The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2007-10-05 ~ TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of October 1- 5,2007 . Tiburon 1. Town Calendar - October 2007 2. Letter from Colleen Mahoney - Tax Assessment for Del Mar Undergrounding 3. Letter from Heidi Bigall- Tax Assessment for Del Mar Undergrounding Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes - Design Review Board - September 20, 2007 5. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - October 4, 2007 6. Agenda - Sanitary District No.5 - October 1, 2007 7. Agenda - Planning Commission - October 10, 2007 Regional a) Invitation - MCC Community Volunteer Service Days * b) Breakfast Invitation - EAH - October 25,2007 * c) Invitation - 47th Annual Holiday Moose Feed * Agendas & Minutes d) Agenda - Marin Healthcare District - October 9, 2007 e) Study Session - Marin Healthcare District - October 9,2007 * Council Only oa lit - -0 G.I lit -- DO .... =: -- c > Q IllI:: - - -- ::>> .... .... !;;: G.I u ~ G.I cc ~ '" III .-..- 0 0 =: ~ c::i ,...... Q ........ :is D2 ~ ..... .a ::::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =: Q '" IllI:: ~ ::>> ::c .... - ....c M =: ~ Q '" w Z Q w 8 ~ N =: Q '" w ::>> .... M N <=> <=> ,.:...: c e<: cc o co ~ ~ e<: Z l..:' ~~ co..: o ~ 0..: ::;:: ,.:...: ---' c; z = 8 z ~ o t- 0. <=> <=> ,.:...: ,_ ~ ~ .. ...Q ~ E .."'~ ~~ ~:c5 0- c: "" = c: 0 <'l:I~ ~- r;; . v E ...9 ci. co I~ ,... N 0. -0 N co III N E n:i ~ , g ..c::: .. v = c: ...Q ~i= .. E .... >- ...Q l..:' E .... <'l:I ..c::: ..c::: t- ~- <=> <=> ,.:...: E ci.. ~ c e<: cc o co ~ ~ e<: z l..:' ~::a::: co..: .... ~-;;;- .. <'l:I ~ ~ <'l:I = 68 ,... ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0..: ~ a:; ~ ~ c: ~ z o ~ :;E ::E: o ~ l..:' Z z 5~ c....o..: z o ~ ::E: ::E: 8 l..:' ::!:: z z ::5~ c....o..: ---' c; z = o ~ z ~ o t- ~ ~ ::E: -0 ~ L.U~ ~~ e; ~ z u...oz ~Q ~~ ~:;E e<: ::E: ~8 .... v c: .... .. -E ~ ~ <=> ~~ cc ~z u...oQ l..:' ..... cc..... t- ::E: e<: ::E: u...o 0 = ~ .... v c: .... ] ~ E ci.. ~ E ci.. ~ ~ E ~ g co e<: ~ E ~ g co e<: III N N =: .... C Q ~ Z v Os .... 0 0 E E ~ :E o 0 v Os c:~ :... 0 E E v c: o 0 u...o .... c:~ ::::s ~~ 0 v c: E..E u...o .... .a .. E ~ ~ ~ g- -- - ~ c E- .... ~ ~ ,... ~ c ~ \l- N CO 0 =: N . I C Q "=::. <~ Z ~ ~ ::>> ~ ~ ~ ~i:: 0 ....~ ~~ ~c> .... I .a l::: .......""'2 I ~-,!:::: ~~ :.s: I I /. M ~ ~ ~ -..;:: ~ o M 0. N ..,. "~i . G (,/ . I.) -<: (,\ }.(~ \....1 (-J I,.j U t2\n () \'0 \ c.JrL- Pr1 Octo ber 2, 2007 D\GESl [:iECEIVEu ~-3~~ FINANCE DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON ;t. Colleen Mahoney PO Box 1053 Tiburon, CA 94920 Owner: 680 Hawthorne Drive, Tiburon Ms. Heidi Bigall Director of Administrative Services Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Tax assessment for Del Mar under grounding Dear Ms. Bigall, I just received my tax bill from the Marin County Tax Collector. Tax for the Del Mar DAD is itemized on my bill. I would like a full explanation for this. My understanding is that this matter is tied up in the courts. I have received no benefit from this assessment. What is the Town doing with this tax money? What will the Should the under grounding effort be aborted what will happen to my tax money? What authority does the Town have to levy a tax for an "improvement" that may never happen? And, shouldn't the tax collector impound these taxes? If the under grounding project does not occur each taxpayer should receive a full refund including interest. Please let me know what is happening with the Del Mar under grounding project and what I might expect as a taxpayer. Sincerel y, ~! ' U~ Colleen Mahoney Town ofliburon · 1505 TIburon Boulevard. TIburon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 · www.ci.tiburon.ca.us October 4,2007 ~~ DIGEST Ms. Colleen Mahoney PO Box 1053 Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Your letter - Del Mar Utility Underground District dated October 2, 2007 Dear Ms. Mahoney: Thank you for your letter and your questions. Your frustration is shared by others involved in the project. As you know, the project rests on two assessment districts, each of which is the subject of a separate lawsuit. The first lawsuit, filed by the Bonander and Mulberg families, is'pending in the California Supreme Court. The second suit was filed by the same parties, plus 18 other property owners in the district, and is likely to go next to the California Court of Appeal. There are 221 property owners involved in the project. Unfortunately, both the 22 litigating property owners and the 199 non-litigating owners must wait to realize any project benefits. The Town sold the bonds for the first assessment district because the likelihood that the suit would be successful was small and because it was easy to defer selling bonds on the challengers' properties. The Town is similarly confident of success in the second lawsuit, but there are too many prqperty owners