Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2004-11-03 ~ ' itUb Ct1o;! Vj11lCf-, , . TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA. 94920 November 3, 2004 6:00 PM - Closed Session 7:30 PM - Meeting 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) on 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, . Agenda - Town Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 3 '\. , . AGENDA CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956,(a)) Bloch v, Ginalski, v, 17 Raccoon Lane Homeowner's Association, Coldwell Banker, Town of Tiburon, et al. Case No, CV042089, Marin County Superior Court CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956,9(c)) Initiation of Litigation - Case name withheld because disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement negotiations CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956,(b)) Potential litigation arising under Section 9,2 of the MERA Joint Powers Agreement because of delays to MERA Project CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Council member Smith, Vice Mayor Berger, Mayor Fredericks . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now, Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration andlor placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda, Please limit vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes, CONSENT CALENDAR 1, Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 20, 2004 2, Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Accept Monthly Town Investment Summary for September 2004 ' ' 3, Recommendation by Town Manager - Recognition of the Allen Family as Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce "Business of the Year" a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Recognizing the Allen Family for its Contributions to the Tiburon Community as "Business of the Year" 4, Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Approve 1" Quarter FY 2004-05 Budget Report . (.,~ Agenda - Town Council Meeting November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 3 . PUBLIC HEARING 5, Recommendation by Planning Manager - Approval of Precise Plan Amendment for Expansion of Building Envelope at4 Indian Rock Court a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Approving an Amendment to the Preserve Precise Pian (PD#16) For Property located at4 Indian Rock Court, AP No, 38-400-02 6, Report by Planning Manager - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application for Construction of a new Single Family Dwelling at 79 Round Hill Road Appellants: Applicants: Assessor Parcel Nos.: Charles and Dale Sofnas, 75 Round Hill Road Ron Oznowicz & Carl Weissensee 58-301-17 & -35 REGULAR AGENDA 7, Recommendation by Town Manager - Authorize Execution of MERA Cooperation Agreement COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - October 22, 2004 Town Council Weekly Digest - October 29, 2004 ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETINGS & AGENDA ITEMS - Note: These items are tentative until thev aooear on the final aaenda . Lyford Cove Undergrounding District - Public Hearing and Ballot Tabulation - (November 17) . Tiburon Police Association Contract - (November 17) . Authorize Reallocation and Transfer of Reserves FY 2004-05 - (November 17) . Election of MayorlVice Mayor - (December 1) . Annual Meeting of Tiburon Redevelopment Agency - (December 1) . FY 2003-04 Audit Report and Adoption - (December 1) . Town Holiday Party - (December 15) . Tiburon Glen Precise Deveiopment Plan . Soda LLC - Waiver of Annexation Agreement . Revised Street Impact Fee Schedule . Raccoon Lane Undergrounding Project - Reaffirm Resolution of Intention . Proposed Erosion and Siltation Control Ordinance . County-wide Services JPA . . Adoption of Updated Personnel Rules and Regulations . Trestle Glen Bike and Pedestrian Path Improvements - Plans and Specifications ,e i' . . . Tle~ ;tJo/ I ~ ~-_._-"._---"---------_.'- TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER At 6:00 p.m. 0 Oct:ber 20, 200~~YOr Fredericks informed the Council that the Town had been servcd wit . ~ent agenda was posted and that discussion of the matter could not wait until the Council's next regularly scheduled meeting of November 3, 2004. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To add the item to the Closed Session agenda as an urgency item. Smith, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous Mayor Fredericks adjourned the meeting of the Council to closed session, The following litigation was discussed (in addition to the items listed below): Bloch v. Ginalski v. Town of Tiburon et aI., Marin County Superior Court, Case No. CV042089. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956. 9( c)) Initiation of Litigation - Case name withheld because disclosure wciuld jeopardize existing settlement negotiations PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Section 54957) Title: Town Manager Town Attorney CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fredericks called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:40 p.m, on Wednesday, October 20, 2004, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith Town Council Minutes #21-2004 Dc/oiler 20, 2004 Page 1 .... " PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development AnderSon, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Echols, Director of Administrative Services, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi . ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY Mayor Fredericks said that management evaluations and litigation had been discussed hut that no action had been taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PRESENTATION . Jt. Recreation Department Annual Report - Priscilla Tripp, Committee Chair Ms. Tripp, current Chair and 20-year member of the Committec, gave a brief overview its history, along with current statistics. She said,Jhat interviews were underway to hire a new Jt. Recreation . Director in the wake of Barbara Creamer's retirement after 15 years with the department., CONSENT CALENDAR ]. Approval of Town Couneil Minutes - October 6, 2004 2. Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 9, 2004 3. Reeommendation by Chicf of Police - COPS Spending Program FY 2004-05 a) A Resolution of the Town Council ofthe Town of Tihuron Approving the COPS Spending Program for FY 2004-05 4. Reeommendation by Planning Manager - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision to Deny a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application to ModifY Previously Approved Plans to Legalize Construction ofan As-Built Addition to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling Property Address: ] 00 Lyford Drive Applicants/Appellants: Fred and Rhonda Soofer Assessor Parcel No.: 58-222-]4 Town Council Minules # 21-2004 ()cloher 20, 21104 Page 2 . ,f . . . \ a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Upholding the Appeal of Fred and Rhonda Soofer 5. Recommendation by Town Manager - Approve Funding for Public Fountain Project Artist Stipends 6. Recommendation by Town Manager - Budget Authorization and Amendment tor alternate MERA Site Test Councilmember Gram asked if the funding in Item No.3 was for a new position. Chief of Police Odetto said that it was not, but rather a continuation of funding for the investigator position currently held by Sgt. Steve Hahn, MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 6, above. Berger, seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous REGULAR AGENDA 7. Recommendation by Director of Publie Work.~/Town Engineer - Proposed Undergrounding of Utilities District - Accept Petitions and Boundary Map a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon of Intention to Make Acquisitions and Improvements - "Hawthorne TerracelPilgrim Heights Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District" Director of Public WorksITown Engineer Echols gave the report, stating that the Town had received petitions in favor of under grounding utilities from more than 60% of the affected properties in the proposed district. In addition, he said that sufficient subscription deposits had been received to allow the district to proceed with a preliminary engineering study. Director Echols also referenced a "late mail" item received from Jay Jacobsen ,on behalf of several interested neighbors across Tiburon Boulevard who were interested in joining the Hawthorne T erracelPilgrim Heights District. Echols said that it might be feasible to add the affected area as a "special zone" which would be treated independently with the costs spread among only those affected properties. He said that this might make more sense and noted that during the "boundary walk" of the proposed district. utility company representatives had stated that there was a different kind of high voltage equipment across Tiburon Boulevard in the proposed "special zone." Town Council Minutes # 21-2004 October 20, 2004 Page 3 " Mayor Frcdcricks opened the public hearing, . Suzanne Smith, 159 Rock Hill Drivc, neighborhood proponent, said that they had workcd for over a year on the proposed district comprised of 88 homes. She said that she had attendcd the August 25, 2004 boundary walk with the utilities and had heard for the first timc of the intcrest of people on Palmer Court etc. to join the district. She said that they would be happy to have them join the Hawthorne Terrace/Pilgrim Heights district but that because their assessed costs might bc higher, the proponents would like them to be treated as a "subscction," much like thc Hawthorne "subset" of home that had been added to thc Del Mar District. Tom Kress, 3 Palmer Court, read Mr. Jacobscn's lettcr to the Council. He stated that Kathleen Bailey, one of the organizers of the Hawthorne "subset" had led them to believc that they would be included in the larger district and had accepted subscription deposits on their behalf. He asked that the Council give the new group 60 days to try to join the larger district. Mayor Fredcricks closed the public hearing. Council asked Staff to vcri:f)r whether adoption of the resolution of intention would advcrscly affect thc addition of a "special wne" to the district, and/or whether it would adversely affect the costs or progress of the existing district. Based on his expericnce with the Lyford Covc Undergrounding District, Director Echols said that . a special zone could be added to the district within thc next 60 days without adverse effects. MOTION: Movcd: Vote: To adopt thc Hawthorne TerracelPilgrim Heights Resolution ofltention Slavitz, seconded by Smith AYES: Unanimous COUNCIL. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS . Fircboat tour'at Schoonmakcr Marina, Octobcr 23 (CounciImember Smith) . Addition of five nights in Spring and Fall 2005 for "Fridays on Main" (Vice Mayor Berger) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - October 8, 2004 Town Council Weekly Digest - October 15, 2004 Town Council Minutes # 21-2004 October 20, 2004 Page 4 . <"" ; . . . ADJOURNMENT Thcrc being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Frcdcricks adjourned the regular meeting at 8: 15 p.m., to the next regular meeting scheduled for November 3, 2004. ALlCE FREDERICKS, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minules #21-2()04 Ocloher 20, 2004 Page 5 . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM c2 . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . .. .. . . . . . . SUBJECT: Mayor and Members ofthe Town Council Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services ~ Monthly Investment Summary - September 2004 TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: November 3, 2004 REVIEWED BY: . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOWN OF TIBURON Institution/Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Slate of California Local Agency $9,012,340,77 1.771% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Bank of America Other $100,000,00 1,75% May 2005 Total Invested: $9,112,340,77 . TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I nstitution/ Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Slale of California Local Agency $910,942.14 1,771% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Bank of America Other $0 Total Invested: $910,942,14 Notes to Table Information: State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the month referenced above, The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month ended, Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council, The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet . next month's estimated expenditures. 0', ','i~ t';'F- ~\.~- , RESOLUTION NO. XX-2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOGNIZING HOWARD & JAMES ALLEN OF THE BELVEDERE LAND CONWANY UPON THEIR SELECTION AS THE TIBURON PENINSULA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2004 CITIZENIBUSINESS OF THE YEAR WHEREAS, the Belvederc Land Company, founded in 1890, has been recognized by the California Historical Society as a distinguished business spanning more than a century; WHEREAS, through its acquisition ofthe Land Company in the 1930's, the Allen family has the distinction of having owned and operated the oldest continuous business on the Tiburon Peninsula; WHEREAS, the first shopping center on the Tiburon Peninsula, the Boardwalk, was built by the Belvedere Land Company and won an architectural award in the 1950's; WHEREAS, the Boardwalk became the venue for a variety of community services, such as a branch library and post office, along with the only plant nursery on the Peninsula nearby; WHEREAS, the Allen's, from Harry in the 1930's, and Howard B. as the second generation, followed by James H. Allen today, have all supported many local charitable causes and have donated land for a community park and recreation facilities on the Tiburon Peninsula; WHEREAS, through its commercial vcntures and its generosity, the Belvedere Land Company, represented by Howard and James, has contributed greatly towards improving the Tiburon community's quality of life; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon takes pleasure in recognizing Howard & James Allen of the Belvedere Land Company upon their selection as the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 2004 Citizen/Business of the Year. PASSED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on November 3, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK LATE MAIL # ~ II- 1-{) Y . . . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Interim Financial Report - July 1 - September 30, 2004 iJ MEETING DATE: November 3, 2004 REVIEWED BY: . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,', . . . . . . The accompanying financial statements provide summary information concerning the Operating Budget, Capital Improvement Program, and Fund Resources of the Town for the first quarter ended September 30, 2004, They reflect the Town's overall financial position for the fiscal year, and provide projections to year-end closing on June 30, 2005 Operating Revenues At quarter end, operating revenues are at $745,600, or 11% of budget, while operating expenditures are at $1,506,500, or 22.4%, Historically, operating expenditures well out-pace revenues in the first quarter due to one-time payments made for Joint Power Agreements and liability and worker's compensation insurance premiums, along with the Town not receiving its first property tax remittance until mid-December. ' The Town's General Fund is extremely dependent on Property Taxes, followed by Sales Tax, Building Permits, Transient Occupancy Taxes and State Vehicle License Fees, These five revenue sources account for approximately 70% of the Town's General Fund Revenues, Since the events of September 11th Staff has placed additional emphasis on monitoring economic conditions and assessing the impacts on these key revenue sources. Overall, these revenues are performing as budgeted and any year-to-date variances are noted below: Revenue Source Budaet YTD Actual 0/0 Received Prooertv Tax $1,966,150 $ 0 0% Sales Tax $ 495,000 $ 74,558 15,06% Buildin(J Permits $ 430,000 $172,491 40,11% Transient Occupancv Tax $ 355,000 $ 38,538 10,86% Vehicle License Fees $ 250,000 $ 35,860 14,34% Total $3,496,150 $321,450 9.2% Property Tax: Property Taxes are remitted twice a year in December and June; therefore, no activity is recorded for this revenue source during the reporting period. Staff anticipates fiscal year end receipts to be at budget, but will have a more definitive projection at mid-year, Sales Tax: Sales Tax revenues are received monthly from the State, with a two month lag, Therefore, for this reporting period the Town has received one month's sales tax remittance, Staff projects this revenue source to be at budget at fiscal year end, STAFF REPORT ~ Town of Tiburon Building Permits: Building Permit revenues are accounted for on a weekly basis, Year-to-date receipts are up $60,000 (50%) over the same time period last year, and using straight line averaging methods, would exceed budget by $275,000 at year-end, Staff will have a better understanding by mid-year as to whether the first quarter revenues are a trend for the year or an anomaly, Operating expenditures are at $1,506,500 or 22.4% of budget through the first quarter, and are running slightly less than the "target" of 25%, It is anticipated that operating expenditures will be at budget by fiscal year end, Each Department Head is responsible for their respective budgets and are held accountable for not exceeding their overall funding sources, The Administrative Services Department continues to thoroughly scrutinize all invoices received for payment from all Departments. General Fund Reserves The Town began the fiscal year with $2,365,891 in Undesignated General Fund Reserves' and $4,508,074 in General Fund Designated Reserves, as outlined in Schedule 3. This represents a 16,5% increase in total General Fund Reserves over last fiscal year's beginning balances, Staff will be coming forward in the near future with recommended fund transfers from the Undesignated General Fund Reserve, Capital Improvement Program There has been no activity in the Capital Improvement Program, which is consistent with previous fiscal years, Normally the Capital Improvement Program realizes expenditures towards the third quarter of the fiscal year, as projects go out to bid in early spring, . October 29, 2004 page 2 of 3 Town of Tiburon . STAFF REPORT "" , Recommendation It is recommended that the Town Council accept the Interim Finance Report for the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2004-05, for the period ended September 20, 2004, Attachments . . October 29, 2004 page 3 of 3 . SCHEDULE J, OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY Period: July 1,2004 to September 30, 2004 . , Budget Year.To.Date Estimated to Variance Percent of Adopted Budget Revised Sept.30-2004 June.30-2005 (unfavorable) Budget YTO REVENUES & SOURCES Of fUNDS General Fund Revenues 5,360,200 5,360,200 656,976 5,360,200 12.3% Use of Other found Sources 1,448,868 1,448,868 88,621 1,448,868 6.1'% Total Revenues $ 6.809.068 $ 6,809,068 $ 745,597 $ 6,809,068 $ 11.0'10 EXPENDITURES Town Administration 2.109,767 2,109,767 305,488 2;109,767 14.51Xl Community Development 1,011,343 1,011,343 240,690 1,011,343 23.8% Pol Ice Department 2,418,993 2,418,993 593.501 2,418,993 24.5(% Public Works 1.134,224 1,134,224 362,832 I, I 34,224 32.0011) Legislative 37,500 37,500 4,034 37,500 lO.X%J $ 6,711,827 $ 6,711,827 $ 1,506,545 $ 6,7It,827 $ Total Operatln/( Net $ 97,241 $ 97.241 $ (760.948) $ 97,24] $ . SCHEDULE 2. . OVERVIEW OF OPERATING REVENIJES & EXPENDITURES Period: July 1,2004 to September 30, 2004 Budget Budget Year-to.Date Estimated to Variance I I Percent of Adopted Revised Sept.30.2004 June-30-2005 (unfavorable) Budget yrD SCHEDULE 3, TRANSFERS & REALLOCATIONS OF FUNDS Period: July 1,2004 to September 30, 2004 Revised Fund Balance on Beginning Note July 1,2004 Transfer in Transfer (out) Balance, GENERAL FUND RESERVES Unallocated Reserve Designated Reserves Capital Equipment Replacement Technology Fund Infrastructure & Facility Employee Compensated Leave Employee l'lousing Asistance New Police Facility Park Improvement PW Corp Yard Replacement Selnnsurance Drainage Improvements Disaster Response Retirement Surplus Assets Trallic System 2,365,891 2,365,89 ] 151,830 149,901 882,694 234,124 400,000 42,291 398,985 636,367 209,504 412,694 100,000 439,684 450,000 151,830 149,901 882,694 234,124 400,000 42,291 39X,9X5 636,367 209,504 4 12,694 100,000 439,6X4 450,000 Subtotal General Funds 6.X73.965 I $ 6.873,965 Notes to Schedule " . . . n , SCHEDULE 4-A, . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STREET tMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Period: July 1,2004 to September 30, 2004 Actual YTD Esti mated to Project Funding Source Budget Sept.3O.2004 June.3O.2005 I Streets from PMS List Various Locations Gas Tax 190,000 190.000 2 Via Canistrano Overlav Streetlmnact Fund 200,000 - 200.000 Tiburon BUReed 3 Ranch Intersection Imnrovement Circulation Svstem 60,000 60,000 Safe Routes to Lyford Dr. @ Reed Sidewalk, curb ramp School/General Fund 4 School installation Streets & Draina"e 82,000 82,000 5 Stewart Drive Bus Shelter Circulation System 42,865 42.865 Bicycle/Pedestrian Grants/General Fund 6 Trestle Glen Bikewav Imnrovemcnts Streets & Draina"e 871,000 87, I 00 > En!:!ineerin1! Plannin" FY2005 Proiects Street Imnact 75,000 75.000 >> PW Administration Provision for ContinllenCy Gas Tax Fund 40,000 - 40.000 Provision for Digout >>> PW Administration Renairs Street Imoact Fund 25,000 25,000 TOTAL STREET PROJECTS $ 1,585,865 $ $ 801,965 . . , SCHEDULE 4-B, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Period: July 1,2004 to September 30,.2004 . , Actual YTD Estimated to Project Funding Source Budget Sept.30.2004 June-30.2005 General Fund Streets & Drainage Reserve/Drainage I CCTV Assessment Condition Assessincnt Impact Fund 50,000 50,000 Culvert , 2 Rehab/Replacement Drainaj!c Drainage Impact Fund 50,000 - 50,000 3 Railroad Marsh Cattail Removal Marsb Fund 8,000 8,000 Beach Road/Upper General Fund Streets & 4 Main Street Flan Gate DraillaJ,!c Reserve 20,000 20,000 General Fund Streets & 5 Shoreline Park Outfall Headwall Repair Drainag-c Reserve 30,000 30.000 General Fund Streets & 6 Various Location Catch Basins Drainaue Reserve ]5,000 15,000 General Fund Drainage > PW Administration Plan/Specifications Reserve 25.000 25,000 General Fund Streets & // PW Administration Provision for Contim!cllcY Drainal!e Reserve 10.000 10.000 TOTAL DRAINAGE PROJECTS " $ 208,000 $ $ 208,00. . n , SCHEDULE 4-C, . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Period: July I, 2004 to September 30, 2004 , Actual YTD Estimated to , Project , Funding Source Budget Sept-30.2004 June-30.2005 ] I Blackie's Pasture Irrigation Upgrades Parks In-Lieu 25,000 25,000 2 Fountain Plaza Public Art Installation Public Arts Fund 100,000 100.000 ~ Sidewalks/Curb Ral]1ps ADA Compliance General Fund 10,000 10,000 Playground ~ South of Knoll Park Tot Lot Renovation Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000 ~ Elephant Rock Pier Rail Foundation Repairs General Fund 20,000 20,000 ~ Tiburon Bouelvard Downtown Streetlights General Fund 25,000 25,000 Renovation/Replacement 7 PW Corporation Yard Dcsi~ln PW Corp Yard Fund 100,000 100,000 Path Improvements Near 8 Multi-Use Path Pine Terrace Grants 100.000 100.000 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS $ 480,000 $ $ 480,000 . . , SCHEDULE 5, STATEMENT OF FUND RESOURCES Period: July I, 2004 to September 30, 2004 Estimated to June 30th 2005 . GENERAL RESERVES General Unalloealed $ 2,365,891 5,360,200 5,262,959 55,000 (100,000) (57,759) $ 2,30R, 132 Capital Equipment Replacement 151,830 134,300 73,200 61.100 212,930 Infrastructure & Facility 882,694 882,694 Employee Compensated Leave 234,124 41,800 (41,800) 192,324 Employee Housing Assistance 400,000 400.000 Retirement Surplus Assets 439,684 209,401 (209,40/) 230,283 New Police 13uilding 42,29/ 42,291 PW Corp Yard Replacement 636,367 100,000 (100,000) 536,367 Park Development 398,985 398,985 SelfJnsurance 209,504 209,504 Drainage Improvement 412,694 1.178,000 895,000 (283,000) ]29,694 Disaster Response 100,000 100.000 Trame System 450,000 450,000 Tcehnolo Fund 149,901 14,400 12.150 2.250 152,151 Total General Fund $ 6,873.965 5,494,500 5.587,360 1,333.000 795,000 (628.610) 6,245,35, OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS Bclvcdere/Tiburon Library Agency $ 845,000 845,000 $ Cypress Hollow LLD $ 73,977 16,632 24,000 (7,368) $ 66,609 Downtown Art Project Fund $ 21,028 79,048 100,000 (20,952) $ 76 Heritage & Arst Project Fund $ 5,735 $ 5,735 Low & Moderate Housing 1,105,749 87,000 60,650 26,350 $ 1,132,099 Marsh Restoration 74,202 1,000 8,000 (7,000) $ 67.202 Open Space Acquisition 158,805 2,500 2,500 $ 161.305 Police Asset Forfeiture 88 $ 88 Police Suppl Law Enforcement (741) 100,000 100,000 $ (74 I) Police Tech 6,689 $ 6,689 Property Development Tax (3,003) $ (3,003) State Gas Tax 160,978 185.000 230,000 (45,000) $ 115,978 State Traffic Congestion Relief 48,329 10,000 10,000 $ 58,329 Street Frontage Improvement 2.003 $ 2,003 Tiburon Cire System Improvement 151,865 102,865 (102,865 ) $ 49.000 Tiburon Drainage Impact 60,000 75,000 (15,000) $ (15,000) Tiburon Long Range Planning 37,081 35,000 168,017 100.000 (33,017) $ 4,064 Tiburon Parks In-Lieu 68,146 25,000 (25,000) $ 43,146 Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation 229,203 4,000 4,000 $ 233,203 Tiburon Playground Improvement 25,830 75,063 100,000 (24,937) $ 893 Tiburon Street Impact 575,958 200,000 300,000 (100,000) $ 475,958 Total Other Funds $ 2,741.922 1.700,243 1,197,667 940,865 100,000 (338,289) $ 2,403.63. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Gcncrallncrcment $ 215,527 4,000 4.500 (500) $ 215,027 I-lousing Set-Aside 670,509 12,500 5,500 7,000 677 ,509 " . . . , .' Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TOWN COUNCIL DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER FILE #30404: AMENDMENT TO THE PRESERVE PRECISE PLAN (PD #16) TO AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE; 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT; KIM GRAVES AND MICHAEL HERBERT, OWNERS; SUZMAN DESIGN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 38-400-02 FROM: SUBJECT: REVIEWED BY: ~ MEETING OA TE: NOVEMBER 3, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............. PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owners: Applicant: Date Complete: Preliminary CEQA Determination: BACKGROUND 4 Indian Rock Court 38-400-02 30404 27,789 square feet Medium Low Density Residential RPD (The Preserve Precise Plan, PD #16) Single-Family Residential Kim Graves and Michael Herbert Suzman & Cole Design Associates September 16, 2004 October 8, 2004 The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Preserve Precise Plan) for property located at 4 Indian Rock Court. The applicant wishes to amend the building envelope for this lot. On October 13, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2004-11 (Exhibit 3) recommending to the Town Council that the building envelope expansions requested under this precise plan amendment be approved, subject to certain conditions of approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION Phase I of the Preserve Precise Plan was approved by the Town Council in 1985, and established building envelopes for each of the parcels in the subdivision, The property owners now wish to make several modifications to the approved building envelope for this lot. The building envelope would be expanded on the eastern and western sides of the lot to allow fencing to extend to the side property line, .' Town of Tibd:ron STAFF REPORT o I ... --' 9L!I~u .... ~~' '.~ 0- i~..~ ,;;~, - ('I'1;:s:;;:-~~1 ?;;~~~\r .'" ~tViA-i'f.l(,.. , o ANALYSIS Compliance with the Preserve Precise Plan The Preserve Precise Plan, as adopted by Town Council Resolution No, 2339 (Exhibit 6) includes the following requirements pertaining to the building envelopes for each lot: . Condition of Approval No. 10: "Building envelopes have been left large by the Town Council to provide the Town's Board of Adjustments and Review with greater flexibility in applying appropriate design principles and policies to'the proposed residences, and to ensure maximum compatibility with existing structures... [The Design Review Board] shall give consideration to whether reasonable efforts have been made to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed residence on adjoining residences and open space. The Board may require modification tO,the design, location and size of the proposed residence, where necessary, to minimize such adverse impacts." . Condition of Approval No. 12: "No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary or otherwise, shall be permitted outside the approved primary or secondary building envelopes, In addition, no planting of trees or shrubbery shall be allowed along property boundaries which would have the effect of appearance of fencing the properly, as determined by the Board of Adjustments and Review," . Eastern BuildinQ Envelope Extension The western portion of the site is currently undeveloped, with some shrubbery and trees planted near the front of the lot. Both this lot and the adjacent properly at 6 Indian Rock Court were originally approved with a 20 foot separation between the approved building envelope and the side property line, The applicants are requesting to extend the building envelope to the eastern side property line to allow a six foot (6') tall wood and wire deer fence to be constructed along this boundary, A similar fence was recently approved for the adjacent property owners at 6 Indian Rock Court, The location of this proposed envelope is primarily visible only from the subject properly and the adjacent lot at 6 Indian Rock Court, Trees and other shrubbery toward the front of the site would screen this area from view from the street. The homes below in the Belveron East subdivision are situated at elevations well below the site, and have limited views up toward the location of the proposed fencing, The fence would therefore appear to not have any adverse visual impacts on existing structures in the vicinity. >1, The submitted request would extend the primary building envelope to the side properly line, which could allow buildings and other structures, such as swimming pools and spas, to be situated up to the side boundary. It is recommended that the building envelope expansion be approved as a "fencing only" envelope, with limitations that only fencing no taller than 6 feet in height and landscaping be allowed to be installed in this area, . November 3, 20( page 2 of 4 . . . . . o I ., ~ o_Ll.L~1I ~. ~// "~o ~i/., \f 'i~ .~I'~ I,~a~i "\~,C-~I'\l' 'V<,,)~;'~~'o .... 0 ~"'-"':;;'=:;~';:'/ " .~ ~;"'I:A"I~-C.' "'. , . Town of Tiburon 0- STAFF REPORT The Preserve Precise Plan contained prohibitions on fencing outside the building envelopes in order to maintain an open visual character for this subdivision, particularly due to the high visibility of many of these lots from Tiburon Boulevard and other nearby neighborhoods, The location of the subject fence would not be particularly noticeable from offsite, and should be consistent with the overall intent of this precise plan, Western Building Envelope Extension The applicants are requesting to also extend the building envelope to the western side property line to allow a wire deer fence to be constructed along this boundary, The area to the west of the building envelope on the subject property is similar to the area on the east side of the lot, and is adjacent to the property at 2 Indian Rock Court. There is less vegetation along the street in this area, although the location of the proposed fence would still be generally screened by landscaping near the street. The area between the two neighboring homes is more visually open, but additional mature landscaping exists below the buildings. A "fencing only" envelope in this area would seem to have the same limited visual impact as the fencing proposed on the eastern side of the property. The location of this fence would also not be particularly noticeable from offsite, and should be consistent with the overall intent of this precise plan, The applicants have been working with the owners of the adjacent property at 2 Indian Rock Court, and have agreed that any fence constructed in this area would be situated 4 feet from the common side property line. The applicants have indicated that the neighboring property owners do not wish to submit a similar request for a building envelope extension for the lot at 2 Indian Rock Court, ' Recent Application for 6 Indian Rock Court A similar application to amend the Preserve Plan was recently partially approved for the adjacent property to the east at 6 Indian Rock Court (File #30403). A "fencing only" envelope, limited to fencing no greater than six feet (6') in height and landscaping, was approved between the western edge of the building envelope for that lot and the side property line shared with the subject property. A request for a similar envelope expansion, which would have extended into a Town-held scenic easement, was not approved, General Plan Consistencv The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Tiburon General Plan and with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments, Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OSC-2 states that "while accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible. New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas," The proposed building envelope expansions would be situated in the relatively narrow areas between the building envelopes between the home at 2, 4 and 6 Indian Rock Court, which are not the most environmentally sensitive portions of these lots, November 3, 2Q( page 3 of 4 STAFF REPORT Town of Tiburon . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission reviewed the project at its October 13, 2004 meeting, minutes of , which are attached as Exhibit 5, At that meeting, the Commission determined that the area within the proposed building envelope expansions was not highly visible from other nearby properties, and that the proposed fencing and landscaping would be marginally visible from homes below the site, The Commission considered the request of the adjacent property owner at 2 Indian Rock Court and recommended that the western envelope expansion stop 4 feet from the side property line, The Planning Commission supported the building envelope expansions, which were recommended to be "fencing only" envelopes, limited to fencing no greater than six feet (6') in height and landscaping, with no other structures permitted in this area, Fencing in these areas was also recommended to utilize least visibly noticeable materials, with no horizontal wooden members, With the exception of the required 4 foot setback on the western building envelope expansion, the conditions of approval recommended are similar to those approved for the recent amendment at 6 Indian Rock Court ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW . Staff has preliminarily determined that the subject application is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item, then adopt the draft resolution approving the amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan for the establishment of secondary building envelopes for the property at 4 Indian Rock Court, subject to the conditions contained therein, EXHIBITS 1, ,Application form and supplemental materials 2, Draft resolution 3. Planning Commission Resolution No, 2004-11 4. Staff Report of the October 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting 5, Minutes of the October 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting 6, Town Council Resolution No, 2339 7, Letter from Kathleen Scollin, dated October 13, 2004 8. Submitted plans . November 3, 20C page 4 of 4 r''-'-'~-.. - , TOWN OF TIBURON ,LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I\UG :\ I IOO~ TYPE OF APPLICATION Pt A! U,Il\K', DIVISIUN r;)\/J~I OF IlnlJIHll'1 . 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Design Review IDRB) 0 Tentative Subdivision Map 0 Prflcise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Staff lever! 0 Final Subdivision Map 0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variflnca 0 Parcel Map 0, Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 lot Une Adjustment 0 Zoning Text ,Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver . Olh.r~~""",* APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE AIJIJRI~S: <{ 'L:ndld'''- .('ocfC C'nVvf, (.6(/~ qY'\.~I'ERTY SIZE: Zij 129 Sf- PARCEL NUMBER: 038 - '-loa - 0 z.- ' " ZONING: I<. PI) , IIERf./at-\ OWNEROFI'ROPERTY:/:""" GV'a~5 ~ M((i?'~ ~ef.,.(J<f. MAILING ADIJRESS: -<I 'TndldN Roc (, Covvi- CITY/STATE/ZIP: -r11o<.N'~ (JA 9'i'lz.o PBONE NUMBER: <II $ - I?R<J - '1a 2-1 PAX 'f/,-'i!'fi-i{O-Z-Z- AI'I'UCANT: (Other Ihan Property Owner) MAILING AIJIJRESS: CITY ISTA TEIZII': PIIONE NUMBER: PAX ARCIIITECTIDESIGNERIENGINEER: :5 ()'Z..uAN 'DB ((:AI M ~61/l'T8'i MAILING ADDRESS: '2"~~H~ISLMl1> SV\1'G, z.,o~ CITY ISTA TE/ZIP: , , .J-c.t:>Ob .. cA ~ ,163, PHONE NUMBER: C4i5)Z.SZ...Oltl ,'PAX J.:ijs) (,,/-(o{{o':> .afe indicate with an asterisk (*) persons' to whom corresponden~e should be sellt, \ , BRIEF IJESCRIPTlON OF I'ROPOSElJ I'ROJECT (attach separale sheellr needed): E2fI/l:Sf: -f. "'" 1"'- a vc-f,v,v <>G fV~f""An.+ doo//' ~ncU.g Oufo.<tX., ~ +AA, 1:&.dol"~g JA(f.A'fo(U , I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) uf the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Onlinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: I understand ihat Ihe requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal), Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, aJid that action is challenged by a third party, I will he responsible for defending against tJiis challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense allhe r(~qucst of the Town and also agree to defend. indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result from the third party challenge. , /' M Sigmllure:--./~/7?7 (] ..A ./?fT,.,CJ (If other than owner, Illust have letter from owner) Date: ~E{A6~ 'i,.i.:::'::',I,:':" :i':i:i:{:';;' '1: :,:""L,:',. IBIT NO. I f, I i)j'-3 RECEIVeD C:::l 1 ;; ?"n4 ..)~.I ... lj ,,-U'. KIM A. GRAVES 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT TlBURON, CA 94920 (415) 889-4021 PLAh!NI!