HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-01-08TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
SPECIAL MEE77NG
REVISED AGENDA
Tiburon Town Council
January 8, 2015
Special Meeting - 7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Council Chambers
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice -Mayor
Tollim, Mayor Doyle
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.
ACTION ITEM
Building Permit Extension: Consideration of Building Permit Extension and Related Fees and
Fines for a Single -Family Residential Project located at 110 Gilmartin Drive; Stuart and Gina
Peterson, Owners; Assessor Parcel Number 039-171-12
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.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
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.
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
January 8, 2015
Agenda Item: A I —
Subject: Building Permit Extension: Consideration of Building Permit Extension
and Related Fees and Penalties for a Single -Family Residential Project
located at 110 Gilmartin Drive; Mr. & Mrs. Peterson, Owners; Assessor
Parcel Number 039-171-12
Reviewed By:
INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, owners of the property at 110 Gilmartin Drive, have been referred to the
Town Council by the Building Official to determine the terms and fees associated with another
extension of their building permit pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The
Town issued the original building permit on June 23, 2010, and has granted several extensions,
the most recent of which expired on December 23, 2014 with the project still not completed.
Pursuant to applicable Municipal Code provisions and to Resolution Nos. 14-2013 and 29-2013,
the Town Council must approve any further extension, after determining the appropriate
conditions to ensure the project is completed within the next six months.
BACKGROUND
The applicable section of the Municipal Code (that in effect at the time of the original building
permit issuance in 2007), established the term of building permits in the Town of Tiburon. The
Building Official can issue the first few extensions, subject to escalating penalties, but only the
Town Council can grant extensions after that point. The Petersons' last extension granted by the
Building Official expired in June of 2013, and the Council heard their request for an additional
extension on May 1, 2013. During that meeting, the Council heard considerable public testimony
regarding the disruption experienced by the neighborhood subsequent to the start of construction
nearly three years earlier. On May 15, 2013, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-2013
(Exhibit 1). This resolution provided for a series of extensions and escalating charges. Minutes
of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 12.
After the May 15`h meeting, the Petersons challenged the charges as unconstitutionally excessive.
To avoid litigation, the Petersons' counsel proposed an arrangement whereby the Petersons would
receive one extension, which would expire at the end of 2014, with significantly lower charges
than set forth in Resolution No. 14-2013. In exchange, the Petersons would agree to a
significantly higher charge if they failed to complete the project by the deadline. The Town
responded with two provisos:
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 5
Town Council Meeting
January 3, 2015
• The Town Council would agree to the revised charges only after holding a public meeting
to consider public testimony on the revisions.
• The Petersons must complete the project on or before December 23, 2014, because Town
Hall would be closed from December 24 to January 5u.
The Petersons and the Town agreed to extend the Petersons time to file suit until the Council
could hold a public meeting on the proposal by entering into an Agreement (Exhibit 2).
On July 17, 2013, following another public meeting on the matter, the Town Council adopted
Resolution No. 29-2013 (Exhibit 3). This resolution revised the re -activation charges essentially
as the Petersons had proposed and extended the building permit until December 23, 2014. Thus,
the Council accepted the Petersons' argument that the revisions would create a stronger incentive
for timely completion of the project. The Agreement and Resolution No. 29-2013 also provided
that the Town Council would issue a subsequent six-month extension until June 23, 2015 if
necessary, along with specified reactivation charges after another public meeting. Minutes of the
July 17, 2013 Council meeting are attached as Exhibit 13.
This project has consumed more staff time than any other single-family home in Tiburon's
history. The applicants submitted no fewer than 28 separate revisions to their project drawings
subsequent to the initial permit issuance. Especially since the adoption of Resolution No. 29-
2013, staff has participated in numerous meetings and inspections, all directed to keeping the
project on track toward a timely completion. These efforts include, without limitation, the
following:
➢ Hiring of a part-time contract building inspector to allow the Town's in-house Building
Inspector to make daily site visits and inspections at 110 Gilmartin Drive.
➢ Holding a meeting with project representatives on October 27, 2014 to discuss "bonding"
of required landscape improvements that the Petersons might not be able to complete on
time. Staff provided the Peterson's agents with a copy of the Town's Landscape Bonding
policy and urged them to consider it. However, the Petersons never initiated the process.
➢ Special assignment of the Building Permit Technician for approximately 12 hours to
review numerous Requests for Interpretation (RFI) notes made on plans in the field.
➢ Honoring approvals and interpretations by previous Building Official made prior to his
departure on 7/17/2014.
➢ Department of Public Works personnel waiving advance notice requirements for
encroachment permit -related work during the project's final days. A fuller description of
Public Works Department interaction and efforts on this project is attached as Exhibit 11.
Staff greatly desired that the project could be completed ahead of schedule (or at least on time)
for the sake of the surrounding neighborhood, and made substantial extra efforts toward that end.
of TIBURON Page 2 of 5
Town Council Meeting
January 6, 2015
STATUS OF THE PROJECT ON DECEMBER 23, 2014
Despite greatly intensified work efforts to complete the project by the December 23`d deadline,
neither the Building Division nor the Planning Division were able to "final" the project by the
end of that day (see Exhibits 4, 5, and 6). In addition to the Building Code items identified in
Exhibit 3 and the lack of completion of the landscaping (which is still incomplete as of the
writing of this report despite ongoing work, as described in Exhibit 4), the driveway to the upper
buildings on the site was in a rudimentary phase of construction and nowhere near completion, as
required by the Town's Building Ordinance (see Exhibit'). Upon finding that the project was
not complete in numerous respects, as required by Resolution Nos. 14-2013 and 29-2013, and
finding that additional inspections would be required to final the project, the Building Official
directed that all work that would require a building permit cease until such time as the Town
Council authorized an extension of the permit. Work not requiring a building permit if performed
in isolation was allowed to continue, including landscaping, flatwork, painting, carpeting, interior
finishes and similar work, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Work of this nature
did continue after the December 23`d deadline, and significant progress was made on the
landscaping, removal of materials and equipment from the site, and general clean-up of the site.
Photographs of the site taken on December 22 will be available for review at the meeting.
Building Division and Planning Division staff separately inspected the site on the afternoon of
December 23 prior to reaching their independent conclusions as to project completion. It was
Planning Division staff's conclusion from the moment they entered the site at the upper driveway
and saw its rudimentary condition (see Exhibit 8) that the project was incomplete and could not
be completed for several days (if not weeks), depending on acceptable weather for paving.
On January 6, 2015, the Building Official received written responses (Exhibit 9) to his memo
dated December 23, 2014. Thompson -Brooks Incorporated (TBI) included in "red" responses to
each item in that memo. While many of the items are shown as having been completed following
the Building Official's inspection on December 23, some items are clearly identified as still
incomplete. No response was received by the Planning Division regarding incompleteness of the
landscaping.
ANALYSIS
The Issues before the Council
Tiburon's adopted Building Code has required since 2002 that building permit extensions beyond
the original issuance can be granted in six-month intervals with an escalating reactivation charge,
primarily as a penalty. The Building Official may grant the first few extensions, but beyond that
an expired permit must be "referred to the Town Council for resolution." See Exhibit 10. The
Code does not require the applicant to request the extension for the referral to occur. Based on
provisions of Resolution Nos. 14-2013 and 29-2013 and the July 2013 Agreement between the
Town and the Petersons, the outstanding issues for the Town Council to determine are discussed
below.
A swift completion of the project appears to be a largely universal desire and will restore the
surrounding neighborhood to a level of normalcy that it has not enjoyed for the past four and one-
TOwN OF TIHLIRON Page 3 of 5
Town Council Meeting
January 8, 2015
half years. The remaining issues to be determined appear to be: 1) the disposition of the penalty
funds currently held in escrow; 2) amount of the reactivation charge for the additional time
extension necessary to complete the project; and 3) any additional terms or conditions that the
Council believes should be imposed to ensure and encourage a swift completion of the project.
Both of these issues were addressed to some degree in the Agreement and/or the Resolution.
With respect to the penalty funds currently held in escrow, the Agreement states that if the project
is not complete as of the specified deadline, the funds will be transferred to the Town subject to
provisions of escrow instructions. Staff believes the transfer is warranted given the findings
regarding non -completion.
With respect to reactivation charges, the Agreement in section 1(c) states as follows:
If Peterson does not complete the Project on or before December 23, 2014, the funds
escrowed under Section 1(b) will be released to the Town and Peterson will pay an
additional charge of three hundred eighty-eight, two hundred and thirty ($388,230),
without objection, if they wish to further extend the Building Permit until June
2013 [sic] *, 2015, and comply with such conditions as the Council may determine in a
public meeting are necessary and appropriate to ensure Project completion within that
time.
* Intended to be "June 13 ", equivalent to a 6 -month extension
The amount currently held in escrow is $582,345. Provisions of the Agreement would require a
total of $970,345 due to the Town in order to receive the 6 -month extension to June 23, 2015.
It appears to staff that the project is relatively close to completion and that only a small portion of
the typical six-month extension would be needed to receive a project "final" from the Town.
However, the Agreement expressly requires that the full amount of $388,230 would be due
without objection upon the granting of another extension; the majority of this amount would be a
penalty. The Town Council may consider taking the project's nearness to completion into
account if it so chooses, but it not under any obligation to do so.
Additional Consideration
The Town Council should be mindful that Riley Hurd, an attorney for the Petersons, has argued
to staff that the Council should not consider an extension at this time, because he intends to
appeal the Building Official's refusal to final the project. However, other Peterson
representatives have requested an extension and/or concurred that the Council should consider an
extension as soon as possible.
CORRESPONDENCE
Several items of correspondence were received from neighbors. These are attached as Exhibits
14-17. Notices of this meeting were sent to surrounding properties and it is anticipated that
several will speak at the meeting.
TOwNOFTIBURON Page
Town Council Meeting
January 8, 2015
IU173 U901-11VIT e
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Receive the verbal staff report.
2. Hear comments from the applicant.
3. Hear public testimony offered regarding the matter from interested persons.
4. Grant a permit extension, either in accordance with the terms of Resolution Nos. 14-2013
and 29-2013, or modified terms if the Town Council concludes that modification is
warranted. Staff believes any such modification, if considered, should clearly resolve all
outstanding issued related to feed and penalties, and be tied to a very swift completion of
the project and a return of the neighborhood to a normal state of construction affairs.
1. Town Council Resolution No. 14-2013.
2. Agreement between the Town and the Petersons effective July 1, 2013.
3. Town Council Resolution 29-2013 Revising Reactivation Charges for the Project.
4. Memo from Building Official to Petersons dated December 23, 2014.
5. Memo to File from Planning Division dated 12/23/2014 regarding Planning Division
sign -off on the building permit.
6. Montage photograph of site taken 12-22-2014.
7. Chapter 13, Section 13-7 (c) regarding driveway standards and requirements.
8. Photograph of upper driveway taken December 22, 2014.
9. Red -lined memo from contractor responding Building Official comments in Exhibit 4.
10. Applicable Tiburon Building Ordinance section regarding time extensions for this
project.