to drop from the bond sale, accordingly, it would be imprudent to raise the funds necessary to award the construction. Thus, you and other property owners will not receive any benefit from the bond sale (other than litigation defense) until the Town can resolve the litigation issues. However, the Town has sold the bonds for the first district (hence the assessments on your property) and the bond proceeds are in a segregated Town investment account gaining interest. The Town, on behalf of the involved 221 property owners, must make the principal and interest payments on the bonds but the remaining bond proceeds (the public improvement funds) will continue to be invested. The authority of the Town Council to levy an improvement assessment on a property is provided for in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the California Streets and Highways Code and the-authority for the bond sale is provided for in the 1915Bond Act. The bond sale is simply a financing mechanism and would not be necessary if all property owners made straight cash payments for their assessment obligation. However, only 24 of the 221 involved property owners chose to make cash payment for their assessment amount. ,. t 4< ''\. Ms. Colleen Mahoney October 4, 2007 Page Two The delay is r.egrettable, but beyond the Town's control. We look forward to a successful utility underground proj ect in the Del Mar Valley area. """ ~. I Sincerely, t::V-:-CX:-~ ~ Heidi Bigall Director of Administrative Services c- Town Manager Town Attorney Town Engineer Project Coordinator 'f. MINUTES #16 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 DIGEsr The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chair Frymier. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Doyle, Vice-Chair Frymier, Boardmembers Corcoran, Glassner and Teiser Absent: None Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Associate Planner Tyler noted that the application for 490 Ridge Road is being continued to the October 18, 2007 meeting. D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 9 BURRELL COURT HARIRI, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL There was no public comment. Boardmember Teiser stated that he had abstained at the previous meeting on the vote due to the uncertainty of Mr. Beaumont's and Mr. Truman's support for the project, who were not in attendance, and Boardmember Teiser said he would have supported a continuance. He said the applicant did not want a continuance and the vote of the Board was to deny the application. Boardmember Glassner said at issue was also the fact that the applicant had come before the. Board several times, the neighbors continued to have many issues, and the applicant continued to ignore the Board's recommendations, which he felt was the driving force for denial. Chair Doyle said the Board tries to provide the best input to make things better and to move forward and does not want to repeatedly consider items when applicants completely disregard the requests of the Board. Vice-Chair Frymier confIrmed with staff that the Board would be adopting a resolution of denial and the applicant could choose to appeal the matter to the Town Council She expressed hope that the applicants would return with a revised project. ACTION: It was MIS (GlassnerlFrymier) to adopt the resolution denying the project at 9 Burrell Court. Vote: 5-0. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 2. 19 PLACE MOULIN ALMN ALENTINO RESOLUTION PARTIALLY GRANTING APPEAL There was no public comment. ACTION: It was MIS (Corcoran/Teiser) to adopt the resolution partially granting the appeal for 19 Place Moulin along with additional conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. 3. 31 MAIN STREET TIBURON INVESTMENT, AWNING The applicant is requesting approval for the construction of an overhead awning on an existing storefront at 31 Main Street, in downtown Tiburon. The proposed color of the awning is an unobtrusive dark charcoal. The awning would overhang the sidewalk 18 inches. No signage or illumination is proposed. Michael Barber, owner/applicant, said the request was for a storefront awning in keeping with the character of the Town. Boardmember Glassner felt the awning was straight-forward and confrrmed with Mr. Barber that the awning would not incorporate any advertisement or signage. Vice-Chair Frymier confirmed that the purpose of the awning was one of aesthetics. There was no public comment. Boardmember T eiser felt the awning was tasteful and consistent. with others on Main Street. He said that the awning calls attention to the shop and he supported the application without any additional conditions of approval. Boardmember Corcoran complimented Mr. Barber in his attempts to enhance the front of the building. He said that there were awnings on the opposite side of the street and felt the proposal would bring balance to the streetscape. ACTION: It was MIS (FrymierlTeiser) that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the application with attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0. E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 4. 