\JG DIVIS10N TOWN OF TiBUROt-J September 13, 2004 Mr. Dan Watrous Planning Manager, Town of Tiburon Dear Mr, Watrous: Here is thc detailed description of the Precise Plan Amendment: Rced Ranch lot, number 2, located at 4 Indian Rock Court, Tiburon, CA, building envelope will be expanded on the west and east sides to the property lines. A proposed transparent deer fence to run along the wcst and east property lines and the existing building envclope boundary on the south side. The fence will connect to the southern end of the house on both the west and east sides, Very truly yours, ~\ Kim Graves EXHIBIT NO. r I Z bf"'" S . . . ~"JI.o&':" ,:.I._f[..JIIIl!......Il'I:l~ or.._'<lIiiF.'i..IU .U, SEP 14 2000 3:02PM HP LASERJET 3200 . ~ ~ ~'NJ ~ rq'-i Q5 ~, ,~.~ .i. , ... ,"':l;/'Cb ...Q;;:~~ " .". ~ ~ '~' ~~~r . 0 Zz .... 00 W = wO:: = 2a5 > '" o~. W Lt':l 0u- U - ~o Zz W Cl- Zs c:: W :'\0 U) eLf- .,j ~ ~' ~ ~ '" ~ a.. ~ I- ..= ~ D X D ~ 'l' 'X 'l' ,~ , '\S\ ~ ~ f!=-J~ fa ~ ~ ~" CO ~ I,,) :'Co, I- C U:I \S\ ~~ ~l!:!u:l ~ ~ @ :c ~~\S\ 0 UJ ,W Z\S\~ I- UJL ' ~ Q'<o~5 ~ w ....1-1-1,,)>= ~. \!) UJ~ti ~Il.zll-ll,,) :t' ~ UJ ff:X3: ~~<(:!\5! \ '>L 5 ~~ ~;5:l ~~:S;~~Q ~ ~ \ti ~ .J g~ 3 ~~ . S ~ aj , 'J: Z ~ 1d ~ ~. l!:! ~ ~ ~ ::i ~ 'l' ~~ 4: gg ~ I- ~ Q 0 ~ < I- ~ S ~~ ~lt~ ..JltNl,,)rri~ ,~ ~ :--.. "'- ~ ~ \ '" "- , ..?',:..... ,_.1tI!I ~ . >' .:.".... ;----r.:ilI I' .. --...-- . --, ' -[-------- , I, " ' ~\, ' '1 1- "I~'v'::l , ~3Hd09 I. 1I0-1~ 'I -"" :.. .~o ~ .. "'" ........_.__....___.._....._______________._ 11: o d:) . "'" 110 Ie} ~ ~ " ~ ~ w ;;! u (f) LLl <..:> z LLl U- z 0::: 0 UJ ~ UJ~ Cl uJ p,l 1('1) I 'oJ.. \G -\ (\ , C\-.: o Z E-< I RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: Tiburon Planning Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attn: Daniel M, Watrous . RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRESERVE PRECISE PLAN (PD #16) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 38-400-02 WHEREAS, on October 13,2004 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the approval of an amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan to amend two portions of the building envelope for the property developed with existing single-family residence at 4 Indian Rock Court; and WHEREAS, on October 13,2004, after receiving public testimony and considering the application, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, 2004-11 ' recommending to the Town Council that the requested precise plan amendment be approved, subject to conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, The Town Council has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA . Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2004, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents on the record, the Town Council concurred with thefindings made by the Planning Commission and found that the proposed precise plan amendment to modify the building envelope for the property located at 4 Indian Rock Court would be consistent with the overall intention of the Preserve Precise Plan and the policies contained within the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan, The building envelope expansions, if limited to fencing and landscaping, would not result in visual changes to the property that would be significantly inconsistent with other homes in the general vicinity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby parti,ally approve the requested amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1, The approved building envelope for the property at 4 Indian Rock Court shall be amended as reflected on the Precise Plan Amendment plan, prepared by Suzman Design Associates, dated August 31,2004 (one sheet), except that the western envelope extension shall extend to within four feet (4 'j of the side property line 2, This Precise Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months ' following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning . TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, Q6-(Drafl) NOVEMBER 3, 2004 1 EXHIBIT NO. Z . . . and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to this approval, A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. 3. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Preserve Precise Plan not specifically described herein, 4. The expanded building envelope areas approved herein shall be "fencing only" envelopes, limited to fencing no greater than six feet (6') in height and landscaping, No other structures shall be permitted in this area. Fencing shall utilize least visibly noticeable materials, with no horizontal wooden members. 5. During the review of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for fencing within the expanded envelopes, consideration should be given to requiring landscaping that would screen the fencing and help the fencing blend into the hillside and be more visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on November 3, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: " COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK H:\Dwatrous\resolutions\tc30404.resolution.doc TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, 06-(Drafl) NOVEMBER 3, 2004 2 EXHIBIT NO. 2-- RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL PARTAIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRESERVE PRECISE PLAN (PO #16) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT . ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 38-400-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1, FindinQs. A. The Town has received and considered an application filed by Kim Graves and Michael Herbert for an amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan (PO #16) to amend the building envelope for the property developed with existing single-family residence at 4 Indian Rock Court, The application consists of the following: 1, Application form and supplemental materials, dated August 31, 2004 2, Precise Plan Amendment plans, dated August 31, 2004 B, The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 13, 2004, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons, C. The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, . 0, The Planning Commission finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the October, 13, 2004 Staff Report, as well as visits to the site and testimony received from the applicant, that the project is generally consistent with the overall intentions of the Preserve Precise Plan. The building envelope expansions, if limited to fencing and landscaping, would not result in visual changes to the property that would be significantly inconsistent with other homes in the general vicinity, E. The Planning Commission finds the project to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OSC-2 states that "while accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible. New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas," The proposed western building envelope expansion would be situated in the relatively narrow areas between the building envelopes for 2, 4 and 6 Indian Rock Court, which are not the most environmentally sensitive portions of these lots, Section 2, Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan (PO #16) to the Town Council, subject to the following conditions: TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLLrnON NO. 2004.11 OCTOBER 13,2004 . EXHIBIT NO, :3 . . . 1, The approved building envelope for the property at 4 Indian Rock Court shall be amended as reflected on the Precise Plan Amendment plan, prepared by Suzman Design Associates, dated August 31, 2004 (one sheet), except that the western envelope extension shall extend to within four feet (4') of the side property line, 2. This Precise Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date, 3. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Preserve Precise Plan not specifically described herein, 4, The expanded building envelope areas approved herein shall "fencing only" envelopes, limited to fencing no greater than six feet (6') in height and landscaping. No other structures shall be permitted in these areas. Fencing shall utilize least visibly noticeable materials, with no horizontal.wooden members, 5, During the review of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for fencing within the expanded envelopes, consideration should be given to requiring landscaping that would screen the fencing and help the fencing blend into the hillside and be more visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on October 13, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COLLINS, FRASER, HERMANN AND KUNZWEILER COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: SNOW RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: DANIEL M, WATROUS, SECRETARY H:dwatrouslresolutionslpc30404,resolution,doc TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION REsoumoN NO, 2004-11 OCTOBER 13,2004 2 EXHIBIT NO. :3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: FILE #30404: AMENDMENT TO THE PRESERVE PRECISE PLAN (PO #16) TO AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE; 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT; KIM GRAVES AND MICHAEL HERBERT, OWNERS; SUZMAN DESIGN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 38-400-02 MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2004 REVIEWED BY: ~ PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owners: Applicant: Date Complete: Preliminary CEQA Determination: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 Indian Rock Court 38-400-03 30404 27,789 square feet Medium Low Density Residential RPD (The Preserve Precise Plan, PD #16) Single-Family Residential Kim Graves and Michael Herbert Suzman & Cole Design Associates September 16, 2004 October 8, 2004 . The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Preserve Precise Plan) for property located at 4 Indian Rock Court. The applicant wishes to amend the building envelope for this lot. Phase I of the Preserve Precise Plan was approved by the Town Council in 1985, and established building envelopes for each of the parcels in the subdivision, The property owners now wish to make several modifications to the approved building envelope for this lot. The building envelope would be expanded on the eastern and western sides of the lot to allow fencing to extend to the, side property line, ANALYSIS Compliance with the Preserve Precise Plan The Preserve Precise Plan, as adopted by Town Council Resolution No, 2339 (Exhibit 3) includes the following requirements pertaining to the building envelopes for each lot: ' . EXHIBIT NO. L/- . . . Town of Tiburon . . ." ~ _9.LJ)_~}.1 ,,- ~-' -1:0 ~(.l., \f 'II~ ~~I'- ,.,\~~~/~ .......>~; J&f~ff%'O "'6-.~/' ." Ii'N'A-rt>l(> '. , . STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . -. . . . Condition of Approval No, 10: "Building envelopes have been lefllarge by the Town Council to provide the Town's Board of Adjustments and Review with greater flexibility in applying appropriate design principles and policies to the proposed residences, and to ensure maximum compatibility with existing structures.., [The Design Review Board] shall give consideration to whether reasonable efforts have been made to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed residence on adjoining residences and open space, The Board may require modification to the design, location and size of the proposed residence, where necessary, to minimize such adverse impacts." . Condition of Approval No. 12: "No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary or otherwise, shall be permitted outside the approved primary or secondary building envelopes, In addition, no planting of trees or shrubbery shall be allowed along property boundaries which would have the effect of appearance of fencing the property, as determined by the Board of Adjustments and Review," Eastern Buildina Envelope Extension The westem portion of the site is currently undeveloped, with some shrubbery and trees planted' near the front of the lot. Both this lot and the adjacent property at 6 Indian Rock Court were originally approved with a 20 foot separation between the approved building envelope and the side property line. The applicants are requesting to extend the building envelope to the eastern side property line to allow a six foot (6') tall wood and wire deer fence to be constructed along this boundary, A similar fence was recently approved for the adjacent property owners at 6 Indian Rock Court, The location of this proposed envelope is primarily visible only from the subject property and the adjacent lot at 6 Indian Rock Court. Trees and other shrubbery toward the front of the site would screen this area from view from the street. The homes below in the Belveron East subdivision are situated at elevations well below the site, and have limited views up toward the location of the proposed fencing, The fence would therefore appear to not have any adverse visual impacts on existing structures in the vicinity, The submitted request would extend the primary building envelope to the side property line, which could allow buildings and other structures, such as swimming pools and spas, to be situated up to the side boundary, If the Planning Commission supports the concept of installing fencing and landscaping in this area, it is recommended that the building envelope expansion be approved as a "fencing only" envelope, with limitations that only fencing no taller than 6 feet in height and landscaping be allowed to be installed in this area, ' The Preserve Precise Plan contained prohibitions on fencing outside the building envelopes in order to maintain an open visual character for this subdivision, particularly due to the high visibility of many of these lots from Tiburon Boulevard and other nearby neighborhoods, The location of the subject fence would not be particularly noticeable from offsite, and should be consistent with the overall intent of this precise plan, EXHIBIT NO. ~ October 13, 200 page 2 of 4 Town of Tiburon .. . I .~ ~_QLt!t!_l{.(>~. .~~...., ".~1- i ' " .,::::::- ~I'" i2:~~1 ('\\~?~i~ "\~'~/.,. "'<'<-6-::~() .CO' ~,\il~-\fl(.. , . STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Buildinq Envelope Extension The applicants are requesting to also extend the building envelope to the western side property line to allow a wire deer fence to be constructed along this boundary, The area to the west of the building envelope on the subject property is similar to the area on the east side of the lot, and is adjacent to the property at 2 Indian Rock Court. There is less vegetation along the street in this area, although the location of the proposed fence would still be generally screened by landscaping near the street. The area between the two neighboring homes is more visually open, but additional mature landscaping exists below the buildings, A ''fencing only" envelope in this area would seem to have the same limited visual impact as the fencing proposed on the eastem side of the property, However, the Planning Commission may wish to consider if this extension would, in tum, encourage a similar request for the property at 2 Indian Rock Court, with fencing permitted to the property lines for most of this portion of the subdivision, Recent Application for 6 Indian Rock Court A similar application to amend the Preserve Plan was recently partially approved for the adjacent property to the east at 6 Indian Rock Court (File #30403). A ''fencing only" envelope, limited to fencing no greater than six feet (6') in height and landscaping, was approved between the westem edge of the building envelope for that lot and the side property line shared with the subject property, A request for a similar envelope expansion, which would have extended into a Town-held scenic easement, was not approved, General Plan Consistencv . The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Tiburon General Plan and with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments, Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OSC-2 states that ''while accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible, New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas," The proposed building envelope expansions would be situated in the relatively narrow areas between the building envelopes between the home at 2, 4 and 6 Indian Rock Court, which are not the most environmentally sensitive portions of these lots, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that the subject application is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED . Any affirmative action by the Planning Commission's on this project would be in the form of a EXHIBIT NO. 4~ October 13, 200 page 3 of 4 . . . Town of Tiburon .- STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . recommendation to the Town Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that decision would be final, unless appealed to the Town Council. If the amendment to the precise plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review and building permits for the proposed fencing, CONCLUSION The proposed building envelope expansions, if limited to fencing and landscaping, would not result in visual changes to the 'property that would be significantly inconsistent with other homes in the general vicinity. Although the fencing could set an unwanted precedent for the construction of other, more visible fencing on other lots within this subdivision, the proposed fence would not be particularly noticeable from offsite, and should be consistent with the overall intent of the Preserve Precise Plan, However, the proposed westem envelope expansion could encourage further fencing of this type through other portions of this subdivision, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this application; and 2. Consider the draft resolution recommending approval to the Town Council of the amendment to the Preserve Precise Plan for the establishment of "fencing only" envelopes for the property at 4 Indian Rock Court, EXHIBITS 1, Application form and supplemental materials 2, Draft resolution 3. Town Council Resolution No, 2339 4. Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. L{ . I . oLV.!lu~' 1~.:~i - 1'i;3:~~" ('o\~~~/'''' "V...~~~\;) ." OkiV)}ltrC.- '. , . October 13. 200 page 4 of 4 MIS, KunzweilerlHennann (passed 4-0-tent) to continue this item to the November 10, 2004 meeting. . PUBLIC HEARING 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PRESERVE PRECISE PLAN (PD#16) TO AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE; 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT; Kim Graves and Michael Herbert, Owners; Suzman Design Associates, Architect and Applicant; File No. 30404; Assessor's Parcel No. 38-400-02 Planning Manager Watrous presented the Stafl'report. Kim Graves, applicant, presented an amendment to the letter from Kathy Scollin, the neighbor at 2 Indian Rock Court. She added that the intent was to have fence camouflaged by the olive trees, a foot or two ITom thc side propcrty line. She said that they agree with Ms. Scollin that the fence would be about four teet away ITom the side property line. Commissioner Fraser asked why the neighbor wantcd thc fence moved. Ms. Graves responded that Ms. Scollin wants landscaping to screen her view of the fence and wants Ms. Graves to be, responsible for the landscaping. Commissioner Hermann asked if anyone had raised concerns about thc open space area. Ms. Graves responded that she was told that some Belveron residents were concerned. She said that Ms. Scollin will not likely ask for the same amendment because she wants to leave her property as is. She descrihed the differences between the lots in this area and other more steeply sloping lots in the subdivision. . The public comment period was opened. Christopher Senn stated he fully supports the application. He said that only one fencc would be installed between the two properties and the fence would have no wooden cross members to make it is as see-through as possible. He gave an explanation of the scenic ea~emcnt on the side of his lot. David Stadlin, prcsidcnt ofThc Prcservcat Tiburon Homeowners Association, stated that the intent is to preserve the open feeling of the subdivision. He said that he can support the request because of the presence ofthe stone retaining walls and lawn area. He said that the path of the fence along the line of the retaining wall is acceptable, as the fence would not neccssarily follow a straight path down the property line. Chair Collins asked if the homeowners association's architcctural committee is required to approve any change to the Precise Plan. Mr. Stadlin responded that the committee can grant exceptions, but he did not know about changes to the Precise Plan. . EXHIBIT NO. b f. I DP 3 . Planning Manager Watrous discussed methods of approving the fence four feet from the property line. He said that if the envelope stops four feet from the side property line, the neighbor could make a similar request to extend their envelope up to the property line, ' leaving a corridor in between two fences. He said that the Planning Commission could approve the envelope all the way to the property line, with the fencc location away from the property line approved during the Design Review process. There being no further comment, the public comment was closed. Commissioner Kunzweiler stated that he feels there is a bit of disagreement within the community about what is trying to be accomplished. He said that to a degree a precedent was set by the approval of a similar request at 6 Indian Rock Court. He said that the intent is not to create a walled-in appearance in the neighborhood. He asked if there was a concern about blocking off corridors for animals in this area. Planning Manager Watrous responded that the drainage easement area at the bottom of all the lots and the scenic , easement would still provide access for animals. He said that the areas between the houses are not as heavily used for such corridors. ' Commissioner Hermann stated that the original intent ofthe Precise Plan was to keep an open appearance. He said that he would be concerned if the fences were highly visible, hut these are no except from far away. He said that proper landscaping would help diffuse this issue. He said that he was inclined to ask the applicant to return with a plan showing . more landscaping and a more precise location ofthe fence. Commissioner Fraser stated that during the review of the amendment for 6 Indian Rock Court this appeared to be a workable plan for 4 Indian Rock Court. He said that there is general support from the neighbors and the homeowners association for this application. He said that the Commission can approve the precise plan amendment and give direction for issues to be addressed during the design review process. He said that it was no the Commission's role to review the details of the fence design, and he felt that there was no need to micromanage this project. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the design and location of the fence would be reviewed during the design review process, and is not a part ofthe precise plan amendment. He added that the fence would be reviewed by Staff, not the Design Review Board. Chair Collins stated that the fence would be imperceptihle from Belveron. He said that the Town approved the application at 6 Indian Rock Court on its own merits, and this is a separate application. He said that this property already has lots of landscaping an part of a fence. He felt that this application would not set a precedent, and he could support the projcct. . MIS, KunzwellerlFraser (passed 4-0- I) to adopt the resolution reeommending approval of thc project to the Town Couneil, with amended conditions of approval l<'XHTBIT NO. f, 5 2.Df- 3 to include Staff is to review the plan for vegetation for suffieient coverage to blend in with the hillside and to be compatible with the neighborhood and a condition is to he added that the western envelope would extend to within four feet ofthe west sidc property line. AIlJOURNMENT The mceting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN EXHIBIT NO. P. 5 ""~F3 :Yv:. . . . r-::a: ".. " " ~ ,- .. . . RESOLUTION NO. 2 339 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING PHASE I f OF THE PERINI PRECISE PLAN & TENTATIVE MAP I Section 1. Findings. A. Applicant, Perini Land and Development ~ompany, has hereto- fore submitted a Master Plan to develop a parcel of 51.9 acres of land bordering Reed Ranch Road and the Be!veron Subdivision in the Town of Tiburon. The Master Plan was approved by the Town Council in Ordinance No. 297 N.S, adopted on January 7, 1985. B. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the Environ- mental Collaborative for this -project and it .has ,been- .reviewed by the Planning Commission and certified by the Council on september 5, 1984" f c. The Town of Tiburon agreed, at applicant's request, to consider the precise'plan and Tentative Map for the development on a phased basis. 'Phase I is designated as the area to be se,rved by drivewa'ys and an access road off of Reed Ranch Road, and was approved for a maximum density of 10-13 residential parce1's. Phase II, to be submitted at a later date, is desig- nated as the area to be served by access off Trestle Glen Boulevard, and was approved for a maximum densi'ty of 17-19 residential parcels; The findings and conditions herein relafe to Phase I. D. Applicant has submitted a'precise plan and Tentative Ma~ for Phase I proposing the development of 13 residential par- cels. .The precise Plan is, described 85 follows: . 1. Maps /01.+ .(:.."JJ) u.~ P\....'^ .r;,...r ~~.elQre.t t/ b) identified as: Precise plan/Illustrative Site Plan with- Building Envelopes, revised 8/15/85 Sheet 1 of 9 precise Plan/Existing Conditions Vegetation, dated 2/19/85 Sheet 2 of 9 '-~"c}--" .precise, ,plan/Tentative- Map".-_._. revised 8/15/85 ._, _. __ ____,._....._.. n.___._ .. ._.__...___:,. Sheet 3 of 9 ( l.' v d) Geologic Map, dated 4/2/85 Sheet 4 of 9 V- el precise plan/Landscape plan, dated 8/15/85 Sheet 5 of 9 f) Precise plan/Offsite Drainage Rer?uting plan, dated 2/19/85 Sheet 7 of 9 . prepared by Backen, Arrigoni & Ross, and Anthony M. Guzzardo and, Associates. . 2. Written documents identified as: a) Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the perini-Tiburon Subdivision (19 pages). -- -- b) perini/Tiburon Phase I Development, Belveron Drainage Rerouting Job No. 5235, dated Feb- ruary 7, 1985, by Schwartz Waag A5soc)late~, I~. EXHIBIT Nu.~__jL. .. p. {"Of::"'~ ( ( ( .i'" f-- ~pii< :r --" -------;1----::-- -- ~_..~ ':V"'''':'':~~~~':':'~'",";, f/ t '-=:a ". . c) Geotechnical tnvestigat ion, prepared by' 'Harlan, Miller, Tait 'Associates, dated May, 1984. d) Detailed Geotechnical Report regarding Phase I Development and Grading dated April 3, 1985, Project #521.2. E. The Tentative Map is identified as follows: 1. Map entitled Precise plan/Tentative Map, dated, 8/15/85, (also included as Item (c) of the Precise Plan). F. The Council has held duly noticed public hearings for the purpose of reviewing the application and receiving comments and recommendations from the public, and "has considered the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. G. The Council finds that the facts presented establish that the requirements of Section 10-4 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordi- nance' have been satisfied. The Council further finds that the Phase I Precise Plan and Tentative Map" as con.d'itioned herein, conform to the Town's General Plan and other applicable requirements and. regulations', and sUbstantial+y conform to the provisions of the approved Master Plan. H. The Council has considered approving a lesser number of units thannthat proposed in the Precise plan and finds that the 13 units proposed, subject' to the conditions of approval here- in, are approp!iate. section 2. APproval'. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the Precise plan and Tentative Map, for Phase I of the Perini Subdivision, subject to the following terms,. and condi-' tions and as modified herein: . 1. The council approves the development of 13 residential building sites as shown on the map identified as Precise Plan/Illustrative Site Plan with Building Envelopes, dated August 15, 1985, prepared by Backen, Arrigoni & Ross, and Anthony M. Guzzardo ,and Associates. 2. All requirements and conditions of the Ma~ter Plan are incorporated herein and, except to the extent that they may be specifically modified herein, all such requirements and conditions shall be met. 3. Applicant shall comply with ........._._., _ __,."_~_,_._.,,..E~g"~.~_~~.!,?~.~._,.Ee 1 a t ~~9._,_~~~.!t.~,. all applicable subdivision filing of a Final Map. ..'._--.---'----'-_._-"-_..._'--'- -~ ,.-.---..,' ...._.._- L l 4. Applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the Alto- Richardson Bay.Fire District as may be required by, the District. 5. All engineering requirements and standards including, but not'limited to, drainage, erosion control, grading, soils, construction criteria and traffic, shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Engineer. Applicant shall, at a minimum, comply with the conditions and re- quirements of the Town outlined in the Town Engineer's letter dated June 5, 1985, entitled Mperini Subdivision - Phase I Drai~ageM, as amended by his letter dated August 15. 1985. . 6. Applicant shall submit improvement plans for the treatment of all retaining walls, if any, including proposed ma- . terials of construction, landscaping and any other methods of softening the appearance of the retaining walls as well as such other items a9 the Town may later require for review and approval by the Board of Adjustments and Re- view. EXHIBIT NO. _& -2- r, Z OF r;- '.;'..,. ~ . . ;~'~. -- 'a- . :'f '~..'.~' f f t ",', r-::J 7. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subdivision, 'together with all proposed deed and title restrictions, including scenic easements and offers of dedication shall be approved by the Town Attorney prior to ~iling of the Final Map_ S~' The building envelope"s and' lot contoIs, as shown on the map entitled ,precise plan/Illustrative Si~e Plan With, Building Envelopes, dated August 15, 1985, shall be at- tached to and made a part of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subdivision. ' 9. No building or grading permits shall be issued for the 'construction of any residential or accessory structures until they hav~ received site plan and architectural re- view and approval by the Town. 10. Building envelopes have been left large by the Town Coun- cil to' provide the Townls Board of Adjustments and Review , with greater flexibility in'. applying appropriate design . principles and polici'es to the proposed residences, "and to ensure maximum compatibility with .existing structures. The design, location, and size'of each proposed residence . shall' be the subject of hearings before .the Board of Ad- justments and Review, which shall give consideration to whether reasonable efforts have been made to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed residence on adjoining resider.-ces ,and open space. .The Board may require modifi- cation to the design, location' and size .of the proposed residence, where necessary, to minimize such adverse im- .'pacts. 11. The 24-foot building height limit established by the Master plan may.be exceeded by dormers, architectural ..features and chimneys to a maximum height of 30 feet, ~rovided~ however, that a)" said portions exceeding 24 feet' must be approved by the Board of A~~ustments 'and. Review, and b'> For lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and '6, no structures, excluding dormers, architectural features and chimneys shall-exceed a height of ,15 feet above the highest street elevati.on along the street ,frontage of the lot, without prior Board of Adjustments and Review approval. The maximum elevati~n for the top of building envelopes for al~ lots, except lot 8, shall be the 175-foot eleva- tion. The elevation of the building envelope for lot 8 ...___ _.,.,..__"_.,,shall_not, exceed 24 feet abov~ 9r:-?icle, or' ,t~e .21)5-foot CQn- tour, whichever is. iowe~.~' w~ft.hout. ..di-e--.approv.al.-ot""--ttie"--'---.-."'---.--.-'-'---.'. Board ~f .Adjustments and Review.. .12. No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary or otherwise, shall be permitted outside the approved primary or. secondary building envelopes. In addition. no planting of trees or shrubbery shall be allowed along property boundaries which would have the effect or ap- pearance of fencing the 'property, as determined by the Board of Adjustments and Revie~. The Final Map shall provide notice of the building envelope restrictions. The CC & 'Rls"sha!'l 'contain' notice of the building envelope r,estr,ict ions. ~ 13. ~onstru,ction 'work,shall be permitted Monday through F'riday only and between the hours of 8;00 a.m'~ and. 5:00 p.m. only "unless spe.ci'fically' authorize.d' in advance by the Town Manager 1n limited ~pecial dircumstances. Noise gonerat- i?g equipment shall not ~~ started befoFe 7~]O ~.~. 14. No construct ion equ,ipme.nt dr ma'terial or excavat ion mat'erial shall be stored or stockpiled on Town open space -3- EXHIBIT NO. g ,""""",' ,P.",..:?' n'F,s::-:. , ( ( L 'a-'- f f t .I " --=:J land. Construction activity in open space areas of the Perini Parcel shall be limited to necessary slope repair and drainage improvements, as approved by the Town Engi- neer. There shall be minimal intrusion on open space areas during construction. . 15.' Landscaping as identified on the final approved landscap- ing plan shall be maintained ,by the applicant for three (3) years from and after the date the landscaping has been installed. The Town shall inspect the landscaping at least annually during said period, and may require the applicant to make landscaping improvements to conform to the plan, 'as approved. The landscape maintenance agree- ment, which may be part of the 'Subdivision Improvement Agreement, shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and shall be bonded, or performance otherwise guaranteed.to the Town's satisfaction. 16. The Town Engineer, by letter dated June 5', 1985, entitled .perini Subdivision - Phase I Drainage., and by amendments thereto in a letter dated August 15, 1985, has specified certain drainage improvements which must be constructed as part of phase I. All of the improvements described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of said letter shall be installed and paid for in full by the applicant, without reimbursement from any presently developed or subdivided land or any Town of Tiburon owned land l'ocated within the watershed area. The Town of Tiburon shall have no obligation to impose drainage fees on any other lands in the watershed, whether for purposes of reimbursing applicant, or other- wise.. Notwithstanding the above, the improvements speci- fied 'in paragraph 2 of said letter may, at the option of Town, be designed by the Town", and the contract for. same awarded by the Town, in which .event Town shall notify,..... applicant of the bid amount and applicant shall forthwith pay said amount to the Town. . No construction of improvements which generate additional runoff into the Belveron watershed shall be permitted until such time as the Town Engineer has first certified in writing that the drainage system proposed for the perini subdivision (a) does not adversely affect the existing Belveron drainage system, or (b) that the . improvements necessary to the Belveron watershed drainage system have been completed or guaranteed and will be con- structed prior to the. commencement of increased runoff as a result of this .project. 17. Except as provided below, applicant shall pay ~ housing fee in lieu of constructing 15% of the housing units in ...-:-__.___._'_.n the -'phase" I--pro j ect"'.for-,the''''-low--or- -madera te ..i ncome -housi ng market. Such in-lieu fee is based upon 15% of the units approved in the project, as more specifically calculated in Exhibit "A" hereto, and shall be payable upon the. fil- ing of the Final Map for phase I. Anything above notwith- standing, however, the in-lieu fees shall be waived if, on the date the F ina1 l1ap for Phase I is flIed, the dra i nage improvements required under paragraph No. 16 hereinabove have ,been completed or appl icant has guaranteed complet ion of such improvements to the s-atisfaction of the ;Town. ~ 18. Fees in lieu of dedication of land for park and recreation purposes .pursuant to Section 14-50 of the Tiburon Munici- pal Code, in the sum of $500 per residential unit, shall be payable upon the filing of the Final ~'ap for Phase I; provided, however, the in-lieu fees shall be waived if, on .the date the Final Map for Phase I is filed, the drainage improvements required under paragraph No.' 16 hereinabov~ have been completed or applicant has guaranteed completion of such improvements to the satisfaction of the Town. . -4- EXHIBIT NO. . ~ P. 4 C\=~- .,..,'- ," , f e f t . .~;.,;;.' ,"~., '~ r-::I PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of -Tiburon on Auqust 21 , 1985, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Larry Smith, Gary Spratling, Stone Coxhead, Jim Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Valerie Bergmann ()L &;L( ABSTAIN: None .Stone coxhead, Vlce-Mayor Town of Tiburon ATTEST: ROBERT L. KLEINERT, Manager, Clerk Draft Date 8/27/85 . "",_____.___ .~~'~_.H... __._. __....__.'._......______n...'....__.""..._.. _..__,__,...._~_ ~ EXHIBIT NO._~a; f. '5 cF ~ -5- '1"'-' ... 'r: .,.,.," J..::llhl.'L'nl\. '-':'nollin 'Iil', , I 1\.1 iall r~, h' L ( :"1Ir1 Til>lII<'I1. (:..\ \}~l)~(\ ~IS.41S.r,70S l'hulK" .1 1 SAJ'j,4776 p:n: ~lll.jil: b..;\""llill@,Hrhi.':,'l1l SeoUin Consulting, LLC October 13,2004 Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Town of Tiburon Re: 4 Indian Rock Court - Amended letter of support This is an amendment to my letter of October 12. My husband and I agree that the deer fence between our home and the Herbert's home should not be placed on the property. However, we are agreeable to a deer fence being erected between our properties at least four (4) feet away from our joint property line, closer to the Herbert's home. Our desires regarding landscaping on the outside of the fence remain the same and should be included in the approval of this request. cf1u UeJLl:jl'-a!A"~ Kathleen R. ScolIin EXHIBIT NO. '7 . . . . . . . ..... . . " ,>,:~9L.1!1t(; ~ ~i;..~ _~) - ('o\...~::,:::::_~~. ......;;.~;-::;~~;l O'~/, .;0 .i;>.....,~,til> "'. , . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER 79 ROUND HILL ROAD APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING l\\\\ NOVEMBER 3, 2004 REVIEWED BY:~ SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: 79 ROUND HILL ROAD CARL WEISSENSEElRON OZNOWICZ THAYER ARCHITECTURE 58-301-46 704119 21,456 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - OPEN) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C BACKGROUND On October 7,2004, the Tiburon Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road, The owners of the neighboring property at 75 Round Hill Road have now appealed this decision to the Town Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An application was filed for Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road, The property is currently vacant. The upper level of the proposed house would include a living room, kitchen, dining room, family room, den and a half bathroom. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, two more bathrooms and a recreation room. An attached two-car garage would be situated adjacent to the upper level, The proposed house would cover 3,023 square feet (14.1%) of the site, which is less than the maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 3,733 square feet, which is less than the 4,146 square foot maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size, Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . I .. oi'o 9L!',~1J ~. :.t-,,/ ".to ~'.\.,. e_ <*' ~ :~_:,!. _ f""~ ~'~.:e;'O' ~~;~~~~Q . ~^,I"--It.lL' , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed the application at the September 16, 2004 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the applicant presented revised plans that would slightly reduce the height of the proposed house from those plans that were submitted with the application, The neighboring property owner at 75 Round Hill Road raised concerns over the potential view blockage that would be caused by the location of the proposed house. The owner of the neighboring property at 85 Round Hill Road indicated support for the proposed house location and the plan revisions, but raised concems about potential view impacts that could occur if the house location was moved uphill to address the view concems from 75 Round Hill Road, The Design Review Board expressed concems regarding the submission of the revised plans at such a late date, without adequate time for the Board and the neighbors to review the plans and modify story poles for the project. The application was continued to the October 7 meeting to allow the applicant to formally submit the revised plans and modify the story poles for the project. At the October 7, 2004 meeting, the property owner at 75 Round Hill Road again raised, concems over potential view blockage, and the owner of 85 Round Hill Road described the potential view impacts that could be caused by an altemate house location, and also described the proposed house location in relation to the future development of the other vacant lots at 77 . and 81 Round Hill Road, The applicant gave a more detailed history of the subdivision of which this lot is a part, and stated that the current views across this property from the home at 75 Round Hill Road are recent in nature: The Design Review Board considered the testimony of the neighbors, and determined that the views across the subject property from the home at 75 Round Hill Road were "borrowed" views across undeveloped land, It was the consensus of the Board that it would be unreasonable to force the owner of the proposed home, and the owner of any future home on the intervening lot at 77 Round Hill Road, to sacrifice a large portion of each lot to protect such a borrowed view, The Board then voted to approve the subject application (4-1, Boardmember T eiser dissenting), On October 15, 2004, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision, BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are two grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1 The house design would be contrary to direction given by the Town of Tiburon in the approval of a lot line adjustment for this property in 2002. ~ . Staff Response: A lot line adjustment involving the subject property and three other lots 1J7, 81 & 83 Round Hill Road) was approved by the Community Development Director in 2002, . State law does not allow conditions of apProval to be attached to lot line adjustments, However, Staff realized that the potential for view conflicts might arise during the development of these lots. As a result, the following language was included in the approved lot line adjustment: . November 3, 20( page 2 of 7 Town of Tiburon . STAFF REPORT' .- . I ,,~,9Lt'-~_v ". ~/ 'fa 3'.'''' I ,. " '\~ ~ aggr ... ';\~~~/~ .../\~~..... ~/~'O "'6'~/"" .' -t>^,llCft~(.. ". , . '-. .' "These lots are the final vacant lots in the vicinity and are surrounded by other homes, As such, any homes constructed on these lots have the potential to create view and privacy impacts in greater proportion than would normally be the case. While the property owner will not vOluntarily agree to certain other conditions that have been suggested by affected neighbors and Town Staff, and the Town lacks the legal authority to impose such conditions on a lot line adjustment, please be advised that the Town Staff will be closely scrutinizing future Site Plan and Architectural Review applications for the following elements: "Any applications filed for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for residences at 79 Round Hill Road and 81 Round Hill Road will be expected to reasonably minimize view blockage from existing residences at 85 Round Hill Road and 75 Round Hill Road." The Design Review Board reviewed this language and determined that all views need not be protected to "reasonably minimize" view blockage, The Board determined that the view across the subject property from the appellants' house was a "borrowed" view; in other words, this is a view across a vacant lot, with the expectation that this view would be compromised by the eventual development of the property, . The appellants requested that the Design Review Board move the proposed house further uphill out of their view (hereinafter referred to as the "alternate uphill location"), The applicant indicated to the Board that moving the house in this manner would eliminate the use of 48 percent of this lot and 60 percent of the adjacent lot at 77 Round Hill Road. The Board determined that it was unreasonable to restrict applicant from developing such a large portion of , the property, The Design Review Board also considered the potential view impacts from the existing residence at 85 Round Hill Road. The owner of this adjacent property indicated to the Board that the current configuration of the lots at 77 and 79 Round Hill Road were created at the request of the appellants, and resulted in the subject property being wider at the bottom and the lot at 77 Round Hill Road being wider at the top, It is anticipated that future development of the lots at 77 and 81 Round Hill Road will result in homes sited further uphill than the location of the subject house, As a result, moving the house for 79 Round Hill Road uphill would not only force the house into the narrower portion of the lot, but would likely result in a row of three houses directly in the view of the home at 85 Round Hill Road, The Board determined that the requested house location for the subject property was the most appropriate to "reasonably minimize" the view impacts for the residence at 85 Round Hill Road. . The applicant has submitted information that the appellants came onto the subject property without permission and trimmed branches of several trees that substantially improved the views through this area from the appellants' home. The appellants have claimed that this work was required for fire protection purposes, but no evidence has been found that the Tiburon Fire Protection District gave any such direction to the appellants, nor authorized any trespass or destruction of property in the name of fire safety, The Board considered this information in its November 3, 20( page 3 of 7 STAFF REPORT . I . Of Tf..!Ju . "~~,---- ".....of''' ,9/.'\'" ..,("" '~'I'j'. *' ..;;:;~ ~<%. ~~:~ (';'<::;..^~/i'o ~""O'-,~/, . ~^,IA-I~(.- , . Town of Tiburon evaluation of the current views across the subject property compared to those lesser views that have historically been enjoyed by the appellants, The Design Review Board considered the history and future development potential of the surrounding lots and the nature of the appellants' views across the site, and determined that the design of the proposed house did "reasonably minimize" the view blockage from the appellants' house, Ground #2 The house design would be inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review. Staff Response: The Design Review Board used the following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines to evaluate the potential view impacts of the house in its approved location on the appellants' home, The Board also used these guidelines to evaluate the impacts of the "alternate uphill location" for the subject home (as suggested by the appellants) on the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that all new dwellings should be located "so they interfere minimally with views of adjacent dwellings," The approved house would interfere with the views from the appellants' home, although their property is not directly adjacent to the subject lot. The relocated house would block a smaller portion of the views from the adjacent home at 85 Round Hill Road. . . Goal 3, Principle 3 of the Guidelines states that "views should be protected as much as possible within reason', However, not everyone can have a panoramic view... The slot view is just as important to the person who owns it as the 360 degree panoramic view is to its owner. But the slot view can be obscured by just one tree or poorly sited dwelling." The approved house would block most of a slot view from the appellants' home, The home at 85 Round Hill Road has a wider, although not panoramic, view that would be somewhat affected by the alternate uphill location; however, combined with the future construction of additional homes at 77 and 81 Round Hill Road, a large portion of this view would be impacted, . Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Guidelines states that "view protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling... than for the less actively used areas of a dwelling," The approved house would block views from the primary living areas of the appellants' home, The alternate uphill location would block views from the primary living areas of the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of [the] view, then foreground, then middleground." The approved house would be in the middleground views from the appellants' home, as the lot at 77 Round Hill Road is situated between the appellants' property and the . November 3, 20C page 4 of 7 , . '. . I .~ ~.-9W!~u ~ .- j;.~~) . ?,";::..~~I~ r'~'"2~1c.'o .' O~"",,~~."" '. , . Town of Tiburon . STAFF REPORT subject site. The alternate uphill location would be in the foreground views from the home at 85 Round Hill Road, . Goal 3, Principle 7 (e) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of [the] center of view [is] more damaging that blockage of [the] side of view." The approved house would block the center of a small view from the appellants' home, The alternate uphill location would block the center of a larger view from the home at 85 Round Hill Road, . Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well known landmarks." The approved house would block views of the Belvedere Lagoon from the appellants' home, The alternate uphill location would block views of the Belvedere Lagoon from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view," The approved house would block most of a slot view from the appellants' home. The alternate uphill location would block a portion of a moderately sized view from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. The appellants have characterized this as a panoramic view that "was caused by the removal of 30 Eucalyptus trees in February 2001" along Tiburon Boulevard. As previously mentioned, much of the appellants' slot view is the result of the unauthorized tree trimming by the appellants on the applicant's property, ' . The view blockage caused by the approved house would not appear to be consistent with these principles of the Hillside Guidelines. However, a house relocated uphill as suggested by the appellants would also appear to be inconsistent with these guidelines, As previously noted, the Design Review Board determined that the appellants had "borrowed" views across the vacant site that could not reasonably be expected to remain once the lot was developed. The Design Review Board indicated that the Hillside Design Guidelines were developed primarily to protect views from properties downhill rather than to the side across another site, such as those of the appellants across the subject property. Although there is no language, within the Hillside Guidelines making this distinction, the drawings contained within the guidelines to illustrate these principles (including the illustrations for Goal 3, Principle 1 and Goal 3, Principle 3 cited by the appellants) generally show the relationship of homes uphill and downhill from each other. . Residential construction also requires approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application consistent with the Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications contained within Section 4,02,07 of the Zoning Ordinance, In review of these applications, the Design Review Board is required to consider a number of principles, including the following: ' November 3, 20( page 5 of 7 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT .- . I ." oL..t!.bf.;'. '.:fo."t/ '-"1:0 ,3'.\'" 'b~'I'- I,~e~! ~\~~~:\> (';>'?'''~~3Eit?;:{'O .~ O~.v~~i:" , . "Lighting, Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes." The appellants claim that the approved house design would subject them to light pollution, The approved house design does not include any skylights, and the windows facing in the direction of the appellants' property are not excessive, These windows would be screened by the remaining trees on the site (particularly as they fill out again after the unpermitted trimming by the appellants), and future landscaping on the adjacent lot at 77 Round Hill Road, \ "Grading & Tree Removal, The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading andlor removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses." The appellants claim that there will be the length of the approved driveway leading down to the house would cause excessive grading on the site, The Design Review Board reviewed the design determined that the relationship of the house to the site was appropriate, and therefore that the grading required to complete this project is not excessive, No significant trees or other vegetation are proposed to be removed by the . project. CONCLUSION , The Design Review Board followed the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of this project, The Board considered the location of both the appellants' home and the residence at 85 Round Hill Road in its evaluation of the proposed view impacts, along with the development potential for the lots at 77 and 81 Round Hill Road. The Board carefully balanced the views from the nearby homes and determined that the location and design of the house on the subject property was the most appropriate for this site, The appellant' views across the site are borrowed across a vacant lot, and were enhanced by the appellants' unauthorized trimming of the applicant's trees, Given these factors, the Design Review Board felt that the approved house design would "reasonably minimize" the view blockage for the appellants, as recommended by the lot line adjustment approved for this subdivision, The decision of the Design Review Board is supported by visits to the subject site and the adjoining property, as well as evidence in the record, RECOMMENDA nON 1) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 2) That the Town Council direct Staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal, for adoption ai the next meeting, . November 3, 20C page 6 of 7 " Town of Tiburon . STAFF REPORT . . EXHIBITS 1, Notice of Appeal 2, Application and supplemental materials 3, ,Design Review Board Staff report dated September 16, 2004 4, Design Review Board Staff report dated October 7, 2004 5, Minutes of the September 16, 2004 Design Review Board meeting 6, Minutes of the October 7,2004 Design Review Board meeting 7, Goal 3, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines 8, Goal 3, Principle 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines 9, Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines 10. Goal 3, Principles 7 (B &C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines 11, Goal 3, Principles 7 (0 & E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines 12. Letter from Peter Brekhus, dated September 9,2004 13, Letter from Peter Brekhus, dated September 13, 2004 14, Letter from Tiburon Fire Protection District, dated September 15, 2004 15, Letter from Debra Despues and Michael Harrison, dated September 15, 2004 16, Materials submitted by appellants at Design Review Board hearings 17, Submitted plans November 3. 20( page 7 of 7 NOTICE OF APPEAL vlj c(.,.. Sed1' ,/A"'.... ~~~~~W~~'. ~ OCT 1 5 2004 ~ TOWN OF TlBURON TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT Name: Charles and Dale Sofnas Address: 75 Round Hill Road Telephone: (Work) 415-435-1941 (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Design Review Board Date of Action: October 7, 2004 Name of Applicant: Ron Oznowicz & Carl Weissensee Nature of Application: 79 Round Hill Road: File #70411'j, Sit-P plan and . Architectural Review for construction of a GROUNDS FOR APPEAL single family dwelling (Attach additional pages, if necessary) Please see attached Last Day to File: 10- (f /() (/ ~2 "r7) 1Jc,^-" Fee Paid: 7( '- / Date Received: IO~"/r;--{) <; / ~ ('-...9 ~'c.' 0' (;~C c.{ Date of Hearing: I . . January 2004 ~ EXHIBIT NO. f. ( '} f. / OF,!-,3 , '. . . . 18/15/2884 14:53 4517355 PAGE 83/12 AMENDED Attachment to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas 7S Round Hi1l Road Avoea1 On Octope~ 7, 2004, the Tiburon Design Review Board considered the application for approval for the construction of a new two- story single dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road. The application was approved allowing for the construction to go forward ,despite the view blockage that would result from the location of the proposed house. Charles and Dale Sofnas appeal the Design Review Board's decision of October 7, 2004 approving the design and location of the proposed residence at 79 Round Hill Road. This appeal is based on the following: 1, The present decision of the Design Review Board granting an approval for development of lot 79 is directly contrary to the speci.fic conditions attached to the decision which legally created lot 79 and required that the present view of neighboring properties be preserved. 2, The proposed application violates the Town of Tiburon's Design Guildelines for Hillside Dwellings. Background of App1ication The first application for development of 79 Round Hill Road by the current developer was submitted to the Town of Tiburon in connection with a request for a lot line adjustment in December, 2002. The application sought a request for a lot line adjustment between 77, 79, 81 and 83 Round Hill Road. The record reflects that various conditions were attached to the lot line adjustment granted by the Town of Tiburon on December 13, 2002 with respect to the subject property, 79 Round Hill Road. (See Notice of Decision, File #60203, attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") With respect to the Town's 2002 consideration of the lot splits"the Town noted that, ,"[a]ny home constructed on these lots have the potential to create view and privacy impact in greater proportion than would normally be the case." EXHIBIT NO. I f '2 ,OP 2.3 16/15/2664 14:53 4517355 PAGE 64112 AMENDED Attachment to Application to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas Page 2 . Given those facts, the developer (Weissensee) was advised that, "[t]he town staff will be closely scrutinizing future site plan and architectural review applications for the following elements: any application filed for site plan and architectural review for residence at 79 Round Hill Road (APN 58-301-35 and 37) and 81 Round Hill Road (APN 58-301-18) will be expected to desian and locate the residence to reasonably minimize view blockaae from exi.stina residences at 85 Round Hill and 75 Round Hill Road. Notwithstanding this, the developer has submitted a plan for the design and construction of a residence at 79 Round Hill Road, which will completely block the views from the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road, in direct contravention of the conditions of approval for the lot line adjustment. The present applicant, developer Ca,r.l weissensee, aware of the conditions that were imposed on his request line adjustment for 77, 79, 81 and 83 Round Hill Road as developer who processed the lots for application, was well for a lot he is the . Further, in connection with the approval for the lot splits, the applicant represented to the Town and neighborhood that homes to be constructed on the property would be moved close to Round Hill Road. This is confirmed in the lot split application approval which specifically discus~e~ the variance to the front yard setback~ and the specific way to measure the f.r.ont yard setback so as to accomplish the aoal of keeping the construction of. the homes out of, and/or minim~ze, view blockage from 75 Round Hill Road. Contrary to those representations, di~cussions and plans to build the residence "close to Round Hill Road;" the applicant now proposes con~tructing a residence a considerable distance "down from" the frontage of Round Hill Road to accommodate a circular driveway in front of the residence, This proposed alternate driveway crosses a steep hillside which necessitates that the driveway be circular in order to match the topography. The result is to greatly increase the grading and earth disturbance of the site. -2- . EXHIBIT NO. (.3 ofZ5 . . . 10(15/2004 14:53 PAGE 05/12 4517355 AMENDED Attachment to Application to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas Page 3 The application for 79 Round Hill Road was reviewed by the Design Review Board meeting held on September 16, 2004. At that meeting, Charles Sofnas, who resides at 75 Round Hill Road, raised concerns that the house as pr.oposed would block his views. In turn,' the property owner at 85 Round Hill Road raised concerns about potential view impacts that could occur if the house was re- located uohill to address Mr. Sofnas' concerns. The Design Review Board heard testimony from the neighbors and determined that Mr. Sofnas' views across 79 Round Hill Road were ~borrowed" views across undeveloped land. A Board member stated that it would be wunreasonable" to force both the proposed home and any future home Dn the intervening lot, at 77 RDund Hill Road, tD sacrifice a large portiDn of each lot to protect such a "borrowed" view. Review of the application was continu,ed tD the October 7':h meeting date to allow the applicant to formally submit the revised plans and mDdify the story poles for the proposed proJect. At the October 7th meeting, the Design Review Board considered the application and the prior histDry. Specifically, the Design Review Board considered the conditions attached to the 12-13-02 lot line adjustment which provided as follows: -In the application filed fDr site plan and architectural review approval fo~ residence at 79 Round Hill Road and 81 Round Hill Road, will be expected to design and locate the ~esidence to reasonably minimize view blockage from the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road." At the hearing, members of the Design Review Board expressed uncertainty and/or the inability to interpret wexactly" what was meant by the lot line adjustment decision conditions, declared that they believed that the appellant Sofnas had a wborrowed view", a term undefined in any ordinance of. the tDwn, and/or constituted a "sideways view" which some members claim "was not protected." After deliberations and expressions of frustration and an inability to understand the prior decisions of the town with respect to the lot line adjustment decision, board members vDted to approve the application stating that they believed that the -3- EXHIBIT No.1 t L{ O;~ 23 10/15/2004 14:53 4517355 PAGE 05/12 AMENDED Attachment to Application to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale $ofnas Page 4 . ultimate decision would be ~made by another body," (i.e., the City council on appeal. DISCUSSION OF VIEW CONSIDERATIONS At the meeting held by the Design Review Board, members of the Board discussed appellant Charles Sotnas' complaints about the total view blockage created by the proposed design, and the considerations involved in the guidelines. Some of the members of the Board discussed the fact that it appeared that Mr. Sofnas' views were "borrowed" views; another member expressed a concern or belief that the Sofnas were complaining about " "sideways view" over the property and his belief that only ~dow(1ward" views are contemplated to be protected by the ordinance. There is, of course, no definition of a ~borrowed view", nor is the concept even discussed in the Municipal Code. In addition, there is nothing in the view ordinance that indicates that protection is not afforded to "sideway views" or "parallel views" . but only applies to ~downhill views." I At the hearing on the matter, the developer claimed that he had "compromised" to the greatest extent possible with respect to the development. In fact, the developer has not "comoromised" at all. He has proposed a residence on the property which would completely block the view of the appell"nts.' \ Section 15.1 (a) (1), describes "Outward views" from the Tiburon Peninsula stating that the Town recognized that both "outw"rd views" and plentiful sunlighting reaching properties contribute greatly to the quality of life in Tiburon. The discussion of "outward views" found under the definition of view (section 15.21 indicates this includes both upslope and down slope scenes negating any argument that only ~downward views" are protected. The exact opposite is ~mplied as "up slope views" or scenes are described as being included "s protected under the view ordinance. , Appellants are amendable to a compromise solution whereby the developer moves the property halfway up the hill and only -4- . EXHIBIT NO. p. 5 Oy z3> . . . 10/15/2004 14:53 PAGE 07/12 4517355 AMENDED Attachment to Application to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas Page 5 At the hearing, the Pesign Review Board was presented with a conflict which is addressed in the guidelines, Namely, competing views. The view ordinance recognizes that the Town will many times be faced with "competi.ng views" and contemplates that the Town addresses this. (The Town realizes that this does sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight' and ,the, disputes that r.elate to view or sunlight obstructions are "inevitable.") (Section l".l(a) (2)) Principle 3 of the Design Guidelines for Hillside Sites states, "Not everyone can have a panoramic view. The neighborhood and the develooer and the developer and an az;c;;hitect of a new dwelling must work together to obtain the best solution between "slot view, view c;;orridors and panoz;amic views. Remember the slot views az;e just-as important to the person who owns it as the 360 degree panoramic view to its owner but the slot view can be obscured by just one tz;ee or poorly sited dwelling." Mr. Doyle, of 85 Round Hill Road fully supported the application on the grounds it protected his panoramic view. A nearby neighbor, Doyle, supported the developer's siting of the property as proposed on the grounds that it was "necessary" to "protect his views" and that his view from his property should be preferred and protected ovez; the Sofnas. The neighbor, Doyle, stating,his connections with his fathez;- in-law, the former mayoz; of riburon, claimed that he purchased and built his home with the "expectationff that his downward views would be preserved and protected. In fact, when the Doyle house was puz;chased, it was across the street from the proposed lots which were under consideration for approval as early as 1979. At the previous meeting of the Design Review Board Doyle suppoz;ted the applicant's proposal to site the home completely downhill from the street arguing that such siting would protect his views which would be blocked. The construction of the house at 79 Round Hill Road uphill' partially blocks his view. -5- EXHIBIT NO. l f- (0 IJF 2.3 lB/15/2BB4 14:53 4617356 PAGE BB/12 AMENDED Attachment to Application to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas Page 6 . would not block Doyle's panoramic view as was clearly demonstrated by photos from the deck of his house. Faced with this irrefutable fact, Doyle then claimed that he ushouldn't" be able to Usee" the new house as he would if it were "moved up the hill." This argument was similar to the argument he made previously that as a property owner, he shouldn't be uforcBd" look at a urow of houses, built on Round Hill Road." Doyle does not explain why he has any particular or different rights than the majority of the people in Tiburon,who ulive across the street" from homes developed on thei,!: street. Nor does he explai.n why he has the Uright" to Unot see" newly constructed homes. The second problem purchased he was aware of subdivision including the with Doyle's claim is that the conditions attached to the conditions attached to lots, when he proposed Thirdly, Doyle's upanoramic view" which he now argues should be preserved, did not exist at the time that he purchased. 'The panoramic view which he now champions, was caused by the removal of 30 Eucalyptus trees in tebruary 2001 along Lyford Drive. Previously, Mrs. Doyle herself argued against the removal of these . trees contending there needs to be a "visual barrier around the school and play area." Notwithstandi.ng this argument, Doyle is now "champions" a view created by the removal of these Eucalyptus trees. The principles enunciated in the Guidelines for hillside lot development mandate that a cherished limited Uslot view" from the principal viewing area of a house should not be "sacrificed" or trumped by preservation of a "panoramic view." Discussion of Desiqn Review Guidelines These guidelines were dev'eloped from information and decisions made at numerous hearings of the Tiburon Board of Adjustment and Review (Design Review Board, Planning Commission and other discussions). As such, the guidelines recite that they represent a Uconsensus of opinion" designed to help developers create new dwellings in a way which will be "harmonious with the existing fabric of the Town of Tiburon." They further note that i~ the designer wishes to discard them entirelv, "it should be for good reason and the result should be one that will enrich the various patterns of Tiburon." -6- . EXHIBIT NO. p, 7 of ~~ . . e ,10/15/2004 14:53 PAGE 09/12 4G1735G (' AMENDED Attachment to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas 75 Round Hill Road Among the guidelines are three overarching goals, one of which is to preserve access to views. The first principle of this is to locate all new dwellihgs so they interfere "minimallyff views of adjacent dwelling (See Exhibit "B" attached hereto.) proposed construction and siting of the home interferes with goal and principle, goal, with The this The proposed construction is also at odds with Principle number 3. This principle mandates that views be preserved "as much as possible" within reason and noting that "the slot view" is just as important to the person who owns it as the 360 panoramic view is to its owner and that the slot view can be obscured by just one tree Or poorly sited dwelling. Spec~f~c Grounds for Appea1 1. The Sofnas presently possess a well-framed view of Richardson Bay, the Belvedere Lagoon and Sausalito. (See photograph attached hereto as Exhibit "C.") The proposed construction blocks what is referenced and cataloged in the view guidelines as an important obj ect, j,. e.. the Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito. 2. The present proposal violates the "view considerations" referenced in the both the design review standards and in the specific conditions for approval for the creation of 79 Round Hill Road lot. 3. Under the guidelines perta ining to design review, the Design Review Board "shall consider" the applicant's planned proposal for satisfaction of various important goals including site plan adeauacv, DrODer relationshiD of a project to its site that provides safe and reasonable access and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. (See Tiburon Municipal Code, Section 16-4.2.7.) These guidelines are not met by the present application. The design review criteria specifically referenced in Municipal Code Section 16-4.2.7 includes the following factors: la) Sit", layout in r",lation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the s.He in relation to the location of improv",ments on adjoining sites, with -7- EXHIBIT NO. P. t g OF 2-3 10/15/2004 14:53 4517355 PAGE 10/12 AMENDED Attachment to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas 75 Round Hill Road . particuJ.ar attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular si.te condi tions. 4. The proposed construction will produce inappropri'ate light pollution given that it is situated right in the middle of ,the view corridor from 75 Round Hill. The residence will violate the lighting standards as discussed in Section 16-4.2.7; (h) Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other. properties, or produce glare or light pollution. . . . 5. The proposed construction now contemplates construction of a long driveway to the site contrary to Section 16-4,2.7 standards regirding grading and tree removal. (e) Grading and Tree Removal. The extent to which the site plan r.easonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation or other natural features of the site.... . 6. The proposal also violates the goals of the general plan which call for land use policies nromotine views and/or "quiet and peacefulN development and a that new development be "in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods.N The proposed construction violates all of these provisions, and d.i..rectly impacts the views of 75, Round Hill Road, which under the speci.fic approval given to create the subject lot, were to be recognized and respected. 7. The proposed application also violates the Town of Tiburon's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. As indicated, these guidelines were developed from information and decisions made at numerous hearings of the Tiburon Board of Adjustments and Review (Design Review Board, Planning Commission and other discussions). As such, the guidelines recite that they represent a "consensus of , opinionN designed to help developers create new dwellings in a way which will be "harmonious with the existing fabric of the Town of Tiburon.N They further note that if the designer wishes to discard -8- . EXHIBIT NO. i f, q cF ~~ . . . 10/15/2004 14:53 4[,1735[, PAGE 11/12 " AMENDED Attachment to Notice of Appeal Charles and Dale Sofnas 75 Round Hill Road them entire lv, "it should be for good reason and the result should be one that will enrich the various patterns of Tiburon.N The guidelines are used "as the basisN upon which Board members make design-related deci.sions. Among the guidelines are three overarching goals, one of which is to preserve acceSS to views. The first principle of this goal is to locate all new dwellings so they interfere "minimally. with views of adjacent dwellings. (See Exhibit "BN attached hereto.) The proposed construction and siting of the home interferes with this goal and principle. The proposed construction is also at odds with Principle number 3, copy attached as Exhibit "D.N This principle mandates that views be preserved "as much as possibleN within reason and that the developer and architect of a new dwelling must "work togetherN to obtain the best solution between slot views, view quarters and panoramic views noting that "the slot viewN is just as important to the person who owns it as the 360 panoramic view to its owner and that the slot view can be obscured by just one tree or poorly sited dwelling. The goals of the community' of Tiburon are best served by requiring the applicant to adhere to the goals and conditions adopted by the community governing development of single family residence homes. 8. The decision of the Design Review Board is not supported by the findings made, the findings made are not supported by substantial evidence in the record and/or the evidence cited and reliid on by the Town in support of the findings and decisions are either irrelevant, or fail to support the findings made. (Tooanaa Assn. for a Scenic Communitv v. Countv of Los Anaeles (1974) 11 CaL 3d 506, 113 CaLRptr. 836.) Appellants request the appeal be processed and set to be heard by the Town Council at the next available Town Council meeting, -9- EXHIBIT NO. ~')i i () [1:: 2-?/ 10/15/2004 14:53 4Gl735G '^ AMENDED Attachment to Notice of Appeal 'Char.les and Dale Sofnas 75 Round Hill Road If the Town Council should require any additional information that would be of assistance, please advise appellants. Respectfully submitted, Peter e. Brekhus Attorney for Charles and Dale Sofnas :jOl:f\.)t.l,lr:tter&/A'Ct2A.pr~.1\ '0 1~ 01.....~c1 -10- EXHIBIT NO. p, (l PAGE 12112 017 2--3:> . . . Town of Tiburon . 1505 TIburon Boul~...ard. Tiburon, CA 9-4920.P, 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438. www.tiburon.org q:;mU~J~_ Community Development Department December 13, 2002 Mr. Carl Weissensee ' ] 0 Willow Street # 10 Mill Valley, CA 94941 .. .. '~i9J'ti';; Ali~e'iF" ,,~J:'_lcks couh~fH-m:~fuber . . . ~~\::~i~ill*~~,fj~, . . . ~:p~es.i,l~e'h~~r cciuiti'~ilrtfe:mher . . . ~~~~f;\N~ffitl; . . '. The Town of Tiburon has received and reviewed your lot line adJ' ustment application, Ancd"F,,)f;:!r ~~'~bP'on . , Dun I m-em er amended and revised on 11/20/2002 and as shown on the drawing (1 sheet) prepared by ;~~)1: Lawrence p, Doyle, an approved copy of which is enclosed and is also on file with the '!,; ">' Town ofTiburon, The project proposes adjusting existing lot lines on four adjoining vacant legal lots located at 77, 79, 81 and 83 Roundhill Road, The properties are further .identified as Marin County Assessor parcels 58-301-17 & 35, 19, 20,and 36. 'RE: NOTICE OF DECISION: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: 77,79,81 & 83 ROUND HILL ROAD; FILE #60203 Dear Mr. Weissensee: Project Description The application proposes'the following lot size adjustments: Street Address Current Lot Size Proposed Lot Size , Assessor Parcel # 77 Roundhill Road 79 Roundhill Road 81 Roundhill Road 83 Roundhill Road 58-301-36 58-301-17 & 35 58-301-]9 58-301-20 22,887 sq. ft 21,459 sq. ft. 21,472 sq. ft. 21,452 sq, ft. 39,739 sq. ft. 17,438 sq. ft, l6,966 sq. ft. 13,13] sq. ft. Findin!!s A. 