11. E-mail from Public Works Director dated January 7, 2015.
12. Minutes of Town Council meeting of May 1, 2013.
13. Minutes of Town Council meeting of July 17, 2013.
14. Correspondence from Leonard Jaffe received January 5, 2015.
15. Correspondence from Robert and Vivian Rudy received January 6, 2015.
16. Correspondence and photos from Dan Grossman received January 6, 2015.
17. Correspondence from Ruth Yaffe received January 7, 2015.
TOW N of TIBURON Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 14-2013
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TI13URON
IMPOSING REACTIVATION CHARGES AND REQUIRING A DETAILED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR THE EXTENSION OF A BUILDING
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
110 GILMARTIN DRIVE
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2010, the Town of Tiburon issued a building permit to the
owners of 110 Gilmartin Drive. The building permit authorized the construction of a new single
family dwelling with a garage, swimming pool, spa, and three accessory structures including a
Yoga studio, garage and storage building, and a pool house, for a total of approximately 18,500
square feet. The building permit was issued for a period not to exceed 24 months, or until June
23, 2012, which was the maximum initial permit length allowed by Chapter 13 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2012, the permit holders filed for and were granted by the
Building Official a six-month extension of the permit until December 23, 2012, and paid the
required Reactivation Charge, as set forth by the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2012, the permit holders filed for and were granted by the
Building Official another six-month extension of the permit until June 23, 2013, and paid the
required Reactivation Charge, as set forth in the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on or about February 2013, the Building Official determined, in consultation
with the project builders, that the project would not be completed within the remaining term of
the building permit, and advised the permit holders that a referral of the building permit to the
local appeals board was required pursuant to Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 13, Article 11,
Section 13-4.1.1 (c) (3) 4, prior to the issuance of any additional time extensions. The Town
determined that due to the administrative, non-technical nature of the matter, the appropriate
local appeals board, is the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held a public
meeting on the referral of the matter from the Building Official and considered, without
limitation, the staff report and correspondence and testimony from the applicant's
representatives, neighbors, and other interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considered a range of options as set forth in the staff
report and authorized by the Municipal Code, including but not limited to "strict application" of
the Municipal Code provisions regarding Reactivation Charges, an "incentivized fee schedule" of
Reactivation Charges, and a "lump sum" approach to the Reactivation Charges; and
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-2013 05/15/2013
12, 11 IT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 3-1 (Doyle voting no, Collins absent) to direct staff
to return with a resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting incorporating the
following decision:
1. Incorporation of the "incentivized fee schedule" option as set forth in the staff report,
modified such that the reactivation charges shall be structured as follows until completion
of the project, or until December 23, 2014, whichever occurs first:
a. Payment of Reactivation Charges of $155;292 due by June 23, 2013 for a 6 -month
time extension until December 23, 2013;
b. Payment of Reactivation Charges of $232,938 due by December 23, 2013 for a 6 -
month time extension until June 23, 2014;
c. Payment of $77,646 due by June 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until July
23, 2014;
d. Payment of $77,646 due by July 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
August 23, 2014;
e. Payment of $77,646 due by August 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
September 23, 2014;
f. Payment of $77,646 due by September 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
October 23, 2014;
g. Payment of $77,646 due by October 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
November 23, 2014;
h. Payment of $77,646 due by November 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
December 23, 2014;
2. In the event that the project is not completed by December 23, 2014, the building permit
shall be suspended and work shall not proceed further until and unless the permit is
extended by the Town Council following a public meeting and the Town receives
payment of a Reactivation Charge of $388,230.
By June 10, 2013, permit holder must submit to the Building Official for acceptance a
detailed, specific, and verifiable construction completion schedule, based on a maximum
of 30 -day increments, which incorporates time -to -completion estimates for each major
building component or element. The construction completion schedule must clearly
define the project completion date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
does hereby extend the building permit for 110 Gilmartin Drive subject to the Reactivation
Charge schedule provisions and construction completion schedule requirements set forth
hereinabove.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-2013 05/15/2013
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on May 15, 2013,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE D COPI, TOWN CLERK
Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
None
One Vacant Seat
EMMETT O'DONNELL, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
3
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14-2013 05115/2013
AGREEMENT TO REVISE REACTIVATION CHARGES
This Agreement ("Agreement") is effective as of July 1, 2013 (the "Effective Date') and
is entered into by and between the Town of Tiburon ("Town's, and Stuart and Gina Peterson
(collectively "Peterson'. The Town and Peterson maybe referred to herein as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. On June 23, 2010, the Town issued a building permit to the owners of 110 Gilmartin
Drive ("Building Permit'. The Building Permit authorized the construction of a new
single family dwelling and other improvements ("Proj ect'). The Building Permit
required all construction to be complete by December 23, 2011.
B. Chapter 13 of the Town's Municipal Code (`Building Code") authorizes only six-month
administrative extensions after the expiration of a building permit. The Town has
granted three extensions of the Building Permit, all as provided by the Building Code.
The third extension will expire on June 23, 2013. The Parties do not expect the Project to
be completed by that date. Peterson estimates that the Project will be completed on or
before December 23, 2014.
C. Pursuant to the Building Code, any further extensions must be approved by the Town
Council, subject to reactivation charges of five times the original building permit fee.
The Town Council has discretion to reduce that fee for such reasons as the closeness of
the Project to completion or the reasons for the delay.
D. On May 1, 2013, the Town Council heard the Peterson's application for further extension
of the Building Permit. After hearing public testimony, including a presentation from
Peterson and his representatives, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-2013
("Resolution'D, which granted several extensions of the Building Permit for up to
December 23, 2014, and imposed reactivation charges for those extensions.
E. A dispute ("Dispute") has arisen between Peterson and the Town in that Peterson asserts
that the Resolution's reactivation charges constitute excessive fines and fees and the
Town asserts that said charges are appropriate, consistent with applicable law and lie
fully within the Town's police power.
F. To allow time to negotiate a resolution of the Dispute without litigation, the Parties
entered into a tolling agreement on May 31, 2013, extending any unexpired statutes of
limitations to challenge the Resolution until June 13, 2013. The Parties subsequently
agreed to extend said deadline until June 27, 2013.
G. On June 17, 2013, Peterson paid the fust reactivation charge required by the Resolution,
in the amount of one hundred fifty-five dollars ($155,292). Peterson made said payment
under protest, reserving the right to challenge the legality of the Resolution ("Payment
Under Protest").
H. The Parties now desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth their mutual
understandings and commitments with respect to the Dispute and the Project. Without
admitting any issue of fact or law, the Parties agree that entry into this Agreement is in
EXHIBIT NO. a
good faith and in the public interest, and is designed to avoid litigation between the Town
and Peterson with respect to the Dispute.
AGREEMENT'
NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
aclmowledged, the Parties do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Town will hold a public hearing on July 17, 2013, or such other hearing date as is
mutually agreed upon by the Parties ("Hearing Date") to consider the following revisions
to the terms of the Resolution (collectively, the "Revised Reactivation Charges"):
a. Peterson will pay five hundred eighty-two thousand, three hundred and forty-five
dollars ($582,345) to reactivate their Building Permit until December 23, 2014.
b. Peterson will place five hundred eighty-two thousand, three hundred and forty-five
dollars ($582,345) in escrow as a penalty if they do not complete the Project on or
before December 23, 2014. The escrow holder and escrow instructions shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Town Attorney. The escrow instructions
shall require the Town Attorney's signature and Peterson's signature for release of the
escrowed funds and will incorporate the terms of this Agreement.
c, If Peterson does not complete the Project on or before December 23, 2014, the funds
escrowed under Section 1(b) will be released to the Town and Peterson will pay an
additional charge of three hundred eighty-eight, two hundred and thirty dollars
($388,230), without objection, if they wish to further extend the Building Permit until
June 2013, 2015, and comply with such conditions as the Council may determine in a
public meeting are necessary and appropriate to ensure Project completion within that
time.
d. For purposes of calculating the Revised Reactivation Charges, Project completion
shall mean that all permitted work is complete and finaled; no work shall continue on
the Project that would, if performed in isolation, require a permit.
2. If the Town Council approves the Revised Reactivation Charges on the Hearing Date,
Peterson will comply with Sections 1(a) and (b) of this Agreement within ten (10) days
thereof. The Town acknowledges that because of the Payment Under Protest, the
outstanding amount due under Section 1(a) is four hundred twenty-seven thousand, fifty-
three dollars ($427,053).
3. If the Town Council does not approve the Revised Reactivation Charges on the Hearing
Date, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect, including,
without limitation, the waivers and releases set forth in Sections 4,5 and 6 hereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Town Council does not approve the
Revised Reactivation Charges, the Parties agree that if the Town Council does not
approve the Revised Reactivation Charges on the Hearing Date:
Page 2 of 5
a. The running of any and all statute of limitations that had not previously expired
prior to the Effective Date and that are or would be applicable to any claim,
demand, debt, liability, obligation, cause of action, proceeding or suit arising out
of the Town's adoption of Resolution No. 04-2013 will be deemed tolled until ten
days after the Hearing Date ("Expiration Date").
b. The time between the Effective Date through and including the Expiration Date
shall not be computed or included in calculating any statute of limitations for any
claim relating to the Dispute. The phrase "statute of limitations" as used herein
includes all statutes of limitation or repose, equitable defenses of waiver, estoppel
or laches, and any other claims, defenses or theories based upon the lapse of time
and time related bars.
4. Releases by Peterson. Peterson, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors,
administrators, trustors, trustees, successors, affiliates, engineers, contractors, subrogors,
subrogees, insurers, lessees, grantees, assignors, assignees, agents, employees, attorneys,
consultants, experts, general partners, limited partners, and representatives, and all others,
hereby forever release and discharge the Town and any of its subsidiaries, its Town
Council, employees, agents, insurers, attorneys and all others from any and all known
and/or existing actions, causes of action, obligations, costs, damages, losses, claims,
liabilities and demands (including claims arising out of contract) arising out of or in any
way connected with the Dispute in general or the Resolution in particular as a result of
which personal injury, property damage and other loss and damage were alleged to have
been sustained by Peterson. This release includes, but is not limited to, the protests,
claims and reservation of rights asserted in the Payment Under Protest.
5. Waiver of Section 1542. The Parties acknowledge and understand that this is a full and
final Release of any and all claims arising out of the matters set forth above and agree as
a further consideration and inducement for this compromise that this Release extends to
all claims of every nature and kind whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, regarding the matters set forth above, and all rights under Section 1542 of
the Civil Code of the State of California are hereby expressly relinquished and waived by
the undersigned. Said section reads as follows:
SECTION 1542, GENERAL RELEASE.
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS
OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
Unknown Facts. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they may hereafter discover
facts different from or in addition to those they now know or believe to be true in respect
to the claims, losses, liabilities, obligations, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements,
promises, demands and damages released by this Agreement, and hereby agree that the
releases contained herein shall be and remain in effect in all respects as a complete,
Page 3 of 5
general release as to the matters released, notwithstanding any such different or
additional facts.
7. No Admission. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that this settlement is the
compromise of a disputed claim and that the payment of monies by the Parties is not to
be construed as an admission of liability and that any liability is expressly denied.
S. Intemretation of Agreement. This Agreement, and each of its provisions, has been
reached as the result of negotiations between the Parties and their respective attorneys.
Each of the Parties expressly acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement shall not be
deemed to have been prepared by, or drafted by, any particular Party or Parties hereto,
and that the normal rule of construction, to the effect that any ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party or parties, shall not be employed in the interpretation
of this Agreement
9. Governing Law; Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
In the event that a dispute arises between the Parties regarding this Agreement, the venue
for resolving said dispute shall be the County of Marin.
10. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit
of, each of the Parties and their respective past, present and future predecessors,
successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, attorneys, insurers,
agents, representatives and assigns.
11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, equally admissible in evidence
against any Party who has signed it, all of which together shall constitute one and the
same agreement. Signatures delivered by facsimile shall be deemed original signatures.
12. Integrated Agreement. This writing is an integrated agreement and represents the entire
understanding of the Parties relative to the subject matter described herein. No prior or
contemporaneous agreements shall be enforceable if they materially alter, vary, or add to
the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified except by a writing
executed by all Parties or their counsel. Each of the Parties agrees that no representation
or promise not expressly contained in this Agreement has been made and further
promises that they are not entering into this Agreement on the basis of any promise,
representation, express or implied, not otherwise contained herein.