490 RIDGE ROAD DUNPHY, NEW DWELLINGN ARIANCES CONTINUED TO 10/18/07 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 2 5. 2 LAS PALMAS WAY ANSARI, ADDITIONSIW ALLSN ARIANCES 2 {;AS P ALMAS WAY LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCESIEXCEPTION CYRUS ANSARI EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 8,001 S.F. NA NA 1,734 2,100 2,800 MAX 21.6% 27.0% 30.0% MAX 23' 23' 30' MAX 8' & 8' 8' & 4'6" 8' 15' 15' 15' 25' 25' 25' REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS WALL HEIGHT The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions and walls to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 2 Las Palmas Way. The existing living room would be extended to the rear of the house and the dining room and kitchen would be extended to the southern side of the building. A new entry would be added to the front of the house. A new deck would be added to the rear of the upper story master bedroom. Perimeter walls are proposed to be constructed along the rear property line (facing Tiburon Boulevard), the southern side property line facing the entrance to Las Palmas Way and the front property line along the interior of Las Palmas Way. Variances are requested for reduced side yard setback and excess wall height. Norah Momtazi, applicant, described the request and noted that the main issue was the 12 foot high proposed side wall. She said the top 4 feet of the wall would be glass and the lower 8 feet masonry, and it would not be a consistent 12 feet high due to slope conditions. She described reasons for the proposed wall, including: 1) buffering the traffic and sound at Tiburon Boulevard, as well as stopped traffic; 2) buffering fumes from vehicles; 3) addressing the grade of the site itself, as there is a 7 foot elevation difference between the house and the street.; and 4) privacy. She stated that a 5-6 foot fence would not provide privacy, or a sound or fumes barrier. Boardmember Teiser questioned the type of fencing proposed and voiced concern that the wall would create a blind comer for those coming off the street. Ms. Momtazi said the owner's property line sits back 35 feet from Tiburon Boulevard and 5 feet from Las Palmas Way. She said that the wall would be located where there is existing vegetation and wild fruit trees, would step down and would be 5-6 feet away from any traffic. Boardmember Glassner confrrmed with the applicant that story poles had not been erected and that she had examined the average height of walls within the neighborhood. She stated that the property at 747 Tiburon Boulevard has a 10 foot high wall and a 3 foot high fence. Boardmember Glassner noted that that other property has a 10 foot high structure and not a wall. Ms. Momtazi felt the wall could be softened with native plantings to cover the hard scape of the wall and she disagreed that a transparent wall would be considered massive. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 3 CYrUS Ansari, owner, stated that the glass wall would mitigate any massiveness and said there was a significant difference between a solid wall and what was proposed. Boardmember: Corcoran asked if thought had been given to angling the comer of the wall a bit or moving the wall back a couple of feet. Ms. Momtazi agreed that this could be done at the comer. Boardmember Corcoran asked why the wall as 12 feet high at the end of the driveway on the other side as well. Ms. Momtazi said there is approximately 5 feet of grade difference and the height was required in order to step down the wall properly and have it symmetrical. Boardmember Corcoran disagreed with the idea ofa 12 foot high wall on a narrow street and suggested ending the wall further back which would not provide such a formal look to the driveway. Associate Planner Tyler said a portion of the wall was currently proposed on a roadway and utility easement which is not owned by the applicant. She said that the Town is unable to approve the wall because of this and recommended that it be moved back onto the owner's property. Ms. Momtazi said she proposed this question to the Planning Manager who indicated to her that the Board could approve it, and this was why the wall was intentionally drawn that way on the plans. Chair Doyle referred to the plans and said it is the policy of the Town not to build on easements. Mr. Ansari noted the property next door to him at 6 Las Palmas had done this and he questioned why he could not do the same. The Chair opened the public hearing. Peter McClintock voiced opposition to the wall, stating that it would be prominent, and would block his lateral and bedroom views. He said that the wall would reflect noise back to them and suggested it be pulled