merin's
workforce, residents and special -needs populations, with a particular focus on the unincorporated areas. It assesses
housing needs for a variety of income groups and lays out a program to meet those needs. State law requires all towns,
cities and counties to complete Housing Elements periodically.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element over the course of three hearings held on July
28, August 25, and November 17, 2014. At the November 17 hearing, the Commission also reviewed the Addendum to
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and recommended the Draft Housing Element and Addendum to
the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to review the Planning Commission recommendation at the
December 9, 2014 hearing. The Board of Supervisors will have flexibility in deciding the final number of housing sites
and housing units due to a reduction in the County's housing allocation required by State law as well as the passage of
Assembly Bill 1537, which reduced the required minimum density for lower income housing from 30 units per acre to 20
units per acre.
HOUSING ELEMENT: The Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, Addendum to the SEIR, and further information can be
found online at www.marincountV.org/housingelement. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Housing
Element please contact Leelee Thomas at (415) 473-6697 or Ithomasmarincounty.org, or Alisa Stevenson at(415)473-
7309
t(415)473-
7309 or astevenson(cbmarincounty.org.
STAFF REPORT AND AGENDA: Please call the Community Development Agency Planning Division at (415) 473-6269
the week prior to the scheduled hearing to obtain a copy of the staff report and the agenda, or visit
www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/meeting-archive. Please note the Marin County Community Development Agency is open
Monday through Thursday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and is closed on Friday.
COMMENTS: Comments for the Board of Supervisors regarding the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element may be
submitted electronically to housinoelement()o marincounty.org or in writing to 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308, San
Rafael, CA 94903.
ACCESSIBILITY: If you are a person with a disability and require an accommodation to participate in a County program,
service or activity, requests for accommodations may be made by calling (415) 473-4381 (Voice) 473-3232 (TDDlTTY) or
by e-mail at disabilitvaccess( marincounty.org at least four work days in advance of the event. Copies of documents are
available in alternative formats, upon request.
& Fb [9 li-il if
3501 Civic Center Drive - Suite 300 - Son Rake, CA 949033157.415 473 6269 7.415 473 7880 F - 415 473 2255 TrY - w .morincouny.org/plan