13. Voluntary Consent. This Agreement is executed voluntarily and without any duress or
undue influence on the part or behalf of the Parties hereto. The Parties acknowledge that:
a. They have read this Agreement;
b. They have been represented in the preparation, negotiation, and execution of this
Agreement by legal counsel of their own choice;
c. They understand the terms and consequences of this Agreement and of the
Agreements it contains; and
Page 4 of 5
I They are fully aware of the legal and binding effect of this Agreement.
14. Warranty of Authority. The persons executing this Agreement represent and warrant that
they have full authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the Parties for which are
acting and that said Parties will thereby be folly bound by the terms of this Agreement.
15. 'Severabili . Bach provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to
be valid, legal and enforceable. A determination that anyprovision of this Agreement is
for any reason invalid, illegal, or unenforceable shall not affect the validity of this
Agreement and any other provisions herein, and this Agreement shall be interpreted and
construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provisions were not contained
herein.
Dated: July 0 2013 Town of Tiburon
By: 111�1-�Y !�f
Ann R. Danforth
Town Attomey
Dated: July) O 2013 Stuart and Gina Peterson
By: -�7
Riley F. Hurd III
Attorney for the Petersons
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 29-2013
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF TIBURON REVISING THE REACTIVATION CHARGES
FOR THE EXTENSION OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
110 GILMARTIN DRIVE
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2010, the Town of Tiburon issued a building permit to the
owners of 110 Gilmartin Drive. The building permit authorized the construction of a new single
family dwelling with a garage, swimming pool, spa, and three accessory structures including a
Yoga studio, garage and storage building, and a pool house, for a total of approximately 18,500
square feet ("Project"). The building permit was issued for a period not to exceed 24 months, or
until June 23, 2012, which was the maximum initial permit length allowed by Chapter 13 of the
Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2012, the permit holders filed for and were granted by the
Building Official a six-month extension of the permit until December 23, 2012, and paid the
required Reactivation Charge, as set forth by the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2012, the permit holders filed for and were granted by the
Building Official another six-month extension of the permit until June 23, 2013, and paid the
required Reactivation Charge, as set forth in the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on or about February 2013, the Building Official determined, in consultation
with the Project builders, that the Project would not be completed within the remaining term of
the building permit, and advised the permit holders that Section 13-4.2.1(c)(3) required the local
appeals board to approve any additional time extensions. The Building Official determined that
due to the administrative, non-technical nature of the matter, the Town Council is the appropriate
local appeals board; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2013, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held a public
meeting on the extension of the Project's building permit and considered, without limitation, the
staff report and correspondence and testimony from the applicant's representatives, neighbors,
and other interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 3-1 (Doyle voting no, Collins absent) to direct staff
to return with a resolution adopting the following decision ("Reactivation Conditions of
Approval"):
1. Incorporation of the "incentivized fee schedule" option as set forth in the staff report,
modified such that the reactivation charges shall be structured as follows until completion
of the project, or until December 23, 2014, whichever occurs first:
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 29-2013 07/17/2013
EZ77 _IJ3IT NO.3
a. Payment of Reactivation Charges of $155,292 due by June 23, 2013 for a 6 -month
time extension until December 23, 2013;
b. Payment of Reactivation Charges of $232,938 due by December 23, 2013 for a 6 -
month time extension until June 23, 2014;
c. Payment of $77,646 due by June 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until July
23, 2014;
d. Payment of $77,646 due by July 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
August 23, 2014;
e. Payment of $77,646 due by August 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
September 23, 2014;
f. Payment of $77,646 due by September 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
October 23, 2014;
g. Payment of $77,646 due by October 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
November 23, 2014;
h. Payment of $77,646 due by November 23, 2014, for a one-month time extension until
December 23, 2014;
2. In the event that the project is not completed by December 23, 2014, the building permit
shall be suspended and work shall not proceed further until and unless the permit is
extended by the Town Council following a public meeting and the Town receives
payment of a Reactivation Charge of $388,230.
3. By June 10, 2013, permit holder must submit to the Building Official for acceptance a
detailed, specific, and verifiable construction completion schedule, based on a maximum
of 30 -day increments, which incorporates time -to -completion estimates for each major
building component or element. The construction completion schedule must clearly
define the project completion date.
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2013, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 14-2013,
which incorporated the Reactivation Conditions of Approval set forth above; and
WHEREAS, the permit holders subsequently disputed the legality of Resolution 14-2013
and threatened to initiate litigation against the Town to invalidate said resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Town has rejected the permit holders' challenge, but finds that the
modifications to the Reactivation Conditions of Approval set forth herein ("Revised Reactivation
Charges") are in the public interest in that the Revised Reactivation Charges will increase the
permit holders' incentive to complete the Project by December 23, 2014 and the permit holders
have agreed to waive and release any challenges relating to the extension of the building permit if
the Council adopts the Revised Reactivation Charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
does hereby repeal and revoke Condition 1 of the Reactivation Conditions of Approval for 110
Gilmartin Drive and adopt as a new Condition 1 of said conditions the following Revised
Reactivation Charges:
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 29-2013 07/17/2013
1. Extensions of the Project's Building Permit shall be subject to the following reactivation
charges:
a. The permit holders will pay five hundred eighty-two thousand, three hundred and
forty-five dollars ($582,345) to reactivate their Building Permit until December 23,
2014.
b. The permit holders will place five hundred eighty-two thousand, three hundred and
forty-five dollars ($582,345) in escrow as a penalty if they do not complete the Project
on or before December 23, 2014. The escrow holder and escrow instructions shall be
subject to the reasonable approval of the Town Attorney. The escrow instructions
shall require the Town Attorney's signature and the permit holders' signatures for
release of the escrowed funds and will incorporate the terms of this Agreement.
c. If the permit holders do not complete the Project on or before December 23, 2014, the
funds escrowed under Section 1(b) will be released to the Town and permit holders
will pay an additional charge of three hundred eighty-eight, two hundred and thirty
dollars ($388,230), without objection, if they wish to further extend the Building
Permit until June 2013, 2015, and comply with such conditions as the Council may
determine in a public meeting are necessary and appropriate to ensure Project
completion within that time.
d. For purposes of calculating the Revised Reactivation Charges, Project completion
shall mean that all permitted work is complete and finaled; no work shall continue on
the Project that would, if performed in isolation, require a permit.
All other portions of the Reactivation Conditions of Approval set forth in Resolution No. 14-
2013 shall remain in full force and effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on July 17, 2013,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, Slavitz
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: O'Donnell '
ALICE FREDERICKS, VICE -MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST: 7
l h
DIANE CRANE.lAeOPL TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 29-2013 07/17/2013
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
REPORT OF FINAL INSPECTION
To: Stuart and Gina Peterson
From: Clay Salzman, Building Official
Date: December 23, 2014
Subject: 110 Gilmartin Drive (Permit 10-173)
Your permit for construction of new single family dwelling and related accessory structures has expired,
in accordance with the provisions of 2007 California Building Code (CBC) Appendix Chapter 1, Section
105.5. A stop work order will be issued if any work requiring a permit continues in accordance with the
provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1, Sections 108.4 and 114.2. It is considered unlawful to
continue work after having been served with a stop work order and shall be subject to penalties prescribed
by law, in accordance with the provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1, Section 114.3.
The following items requiring a building permit were found to be un -accessible, incomplete, or not
approved. Work requiring a building permit listed below shall not continue until an extension of the
building permit is approved by the Town of Tibruon.
Work Requiring a Building Permit
Major Work
Building Code
Minor Work
Building Code
Section
Section
Water features must be
2007 CBC Section
Finish installing controls for
2007 CEC 210.70
compete and operable.
108.4.4, Appendix
exterior lights at all exterior
(A), (2), (b).
Chapter 1, Section
doors as needed.
104.4 and 109.3. 10
Finish installing exterior
2007 CBC 1008.1.5,
landings where doors open to
1019.2 (2), and
the exterior.
108.4.4.
Remove materials, supplies and
equipment from middle and
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
upper garage areas to allow
Appendix Chapter 1,
inspection of receptacles and
Section 109.1.
verification of garage doors
openers.
Relocate receptacle outlets to
2007 CEC 210.52
within 12 inches of counter top
(D), Exception.
surface at powder room near
entry.
Repair landing at door that leads
2007 CBC 1008.1.5,
DYI-11DIT NO,
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
Exemptions from permit requirements of the CBC shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any
work to be done in a manner in violation of the provisions of the CBC, or any other laws or ordinances of
this jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2.
to roof top deck at office area.
and 1019.2 (2).
Install supports for flexible
Appendix Chapter 1,
metal conduit located at eve to
Section 104.4 and
the right of wet bar entry door.
109.3.10
Repair inoperable receptacle
2007 CBC Appendix
outlet in lower reservoir pool
Chapter 1, Section
equipment area.
109.3.10.
Anchor Pool filter cylinder to
2007 CBC Appendix
floor in lower and upper
Chapter 1, Section
reservoir areas.
109.3.10.
Anchor equipment to floor at
2007 CBC Appendix
mechanical room behind water
Chapter 1, Section
heater (lower floor equipment
109.3.10.
room).
Raise duct off of the floor at
2007 CBC Appendix
mechanical room behind water
Chapter 1, Section
heater (lower floor equipment
109.3.10.
room).
Provide access to gas shut off
2007 CBC Appendix
valve at gas fireplace near
Chapter 1, Section
kitchen.
109.3.10.
Repair drainage as needed at
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
retaining wall exterior of lower
bedrooms.
Install door at lower reservoir
2007 CBC Appendix
Chapter 1, Section
109.3.10.
Finish concrete work at water
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
feature at covered area adjacent
and 2007 CBC
to changing room where vertical
Appendix Chapter 1,
reinforcing steel dowels are
Section 109.3.10.
covered with protection caps.
Show operation of all water
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
features when completed.
Install sheet steel wall cap cover
2007 CBC Appendix
at wall adjacent to rooftop deck
Chapter 1, Section
near office and
109.3.10.
complete/anchor/weather seal
other exterior finishes as needed.
Exemptions from permit requirements of the CBC shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any
work to be done in a manner in violation of the provisions of the CBC, or any other laws or ordinances of
this jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2.
�r Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
The laws and ordinances of this jurisdiction include work hour restrictions as follows:
Monday to Friday: 7 A. M. to 5 P. M. (Heavy equipment may not start engines until 8 A. M.)
Saturday: 9:30 A.M. to 4 P.M. Quiet work only (project related work shall not be audible beyond
the property line.)
No work on Christmas Day and New Years Day.
Please provide off-street parking for all vehicles and equipment during non -permit related work activities.
Work relevant to your project that by itself does not require a permit are as follows:
• 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2 (6). Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30
inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement; and
• 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2 (7). Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets,
counter tops and similar finish work.
In additional to the above, installation of landscaping is considered an item that by itself would not have
required a building permit, not to include installation of electrical branch circuits, pumps or other
mechanical equipment.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Best regard
Clay M. Salzm�n
Building Official
Receipt of Notice:
Owner or owner's representative
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Date: December 23, 2014
To: File
From: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager
Subject: Planning Inspection of New Single -Family Dwelling at 110 Gilmartin Drive
On Monday, December 22 and Tuesday, December 23, 2014, I inspected the construction site at 110
Gilmartin Drive at the request of the applicants for a new single-family dwelling project under
construction on that property. I reviewed the installation of landscaping and exterior lighting fixtures for
compliance with the plans approved for Site Plan and Architectural Review application #709095.