further back on the property. He noted the presence of a steep bank leading to the top of the house. He supported the use of transparency in the wall's construction, but requested mitigation along Tiburon Boulevard. He described his four-sectioned wooden fence which incorporates vegetation in front. Ms. Momtazi questioned if approval of the project would depend on the height of the wall. Vice- Chair Frymier questioned why the wall near Tiburon Boulevard needed to be so high, as the space could not be utilized due to the steep hill. Boardmember Glassner agreed and recommended the wall be pulled back to ensure it was on the property and not the easement. Mr. Ansari disagreed with Mr. McClintock's comments, stating that he wanted to fully utilize his property and suggested a compromise. There was discussion by the Board regarding the Town's 6 foot fence height limit. It was the consensus of the Board that the owner could not build on the easement, reiterating the need to pull the wall back onto the property. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 4 Boardmember Teiser suggested that Mr. Ansari resolve the easement issue and return with revised plans. Vice-Chair Frymier and Chair Doyle felt the comer posts were too high and bulky. Mr. Ansari said he wanted to be able to start construction on the other portions of the project associated with the application and questioned whether it was possible to approve those and return with a revised wall plan. The Chair closed the public hearing. Boardmember T eiser confIrmed with Associate Planner Tyler that the Board could approve the request for the side yard setback, the addition and deny the wall, which could return at a later date. He questioned if the Town could waive the fee for the new wall application, and Associate Planner Tyler felt this would be up to the Planning Manager, but typically fees were not waived. Boardmember Corcoran felt the proposal to deny the wall while approving the other requests was reasonable and felt the Board had provided guidance on what was needed for revisions to the wall. ACTION: It was MIS (TeiserlFrymier) that the application is categorical exempt from CEQA and approving the application for the additions and side yard setback variance with conditions of approval without approving the wall height variance. Vote: 5-0. 6. 1525 TmURON BOULEVARD ABRAMS, PARKING LOT The Town received an application to pave and otherwise improve the last remaining gravel pay parking lot in Downtown Tiburon. Paving the lot would result in roughly eighty-two parking stalls, four of which would be handicapped accessible. The entrance to the parking lot would be updated with a painted island to separate entrance and exit lanes, and a new ticket machine, bike racks and signage would be installed. As proposed, the existing landscaping would be maintained and new lighting fixtures would replace those currently existing. New drainage would also be installed. Jim Schafer, applicant, briefly described the request and said he was available to answer questions of the Board. Boardmember Teiser confIrmed with Associate Planner Tyler that the elimination or enlargement of two compact parking spaces was contained in conditions of approval. Vice-Chair Frymier confirmed details about the payment collection and that proper signage was in place for the parking lot. Boardmember Corcoran asked about bus parking. Mr. Schafer discussed existing signage and said bus parking signage would return for review by staff in the future. There were no public comments. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 5 All Boardmembers supported the request. Boardmember Corcoran stated that he wished there was some other paving material available to deal with runoff issues, but said he also acknowledged the lot's paving would beautify the area. ACTION: It was MIS (Glassnerffeiser) that the project is category exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approving the application with the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0 7. 544 SILVERADO DRIVE CAMERON, ADDITIONSN ARIANCE 544 SILVERADO DRIVE LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA LOT COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT SIDE YARDS FRONT YARD REAR YARD V ARIANCESIEXCEPTION TOM AND NATALIE CAMERON EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 10,313 S.F. NA NA 1,812 3,001 3,013 MAX 22.1 % 28.4% 30.0% MAX 17'6" 24' 30' MAX 6' & 7'8" 6' & 7'8" 8' 40' 15' 15' 34' 34' 25' REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions and to an existing single-family dwelling located at 544 Silverado Drive. The addition would include a two-car garage, expansion of the existing entryway and a new upper level. The upper level would include an office, master bedroom suite and sitting room. The plans indicate that all new building material and detailing shall match that of the existing home. The proposal also