'The project constitutes a minor lot line adjustment, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412(d), in that it involves four or fewer adjoining parcels, where the land is taken from one parcel and is added to ail adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created. The Town's discretion is therefore limited by State law to,a determination of whether the lot line adjustment will conform to the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and the Building Regulations of the Town. 8., The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designatiop of single family residential use and consistent with the General Plan density for the area EXHIBIT NO.' I P. 17 . . . . . . EXHIBIT NO. l 'I'. 1'2-. 6F ~,~' EXHIBIT "A" . . . of up to 3.0 dwelling units per, acre as established in the M (Medium Density Residential) district. The density of the project area is 1.99 dwelling units per acre. C. The project is consistent with provisions of the RO-2 zone provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance relative to lot size, minimum required yards, minimum required lot width and all other standards and regulations. The project will eliminate the current non-conforming lot size of three of the four lots by increasing their square footage above the 20,000, square foot minimum requirement. No new non-conformities will be created by the lot line adjustment. Each lot would contain at least 20,000 square feet even if the area of the lot occupied by the roadway easement 'is not counted in the lot area. D. There are currently no buildings or structures on any of the four lots, and therefore no building code violations exist. The proposed lot line adjustment will not result in any building code violations or other non-conformities with the building regulations of the Town. E. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance sections regulating lot line adjustments in that no additional lots will be created; no lot will be less than the required minimum lot size; no encroachments into public right-of-way will result; and no violation of the building regulations will result. ' F. The projectis exempt from CEQA under the "general'rule",pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, The project is also ministerially cxempt under the Town of Tiburon's Environmental Guidelines as it is a minor lot line adjustment involving four or fewer adjoining parcels and no new lots are created. Decision Approved, This approval is subject to certain mutually-agreed upon conditions. While State law does not permit the formal conditioning oflot line adjustment applications of this nature, it is by mutual agreement of the Town and the property owner and applicant that the ,following conditions will be adhered to: 1, Any application filed for site plan and architectural review approval for a residence at 77 Roundhill Road (AP 58-301-36) shall consider view impacts upon the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road by maximizing the east side yard setback and the rear yard setback. 2 EXHIBIT NO. I p, fll: a 23 2. Prior to approval of a grading permit or any site plan and architectural review : applications, a rec_ord of survey shall be filed for this lot line adjustment, with placement of proper monumentation in the field. . 3. This approval shall be valid for one year and shall expire unless the record of survey is recorded with the Office of the Marin County Recorder. Expectations on Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications These lots are the final vacant lots in the vicinity and are surrounded by other homes. As such, any homes constructed on these lots have the potential to create view and, privacy impacts in grcater proportion that wouid normally be the case, While the property owner will not voluntarily a~,'ree to certain other conditions that have been suggested by affected neighbors and Town Staff, and the Town lacks the legal authority to imposc such conditions on a lot line adjustment, please be advised that the Town Staff will be closely scrutinizing future site plan and architectural review applications for the following erements: . A future residence at 77 Roundhill Road has potential to create view and privacy issues upon the existing residence at 75 Roundhill Road, Therefore, any application filed for site plan and architectural review approval for a rcsidence at 77 Roundhill Road will be expected to design and locate the residcnce in such a manner as to reasonably minimize view blockage from the existing residence at 75Roundhill Road, consistent with guiding principles of site plan and architectural review as sct forth in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The application may possibly incOIJlorate the use of a front yard setback variance to reasonably achieve the goals of the site plan and architectural review process, Also be advised that because this is a private roadway easemcnt, the front yard setback may be measured from the property line, and not from the nearest line of the roadway easement. . . Any applications filed for site plan and architectural review approval for residences at 79 Roundhill Road (AP 58-30] -35 & 37)and 81 Roundhill Road (AP 58-301-19) will be expected to design and locate the residences to reasonably minimize,view blockage from existing residences at 85 Roundhill Road and 75 Roundhill Road, If you have any questions, please call me at 4 I 5-435-7392, , 3 EXHIBIT NO. ( P. I S- (YF 23 . . . . , ' Very truly yours, ~ Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Cc: Larry Doyle Ron Oznowicz Charles & Dale'Sofuas, 75 Roundhill Road Frank & Leslie Doyle, 85 Roundhill Road Enc: Lot line adjustment drawing 60203 approval letter.doc EXHIBIT NO. r- 4 t (&::> (;r2-3 .. . , EXHIBIT NO. \ . ~, i7bF-2.?J EXHIBIT "B" s:::...,;: .:g t;Si "I /" ..L, 1 ::j ~\_;U G '.U ('~ -j ';Y> '~ ;-~ lL - ':-j '~~. ~~~lll~~~B~ \:\ 'Y~-.-J ~ J ~! n ~ld lli~, ~; ~ -J ~ ~') '\, ~~: l:, ...~ p ill! \--,,; -,1..tl. ~ (;~ Q Q ;: 6; ~{ >;. , {1).,- 5T :;.'\J~(:)""Cl.\l.l\lJ \li' ;:s.";\(V.-f~~ ....l.:...l .~ ~ li.i ~ Ie:- "-l \L ~- 1 T.. \:It >_' " ~ ~. .'C -.. -1 ' ">-~!\'. ~ill"\:-,,,<i:"<":::J \ .-{-T.m f;"j:- -!.i=':J{i :>'1111 ==!:::i ID~' u- ill- .J:.. ~ -r-'- - ....":...... -\.L-< 11115 {l\U ~ \QT~ ~ ~ "'I -L- ~ \-....., d ..:JUJ-<; ~bl\\lj::. ~~{\~U1 tl) ~ ~I] 4.. :~~\:.. ~ -,"~ " >1~~~Cl \\....:{T$.> 5' r.- .> ..{1;..{~ _J ~ . ~ ~ ill!::l -<(I\) <' ~ Q:3 ,)7 T ~ lL W _\h~ " -.t ~F~7~~~~~~ -=II V, ~,,_ ~ ~~ -L ~:> fil ~ , Q@I<::\\-i-t-:-~~T~".{l ,~_ \._. -=;;,: -<'>T<~-;-;trit;",,; T ~. T....~~ -oj ::r~ ':::J::fi / \\ ~l~~dOZiC:' -t'."J 4. ~ 0 {1 {'\ ~ .{, ~ '{I ~ :::: n {\ I::) Q ill -lJi ' .. '\, \--'- <" ~ \.l 1J, ~ ....(I _ " III ~ ~ C\:- a ~ Q-.l T ~ -i / \ ~, )L " 'Y- .L T. -.l<;Y\:',>--".'Iill_..1'CI-(-< :til /,/!'\ I lL~\!...<C.:...c -'O~ 3:! lL <. l- -4 \VI ::) {' '-. r I ' \ L Cl \J ~ ...:.... u... 'J - {i 0 ~ ll.l ..( () ~~}-:rT~ ill: 7, ---- L \ '>l\J-r: t;- -'ID' 't- ~ '1' ~ " ~lm~e.~~\L~~'~'{' ~~ : '..------ "'\ U ru&\$-::r:::r ~~:{ <;J... Cl r- "..J;;j ,,\-' r.- u.. , _")lll Cl -..) iL..,J:r:.:J ~ . ~..~ ~~j:~@~itr~ ~ '~ Ul ~ G "IT ~ \U<( Tl () ~ III <.. -< Cl \U\-.{ H.y ~ - IJj .~'6 {I<;J[~:>-<(.,J~~~ t'\' )- -< ":I co <\ l::!. ~p- -1 C) -0 '"I {' \-1 -::r ~ \j .A" ':::} ~ -!;.,j ...{ Fj ~ ~b~~\-~~~~~&\ ~I -',. ~. u.1.{ ..... "'- ~ \- ill III ~ & ;(1~1;Y ~![Q. j: b> ~ {' :> _ ~~ \J ::J ~ ~ :.( a l;J -~ -s:f. {I:i ,-,) ~ ~ > 1\1 Q ill \).[:--l T .{l -IS. {' :.;.... ~ 1ll:Q ll.I :;L ~ ~I - I ~<;::;t ~ i ~ '.l ...i. \l..li ~~~~:r;j Qg\lJ~~~ x ill r'\\ "'l-r-\-I~~SI.!, Q ill - '-' J.' ~ .L 1" tll 1': :z III >- ~~I.L{ I.l.."'l.~ " ,', '5 >~...{~T C'1:0~{1~~ffi ~ ~.- ~ ">- 1 ~-L t'-~ 11) ill () L ' 1\1 .f' 1115< "<, ~ T. T: -' - \.L -.l -(l ..(I~~llJ{lJl-c-!.ll1.1.i&> '-...l..:) ill ill =:> :>..... -< \- ':I -<t .q: ~I.J)- 1I..I(J')}~'-L}-......J~ - ""-I-J ~1ll'I~~j-:.~1\}::J III ~I-{ ~~,- <{ UJ~_\-~ ~ ill :.:t\rl . - I ~ - 7\1\ -{l-") -s' ~"',.,5' ~ ~ ~ 'l\l 3= "l., -< 1\\ ~ ~ {I ~.{ ~ Q I I-Ill "- ..z ~ '" -(. - 'U Y- -1 , --\:j1'"...... ,'1':I'>i"\ i 1\1> <:J '<.. -l\.. ~< ..... \J - I ~~:' ~{,-.lY~ \:\T;D~...J ~ ~ .... - 'T I :r.- ""I \- ~ ill -.l J: ~ ~ L <:::::s' - ;t~ ",Q~-{' .,j~ ~II ~lf~~~~~?i~~9 -~I . ""...J T ~ ~ ..... ',," ~ ~~ -<J > ~..... L- '-i \u ~' :)~ T)--JL \J \.-- -0..J , ,,-'v~..l -.I ill () ill 'Tc r::... ::(- _J c,-1 K \ -1' ~\'\J_~ 3~:S<:V " 1l. \ ill ' '-'" ...--:I: '.I - \- ~J;::- -0 \J ~ "=T-r ',J ~, () -{ .3 ~ll \ \-~G 0, \ (c,ll..l{'\'r \' -LIT iii \ ~ ~ - -- \~~,T~> i /.~--L ", " / I , .---Id::J,--=- \ .. [V\ .,-I~ . l\, ,', . .....,' 0',," z-- Eo-< ...... !Xl ...... ::r: ~ ~ ,.. Q. ,.. " 'C':I ; " !- o Z -I -I ~' III W !:: III c:l Z is -I :5 III e W III III OW 0.1- ll:- 0. III Oel III = -I 1Il-l !-W :3 o.'e lIle ew ZIIl <0 --10. Zo Oll: (jjo. :;ll: -0 e, lIlel :;)Z ill- /- lil:1Il Z- _x J:W en I- J: J.LI wI- ll:_ ~':~ ,'.JIIlll: wffiO cell: -s:w -_J: ".... el- o III 0 :;)J: ZIIlO oe< _Zw en<J: w-l.!:: Clll:: ffiw Zo.ll: Oow -II&. a:wll: '::l~~ III e,= - I '-'--- I- ., c-. . EXHIBIT NO;', " p, I q or z-;:, . EXHIBIT "c" ~L~ -0-..:0 Z <0 E-<' N ......~ 0:\ ...... ,P=: tx: ~ . . . /\ I ~ ! 't:l ell o i:i:::'t:l :::: CIJ .... .... ~ ell u 't:l 0 = ~' ;~ i:i:::.... In ~ r-- ..... ~O ~~ 't:l = CIJ 0 ;,..-.;: o u ..... = = 100 ~.... '" a=: = CIJ 0 .... U :>'t:l ..... CIJ o '" Q.I 0 U c.. = 0 ell 100 =~ Q.I , ......... =- .... ell ~ \ \ \ \ \ \, ~ \ \ \\, \ ;';::"_:.:-. _\ '\ l " " l \ \ "View" From 75 Round Hill Road If Proposed Construction Is Approved ...._"',.__....,.,_._.._v"-~,.~,"-~:::.:... ,. . . . . EXH~O. !", 7/ OP2d, . . . EXHIBIT NO. l p, f---;l; or Z-3 EXHIBIT "D" " I " - .Lj) ILl "'. (;\11..: -.\'\i \\Jill \U r"- 0_ --,- J- '-.l -'- , -'- b- J: ,;, \- ..;' \-tn :..J...j' ::....' ,- \,,! 0L ">- {)--~ _. ..>-- _ "'" ,,~ --J. TIT1iU.{1 ' =1 ,( I-'- - .- '- - --I ...... ..... -. .-- r- -Li ~. ~.:>- - ~ I.-:i Q (J ~ (' -;-! Cl -T. 0: -..' CJ .,/ -, ." ./i'~L-l ,UJ I ""I , -,'!.y iU,~~.{ C)::J cJt a n.l ';:'l C\ 'J ~I~-.:r 1:J-::r-0._ v'I1-1~i:' ....') Silt '" - \j \j i ill ..:l ~I lU '::L1'T. ~ Q () .n t"'-f {l \.~ -)!! ill "cl. .<{ :;'ltI -", ,"T 0,), ill ...( "I i t-i:J{' Q... - \ . .... t'..,u\ 'J .... 'I ~ .... -'-- u.J -~ , .> :> Cl I "';> ~:'i \\J \-- \' \- > , ' -tl>:.('~ Cl \\.l ~l.l :.:J ~ r=-> , "z .71 -- Cl i--.__ ""\11:: ~T'- 01 ~ :1: \J 1'..)1 -<T ): t-=-_l -..: I ~ -.n ~ {l , /! (J.-J ~ Cl ,\-V'T....J>" \\l - uJ "'--::r "-.l~'>. t.':r\- :-t -> n- ~.{~~-{'\-- <:-v _,,>-...{:J ~ \\J~ii1l-~ >-.,- > {l . - ,\:.{.L. ::3~~ ~ -.:r.{ \---")~I ~T\l..~..(l .-J .0 .{o{l,.5-.l cJ .j\- >Oill -::} ..jTULn ~ ::J ~ill \U >~Q ..l. Il--\1.l - {l~_-.:rr\~~ .r--0:>ClF\IJ {\ ~~ J--.l'~ \- _ ill-<(!I..I" ..n ..? '- .f\ '7..... .> /" ~ ~ ~ >- :>:- uJ I ffi IT. -::r ill .=.J >I\-..( ':) 1-- ~ --I \J C ('> Cl (,{)IT"'-:J~~ C) c-ill ill - ~ ~1<:"Vf' -1", -< - ~ - ",,,. ..z <:v .-..It..'...... 'oJ ,- E ,- ("\ UJ '-J.J\ -:"l. (" =. _>.J- >_ ~ :J , ~ II} ,u r.:. \\1 ~' ill T.. ;: > ..' f T. ill ~ 0J ill \\1 W -{ ~ "C) I ~ "T0. ~<;.yl..:..:. \-<teL ' r:v -2 -:< .~ ..... '7 ' ....:1~ llJ~ ....""1 ,-:::15: {)L:.' . T<{ / l ~~ / ...1/ ..n - ~ - -.../ .....\-::- .;j!/ CI< {\ 11.1 ~-..l\~" \l~8 y:: {I _.-..l~~\\J::l _ . ~_l ill ~:r a '.>L""I<:v 0J~~ _,,;'J.-..l , ~1ll J' 'J....--lT..\,J - L -L III >--' 3; ~--' I- ill "< > --' il1 \-::r: -'I/ C'> -~ - ill Q.. --\1\-(\12>><;.(1:::1 , -{'II wi )--1 - {\ 3: III > o ~/ ow- (Y1Il (l.? o o..r. <( \-->-< ~ ,p '11 C:. ~~. . c.. 0'> . _.J >( \. ," ~~igN u--:: . Z Xj~ . "\\lll ,/ .{l ,./ .\I'U J' ~~l / :<. ". \,.:.:. 5' . ;- , III ;!:, W > W > a: W III 'W a: c.. Q, Z < w N :; X < :; o I- W ..J t ill A-~ll.. 'i' ,"'<..-<,. -.) iL \\1 C} CI 11..Tr- -"I - r.J -{'-< ~ u a -<.\.'- -..1 ci :> (J -i:. \1.\ T'~l'J~ ::j ~ r- \L.j ,.{ J~lU>-<\- ~<,:y..p_'J\ll >-- CI '2 III ~ ~ l&:. '-1 T > -<{ ..p 1 I 'i>-{ - ;t;'\\l UlW~ -L>Z \:1.-<: Ill", ">~ -<-..c \!\ . . ~ )...~~ --- >illw \--, \\.1-1 ' \--::r 5-i {) iIJ %~{)l1. T -".J~ >-rl-- IJ}- -I - ~ ;:;-- J ~ ill ~ ~\lJ~v ~--' ~ \l. -::) f .(} T. Cl ~_C'._-::r: , >,~ fill ill~ >~: ~ (.1. o ~' o Z~ E-< >-< o:i >-< p:: ~ ~ .~ TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION 0 Conditional Use Permit . Design Review IDRBI 0 Tentative Subdivision Map . 0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Staff levell 0 Final Subdivision Map 0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance 0 Parcel Map 0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 lot Line Adjustment 0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance 0 General Plan Amendment 0 UnderQfound Waiver 0 Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 70 RDt.!NI? t-l1L-0 ~A-1) PROPERTY SIZE: 2.1 ,"I-S(P I'ARCEL NUMBER: A:f' :It-; D'Olb--?>o\ -1><; '117 ZONING: 1<.0-'2-- ' "* OWNEROFI'ROPERTY: ('~... t.ofU~FP /1~Cl" OZ-Vl"'~'C2- MAILING ADDRESS: 10 ",HI '/01.0 'S'-. {Ui''''' 10 ' CITY/STATE/ZIP: MIIA...\/A1...<k,O( C;L>- q-4-q41 PHONE NUMBER: 4,<', "':>i!>"'>-Il7Z.0 FAX 41~ '3'ib"a-It\..,-z..... APPLICANT: (Olher than Properly Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: sAHP"_ ~ A-so../f'Z- II II Il FAX 'f; ARCIIITECTIUESIGNER/ENGINEER: 1HA-'1'~An..L.l--tITe-c."T1 lr<-e: 1 N~.. MAILING ADDRESS: 2..00 G....-r... I=-t,,~ r.u>....-, ~"rr=- ? 17_ CITY/STATE/ZlI': 5".D>J.J.rA-/ X,D CA- q~ CaS PHONE NUMBER: .?IlL:., '1,<? (~Oq"" FAX ""t,c:., .3~ I - II '3 g eea..e iudic:,e with all a,,'eri..k (*) per..01'.. 10 wI/om corre"polldellce ..hould be .."". . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separale sheet If needed): 1~~-rtl..o.fL.-rr eN <9F- P. t>1~4.L.A<;" fAMIL,-( (2..e;lQ""",VP I, the ulIllcrsigllcd owner (or authoril.ed agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belieL I' understand Ihat the requested approval is for my benefil (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants Ihe approval, with or wilhout conditions, and that aelion is challenged by a third party, I will he responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the rt~ljuest of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hol~ the Town harmless from any costs, claims or lIabililics arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result fWIlI the third party challengt. ~ " \ Signature: l (,.-' ~ - Date: 7 - Z-2 - c., '/ (If olher than owner, lUst have letter from owner) I XHIBlTNOo 2 f, I oFI't[ (~, %: 7., (<..oul'-l\O +-1 I ~ ~ TlBIJ(2..D".J. I CA-. 7/Zi /04. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR NEW RESIDENCE OR OTHER MAIN BUILDING . Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): Use of Site (example: single family residential, retail, office, service, etc.): Existing: V~II l/M.....IO Proposed: ?l t-J,/~ I~..... ~ Il...-'t' ~(o:3-JTf kl , ", l'OBE\COMRL:EmSO,B1I' APP!.:lICANT;";: c"i<.::- (; :,:",;,"><,:'STAEF;US'E.ONL V' . " . ;:" ..... ,. .':.," ",'. .. ,.';'" . .....,:.., ",~',"", ""'. _ ,,,; ,.; :,,''':'' ,',' ',C'..': "_..,., " '-:'-.".-,' '. .:c' ".'," "...'.:.,....,.,.;.. '..,\ """',:<".~ 1..',_ .!," :"'. .h:~, ','."""",':::'.:, ....,'; ~,3,,',,', :~,. :-;:..",>:,1 -:,-;:., <', .' ;'." ..,'," .', - . ! ',':,; ",:.:" ,."", "',.' ,., .'" ~iiil. PER ZONE ~'..:! 'L Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)* Front Rear ft. ft. ft. Right Side Left Side Maximum Height (Section 5.06.07)' ft. Lot Coverage (Section 5.06.08)* Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area % Gross Floor Area (Section 1.05.06)' , Net Floor Area (if office building) Section 5.08.?? ' Number of Parking Spaces Provided spaces So ft. ft. 3D ft. . 1.. '5 ft. ft. 'Z ft. 1'5 ft. ft. is" ft. \'5 ft. ft. 15 ft. 3D( ( '2":) ft. ft. 3D ft. '?( 1--1 ~ sq.ft. sq.ft. 3, '2 [\3 sq.ft. 10% % l5.o% ~ ,10C.sq.ft. sq.ft. L{ /lflp sq.ft. l-t!1t Sq.ft. Sq.ft: Sq.ft. 4- spaces spaces spaces 'Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which . may be viewed at the Town's website at www.tiburon.orq/qovernmentJ EXHIBIT NO. 2- , P?-DF {'?J . DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTALAJ'PLlCATION FORM: NEW RESIDENCE OR MAIN BUILDING 1/2003 TOWN OF TmuRoN 4 . . . TOWN OF TIBURON STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH RECORDED COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS , PURPOSE Many properties in the Town of Tiburon are affected by Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) or by other recorded documents which limit. various aspects of a property's use or appearance. This form is designed to ensure that applicants are aware of any CC&R's or other documents recorded against their property, and that they have reViewed these documents for confomlity prior to the submittal of entitlement applications to the Town of Tiburon. This procedure is intended for the benefit and protection of both the property owner and the Town of Tiburon. I, ~...... ~'7~SI;:~ (owner or authorized agent) do hereby affirm that I or the plan preparer (architect, engineer, building designer, etc.) have read any and all Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and other doCuments recorded against my property which could affect this application and that the prepared plans conform to said . ~ . CC&R's and documents. , . I further acknowledge that if the Town of TIburon is not a party to the CC&R's or other documents, it is not responsible for any failure on my part or on the part of my plan preparer to ensure that submitted plans conform to provisions of the CC&R's or other documents. ' I; CHz-v Lu6-I??~<; ef2 (owner or authorized agent) do hereby affirm that there are no CC&R's or other documents recorded against my property which may conflict with submitted plans. , Staff Use Only Project Address: DRB File No.: Date Received: Received By: \. EXHIBIT NO. ,:L P. 3 of ,8" c NOTE: IF THERE IS A HOMEOWNER'S OR PROPERTI OWNER'S GROUP ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTI, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: . Name of Homeowner's Association (if any): If) 0 k{ Association contact person and phone number: ( ) Oc,..r) W,(IC,Cy(~)fl..( (owner or authorized agent) I, hereby affirm that I am not required to. secure approval from a' Homeowner's or Property Owner's group for the project for which I am applying to the Town. I, , (owner or authorized agent) hereby affirm that I have secured the required approval from a Homeowner's or Property Owner's group for the project' for which I am applying to the Town. Signature of owner or agent: Date: "7 - 2. Z. e> <.f ,~.- CC&R'sJrm 5/10/89 EXHIBIT NO.2 P. L{ of I~ . . . . . . J jnda Esposito Pacific Union Realty 60 Belvedere Drive Mill Valley, CA 94941 By FAX and US MAIL July 4, 2004 RECEIVED JUL - 6 2004 Dave Gilbert Tiburon Land Company 10 Beach Road Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON RE: 75 Round Hill Road Dear Linda and Dave: It is my understanding there is a pending transaction for the sale of 75 Round HilI Road, Tiburon, CA, and that Dave is the listing broker and Linda is the selling agent for the prospective buyers. Prior to June 25, 2004, you inquired about the future development of77, 79,81 and 83 Round Hill Road and its impact upon views from 75 Round HilI Road. On June 25, 2004, we met personally to discuss various issues concerning the property. At that time, I expressed my opinion that no views exist from the 75 Round Hill Road property due to the fact that the prior existing landscape had been altered in the recent past. At your request, I also attended a meeting on June 28, 2004 with the Towri ofTiburon. During the course of that meeting, the issue of views available from the 75 Round HilI Road property was again discussed and copies of the Tiburon View Ordinance were provided to the parties in attendance. . I write this letter to clarifY the position of Mr. Oznowicz, owner of the adjacent property at 77, 79, 81 and 83 Round HilI Road and to avoid any misunderstanding by the prospective purchasers of75 Round Hill Road. The policy underlying the Town ofTiburon View Ordinance is that an owner is entitled to have views existing at the time of purchase preserved from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. I am advised by legal counsel that this policy does not entitle a selling owner to alter views by trimming existing trees or landscape on adjacent property to improve the view and then sell the property at an enhanced value with the improved view. This is precisely what has occurred and I must advise you that Mr. Oznowicz will object/dispute any future claim by the purchasers that existing trees on the 79 Round Hill Road property should be trimmed or altered to preserve existing views. 1 have proof that the current owners (Sofuas) of75 Round Hill Road have.trespassed upon 77 and 79 Round Hill Road to cut grass and shrubs, remove young oak trees and severely prune mature oak trees in order to improve their view. Thus, the existing view has been gained by unlawful conduct and the prospective buyers should not assume that they 'Z 50yl8" Linda Esposito, Pacific Union Realty And Dave Gilbert, Tiburon, Land Company July 4, 2004 Page 2 of2 . will have the benefit of the existing v.iews in the future: Stated another way, the views shown/described in the TiburonLand Company's sales brochures do not accurately reflect the available view. It is probable that future development and restoration of the trees unlawfully pruned and damaged by the current owner of75 Round Hill Road will block all existing views from the 75 Round Hill Road property. Mr. Oznowicz intends to submit plans for Design Review Approval for a home at 79 Round Hill Road within the next thirty (30) days arid also intends to take all necessary action to preserve his legal development and ownership rights, including, if required, litigation. Please provide a copy of this letter to your respective clients without delay. It is important that the prospective buyers he fully infonned before completing the purchase with unrealistic view expectations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me if there are further questions. . vc~~ - Carl Weissensee CC Dan Watrous, Senior Planner, Town OfTihuron -' EXHIBIT NO. B ~ & Dr If . RECEIVED SEP 1 e 2004 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIDURON LATE MAIL # F'I 1.1' 0' :Rj I T! If !~ dl: 1.1(: II) l':, .1 , '!' " I ") . I j 'i ~ '; I' I i'i , ':' - ,; j!', ' '! <;, 0; \ ;; , ,,',\' ~ ~ \ } ',' -, I, .,' l) 1. ':; 'I .. -. ~ ,'jjocta eo Consultants in Horticulture and Arboriculture TREE REVIEW REPORT 77 AND 79 ROUND HILL ROAD TIBURON, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Carl Weissensee Mariner Homes, Inc. 10 Willow Street, #10 Mill Valley, CA 94941 By: John C. Meserve Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists International Society of Arboriculture WCISA #478 September 14, 2004 BXHIBIT NO. f- f.: I OPt!; lU10 rrl i11\1.r1'~ In & "I l~:!!Lj! tl~A It~.~~t;~} cS4;.,)</ O,-..'tL,/t(A~ Con~-,ult;1n(:; ji'~ HOIticl.'tiure and Arb::iriculturc ---_._~. ..--..-,..----.---'-..- ----- :"'.0 Hnx "I ?Gl, Glr;n Eli..:n, C:\ 9:~t147. . September 14, 2004 Mr. Carl Weissensee Mariner Homes, Ine. 10 Willow Street, #10 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Re: Review of modified tree canopies at 77 and 79 Round Hill Road, Tibmon, .CA . Carl, Per your request I evaluated existing field conditions on and adjacent to two undeveloped residential lots at 77 and 79 Round Hill Road in Tiburon: You have requested that I examine pruning which occurred in the recent past on two groups of trees, and to provide my professional opinion about the appearance and growth habit of these trees prior to their pruning. I have not previously . inspected this site and did not see the trees prior to their pruning, and the . information provided in this letter is based on my educated opinion and observation of trees growing i~ immediately surrounding areas. . I understand that a dispute regarding previous and current views is ongoing, and that the information provided in this letter may be. utilized as part of that dispute. Attached to this letter is a .plot plan, whlch you provided, .which iocates the trunks of subject trees, and ori which I have illustrated approximate canopy. . driplines. Also attached are photographs of the subject trees which document their current highly modified canopy architecture and typical examples of the natural canopy architecture of neighboring off-site trees. Per your request, and my completed field. study, the followingobselvations and interpretations are provided for your use: . .'. 1. Eight trees are illustrated on the attached site plan which appear to be the subject of a conflict over views~ I have numbered each on the site plaI1 for future reference. . . 2. Each of the numbered trees has been highly modified by recent pruning within the past two years. I amsure.of this timing by inspecting numerous pruning cuts located in various portion of each tree. No pruning cut yet shows evidence of new callous growth at the cambial layer near the outer perimeter of the .limb. Pruning may even be as fresh as one . year, based on this evidence. Additionally,it appears that trees #3 through _ Voice 707-935-3911 Fax 707-935-710EXHIBIT NO. P 2- g- 0/= (f' Mr. Carl Weissensee 9/]4/04 Page 2 . . #8 have been pruned in the distant past, possibly 15 years ago, based on the open interior of their canopies on one side only. 3. Tree #1 and #2 have both been pruned by raising their entire lower canopy to a height of approximately 10' to 12' feet. This is evident by the p~esence of many branch stubs, representing the point of removal of each limb or . branch. These stubs are found beneath the current canopy and uniformly spaced around the canopies. . . 4. Trees #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 have all. also been pruned by raising their canopies on one side only in the direction of trees #1 and #2. The lower canopy of eachis now approximately 10' to 12'. Evidence of this pruning is the same as that for trees #1 and #2, again by the many branch stubs representing their points of removal. These trees have been pruned on only one side, and the balance of canopy area has been left in a natural and undisturbed condition. . . . . . . 5. I expect that all eight trees consisted of canopy architecture which was roundish in shape and reached ground level, not allowing visual or physical access beneath. This supposition is based on evidence obtained from several on and off site areas. Firstly, the large group of trees represented by #3 through #8, plus other undocumented trees, consists of n.aturally rounded canopies which reach to the ground in all areas which have not been altered by pruning. Canopies are only raised above the ground 10' to 12' where pruning has occurred recently. Seeondly, when observing native oaks in the distantviewshed surrounding the site, nearly all trees are found to be growing,inthat typical roundish habit with branching to the ground. . . . . . .' 6. . This natural branching habit to ground level is' a typical and classic growth characteristic for native trees, especially those on the edge of a grove or . standing singly, whichare growing in the presence .of a regular prevailing . . wind near the coast or bay. Heavy branching and growth to.ground levei helps to bUffet the impact of wind and provides protection from ongoing wind damage. While I did not view these trees prior to this inspection, all evidence including the multitude of pruning cuts and the nahiral habit of hundreds of surrounding trees, supports the theory being provided. 7. Pruning these naturally shaped, dense-to-the-ground trees in the manner described to a lower canopy height of approximately 12' clearly has created views where views were not previously present.. These new views are documented in the attached photographs as well as the typical canopy configurations of surrounding unmodified trees. EXHI.BIT NO. 2 ~ q o;C/f 'C'...,.. Mr. Carl Weissensee 9/14/04 Page 3 . 8. The quality of pruning which occurred is very poor and definitely does not meet acceptable pruning standards. Most cuts have left stubs which in turn will decay and pot~ntially destabilize future structural integrity. Numerous cuts have been located at sub-standard laterals, promoting dense watersprout growth, changing the natural growth habit of the trees, and promoting heavy end weight in the future which may lead to structural compromise. I strongly recommend that you hire an ISA Certified Arborist to correct deficient and damaging pruning, and to . promote the long term integrity of these trees. 9. I also observed that a large amount of pruning debris (limbs, branches and foliage) has been placed on the ground beneath the canopies of trees #3 through #8. This dry material is fuel for a grass fire should one come up the hill, and will act as a fuel ladder allowing fire to move up into 'the canopies of these trees. I recommend that all dead wood be removed from beneath the trees as soon as possible to prevent this from occurring. Please feel free to contact me if a more detailed report is required at any time, or if further discussion or clarification is necessary. . Sincerely, Joh . Meserve American Society of Consulting Arborists .International Society of Arboriculture, 'WCISA #478 EXHIBIT NO. '2. (, /0 Or 1.5' . SITE PLAN EXHIBIT NO. --z. f. tl or- ("if / I , . 'j ~ z o ~ u S i:.Ll. ~ , / ! I / / , '/ i t , / I / / t / , , ~I.,' / I . I I I I is I / ~~ / ~ ~- ! ~Q , 1.L -~ I / ~\~ .t I "''''' I I ~~ ) ;- .' ~ i . I i~ \ (~ I . ; I ! ,\ e3 1; I ~ ! I ~ I . I , I I I ~ PHOTOGRAPHS EXHIBIT NO. Z f J3 ()1.""I'6" 1.2 More examples of pruning cuts, many here on a single limb 1.1 Typical example of one of hundreds of pruning cuts made to raise tree canopy . heights. . HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261, GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 EXHIBIT NO. .. 2-- p, r#'cp If{ .' . . . 2.1 Numerous large cuts were made to alter the shape and configuration of tree canopies 2.2 Natural shape of nearby off-site trees HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261,GLENELLEN,CA95442 EXHIBIT NO. 2- f< 15 or {If 3.1 Natural shape of native trees in project viewshed. Note rounded canopies branched all the way to the ground. 3.2 Note in this photograph that not a single tree in off-site properties has a shape or canopy configuration like those on subject property HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 1261,GLENELLEN,CA 95442 EXHIBIT NO. .2..- t. [(0 OP{~ . . . . . . 4.1 Subject trees with canopies which have been pruned up to create a view. Envision the natural canopy branched to the ground. 4.2 With natural canopies branched to the ground no view would be present in this photograph. HORTICULTURAL ASSOOATES P.O. BOX 1261. GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 EXHIBIT NO. 1:.- f 17orf?( 5.1 Many young sapling oaks have also been pruned back to the ground to remove them as obstacles to a view. 5.2 Saplings in many areas have been pruned back to the ground. . . . HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT NO Q.-- P.O. BOX 1261. GLEN ELLEN, CA 95442 . p" {f( oP rY:' . . . Town of Tiburon . . ." ~ 91-.I!.~u ~. .- ~(:Ii:~~). ~\1- ~~/~ ('~-;::..~I.'O .........,,~...C\ .'; O~^,l~(.' :0.:. , . STAFF REPORT F4 AGENDA ITEM TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM PLANNING MANAGER WATROUS SUBJECT: 79 ROUND HILL ROAD; FILE # 704119 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: AS~ESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 79 ROUND HILL ROAD CARL WEISSENSEElRON OZNOWICZ THAYER ARCHITECTURE 58-301-17 & 35 704119 21,456 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - OPEN) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C AUGUST 13, 2004 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road. The subject property is currently vacant. The upper level of the proposed house would include a living room, kitchen, dining room, family , room, den and a half bathroom. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, two more bathrooms and a recreation room. An attached two-car garage would be situated adjacent to the upper level. 8XHIBIT NO. 3 September 16, ,29 page 1 of 'If Town of Tiburon ,- , , ." ~,,9LV~.(.f ~. ~/ ~~o ~'.. \~ '\~$~j"- f"'\-:::~~I<:> v..:;~~~' ." O~Aif~:rtr{ , , STAFF REPORT The proposed house would cover 3,218 square feet (15.0%) of the site, which is the maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 3,956 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A color and materials board has been submitted, and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The structure would be finished with light brown cedar shingle siding, with light and darker brown colored stucco and metal trim and windows. Dark brown composition shingle roofing is proposed for the house. ANAL YSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. Design Issues The subject property is one of four vacant lots lying south and west of Round Hill Road. Access . is provided to the site by a private roadway that also serves the existing homes at 75, 85 & 95 Round Hill Road. A single-family home on the westernmost of these lots (87 Round Hill Road, File #20402) was approved earlier this year. The applicant intends to construct a new driveway leading off this private roadway to serve the four vacant lots. The previOUS application also included improvements for a small portion of the roadway near the entrance to Round Hill Road that is currently within the Town right_of-way. The subject property slopes down from northern property line to the south. A series of oak trees is situated along the eastern side of the site. The proposed house would be situated toward the lower portion of the site. The lower elevation afforded by this location would eliminate most potential view impacts on the home above at 85 Round Hill Road; the story poles indicate that the proposed house would only block a small portion of middleground view toward the Belvedere Lagoon from the primary living areas of this neighboring residence. The nearby home to the east at 75 Round Hill Road currently has some views toward the Belvedere Lagoon and Richardson Bay across the site that would be blocked by the proposed house. This view is filtered by a stand of oak trees along the eastern side of the subject property. The applicant has indicated that, until recently, these trees blocked almost all such views across the site; however, the owner of the home at 75 Round Hill Road apparently trespassed onto the applicant's property and significantly trimmed the trees to create the view that now exists. Although the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines are silent regarding the. manner in which a view is obtained, the Design Review Board may wish to consider that the views from the neighboring residence that could be impeded by the proposed house did not . exist until this recent unpermitted tree trimming. EXHIBIT NO. -3 September 16, 20 page 2 of 0/ . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . I \= oA_.91~.l1 ~_v ~. ~/ "1:0 '('.. \~ .-"I:*-: ~I._ r-\1€~./ ~;)~~ j!;g&%~ ,;O-.~/"" . JiI.....'A-It.&C.. . , . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The views from the home at 75 Round Hill Road could be improved somewhat if the proposed house was moved further toward the front of the site. However, a house in that location would be situated at a higher elevation and would have a substantially greater visual impact on the residence at 85 Round Hill Road. The following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the potential view impacts of the house in its currelntly proposed location for the home at 75 Round Hill Road, and for the house in an alternate uphill location for the home at 85 Round Hill Road: . Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection is more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling... than for the less actively used areas of a dwelling." The currently proposed house would block views from the primary living areas of the home at 75 Round Hill Road. The relocated house would block views from the primary living areas of the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Guidelines states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of [the] view, then foreground, then middleground." The currently proposed house would be in the middleground views from the home at 75 Round Hill Road. The relocated house would be in the foreground views from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . . . Goal 3, Principle 7 (e) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of [the] center of view [is] more damaging that blockage of [the] side of view." The currently proposed house would block the center of a small view from the home at 75 Round Hill Road. The relocated house would block the center of a somewhat larger view from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Guidelines states that "blockage of important objects in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well known landmarks." The currently proposed house would block views of the Belvedere Lagoon from the home at 75 Round Hill Road. The relocated house would block views of the Belvedere Lagoon from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The currently proposed house would block most of a slot view from the home at 75 Round Hill Road. The relocated house would block a portion of a moderately sized view from the home at 85 Round Hill Road. . Although the Design Review Board is not generally encouraged to speculate on alternative building locations to that applied for, it is recommended that the Board view the story poles for the project as proposed from the homes at 75 and 85 Round Hill Road, and to evaluate the potential view impacts for both the current proposed house location and an alternative location closer to the front of the site. EXHIBIT NO. 3 September 16, 20 page3,ofd! Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION . , e" ~,pLr!~.lJ ;t- ._ ~i:." ~:. I~~~' ~;;}~~/~ .~ O~;...iKt?c: , . The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the Califomi.a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Conditions of approval Application and supplemental materials Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines Goal 3, Principles 7 (B & C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines Goal 3, Principles 7 (D & E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. . . 3 September 16, 20 page 4 of 0/ . Town of Tiburon . . -'I; ~_9J.--1~~_~.fI ~. .. f:li. ,~f" 1~ ::..:;:~ ('\\~~~! 'V,~ ~ ~/~ ...~,'?;>.~A:~'o ..Ci.9..\t~-C:.'''