Although most of the landscaping had been installed, there were substantial areas around the site where
ground cover vegetation was required and had not been planted, in particular between the driveway and
exterior fence, below the lower driveway and above the upper driveway along the roadway, to the rear and
sides of the upper garage and below the master bedroom suite. Exterior lighting fixtures that had been
installed around a number of the trees on the site (that were not shown on the approved exterior lighting
plans for the project) had been removed. Very few other exterior lighting fixtures were installed around
the property, and a lighting fixture was installed only at one egress point in the house. Other such fixtures,
which are required by the Building Code, had not been installed.
As a result of these inspections, I was therefore unable to sign off on the landscaping or lighting fixtures
and unable to give final Planning approval for the building permit for this project. The applicants did not
seek to bond for unfinished landscaping work, even though the Town provided them with a copy of the
Town's policy for such bonding several weeks ago.
In order to receive Planning final approval for the project, all ground cover must be installed where shown
on the approved landscaping plans and all exterior lighting fixtures required by Building Code must be
installed and confirmed as downlight fixtures.
Ir`,It rIT NO. %
:.
�7
4
��1
t'-� � ..
Y 1F Y.•�
i.
r
}'
r+
t 1
IA.
.i:
'9�f
13-6 Hours of construction.
(a) Generally, all work covered by a permit
issued under this chapter shall be performed only
between the hours of seven a.m. to five p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and nine thirty a.m. to
four p.m. on Saturday. Only quiet work is allowed
to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise
from any source associated with the permitted
work, including but not limited to construction
activity, amplified sound, and worker's voices, shall
not be plainly audible beyond the property line.
(b) Work covered by a permit shall not be
performed on Sunday or on holidays observed by
the Town of Tiburon. These holidays are New
Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's
Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor
Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
(c) For work covered by a permit, the arrival
or departure of heavy equipment (including but
not limited to concrete trucks, graders and back -
hoes) and/or the delivery of heavy items or mate-
rials (including but not limited to lumber, con-
crete, debris boxes, and portable restrooms) to a
work site shall occur only on Monday through
Friday between the hours of seven a.m. to five
p.m. Hours of operation, maintenance, and servic-
ing of heavy equipment shall be limited to eight
a.m. to five p.m., Monday through Friday. Heavy
equipment may begin engine warm up, but not
actual operation, at seven -thirty a.m.
(d) Exceptions. The limitations in sections 13-
6(a) through (c) shall not apply in the following
instances:
(1) When prior to the commencement of any
work covered by a permit issued under this chap-
ter, the town manager grants written permission
to perform work outside of the prescribed hours;
(2) When work is necessary in an emergency
situation to remedy or prevent damage to persons
or property. (Ord. No. 446 N.S., § 2 (part); Ord.
No. 472 N.S., § 2(part): Ord. No. 514 N.S., § 2)
13-7 Site development requirements.
In order to assure that structures will be acces-
sible, and that grading and draining will not im-
13-8
peril any structures, adjoining properties or public
roads, site development shall conform to the fol-
lowing requirements:
(a) Slope stabilization. Whenever, in the judg-
ment of the building official, construction opera-
tions will result in slopes so steep that their stabil-
ity may be in question, he may require retaining
walls or other slope stabilization measures. These
shall be made adequate to the satisfaction of the
building official. Design by a registered profes-
sional engineer may be required.
(b) Drainage. The collection, diversion, inter-
ception and disposition of surface and subsurface
waters shall be provided for in a manner which, in
the judgment of the building official, will prevent
any hazard to structures, slopes, and adjoining
properties.
(c) Driveways. No portion of a driveway shall
ave a slope, measured along the center line, steeper
than twenty-five percent, measured in ratio of rise
to run, except with special approval by the build-
ing official. The vertical alignment of a driveway
shall be such as to provide adequate stopping sight
distance for vehicles using the driveway, and for
on-comingvehicles at intersections. Driveways shall
be paved with six inches of concrete, or two inches
of asphaltic concrete over six inches of rock base,
or of other equivalent and permanent material
approved by the buildm official. (Ord. No. 446
N.S., § 2 (part)) L I q 11 qj
13-8 Improvements required.
(a) No structure shall be erected or enlarged,
and no building permit shall be issued for any lot
fronting on an unimproved street unless the one-
half of such street adjacent to the lot frontage and
curb and gutter are improved to the standards
determined by the town engineer. Any applicant
for a building permit affected by this section shall
be notified by the town of all requirements prior
to issuance of a building permit.
(b) Any improvements required by this sec-
tion shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
town engineer prior to the final inspection for the
building permit. (Ord. No. 446 N.S., § 2 (part))
94.10.1
(Tiburon Supp. No, 19,244)
EXHIBITNO. *_
L � Y
t try. y.
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
v , ' 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
REPORT OF FINAL INSPECTION
i,,' OL -1
To: Stuart and Gina Peterson
From: Clay Salzman, Building Official
Date: December 23, 2014
Subject: 110 Gilmartin Drive (Permit 10-173)
Your permit for construction of new single family dwelling and related accessory structures has expired,
in accordance with the provisions of 2007 California Building Code (CBC) Appendix Chapter 1, Section
105.5. A stop work order will be issued if any work requiring a permit continues in accordance with the
provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1, Sections 108.4 and 114.2. It is considered unlawful to
continue work after having been served with a stop work order and shall be subject to penalties prescribed
by law, in accordance with the provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1, Section 114.3.
The following items requiring a building permit were found to be un -accessible, incomplete, or not
approved. Work requiring a building permit listed below shall not continue until an extension of the
building permit is approved by the Town of Tiburon.
Work Requiring a Building Permit
Major Work
Building Code
Minor Work
Building Code
Section
Section
Water features must be
2007 CBC Section
Finish installing controls for
2007 CEC 210.70
compete and operable.
108.4.4, Appendix
exterior lights at all exterior
(A), (2), (b).
TBI: Per the Building
Chapter 1, Section
doors as needed.
Official's direction,
104.4 and 109.3. 10
TBI: This was a programming
TBI has not performed
issue as all keypads had been
work on the water
installed. The programming has
features without an
been completed for the exterior
active permit.
lighting controls.
Finish installing exterior
2007 CBC 1008.1.5,
landings where doors open to
1019.2 (2), and
the exterior.
108.4.4.
TBI: The exterior landings have
been installed.
Remove materials, supplies and
equipment from middle and
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
upper garage areas to allow
Appendix Chapter 1,
inspection of receptacles and
Section 109.1.
17-71-1*iMrIn NO.
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
I
verification of garage doors
openers.
TBI: Both the Main Garage 101
and the Upper Garage 129 have
been cleared to allow full
inspection.
Relocate receptacle outlets to
2007 CEC 210.52
within 12 inches of counter top
(D), Exception.
surface at powder room near
entry.
TBI: A convenience outlet had
been placed below the vanity
by the Architect at this Powder
Room. The outlet was approved
during the Rough In Inspection
by the previous Building
Official. TBI is requesting that
the existing outlet be accepted,
and the requested outlet within
12" of the counter top surface
not be installed.
Repair landing at door that
2007 CBC 1008.1.5,
leads to roof top deck at office
and 1019.2 (2).
area.
TBI: This has been completed.
Install supports for flexible
Appendix Chapter 1,
metal conduit located at eve to
Section 104.4 and
the right of wet bar entry door.
109.3.10
TBI: This has been completed.
Repair inoperable receptacle
2007 CBC
outlet in lower reservoir pool
Appendix Chapter 1,
equipment area.
Section 109.3.10.
TBI: This has been completed.
Anchor Pool filter cylinder to
2007 CBC
floor in lower and upper
Appendix Chapter 1,
reservoir areas.
Section 109.3.10.
TBI: This has been completed.
Anchor equipment to floor at
2007 CBC
mechanical room behind water
Appendix Chapter 1,
heater (lower floor equipment
Section 109.3.10.
room).
TBI: This has been completed.
Raise duct off of the floor at
2007 CBC
mechanical room behind water
Appendix Chapter 1,
heater (lower floor equipment
Section 109.3. 10.
room).
TBI: This has been completed.
I
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
3
Provide access to gas shut off
2007 CBC
valve at gas fireplace near
Appendix Chapter 1,
kitchen.
Section 109.3.10.
TBI: This scope of work has
not been performed as an active
permit is required.
Repair drainage as needed at
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
retaining wall exterior of lower
bedrooms.
TBI: The drainage repair will
be made once the permit has
been re -activated.
Install door at lower reservoir
2007 CBC
TB L• A wooden door has been
Appendix Chapter 1,
installed to meet this
Section 109.3.10.
requirement.
Finish concrete work at water
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
feature at covered area adjacent
and 2007 CBC
to changing room where
Appendix Chapter 1,
vertical reinforcing steel dowels
Section 109.3.10.
are covered with protection
caps.
TBI: This scope is complete.
Show operation of all water
2007 CBC 108.4.4.
features when completed.
TBI: TBI will complete all
water features pending the re-
activation of the permit.
Install sheet steel wall cap
2007 CBC
cover at wall adjacent to
Appendix Chapter 1,
rooftop deck near office and
Section 109.3.10.
complete/anchor/weather seal
other exterior finishes as
needed.
TBI: The sheetmetal wall cap at
the Office wall has been
installed. There are corrections
required for the metal panels as
many of the panels arrived to
the site with incorrect
dimensions. TBI is working
with its sub to re -fabricate the
necessary panels.
3
Town of Tiburon — Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920, Office: 415-435-7380, Fax: 415-435-7395
Exemptions from permit requirements of the CBC shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any
work to be done in a manner in violation of the provisions of the CBC, or any other laws or ordinances of
this jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2.
The laws and ordinances of this jurisdiction include work hour restrictions as follows:
Monday to Friday: 7 A. M. to 5 P. M. (Heavy equipment may not start engines until 8 A. M.)
Saturday: 9:30 A.M. to 4 P.M. Quiet work only (project related work shall not be audible beyond
the property line.)
No work on Christmas Day and New Years Day.
Please provide off-street parking for all vehicles and equipment during non -permit related work activities.
Work relevant to your project that by itself does not require a permit are as follows:
• 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2 (6). Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30
inches above adjacent grade, and not over any basement; and
• 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1 Section 105.2 (7). Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets,
counter tops and similar finish work.
In additional to the above, installation of landscaping is considered an item that by itself would not have
required a building permit, not to include installation of electrical branch circuits, pumps or other
mechanical equipment.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Clay M. Salzman
Building Official
4
(B) where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made
substantial progress but is unable to complete the project because of
unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, one
extension of up to six (6) months may be granted, without payment
of additional fees or fines. In determining whether due diligence has
been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work
began promptly after permit issuance, whether work was conducted
on a regular basis and any other relevant facts. Decisions of the
Building Official made pursuant to this paragraph may be appealed
to the Board of Appeals pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code.
4. Once the initial permit and/or approved six (6) month extension has
expired, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and work shall not recommence
until the permit is reactivated. Reactivation shall be allowed only if there
have been no changes in the original plans and specifications and a
Reactivation Charge equal to the full original fee is paid. A Reactivation
Charge, for purposes of this section, is both a fee to recover the cost of
providing additional building inspection division services and a penalty for
failure to complete the project within the allotted time. A permit reactivated
under this subsection shall be valid for six (6) months from the date of initial
expiration.
5. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection (4) above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued on
the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is
reactivated. Reactivation of the permit for a second six (6) month period
shall be allowed only if there have been no changes in the original plans and
specifications and a Reactivation Charge equal to three (3) times the full
original fee is paid. The Building Official may in his sole discretion. reduce
and/or the cause of the delay. A permit reactivated under this subsection
shall be valid for an additional six (6) months from the date of initial
expiration.
6. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection (5) above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and
the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council
may reactivate the permit upon submission and acceptance of a completion
schedule for the project and payment of five (5) times the full original fee as
a Reactivation Charge, and provided that there have been no changes in the
original plans and specifications. The Town Council may in its sole
discretion reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness
to comnitfion an ZQr the cause of the de av
Town oJ'Tiburon Ordinance No. 467 N.S. - Effective 2/15/02 J
7. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection (6) above, SUant to thie subsection (71. a Stop
Work Order shall be issued and the matter again referred to the Town
Council for resolution. The Town Council may impose additional
requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for
ownerlbuilder projects or retention of a qualified construction manager for a
contracted project, in order to promote swift completion. The Town Council
may reactivate the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed
reasonable, and payment of five (5) times the full original fee as a
Reactivation Charge, provided that there have been no changes in the
original plans and specifications
The Town finds that these amendments are needed in order to reduce the incidence
of unreasonably lengthy construction projects that extend through subsequent
uniform code update cycles, create noise, debris, traffic problems and a general
disruption of the neighborhood.
D. Section 13-10(a) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(a) Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of
this Chapter, including without limitation any conditions of approval
imposed on a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter, shall be deemed guilty
of an infraction, provided that upon violation of any provision of this
Chapter more than three times during any 12 -month period, such person,
firm, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision 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 one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage,
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, 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.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 467 N.S. - Effective 2115/02
Scott Anderson
From:
Patrick Barnes
Sent:
Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:53 AM
To:
Scott Anderson
Cc:
Ann Danforth; Clay Salzman
Subject:
FW: 110 Gilmartin
Attachments:
2014-12-10 Itr fm PB to Osborne re 110 Gilmartin.pdf; 110 Gilmartin work on Saturday.docx
Below is the summary of the efforts by Public Works to help the 110 Gilmartin project complete encroachment
permit work related to the project:
1. Five encroachment Permits (plus a heavy transport permit) were issued related to the project. Of these five
permits, four expired without inspection.
2. The date of the earliest permit was May 15, 2010. As of December 19, 2014, the applicant had not called for
an inspection on any permit.
3. Although we had not received a request for inspection we toured the encroachment permit work on
December 9, 2014 to check on progress. We provided comments on apparent deficiencies on December 10,
2014.
4. Although the permits were for different work items and four were expired, in the interest of expediting the
completion, we offered to inspect and final all outstanding items under the one existing permit if they agreed.
5. The encroachment permit requires that "All work must be inspected prior, during, and after backfill, or
reexcavation will be required at Permittee's expense". Utilities had been covered as a part of the work and
were not readily available for inspection. We had previously asked for certifications from the utilities or
unearthing these utilities for inspection. On December 10, 2014, in the interest of moving toward a speedy
completion, we waived this requirement.
6. On December 10, 2014 we provided a letter stating the above (1-5) and strongly encouraged the applicant to
plan on having all work completed and inspected prior to December 18, 2014. We provided copies of various
standards, pictures of deficiencies and the encroachment permit to assist the applicant.
7. Although the permit requires "a minimum of two (2) working days prior to the performance of any work
under this permit." Public Works began to inspect on a moment's notice. There were times we showed for
inspections at the request for the applicant and there was no new work to inspect.
8. Thursday, December 18, 2014 we received a request to work on Saturday to repair PG&E patches. This was
just for the PG&E related work and the applicant was stating this needed to be done separately from the
applicant's work as they were separate permits. We noted that:
• Per our December 10 letter, the PG&E permit was expired. We iterated our offer to do this work under
the existing permit. They needed to decide this issue before proceeding. (insurance and liability issue)
• Saturday work required special permission. This permission had not been granted in at least the last 6
years.
• A minimum notice of two business days were needed prior to working in the roadway, this had not been
provided
• Nonetheless, we arranged for a person to work on Saturday to accommodate their request if they could
decide who's permit this would be done under.
9. Friday December 19, 2014, with Town Hall closed, we received an e-mail stating that "weather permitting,
we intend to allow Oak Grove to proceed with the street repairs under the extended EP". This did not
include a start time, or who was in charge of the construction. We requested this information. Further we
noted that this was only for the PG&E work, and that we had not received any notification of any other
work. We iterated that a minimum of two days notice were needed for that other work. We made
EXHIBIT NO.II
arrangements to accommodate the Saturday work. Saturday work was cancelled by the applicant later that
day.
10. We inspected roadway patching on December 23, 2014. We had less than a two day notice of this work. We
allowed work to go beyond the 5:00 pm end of work time stipulated in the permit.
11. Both our letter on December 10, 2014 and our letter on December 19, 2014, noted that erosion control work
needed to be improved.
• On December 10, 2014 we cautioned that the site did not appear to have adequate erosion control
measures in place and noted that violations of the Clean Water Act could result in fines and further
delays.
• On December 19, 2014 we noted that erosion control needed to be tightened up and asked for a point of
contract for who was responsible for erosion control.
• When we arrived on site on December 23, 2014, workers were actively washing off a driveway apron
into the gutter. This is a violation of municode 20A -10.c.1. We told them to stop and Public Works
secured the gutter flow to protect the storm drain.
Patrick Barnes, PE
Director of Public Works/Town Engineer
415-435-7388
Town ofTibumn • 1505 Tiburon Boulevud • Tiburon, CA 94920 • E 415.435.7373 E 415.4312438 vnvteci.dburon.a.us
December 10, 2014
IU.. io MOM
Whiteside Management, LLC
2 Henry Adams Street,
Suite M-3,
San Francisco, Ca. 94103
Regarding: 110 Gilmartin Encroachment Permits
Dear Mr. Rob Osborne:
This letters regards your encroachment permit for work in the Town of Tiburon
right-of-way as a part of the work at 110 Gilmartin Drive. We understand that
you need to complete all work on the. site by December 23, 2014 or there may be
significant monetary consequences. We also understand that the work described
in the encroachment permit must be completed and inspected prior to your
deadline to obtain Building Division approval.
I also write to caution you that the site does not appear to have adequate erosion
control measures in place. In view of the approaching storms, I strongly urge you
to check and correct this immediately. Violations of the Clean Water Act could
result in fines and further -delays.
Encroachment permits for this site include:
Permit T10-70 for heavy equipment transport. This permit has been
completed and closed. No further work is needed on this permit.
Permit 10- 53 issued May 15, 2010 to Craig Carnes of Thompson Brooks
for improvements to property in the right-of-way. This expired on
November 10, 2010 without inspection.
Permit 10-140 issued November 18, 2010 issued to Steve Smith of
Thompson Brooks, for improvements to property in the right-of-way
including new driveway curb cuts approaches, main box structure and
removal of trees. This permit expired May 18, 2011 without inspection.
Permit 14-31 issued on February 14, 2014 to Craig Carnes of Thompson
Brooks for a "new water service, fire sprinkler service to new house".
This permit was extended on November 25; 2014 by Rob Osborne and is
currently open and awaits final inspection.
Alice Fredericks
Mayor
Frank Doyle
Vice Mayor
Jim Fraser
Councilmember
Emmert O'Donnell
Councilmember
Erin Tollini
Coundimember
Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
Permit 13-133 issued to Julie Morrison of PG&E for Thompson Brooks
for PG&E work related to the project in the right-of-way. This expired
without an inspection.
Permit 14-73 for PG&E boring work related to the project in the right-of-
way. This expired without an inspection.
I note that the above permits are for different work items and some are expired.
Technically, the expired permits should be renewed. However, in the interest of
expediting the completion of this work, we will inspect and final all outstanding
items under the existing permit, if you agree to this. If you do not agree to this,
please ensure the expired permits are renewed immediately.
I note that utilities have been covered as a part of the work and are not readily
available for inspection. Further, I understand that Joel Brewer, my
Superintendent, has discussed either getting certifications from the utilities or
unearthing these utilities for inspection. On December 4, 2014, to satisfy this
requirement, you provided a letter dated November 113, 2014 from Rollo and
Ridley regarding geotechnical inspections. This letter would seem to be for onsite
geotechnical work, not utility verification or work in the right-of-way. However,
in the interest of moving toward a speedy completion and as I assume the utility
work was either done by the utilities or inspected by them prior to hook up, I am
waiving this requirement. There are however, other significant items that do need
to be addressed before we can final the permits.
All permits are required to have a final inspection to ensure completed conditions
meet the requirements of the permit. As of December 9, 2014 the Town had not
received a single request for inspection on any of the above encroachment
permits. Given our concern that you complete the work on time, we toured the
encroachment permit work on December 9, 2014 to check on progress. Here is
what we found:
Trench paving on Gilmartin does not meet required standards. Please see the
attached pictures. Some paving is still temporary "cutback" paving. Other paving
that is permanent in nature does not meet the Unified Construction Standards for
All Cities and the County of Marin. There are patches within 4 feet of the curb
that are not carried to the curb. There are irregular edges that are not trimmed to a
neat line. We have no compaction testing results. The surfaces are not flat and
level. This work needs to be corrected and completed prior to a final inspection.
I am attaching the relevant pages from the Unified Construction Standards.
Please note that paving this time of year is very tricky and paving cannot be done
in inclement weather. The days available to pave may be very limited and
therefore, this should receive your utmost attention.
The driveway cuts and approaches have not been completed. Please see
attached pictures. These need to be completed prior to the final inspection for the
encroachment permit.
Final grading has not been completed. Please see attached picture. This needs
to be completed prior to the final inspection for the encroachment permit.
Permanent erosion control has not been installed. When final grading is
complete, some planting or other form of permanent erosion control must be
installed prior to the final encroachment permit inspection.
As we were completing this letter today, Joel Brewer received the first call for an
inspection related to an encroachment permit — a portion of concrete curb. Mr.
Brewer made the inspection and passed comments onto the person who called for
the inspection. This is a great start, but there is still much to do.
Town staff wants to assist you in reaching your goal of completing your project
by December 23, 2014. To achieve this goal, you must complete the work
described above and call for inspections of this work. If you do not do this, we
cannot do a final inspection of your encroachment permit. Without that final
inspection and the closing of your encroachment permit, the Tiburon Building
Department cannot final your project. We strongly encourage you to plan on
having all work completed and inspected prior to December 18, 2014. We
believe that given the nature of the weather and construction this time of year,
planning completion after December 18th risks not completing the work by
December 23, 2014. While weather delays are common in contracts there are no
such delays provided for in permits.
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to working with you to inspect
the completed work. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact
me at 415435-7388.
Town Engineer
Town of Tiburon
Cc: Ann Danforth
Clay Salzman
Mr. Rob Osborne
Whiteside Management, LLC
2 Henry Adams Street
Suite M-3
San Francisco, CA, 94103
December 19, 2014
Dear Mr. Rob Osborne,
I received your e-mail sent today at 9:32 am regarding paving operations for the PG&E work tomorrow.
In that e-mail you state that, "weather permitting, we intend to allow Oak Grove to proceed with the
street repairs under the extended EP, as indicated, tomorrow, 12.20.14." As we need to schedule staff
to inspect this work, we need to know the time the work will begin. Further, we need to understand
how we will know if you or the contractor have decided not to do the work.
Yesterday December 18, 2014 at 3:36 pm my Superintendent, Joel Brewer, received an e-mail
requesting an inspection today at 10:00 am. Joel showed up at the site and there was no new curb
work. He had previously inspected some curb work the morning of December 18th, per an earlier
request. Either the communications have been crossed regarding inspection or work that was
requested to be inspected was not completed and we were not notified. Either way communications
were inadequate. As tomorrow's work will occur when the Town is closed, we need to ensure that
communications for this operation are good.