calls for the addition of three new skylights. The skylights would be located on the southwestern roof plane. A variance is requested for reduced side yard setback. Greg Johnson, architect, said he was hired to do the fIrst phase of the project which was reviewed and approved at staff level, adding that the owners' long-term plan was for a second phase. He said that when they began the project, the next door neighbor's home had been remodeled and he felt it would make sense to pull the project back into the comer. He described the site as a bowl, noting that there is dense foliage and screening. He said that the design would completely eliminate view blockage issues and noted that the Hartung's had submitted a letter of support. Boardmember Glassner confIrmed with Mr. Johnson there was no intent to remove any foliage. Mr Johnson added that as part of the landscape plan, two additional Strawberry trees were requested by the neighbor to be planted which would grow to about 20-25 feet. He confirmed that the owner also maintains and trims trees on the property so that views are preserved. Mr. Johnson said there was careful attention in placing the building on the site to break up the fa~ade and articulate the elevations. He stated that the request for a side yard setback variance would match the existing condition and have no impact to the adjacent neighbor. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 6 Boardmember Glassner asked about the roofheight. Mr. Johnson said the height of the addition would be 21 '9" at the top of the garage and 24'2" at the ridgeline. Boardmember Corcoran noted the CC&R's in the neighborhood limit homes to no higher than 22 feet. Boardmember Glassner said it was unclear whether or not in the past 56 years any homes had been built at heights greater than 22 feet. Mr. Johnson said he is a nearby resident, and acknowledged that there were very old CC&R's for lots 1-36 in the neighborhood, but he was not sure they were enforced. He said that if they placed the building at the other location, it would have been much higher and he noted the roof substantially slopes down. He stated that there were a number of homes along the other side of Silverado Drive that far exceed the 22 foot height, including one 29'10" home and a 28 foot high building located at Stewart and Silverado Drives. Boardmember Corcoran asked what would need to be done to lower the design 2 feet and noted neighbors would not be opposed to the project if it stayed within the height limitation. Mr. Johnson said the roof pitch would need to be lowered. However, he felt the roofwould not block any views and provided aesthetic balance, and he questioned whether or not the CC&R's should be used as guidelines by the Board. The Chair opened the public hearing. Hans Roenau stated that the applicants had worked on their remodel for two years. He felt the home was huge and wanted to see adherence to the 22 foot height restriction. He felt that the second story would make them feel walled in. Boardmember Teiser asked how lowering the roofby 2 feet would change his perception. Mr. Roenau said they would have more of a view of the neighborhood and trees, but they would still see the roof. He said that he took pictures and found the project would block views from other houses as well. Margarita Perry said the applicants are great neighbors and that she has been trying to fmd some solutions and compromises. She said that her main concern is the number of windows on the addition. Her home is located behind the property and she looks right into their house. She stated that 12 windows are proposed on the front of the structure and asked the Board to consider removing one small window above the garage and requiring an opaque window to the left of it for the bathroom. Boardmember Glassner suggested that landscaping would not be removed. Ms. Perry said a canopy of mature trees has been on the property over 40 years that could possibly die or a future owner may want to remove them. She said that she would be greatly impacted if the trees are removed. She asked that the windows above the sliding door and master bedroom be tinted. She reiterated that trees are not a permanent screening tool. Regarding the CC&R's, Ms. Perry said there are different zones, and the architect had complied with the 22 foot height requirement for another project in the neighborhood. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 7 Dorothy Gallyot said she lives directly across from the site and next door to Ms. Perry. She felt the applicants are reasonable and could compromise, and hoped to come to some understanding. She voiced concern with the height of the roof and not being able to see the trees. She felt the amount of building proposed was massive, and felt it would impact her right side looking down. Chris Hartung said they did not want to look at an ugly box. He felt that the applicants have been extremely accommodating. He did not have a problem with the height, but requested some breakup of the fa~ade because they look down on the project. Greg Johnson, applicant, did not believe that the additions would wall in the neighbors, illustrating his comments for the Board with pictures of the house. He stated that the photos show that the neighbors cannot see any portion of the house. There was discussion by the Board about the possible use of skylights, different window materials and treatments and whether trees on the site would provide screening and privacy. The Chair closed the public hearing. Boardmember Teiser said he was sympathetic to Ms. Perry's comments that there are massive trees that she doe~ not want removed. He agreed that this may occur in the future and stated that the Board should look at the house on its merits without relying on landscaping or trees. He said that the roof height complied with the Town's regulations, and if the neighbors wanted to enforce the CC&R's, they could choose to do so. Boardmember Glassner said the purpose of the project is to make room for a family. He felt that the landscaping is very well maintained and he noted that the applicants have agreed to continue this and add to the landscaping. He agreed that the roof complied with the Town's regulations, adding that the CC&R's date back to 1951 and he questioned their enforceability. He found the plans to be very tasteful, incorporating many architectural accents that are not windows. He felt the windows did not appear to create an issue, and he supported the project. Boardmember Corcoran said he was sympathetic to the neighbors. He noted that the Town does not enforce CC&R's, and raised questions about how many homes signed onto them, their validity, and whether they were enforced. He noted, however, that the Board likes to see neighbors comply with CC&R's when they are in place. He liked the design and was sympathetic to avoiding flat roofs. He thought that the Board should not penalize the applicants for other things that have happened in the neighborhood. He felt that the applicants have worked well with the neighbors and could have asked for a lot more. He did not feel the 2x2 windows were too large, adding that the office lights will most likely be off at night. He noted that the house is a distance from Ms. Perry's house and the majority of her views are more toward the water and not a primary view. He acknowledged that Ms. Gallyot was concerned about the height, but he felt that the additions would bring articulation to the house. He did not believe the additions would cause Mr. Roenau's house to feel walled in. He supported the project as is. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 8 Vice-Chair Frymier said she is conservative about view blockage and massive houses. She said that she was very empathetic to Ms. Perry, as she would be the one home most impacted by the project. She liked the design of the house and the pitch roof and recommended using a contemporary"iroof or wood shingles. She said that she spent time at both Ms. Perry and Ms. Gallyot's homes and said the height does not bother her and the house does not feel massive. She also spent time at the Hartungs' home and said that coming up the street, the house looks like it could almost fall off the hill. However, she felt that it is a beautiful house that would not appear massive and felt it would not be nearly as objectionable as the Hartungs' house. She said her only issue was inconsistency in windows, as some are clear and some opaque, which confused her. She felt the roofheight could have gone to 30 feet, as the CC&R's were not enforceable by the Board. She stated that the neighbors' primary views were of water and trees and felt that once constructed the project would be much better than neighbors believe. Chair Doyle said he grew up in New Jersey where everything is flat and these issues never came up, but every house here always has a challenge. He said that he is always concerned about blocking someone's primary view and whether there would be light pollution. He felt the 2x2 windows are not an issue, but wanted to see some type of screening within the house. He said that the doors seem to be the biggest issue for light pollution, and he felt there should be some internal screening for it, such as blinds. He felt there was no view blockage looking down from Ms. Gallyot' s house, and his only concern was the doors. Boardmember T eiser suggested tinting the glass in the doors, to be approved by staff. Boardmember Corcoran said almost every project they see has similar double doors. Vice-Chair Frymier felt that Ms. Perry's house looks right into them. Chair Doyle suggested the neighbors work together to resolve the issue. Boardmember Teiser said Ms. Perry was not concerned with light, but glare coming back at her house. Boardmember Glassner felt it was overkill and