. , . STAFF REPORT E3 AGENDA ITEM TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING MANAGER WATROUS SUBJECT: 79 ROUND HILL ROAD; FILE # 704119 , SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 16,2004) MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 7,2004 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road. The subject property is currently vacant. . . This application was first reviewed at the September 16, 2004 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the applicant presented revised plans that would slightly reduce the height of the proposed house. The neighboring property owner at 75 Round Hill Road raised concems over the potential blockage that would be caused by the location of the proposed house. The owner of the neighboring property at 85 Round Hill Road indicated support for the proposed house location and the plan revisions, but raised concerns about potential view impacts that could occur if the house location was moved uphill to address the view concems from 75 Round Hill Road. . The Design Review Board considered the testimony of the neighbors, and determined that the views across the subject property from the home at 75 Round Hill Road were borrowed views across undeveloped land. It was the consensus of the Board that it would be unreasonable to force both the proposed home and any future home on the intervening lot at 77 Round Hill Road to sacrifice a large portion of each lot to protect such a borrowed view. The Board also expressed concerns regarding the submission of the revised plans at such a late date, without adequate time for the Board and the neighbors to review the plans and modified story poles for ,the project. The application was then continued to the October 7 meeting to allow the applicant to formally submit the revised plans and modify the story poles for the project. The revised plans for the project do not significantly alter the floor plans of the previously submitted house. Several rooms have been pulled back slightly, and the overall width of the house has been reduced by several feet. The deck off the upper floor living room has also been reduced in size. As a result, the floor area of the house has been reduced from 3,956 square feet to 3,733 square feet. The proposed lot coverage has also decreased from 3,218 square feet (15.0%) to 3,023 square feet (14.1%). EXHIBIT NO. y October 7, 200" page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT . . ." .,;..,,9_L-U~,1I ,. .- '::C~ - ~~b~J .~ O~^';;=;ti(. , Town of Tiburon , . The overall height of the proposed house has been lowered in several spots. The main ridgeline of the house has been lowered from the previously submitted elevation of 192' 7" to 189' 3". The roofline of the garage has been modified to more closely match that of the main part of the house, reducing its ridge elevation from 193' 5" to 189' 3". ANAL YS\S Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone. Design Issues As noted above, it was the consensus of the Design Review Board that the views across the subject property from the home at 75 Round Hill Road constitute borrowed views across undeveloped land. The revised plans would slightly reduced the mass and bulk of the proposed house from the home at 75 Round Hill Road, but would not significantly alter the views of the new house from this nearby property. The reduced building heights would reduce the visibility . of the house from the other nearby home at 85 Round Hill Road. The modified garage roof design would further limit the visibility from the uphill home, and would also make the overall house design more consistent. Public Comment As of the date of ihis report, one additional letter, from the owner of the property uphill from the site at 2 Round Hill Terrace, has been received regarding this project since the last meeting. RECOMMENDA nON The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. Conditions of approval Letter from Debra Despues and Michael Harrison, dated September 15, 2004 Submitted plans . EXHIBIT NO. cf' September 16, 20 page 2 of 5 . . . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT .. . I ." ~_.9LV{!.u ,. ~~'.."~~1- " ., '. -:11- d~i'- ~;~%:~~~~ ." Ii'NIA-l~(.' >.:. , . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 79 ROUND HILL ROAD FILE #704119 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on July 22, 2004, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of September 24, 2004, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Division for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check'process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 5. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures' other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M.M.W.D. landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance. 8. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 9. Prior to underfloor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be required. Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other'reference EXHIBIT NO. l:f September 16, 20 poge 3 of 5 STAFF REPORT , I ." ~ 9J....I.!fUJ ,. ~/'<fl ,- ~i",..~ ~i ('\'~~:::'^~.' 'P...;;~~..:! .' o4,v-~'i , , Town of Tiburon points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified. 10. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District: a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA standard. 13-D. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer (UFC 1003). b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas (UBC 1210). c. Approved spar1< arresters shall be installed on chimneys (UFC 1101). d. A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible vegetation within 30 feet of the structure (UFC 1103). e. A "Jones" model 3740 fire hydrant shall be located on the street within 350 feet of the project along the fire apparatus access route. The final location of the hydrant shall be approved by the Fire District. The fire hydrant shall be capable of flowing a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure for a duration of two hours (UFC 903). . 1. The access road shown on the improvement plans is not of adequate width to allow for any par1<ing outside of the designated parking spaces. Appropriate signage shall be installed indicating that par1<ing is prohibited along the main traveled roadway, and enforceable CC&R's or deed restrictions shall be placed to maintain the area free for emergency vehicle access at all times. 11. The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met: a. A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed. b. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted. c. Appropriate fees shall be paid. d. The structure's foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the sate of application. e. The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested. . ~XHIBIT NO. if September 16. 20 page 4 of 5 . . . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT 12. The applicants shall obtain a sewer permit from the Sanitary District No.5 and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards. 13. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. 14. A tree protection plan shall be filed with the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. The plan shall indicate any trees that are to be removed on the site, and include detailed measures to protect remaining trees on the site during and after construction. EXHIBIT NO.~ September 16, 20 page 5 of 5 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD . 4. 79 ROUND HILL ROAD OZNOWICZ, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting design review approval for the construction of a new two- story single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road. The subject property is currently vacant. The upper level ofthe proposed house would include a living room, kitchen, dining room, family room, den'and a half-bathroom. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, three additional bedrooms, two more . bathrooms and a recreation room. An attached two-car garage would be situated adjacerit to the upper level. Carl Weissensee, applicant, discussed the project. and noted that dccisions were made some 20 years ago regarding this subdivision that affect what is being requested now. He said that the owner of75 Round Hill Road wanted the housc out of his views and as far away as possible, so the lot at 79 Round Hill had been widened. He described the proposed siting of the house. and how it was affected by the needs for an appropriate driveway turnaround. He said that the view from the house at 85 Round Hill Road was critical because wherever the house is situated, it would be in the middle of their view. He said that he pushed the house down as fur as possible on the lot, which he believed to be the best compromise for everyone. He said that he wanted to avoid lining up all thc houses in the subdivision along the driveway. Kyle Thayer, architect, stated that thc design was consistent with thc Hillside Design . Guidelines. He presented revised plans that lowered several portions ofthe roof from the submitted drawings after the story poles were erected, to address concerns raised by the owners of 85 Round Hill Road. He stated that the crossbars on the story poles reflect the height of the revised plans. Petcr Brekhus, attorney for the Charles Sofnas, objected to presenting the revised plans at this meeting. He said that potential view impacts were identified by Town Staff when the most recent lot line adjustment was approved. He noted that many houses are located side by side along streets. He felt that the proposed design was not consistent with the Hillside Guidelines. He said that the proposed house would completely block the views of his client from the house at 75 Round Hill Road, which would be inconsistent with the Hillside Guidelines. He stated that there is room to site this house uphill so that it would not block these views. He noted that nothing in the Town ordinances or guidelines . discusses how views are created. He asked that the application be denied and a new house be designed that would not impact his client's view. Boardmember O'Donnell asked how long the present owner has owned the ncighboring house. Charles Sofnas stated that he purchased it in 1978. He explained that the house had been up for sale approximately five years ago and again last year. He said that his house was sited to capture the view of the Belvedere Lagoon. He said that he had cleared trees and brush on the adjacent lots after a fire nearby, stating that the fire department had required him to keep the lot clear for fire protection. . TIBURON n.R.B. 9/16/04 4 EXHIBIT NO. '5 P Iw3 . . . Planning Manager Watrous clarified that the property had been listed for sale as recently as June 2004. Frank Doyle stated that when he bought his property at 85 Round Hill Road, he looked at . how the lots below were sited to determine how to site his house. He said that he built his house with a view between two lots. He said that while the future homes can be moved, his house cannot be relocated. He said that the project would create a parklike setting, and felt that the applicant has taken advantage of what he has. He stated that the applicant has been very cooperative, and supports the application. Mr. Sofuas presented a brochure created the first time his house was marketed, that he said shows the view as it was five years ago. Mr. Weissensee described the history of the tree-cutting performed by Mr. Sofuas on the subject property. He stated that he contacted the fire department, which had no record of requiring vegetation to be cut on this lot. He disagreed with Mr. Sofnas' recollection of the requirements for the location of the homes on these four lots. He said that he had made it clear that the Sofuas' view through tree canopies could be impacted. He stated that if nothing would be allowed on the property that would disturb the Sofuas' view, 60 and 48 percent, respectively, of the two lots nearest the Sofuas home would be unusable. Mr. Sofuas stated there is an ordinance that requires clearing areas next to homes for fire protection. He reiterated that the lot line adjustment approval required protection of his views. Boardmember Teiser stated he visited thc home at 75 Round Hill and saw views from the living room and master bedroom, and there is no question that the proposed house would block the Sofuas' entire view from these rooms. He said that while property owners are responsible for maintaining their lots in a neat and safe condition, he does not know what right Mr. Sofuas had in clearing Mr. Weissensee's lot. He said that the issue is whether Mr. Sofuas is entitled to that view. Boardmembcr Figour stated that the tree issue will remain a tangled mystery. He said that there is a view from 75 Round Hill Road. However, he felt that the proposed house was consistent with the Hillside Guidelines. He stated that these guidelines are intended for an uphill/downhill situation, while this situation involves a view across a lot. He said that a neighbor does not have the right to have a view across a property when it literally tears the very heart out of the building envelope. He felt that Mr. Sofuas' has a borrowed view. He noted that this was a one-story house with a partial second story dug in, and works well for the house at 85 Round Hill Road. He said that the house at 75 Round Hill Road never really had a view corridor across the site. He felt that the house design could use some tweaking, but acknowledged that moving the house uphill on the site would create problems for the turnaround and the garage. T1BURON D.R.B. 9/16/04 - EXHIBIT NO. ~ p. '2- OF 3 5 Boardmember O'Donnell stated that this is a very difficult issue. He said that he visited . the site and the Doyles' and Sofuas' properties. He said that there is no question that Mr. Sofuas has a slot view; however, the subject property is quite a distance from the Sofuas' home. He noted that there will be another house on the property in between these two sites. He said that the neighbors are entitled to review the revised plans and accurate story poles. He said that the applicant has tried to accommodate all parties, and that the history of the view is important. He said that the Sofuas' view has been enhanced over time. He said that he would support the application once the house has been redesigned. Boardmember Bird stated that she concurred that this is a borrowed view. She sympathizes with the Sofnas because they have had this view for many years and it feels like something has been taken away. However, she noted that when buying a property next to undeveloped land, one must know that the land will change. She said that the Doyles developed their home with careful consideration and to move the subject house up the hill would not be right. She said that the proposed house complies with the Hillside Guidelines, and would be reasonably sized. She said that the owner has the right to develop his land. She suggested continuing the application to finalize the revised design. Chair Beales stated that this is definitely a borrowed view. He said that it is unfortunate that Mr. Sofnas does not own the adjacent property, and its owner is allowed to build on it. He noted that the lot line adjustment asked that the house at 77 Round Hill Road to be pulled up, but that the house at 79 Round Hill Road was to "reasonably minimize" view blockage. He said that he was glad to see the roofline lowered. He noted that the lower . floor master bedroom juts out and into Mr. Sofnas' view. He said that if this wall was brought back in line with the face of the building or expanded in a different direction, it would help the view from 75 Round Hill Road. The wall could be brought back in line with the face of the lower level. He felt that this was probably the right location for this house. Bo'ardmember Teiser stated that he visited the Doyles' house and said that the proposed house would block more oftheir foreground view if moved up the hill. He said that it would be better if all four of the lots were developed at once, to give the Board and the neighbors more complete information. Chair Beales stated that it was the intent of Community Development Director Anderson in approving the lot line adjustment to encourage one developer with an overall plan for all four lots. He added that, having fought fires himself, he felt that Mr. Sofnas should worry about the brush below his own house and brush to the side would be less of a . concern. He believed that clearing 30 feet around a house is recommended. MIS, TeiserlBird (passed 5-0) to continue this item to the October 7, 2004 meeting. . TIBURON D.R.B. 9/16/04 EXHIBIT NO.5 ~, '3 or 3 6 . . . 3. 79 ROUND HILL ROAD OZNOWICZ, NEW DWELLING The applicant is requesting design review approval for the construction of a new two- StOl)' single-family dwelling on property located at 79 Round Hill Road. The subject property is currently vacant. This application was flTst reviewed at the September \6, 2004 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the applicant presented revised plans that would slightly reduce the height of the proposed house. The neighboring property owner at 75 Round Hill Road rais,ed concerns over the potential view blockage that would be caused by the location of the proposed house. The owner of the neighboring property at 85 Round Hill Road indicated support for the proposed house location and the plan revisions, but raised concerns about the potential view impacts that could occur if the house location were moved uphill to address the view concerns about 75 Round Hill Road. The Design Review Board considered the testimony of the neighbors and determined that the views across the subject property from the home at 75 Round Hill Road were borrowed views across undeveloped land. It was the consensus of the Board that it would be unreasonable to force both the proposed home and any future home to the intervening lot at 77 Round Hill Road to sacrifice a large portion of each lot to protect such a borrowed view. The Board also expressed concerns regarding the submission of the revised plans at such a late date, without adequate time for the Board and the neighbors to review the plans and modified story poles for the project. The application was then continued to the October 7 meeting to allow the applicant to formally submit the revised plans and modify the story poles for the project. The revised plans for the project do not significantly alter the floor plans of the previously-submitted. house. Several rooms have been pulled hack slightly, and the overall width ofthe house has been reduced by several feet. The deck off the upper floor living room has also been reduced in size. As a result, the floor area of the house has been reduced from 3,956 square feet to 3,733 square feet. The proposed lot coverage has also decreased from 3,2\ 8 'square feet (15.0%) to 3,023 square feet (14.1%) Carl Weissensee, applicant, discussed the changes made since the last meeting. He reduced the area of the master bedroom and moved it hack by reducing the entire length . of the house and one foot off two sides of the house. He said that the deck had been reduced in size and that the roofline had been lowered and modified. He said that the floor area had been reduced by 220 square feet and the length of the house by two feet. Charles Sofuas stated that he had been told by the Tiburon Fire Chief to clear the brush more than 30 feet from his house, and submitted a copy of a newspaper article about a flTe near his house. He denied Mr. Doyle's claim that his view had improved since the eucalyptus trees were removed. Mr. Sofuas presented a copy of a real estate ad marketing his house in 2000 that included the language, "with water views." He stated that his slot view is as important as Mr. Doyle's panoramic view, and distributed a photograph taken from the Doyles' house that showed the story poles. He said that the applicant had stated that the house could be moved uphill to minimize Mr. Sofuas' view but the applicant has chosen not to do so. He discussed the language within the Town's approval of the lot line adjustment covering the subject lot stating that there were expectations that his view blockage would be minimized. He disputed the concept that TlBURON D.R.B. 10/7/04 3 EXHIBIT NO. ~. (p lCF l{ his view was a borrowed view. He proposed that the house be moved slightly up the hill ~~~~ . Debra Despues stated that she had discussed the project with the applicant, and he stated that the project would not impact her water view, excluding the two-foot chimney. She said that she did not object to the project a~ long as the house is built according to the submitted plans. She noted that moving the house uphill could affect her water views. Mr. Weissensee stated that moving the house uphill per Mr. Sofuas' suggestion probably would not impact Ms. Despues' view. Frank Doyle stated that he will have three houses sitting in his view, including homes on two other vacant lots. He said that the lot lines had been changed at the reque~1 ofMr. Sofuas, and that the location of the subject house made sense given the resulting shape of the lot. He said that he had witnessed Mr. Sofuas cutting branches from trees that were not on his property two years ago to claim the view. Mr. Doyle said that he had designed his house for the existing view and does not want this house to be pushed into his view. He said that a person cannot claim a view two lots away from his house. Brian Forehan stated that it sounded like Mr. Sofuas was being generous in agreeing to have only one-half his view. He said that moving the home up the hill sounded like an appropriate solution to save the view. Mr. Sofuas stated that Mr. Doyle has an objective of protecting his view and never seeing . the houses. He again stated that he had received direction from the fire department to clear additional brush near his house that was more than 30 feet away. Chair Beales stated that the fire department only requires clearing brush within 30 feet, and does not require someone to clear brush on another person's property. Mr. Sofuas asked the Board to enforce the language within the lot line adjustment to protect his view. Mr. Weissensee stated that the video showing Mr. Sofuas cutting Mr. Weissensee's trees, the brush was shoved under trees that were not in Mr. Sofuas' view, which increased the 'fire hazard on the site. He said that the trees are ISO feet away from Mr. Sofuas' house. He said that he had never received any request to cut the brush, and had checked with the fire department, which had no record of any such request. He said that Mr. Doyle wi)! see three homes and a driveway in front of his house, and will not be unaffected. Boardmember Teiser stated that the design did not seem to take Mr. Sofuas' view into consideration as recommended by the lot line adjustment. Mr. Weissensee responded that historical consideration had been given to the views in the future development of77 Round Hill Road, and included a view under the trees that was still respected. He felt that Mr. Sofuas' view is stolen, not borrowed. He said that the current design would leave Mr. Sofuas with the same view he was satisfied with in 1982, during the review of a previous application for this property. . TIBURON D.R.B. 10/7/04 EXHIBIT NO. Co ~. 7-DFt{' 4 . Boardmember Figour asked ifit is ossible to pull the house up the hill and utilize the play area as the driveway space, with the play area and yard space going to the bottom of the lot. Mr. Weissensee responded that the current design is appropriate because it creates some push and pull in the entire plan. He said that moving the house uphill would make it more visible for the entire town. He said that the house was already dug in with a low profile. By going up the hill, he could not dig in and the house would get taller. Chair Beales asked if a one-story design would be considered and added that lot coverage variances are sometimes approved when alternatives are unacceptable. Mr. Weissensee responded that in 1982 this house location was perfectly satisfactory to Mr. Sofuas. He said that by cutting the trees, Mr. Sofnas eliminated the barrier between 77 and 79 Round Hill Road, which could not be seen in 1982 when the trees were whole. Boardmember Figour asked if a good faith effort could be made to give something to Mr. Sofuas. Mr. Weissensee responded that he did make a good faith effort by pulling back the house location for 77 Round Hill Road. Boardmember Figour stated this is a difficult issue. He said that the Board must rely on the language included in the lot line adjustment. He said that protecting the view from 75 Round Hill Road would tear the heart out ofthe site, which would not allow a structure on the lot. He felt that there had not been enough thought put into minimizing the view impact from the Sofuas' and Doyles' houses. He said that the house could be pulled uphill a little bit, which would not open the view tremendously for Mr. Sofnas,. He said . that the Board should solve this issue at this level. Boardmember Teiser stated he concurs with Boardmember Figour. He said that he would like to hear discussion about allowing exceptions and variances to accommodate the situation. Boardmember Bird noted that there are many conflicting points of view on this issue. She still felt that no matter how Mr. Sofnas' view got there, it is a view across another lot. She said that the applicant had done a lot to modify the design and was building in the widest part of the lot, which was appropriate. She supported the project as designed. Boardmember O'Donnell stated that Mr. Sofnas should not be penalized or rewarded for cutting the trees and creating a view. He acknowledged that the Doyles have made concessions with this and the future houses. He felt that the trees are a non- issue. He said that the Board has to deal with how structures fit on the land and compliance with the Hillside Guidelines. He said that the proposed house location fits within the building envelope. He stated that Mr. Sofuas has a borrowed view, and that pushing the house up the hill would severely impact the Doyles' view. He said that the project should stay as proposed. . Chair Beales stated that Mr. Sofnas clearly has a borrowed view. He noted that the Hillside Guidelines are written to protect downhill views, and this is a hlteral view across another property. He said that Mr. Sofuas cannot tell someone not to build there. He T1BURON D.R-B. 10/7/04 EXHIBIT NO. p, G )OFCf" 5 noted that the lot line adjustment stated that this project should "reasonably minimize view blockage," and that that phrase can be interpreted differently. He said that the applicant has modified the edge of the house to open up the view a little bit for Mr. Sotnas. He said that moving he house up the hill would create view problems The Doyles. He said that he supports the project as is. MIS. O'DonneWBird (passed 4-1, Teiser dissented), to detennine that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofCEQA and approve the application subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report. T1BURON n.R.B. 10/7/04 EXHIBIT NO. G t Lf ()~y 6 . . . - ~ 'I ~-:s. 2' 1. :j f-s;y III ' () \U ~ .~~ ~ > III i5 U! ~i\1 lL . T. .- -.,.- lU:I ') .5 ',,) J:. .\.) _.- - u...-J.I- -:r:: l-- T -<{ D ~ ttl , n <:) --' lli I- \;y y: ..J .> I \-11.1-' \I.lo."'-..\~~ ~L ~ {fLl <;:y ~.., I:). ill III '~~J \l) ~ l::- \.), ~ -,L 1 I ~ --,.. i---! ~ ~ ill ~ -0 ~< :J .:> IIll -l:'li h' "', -" III _. .z.... ill ' J {llll llJ ~ u.: T, -<; ty 'J rib \\tI \'v:.J . \ 'lI.i-iiJ III III -. ~ ~I--~Iy{ n-r-~ :; ~1~c)\LI-<l.T~>Illr.- . ~_!l) -<{, I;J<~?::J , :< ~~~~~$~~~4 3 Q @ ~T.\-- C'~l ~ ~~~ .{. T . "Q '-'..:r - ~i ..( :f {\ ill ~ ~ .(\1:: 5 ~ ill -;:J III ('j :;) ~ ~ C\ QQ-...l T ~ ""'I -' ~ ~ ::> ......l"I \ll_...1'C\ < -{ ..z. ~ IL '.J 1--4 (',..:x: ::l -{' \_ I () 0 ill ill ..( <) r~}-:r -T &1 v ~ ~~ .z. ~\l. ~~ .-:J -( ~n ~ <::l \-~~I.:?l <::l\-lli)-:- u.. , "J U1 Q 'U" ll..'-..) I.:} v.; ~ - ~~~-t{>&~iftr,~' ~~ " 11\ ~ -:::) "IT::r III <( T. ~ ill "' C) 1ll\---..{ ~'-s;.y s:\J - ,-::l g ~s:\t~>-(~~~~ tj. :I ~~ ~:YJ.:lK?;~ ~ R ~--'~r~~~~~~X= ~I ~ ;y Irlo<{ <{\-.(, ~ rlll ill ~ ~.( :s~\Q![<;.).~~I;->~:?; " -- ~~, ~ :J 1\1'\= ""- Q I;,:, T ~ ~ {l~.J~~>lU~ Jl}\).L-l T () - ss:. {\. '~~ III ::Q ill ?'- tl- _)1 - I ~<;::,! ~<~;J'..l\\.ll ~:(\ l:\ \\IT: 4: 'd \ll3 < 5 x ~ F;Q .{ ill \- Q~ ~ ~;:: Q ill .u Q :r.s.yL - T. ~!l) :2 dl 7~ =1: \l. -( lL..{ ~ r- ~ \:1 ;:- >~ "<l.::(_. ():0'-'1{\ 5.-)ll ~ )- -tJ ~ ~ ~-L P--<J III ill Q -r . 11.1 t\ nl.:S,- "J. - r"o T. T -' -- ~ -...l {l .{l~~lU-{lJ~ll1t.U!,)> '-...l~ 1\1, ill :r:> :> ~7 -< 1- S;S::I: -<l .<{ ~i--J \- III (J ':;} :< II.. }---J:;Q - '->-I.j 5' ~ ~~ <;,y !t ~ \\l ::J ill .l ~l.{ ~\- \ ..{ ~-:i''n~ .:f~ 4: III ~I' ~:i~~~2~~~~ ~~ R l-IU~A"~< r.,r\:I:~-! i 1\\:> (j ~ \l~<.... ~ u.l I \; --1 '" .:1 \ll "'T''>.......l U) ~i -i~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~! -{l T :( ~~ (V - ~ ~:s ~ ) ,~ ~4 ~ ~T ~ ;1H~T III ;, Q :'..J..:-F- )-\-.{ .{ ~ ~'>L ~ >- ~.{ :," > ~ > -:r:: "\' _/-. \ '-~- ---- . - \ \ \ /' I ./ I / / !---- , '0 uJ )- . , ~ .....-' "- .y ~ .3. ~,T. --.l ~ ~ ~~ l~ Qr. ~ u; ::> ;-~' li f~. (J -=~ >:; _ "'},.. I:S! ,\\ N - f\ "I.:..J 'I ~-~"'" ...-' : -.<{ -J" J~ "f\ \:- ill::) {1 TT.: ~ ~ -S 7;lL <; , , \-C} =<,:i _HH.( 4: :5T~ 4 ---' ~ {1 ,,:.( ~ _J -.) T ~ u... LL\!\. ~ .{\l.lC)2::2 .>Q. , ;lH,l ~ 5~ <::s '--fr~ \\ -~-_.- L --,- \IJ , \ ^~~!;;dOZid. .{\ -0 4. Q ~ ",'1 0. .;. , '\ ~"(-1(\.,'\ lli_n . \ \ \-< SL 5 Y: LX - ' 1.L i.i. l!.. <l.~, ---' Cl Q T G \:\ ~".-:'- \L 'J- ~T~n} ~ ~l1J~ ill ~ () 'I::r '-Y ~ 4: , .' .I / , ,~ / ! , -~I \U ~ - -::J.J T}-_~ T ~ 'J~-{)_j, '. .J"'" ~_J ' -=.r:: iu CJ!l-l -- :::-.. ;:; _J 10-1"" o' _.J ~ ---' -'- ~" 5 [f ~ 0. 1.L 't- '"I - '-- CJ - \- o:l ill l- -.5" \) ...... ~TL-:Z: ~ ~~Cl.{ ~ -.l <;::OiL \-~ () C) ~ ill -{\ r -L-::rTii} ~ <J - -- '\ :"TlL> . --\r- ..- Q. . I C')l :0 ... o Z ..I ..I i' CI) w ... Cii Cl z c' ..I 5 ID a w CI)CI) ow 0.... a::- o.CI) oel CI)~ ..I CI)..1 ...W :i'~ o.a Cl)a aw zCl) <0 ....0. Zo o a:: Ciio. :;a:: cO IDel ::;)z Cl)j: =-:CI) z- _>< :z:w (J) lu:z: 'Wa::~ Zo.~ _.. ..J CI) a:: lUJffio caa:: _-w , . ::):::z: . ". a... "" IDO ::;):z: .. ZCI)(,) oa< _zw (J) <:z: UJ -:~ CCl)~ ffiw Zo.a:: og~ a:wa:: '::) > ~ wz mo,_ t: ,,'~'--"- J " D L ..131l..l () III ('lIT {'I ffi-. \U "- ,': --,- ..... -,-'-.l '" : -'- \- -'- rJ \-- r\ ~_J- ' ~.I -r ~ -{I ~, ~ :!:= ~ -{l-.J TIT;<{" .{l --=! .( ~ ~ \- '- - ...i../ "-1: .,~ - r:- \_, Q () " 1:0 ';-! Cl ~-t 0: >10 ~-f ~ \l) "I ,>~ \U ~~.{ C)::J ...1 all.l~C\'J ~ ~"I 1:J~:r: () V 'Il--I ~~ "So'), Silt ~ - () lJltl.l~ LUJ ~IT.? T~& "\.'Iill" "] ~-r ;:r I"T:"- ~ uJ .L. "'-'1_"" rl ~...( :r Sl?v ....} ~ "j. >(S~"';> ":-,ill ~-Q \->" -< 1-.(' - \l.l. I>:.:J~~- ~l. ,,"/ ~ > ~I~~~}t l'jl ~T 5 t-=--1 :~:'; >[ <:)._} ill ~{l \,\/'T....J - ~\\l .' , ,0\ f~J> /"I w ~:r t.'~ \- " ~ > :{l - \.\,) .{ Q "> -{' \-- ~ ,,>...{:J ~ \\J ~ IU .,_~ ll.l ~L>g~~ (\ T.( \-- -") u.) I ~T\l... 10..(l5--.l .0 .{ 0 -~ ./' ....J ....'1.jl- 3;o\U ~ m;dTll.\;{l:S '-' -L l-.Il.l > \-'-~ ..l. 5::\-\1.l -~ {l r~ $ 51l\\J {\ ~~ 1--1 ~ i-- >- ~-<( 1\.1 " {l ->/~<Q~?? tU mIT. -::I: tU.5 > \- -<c ':) l--- ~ -. \J \- ('> <J d) TQ1 :JCY'~ C:\ ~1~~...1~i~ ....JiD'S-CJ, 7Y.. ::. > ~ {' 5- & <) , _~ ~l.l ~D b- :Y {J l\} L .s:>{l....TUl ~ () ill \\1 ill ~ ~ "C)! ~ "I.~ <.QNI.::.I-<J.JL D ~/ Ohl.. n:1/l 0..'" (1.0 <"I: '-'. {l. ~ III > , <;y 1, 4- '7 _.! ':1~ .... -- \U-(I ....'\ -gi I.{ ill n- .:r tu (. \L ,,'\ of! L. >:Jl"' -> Cl -.) ,,,If -{l \-::- \L \11 (J ,.0 l;.'ll{\ 1.1 ll..T \- 'I ..J\~l-v \lIB)( ~ fJ-oi'.(" ~' -....J ~ ~\lJ:J .-11. 0 <J-Ill _ ~_J ill ~T () ..J CJ :> ~,I-T ..:;:T""I~()...,\T ?;,~, ".., nJ_"C ~ iu -1 _ ..J \U ' ~~. ". - <.J ,{ IT lIfJ:. j"> ~=1 -1~ III < -<( \-- -ill- ~---'>\-T ,;(>~,p- Jl1l l--,J: :> ~ --- ill ltl ~ )-- (J :.:J nlQ ~ "?\-~Q.:?>~:::l ~"\.l~><{' . . {)I Wi r-I '. "',! \i~y /- " "- Ie. 5' ~>-4. ~ i\i~ Ill__ 7.>{ , :,' / J \ 'j I /, . / /. ,/ / / I , . ~' . ", I '~~f ';' / \ /' /':// / / ~ ../ / / ,\,: / ...t" J ~. ,/ .:ll':;",t = ---'~~ -3"-:3 ~ ~ , ~L>~ nL"- ll! I .- ~ r.- ~ "I 'J] -{IT.J--'' l--r .. '/. --::::J.> ' --_J, ~""ill~ -zrC.J \\l-\ i=-- {) T-0.I \\1 ill;c. >:::l \-:.J~T~\QU.I:) .(\~ --11-~ ~ ~-::r: . . - ~- -:;>,..,. 7~ - . 1\3 W 1.- ~~h ' I--:r > -i () ~ tS~{)u. -L :;;:.J~ \). -1.:1- 1---1---(:1: . <v,,-....\Cinl \:.\ \:} \\} ~ {l ~....J~\L-::) {.{'QT.~ '\ / ./ " :-<~ 'kil\l\. -'" >~ o Z E-< ...... ~ ...... ::r:: X ~ ~-<: UlU) ')-~ -<< II' (') ,D. a 'C') C\ ~ . en :=' W :; W > a: W en 'W a: Cl. c z <t W N ~ >< <t :iii, o I- W -' ; Cl. W ~ > w c c:J z z z (I)~ wCl.. zc -z ..J<t W-' C<t -a: ::J:::l Or; z~ 0:2 -0 a: w<t C> a: w > ~,. a:t ::;)' -. , 6:;:' T "" m \:2.)~~ r:~~ \- -~;J ~ ~~-,:- r-~ u..~:;" r--!-:~":>' l.() -..J. ,,' j.-'-\.-, ,.. f tU - ~W_l~ >s..Q! d.l r -\.-"I~ ~.:;~ \ ..{','n \- --J ...... <' I ---,1_\ ,. __ -<t",. -<: \-- ~ -..> . -u.. \l. -{I,,,," - J ,- -<:::-} <) u.. {l -, ~ ;>- :R< I Q.1l} ,"''' T '{\\-\- ~l~~: , ~..:f {l <;y ~ ,,>..( ~. ~ __./ -{' w ". ""_ TX~ I ~ullll ",-, ~- ill ~.n - , r\ ~. ~ _1 ''----.-lll ""'- lll-JIl.!" , .J...(O::lI: > m"I iU \...- ill =-; \-- () ill 5\-~~ t{l~~ T Q II ~ \:. () ~ ~ y- 11l~~'\JJ ,.4.r. "5 'IfilL> -{l ill ~ j! :>- ~l1lt-_Q ~ \;:; / ,-- {I ill a 0. ~ ~\U ".-ro::. ill ,,11. ~ r;:f ill -<:: .- -.( a \\l~:.:l ~..... f:: ,,' ~ ~ <. f-\---,..' '-J 'fl_ >- ..( {\ '1-,_ \-~ .;j Ul :;c GT~f:~Ii.:J~ ."F ~ ~ ,.. ill c..-<( ~,., t--~ ill J > 1\ \',@~, -"" ~- rl'> '\.l 'n Q ~ -." ~\'l' .n ~ " -":.l ""~ w _1 3"~ ? n "'; ill ~ ' ~ U)-<'Ill~" ~ Q4:: ~ -!:lLL..l.......Ul ::\.>~ ~>l<:v~~ <'I ~ nl '-:= OT \-"--{1 :x: tD \- '-I - III -' r:I: ...."',.... 7 -'l -J ....'r-........ -- ~ ..( ~"!:i..., ll.l nll_~ ::>l. --_.1--,..' Tcl-"~} -0 ~n1~\:::- {-r i!i1$ ~ -:t . ~l\--<n... ~ Q - ~,.., 'iI -< \ ~_.~ /' r\.... IllIil 3: \h l'> '-I "-'- J:I: . \U 53~lli~~lU\- - ~ III _> ~ ' -~. ,.. ,.. 7\-- ~1il _1" )-,~ ~"5 &-.:r ... .. , <--:r.fi!.-I. ...L\\l.- --'-1\11 -', \-I-->():1-<,'J ~~~ ::tl;)X.( &. ~1\l~~~Q._J~ '1., . . {\F---'-I>,1\.J...}' .. -<' < ~ ;- _ :.1'" ~. . ..( ~tn ~ -(\nl Q loQ.d ~~....l . '"-ill ~ ~ ~ Q ~ <;Q },-. ~ {ll\l 3= ~ dl.(.:i"J ~5 U} _' "\l::s."'t--.J..J~1ll> ,~ ~ \\l ~ ~ ...\ ~ ~-..I: " , ~"~.JI ~~J: .{ -( ~r~~ * a' ~l 3 tl.l [ll !;,Y-:- --1 ..... -~~ ~Cl S),I~ ~"'I ~ ~~ III (1~ ~-.) Q~ ~J . n~ . 3 Ill. <c" ~ -'" ~~ F-~ :...l~ ,~ ~~, \- ,- 1\ :!-, ,-> Q~l nl.(l ~x .' n-oj ". "'-~ ~-1 ~& . ( I 1 l, ...... -;... , , (' , , " " I [I' nO' "Ii ) I , I I ! ,I . \\\~\ It.~ T ~ \- .,J &>- . ~l-- --.:.J [ll~. .....1.( \-, . ~-::> -'- . ....J....l,. .',f. ~ " o z - -' -J: w-f() "'- Q 8 '-> ,- N 1--' :;, , ~ ,.. ~; f>,' S2 ,-j' 0 ~~"II.I 111:i~ Q '>ll::;:' - '~3~~ "0: ::>> ED. -' , 'F.- t: C') C') C') . , c:J cr-- o Z E-< >-< o:l ~ ~ .:3- ~ .n -::> <{ ~ (.).' ~ ~ "*. D L :J o ,!:y . .'5 . ill, i" bl ~ T lil -L '~ Q- . T: \l} .~> <::\t J5i1 1JJQ,! ~<) tl~ lLI 'T~ ill- . -J: 1\1 \T ~< jUn. >C) lL Ul .'.0 I ... J- J ..~ - ~{) . ;',~ . ....>~ ~~ . J-:I '-{l J.~ S : \\} I ' .'. -{l -'. . . \-. .b8 \--- . :J . "\,} ~a ..(l~ ul~ ?; " . '.J lU . T -e.J IS& N-{\ . ~..(l .,. ~.~ ;..,,:i -,.- ~ -,.,": -).. '-'" \L I~-" . - . -: . .', () uJ )- ~J .. ~/ ( I l " f ,........... ...... .-......-,... _... h. ,_ ".._ _ ..._..._~ _.' . ~ .~ T ,. .,J ~ ~ tD ~ ~ :f ~ -. -' Il_ '0 n' III 1-- r 111 -,j u.. ~ ltl ~- :5 ~ (J ....J sQ <::J! -J .-LL_.. . --"... ._---.. ..,. . . .... < ~ 111 - -,': lL ~ ill Q -(l tL C) III -5" <( Y.. ~ ';:) ~ ill T 4- :I: ": '~:_~':::.:,:'.-:.:=':~',=~.~".:'~~;j~._-'_:~:.~_' .~.":'~':':T,_-:.,-.....'.'~~." _-=~':.'~:.~::~~::":"::::~:-...:: ':,:,~. - .. , I " ~ . 'J.J i-- I L II ~I (.... \ . I ''t- -:- .-,-- I!I~ jL.' :~_ "I ..::s::- . -".J..- \,-- . ,. _"_A_.. '.~..... .' .... ".' _ '... . : ' __ - '" .'~___'__'" ._. ....'. . d. .r- 'll. ~ . CO) C? .:CJ.. ... . . ~3 .. . .... ~~~_:~.. . :.u. .'. ::J1l . . ~.IJ ~'l1i . \'g Q .... ~', .. ~ . ^I' ~. f-J" &;~ Q..-G..... , .:. d. Z :t .... - Ci1' I 3en .' . w 1.llnJ" Z ~>.-;. . -;) It: - \._" w..-.-.. ~ \.}c -..HY:5 ." ~lU. CJ . \--\---:-..... {IT:z Q ill CJ l\}..j, - (1{" en. !.):l. W Q,J C. ~\J ~_] Z ~~ ~. ::) m. . - ~. ,;:.'-.---..--. . ~-:.~ .,- , .''':~P~i._; ',. .-- \~ .... ~:1 .Q .( ~ .<2 ~ ill l- !-j . -J:: ~ {l illn...Y. Q1Ls.'Y -..l:-"\'..{ ~1l1~ ....;)~c -0 5~1 ill -..l -.{\ >--: - 'tU {) ~ {l "T Q 1l} - .{~ }- I ....J L -..l ....J ~Illill . ffi~.-"')- J1:'> &.{{l .(J ...{\ \- ~ 1\1 -.1 r ....l ~ .. l--4:~ <;Y..(l\)j () ::) -.I ~ ..{.)-'- .~-{l~ , r \L .-.~'I.) " ~ ... , ~- u.J ~4:S ~-1 ~ . . ..:{ID.J . \:)! () I xn) ,,~& c" II . ~~1~. ~I.. , . . . ..~". -- '... ".,. I. < . / I I i , I I . . ..-.,,-_...... ,".--- _._--~.._.~~"., .." ".""~ ....,,_..,.. -~.:...-...';"'.". :....:'_-_.-:-..-:..:.-.'_'..: '_, pi,..... ,:-..... -~--;...,. I I ill, , . 'Ii H ; T 41 -.+ t- nl .<t -:l u (J ......J & 5 III III s.y lJ Z \- ~ .1\') .~ '~ . <( T j 3: 1\l '> . .~~ .~~ .{ ~I- %~ L-(l '4. <,l. . - nI ...~lU .~~ I \ll {> ! I ~ ' ( I ""- / '. )l :J " . 'L___ 'f . !(l -rl- r..I: <Il- -.J\- TI~ \U:...l -::d .j \:r<1: , i , I ! {) ill )- , , ! ! i ~l T"--'-' - -.. .."-." -.' . Q .. -- W .. .. I- -.0 IC/)W 'LlJI&. , l U. '. " Z<l:.' ~-CI) ..J- 11.1' Q~ 5> Ii. o ZlIl .00 -... (/)z LIJ<l: Q~ .Zw .oa: 0:0. ::E. :;)1&. : m-' a _.,~ . . t.---..:.:..:. =9 o. Z E-< I-l j:Q I-l ::c: ~ ri:l \- J~ :1 ~~ \--- \- - \--- L~' Om '~,J -oj 1i< =~ J-F- ,... ,Q. .. It) (') (I) . . _CJ. ix: o ID :z: Cl .w .Z "W' :z: I- . a:' O~ I&. ::E W .... .... ID o a: '0. l- .. Z ~. .<l: .... 0'" _.:. .!;. . ... z. ... Cl . - CI). ...<l: CI) W CI) ~ <l: o 1-. - ,. :..... .' ~. .~-'.~?, ...~?....,<'.:'::i- ~j:;..:L::_: ,.~-....~-'....., .S- I I l I . . '"\..L . oOo!~'. , " -:x ~. Zr- <{\ ~L:'- ~=-> :J. Ill' ;Q> . . .--:' '.. ... ", --~.~'"' . _, .-..~.1 PETER B. /lREKHUS ELIZABETH lIREKHUS CAROLINE C. JOACHIM Peter B. Brekhus & Associates ]000 DRAKES LANDlNC ROAn GREENBRAE, CA 94904-3027 I~ACSIM]J.E: (415) 461-7356 (415) 461.JOOI . RECEIVED LATE fl\AIL # E:f ATTORNEYS AT LAW (',:0 ~J '[004 ~)'-' September 9" 2 0 0 4 iOLAI'~i'":1G D\VIS'ON ,OWN 01" T'"lIlIRON Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Application for Design Review Approval 79 Round Hill Road Dear Mr. Watrous: I understand from my client, Charles Sofnas, that you have not ~eceived and do not have in the files on 75, 77 and 79 Round Hill Road a letter I sent to you on July 22, ' 2004, copy enclosed. . In addition, it is my understanding that in connection with the proposed design review application for 79 Round Hill Road the town does not have in its' file a decision of the Community Development Department dated December 13, 2002 pertaining to future development of 79 Round Hill Road. It specifically provides that; "Any application filed for site plan and architectural review for residence at 79 Round Hill Road -- will be expected to design and locate the residence to 'reasonably minimize' view blockage from existing residences at 85 Round Hill Road and 75 Round Hill Road,H The present story poles at 79 Round Hill Road indicate that the proposed home to be constructed there will completely block the view from 75 Round Hill Road. EXHIBIT NO. p, il- l DP'(; . PrC~n(l orrict, - 8tlS N.'V~" Nt'~b AVCTllJt", I~rcsno, C31irornia ')37'1.H . . . Dan Watrous, Planning Manager September 9, 2004, Page 2 I would ask that you place the Town of Tiburon December 13; 2002 order and. direction in the files of the application for development of 79 Round Hill Road. Enclosure cc: Charles Sofnas PBB:amo . sofnas/,],tr/w~trolls.02 EXHIBIT NO, p, /2- ZCF 8" ......