Given this please let us know what time the work will begin and who the superintendent of the work will
be. We expect that the superintendent will be connected to the extended permit and that the
superintendent will show at the appointed time even if the work will not be done. This will allow us to
properly ascertain that the work will not be done as opposed to it having been delayed.
Per your request and my e-mail of December 18, 2014, 1 note that this request is only for PG&E work.
Further as noted in the encroachment permit and my e-mail of December 18, 2014, a minimum of two
working days notice is required for work under the encroachment permit. We have not yet received any
notice of any paving not connected to PG&E.
My staff has noted that erosion control work needs to be tightened up. They mentioned that to Oak
Grove Construction and were told that Oak Grove Construction was contracted for the erosion control
work for the first four years but is not currently contracted for this work. Please let me know who is
responsible for erosion control work and provide a point of contract. In addition, please ensure all
erosion control work is properly installed.
Thank you in advance for taking care of these matters
Sincerely,
Patrick Barnes, PE
Councilmember Fraser said that the M&C Task had been working on rebranding the Town for
over three years and that it was a significant initiative. He said they had received extensive input
from the community during this time and that this was truly a long-term vision that would take
years and decades to accomplish. He said that imagery reflected the soul of the community. He
said he thought "Old Rail Trail" was the right name, reflecting the Town's history, and could be
embraced by all.
Vice Mayor Alice agreed; she said it was a good idea to connect the name to the Town's history
and that it was a national history, as well. She said that many towns and cities had converted their
old railroad rights of way to trails, byways and paths. She said it also fit because the railroad used
to connect the Town to the ferry and San Francisco before 1906.
Mayor O'Donnell concurred, and jokingly added that the word "old" might slow down some of
the fast-moving bicycles on the trail, as well.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution, as written.
Moved: Fraser, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Collins
1. Building Permit Extension — Consideration of building permit extension and
related fees for a single-family residential project located at 110 Gilmartin Drive
(Building Official Fred Lustenberger)
Property Owners: Stuart and Gina Peterson
AP No.: 309-171-12
Building Official Lustenberger gave the staff report. He said that the issue before the Council was
the consideration of granting the extension of a building permit for the project located at 110
Gilmartin Drive. He said the Council could decide whether to grant the extension and determine
the reactivation charges for the permit. He said this included two components — the recovery fee
(for ongoing labor such as inspection services) and the penalty fee (a Town policy that was in
place to reduce the number of construction projects that continue past 18 months and cause
disruption to neighborhoods). He said that the Council had the ability to act in a number of ways
and that the written staff report detailed three possible approaches for Council's consideration.
Mr. Lustenberger said that in his opinion the project at 110 Gilmartin Drive was well managed
and had experienced minimum delays. He said the site manager was responsive and attempted to
minimize impacts to the neighbors. However, the Building Official acknowledged that for some
of the neighbors, the project had gone on too long with no end in sight. He said that many of the
neighbors had shared their comments but had asked to remain anonymous.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 4
DYJ-IIBIT NO.-.
One neighbor, according to Lustenberger, said that he had no issues at all with the project except
for minor nuisances such as dust, and had even marketed his home with no negative result. But
the Building Official said that five other neighbors bad expressed opinions that ranged from
somewhat negative to very negative, even going so far as to say that the project had been
fraudulently misrepresented and should be punished to the maximum possible in order to
discourage this kind of outcome in future.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what kind of controls the Town had other than punishing
pocketbooks? Building Official Lustenberger said that 10 years ago, the Town had tried to
address the issue of ongoing construction and that the resultant ordinance covered most types of
construction within the town. He said the intent of this policy was to deal with projects that were
not managed well, "perpetual projects" as it were. He said that conventional homes could be built
much quicker than the project in question, which contained many customized features, and that it
was difficult to predict when some of the actual components might be ready for installation.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether it was possible to ask the project managers to create a
timeline and describe benchmark goals. Lustenberger said that might be possible. He also said
these types of issues might be more fully thought out in the Design Review process; he said that
in his review of the minutes, there was no talk about the length of construction of the project,
only a focus on the time involved in the demolition process.
Vice Mayor Fredericks commented that it was possible that the Town would not see a project of
this scope ever again and she asked whether accord might be reached through setting
benchmarks.
Councilmember Fraser asked for a definition of the term "substantially completed". Lustenberger
said this meant the time at which a Temporary Occupancy Permit would be issued and the family
could occupy the structure. He said that perhaps landscaping would be left to do, or paint and
carpet. Fraser asked how long a temporary permit lasted; Lustenbeger said this timeframe was
set on a project by project basis.
Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the Town required a performance bond for this size of project.
Lustenberger said that it did not.
Councilmember Fraser asked for a best estimate of completion of the project and was told August
2014. He asked whether this meant, when the last [construction] vehicle would leave the site.
Lustenberger said that meant heavy equipment. Fraser asked for a date that included every single
truck; the Building Official said he would be hesitant to give a date certain.
Councilmember Fraser acknowledged that this was an unusual new project with many known and
unknown components. But he suggested that someone must have experience with this type and
scope of project and could address these questions more fully.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 5
Building Official Lustenberger said that he had requested a project schedule and that it was, in
fact, a prerequisite for the consideration of an extension. Fraser said that a comprehensive
analysis would be helpful. Lustenberger said that construction flow charts for a regular home are
generally predictable, but the nature of this project made it more difficult to predict.
Mayor O'Donnell asked whether, at the time of issuance of the permit in June 2010, the Town
was aware that the project would take more than 18 months to complete.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that the Building Official had granted the
initial permit for 24 months, the longest that he had authority to grant.
O'Donnell wondered about some of the components of the project that had been described as
unique or custom or complex, such as the cantilevered beams. He said that he was in the steel
business and that steel certainly was not "esoteric" in his opinion. The Building Official
described a window component that was being fabricated for the project and had to undergo wind
tunnel testing before installation, as it was not a standard building code -recognized design or
fabrication. He said this assembly, and other design features of the project, were not "off the
shelf', which made working with them more difficult and time-consuming.
Councilmember Doyle said he was Chair of the Design Review Board at the time the project was
approved. He agreed that it was not even "close" to a typical home and he said he had been
worried at the time about the massive amount of material to be removed from the site prior to the
start of construction of the new home. He said this included 100,000 pavers, ponds, waterfalls,
and four to five buildings. He said the question did arise how it would be possible to both
demolish the existing structures and build the new project in the allotted time.
Doyle said that the architect for the project was well known for his unique designs and that this
home will be remembered in this context, as well. He said the Town simply lacked the necessary
guidelines for dealing with the scope of this type of project.
Mayor O'Donnell asked whether adding more people to the job would get it done faster.
Lustenberger said that with this high level of precision construction it could be
counterproductive. He also noted that the Town's rules did not allow weekend work.
Mayor O'Donnell noted that the Empire State Building was erected in 13 months.
Building Official Lustenberger commented that he has been the inspector of record for several,
similar -size projects in other locales, and that the current project timeline was consistent with
those projects.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether the construction schedule could be modified and filed
periodically with the Building Department for the benefit of keeping the neighbors informed.
Town Council Minutes #06-2013 May 1, 2013 Page 6
Lustenberger said that this is the first revision of the construction schedule he has received and that it
is a public document, available for review by the neighbors. He clarified for the Council that this is
the schedule they were being asked to consider for the extension of the permit.
The Council noted that in just receiving the document, they had not had time to review it.
Councihnember Fraser said it looked to him mostly like a historical schedule; he said the Council
owed it to the community to have an accurate schedule, perhaps a 30 -day at a time schedule. He said
this was more important than the issue of penalty fees and punishment.
Fraser said that the schedule lacked specific detail to his satisfaction.
Mayor O'Donnell said that it appeared the end -date of the construction was December 9, 2014.
Councilmember Doyle noted that included landscaping and other work.
Town Attorney Danforth pointed out that the Council had to accept the schedule if it decided to
extend the pen -nit. She suggested that the Council might ask the applicant to more finely tune it,
if desired.
Mayor O'Donnell opened the matter for public comment.
Judith Thompson, CEO of Thompson Brooks, contractor, said she would speak after a
presentation by the Project Manager, Patrick Davis.
Mr. Davis said he had brought hand-outs of the presentation and timeline for the Council but
noted that the Council had already received them [as late mail]. Mr. Davis gave a brief report on
the background and history of the project. He said that it was 66% complete. He said the plans
were only schematic drawings during the Design Review process so it would have been difficult
to pinpoint specific timelines. He said that final engineered plans were submitted in August of
2012.
Mr. Davis commented that the Fire Marshal had required a commercial fire sprinkler system due
to the size of the project and cited this as an example of the unique, customized nature of the
project. He listed other features, as well, which had led to the slower construction and precluding
options for fast -tracking it. Nevertheless, he said they had tried hard to address the concerns of
the neighbors and that they would make every effort to complete the project as soon as possible.
He asked the Council to grant the extension of the permit.
With regard to fees levied, Mr. Davis requested a cap on fees similar to the system used in the
City of Belvedere ($1,000 per day with a cap of $200,000). He said the DRB had granted the
applicants a variance for the size of the home and he said the construction timeline should reflect
this, noting that three homes could be built on the two parcels and would take even longer (if
constructed serially) than the current one -home project.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 7
Ms. Thompson concurred with the argument to calculate the fees based on size of the project. But
she suggested that the Council might consider another way to control the time of construction on
this type of project.
Ms. Thompson went on to say that the property owners had already paid penalties associated with
the time of the project construction and that the team was moving as fast as we can. She asked
the Council not to penalize them further, stating that they had done nothing wrong.
Mayor O'Donnell asked her how she would respond to the letter asking for more people to be
placed on the project to expedite it. Ms. Thompson said that she, too, wanted to complete it as
soon as possible but the she could not get any more people on the job.
Councilmember Fraser asked the project manager how much longer past the estimated completion
date the punch list items would take and when the last truck would leave the property. There was an
ensuing discussion of whether this was in fact two or three months, or even four to six months.
Fraser asked whether it was possible to present a believable schedule.
In summing up his presentation, the project manager said that the project would enhance the
beauty of the community and increase its property values and the property tax revenue to the
Town.
Dr. Mark Singer, resident of Gilmartin Drive for 20 years, thanked the Building Official for his
excellent staff report and the Council for giving him the opportunity to speak. He said that he was
not a NIMBY; that the construction was actually taking place in his front yard for the better part
of three years, obstructing his views and causing noise and seismic disturbances to his family. He
said that they had had to keep their windows closed for three years.
Dr. Singer asked why the Town's ordinance [penalties] should not be enforced in this instance.
He said the project timelines could not be verified; that his property had sustained physical
damage to its structure and had broken windows. He said that in hindsight, he felt that the public
was "gamed" during the design review process because of the awesome features of the new home
but that it was not neighborly, fair or equal for a project of this size and cost to impact the
neighborhood in this way.
Dr. Singer suggested that the Council might also get a second opinion, as in medicine, regarding
the construction timeline. He said the Council needed to do this and preserve the integrity of the
[review] process.
Mayor O'Donnell closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked staff about the suggestion of obtaining a second opinion. Building
Official Lustenberger said that there was a provision in the Town Code whereby the Town can
require that another firm come in if the project is not being managed properly.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 8
Fredericks asked whether Mr. Lustenberger was comfortable with the current project team.
Lustenberger said that there was no evidence of incompetence or reason to believe that the team
would not move ahead in a satisfactory manner.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked about the drawings that had been presented to the Design Review
Board. Director Anderson said that the detailed construction drawings were always developed
later and that essentially what the Board approved was "pretty pictures".