would approve the project without the requirement for tinting. Boardmember Corcoran agreed, and felt it was in the applicant's interest to have window coverings for their own privacy. ACTION: It was MIS (GlassnerlFrymier) that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions in CEQA and approving the application with the attached conditions of approvaL Vote: 3-2 (Doyle and Teiservoted no). G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #15 OF THE 9/6/07 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Teiser referred to page 3, and requested amendment to the fITst paragraph, 6th line down: "views are from the upper story master bedroom and bathroom and are not primary views. " Boardmember Corcoran referred to page 7, the large paragraph midway down, "He felt that the compromise proposed.. ..the_trail" TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 9 ACTION: It was MIS (TeiserlFrymier) to approve the Minutes of the 9/6/07 Design Review Board Meeting, as amended. Vote: 5-0. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. TffiURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16 9/20/07 10 ~. ACTION MINUTES #17 ~-t J.'~n . ;/~:.. ~. .~!~ f i TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Corcoran, Frymier, Glassner and Teiser Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips and Minutes Clerk Harper B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2 Las Palmas Way Ansari Resolution Memorializing Decision ADOPTED E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 2. 78 Red Hill Circle Lanyadoo DecksNariances CONTINUED TO 10/18/07 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 249 Diviso Street Frost 38 Reed Ranch Road Shadan 771 Tiburon Blvd. Ross 275 Diviso Street Wilsey/Ron 85 East View Avenue Hoppe 8. 102 Via Los Altos Ockner WallsNariance APPROVED SpaIVariance APPROVED New Dwelling APPROVED New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 11/1/07 New DwellingN ariances/Floor Area Exception CONTINUED TO 11/15/07 Addition/Floor Area Exception CONTINUED TO 10/18/07 G. MINUTES OF THE 9/20/07 D.R.B. MEETING - APPROVED AS AMENDED H. ADJOURNMENT - 10:15 P.M. D\GEST '- Fred C. Hannahs, President Casey A. Kawamoto, Vice President Catharine Benediktsson, Secretary Peter Hoyt Berg, Director Kenne'l, A. Marks, Director AGENDA Sanitary District No.5 of Marin County Regular Board Meeting at Sanitary District No.5 of Marin County Meeting Room 2001 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, California Monday, October 1, 2007 6:30 p.m. RECEIVED OCT -1 Z007 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TlBURON CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL PUBLIC OPEN TIME: The public is invited to address the Board on items that do not appear on the agenda and that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. The Board will not take action on any public COlnrI1ent. DIRECTORS COMMENTS AND/OR AGENDA REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 10, 2007 Regular Board Meeting Minutes MANAGEMENT REPORT 2. Operations Report (O'Day) a. Tiburon/Belvedere Compliance Report & Public Complaint Report September 2007 3. District Manager's Report a. Paradise Drive Sewer Line-Update b. Main Plant NPDES Permit-Update Near-field Dilution Modeling Study Final Report c. Summary of District's Cleaning Program d. Web Page e. WEFTEC Conference October 2007-Verbal f. CSDA Region 3 Election Results-Re-elected Sherry Sterrett the Incumbent. g. Summary of Closed Session September 10, 2007 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Review of Audit Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (Terry Krieg) 5. Approve Audit Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (Lynch) 6. Consideration to Adopt Ordinance No. 2007-02, "An Ordinance of Sanitary District No.5 of Marin County, California, Amending Article VI of Ordinance No. 70 - 01, "An Ordinance Regulating the Use of Public and Private Sewer and Drains, the Installation and Connection of Building Sewer, the Installation of Sewer Laterals and Public Sewer Main Extensions, Providing Permits and Fixing Fees for the Installation and Connection of Sanitary Sewers, Regulating the Discharge of Water and Waste Into the Public Sewer System, and Providing Penalties for the Violation of the Provisions Thereof' (Lynch) Agenda Board o.f Directors October 1, 2007 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 7. Authorize and Approve District Manager to Issue Letter to Nute Engineering to Proceed with Advertizing Invitation to Bid 2007 Sewer Rehabilitation CIPP Project (Lynch) COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Finance & Fiscal Oversight Committee (Hannahs/Benediktsson) a. Minutes for F'inance Committee Meeting of September 25, 2007 b. Approval 0 f Warrants for September 2007 c. Receipt of Financial Repolis for Septernber 2007 d. Receipt of County Investment Report August 2007 9. Governance