~;:, ,:,.,::.'","",,-.--:,: ,',;"......... ""',.J"". '.-':__,-,,'...".' W.' . "'''~'''''--''''"'';'' "".--',,.',,;,'; ,~~"~";._",, ..:-.', PETER B. BREKHUS ELIZABETH HREKHUS CAROLINE C. ]OACHINJ Peter B. Brekh us & Associates ] 000 DR,\KES LANDING ROAD GREENflRAE, CA ~)'19()4~3,g-27 . FACSIMILE: (415) 461-73'5Cl (415) 46i.100I ATTOR.NEYS AT l.AW July 22, 2004 Scott I'.nde,rson, Director of Communi ty Development Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 TlburonBoulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 75, 77 and 79 Round Hill Road Tiburon, California Dear Messrs. Anderson and Watrous: I represent Charles and Dale Sofnas, owners of 75 Round Hill ,Road, Tiburon, California. . It is my understanding that you recently had a meeting with the developers of 77 and 79 Round Hill Road. in which there was a discussion concerning the future development of 77 and 79 Round Hill Road, Tiburon, California. I am enclosing a letter I have sent to Mr. Weissensee, representative of the owner correcting several inaccurate statements made by him. The properties in question (77 and 79 Round Hill Road), which we understand may be submitted for development shortly, are subject to all of the conditions attached to the lot adjustment decision of April 17, 2000. The standards of the Design Review Ordinance, guidelines and criteria set forth in the Tiburon General Plan and, if a'variance is sought, the standards and guidelines set forth in the variance ordinance, including a requirement EXHIBIT NO. f [2- -3 cF~ . ';",,;,>;;,:.:.,':' . . . i...'::,;~",.,::;;:., ':',~.,,:~,- '" ,,-;,.,",;." .',:,:~:,,:,,:,....::.::,i,:::.,;-: ~'::" <"~~:,, ,~, "~;,,.. ",', -,"..'" .'.-.;.".,'-,......... Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Dan Watrous, Planning Manager .July 22, 2004 Page 2 that the applicant demonstrate that the variance application will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community will have to be met and satisfied for approval of this project. ------ /~- )Jery truly , ur~ / ~~ . -, .~ .----- . V' Pet~r B. Brekhus PBB:mjs Enclosure cc: Charles & Dale Sofnas - via fax :, ,sofnas/l-c.r/watt-cms.01 EXHIBIT NO. 12- ~ 4: CFg' "',.',;-...,.":,:.:::.";', '.;. ~'".i.':'~ ' , " . .., ',..}'..... : :'~' ,~:\~,;-.: ;:':i, ,":- , """';",:;,\'...:"-'...l.';'".::. PETER B. BREKHUS ELIZABETH BREKHUS CAROLlNE C. JOACHIM .Peter B. Brekbus & Associares 1000 DRAKE~ LAN~IN(~~_.OAD. GREEN BRAE, CA 9.<J904-3:G27 FACSIMILE: (415) 461-7356 (415) 4(;1-1001 ATTORNEYS AT L\W ,July 22, 2004 Mr. Carl Weissensee 10 Willow Street, #10 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Re: 77 and 79 Round Hill Road, T~buron, California Dear Mr. Weissensee: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Sofnas have contacted me and asked me to advise them ooncernirig a certain letter sent to their realtors regarding the sale of cheir home. In that letter, you made several inaccurate statements of fact and law which resulted in a prospective purchaser withdrawing their original offer to purchase. The sale has fallen through and Mr. and Mrs. Sofnas have taken the house off of the market. . Your letter incorrectly states that my clients have removed certain Oak trees from the property and "severely pruned" other: mature Oak trees.' Both of those statements are factually inaccurate. Mr. Sofnas has done certain trimming' and weed clearance for fire protection purposes in the area of 79 Round HIll Road. He was apparently required to do so because the property owner of 77 and 79 Round Hill (presumably Mr:. Oznowicz) ignored his legal obliga tion to keep the pr:operty 'free from weeds and growth that would induce, fires.. This action of Me Sofnas of keeping a "fire perimeter" around his property has proven to be wise. A number of years ago his house was . threatened by fire from below which was only stopped by the fire perimeter created by Mr. Sofnas. . I~ your letter, you purport to convey the views of legal C"ounsel abou t the "policy" of the Tiburon view Ordinance, inditating that "town policy"'does not entitle . EXHIBIT NO. fJ, lz... SoP&" ; :'C: ,_":', : ,., ,',':'~~ . . . ','..C."'>', ,'" ,'.' ...,',-.... , .." "".-,.,;. .10':' "."'-,,, . ,.,. Mr. Carl Weissensee :July 22, 2004 Page 2 c ,~ , a selling owner to '~al ter views" by trimming existing ttees or landscaping on adjacent property to improve the view and then sell ehe property at an "enhanced value" with the 'improved view. The Tiburon View Ordinance does not contain any such "policy" nor is that necessarily the "pollcy" of the Town of Tiburon. My-client's understanding from your letter i~ that you intend to submit plans for design approval for homes at nand 79 Round Hill within the next thirty days and intend to take all necessary action to preserve legal development and ownership rights including" if required, "litigation." In 1992 the legislature passed Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(a) to deal with what the legislature described as a "disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of .the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances (copy enclosed) . Any "litigation" instituted against them, as threatened in your letter dated July 3, 2004 to the realtors, will be viewed exactly as it is, a suit filed to attempt to stifle any, opposition they might have to your pending public application. As a developer representative, I am quite sure that you are fully aware of the conditions that were attached to the.lot iine adjustment obtained for 77, 79, 81 and 83 Round Hill Road. The Town of Tiburon's approval of the ap81ication imposed certain conditions to the lot line adJustment to the development which the owner (Mr. Oznowicz) voluntarily accepted as a condition of a lot line adjustment. These included that any application filed for site plan review shall "consider view impacts upon the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road. This report also notes that any future residence "has potential" to create view and privacy issues upon the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road and that fin~l EXHIBIT NO. \z... P< (0 DPe ""d" ,...'., ;'.":::\i...,:,'"...; ,:C;';.:.:,,;:,..,' '",,-. .....:....,.::,-,',. , '"..", :: ':. ',' ;,i':: .,," ;:' .f,,';''-, .'.':,"" . ",:.'.: ,,' . ' . ::". ;;'.:.";';"" " .. .',,~.. .' ,. "'.',. ....', .; ~"'" "... ";',: ~ 'J",~ ".', ',: " " " . "".. ....,. ,,: _J:. .. -. Mr. Carl Weissensee July 22, 2004 'Page 3 development will be expec.ted to design and locate the residence in such a manner- as to \\reasonably" minimize view blockage from the existing resid~nce at"75 Round Kill Road, consistent with guiding principles of site plan and architectural review as set forth in the Tiburon.Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the lot line adjustment approval provides that any application filed for site plan and architectural review apprqvals for residents at 79 and 81 Round Hill ""will be expected to design:' and locate the . . ' residences to reasonably minimize view blockage from' existing residences at 75 Round Hill Road. Any proposed development at .77, 79 and 81 Round Hill Road will be subject to the Tiburon Design Review standards and the policies set forth in the Tiburon General Plan. These standards and guidelines, independent of the Tiburon View Ordinance, protect the rights of . adjacent property owners from view blockage by new projects and'require the Planning Department and Commission to consider the impact of a project upon 'neighboring views. . In addition, any variance required from the strict provisions of the Tiburon Ordinance, as was sought and obtained for approval of the d~velopment at 83 Round Hill Road, will, and would necessarily, require a demonstration that "the granting of the ~ariance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity." Under these considerations, impact on neighboring views would be considered. Thus, not only under the Tiburon View Ordinance but also under the Tiburon Design Review Ordinance, Tiburon stan.dards applicable to variance applications, Generc;l Plan policies and the specific conditions attached to the, lot line adjustment, any proposed construction at 77 and 79 Round Hill Road will, by law, necessarily have to conform to the standards recited above. Under the circumstances, the contentions contained in your letter to the So:Enas' reaJ.tor that construction at 77 and 79 Round Hill Road will or ~ay "block all existing . EXHIBIT NO.(2.~ , p. I op.t? . . . .," ':",-':~\':'~: ':':::".:,>Y",::;: -_-::, _;::":-"-:"...~,.. .. :.::' ,:":~'::: .'.. ~:' :,: '<':;':;;,~~:.,::-;.:' '" ".,,":...,~;:;,';,~,.' ; ,,,,.,,.-,': Mr., Carl 'July 22, Page 4 Weissensee' 2004 views" from the 75 Round Hill Road property appea,r.s to be an inaccurate statement as to the conditions that" are attached to development of 77 and 79 Round Hill Road. To be certain, my clients intend to vigorously assert their rights as citizens of Tiburon to the full observation of the Tiburon Design Review, General Plan and variance ordinances and the lot line adjustment conditions that were previously attached to the Ibt split. It is strongly suggested that you not make any further threatening and/or misleadlng statements concerning the attributes and characteristics of 75 Round Hill Road which might jeopardize the Sofnas' attempts to sell their property. . Peter B.. Brekhus PBB:mjs Enclosure cc: Charles & Dale Sornas - via fax 5ofnas/lt~!weis3cnsee.OJ EXHIBIT NO. /2.- p, 8" OF~ LATE MAIL #E!1 pgTER a. BREKH us I:J.IZABETH BREKHUS C.\JWLINE C. JOACH!M PeterB. Brekhus & Associates 1000 DRAKES l.ANDING ROAD GR!~ENBRj\E: CA .94904.30::'.7 rACSIMILE: (4l)) 461-735 (415) 46] -I no 1 ,-;-. ATTORNEYS AT LAW September 13, 2004 ~~.~~ E; (; ~E:'~ \#' T!:. D *** VIA HAND DELIVERY *** ~:i E. ;'.:~ A ;). (~Q [J ff Members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 1:'LAHi,JINC:; DI\,JiSIOH TOWN ()\-: TlBLH~OH Re: Application for Design Review Approval 79 Round Hill Road APN 58-301-17 and 35 (DW) Dear Members of the Design Review Board: This office represents Charles and Dale Sofnas, owners of 75 Round Hill Road which is located irrunediately adjacent to the subject property, 79 Round Hill Road and the property owner most affected by the application. .' Our clients have reviewed the application and the story poles constructed by the applicant, The Sofnas have no objection to the applicant's general desire for development of the property, but they do have a right to expect, and respectfully, demand, that the process should be regulated in such a manner that will ensure that the purpose and criteria of the design review process is upheld. The Sofnas presently possess a well-framed view of Richardson Bay, the Belvedere Lagoon and Sausali to. (See phot'ograph attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The proposed construction blocks what is referenced and cataloged in the view guidelines as an important obj ect, i. e., the Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito. EXHIBIT NO. P. l3 . [if(P foresno Of'(iec - !l.i5 N Vall N,~~~ Avcn\l'~, rr(:,no, Cnlifolllia ~)372U . . . Members of the Design Review Board September 13, 2004 Page 2 The record reflects that various conditions were attached to the lot l.ine adjustment granted by the Town of Tiburon on December 13, 2002 with respect to the subject p,roperty, 79 Round Hill Road. (See Notice of Decision, File #60203, attached hereto as Exhibit "B.N) With respect to the Town's consideration of the lot splits, the Town noted that; "[alny home constructed on these lots have the potential to create view and privacy impact in greater proportion than would normally be the case ..N Given those facts, the applicant was advised that, "[t]he town staff will be closely scrutinizi~g future site plan and architectural review applications for the following elements: any application filed for site plan and architectural review for residence at 79 Round Hill Road (APN 58-301-35 and 37) and 81 Round Hill Road (APN 58~30l-l8) will be expected to desiqn and locate the residence to reasonablv minimize view blockaqe from existing res,idences at 85 Round Hill and 75 Round Hill Road. The applicant has now submitted a plan for the design and construction of a residence at 79 Round Hill Road, which will completely block the views from the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road, in direct contravention of the conditions of approval for the lot line adjustment. The present applicant, developer Carl Weissensee, is well aware of those conditions that were imposed on his request for a lot line adjustment for 77, 79, 81 and 83 Round Hill Road as he is the developer who processed ,the lots for application. In connection to the approval for the lot splits, the applicant represented that homes to be constructed on the property would be situated so as to be served from Round Hill Road. The applicant also represented that the homes would be moved close to Round Hill Road. This is confirmed in the lot split application approval which specifically discusses variance to the front yard setbacks and a specific way to measure the front yard setback so as to accomplish the goal of keeping the construction of the homes out of, and/or minimize, view blockage from 75 Round Hill Road. EXHIBIT NO. f) r~ ~<f~' Members of the Design Review Board September 13, 2004 .page 3 -. Contrary to those representations, discussions and plans, the applicant now proposes to construct 79 Round Hill Road a considerable distance "down from" the frontage of Round Hill Road and construct a circular driveway down to 79 Round Hill, contrary to the representations and plans that the properties would be oriented and located close to Round Hill Road. This proposed al ternate driveway will also greatly increase the grading and earth disturbance of the site. This proposed driveway crossing a required to be circular in order to match greatly increasing the grading and earth site. steep hillside is ,the topography thus disturbance of the The Tiburon Municipal Code (the "Code") provides that the purpose of the design review proce'ss is: To ensure that the proposed construction complies with the Town's zoning requirements as well as the principles and obj ecti ves set forth in the Code. (See Code Se<::tions 16-4.2.1 . and 16-4.2.5.) In doing so, the design review board must apply the goals and principles set forth in the "Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines For Hillside Dwellings and General Design Guidelines for New Construction and Remodeling." (See Code Section 16-4.2.9.) Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Design Review Board "may' impose such reasonable conditions it determines are necessary to allow it to make the required findings and which insure that the principles, guidelines and standards will be met." (See Code Section 16-4.2.5.) Under the guidelines pertaining to design review, the Design Review Board "shall consider", the applicant's planned proposal for satisfaction of various important goals inc1"uding site plan adequacy, proper relationship of a project to its site that provides ,safe and reasonable access and will not. be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. (See Tiburon Municipal Code, Section 16-4.2.7.) These guidelines are not met by the present application. EXHIBIT NO. L3 ld, '3 OvCp . . . . Members of the Design Review Board September 13, 2004 ,Page 4 The design review criteria specifically referenced in Code Section 16-4.2.7 includes the following factors: (a) Si,te layout in relation to adjoining sites. The loea tion of proposed improvements on the si te in relation to the' location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The present proposal violates the "view considerations," not only referenced in the design review standards but also the specific considerations set forth in the approval given for the very creation of the 79 Round Hill Road lot. (e) Grading and Tree Removal. The extent to which the si te plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal' of trees, significant vegetation or other natural features of the site.... The proposed site now proposes to construct a long driveway to the site. (h) Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution.... It is believed that the proposed construction will produce inappropriate light pollution given its proposed creation right in the middle of the view corridor from 75 Round Hill. The proposal also violates the goals of the general plan which call for land use policies promotinq views and/or "quiet and peaceful" development and a goal that new development be "in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods." The proposed construction violates all of these provisions, directly impacts the views for 75 Round Hill Road, which under the specific approval given to create the subject lot, ought to be recognized and respected. EXHIBIT NO. [3 ~, '-l op(p Members of the Design Review Board September 13, 2004 Page 5 . The proposed application also violates the Town of Tiburon's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. As indicated, these guidelines were developed from information' and decisions made at numerous hearings of the Tiburon Board of Adjustments and. Review (Design Review Board, Planning Corrunission and other discussions). 'As such, the guidelines recite that they represent a "cdnsensus of opinion" designed to help developers create new dwellings in a way which will be "harmonious with the existing fabric of the Town of Tiburon." They further note that if the designer wishes to discard them entirely, "it should be for good reason and the result should be one that will enrich the various patterns of Tiburon." The guidelines are used "as the basis" upon which Board members make design-related decisions'. Among the guidelines are three over arching goals, one of which is to preserve access to views. The first principle of this goal is to locate all new dwellings so they interfere "minimally" with views of adjacent dwellings. (See Exhibit "C" . attached hereto.) The proposed construction and siting of the home interferes with this goal and principle. The proposed construction is also at odds with Principle no. 3, copy attached as Exhibit "D." This principle ~andates that views be preserved "as much as possible" within reason and that the developer and architect of a new dwelling must "work together" to obtain the best solution between slot views, view quarters and panoramic views noting that "the slot view" is just as important to the person who owns it as. the 360 panoramic view to its owner and that the slot view can be obscured by just one tree or poorly cited dwelling. The goals of the corrununity of Tiburon are best served by requiring the applicant to adhere to the goals and conditions adopted by the community governing development of single family residence homes. . Since the proposed construction project is contrary to the criteria set forth in the design review section of the Tiburon Municipal Code,' the application as submitted should not be approved. EXHIBIT NO. [3 f 50pG . . . . Members of the Design Review Board September 13, 2004 Page 6 Alternatively, appropriate conditions need to be attached to the proposed construction in order to adequately address the Sofnas' view concerns and uphold the purposes of the design review process. ,~ We ask for your thoughtful review and consideration of this request. Peter B. Brekhus Enclosure cc: Charles Sofnas PBB:amo sofn~s/ltr/design.review.Ol EXHIBIT NO, 13 1(, G, of&> 09/15/2004 15:10 ~~~ 4154357205 TI BURON FIRE LATE MAIL # F 4 PAGE 02 TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT . 1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TELEPHONE: (415) 435.7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205 lICHARD PEARCE, FIRE CHIEF TO: TIBURON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Sept. 15,2003 FROM: Ron Barney, Fire Marshal C/K2.'/E, RECEiVED RE: 79 Round Hill Road SEP I 5 2004 PLI',NNlt'JG OIVI~';i(J~~ TOWI" 0"- TlrJur,ON The proposed addition of the residence at 79 Round Hili Road shall comply with the following requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District : 1) The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA std. 13.0. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. UFC 1003 . 2) Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. UBC 310 3) 4) Approved spark arrestars shall be installed on Chimneys. UFC 1109 Provide a "green bell" by cutting and clearing all combustible vegetation within 30 feet of the structure. UFC 1103 5) A "Jones' model 3740 fire hydrant shall be located on the street within 350 feet of the project along the lire apparatus access route. The final location shall be approved by the fire District. The fire hydrant shall be capable of flowing a minimum of 1000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure for a duration of two hours. UFC 903 6) The access road shown on the improvement plans is not of adequate width to allow for any parking outside of the designated parking spaces. If this is to be a public road then appropriate signs shall be installed to ' indicate the parking restrictions. If this is to remain a private access then enforceable CC&R's or deed restrictions shall be placed to maintain the araa fraa for emergency vehicla access at all times. EXHIBIT NO. H . p, l cF7-- I PROTECTING THE COMMUNITIES OF BELVEDERE AND T/BURON . . . 09/15/2004 15:10 4154357205 TIBURON FIRE It is our recommendation that this access road be given a separate name and that all homes served by this access use that new address. II should also be noted that the minimum fire flow for the new fire hydrant is predicated on the home under submission. If any of the remaining lots to be developed are to be larger in size the hydrant should be engineered to meet the ultimate development requirements. All access and water supply improvements are required to be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction, Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans. ,cc: file EXHIBIT NO. I 'f VJ '1.- OF z... r, PAGE 03 2 . c:' :"::..;'; c, t~')' '-I.~,: .1, ,(;, L.uG4 September IS, 2004 ~,~~:,;~.;~: g? -h)i~\~':~:j~:/ Mr. Danie] M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon ]505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Sight poles near 75 Round Hill Road Dear Mr. Watrous: As you suggested when we spoke on Monday, I am voicing our concerns over the height, limitations of a proposed home to be constructed on Round Hill Road. As I mentioned, if the proposed home being built does NOT stretch beyond the current height of the sight . poles now in place, our view will not be obstructed. However, if the current sight poles are not true to the proposed homes actual, height, and built above the current sight poles, including but not limited to any proposed chimneys, peaked roofs/attic spaces, roof top balconies, our view WILL definitely become obstructed. In which case, we would likely object to any obstruction to our present views. We would appreciate keeping abreast of any height changes the developers may propose, and welcome open communication with the developers should it become necessary. Thank you again for you help and assistance. lihi: incerel '. '.. t , ~t0 ~ Ill- Debra K. Despues Michael R. Harrison 2 Round Hill Terrace ~.- . EXHIBIT NO.JS- . TIlL rlBURON LAND COMPANY 75 RDUV'vott-tLlL RDC1ol, nbUYDlfIv Nestled in an Oak-studded meadow with gently rolling hills that shape the coastal Tiburon landscape, this custom designed home is the perfect blend of California style and contemporary livability. The house is clad in natural Redwood siding, complimenting the large lawns and grassy knolls that fall into vistas of Richardson Bay. The graceful floor plan offers large social spaces and a main floor master bed- ~m suite. The convenient location is close to schools, tennis courts, bike paths, .e Tiburon Peninsula Gub, Library and shopping. . Formal Living Room with tall French Door leading to the gardens Open Formal Dining Room Designer Kitchen with elegant vertical grain wood cabinets Separate Breakfast Room Large Family Room with Italian tile floors and fireplace Four bedrooms and two baths including a large main floor master suite Powder Bath Hardwood Floors Laundry Room Two-car Garage For Sale, $2,195,000 ',1\ lei C (,I][1C11 /ltlurJle) '13rnker 4":'-.-;7:'~ Dil\ id '-;ell\\ e1r!z A,SI1Cl,l1c' 'Bl[)ker -1-;:'-.' ,-I:' III Bc'ileh RUlld. TlhllrUI1 l'/\ l).\9~ll jlbllll'lll,1l10 CUIll EXHIBIT NO. l (p p, /DFfL{ ('- 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 . Marin Independent Journal June 7,1988 Firebrake Saves House In Tiburon From Blaze Marin County Fire Department Guideline For Fire Safety, As Quoted in this Marin Independent Journal Article: 1. "Remove dried grass and brush a minimum of 30 feet from the house or farther, dependinq on circumstances." 2. "Remove all tree branches within 10 feet of the qround". Tiburon firefighters said the firebreak may have saved the Sofnas home Sunday when five acres burned behind Reed School. . Sofnas, in the eight years they have lived there, sometimes cuts the grass beyond their property line. . , Tiburon Fire Chief Franklin Buscher said the Sofnas house was the only one in the area with the 30 foot clearing the department has requested. . EXHIBIT NO. I'to P 2 OF { Y ....'" - ~-" t I.": :;: ~ 0;;...2 - ~ 'C '.l ~~",: E. ...c = '7 :t - ~, '-' ~ '.:>- --:: :~-.?~, ~ ~",-::; {..T~a.,....., ::0 'i: :r.~~~}~0f 1'!:i ~!i'; ~;' ,'~,~,",-<./. !:' ,.=,=.,~,~?>",.: ~;,., ::: . . Hijg.;;:( .:::..=. = ./.:. ~8'~.H ;,~ 1=.!B -~...' .;..;,,, ':;'.:- :""-, , ~ . ~ 11::,: {E E-c ~~ ~ ", 'F. 1:, ec.C -- 3:'0 ......, - "',; .::::g ,::::: : P. "-c { ~ t" ~'~.>' ~ ~,-:: '~~-~ ~_.~i; .~~'~ ~':~'1 (tj,::;: ~ .~'::: g :~~i ..'::5' .tt'.s-"t~ '1 ....::: ~ - @l ..=: :.-: ~.'i~':' ;:;; <1) ~ ~ ~ ,i.,.~ :t: ~~;,~:,~,:~" Q.! ~.- =' l-< ~?-:~,p,~. liUt I <':l ,..".-.....- ~f~:, 1~:~I , ' , ! "L I~jj r~;: i:.i.. ":; c ';5> ,.~.~- ...~ ;..>-, "- ~5 ::-.: ~ '," " > ;'1 I , to:: ...: r::.... 'n I ;>.,r:""";:: ::: cu :: ~ .~ E =: ~ ~ -: .: ~-~ .~~_~ ~~~ -.E ,=.=~ ::: E ~c.:.. ~:.; '1:.2 co. ~ =. . -.... '.;:;;..., - tl _~ ~ S,,' ... ,!.?~. '-' ... .- ::'- r.; u~ .- -'" 2:'~ ~ I - 3 g J. ":. ~ ~ 'J. ~~ ~:, ';. '2 ~ ~, E-:;:: ~ .... - _ ~ <<l .... <1J ~ I ;:, .... ;" ~~:.;;'~ ~~ ~ ~ n .I.~U _ _.:L~g:::g=.w...._ _ ,"'_ .~ 1~~ I ~4~ lUlU"" ~l ", ~n ~!il!fl.t !l!TIl 'f, ~ 'f,'- -C"'C::L~' of, 'l i: G.i ~ _ ~~. <J,o ~ ::..:::... j _. z ;,,; ~t ~ C ~ ';:: 'f, .. t <0 :1.>.2 ~ 1-.2'"", ., r,~">,, ::" " ~ ~ < _ . - "'l ~,.~~"":; .~ r. .- -, ~ ,~~ I... ... ~ ~ _ ,: _ ~'~H~lUHn-_~.'; ... ~ - .- ...., - t-..:.: ~ ~ '" If ~~S t H ~Hi~t t~ OJ ~ t~:.~ ~ .... ~"='~.;;I~ ~'J. ;~H~ H ia,-;.~Iif,-.: ''"'2~.;~~'~- _c_ :f ;~j.~';,~~: S~~j.l~ :::~,~ 1.:::-=}~ :;::'~:::~~, -';'~ ~- .- (I' ,-- .:: .c<o~3:':' ::;l"O ;.. C ... G 2';1;-:= R 'J> 5..:::':::~ p:::::: ~::: ~ o.';::Vc tH;i '; ~ @~~ 7.l ... ::L - Q.J :;t~;:; ::= d"" o.;,;.;e Hlnl ..:::. ... ::: ~ ;..' ~"'._"~~.~ .' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0> U)o> :], N oeo ..c: - .Q U)i o>E >0 cal- U)III4- ~t: caO 0>1- 1-:] ..0:9 0>1- l- e: - - .~.;: (1.>:';\ .,- -~ ~~~ ~ ,I: ~1: ~~E ~E :;; - .~'-: -0 .... 'J' 1:~ _ ..c :::~ :'lS-:: ,~l'_k o so. <l> ?.~:: ~.:g ;. ~ ~3 ~(~ "," ~ (l)"':" - - ~7: 2!.S..~ ~~~~ t,f;.;: :1 ,I "-I ~1 :::1 '::1 3i ~I .S -, ." <; ::l :-, ~ ; -~..2'~ ,..~. Q.J mmm i~~ i' '"" Q,J " ,: - !_, l~,-,'"..~:.=_~;~,: ~ ~i!. - ~...:- - -- ~;s..t ~lrH"'~ ~~ --c " :Ii -' "=, ~i .- LL ..... +~ i ::J _-:1 .- ----.--' '" " ffi " -0 ~...4l ~ E ;~,:.:~ , - o uo ~ "' Q. c o 5 ~ i= .S " uo :> o '" ~ :iii € B uo -". ro '~ .~~ 0- " " ~i " , '-:0'" ..c'- Q,J . i,~E ~'~~- ~i~i "',Q,J'" E'--;~ i~ ~ ...}::: Q.J :-:I ::;..:<: ~:;;: ~ ~ ~ c == ~ ~ ~.g~~ ... .....:::: c-: 0. UJ v, '1.- " 1 >- <Il ..., c: o uo 'uo " uo ~ '0 rJ) " '" f- , \ ! i J... (1) .... ca ~. tn CI :.s2 Ci .- J... "C , ...... ::s d .c ca en J... co (1) ..... ~ ~ -::: :::,~ : g.: , tl.~ "-~~ .t ~ ~ ~';:: '] ~ ~~ ~~H~ 'e'~~ ;'.: "";::-,.C'-':::: u~n ......."- ~ - '~. ?= :5-- ""- II o. ;'" eN, ...;.;:, ~\ 0'" '7.. fL-4 I': ~,' ...... ~S9r ~'ii i$t:11", ! i I \ " o ~ 1(0 ;:-: 'I. ... 'I. ~1~ ~ -::::::: ,., - -:.- L ;;; = ~ ~ '"C ~ ~ 'E. ~ :;;, t" '::I,~ 'I, ~ =~ t :i: 'l> ('; ,~ ~"~ ~ ;: ~~~~ ........:<: - :.=: -c ~ '~..s :. -;: " - ~.~ (/) (1) (/) .- ca J... " ;2~ 'r, :1. ~'~I iH ~ "7::: .cq;. -3.~ ~~-'11! '.- t:' <fl 1'~~ 2 c a.J ';;- ~ t~. ..:::....c5. ~: i-:: ~ ~i~,.s' ~,Ui ..c (,) C CO Ii.. "'l.. o .- en ca (,) .- Z o fj "3'-:' -, .',':'0,_1 ~ ,;; -" . -::: ::: .~ '~'I. ::; .;; : ';:: -:::- .~~ - ~ ~~~~~ 1~~~ .,. -U ~ ~'1'~ ~U1imn -;;:: ~ -:.;}~ i:..c...- ~ ;~1;: ~~ :"~_';-_~ ': ~ ~ ~I ~ .; -= "' . . "to ., > ' _ 0 .E:""5. r,--- ^ , .1 S ~i. ..~ - CO en c: .- c. E ::::J o ~.3; ,. s .s.-:: g. ~ 'S ~ ~! z: ....~.~_ , ~ ...;:; '.. ..~-= '~',~.;: ~,.'::'--;;." "3 ~ ~.~ ...,-_. 1: .J ~, ,~~ .. ::-: i '" ,~~ ,.'- :o! ;; -:::-=-~ - .. ~ =:; ~r ..... ._ 'ol ~~! ,~~ ~ - --- ;.-, ~ :'; C~I ~ -~ ~ :~. .' ~ ~ 'f. " .;:., ~ 'l..... g'-~ , '.." -.' - - - ~. ,,'~: ~ ~ 'r '. f. " - .- .:; ?: .... - <":- - -. :i: - i= _~ 7 " .~ ';" .' -=- 7. .. -;: J " " ;:2ED~~'t~--~."~::~~':~~'::~';"'-C'C~: -:"":'''''::',Jr' '. \, . -."Mi\T,ii'liid~j;E!iiilt;'fil'""JourniilTiiiiid]Y:-JUne I, l~tI1I.-rr'" ,-..-- '---'-"""-'.--" -.---..... - ..__..~--- " :....,..,;:.".,\,.,. TN11Y;:- "h . .:. ..:;!. , .~:, I... ., :':~~,f,:-.:':. " .._n__.__._._______._..._ .-......------. .~- -----=,--"-.. '," ....c.;,.i_ gS'~i1L Valley plans -d~.myed; -tr-affic-'studies-.-ordered' - - - ---- -Oo... -- . ~ . ::;';:;:.i'~":'~ii:;i'Ill'Il"il:.r'r,r"llP Ihat I""" Ill,,1 ~ . r.;i'h~ '.DrLll~ !,tMe !:OIIlld <'T"d(, 11\" SIlO"))' '. Il,i,wl1'tllllr"\:',"I ,',1 Mill Vall{,~' w<>n "Hitit' ...... '"..: ;l",inls'M"",lnv ....,1"." 1.1". City C,,,mcil or. 3._. rl"".dn",!('lr:;ffl"'ll,,j,,,,,,I1.h"I'I',,i,<<:1 t ""1,.,,,I,,,,,,,lll,,. .\1\11 V;oIl"I' (',,,,,,,,,,,,;1\ )0..... ,:,,,,,"':;'Ii.,,, 'l'a.'li,,,,,..III:,q\, 1'''''i''''li'H;~' . ", " ....1",11 dd"'(:I'"dla:.1 w,.'..~ I" 110., """". )W... -'~...': ':iI,. ,\'h;,:I1. "''", l"ki"l: ;t-; nt~' i""l; ;01 Ill" . : ";j~tf'HJI~.!I",'d h,r 11,,'.1'''''';'''' H,.,I 1 ':111. :.1,." . :'.:rr"::, ...'i;.~!:!, :~\Ii;k~'''' 1:1" h,'d"", 1\1 ':"(/". ~:'d'", 'j' I...; ',II,I,rH)~hl' ~,qll'-'llIl,,', 1".1",,' '. b" ",Idi, ''''I l(';rrt,':;i'" .,'~.."- r"~""rdl'~ 11I'I,h,'Ii. ;..-,,,...I'''i: I" 1'''''1:' "~~fr'k;! f[i~~:,!.fJr~')\~r.~.J'" '''I.id 110.. d,.I"," did ,,. ,I '11.1" ,.~., ",' 'If#1 .i1~~(" "".'" ,., .,. . :':~fjL1;'i. '.' . . ..... ". '. . . '. '.' . ~::';':"l.:c;a.li!or.njas-..Janua.rY-M.[iY.esJnQun~, Y.:--'~': ,:,-::...--,-~_._."":,___,,_____,-,,_,_,,,-__ . '. " I ',:.. .' .... " '.' '",:,:: , ',;,..,,, ..",;iil "",) . .. I\"i" '"I"I~ "" r . It" ',' I \,..,,,, 1"" ,nrl "",1,' ",,,,,'>1 ,.I'''Ll' .::,"., I"'" a' 1':;":,\\ :1: ~'" ,. 1';,1'., '''~: "I " ., ,", ""1.,, ,I".", ,I 1',.,..1,,,,,,, ". "t".,.,. "1"10", ''', "I..", ..1... 'hdl ".'; ':,1,.. 'I"" ',', ,,,,,., I"" .c".. '~.",,,,,Iil" I,. \\'""dl""d ;'.1:. H:"'~.' '"d,;', """h,'" I,,,, I,"';"" ",,; . . ,,01 .'- . 1:-; ~;:' " 1;,,1 ,... I ", '.'",,, "I' I II" . 01 r ;\'1'1', I '" ".", I ,. ,,' "" I",,, L.., \1.11\ .\)"1,, Hy Mllllrn'l'hul"nlon ~~~!~'!~!!.d~i!~~~,"" I::r__~ 1:1':' '-''.',:",'1,,1, .,,,,! 'I... ".11 ..,',,1[,1,.. ...11, ,.,j,,'''''' "1'''''' ".",;", . ,,;,' .1,0:11". :.;".. ,"."" .,1,1, .,: ...,,' ,\1'..,.. ,.,.1:...".,., '''." """., "'" 1"",It" ,..I :,,,,1\ Ii,,,.'. .1"" '\\.",;[;II""":dl"..,,,::I., ",",""1"'" "I",,' ,\:",."",;,;,,,1,1..),.,,1'1'1,,,,1'...," '1"",,01 \\"'11\1"1",,,,,,,11"" ".;:"1',,,.,1.,,,,:, 1{,,,,,.,.li"I,,.1 ,I." .."",.01 ""..'..1"';.;1" 1"'1"",.".""",1' 1,,,d,.,.I,, ",I,., , ",:"'."\'''\' 11"'n' "Wo' d,d;~'1 Ihi,,11 11lf'l'e'd I,.. " d('I'i~il\ll" ' I~'~.'I' lh"'wh WI: Ih"lIl~h( woe \"Hlllo"" nUT 1)('~1 1.0 n"~"'I" ,,111.1ll> '1,,,';;I.j"Il;;," ""ill Mi:' dlHrl [1""1,,,1. ...,,1 "~",I" "'''IH'~'~I' r"T .' I.h"~', "I~"..... w.' h,,~o'. ~",,,,. ~I',.<"jl;n' .....1' I',,,, 1~':1 In WOl'~ 011:' IJo-IC''''ll,who~l",h.h'T(h''Il"",,(..int.in'': '''';Illh,: I~H'''P Wa~ '."1 i,h,.d I hOlt I),.. "'''lOu.1I 1\'1,.,,,.<1 I" il:..I''''''''''''', 'o,~: ::.':;, ii';::: '",';, I '~~;";,,;:.' ,[,\":,: ;~r "::~::::.,\ I~.? :'1',;" ,,,id, '1'1,.. ::',,, 'I' },w' I, "'~ II I II", II" >I" ,..i., I ,It, ,~. ,',,'" ~"t1." I"" ""." n'),,'" H."I 1:,,,.1 "I"T~('I d",.d ,Ii:,', :": ~t."..~ )."""1".,,. ;,.", I),nl 1.1", ' ','''H' ",,,,,111 <lr;,ill ~,11,', ff"ll' Iowal,Tl\('r., .1'''' \1:.."""""1\1.,1"",,,,, 1",1""""""",'"..1-'0,,,,,1.. \""''''''''''''''''''''1".".,1,1"'...,,;,,,' ",I,.,,', ,."""1,1,, "",,,"'. .,,,,, ""1,,,","'" ,l'",,,,, .J""!",,,',lh,.I. "I,.,';:' ''1'1",.1.' ..."I.I..I,,,.\1..,i,',- 11""'''',1"..,,,1.. .."I ,..11"". '''~ 1"""""""''':1'''''' \"" ".1", ,.I." ,. II ,",' ~ ,,, ,,,10.,,,,,1'" I,,' "".\"" " I", ;",,1.., 11;1",'" \",,1..., ....1". "",1,1"",..1 ."Ii, 1"1 ., ,IOn"" , I e-'''--' ._..m____......... .....___. . ...__..._m_ .... ... . .....- \'!Firebreak saves house 'Iin Tiburon from 'blaze h,l:'li,':. hat.!::.::. .~ B.~ J\'IlH!i" l\:In) -' ~. , ;lul.' 11,,,.,,,', .[ ::I::'~ I,.: \\'!,.." Ii,., I, 1'\cl,'I. ..,\\,,1: ""'1 11:0'\'" "',";11',..I",.',I'"I.:\I,,,,,.,,,,llh;'IO,\,',I,,,,',,,, h, " II' . " "I" II ; i ,,,' " n' ,!" ..:, 1 I' n.-~" 1.-"", I " 1t.'I" " '11,;11,1,11,['1,,,, ,1,,,.,-1,.,,1,,1,,;.,1;"1\"<1.':',,, ; 1",,1 "[..,.",,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,1111,.10.,,,,, '" ,;',1:.; II ~~:~ ',"~" ~ ':,' !' 1 'I'II,:\';,',~ ,,,~: ~~', ~, ,:,1,'::, ,~\~', ',I.~' ; ;';1, '''''', 1""."..,1 h,.hi"d H"..oI ~C'i"",l. Fi,,, \,~h"", h,.I" . ,. ,'1" I'".. "."; ,.,,,,.,.,1 I,,' "''''''. ....""'1'''1<'>- ..";,(,,,,, ,n II". ,.i~l" 1:'."._ '>"" : \ >i' ::,..,,~ '\\',.',,,,,, I. ".,I~',," ' ..1,',ld'."l:" " .1, " ,~.". ';"1''''1'' ,1d'\,,:';h,' ,,'h.,I,'-""'I"': "1'\\""'1\". "''". I"., I,., 1"",.1 !,,,....,,,,.rI """'1"'1.' n( ,.. ",1,.,,.1 ,Lo"..' ,..,.I 1o,.,,~L "II' ,I":,,., I ".,,, I ""d,.".j"I"'<I 1;",,\ ';:"'''1:, 1,,1.....1 '1' ,I... !." ";;,j"\\'"ii,I""I""!;,,,'I:,,I:'" ,,,,""'.'.', ':'-~;-;-'F';;"";:'.~-;.,:':':,:-'Ii ',', " ..r.... .<.or-: t111""'" .,..r':"",;,"Io'. ;.,....,. ";;11\\\,,,.1;,' lilllfIW;" ,,~ ,,,m\;in;,'OjI' .,,1,.1, ,.,..11 ."lidd,', _,,',,1,i';,,~ 1'1""" ""'f"""""I';'1I.,.,,!>I, 'l'il"""lll',r" "1111'1 -._"iI ,\,," :~.,ILt,'". I", Ih"""."":.ill"I,,, . I" ~ , i """ Il. h.,.. , I '" "'..il"""..I: "1\",1",.",<1 .ion:'I"", h.", li'I"'I,,.,' ",.",."".<,,,,,\"1"'"'''''' 1I.,h:>,1g"""ll'"'''' .,,'1' \\...,Id ;~;: >:: :\';;:' ,':;: ~ ", ":,\ ''! 'I ':0' .'". ,,,.1,,, . .Io-,,';"~ L!... '''''.' ".," "I I, 1,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,.,..,:,,::1,,\"....,.\1.,,,,,' 1..."";,.li,, I'.",,"'" .,111;,1\1\,"'\0"'" ,h,',1". 1"'Ll"'" , .....',.'.-," . ~-~.._~~.:."--:~, ,'::";; .,,,.,, ',..'.. 11, " 1:,,' ~ f'" '" a I" , "I, \ i , , '. ,., L1' I I -: , . II h . 1 ':, r lu: i . ';"'1"""'"';''''''"''''' 10"Ih,'\-\''';IlC,,''"H' 1:"..I\"I,,,'i"'''''' "I, .." '''. , _ " <1..1",,,,1>1,. '''''.., ]i; ~'{,:,", "" ,,,,,,,,:;'I,,,,,,,I,,,,,"I,,.,;oi.l \\. ,t I; :t ~:]ll .'HIi' ,~, "'" I',. "11 II... 1':lk'~ (:luh. . 1'.\,\1'"' :1,,.1 hi~ ,1,'1"" 1"".,,1 h'''~'l'r''p'Hrd II '"""i"",<' ,,1,,1,. 1"";'1',"" Irn "lar;'L. II V"'I'~ "1" I", I;". .;"Id" a''')'~'' I,,''''wr '''' "h.,,,, I.".""""" ,\\'i\dl'".,."."Io""I"I'T".<I"I>"TI. "';'"1:'11,',,,;,1. \\'1",1 "1,.\I.'.",:",,.....;lh. I<-,,'Ihini:',nm ,,,,,k,,;, I'arl"'rh,,id, "I", ..I"",I,il,,1 "",.1<1 "I .1,110-1"''''''.' ..I ;",' ;',"1 """,,':: ! I". I;,..' ~:II,," "\'" ",,,: . I;,. ",." ,. ,II ;,.. I ~~ r a"'; : .,\\; I "'" II ;L 'n i;1 ;.' """" ,,::l., 1',.,., 1,.""'1111'1"""",,,'1<1,1\\.:,, '\"1"'''.1;,,;;,., '''''',I;I,,,'.'e . L '"",,,10-, pl",,1 '";: l:o~,~I,' 1;',""'''''__ '''''11,1;'''''''1.'''1".11'1''''1,."",,1,.,,,;1'''''1011 "','n 1...1' 1.".,1 11,11'"Ii_I'. "I 1'1,,"1'. . 1\""1' 'I". "".1 :"I,I.,,,,,:~,."'''' "Ili-III''-'' "",1_""".11.".__... . ~I,,,,,I."" ..1.,.""".-.' I,.,,,, Ih,' ,'himtlo:\' "I",,,,,,,:.I',,....,I,,,,,I.lb,'I,,,,,,,,,'dlo..',.lr. ""'I\,.,..I.I""",I,,,I\;'I\!"" "HI,,,\\"\,,,,I"[ '11,'r . 1.,,,,i\l' ,1i,,,,I.1 !","" \ I",'.firl' 1.1.,,,. ,',II ,."."".. . "n, ,,:.,1 ':,'11 i1\~ \",,"1 1'",,:1 ;'I"j- . \Ll; ,'.n" ,,,, "'~ ". h,.,,''': ,,,,,),1' ."... ,h,..I,il"'''':!I'.,,,.! nllmhp"."r<' , I,':orl" "",,1.,.,1 ,,;. ,'n"'I~''''''.'' ".hid,'~ . 1\""1' 1,1,\ I",'t "I ,;;If.l,''' h.",' "';1.11 1'"""""""",,"':"'.,il:1I11,' . If r"\lI"'-"I:~ 111l' '" :h,,,, ",,,,,1.1,,,1,,, .h..I"., ,,,,,I,, .",,,1,,1',.1 _.,i.! to". .",,'1 h'l\~ ..Ih, ~1,i'lI,lr'. n\\'"i,.I' 1..."11,,,,;: I"."k.., . I~,"n"" ,':' ,.... """,1"." .\\ ;,h: I I" 1""."11,,":" '''' 1'I"..il,I,' '"" ..,,'.111:\1.1, ':'1,,,,,,,,,,\,, ,I>,.\IM':' "il',,'I'"'''''''' ..h'IIlI"md 'tq:'I" Ilwl.ll ",,,Ial"'. n" 1'1;"1 '''III' 1'"1,, Ie., d,'~'~'''11 ,,, , ,,'.. "I~' ," ,II hll~II,,~,J ..., , '''. , ,\ 1""I'.I;;,;lt'.h"~r:"~ ".. .(\,,, ;""i.:<.1 pfl ,',,,\,., \ II,,, ;., "'l~....il',: . 'h.,' ". i; "I ,,' ...,.1...,.""" ,u..1 j,.~.. : 1\ l1"lI':' '::11'. I ".. 'I ~I,. ,,,]. i, ,,""" 1 , i ", ,.." I"" d; ,n1' I, I' I, ,,~ s", ':' "I '" I ,., I,"" ,..": ~ 1\, I""I"'''',[''(''I'L'. , 1'1... I 'I",,,.,"~ ('"t1\llt''';''''' """ ,! '.: ; '" :l1'1"",..,I\1'I"'"j",'I'\''':'':;:",,;,,,:,,:,,'''II1:ot """;"1'1'""1"01,..,1"""",,,,;11,,:),,,.'''' ,I<,-,,,,,.,,,,,,,.!,,;I' :<I,\":,.I.LI,, .,qll' "...,.<lI..,.,',,,k.,III>..I...."\.!, ""1""_1.,,,,1..,.,1,,,,,,,-1,..,,,,; 1'(I\,.\";",;""'1.,.",,,,,<1;,il ""I");",'d,,,,.,,'\<.I:lII,,,,':\,,, 1\ ~ rI",'i~i"~1 -:"~ lb.". 1''''''''1 i:d 1'.", 11",'..id \111:1111..,.:.,'.'...,:.... " I ,. " " .' ~ " I,' ,,' . \ ,.., "d',,"',"(""""". ",:-,1\,,, H'I."",li.kllh",I,,,..,,:,, "., ..', I'" L.' I ", ,," '.'" I ~L'. ii, ';1 '1; ~ \ \', ' ,011,.. , , ' ' , .., ,. "", , . ~ ",.I;', """".'>"""\1,.".. ,'.,!I,..:',I,',,'" , :" I ~ ..I .'\ I:, ,'", ('" \ I . ., " 1." '. "" ' "".,,,,,,',:1,, 1'",,'\," ,\\,.'.",.."",.,:,., "",I,'" ".I""","'.J'"I''' .,..11.:,"",.,1..,111..""" i'"l"""" "" ('''''II",\inv I1LL~illl'~"'~, :'''<1,,,.;1 ".("'"1,,,,.; "]",,'il;,.,,I1\ IIdlfd.'"", ~,"'t,;,',~,"MIl\~Hk.,lj'l\l.CUl~'lJC1""""'" I;.",~."",d dw ;Uhll~\'.'il' A\I'j'(~Il;'" ~),'Il' ,..;f,l.~ ,r.<,nl~:1 \,whid, ",mild 1~,' rnt1l":"I.~rl h,'. rl''' ,JrI\''''LL\:, '.~III(IIl'~ 'll~<I: "'illl..I<";II~ ''''.'' h"" \",llil',,,,,",hl'''fr''(l.tlwiu\,,,,.,erl,,,,;,,fl\,,h. r;:;;-(;:I;lo1 1':I'~II\I;llw,IAl~'"'~1\''''' ";'"1,,,, II,.. II<'''~ '1,"ffK "', tlo,' 'lnn~,' ' . \\',', 'L")'" n'"l'"".il:ilil~' 1(' 11"1 .., '\" ,"'.. " I"'" . ,'1 1.11,,1 ...".101 I Lll 1\ I h ",,:~ "I";' I., .1..,,,.,,, ,,,,'i;,,,..,,,"" __\Ii".'" 1;.".,1;, ..,,;,1 \ I".,.,,' \ ),'~: ,-:.p:",.""."",j .11 ~,.d .'''In! ,.,1."..,,,1...,, ",I", .-.,,,,,,,,,,1.1,, .,', II"." 'I.,,!, 7:;1~ ::I'\"~:' " :;,~'.' '\ ~;~"n:;',:~ 'i.il', ~'~::; .~':.~ ': :.