Fredericks asked if engineering was ever considered at the Design Review Board level. Anderson
said no, not at the time of public review. He said that engineering was considered at the Building
Department level during the permitting process but that the DRB never sees engineered plans.
Mayor O'Donnell asked if the [engineered] plans were reviewed by Town staff or outsourced.
Anderson said they were outsourced due to the size and complexity of the project.
Mayor O'Donnell asked about the initial cost of the project and the fees paid to date.
Lustenberger said the building permit had estimated the project cost at $13.5 million and that
$243,882 had been paid to the Town in fees for the initial building permit issuance.
Councilmember Fraser said the Council needed to determine how long the construction would
take and needed more specificity in the timeline. He said that while the project appeared to be
managed well on a day-to-day level, somehow there was a failure on the strategic level and there
might be some room for improvement. He suggested following up on a peer review by bringing
in an outside expert.
Mayor O'Donnell suggested not rehashing the project and moving on to obtaining an appropriate
timeline and determining how to apply the fees.
Councilmember Doyle said that the fees were meant to penalize someone who is not doing what
they are supposed to be doing. He said that was not the case in this instance. He said he did not
see how the team could move faster on this type and size of project, so that creating an incentive
fee did not seem understandable.
Mayor O'Donnell disagreed; he said that there had to be some sort of incentive and that a
commercial incentive was the greatest incentive.
Councilmember Doyle said he understood the Singers' point of view; he said that he had lived
through six years of construction of three houses in front of his own home. However, he
continued to argue against the notion that the project was being willfully delayed.
Councilmember Fraser suggested getting both a comprehensive timeline and a peer review and
linking the fees to performance along the way. He said he had little confidence in the dates that
had been projected. Doyle asked him then if a realistic estimation of completion was more
important than fees.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 9
Town Attorney Danforth said there were, in fact, two components to the fees to be considered by
Council: 1) penalty fees (because the Code did not allow more than two years of construction);
and 2) a cost recovery fee which she said should be adopted to track the hard costs of staff review
and inspections.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said that in her work as a behavioral psychologist, it was proven that
incentives drive behavior. However, she said she was reluctant to ask staff to "micromanage" the
project. She said the unknowns would diminish overtime and that her idea of using benchmarks
was to give feedback to the neighbors. She said an incentivized fee schedule and cost recovery
was for public efficacy and she said she was happy with the staffs recommendation and
Councilmember Fraser's request for a [monthly] updated timeline. However, she said the latter
would require management by staff.
Mayor O'Donnell said he would support staff recommendation No. 2 coupled with a detailed
timeline and additional oversight (peer review).
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what peer review would accomplish. Councilmember Fraser said
that it would help answer the question of why, after 34 months, the project was only 66%
complete.
Building Official Lustenberger noted that the fees (associated with the schedule) were for three
separate, six-month extensions and that the fees would become increasingly punitive. Fraser
said he would not support that type of incentivized schedule.
Mayor O'Donnell noted the timeline estimated a final inspection date of September 19, 2014. He
asked if the punch list items would extend past that time. Lustenberger said that date included the
punch list. The Mayor proposed adopting an incentivized fee schedule that would go to monthly
in August or September [2014] and would go straight to penalty phase if the project was not
completed.
Councilmember Doyle said he agreed with the recommendation to request a more complete
schedule but did not understand what they were penalizing.
Mayor O'Donnell said that point of the penalties was to demonstrate that the Council would
apply the same standards to every resident of the Town regardless of wealth, size of home, etc.
O'Donnell said that the applicants made a choice to embark on this design, level of engineering,
etc., and would have to live with the consequences of the process. He said that they were no
doubt aware of the penalties they would have to pay to accomplish it and he said he was also sure
that they wanted to get it done. So, in his estimation, Option No. 2 seemed the best option as it
involved the straight application of the Town Code.
Councilmember Fraser said that he was "on board" but wanted to see the schedule.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 10
Mayor O'Donnell agreed that the applicant should provide a more detailed schedule and that the
Building Official, not the Council, should manage the timeline.
Vice Mayor Fredericks moved "To approve the permit extension based on an incentivized fee
schedule, contingent upon receipt of a more detailed timeline, and straight application of the
Town Code if the deadline was not met".
The Mayor suggested that the applicants be given a few more months to finish, perhaps to the end
of the year [2014]. He said it would be easier to resolve if they were given a few more months.
He said the monthly fees at this juncture would be $73,000 in October, $73,000 in November and
$73,000 in December, for a total of $544,000.
Town Attorney Danforth and Town Manager Curran attempted to further clarify the motion.
Danforth said the six-month permit issued in June 2014 would expire at the end of 2014. Curran
said that the Council had discretion and was not bound by a six-month extension.
There was a sidebar discussion between Councilmember Doyle and Fraser about the need for
review at the DRB level of the length of construction. Doyle said that the Board was told that
there would be two crews; one for take down and one for build up.
The motion was amended to read, "To direct staff to return with a resolution which extends the
permit based upon the receipt of a more detailed timeline, using an incentivized fee schedule up
to the completion date of September 19, 2014, allowing a few months' grace period at the
monthly rate; if the completion of the project is not met by January 1, 2015, the Town will
penalize the project in a straight application of the Town Code".
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Fredericks, O'Donnell
NOES: Fraser, Doyle
ABSENT: Collins
Motion failed. The Town Attorney noted that failure to adopt a motion would mean that the
permit extension was denied.
The motion was restated as above except that the final extension of the permit would be granted
for six months, bringing the completion date to December 23, 2014.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Fraser
Vote: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
NOES: Doyle
ABSENT: Collins
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 11
a. Holding the Bag: (May 1, 2013)
b. Garbology in Marin: Wasted Energy (May 8, 2013)
c. Marin's Retirement Health Care Benefits: The Money Isn't There (May 22,
2013) (Town Attorney Danforth)
Trestle Glen Circle —Approve the parcel map and related documents for the Trestle Glen
Circle Subdivision and authorize the Town Manager to execute related agreements
(Community Development Department)
6. League of California Cities Annual Conference — Appoint Town voting delegate for the
September 18 -20 Conference in Sacramento (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi)
Downtown Restrooms — Approve funding agreements with Blue & Gold Fleet L.P. and
the owners of Angel Island -Tiburon Ferry and Ferry Terminal property at 21 Main
regarding contributions to the downtown restroom lease obligation (Town Attorney
Danforth)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-7, as written.
Moved: Fraser, seconded by Slavitz
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: O'Donnell
ACTION ITEMS
/ 1. 110 Gilmartin Drive Building Permit Extension —Consider resolution modifying the
reactivation charges to extend the building permit for construction of a single-family
dwelling and appurtenant structures at 110 Gilmartin Drive (Town Attorney Danforth)
In her staff report, Town Attorney Danforth said the Peterson began construction of the 110
Gilmartin Drive project in June of 2010 and that their third building permit extension expired on
June 23, 2013. She said the Town's Building Code requires the Town Council to grant any
additional extensions. Accordingly, on May 1, 2013, Danforth said the Town Council considered
the matter of the appropriate reactivation charges and other conditions for the fourth extension.
The Town Attorney said the Code authorized a reactivation charge of up to five rimes the original
permit fee, or $388,230, for each future extension.
After considering public testimony, she said the Council decided to impose a reactivation charge
schedule that would incentivize rapid completion by increasing the charge for each successive
six-month extension. On May 15, 2013, the Council adopted these charges, and other condition
relating to scheduling, in Resolution No. 14-2013. Danforth said the Petersons disputed the
legality of the reactivation charges and threatened suit. But Danforth said that during the
subsequent negotiations, the Petersons agreed to accept the revised charges set forth in the
proposed draft resolution, which reduce the fees but substantially increase the penalties. She said
they were in fact significantly larger than what the Town Council could impose. But Danforth
Town Council Minutes #10 -2013 July 17, 2013 Page 3
E]KHIBIT NO. a
said that the Petersons agreed to pay a significantly larger penalty for failure to finish by
December 23, 2014 in exchange for a lower charge for the extension needed to extend the
Building Permit until that date.
In addition to the higher incentive to finish by December 23, 2014, the Town Attorney said the
proposed resolution would include a specific definition of "completion" as the Building
Division's final approval of all permitted work, such that no work would continue on the project
that would, if performed in isolation, require a permit.
Councilmember Fraser referenced a statement on page 2 of the staff report. He asked whether
the definition of completion meant that all permits would be closed by December 23, 2014.
Danforth said, yes, that all work must be "complete and finaled," pursuant to the agreement.
Vice Mayor Fredericks opened the item to public comment.
Attorney Riley Hurd, representing the Peterson, said that tying the cost of the penalty to a
percentage of the permit cost was not legal; also, imposing penalties with no cap. He said that
his position had been more fully stated in a letter that was part of the administrative record [the
Town Clerk was not provided with a copy of the letter at the hearing]. But Attorney Hurd went
on to say that he was not there to litigate, and that the proposed amendments would be better for
the Town and better define what completion meant.
Mr. Hurd said that his clients had engaged a separate construction management firm to ride herd
on the project. He also said that his clients were disappointed that the matter had risen to this
level of scrutiny; he added that his clients had relied on staff s assurance that if the project were
managed well, "it would not be a problem".
Mark Singer, project neighbor, noted he had also spoken at the May 15 hearing. Mr. Singer said
that he was pleased that the Petersons had engaged an outside consultant; he said it appeared that
the workforce on the project had tripled since imposition of the penalty fees. But Mr. Singer said
he felt that there had been a "disconnect" between the Town's Building Department and Design
Review Board, and hoped that this process had created a learning opportunity for the Town [for
projects of this scope and size]. He suggested that benchmarks could be established or some
other mechanism might be employed so that the neighborhood might be restored to the high
quality it had enjoyed beforehand.
Len Jaffe, neighbor to the Singers, said that he, too, lived in close proximity to the project and
underscored his neighbor's comment that "we all knew it would take longer" than the time
allowed. He said it had been difficult for the neighbors; a significant disruption in their daily
lives. He asked the Council to benchmark the remainder of the project so that "we don't find out
on December 22" that it will not be completed. He admitted that he didn't know what the answer
was [to large projects of lengthy duration]. Mr. Jaffe also noted that now that construction
activity had increased, there were now more trucks than ever speeding down the road at quitting
time.
Town Council Minutes #10 -2013 July 17, 2013 Page 4
Vice Mayor Fredericks closed the item to public comment.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution, as written.
Moved: Doyle, seconded by Slavitz
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: O'Donnell
2. Parente Vista Subdivision — Consider request for an exception to Town Conservation
Easement for the installation of a water line to serve the Parente Vista Subdivision
(Community Development Department)
Address: 325 Taylor Road
Applicant: Lionel Achuck/Dragon 22 LLC
Assessor Parcel # 038-182-41
Director of Community Development Anderson said that on September 1, 2010, the Town
Council had approved the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan to develop a 10.2 -acre
property located at the end of Antonette Drive and Parente Road with two single-family
dwellings. In order to provide water service to Lot 2 of this subdivision, he said the applicants
proposed to install a water line within an easement across the property uphill from the site at 325
Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel H).
Anderson said the Town of Tiburon holds a conservation easement across the portion of Ring
Mountain Parcel H where the water line is proposed. He said the easement contains restrictions
against grading or construction within the Town easement, but provides that the Town Council
may authorize exceptions to these restrictions, "provided such exceptions are consistent with the
purposes of law and not incompatible with the approved [Ring Mountain Parcel H] Precise
Development Plan." The owners of the Parente Vista property have now applied for an exception
to allow the installation of the water line across the Town easement.