Committee September 27, 2007 (Benediktsson/Marks) 10. North Bay Watershed Association Report on September 25, 2007 Meeting (Berg) CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 11. San Francisco Estuary Institute Annual Report of Monitoring Program & Annual Meeting October 2, 2007 12. Bay Area Clean Water Agencies-Workshop "Interagency Partnerships for Water Reuse" October 29, 2007 ADJOURNMENT The Board will be asked to adjourn the meeting to a Regular Board Meeting November 5, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.at the Sanitary No.5 District Meeting Room at 2001 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, California. The Board of Directors may at its discretion, consider agenda items out of the order in which they appear above. Accessible TJublic meetinf!s: Upon request the District will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alcernale formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services to enable individual with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Requests are to be submitted in writing to the District at P. 0. Box 227, Tiburon, CA 94920 two days prior to the meeting. ,. TOWN OF TIBURON D~ PLANNING COMMISSION GESr 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting October 10, 2007 - 7:30 PM 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 Planning Division Secretary at (415) 435-7390. 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 Planning Commission Agendas, Staff 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 Staff Reports are also available on the Tiburon website (www.cLtiburon.ca.us) after 5:00 PM on the Friday prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on agenda 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission agenda. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Aguirre, Vice Chairman O'Donnell, Commissioner Collins, Commissioner Fraser, Commissioner Kunzweiler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 2007 Page 2 COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Staff Update Commission Information Items PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1655 MAR WEST STREET: REVIEW OF PUBLIC PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP; Diane Ho, Owner and Applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 059-051-18 MINUTES 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 12,2007 ADJOURNMENT Future Aaenda Items 1600 Mar West Street - Conditional Use Permit Review - Tiburon Peninsula Club (TBD) 41 Main Street - Conditional Use Permit Review (TBD) a101007 O\GESl RECEIVED OCT - 4 Z007 ,).4 MARIN HEAL THCARE DISTRICT 1100 So. Eliseo Dr, Suite 4, Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone: 415-461-5700 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Fax: 415-461-0308 AGENDA Study Session Conference Center, Marin General Hospital Greenbrae, CA 94954 Board of Directors Marin Healthcare District Tuesday, October 09,2007 7:00 pm NOTE: This is a Study Session of the Board of Directors of ihe Marin Healthcare District for both the Board and the interested public. By law, no items of business other than those on the agenda may be considered by the Board of Directors at the Study Session. Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Directors regarding only those items listed on this agenda. 7:00 (1). Introduction Dir Jackson (2). Announcement of Purpose of Study Session Dir Jackson This meeting is a public forum for Kurt Salmon & Associates (KSA) to review and present a final report on the strategic planning process for the Marin Healthcare District. KSA will be prepared to field questions from the public. 7:05 (3). Presentation of update on the strategic planning process. KSA 8:05 (4). Questions & Answers KSA 9:30 (5). Adjournment American Sign Language Interpreters may be requested bycalling (415) 461-5700 (voice) or (415) 461-0308 (facsimile) at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting. DIGEST IlJ MARIN HEAL THCARE DISTRICT 1100 South Eliseo Drive, Suite 4, Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone: 415-461-5700 Fax: 415-461-0308 DIRECTORS: SHARON 1. JACKSON, MBA, CHAIR ARCHIMEDES RAMIREZ, M.D., VICE-CHAIR JAMES CLEVER, M.D., SECRETARY LARRY BEDARD, M.D. JENNIFER RIENKS, PH.D. RECEIVED OCT - 4 2007 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE fuJecial Study Session: The Marin Healthcare District Board of Directors will review KSA's Final Report on Strategic Planning Options Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:00 p.m. Conference Center Marin General Hospital 250 Bon Air Road Greenbrae, CA 94904 A copy of the agenda for the Study Session will be posted and distributed at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting. American Sign Language Interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 461-5700 (voice) or (415) 461-0308 (facsimile) at least 48 hours in advance of this meeting