~',:, I:" ;;;i :~':; ,,\',0' \\,,: "'",,'." h" ",,;'1 ,.... I il.",I,.;,."';" Id" :"'...1...-,,,10, i,.: >:~', ;'''''11.''\"" :'.'I"",."t, , L" " " :,. ,~ ,,,,-, II> .,,,,101,.,,,,,1:1,,.,,,",,1,, 'I'""i,'hl ",.\1 h'."." Ih>l'''\.-' "1,,,,1'. ,I'" .;, ,..Ii' .j,.,,, E~iHBlT ", ThcSotl':1<;~~ f,on'- Jay, ~,~Ik!> to their n~lJ"e in T.ibur"n'p<l~t hUfTl{:~ (He" . NO>,~,:~tl,o~.::.::'-- . (>, li(J:: II.( _..".~____._..__-i . . . ", 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Dave Gilbert, Tiburon Land Co. September 27, 2000 Advertisement In The Ark Newspaper Showing 75 Round Road For Sale This Year 2000 Ad describes 75 Round Hill Road having Water Views. EXHIBIT No.Ho p, 5 o~/Lf 8 F " . F o ~.- 0'" iLl <:>.. ~ Q~l ~.<: """'""tl E ~ ~ 0"" u " " , ..~ ~p ......." .... F "-'&31 o 'S i'~ .~, \. '" ~ . ..I. '0 E .:.c~ " ~~ ..8-g ... " " 0 o " I)';':;: ::; ~ " " +'" :~ roeS Z.2: il.I o a.-= c ~ ~~:t ;:J iLl ... 0 E9 :>> ~ ;; (-r'~ il.I ~ ..c';;: 'lJ c:i~d <.il.I iLl U o...!>t u... ~ c.: " '" .- ~ So oil ~~ ~.5 ,...I .... E ~ :2 5 !:! ~ " 0 a ~ !:! ~ co> Z~F'F _1: ~ ,...I... .:;... ....l'IJ....>o:=: 0:> il.I (";I " " - ~Zu3 C . ~ c c c c .... c .8 ;;l 0 8 ~ 8 c 0 c: ..D :J ::I ::I C C c 8 c :J ~ l c: P 8 8 ~ ..D ..D ..D ..D 0 8 ::l ..D 0 P P P P ::l :J ;;l ..D ::I P ..D ell ..D ..D ..D P ..D P if) ..D .S ~ -0 oJ P P P P oS P B 8 v E oJ ~ 1l ~ i of> 0 ~ ~ 0 ;3 ....l oJ of> ...J ~ '5. of> -B =a u of> .:.a u ~ .:.a ,; 'B ~ E .:.a ~ .... ~ u ::: 3 ::::I i:! ;;.. ~ "'0 ~ "'0 X ~ d.l '1: ~. ell p:: j ~ {l :> .:::1 0 -t- ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;l V"\ ::I > -t- 0 V"\ ~ ...... 0 -< ...... g:: N Q\ ~ r:IJ fB g:: N N Q\ lI'l "" ...... r-- N N ...... N r- ...... r") V"\ C C ~ 0 ;;.. c 0 .... 0.- d.l .... ::l ~ "-' c c 0 ;;l ..D "'0 - "-' .... 0 0 .... ..D F Q) ~ '", c: .... d.l .... .... ::l F 0 "-' "'0 ::l ::l ..D .8 S .~ .... ""2 "-' F .: .8 .~ f:l ;;l ..D ..D :.::l c: ;. F P d ~ ~ .'-.., ..D ;. ~ ~ "-' ~. p ~ d ~ ::I :::G ~ ~ ~ .:Z '" ~ ~ oj .- of> '€ Q) if) oS 0 if) E ~ '" -~ '.13 is "'0 ell '" ~ 0 ~ ell ] if) 1l) i! "-' ,.. ~ :~ z ~ ~ :> E J:S ... 0 '" ~ E -0 u .: "-' .... .3 '" .... ~ ~ ";; j ~ "'0 0 -:::l :> ;.- i:! c. p:: E-< ;:J ~ c:; u :> 0 .c:; ....... .u ce r:IJ ~ -< 6 p:: d:: o:l . ~ ~ r") ~ Q\ ...... ~ ....... N 0 f6 ...... r") "" r'"I ...... r") 0 ...... Q P::: N Q\ "T N V"\ ,r, ...... N V"\ ...... r- ~ ~ IlJ l^aJ J:i ....,.c - - ,.. "'^ . ., e,:, \. '~ . ~ .~aJ U ;0 c..' z.~ ell 00 . aJ e o .c .. .::l o ~ .- . . . Minutes Of Design Review Board Meeting February 8, 2001 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Application For Removal Of 30 Eucalyptus Trees Located Along Tiburon Blvd. between Neds Way and Lyford Drive At this Year 2001 Design Review Board Meeting, Leslie Dovle, 85 Round Hill Road, advised the Board that she liked the 30 Eucalvptus Trees and did not want them removed. (See Page Two of Minutes) EXHIBIT NO. I b f,l'6F/'-( Page I of 4 Charles Sofnas From: To: Sent: Subject: "Charles Sofnas" <info@coastpnntingequip.com> "Charles Sofnas" <info@coastprintingequip.com> Thursday, September 16, 200410:13 PM 30 Eucalyptus Trees mentioned by Doyle . !1!!R ://www.ci.tiburon.ca.us/Commissions/DRB/DRB%20Minutes/2001/m031501drb.htm 4. Tiburon Boulevard Reed School District, Tree Permit .On February 8, 2001, an application for a tree pennit was filed for the removal of30 eucalyptus trees, 4 oak trees and one pine tree on property located along Tiburon Boulevard between Ned=s Wa and Lyford Drive. This permit has been referred to t e eSlgn Review Boar or review. The subject tree pennlt has been initiated by the developers of the condominiums project currently under construction at 2-98 Ned=s Way (Chandlers Gate). The subject trees would block some of the views to the south for these homes, and the developer is proposing to remove these trees to open up the view for theJuture residents of these condominiums. Mark Chamberlain, Taylor-Woodrow Homes (Chandlers Gate), stated the trees would be replaced with myoporum, which were recommended by the Town of Tiburon and Reed School District. He believes the existing trees are unattractive and do not properly represent Tiburon. Additionally, eucalyptus are a fire hazard, messy, and dangerous to the school property, and the school district does not have funds to maintain them. Dan Morris, landscape architect, discussed the project, noting the proposal is to remove 500 feet of trees . along Tiburon Boulevard. They would be cut flush with the grade. This not a pedestrian-accessible area because of the drainage ditch. A one-for-one replacement would be made with 24-inch box myoporum, which provide a dense screen and are a large hedge-type tree that grow quickly to a height of 30 feet. The 24-inch box trees would originally be five feet high with a three-foot spread, with a 2.5- to 3- foot/year growth. The plants need little care and maintenance, and have a unifonn hedge quality. He presented a photo simulation which indicates the tree heights after ten to fifteen years. The stumps would be left in the ground because the area is hard to access and removal is unnecessary. Boardmember McLaughlin noted eucalyptus are toxic to the soil and must be totally removed to allow future growth of other plants. Mr. Morris responded the caps on the eucalyptus stumps are to prevent sunlight getting to the plant, and added, myoporum is from a similar area as eucalyptus and grow in the same type of soil. Mr. Chamberlain stated the stumps could be covered with mulch, and added the eucalyptus do not provide a noise buffer and sight buffer. A stump grinder is dangerous because there is not much area for it, and there is a cost issue of removing the stumps. Chris Darling, Hilarita resident and landscape designer, stated he opposes removal because myoporum is a boring highway planting and this strip is an important entry into Tiburon, and myoporum would be out of place next to the police station's oaks. Also, urban sprawl has developed behind the eucalyptus trees, and would be forever exposed without the trees. He asked that this item be continued to allow more public awareness of the issue. . EXHIBIT NO. fi lfo g Dr.-I L{ 10/5/2004 Page 2 of 4 Eunice McCarthy, 104 Ned=s Way, requested the noticing period be extended. One dozen trees were . already removed during construction of this development and some were removed by construction of the police station. Growth of the myoporum will take a long time and she would not like to have to see the . new units for fifteen years. Many trees on Tiburon Boulevard impact those who live above the street. The eucalyptus are precious to her, they supply her shade, and there are many good things about these trees. Mary Jane Wentz, Reed School PT A,stated there are concerns that the stumps will create gaps between the myoporum. She distributed a letter from a parent at Reed School. Leslie Doyle, 85 Round Hill Road, said she has a son at Reed School, and she likes the eucalyptus. She read a letter from her son. She distributed a petition, and added, in gathering signatures for two hours, no one wanted to lose the trees. The myoporum would not be tall enough. There needs to'be a visual barrr;;;:- around the school and play area. Eucalyptus are a wind barrier and very important for shade. No trees will allow noise and decrease privacy. The eucalyptus could be maintained and trimmed. The oaks could be maintained for an attractive corridor. lfthe eucalyptus are cut, the stumps cannot remain. She would want to see a landscape plan. Haig Harris, 46 Lagoon Road, Belvedere, stated his neighborhood was impacted by the vegetation removed by the Belvedere drainage project, for which there was little notice The Chandlers Gate project creates noise, dirt, light and reflection, and removing the eucalyptus will compound these problems. He understood that the trees were first promoted, by the developer, as a screening for the great bulk and mass of this project on the hillside; now the developer wants them removed. Five hundred feet of eucalyptus is not going to create an Oakland fire, as suggested by the applicant. The trees must be cared for and the openings of the current tree stand should be filled in. Removal of trees will only benefit . . those who live in the development. Vickie Torto, Hilarita Apartments, stated the manager of the Hilarita no longer favors removal of the trees. He was told four to five trees would be removed, to which he would not object, but removal of 34 trees should be discussed with Hilarita residents. Hilarita residents oppose the removal. The trees provide screening from the exhaust on Tiburon Boulevard and stop some of the dirt from the cars. Children at the school will be faced with more noise, more exhaust and less shade if the trees are removed. She felt that the town is being sold off, bit by bit, and its appearance proves this. Stripping the nature of the town is extreme. She does not want to see.the school exposed. Julie Tantem, Cove Road, Belvedere, stated she also opposes the removal of the eucalyptus. The trees are mature and beautiful. All trees are messy. These need to be maintained. All tre~s are flammable and this area is not similar to the Oakland Hills. She did not want to see shade removed from the school grounds; these trees are important to the children. Eucalyptus are a long distance from buildings and are not a hazard. Myoporum shed year-round, the leaves are toxic and should not be in a children=s area. The children love the trees. Valerie Boyd, resident, stated, the parents were not asked about the Reed School District approval of the tree removal; if so, they would have been uniformly opposed. Removal would radically change the school. Shade, sound, and visual barriers would be removed. Families use the shade on weekends They do not want thick trees around the school; this would create a security risk and should not be allowed. The Town should solicit opinions of residents. _Valerie Bercam, Belvedere, asked what the trees will look like when planted, and added she would like o see visuals, including a one-, five and ten-year view. Regarding the photo simulation of trees and the EXHIBIT NO. I b 4}, q OF-llf 10/5/2004 yage j or '! hill as shown by the applicant, the view toward the development is different. Chris Carter, Superintendent of the Reed School District, stated the Board agreed to have the trees cut . down because they are a safety issue in that eucalyptus could fall on the child care center or the playground around Reed School. There isa concern about fire to the child care center. The district has no budget to continually trim the trees. Rita Burgess, 55 Rolling Hills Road, stated the eucalyptus are a sound barrier and wind break. She hears traffic on Tiburon Boulevard and without the eucalyptus, will hear more. She does not want to wait ten or fifteen years for screening. Boardmember McLaughlin stated he reviewed the application and there were deficiencies. He had asked for more definitive information, including the number of trees and planting location schedule. The developer is continuing to work to find a solution. This area is an entry to the downtown and if the trees are removed, there will be a view of the school and the new development. He has discussed possible solutions with Taylor-Woodrow. Efforts have been made to look at the project as a corridor, which would involve removing the eucalyptus, replacing the trees on the Reed School side and matching them with trees on the other side of Tiburon Boulevard. Taylor-Woodrow suggested full-grown trees could be planted. He discussed this issue with the mayor and Town Staff, and after these discussions, he would like to suggest giving the applicant a continuance to provide a reasonable planting scheme, to be reviewed with the Reed School District and Staff, to address both sides of Tiburon Boulevard, and to return to the Design Review Board with a new concept. The mass and bulk of the Chandlers Gate development will be evident for a period of time, and 20- to 30-foot trees would be the maximum height. Chair Smith said he had noted 23 separate criticisms of the proposal at this meeting, to whichhe agrees . with many. He would like to explore options, to take time to ensure a better result from this application. He would like to hear more about improving the other side of Tiburon Boulevard. Boardmember McLaughlin added, the Town has concerns about the trees, which drop debris into the drainage channel and are a liability factor, should they fall onto Tiburon Boulevard. Regarding the shade factor of the trees, he discussed this with the principal, and children do not spend time outside on this side of the school, so shade is not a valid argument. The school has a maintenance issue and will not maintain the trees. The Town will not maintain the trees. This area could be a tie-in with the town for beautification. Only eight units of the development will benefit from the views created by removing these trees. He thought there would be money available from the developer to beautify the area. Boardmember Figour stated he opposes the tree removal. The school field has a sense of place, because of the mature trees. He suggested a phased plan, monitoring the trees and removing those with problems. People do not want to look at the development. Boardmember McLaughlin's idea has merit but trees should not be removed. Safety issues are an overreaction. Boardmember McLaughlin noted the school district could remove the trees by exempting itselffrom the Town's requirements and then no one would win. Boardmember Stroub stated the trees should'not be removed He likes their natural look. Driving out of town, the view of the development would be unfortunate. lfthe eucalyptus are a safety problem, a phasing plan should be established to top, cut and replace them. Chair Smith stated he would like to continue this item to see if there are other alternatives that are more . EXHIBIT NO. ~i (Co I () t:f' N ] 0/5/2004 Page 4 ot 4 , palatable. .In response to questions, Boardmember McLaughlin stated all the eucalyptus are on the school's \ ' property. " Ms. Torto noted the three oaks and the pine tree to be removed have not been discussed. The trees are so tall they shade the entire yard, near the picnic tables where the children eat lunch. Shade is provided in the whole yard, by the trees. Mr. Harris stated that an opposition has coalesced. If the Town of Tiburon determines the trees should not be removed, the school could make an application to do so; however, the school district would not want to offer bond issues when residents are unhappy with the removal of trees. Conversation between the disparate interests could continue until nothing happens; discussion must involve the people. Ms. Doyle stated she would like to see a continuance, with a phased type of approach. Mr. Carter stated she also would want to continue to talk to create a solution for the best interests of everyone. The district has no interest in cutting down the trees. Ms. Tantem stated this issue should be looked at from the children=s point of view. Boardmember Figour stated he would continue this item so the groups can discuss a solution. Boardmember Stroub added the Board is not the forum to design a solution; rather, the interested groups should discuss this issue and create a solution. . . EXHIBIT NO. fro ,?, ! { Or:;:ILj 10/5/2004 Community Development Department December 13, 2002 Decision: Lot Line Adjustment: 77, 79, 81 & 83 Round Hill Road 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Expectations on Lot 79 (See Page 3) states the following: "Any applications filed for site plan and architectural review approval for residences at 79 Round Hill Road and 81 Round Hill Road will be expected to design and locate the residences to reasonably minimize view blockage from existing residences at 85 Round Hill Road and 75 Round Hill Road." EXHIBIT NO. If;; P. 12. ()I-Il{ . . . . . . . Community Development Department December 13, 2002 Decision: Lot Line Adjustment: 77,79,81 & 83 Round Hill Road 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Expectations on Lot 79 (See Page 3) states the following: "Any applications filed for site plan and architectural review approval for residences at 79 Round Hill Road and 81 Round Hill Roadwill be expected to design' and locate the residences to reasonably minimize view blockage from existing residences at 85 Round Hill Road and 75 Round Hill Road." EXHIBIT NO, ~, {fp i7:? r:F tY 75 Round Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 . Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings Principle 3 mandates that views be preserved as much as possible within reason and that the developer and architect of a new dwelling must work together to obtain the best solution between slot views, view quarters and panoramic views noting that the slot view is iust as important to the person who owns it as the 360 degree panoramic view to its owner and that the slot view can be obscured bv iust one tree or poorlv cited dwellinq. . EXHIBIT NO, ( {o ~I l Lf: oFN . v , .' " . . . The Doyle Family 85 Round Hill Road Tiburon, California 94920 415.435-5309 LATE MAIL # 6 - October 28 2004 Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Sofnas Appeal/Letter from Peter Brekhus Dear Members of the Council, We are writing to clarify a number of inaccuracies and incorrect statements in the appeal letter sent to the Council by Peter Brekhus, representing the Sofnas' (75 Round Hill Road). We feel that the letter deliberately misrepresents our comments, ignores compromises made on our part, and distorts our position on this matter. I trust that the minutes of the previous Design Review Board meeting, dated October 7, 2004, are sufficient background for the Council. In consideration of your time, I will not rehash what has transpired. Suffice to say that after much consideration and discussion the Design Review Board approved the application for the home at 79 Round Hill Road four to one. In regards to the appeal letter. page 1. paragraph 8 through page 3 paragraph 3. The plans submitted and approved do not completely block the view from the existing residence at 75 Round Hill Road as Mr. Brekhus states. The view that the approved design maintains, is the view that was there prior to Mr. Sofnas cutting the trees located on Mr. Weissensee's property. In regards to the appeal letter palZe 2 paragraph 5 and 6: Mr. Brekhus, in his appeal letter repeatedly refers to our driveway as Round Hill Road, Our driveway is not Round Hill Road. It is a private driveway and as such should be treated differently than a town maintained thoroughfare. The front yard variance that was considered by the Town was for the lot at 77 Round Hill Road not 79. The variance was in response to a complaint made ( by the Sofnas' that due to the newly approved lot adjustment, they would have a house built 50 feet from their house. By greatly widening the upper portion ofthe lot at 77, the house could be, as stated by Sofnas, pushed in front of Doyle. We compromised and agreed to a second adjustment even though the proposed house would be situated less than 50 feet from our main entry. Since the lot at 77 is now narrow on the downhill side and at its widest, closet to our entryway it will be pushed up hill towards our entry where we will see the entire structure. Please understand that this is not a high-density neighborhood we live in, and we feel this compromise was significant on our part. . In regards to the appeal letter page 3 paragraph 7 and 8: Mr. Brekhus, states that the Design Review Board "expressed uncertainty and/or the inability to interpret "exactly" what was meant by the lot linE~ adjustment decision conditions." This is pure conjecture. The DRB discussed the issues and came back with a definitive answer. Sofnas had a borrowed view across not one but two lots. Even if the fact that Sofnas trespassed and illegally cut the trees on the 77 & 79 Round Hill Road properties were not taken into consideration. End of discussion. Vote taken. Approved. There was no expression of frustration or an inability to understand prior decisions of the Town. The only frustration I witne'ssed that evening was aimed at Mr. Sofnas' for his blatent disregard for the DRB's time and proper rules of procedure. . In regards to the appeal letter page 4 paragraph 2 through 5: Mr. Brekhus, writes yet again about Sofnas' complaint of Total View Blockage. The view that Sofnas' had is the view they will retain. Nothing more, nothing less. Weather or not the view is parallel, borrowed, sideways, or downhill. The issue here is what view Sofnas has the rights to and how that view came to be. Attached are articles from the April 8 and October 7th 1998 Ark Newspaper. A local woman, Loretta Taylor, was charged with vandalism and destruction of property for cutting her neighbors trees without permission. In regards to the appeal letter page 5 paragraph 6 Mr. Brekhus comments on my relation to AI Kuhn and my associated comments. To clarify, my comment was that when we purchased and built our home, one of our main concerns was future development. I engaged my father-in-law to help make the decision as where to best position our home, taking into consideration future development, given his extensive knowledge of town policy. If you review the minutes and view the drawings presented by Mr. Weissensee in 1984, you can see that we had every right to expect that . ? . . . the views from 85 Round Hill would be respected. And that because of the old growth oaks, Sofnas did not possess a view across the land that would cOqlpel anyone to push the home higher up on the hill towards us. At the time the lots were not configured a,!Jhey are now. There was only one, lot fronting us and it was skewed to the left'not directly in front of our home. It seemed it would not impact our views greatly. There where three smaller lots located off to the right of our frontage and significantly downhill. Al felt that the placement of the home in front of us could be such that the impact would be minimal. Considering the slope of the hillside in front of us, and the oak trees to the left that formed a dense barrier to the ground from the Sofnas house. The view we have today is the view that has been there for 20+ years, altered only by the elimination of the eucalyptus trees at Chandlers Gate and the cutting of the eucalyptus trees near in front of Reed School. . Mr Brekhus tries to makeit sound as though the house at 79 Round Hill Road will be completely invisible to us. Quite the contrary. We will see the entire 85 feet of the front of the house and garage and roof, as well as, three other homes. All will be clearly in our view. The one at 77 will be directly in front and slightly off to the left, right on our driveway. The homes at 81 and 83 will be large multistory homes built just to the right of our frontage and clearly in our view. There is also a new driveway splitting off of our existing driveway directly in front of our home. Contrary to the Sofnas's claims, WE are the most impacted by this development. We clearly have the most to lose and have to deal with the greatest amount of change. Yet we have compromised again and again. We have worked closely with Mr Weissensee and he has proven to be a man of integrity. He has, at every step ofthis project, followed through on his word and tried to accommodate all of our concerns and issues. In regards to the appeal letter page 5 paragraph 7 continuing to page 6 Mr. Brekhus statement that the construction ofthe house at 79 Round Hill Road moved further uphill would not block our "Panoramic" view is absurd. Any of the Council members that have been to our home to view the story poles can clearly see what we will see. 85 feet of house directly in front of our living room, kitchen, dining room, family room and children's bedrooms. .The majority of the front of our home is glass. Our home was designed and sited to take advantage ofthis frontal view. The photo that was presented by Mr. Sofnas and taken from in front of our living room (without our permission) clearly showed just how much of the approved house we will be looking at. All 'I , " of it! The view we will maintain is the view over the first story and roof of the entire 85 foot length ofthe structure. . Mr. Brekhus continues and again misquotes me. First I never had any false ideas about not seeing 4 Tiburon sized homes being built directly in front of our home. I simply have tried to work collaboratively with Mr. Weisensee to minimize the total impact ofthese 4 homes in regards to our home. Again, Mr. Brekhus seems to be confused in regards to where we live. We do have homes across the street from where we live... Round Hill Road. There are 4 massive homes built directly across from our driveway entrance on about one acre, called Round Hill Terrace. The proposed development at issue here, while having a Round Hill Road address is not being built on Round Hill Road. They are being built off of a private driveway in an area that is not designed in a grid-like structure like 4th Street in San Rafael. I have no issue with Mr. Weissensee making a living and being a neighbor. I have no issue with the fact that we will see the homes he is building. I do have an issue with someone claiming the right to something they never had, didn't earn and has no right to at the expense of others. the Sofnas' trying to take something from my family that we have worked for with . honesty and integrity. In regards to the appeal letter page 6 paragraph 2. As I stated, the lot subdivision of 77, 79, 81 and 83, was not as it is today when we purchased our lot, designed and built our home. The Sofnas' always had a lot next to their home and mature Oak trees blocked most of it. I feel that if Mr. Sofnas had not cut the Oak trees he would have much less issue with the approved construction than he has today. He would be looking at a mature Oaks grove that touched the ground as opposed to the butchered stand oftrees that is visible today. . In regards to the appeal letter page 6 paragraph 3 Our "panoramic" view will not be preserved. As I stated we will be looking across the front and roofs of 4 large homes. The closest at 77 will block the majority of anything left of center. The home at 79, effectively an 85foot wall in our center, primary view, will block our current views from our home past Reed School to the houses on the nearside of the lagoon. The homes at 79 and 81 will effectively form one large mass because of the angle of construction and for all intents and purposes will look like a 9500+ square foot structure. The removal ofthe eucalyptus trees in 2001 was not on Lyford as incorrectly stated by Sofnas' Attorney, Mr. Brekhus, but located above Chandlers Gate . 4 I . . . designed to blend in with their surroundings in a very organic way. They should not, not line up along a driveway like a subdivision at Levittown. As I stated previously, Mr. Weisensee has at every juncture of this process tried to accommodate the need and rights of the families affected by this development. He has changed elevations, changed lot lines to placate the Sofnas' concerns, and worked with us to build a home or series of homes that compliment the neighborhood, given the structure and complexities of the site. On the other hand, the Sofnas' have repeatedly, over the past 6 years, . exhibited a blatant lack of respect for others property rights. And it is unfath'omable to me that they are appealing the Design Review Boa'rd decision to grant Mr. Weissensee approval to build on his property and at the same time are trying to eschew responsibility for all that they have set into motion. I have had to ask The Sofnas' on several occasions not to go into our woods with his weed wacker to trim at his discretion. We have written letters to the Sofnas' when they planted Oleander bushes along our driveway, on our property, without ever asking permission. When he planted nine pine trees on the property at 77 Round Hill Road, I asked what he was doing and was told to mind my own business. Mr. Sofnas has repeatedly dumped his yard waste first, in our woods, and then into the creek running across our property causing overflows and soil erosion. It is now being dumped behind the overgrown brush 30 feet from his living room on the lot at 77. After hearing of Mr Sofnas repeatedly denial of know ledge pertaining to the drastic trimming ofthe oaks. I shared with Mr. Weissensee a 40 minute video tape of Mr. Sofnas clearly cutting down Oak trees and cutting major growth off of other Oak trees and throwing the cut branches under the base of these trees. Mr. Sofnas then had a gardener remove a truckload of the branches and pushed the rest out of site of his new "view". When confronted with some of this visual evidence, Mr. Sofnas then claimed to have trimmed the oaks on the adjoining lots as a fire prevention, yet to either side of his "view corridor," and closer to his home, the oaks touch the ground as , they always had prior to his cutting. Brush growing right next to his yard is 7 feet high and has never been touched in 6 years. There has been a dead tree against the house blocking windows facing the supposed "view" for over a year. 7 . \ In conclusion, we would like to thank you for taking the time to review our response to the Sofnas' appeal and hope this once and for all clarifies what has transpired. If any of the Council Members require any additional information that would further help clarify the matter, please feel free to call us at home 435-5309, or just stop by. . Thank you again for you time. Sincerely. -;r~-~~ Frank and Leslie Doyle 85 Round Hill Road . . R , ,'. " ,I ~{ ~ ,C[g fl [; l! .Hospital Controversy Forum Scheduled . The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation and Belvedere Community Foundation invite the public' to a' community foni'm on the subject, "Marin General Hospital: An Endangered Commumty Asset?" on Thursday, April 9, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. at Tiburon Town Hall '. . Former.Tiburon Mayor Gary Spratlmg wIll mod- erate a panel composed of Etta Allen, chair of the Marin General Hospital board; hospllal staff ~hysI- cian Richard Evans, M.D.; Marin Healthcare Dlstnct Chair and Diana Parnell, M.D.; and district board member Linda Remy, Ph.D. Introductory remarks on the changing dynamics of the national health system will be made by Joan B. Trauner, Ph.D., a Belvedere residem and nationally-recognized con- sultant on health care issues. After the panel discussion, audience members may ask questions. Selling your Home? 4% Commission, Negotiable "Always Full Service" . Linda Saint Amant Broker .....uPS ..... FedEx .....Packing & Supplies .....Fax .....Coples .....PrivateMail Boxes .....Secretarial Services .....Gift Wrap & Cards .....Notary Public Tiburon Mail Sorvlc8$ . 98 Main Stroot I .r ,'-.:...1 .....1 .' ...., I ....... ...~:J THE Two Main Street St( By DEIRDRE McCROHAN . Two longtime Tiburon clothing boutiques, Corinthian Sports at 31 Main Street (between Sam's Anchor Cafe and Sweden House) and SI. Angelo's across the way at 16/18 Main ,street, are closing. . Robert Treiber of Belvedere, who has been domg business on Main Street for 2\ years, said he is closing the two stores. because his doctor has ordered him to cut back hiS work load. He will keep his three other shops open - Portofino, Portofino Sport an~ Little Angels - all of which are in the uspect arge andalism Of elvedere Garden By ANNE DAY Loretta Taylor of Belvedere has been charge with misdemeanor vandalism by the Marin Count District Attorney's office. According to deput district attorney Theresa Leon, Taylor has bee charged with cutting her neighbor's trees, resulting in damage estimated at between $5,000 and $50,000. Trees and shrubs were cut in December 1997 during the period between the sale of the house and when its new owners moved in.. Belvedere police located a man removing brush from the area who said that Taylor had paid him to cut the neighbor's trees and bushes. When police questioned her, she denied any knowledge of it, according to Belvedere Police Chief John Lundquist, and the matter was turned over to the district attorney's office. Arraignment is set for April 20. Council To Hear Soccer Field Proposal By DEIRDRE McCROHAN The Tiburon Peninsula Soccer League's request to convert Blackie's Pasture into two new soccer fields is being kicked upstairs. A special public hearing on the proposal will be held at 7'~() n III Am';! 1'::: hpf",.p t1lP Tih".."... same bl and Mai Treib them no Whel went up ea1. In . strategy or more Atm down to' metal-e, front 01 started contend, stores aJ Last: ordinant such sig Tibl The Wednes Tiburon items ar . Sta . Pr impact parcel (l Goldeel Tibl April8. 1505 Ti Tibl Direct! 1679 TI Str; Direct. Loft,5\ Bel Comm COlllrTIUI Tan Trustt i;;f, f,'~:)' 1\\," i'l':", !p' hi,. ;'1':' d., " il1.\::' ',:, lilt';: II"'" ,0', ' 1\'" ,.It ~ )JI" . !'lll!,; , ,"1\:" ",.-1,' 1""[", !II\\,' Lh" 1-1\' ,- l','\il,';,', II!' ~', '.-,.:,1' . '~I!:\ l, \\k; I.!li. ,1"1"\ /\'i't', ',' ,.,1.. '. :.~~i' I .: " t1'T j~; i : 1'\'"'' . "-':i1"':(::'\' ~t'~!U~i.~ i ~hh.< til}\'\fl: '11',! i ~' ~! \: i J,t!!;, .. ~--~l ,', ,mi'%, ' rf! I:.~'~ II\I!.: !;.'rH. )1:11 Il"p"" .., III '~, l,~;r,. ~."." 'j",,!! I j'~r \[\1111 r,~i,'~' 1",,',:\ ' !!"':~~ i \"""1'" '~."':'" 0["'."1 "':\!;t.. '1'\" t~;il ~W,;: .If,j ~:+Il' Mtlil n~'{~ .+: '"+l-" 1"'1,).':, .i.H!:, ~,~ld'," 'l~.\;,'r {}',;IU: ",ll~\ii' ~' iL~iL ~~1'''\' " /~";'I ,;- j ~r'"., , ;l~i\')d) '1'1" "i, i~:~(.,:: ,I j,II\'''I ,,;,;.! \D.l ,&Ie, Belvedere Woman Pleads No Contest In Tree Chopping contest plea. The judge. who said that the no conte,' plea, rarely accepted in Marin County Court, wa tantamount to a guilty plea, referred the case to th probation department for sentencing. According to district attorney Jones, probatio will decide what punishment will be deemed appro- priate for Taylor. He said that it could range from paying a fine to doing community service. Sentencing is set for Friday the J 3th of November in Marin County Superior CourL By ANNE DAY Moving slowly witb the aid of a cane, Loretta Taylor of Belvedere accompanied by James Collins. her lawyer from San Francisco, pled no contest on Friday, in Marin County Court, before Judge John -Sutro, on the charge of \\'illfull~, maliciously and unlawfully destroymg the trees >nner IlCIt;lIlJlJl '" ro aylor had been charged with misdemeanor van- dalism for destruction of property valued at more than $5,000 and less, than $50,000 after the new owner of a property on Golden Gate A venue across the lane from her property on Pomander Walk dis- covered that the hedge of trees surrounding his property had been chopped down .prior to his n10ving in. The trees were there before December 27, 1997, and when the new owner moved in on -December 30, 1997, they were gone. When police officers in- vestigated the matter, they found a man who sard that Taylor had paid him to remove the trees. When police questioned Taylor, she denied any knowl- edge of the trees' removal. The house on Golden Gate had been surrounded by very old trees and shrubs which had, in some cases, grown to 12 to 15 feet blocking the view of the Golden Gate Bridge from Taylor's house. Some of the shrubs had been planted 50 years ago, ac- cording to Realtor David Gilbert who sold the house to the new owner. Taylor had originally pled not guilty at her ar- raignment in May, but due to the possibility of a pending civil suit, the court accepted her plea of no eonlCst so the county would not bear the burden of trying the case twice according to Judge Sutro. The worker who admitted to cutting the trees ap- peared in court on Friday as a co-defendant but was' released and not asked to come back by Judge Sutro after Taylor's plea. Judge Sutro agreed, over the objections of the district attorney Greg Jones, that Taylor would not have to serve any jail time in exchange for the no Alto Fire Report. Medical Calls: September 24, 12:54 p.m., a Bay Vista woman, 89, with a possible stroke, was taken to Kaiser. September 28, 6:54 a.m., a Hawthorne Drive woman, 80, was examined for feeling fainL EMS stabilized her blood sugar and she required no transporL . . September 29, 10:33 a.m., a woman, 84, fell on the sidewalk on Blackfleld Drive. A passerby picked her up and called the Tiburon police DepartmenL She was put into a police car and EMS exammed her and determined that she was OK. She was dnven home by police. September 24, 1: 18 a.m., a Richardson Drive an, 78, fell onto his floor in his bedroom. EMS ansported him to Kaiser. October I, 10:25 p.m., a Tiburon man, 31, with a ssible overdose, was taken to Mann General. Tibul Boat AI that the be to the Coal in the 700 mcssa~e Eventl~all, removed I ThroW 10:16 a.m mother-in told polic' came to t not injuf hospital. called he child's c inj.r to de as!! I 'left the I Scho, official ported't unsure' Phou Esperar been m filed a Inju duty P' mothe, Tiburc cers at GOI son re prope Tibur< cers f1 tip some, ARE YOU PAYlNG TOO MUCH il TERM LIFE INSURANCE ),-;;1. \~"11A .;.J.JV .0\\ . _ L _4-4-...... +imp to rpnlace vour existi , ". . . . on Neds Way, and along Tiburon Boulevard in front of Reed School. And we fought against that removal. Even though it would improve our view for a time. . We lost any view we gained of Tiburon Boulevard when Chandlers Gate was completed and the balance of that view will be obliterated when the house at 79 is built. My wife's opposition to the removal ofthe trees was based on her 40 years of living in Tiburon and losing part of what she grew up with. Neither of us are "champions" ofthese new views. We are simply astounded that Mr Sofnas is trying to claim something he has no right to, never had, and does not deserve. and all the expense of others. The Sofnas' have been trying to sell their home for over 5 years and I am sure the cutting of the oaks was triggered by the desire to sell the home as a view house. . As for the trees above Chandlers Gate, I am sure there are many family's living on Lyford Drive, Red Hill, Round Hill Road etc that have been lucky enough to see a bit more water or enjoy a later sunset by the removal of these trees. If two huge eucalyptus trees behind Hilarita were removed we might be able to see Mt Tam. But we wouldn't claim it as our right to keep that view if someone wanted to build. The difference is that we would not go over to Neds Way and take down those trees. We didn't go to Tiburon Blvd and take down the eucalyptus trees and we didn't take the trees down above Chandlers Gate all to give us something we never had and then claim it as our right. In regards to the appeal letter page 6 paragraph 5. I may be wrong here, but as I understand it, Mr Brekhus was the Attorney who fought with the Town of Tiburon against the adoption ofthe Hillside Guidelines. I find it interesting that now he is trying to invoke the Guidelines to protect the claimed view of a client who gained their current view by trimming Mr Weisensee's trees. Also as a note, we don't have anywhere remotely near 360 degree panoramic view.as Mr Brekhus intimates. With Spring Lane to our right and Red Hill to our left our view is directly in front of out home. Soon to be cut in half horizontally by the new construction at 79. 