In his analysis, Director Anderson said the project would involve the installation of a 2 inch
diameter water line within a 10 -foot -wide water facilities easement approximately 400 feet
downslope to the Parente Vista property. He said the proposal would not be precedent -setting
and cited at least three previous examples of this type of utility line being authorized by the
Town over open space. Anderson said an important factor in approving the exception would be
whether the water line would serve more than one home and therefore have growth -inducing
potential. He noted that this water line would serve only one home, thereby not encouraging
further development.
The Director said there would be minimum disturbance to the land within the conservation
easement, leaving the property afterwards indistinguishable from its present condition. He noted
that much of the proposed easement area was part of a large landslide repair performed during
the greater Ring Mountain development in the 1990's and was by no means pristine land.
Town Council Minutes #10 -2013 July 17, 2013 Page 5
To: Clay Salzman
Subject: Assessor Parcel 039-171-12
To: Clay Salzman
In regard to the building permit extension request, I believe that your statement in the second
paragraph aptly reflects our thinking, i.e. "a project that will require a fifth six-month time extension".
For the first two years, it was the noise and the dust. This past year, it has been the inconvenience of
not being able to readily drive up and down Gilmartin Drive. As you are aware, this project was
scheduled to be finished several years ago. Last year, a pre -determined fine was not collected, with
the understanding that the project was to be finished by December 23, 2014 or a fine would be paid.
That should have been sufficient incentive for completion. Furthermore, our street, Gilmartin Court, is
in disrepair, certainly due in part to the trucks that drive down. We have been promised by the project
manager that the potholes on our street would be filled in. While Gilmartin Drive was repaired,
nothing has been done on our street (except the time we attempted to fill in the holes two years ago).
From my perspective, it has been too much inconvenience and too little regard for those of us who
live here. I do not support an extension.
Sincerely,
Len Yaffe
05
2 Trz?, T7 !\T:J. 1 T
January 5, 2015
TO:
Clay Salzman, Building Official
csalzman@townoftiburon.ore
FROM:
Robert and Vivian Rudy
109 Gilmartin Drive
Tiburon
Rob.rudv@me.com
RE: 110 Gilmartin Drive Permit Extension
Mr. Salzman,
I am writing in regards the upcoming building permit extension request for 110 Gilmartin Drive. We
have a few concerns regarding the project. Several of these are what I would classify as nuisances, but
one issue I believe may have a long-term negative impact on the neighborhood.
I will begin with the nuisance issues as these should be easily resolved. In May 2014, a meeting was
held where neighbors expressed concern over various issues related to the site and its employees. I
received a letter from the town indicating that these issues would be addressed —and for the most part,
they have been. However, more recently, enforcement seems to have slacked off. Our primary
ongoing complaints are:
1. People have begun smoking again in proximity to our home resulting in smoke entering our
yard.
2. No parking signs have been erected directly across the street from our driveway, but are
routinely ignored by site workers and subcontractors making egress out of our property difficult.
3. Traffic controllers have been poorly situated at times and have in one instance been quite rude
to my wife. This is unacceptable.
4. Workers need to be reminded to slow down, obey traffic laws and keep to the right side of the
road— particularly on the blind corners. We shouldn't need to keep reminding them of this as
our safety and that of our children is at stake.
5. Town rules for legal working hours should be followed.
The issue of greatest concern to me in terms of its long term impact to the neighborhood continues to
be the perimeter fencing. I believe it would be helpful to review what has transpired to date. Before
the project was approved, I objected to the solid fencing as being out of character with the
neighborhood. No otherhouse on upper Gilmartin has such perimeter fencing as it as it is not allowed
in the neighborhood CC&R's (attachment 1). 1 recognize that 110 Gilmartin was originally developed
as a Round Hill Road address prior to the existence of the Upper Gilmartin subdivision, and is therefore
not subject to the CC&R's. However, as the owners have changed the access and address of the
property to 110 Gilmartin and because the structure has such a significant frontage on Gilmartin Drive, I
i :_r IBIT NO. �
believe some effort should be made not to change the character of the neighborhood and respect the
design principles in the CC&Rs.
After my initial objection , the Petersons agreed to change the fencing to a more open style. However,
In April 2013, after the project was approved and work was underway, they modified their landscaping
plan to return to a staggered, but solid-looking perimeter fence. After reviewing the new plan —which
showed the fence being concealed by trees and shrubs, I refrained from objecting further — because the
landscaping plan indicated that sufficient trees and shrubs would be planted to mostly obscure the view
of the fence from the road.
In November 2014, the landscaping was installed in front of the fence on Gilmartin Drive.
Unfortunately, while the number of trees appear consistent with the submitted landscaping plan, the
spacing of the trees is not. The short distance between tree canopies shown on the plan is in actuality
long spans of exposed fencing which, in my opinion, is unattractive and highly inconsistent with the rest
of the neighborhood (see Attachment 2). In addition, a large, ugly pipe and valve structure has been
installed directly across the street from our home (Attachment 3). 1 sent an email to Mr. Peterson's
place of business expressing my concern, but it is unclear if they received it as I received no reply.
I have two requests for modification of the landscaping in order to mitigate its impact on the
neighborhood.
1. We would appreciate it if more olive trees and/or other landscaping that does not obstruct the
view of our uphill neighbors at 111 Gilmartin were planted to better conceal the fence and be
more consistent with the spacing depicted on the landscaping plan.
2. If it is allowed by the utility that installed it, we would appreciate it if the large valve could be
concealed from the street in some way.
As for extending the permit, we are of course in favor of having the permit extended and the project
completed as expeditiously as possible with fines levied as town rules mandate. I also continue to
advocate that some portion of these fines go into neighborhood improvement projects, such as
removing invasive species from the open space.
Regards,
Robert Rudy
arracH�€�J,d-
C C 'T'
s l Off' Dc L- MA7 c`P-A Sv�j O J� Sl .'�n.i
4.5 Nuisances: No noxious or offensive activity
_
or use shall be .r on or permitted at any Lot, nor
shall anything be done on any Lot which is or may be or
become an annoyance or nuisance to the owners or occupants
of other Lots or which is or may be or become hazardous by
reason of danger or increased risk of Eire or explosion or
any other hazard.
4.6 Construction of Im rovements Dama a or
Deatz ac tion: T e construction of any Improvements on a Lot
,hall �a c°mpleted without delay except delay due to,acis of
pfd the
towner , for other prevent. In Or the eventsofeaond the da age tocontrol
or
destruction of an Improvement on a Lot, the owner of such
Lot shall commence, as promptly as possible, and complete,
within a reasonable time, the restoration, repair or
reconstruction of such Improvement (in a manner complying
with this Declar UOUI
4.7 Fences: NO fences, ornamental screens,
awnings, wails, hedges or other landscaping shall be erected
or permitted upon any Lot except those constructed in
accordance with Final Plans approved blantintheTswusednas
ences on proper Y lines a a
—be—allow—ed.
4.9 Antennae: No antennae, towers, aerials or
other facilities for the reception or transmission of radio
or television broadcasts or other means of communication
shall be erected and maintained on any Lot except by
installations within structures constructed on such Lot or
by underground conduits.
4,9 Animals: No animals of any kind Shall be
raised, bred or —kap, the Del Madera Subdivision;
provided, however, that as long as such animals are not
kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose, nor in
violation of any other catsnorf this Declaration, a
other household pets may
reasonable number of doge,gs,
be kept within or upon any Lot. No Owner shall keep or
maintain any animal which l be
a public or private
nuisance. Each Owner shall be Liable to each and all other
owners, their guests, licensees, invitees, lessees and
tenants for any unreasonable noise or damage to person or
property caused by any animal brought or kept within or upon
any portion of the Del Madera Subdivision by such owner or
his guests, and it shall be the absolute duty and
responsibility of such ownerto remove any of e Del Madera waste deposited
by such animal upon any Portion
Subdivision.
14.
A r —1tq C N tA � I-Tj- -Z_
PROPOSED TREE SPACING FROM APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN
Ill Gilmartin Driveway
109 Gilmartin Drivewav—
Trees
ACTUAL TREE SPACING
era tk
4F,
-r#t 9 IL 5
Valve located directly across the street. It utility allows, please landscape to conceal
Scott Anderson
From: Dan Grossman [Dan@tukmangrossman.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Clay Salzman; Scott Anderson
Subject: Comments from my wife today to go with the pictures. This is embarrassing the entire town
now.
My lunch-time view. Two big dump trucks, front -loaders, backhoes, utility trucks -- beeping,
backing up in the street, dumping and chipping rocks, shouting, etc
6
I%j
v -. I I
e
low
r
f
♦ ij y. a
ppppF t 9 r k �►� i �. % � �
r I � IL
IF
♦ •, 1
`Y R
•sw-•r7.
[Jl.
tti ,l!
1
• � c M • -a � Kx..)
1 �
To: Tiburon Town Council Members and Mr. Clay Salzman, Building Official of Tiburon J41
January 6, 2015
RE: 110 Gilmartin Drive Building Permit Extension Request
Dear Town Council Members and Mr. Clay Salzman
I was shocked when I read the notice of a request for a "fifth six-month time extension" of the building permit for
the construction at 110 Gilmartin Drive, I was really looking forward to having the congestion on Gilmartin Drive
AND Gilmartin Court finally cleared of the multitude of cars & trucks that park on the road hindering our passage,
the flagman frequently stopping us & requiring us to wait as large vehicles travel in and out of the site—sometimes
10 minutes or more, the noise of the machinery, the many workmen who walk on the roads darting out as we least
expect it or talking to one another and blocking the road as we wait. Living with this construction just 2 lots over
from our home has been a Nightmare—now I feel as if the Nightmare will never end!
I am extremely disappointed that the last 5/21/2014 extension of six months which was to be the final six months
has NOT been adhered to by the builders. In addition, at this 5/21/2014 Town Council meeting, we understood
that there was not to be any construction parking on the small road of Gilmartin Court where they had been
parking in all the spaces & not leaving even one for visitors to the homes on Gilmartin Court. It was adhered to for
about 4 months but has been totally disregarded in the past 1-2 months. Approximately, 1-2 months ago, the
landscapers told me they would be parking in our parking bays for only 2 weeks maximum. Unfortunately since
that day, we have had all the parking spaces filled with trucks, cars & even a vehicle with an apprx 45-60 ft high
crane. Also, we did not receive prior notification each time there was to be a flagman who would delay our travels
either.
I am very upset with the total disregard and inconsideration for the neighbors' peace & livability by the builders &
owners of this large property. It is ridiculous for one home to need 5 years to be built and cause havoc for our
neighborhood & the residents for such a long period of time...with no definite end in sight! We have yet to hear
any apologies, explanations or words of understanding from the owners as well.
When we were notified of this request for extension by the Town, the notice mentioned "a stop -work order" was
in place as of December 23, 2014. However, at 6:45am on 12/30/2014, 1 saw at minimum 5 workmen & a car
entering the property & people working until at least 3:00pm. Also, some workmen were working there on
subsequent days. It appears the entire neighborhood still has to endure completion of the construction inside and
around the home for another unknown future period.
I feel an extension is not deserved. But if there is any extension granted, I respectfully suggest that the Town
Council please consider:
1) Collecting a hefty fine for not meeting this last completion deadline promised in order to encourage this
to be the FINAL extension. Also, it should consider then levying an additional hefty fine for each day over
the extension if needed. Perhaps a shorter extension period should be granted, i.e. 2 or 3 months instead
of &
2) Requiring that ALL cars be parked & ALL materials be stored on the property for the remainder of this
project.
3) Using some portion of the fine to repave the entire Gilmartin Court road due to the heavy traffic that has
taken its toll on our private road and for the total inconvenience that this construction has caused our
small neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruth Yaffe
10 Gilmartin Court
Tiburon CA
ZXHIBIT NO. I