81 and 83 and the majority ofthe left half lost to 77 construction. 'i , In regards to the appeal letter page 7 paragraph 3 "The Sofnas "PRESENTLY" (and I applaud the use of this word,) possess a well framed view of Richardson Bay, Belvedere Lagoon and Sausalito". The question is when did "presently" start and how did it come about? . When we built our home six years ago, we didn't possess views of Richardson Bay except through the branches of the old eucalyptus trees above Chandlers Gate, The eucalyptus trees blocked the Sausalito waterfront also. We couldn't see the tip of Belvedere or much to the right of the old City Hall. And we are situated on a flat piece ofland, with nothing directly in front of us, about 20 feet higher than the Sofnas house. Nine years ago when we were trying to purchase our property. My father-in- law and I went to the Old City Hall to search for documents relating to our property. We left city hall and walked behind Reed School across the creek and up the hill to our driveway. We had lunch IN FRONT of a grove of Oak trees. I say in front because there was no "under" since the tree branches touched the ground. These are the same trees shown in the Sofnas photo trimmed 15 feet or more off the ground. I would have to agree that the Sofnas's "PRESENTLY possess a well framed view." Mr. Sofnas framed it. In response to the various points put forth on page 7 paragraph 7 through . page 8 The site layout was not an issue for the Sofnas' with the exception of "pushing the house at 77 up in front of Doyle". This compromise on our part caused lot 77 to change to be wider at the top and narrower downhill bringing the house at 77 right up to our entryway. This made the lot at 79 narrower at the top and wider downhill. This lot line adjustment allowed us to maintain our primary view with the exception of course, of an 85 foot house directly in front of us, but lower on the hill. Page 8 paragraph s 5-6 I am amazed that the subject of tree removal is even mentioned in this appeal. As for "promoting views and/or quiet and peaceful development and that a new development should be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods". All of Mt. Tiburon, is a neighborhood and for all intents and purposes our driveway and the houses feeding off of it constitute a neighborhood. It is a unique situation even in Tiburon. Mr. Brekhus, and Sofnas' suggestion that the houses at 77 and 79 should be pushed up hill violate every tenant of that goal. This is an open, park like neighborhood where houses are well . n 11/03/2004 10:02 4154537605 LAW OFCS L A RIFKIND PAGE ~l/~b , LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 790 Minion A.enue San Rafeel, Caliklmia 94901 -3207 Telephone: 4H;.4S5,2200 'Faesimile: 415.403.7605 LEONARD A. RIFKIND, Eaq.. Direel Dial E><t, 133 Emaii: IrlfkindliVmiPlaw.eom OF COUNSEL Julio Garfield, Esq." Dlreet Dial E:xt. 131 Emaii: iulieaoalf((l)aol.com . Also admitted 'n Nevada +~ Also admitted in Alaska and Oregon HOLLY C. LARSEN, Esq. Direct Dial E><t. 136 Email: hlarsenlfilmlolew.com. FAX /D)~c~~w~rm 1f1l NOV..: 3 2004 I!!J To: Diane !aeopi, Town Clerk 435.2436 fax FIOm: Len Rifkjnd, Esq. IGWN CL-ERK &IillA/llIOFlIiIBliQON Fex: 415.435.2436 P-sle.: (inc. cover):6 Phone: Il1o": November 3, 2004 Re: 79 Roundhill Road cc: o Urgent o For Review o PI_.. Comment 0 Pi..... Reply o PI....se Rec:yc:le Please include the enclosed letter in Late Mail for tonight's council meeting. We have emailed the letter to you as well. If there is any chance the letter can be distributed or forwarded to the Council before tonight's meeting it would be much appreciated. ImllOftant Notlcs: This '",,,"mi..iOn (including all attached pages) i. intended only for the u.s of the named addresoee(s), and may oontBin information that is prlvYeged or exempt from disclosure under applicabkllaw. If you are not a named addressae. yQU are hereby oolffled that any use, dissemination, diotribulion or copying of 1I1io lranomission is strictly prohibfted. If you have received 1I1is transmission In ermr, pleass d""tnJy all copies end ootity u. immediately at (415) 485-2200. Thank Youl LATE MAIL # 0 1/- 3 - 0 t( -..-.-,..- 11/03/2004 10:02 4154537605 LAW OFCS L A RIFKIND PAGE 02/00 "' , LAW OffiCES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND ATTORNEYS AT LAW , 790 Misaion Avenue San Rafael, CaHfornia 94901.3207 Telephone: 415.465.2200 'Fac.imile: 415.453.7605 LEONARD A. RIFKIND, Esq.' Direct Dial ExI. 133 Email: !!:iJ!ili1Q@m1p.law.com OF COUNgEL Julie Garfield, E"q.w Direet Dial Ext. 131 Email: j~.9arfliilaol.com 'Also admitted in Nevada .. Also admitted in Alaska and Oregon HOLLY C. LARSEN. Esq. Direct Dial Ext. 136 Email: !l!E.llln/1lJmlolaw.com November 2, 2004 VIA SMAIL dcrane@ci.tiburon.ca.us VIA FACSIMILE 415.435.2438 Mayor Alice Fredericks Members of the Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon. CA 94920 Re: 79 Roundhill Road Appeal of Degign Review Board Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling Dear Mayor Fredericks and Members of the Town Council: Our firm has been retained by the owners, Carl Weissensee and Ron Oznowicz (collectively "Owners"), to respond the appellants appeal of the October 7, 2004 Design Review Board decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application (the "Application") for construction of a new single family dwelling at . 79 Roundhill Road. We offer the following comments: ISSUE: The issue on appeal before the Town Council is whether the Design Review Board's (the "DRB") approval of the Application sites the residence at 79 Roundhill in the best location to reasonably reduce "borrowed" view blockage from the residence at 75 Roundhill. For the reasons set forth below, the answer is "yes" and the Town Council should deny the appeal. (Tiburon Municipal Code ("TMC") ~~ 16-3.8.3 and 3.8.4). 1. GENERAL POLICY. In general, the Town Council has an unwritten strong policy of upholding its board and commission decisions if the basis exists to do so, and appropriate findings can be made. Here. the DRB 1 . 11/03/2004 10: 02 4154537505 LAW DFCS L A RIFKIND t"RI.::lt:.. tJ.::lIOO , complied with its duties to review and approve the Application with appropriate conditions. (TMC 916-3.2.1). ORB made appropriate findings as set forth below to approve the Application. (TMC 916-3.3.5). 2. STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION. Town staff supports the Application. The Town Staff Report sets forth in detail the grounds to deny the appeal, a. In summary, staff supports the ORB decision to approve the Application because the ORB considered alternate locations and approved the best compromise location between the competing interests to preserve views-- "borrowed" or self-created in the case of the appellant. Any other location would require the Owners to be unable to use significant portions of 79 Roundhill, as well as similarly adversely affect the owner of any future home on the intervening lot at 77 Roundhill, b. APPELLANT'S CLAIMS: . i. FIRST CLAIM BY APPELLANT: ORB Application approval is contrary to the 2002 approval for a lot line adjustment for the property. GROUNDS TO DENY THE FIRST CLAIM: The first ground has no merit because state law prohibits placing conditions of approval on lot line adjustments. Gov. Code 966412, subd. (d)). Second, the Town recognized the potential for view blockage in approving the 2002 lot adjustment and advised the Owners that applications for deveiopment at 79 and 81 Roundhill will be expected to reasonably minimize view blockage from existing residences at 75 and 85 Roundhill Road, The DRB decision to approve the Application accomplishes this goal [read not mandatory requirement] to "reasonably minimize view blockage" from 75 and 85 Roundhlll, The alternative uphill localion would likely result in a row of three homes built on 77, 79 and81 Roundhill which would severely block the views from 85 Roundhill. By approving the lower slope location on 79 Roundhill, it will foster staggered development of home sites and preserve view corridors. ii. SECOND CLAIM BY APPELLANT: The house design is inconsistent with the Town's Hillside Design Review Guidelines and Guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review (the "Guidelines"). GROUNDS TO DENY THE SECOND CLAIM; GUIDELINES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SELF-CRE;ATED "BORROWED VIEWS: Appellant's reliance upon the Guidelines to support the appeal is 2 11/03/2004 10:02 4154537505 LAW OFCS L A RIFKIND PAGE 04/0b , misplaced because the DRB properly considered the totality of circumstances affecting existing views at 75 and 85 Roundhill and future development of 77, 79, 81 and 83 Roundhill to determine the Application has selected the best location for the residence at 79 Roundhill. The Guidelines were adopted primarily to' protect view from properties downhill rather than to the side across another site. (See illustrations in the Guidelines depicting upslope/downslope configurations). This is supported by the Municipal Code reference to "outward views from the Tlburon Peninsula." (TMC ~15"1 (b)(1). The "view" at issue is neither upslope nor downslope as that term is defined in TMC ~15.2, but rather a unique side view that has been self-created with no reasonable expectation that It would remain once 77-83 Roundhill are developed. The focus needs to remain on the fact that the view the appellant seeks to preserve is not the type of view referenced in the Guidelines because it is of a "borrowed" or self-created nature.. IF CONSIDERED, GUIDELINES STILL SUPPORT THE ORB DECISION: Notwithstanding their general inapplicability to the Application, the plain language of the Guidelines still supports its approval. While in several Guidelines there is essentially a "tie" to the competing interests of adverse effects upon views at 75 . and 85 Roundhill. (Ties: Goal 3, Principles Nos. 1, 7 A, 70 and 7E), three additional Goal 3 Principles (Nos. 3, 78 and 7C) demonstrate the upslope location would be comparatively more harmful to 85 Roundhill for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the DRB correctly minimized the reasonable view impacts by approving the Application as submitted in the lower slope location. The specific guidelines which support the DRB decision include: Views should be reasonably protected. Appellants slot view is "borrowed" and did not exist when appellants acquired 75 Roundhill. (Guideline, Goal 3, Principle 3). The horizon line is the most sensitive part of a view, then foreground, then middle ground in the order stated. (Guideline, Goal 3, Principle 7B). 79 Roundhill affects the least sensitive middle ground of appellant's view. The altemative uphill location would block the 85 Roundhill's foreground view. Accordingly, 85 Roundhill's foreground view merits more protection than 75 Roundhill's middle ground view. Blocking the center of a view is more damaging than blocking a side view. (Guideline, Goal 3, Principle 7(C). More of 85 Roundhill's center view will be blocked at the upslope location than 75 Roundhill's center view at the approved ." location. The appellant further contends that the Application as approved would adversely affect 75 Roundhill by creating light pollution. (TMC ~16-4.2.7(h)). Staff responds the windows are limited on the side the residence facing 75 Roundhill and that existing trees which were cut without consent will soon fill, as well as " 3 ~, . . . Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT l AGENDA ITEM TO: Mayor and Town Council Members FROM: Alex D. Mcintyre. Town Manager SUBJECT: Draft MERA Cooperation Agreement MEETING DATE: November 3, 2004 REVIEWED BY:~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attached you will find the Draft Cooperative Agreement from MERA to relocate the Southern Marin antenna' site from Mt. Tiburon to Wolfback Ridge. The primary focus of the draft Agreement is the Feasibility Study; the draft defers negotiation of many details associated with the relocation until after the parties have determined that Wolfback Ridge is a feasible substitute site. However, the relocation effort will depend on some level of Town funding. Accordingly, the Town Council must determine how much money it is willing to contribute towards this potential undertaking. Recommendation It is recommended that the Town Council: 1. Discuss the terms of the draft Cooperation Agreement; 2. Determine the maximum amount that the Town is willing to contribute to the relocation of MERA's Southern Marin facility and 3. Authorize the Town Manger to negotiate and execute the Cooperative Agreement pursuant to the Council's direction. Attachment f , Draft 10/18/04 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CONCERNING DRAFT . FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF WOLFBACK RIDGE SITE This Cooperative Agreement Concerning Fcasibility Analysis of Wolfback Ridge Site ("Agreement") is entered into by and among the Marin Emergency Radio Authority ("MERA") and the Town ofTiburon ("Tiburon") as of , 2004 with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. MERA is the owner of certain real property in Tiburon, California' described more particularly on Exhibit A hereto and known as the Mt. Tiburon Site (the "Mt. Tiburon Site"). MERA is in the process of installing a radio telecommunications facility (the "Facility") for the purpose of providing emergency radio communications to Southern Marin County (as defined more particularly below). B. Tiburon has requested that MERA consider relocating the Facilityat some point in the future to an alternative site located in unincorporated Marin County described more particularly on Exhibit B hereto and known as Wolfback Ridge (the "W olfback Ridge Site"), and has offered to pay certain costs of a feasibility study and to pay two thirds of the costs of relocation ofthc Facility (up to a maximum of . $600,000) should such relocation be determined to be feasible. C. MERA has agreed to undertake a feasibility study to dctcrmine if the Wolfback Ridge Site can be engineered and licensed as a single site that replaces the Mt. Tiburon Site by providing coverage to Southern Marin County equivalent to, or greater than, the coverage provided by the Facility at the Mt. Tiburon Site as guaranteed and warranted by Motorola for the whole MERA system. D. If the feasibility study determines that the Wolfback Ridge Site can replace the Mt. Tiburon Site in the manner described by Recital C for a cost notto exceed $900,000, MERA obtains necessary entitlements, and Tiburon confirms in a written a reement that it is willin to finance two thirds of the cost of the relocation, and the alternate site is successful y constructed and certified by Motorola as operational, MERA shall relocate the Facility to the Wolfback Ridge Site. Thereafter, MERA shall: (i) commence to decommission the Mt. Tiburon Site, ineluding all buildings, towers, generators, fuel tanks and electronic equipment within 120 days of the successful integration of the alternate Wo1fback Ridge Site into the MERA system, (ii) make good faith efforts to resell the Mt. Tiburon Site to Marin Municipal Water District ("MMWD"), and (iii) sell the surplus Mt. Tiburon Site equipment, utilizing the net proceeds of such a salc to finance the costs of construction and moving tO'thc . Wolfback Ridge Site. . . MERA_Tiburon Cooperative Agreement -1- . . . Draft 10/18/04 NOW, THEREFORE, in considcration of the mutual covcnants contained hcrein, , the parties agree to the following: AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The parties acknowledge the Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth below. 2. Feasibility Study. (a) MERA shall cause a feasibility study (the "Feasibility Study") to be conducted by Motorola, Inc., its contractor under that certain Agreement between Marin Emergency Radio Authority and Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola") dated as of December 17, 1998 (the "Motorola Agreement") to determine whether, in Motorola's professional judgment, the Wolfback Ridge Site can be engineered and licensed by the FCC as a single site that provides coverage to Southern Marin County equivalent to, or greater than, the coverage provided by the Facility at the Mt. Tiburon Site as guaranteed and warranted by Motorola under the Motorola Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Southern Marin County" shall mean the area served by the Mt. Tiburon Site as contemplated by the Motorola Agreement. Motorola shall determinc, in its professional judgment, which studies and cost analyses shall be included in the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study shall be completed and provided to MERA and Tiburon by December 31, 2004. (b) Tiburon shall reimburse MERA for all costs of the Feasibility Study within thirty (30) days of the date of an itemized invoice from MERA. Such costs will not include the time of the MERA Executive Officer Martin Nichols and MERA Engineer Richard Chuck, who shall cooperate with Motorola in producing the Fcasibility Study. 3. Ongoing Construction of Facility at Mt. Tiburon Site. (a) MERA may exercise and shall retain all rights to causc the construction of the Facility at Mt. Tiburon Site during the course of this Agrcement. (b) Tiburon agrees to cooperate fully with MERA as may be reasonably necessary to construct the Facility at the Mt. Tiburon Site. 4. Analysis of Feasibility Study. (a) If, in the professional opinion of Motorola, the Feasibility Study demonstrates that the relocation of the Facility to the Wolfback Ridge Site can.be engineered and licensed by the FCC as a single site that provides coveragc to Southern Marin County equivalent to, or greater than, the coverage provided by the Facility at the Mt. Tiburon Site as guaranteed and warranted by Motorola under the Motorola / MERA_Tihuron Cooperative Agn:erncnt -2- Draft 10/18/04 Agreement, and the estimatcd costs of such relocation will not excccd $900,000, thc parties shall entcr into a relocation funding agreemcnt (thc "Relocation Funding Agrcement") within thirty (30) days that provides for thc following: . (i) Tiburon will pay two-thirds (2/3) of the nct costs of relocation and dccommissioning of the Mt. Tiburon Site (i.c., which reflcct the revenue rcceived through decommissioning as describcd below in Section 5 (c)); (ii) MERA will pay one-third (1/3) ofthc net costs ofrclocation and decommissioning ofthc Mt. Tiburon Sitc; (iii) A commitment by both parties to renegotiate the cost sharing provisions should litigation challenging thc Wolfback Ridge Sitc be' threatcned or filed; (iv) MERA shall have no obligation to dcfend any such litigation; and (v) Construction financing provisions, paymcnt schcdule and appropriate administrative mechanisms. (b) If the cstimatcd costs of the relocation of the Facility cxceed $900,O()O as determincd by Motorola, eithcr party may terminate this Agreement by writtcn noticc to the othcr and havc no further rights or obligations hereunder. . (c) If, in the profcssional opinion of Motorola, thc Feasibility Study demonstrates that the relocation of the Facility to the Wolfbaek Ridge Site cannot be engineered and licensed by the FCC as a singlc site that provides coverage to Southern Marin County cquivalent to, or greater than, the coverage provided by the Facility at the Mt. Tiburon Site as guarantced and warranted by Motorola under thc Motorola Agreemcnt, then Tiburon agrees to accept that determination. 5. Relocation of Facility to Wolfbaek Ridge Site. (a) Within sixty (60) days of the execution of the Rclocation Funding Agrecment, M ERA shall apply to the County of Marin (the "County") for the entitlcments for the relocation of the Facility to thc Wolfbaek Ridgc Sitc. No rclocation of the Facility shall be required by this Agreement unless entitlcments are granted and MERA and the County comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Notwithstanding the forcgoing, MERA shall have no obligation to challenge any denial of entitlemcnts or permits. (b) Within ninety (90) days ofreceiving final entitlements from thc County and the proeurcmcnt of necessary construction financing under the Relocation Funding . MERA_'j'iburDn C\lopcrativc Agreement -3- t . . . Draft 10/18/04 Agreement, MERA shall apply for a building permit from the County, and MERA shall commence construction within ninety (90) days ofreceiving the building permit. (c) Within one hundred-twenty (120) days of the commcncement of full opcrations at the completed Facility at the Wolfback Ridge Site as determined by Motorola, MERA shaH commence to decommission thc Mt. Tiburon Site, ineluding the removal of all buildings, towers, generators, fuel tanks and electronic equipment and making a good faith effort to resell the Mt. Tiburon Site to MMWD and to sell the surplus Mt. Tiburon Site equipment. The net procceds of such sales, if any, would be applied toward reducing the total costofthc rclocation, or if the partics have already paid their shares of the relocation costs, two thirds (2/3) of the net procecds shall be paid to Tiburon and one third (1/3) to MERA. (d) MERA shall not be deemed to be in default of this Agrccment if the deadlines in this Section 5 are not met due to causcs beyond the control and without thc fault or negligence of MERA, including but not limited to acts of God, or of the public enemy, litigation, court order, acts or refusals or failure to act by a governmental agency (except for MERA), unusually severc weather, floods, earthquakes or the prcsence of hazardous materials or archeological finds on the Wolfuaek Ridge Site. MER^_Tiburon Cooperalive Agrccm<.:nt -4- Draft 10/18/04 . 6. Alternate Facilitv Sites (a) The parties have agreed that the Feasibility Study shall be their sole activity with regard to considering an alternative site for the Facility and that they will not consider other sites, including Angel Island. (b) Tiburon agrees not to support or advocate the consideration of any other sites as alternate sites for the Facility if the Wolfback Ridge Site is determined to be infeasible by the Feasibility Study. 7. Miscellaneous (a) This Agreement may be modified or supplemented only by a written agreement of the parties. No waiver shall be effective unless it is in writing. (b) The parties acknowledge they arc not partners or co-venturers under this Agreement in either the Feasibility Study or the relocation of the Facility (c) There shall be no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement, including but not limited to the homeow~ers in the vicinity of the Mt. Tiburon Site. . (d) This Agreement shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed by and under the laws of the State of California. . (c) In the event that any party shall bring an action to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys', witness and expert fees and costs of the proceeding, including any appeal thereof. (1) Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations hereunder. (g) All notices and demands under this Agreement shall be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, by personal delivery or by overnight courier. Notices shall be considered given upon the earliest of a (a) personal delivery; (b) two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested; or (c) one (I) business day following deposit with an overnight courier. Notices shall be addressed as provided below for the respective party; provided that if any party gives notice in writing of a change of name or address, notices to such party shall thereafter be given as demanded in that notice. . MERA_Tihuron Cooperative Agreement -5- " . . . Draft 10/18/04 MERA: Tiburon: (h) This Agreement may be executed in identical counterpart copies, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MERA and Tiburon have entered into this Agreement as ofthe day and year first above written. MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY, ajoint powers authority existing under the laws of the State of California TOWN OF TIBURON, a By: Its: By: Its: MER^_Tiburon Cooperative Agreement -6- MER^_Tihuron Cooperative Agreement EXHIBIT A Description of the Mt. Tiburon Site -7- " Draft 10/18/04 . . . . . . EXHIBIT B Description of the Woltbaek Ridge Site M ERA_Tihurol1 Cooperative A1:,'Tccmcnt -8- Draft 10/18/04 . " - ~ ro en o .... ::1 Q) (Jl "0 , ..., ,'10 . ~'; "tJ . ~ CD J;+ 'k '< 0- o c: ::1 0- . ..., ,'< ~ ! "w ;...... . ~ ~ 1!. " ~~ .:,,{' .~.;~ . '-4. ,-,J.. ~';~:...~'~~ ......c,- , .~ ,. . .""',' "I' '; #' . ~ r., : " h' .~: . , t- '.. .~ . ';' ot.}' t : . '. .. .. . :-. '; :t> ~ ro Q) ~ , ~ ;:;: ~ ::J " , '.' ( f -'~~~~1\ j,:'.', en 0'f :~. '~, ' ,:>b O:'~~, ': ~.. :"ji::J ',. .~~ tu .l:J en 'f. .'.11 I (;/! 0 ,1)..... I 1F't1 C ~.> j en '. CD ;)> , ~ ,J~ CD I.: Q) ~ , - ::T CD en o - :;j Q) J~ pI ., ,'10 ~~ [tJ'< 0- o c: :;j a. .., '< " '/ " .' -I I I OJ ::T to :;j .j>. o CD CD - o c: .., '0 .., o '0 CD .., - '< :;j CD Q) .., ,( I ~ ~ i -.J -.J , ;:0 . 0 c: i -" :::J 0 a. n -.J :::y I -" ;:0 l w 0 , 0 Q) - a. CD - CD :::y A - Q) - - i .., :E 0 ~3 Q) ~s: en ! CD Jen 0 - . :;j Q) en !g: r, en ~- ~,. . \I~~~~:'~.~;~ :,;f'..}I~H E'~frFB'l?J~Bi~~J~l~~\~N,[)tt@o:MI?~N,y~__~: .-f'1J-....\ .,..,,~ ~J~. \ ~ " " " ,II ".,j... >"1:. ,ifll;-. ~~'/,.',:. e~,... ?" ,.1 r.T- ",' ~""Jlo~ <' ,," ..'{A':W,I ~~ --~ ' 75 RolA.'^'ot H-Lll RoClot, nblA.Yo,^, Nestled in an Oak-studded meadow with gently rolling hills that shape the coastal Tiburon landscape, this custom designed home is the perfect blend of California style and contemporary livability. The house is clad in natural Redwood siding, complimenting the large lawns and grassy knolls that fall into vistas of Richardson Bay. The graceful floor plan offers large social spaces and a main floor master bed- room suite. The convenient location is close to schools, tennis courts, bike paths, the Tiburon Peninsula Oub, Library and shopping. Formal Living Room with tall French Door leading to the gardens Open Formal Dining Room Designer Kitchen with elegant vertical grain wood cabinets Separate Breakfast Room Large Family Room with Italian tile floors and fireplace Four bedrooms and two baths including a large main floor master suite Powder Bath Hardwood Floors Laundry Room Two-<:ar Garage For Sale, $2,195,000 David C. 6ilbert Allornev/l3r()k'er:,i35~:)7:52 "~:.;I3a~'id' Scll\':'anz Associale!l3'roker 435-3345'. ~,~" . ,. '<.".'" '^'.r",~'jt"f.'! .. ,.' ~ t,,"',' ,,:. ., 't.~" ~ '. :1 j ,It<. ",',:,'. .. ~" . <: ;', :.': I 0 13t:,kh' Rmlc\~'~'ibllrcill:9A~ Q492Q,:: ,,'. \lburolllallc\:~OI1l '::."\; ,: ",':, '. '. :. , ;> , " ,'.' ~ 1 ' , \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ r<il ___L-~" - - .... -'--'" _. -, trb ~\:::v / / / / \ / I / ( \ \ --- .------ \-_/ L r ' ','1',',- I , ',r-: ~_J ilj ~~ ------:.---- ------- .-- \ .--"""------ \---- / ---- \ i iji ! i It o~o ~ M f ~f~ ~ Ii! ~! g i~' :: t5 ~ ~.... .g 0 ." g ~ E I g z ~r ::<:'--r ';~i'; ~go,=~ ",ggg ~ G)-nmoo 03 )>- 0101(10""'0'1 .... ~~'il'il<ta ~ ~ gogs-iS !!!. 2'" ~"':>:>:> g ~ @ '? l . ~ f . . . ~ ~ ~ [ '"' ~ @@Q & @ <l i\: I r:. I / ./ ~.-; 8 n ~ [g z . ~' i i i~ Ir~I iff[f : ~ I ~i ~~~i ~~~~Q I g 3 ~i ~w3~ ~3~gl g ~ x ~i i~~~ ~~aji ~ ~ .',. 1"1' I~{~. i. ~ a:iO gil_ '5'(ll~~ III H~H ~iH~ i ~ ~8 C~~~ ~~.~l ~ ~, !~ -<,&2& ~~~J~ " c :>.:;!. ~~ _' III ~ ;; 0 <i 1 ~~i:,'''' ~. l;> 1.2:3 ~ ~,.. '~. ~ ! i 8.~ ~ - ~ ~ · I .r i.... ~ j f I ~ ,~ .". ::'.\. II " ;-:.~ ", -I> NEW RESIDENCE 79 ROUND HILL ROAD TIBUHON, CA 94920 LANDSCAPE PLAN , m < . 5 . . . < ----y-/-/ i i i i i / / ; i / / / / i J / / / ! / ! --:" - ~ I--~-'--- I i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Ii i Ii i i i I I i Z o (fJ o :J> r m CB I L // ....O~ if ~ :. . ... '" /// ~W-~ ./ :;: =i'" \ :: = ~ :;: !] 15 o oq' I>l ",1:rC" o::g'l'i" :::... - ro: tf.l oj i$"" ... <: d gj " "" '" \ (\) (\) 0... ~.~'j$' '" I>l '" en t:S (\) 0.. 0.. !a ~. !3.~ I:;; 0 :;: ~'g el.r+::l. ::: 0. '< ro: ~ 0 ~.-+~ ... 0 Cl ,.,_ ~ 8 .-+ . 3 0 CfJe,.'" s,Cl!! ~ el 0 ~ . g I>l ~ I:r & 0. 0 ~ eo.;.z ~. el ~ . ri = '" = gj g, 0.;- ~! ~ ;. :l! // // / /-/-/-/ //\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '" ~ ----- ~ ~ ~ ...... ...... 'I \ \ \ \ \ ~J ----- '-J co \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \C' I: ~.OO = ... Ef = " '" '" ::: " ~~.-+ ;-th~ . &~. %< '" 0-,- Ql!l. ~~ = 0. ,"",C" ....'< ;;~ =' = Ro = ~~ .. . =CfJ Il:oo = ~ .. '" .. .. .. '" .:ro ~~ ~w o .... = 0 '""'Vl .... ",(;I> :=~ = '" = g' = <: !:lo" ~Cl!! =0 ;:;.@ ::\.0. = l'i" .. <: ~J]. g.'"':l '" <: . '" s.i'l. ~ s- ,& (;l " ",,0. ... .... ~ g- " s a 0 '" '" 0..... s.(;l .... '" ~a fr'" o ~ go", ~ [ o () ~[ if; "" ... ~.... . Vl E? s 0. ::r: t= E? ~ ~ 'El ..3 ",' '" .... " 0. -< ... ~ ~ ""'l ~ ~ ~ - = ~\ \ \ ^- / ----- -- --- (J)(J)r~ IIOCD :J>:J>"";O 00:J>0 mm;oc OOmz :li:li~o mml\.JI )>)>......r= .. ..~r ........-. ~ 0 ,-,,;0 0,- tOo ~~~)> ._ _____ -.....J. -n 0 ~_.- - _-_- ----...o"=__ '-J -....J (J)(J)r-.J IIO--J :J>:J>"";O 00:J>0 mm;oc OOm :J>:J>:J>z ;0;0" 0 mml\.JI ~:J>!"j= "Q:)r '" .... CD !'='w......;o ....- 0 ~~~)> I\.J:-nO f.Il :n \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \ i i I i i i i I i I i i i i i i i i ________,_.L ---,- - -,----'--- '::l ,.t: I CD U1 z:J>(fJ ...,;0 I _m:J> OJ:J>O Com ;0,,0 O<:J> Z-;o rmm :J>:Z::J> Z:J>;o O(fJm O(fJ'U OI;o . m (fJ0(fJ :J>::ii'm rZZ m ..., (fJ (fJ IJJ ;0 o o I C ;0 m ----- - - ---'- '-J U1 ------ ...,...- I - i i I i i / i i i i I ! I i ; i i i i i i i ! / I 1-_ \ -- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -,- , " " , " ". , , " , " , " '" "- , , " " " " ". , " " " " " " " , " " " " " " 1 i i i i i I -,-,.1. '~ -,-, " -,-, -,-, " " / .'....... / v ------~---- -' ROUND HILL ROAD t ----- ovo~ ll/H ONnO~ / / / /' C'. .... = ~ a ~ u = cc -= = ~ ~ .... ... a... cS a... ~ .; o -0 .g "0 <>,.g .!j ~ ,,00 ~ :-;::I <> g.<: . ::l ... ~8~ 0.<>::;; 8 -B e;. 0.000 S.S ~ o~-B 81;:= rn :-s ~ :8 0 0 ~~- 2Jlo"O .!'IE-<~ :t:: .~ ;:3:::' g U 0"" "O~_ <> '" . 'S '" 00 <> <>.S "d!po ..Q. 1'1 '" I-< '" 6tSlU .;;: <> -B <I) .:l _. I-< 0 ~ 0."" .~ ~~"O o <I) 1fJ.'t:: ;1 ~j:~ .ou~ gfl;:[ ..8 8' .:t:l <> <<;.0 1;l "' ... ~ cc ~ ~ a... 1.Cl '" '" a... cS "CI ~ = := a... ~ ,/ .-'.'-,--.-- € & o . I-< ~ 0. ..8 ~ ~8 rJ5~ -BrJ5 00' .S ~ ]$ o <> ~.8 €~ <I) 0 0.8 o <> l:L1-< -B] 'aoo. <>.~ I;: I-< " ..9 0.';;: ~" '" ".0 S 0"" 's <;:;'a,o Jl] ~ ......... 1l1;l..Q +JQ),.,ga .."i- 0 o U ." o " "' .... 1'1 C - OJ 0 l'IU"O "$ ~ ~.~ I;: '~"'~'-"...~ '"", " " '- "\ " \ , 'd V6 i,.g i:l..... e.s i:l.1-< = ~ ~ @ ="0 .!l (],) -=..a 'l:l<>1l ~ oS Cd .; "'CI ~ ... ~ <I) .!!! Ol !:l ~ i".."i € .. u '" ...S 0 ~ e..- (l) ~ :~-B 8 " 110. -= .S "0 S ~]~~ 0"0000 ": ~'~1 ~gB,o .~ ji;<::: ~1l o"'O.;::;l Q) .0 = g "0 tf.le_~ cI.I ~ ~ 0 o~ ~VJ +-> ~...o 0 O~VJ:-;:::I .g<l)l-<o. -B .s i.~ ~''O'"l (Ij iZI = <1) Q) ~.~ .:l_ e .e u e -;; <I) -= .. ... " <I) = t' <I) ;. { .8 I ~ o CIl -B ;ij ~ 03 e = -= '" " .s = CIl <I) -= .... .. . '" ~ f o " ~ ~ S .:2 :I:.... "0 .. @; at' t- <I) t- i:l. = 1a a ... .. ..9 = "" = "'" 0.= ..9 = " = ;> .- <>1:: ]g, <> <I) .0-= E-<E-< ~. ~ M o .s '" o I $ .... "0 <> "0 .;;: .~ "0 ; - .... " ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ 1i ~ 1! ... "" ~ ..!l u ] "0 ~ c; 2 e 0.= -= ]'; a.; F;:lOO :I:Jl "0'" @ e a~ ~'t .....! 0+ .:l-= .9 M 1;::.... o = 0... ~~ w o z w g (f) w ~ o w (j) o a. o rr: a. (j \ .... " ~ ~ F: J' ;<( '.t~ H:\ll21l1-IRted~tk\Il20JSITEPlAN-3-IG-OJ,dwg.(l9(.!3/2flO'l()Ej:54:32PM ~ii~rrf~ri ~~i~rr~irfTf~ifrfifi!fir~~:~~~r frrr f~ ~r:rii:r~i! ri E ~Wlllil Wlii/lHllmllllll!,il,1l1ll1 i!i1i!!"i ,iU!U!,I!IU III ~ "~ II,' "'.' I I 'I'; ~ ~ it Co ;!X~gl~E~ ~~R~JI ftia~~!f~;~~~i!~~~~;j;l~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~;B:i;~~~F 0 i 1 i! i:: i i i i! i ~i Ii!) J I i! : 1 i: j: i I i I! 1 i i i I!:: j~! d i i: i i!!: II 111111'l! !111!! 11!111!!II!I!!I'I!!!lll-' 11,1!111! 1IIIIill!!!I! I I !I ,! 'I' I I,. I II i i Ill! 'Ill i'l'~ t ~:! p; ~,~;~~ ~~i !ii ill! i 1! !ii::' iI! illll II' II III Illj! II' "," ", ,.- . " "1'1' "" ',' " ,. . it ~.: ('~ : "j 8,~.;I ~~:~ ,i ;: ~ i j : i i~! : j: i ! : :! !! I! !; ,I ~ 'I! liil!! I 1111!!1 1l,11lll1ill'l ,I i I' ,I ' II 'i!', I I II I' I 11..II!UUlUl_..",.."...p... rl Tlllllll:l1 . mU!191ImCi;~II!Il~m~1 ~:~jll ~ II ilid'~i 'H II" iii~ Ii HI I' I I ;l>~ o .~. 15< in- So m --------- "'......, ~ Z -I -< s: )> 'iJ i" (I . . ! , OVOl! ""QI.~NnOH ~ I> 170 p~ ~ ~ . ~ i . A NEW HOUSE 79 ROUND HILL ROAD TIBURON, CA AP. NOS. 058-301-20 en 0 ffi ~ ~ !JJ ..' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o n !; o z ~ , ~ " r > > > > > > " " 0 , r 0 0 , ~ ,~ 0 0 c > = c r ; ; 0 :Jl , ;: 0 . . < 0 0 ~ 0 m .. C . ~ > ~ . > :E > Co Z z r r > > c 0 . > > . . ~ r Z Z , Z , m . m > m " m r z :: m I~ I 0 " Co " " ; r " < > . . . > ~ , c 0 z " 0 " 0 < . . . > z 0 ~ 0 < z . 0 > . 0 0 m 0 ~ > m r r , > m ~ z I r . . , , . , 0 [e> .O~ m o. g ~g ~~ ~' !~~ '. ,..::;~ '" "2 . . 'm ~~~ " ~ z~ ~ :~j ~~ ~~ g~ Q g " la ~ !z zoo ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ <0 ~~~ ~ ,~ S3 1m ~~o ~~ ~:'l ~~::;! ~ 0.. . .~ 5\:' 00 I" ""'ili '" 00, 00 ",offl 6j~ ,0 a ~~ ~. ~-'" . ,:Si:':i i" '<0 ,. '0 , , , ~~ 0 ~z ~_~b ~; "r ~.~ >zO .~~ .' m 0, 6!:i!)! " ~ ~, .~ '~8 " c g~ Z ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~g " " " g 2; , ~~~ . '0 ~C>:: 0 0 0 ,. ," ~. ;" ~ ,. ~ ~~ :;;1~ ~ .... :IE""'" ~~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~ , m W ~~~ ~ ~~ ",~ ~ 2:C~ 'g ~ ~~ '. ~~g '" o;"m ~g . ." ~ r; ~" 8~ . ~~ ~" ~~2 " IH ;~ ;'!~ ;; ~g ,0' ~ ~, <<, '< g ,~ ~>>,., ., 00 i~ '. o~! <~ 0 :::~ bo /; 0:13 ~ ~; i~ ~ ~, ,~ ~~ t,~ " "";;; 0 ~~ i>l ,~ ~ ~~ ~' iooOl .:;!;;l ., 8 f':-' ~> ~~ ,"CO r ~;: g ! 80 L-",~ .~ e ~~ 3~ 0, 0 ~ . ~ !i '0 ;; ~. " .. z g~ i . , '0 U ~ ~ ~~ o~ m~ 0 ," ~ ~, ~ " ~ 0 m' i ~ fi ~ .<0 . ~ ~ ~ ~$ ~ "" E~AYER ';.'Tho"","",,,, ARCHITECTURE, ==.';;.::;"""" TtII. ~15331.0931 INC. Fall ~15.331.\f38 ------_.--- Tl€Sl"OESIGNS.1'l.OI>IS NiOSf>tClFlCA'fOP<S I'.lIE.rnE_~rYOF nEAAClilrECINlD w,\'''IOT8f.OISPl.A'''''O. COPPEDORVSEDIN ANYW~YWfT1iOlJT H1SPER>o'ssQH ",&,: 9I:'<{)4 T ,m,' 11<.'''''' ~1~~eY l$&UEDiORI.lES;(lNREVI<W tSSU!:ODFORDF.<;'GNIlEVlEW ~ .:\0201.1IlaedPark\O.rolSITEPlAN-J..10-03.dwg,09/23120040l>:31:39PM m~ l!:l!:8!il "' "I n ~ 'l'~~""i"""~'"~~'!i' ~ s~~~i~~~~~~~f~is~~p;~ 5 ~~~~~~~~~~;n~~~gg?~~F > o..,~,~~ /<~ ~'Q ~ 2 i ""' ~. g ~ ~ ~ ~~~ j~ ~ ~ 1il ~fi~ ~2 ~ ~ !1 " :il'ilaig2~G~ r ;1~!il ~2~%~ 8 ~~~~~~~-<iiI ~ ~ ......<>iz&~ 0 H ~. ." ~ i" " ; ~ s ~ III ~ ... ~ .. ~ ~ i~:~a <> 1:;;1 ~ ~ a'" " . p > " ~ rn , '" , ~ m ',- /~ ~ ' , , o \ v , ~ iooJ !1111blk!!,."..""~,..."mo."," I ! r 11111: lill . . . " '" [~ . i';; .. '" a Ci '" . " ~ , , / / , , / I , , ",/ , , / / , , , , / , , / , , , , , , , , , / / , , , , , , , , , , , , , , / <0' "l'O-1D ~ 0 0 C.<1SCM-t~, "'00 'v" g ~ \lIa ~;.) l-~"''3I' > ~lj ~ rn , ~ g , ~ " (',,,,,,,,. , , ; L'<>.~ I ! I ! , 16 liq I I ! , &..- .-............. ~~ "'~... > ~ \g ~ tI1 .. en \~ ~ -l " Ii [ m IE "U ~ i~ I~ z I ., "'- o > , ,/ . (e) DJ:(II1:W4)' i I I! , ' , , , , , , \ , " , , , " M~~ J><co. ~, MM~ " 0 M > Z " ~ .. > '0 ~ rn , ~ g , " ~ ~~'''''''' / j f ! ~ I'if) ~, J " I .... I Ii J . , ,""_rJ , , , , I , , I , I , , I , I I ~ I I /1 , ! I If P.;41 :l~ ilJ ~il\ ~_I--- \ I : ,--- ~ I 'I '\ ---...---... , .' .....- \ , , \ '$:> ~ ~(>.J'1 '~'\i ""\t \ , , \ , , \ --' , "1>lt.~ " o .: . .n , d'8i~ , \ , , , \..'" " "" ............., t=" ~ .. , "" ", " " ", '. " " " , , , , , , , , \ " , , " " , , , ' , ' , " \0 " , , ~ , , 0' \ Jln;o _\..-_____~--_-_ L____________r.lK;IS:mS , ' , , \ . , "----- ""- "" , " , , \ , I o ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ A NEW HOUSE THAYER KyleA. Thayer. Ivcldlecl > 79 ROUND HILL ROAD 2OOGel8FiveRoJOij'.SUile~12 2 ~ ~ "' ARCHITECTURE SllllSll""',CA,~966 ~ ~ ;ij ~ . TIBURON, CA me. rel.415.33\.m1 [7~ ~ A.P. NOS. 058-301-35 & 17 F8~ 415.331.tl30 "~'~ ~"'''''~'~'''-'~I-~I''----I AtVSl'ECIFJC.\.IONS ARtnlEPROf"ERTYOF i MA~~~~~D. I&I~'-:;;' -:r-lSSJED-j,OODESKlNRfV1FN =A~~= 1,'0 ~-i. T ! fSSUEorOflot.SlGNnEVU;:W fUSPElWISSllN. 11OO.)~:" IlS'fi /tEYlSoJN "W20HRN'dParl<\0201SITEPtAlH-1ll-I)3.dI'Ig,09nJl200406:43:JolPM / / / / / / / / / / / ~ / ~I~ / e~-r; // 0-,0 / / C:.8 -- / / I, ~_ / I~ / 76'J8~ / / / E! 8- / / / 2.00~ / // /- / / / / rF- __ / / ),//i / / I JIl / I ' /1 ! ~ '\ (" DR/,ol/1v. "- ~ "- "- "- "- "- "- "- " /f / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 1 / 1 1 ~~ / ",en ~-I ~m 1J ~ Z / /, // / 1 / / ( 1 i / I - U I / -1/;--- - - e'( 1;' U 7 ~~ '/ .,...,.. -... 1!J.iI /, ;~ t::1 ~~ I, r-r r?"" I' ~~ I{ ~~ I ~~ // .2 / / I -.,..- "-1.----- \ -----.. \ \ 1:' \ -----...fi -\ \ (', \ /1 ! n\ \ I II ~ ~ !~~ ~ ~ 1\ 1\ ~ II r ~ ! j- ~ ;l g ~;Y";::: :-- 'jl 1/ g G) 1 h ~ iii I ~~ g I' ,iii~! ~ ~t'~I~ iii ~ IJ> 1 ~ ~ ( \ ~J~f-~~ . \ _ m I q, I \...~ ~! ~'Yn I I~~~ - ---- 1 1 // 1 ( 1 I / / f " I I IJ I f f f I f f / / I I / I / I / I I I I I I \ I '\ 1 1 / 1 1 \ \ \ \-- \ ---- .Oi % - (I 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ "i '" . o ~ ~ . o ~~ <(,'" \ \ \ o ~ 0,' o ~ ~ o ~ o o~ ~ 0", . .~O '0 \\.0 ~ \0> " ,.>~J<>. O~;. .., 5? ~" ~ \...r?(/J . 5? . '6' ,.> ~ 0>, -\~ \ \ "- "- "- "-.. -- / V' () / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ) / / / / / - --!---... / - / / I / -- ~ ----- / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ,! U " -, ~~ / ~~ /' //f/ / / / - !l;27',] , 731'1: 9 - 8.63-: - -- -- - ---- ------------- -- -- -- -- I / I / / I i__ I -- I o '" " ~ -< I ! / / I I I I I l ~~~ --c!- ~- ~"\ ----:;::::;-- -" -;;.:- ($l \ \---- \ 'go~-- Jl_ (, \1 ,S I \ ---ooO,l' \ ~ - .:J~' ---- \ \ " II \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ "'m q", ~ \ ~ ~ \..-- - \ \ \, -II ____ I \ \ \ \ \ i ~ " c '" r 0 0 ." Z m Q '" m :< z r < Z m 5 !TI ~ ~ ,m ~ ~ ." \ , \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ '" "- "- "- "- "- "- 1/0 vO -- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- "- '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ......... 'i{]G-., ~ "- "- "- "- ~~.~~~..""-~'~ ...........................m ; :~~J;~~~~~l:~p;i- ~ ."i"I.,,':'.!.6.!..J....... g ,.......... g \ II> I n ~N ~. ~ ~ 9 , A NEW HOUSE 79 ROUND HILL ROAD TIBURON, CA AP, NOS. 058-301-35 & 17 " "' ~ iiI - -- THAYER ARCillTECTURE INe. TH!,SEDESlGHS,Pl>>I.~ NCJSPECWICATlOHS AA.l':T>E~~RTYOF THEAI'CHlTEC1NlO W,YNOTBEDISI'lAYEO, OOPlEOOOIJSro.fl 1NiW,I,ywrrl'OUT ~-- REv:SI(>>; LL L;~ i ,;".~", _ T ~ 7/;'1/t)4 T ~,i DATE !JY KyIllA.~.AiT.NIecl 200 GIlle FlYe Rood,SutIl212 Sausallo.CA9'!l65 Till. 41$.J31.D931 F....<f15.3Jl.113& .ssUEOFOROn,c,NRE:V1EW IS~lJEVFOR DES,GNRE\fIEW ,p""".. NJ j -=~-f; ~ r raI\l'Jl 1'0/ ~' l'a'~~~ ]"Y': NCIIWln>l'ld$flj .J.f1Ol1l.\MJ.YMJ.>/V "'WSl1l1Oa~ 03J.Y1oOSIOal3lONAWI QIo(<II.;:l~~~ ""N.>J3d>:l>IQ3>113l1'i SNOl.lv:x,oQM$~ S!iVlO~S3OJ3S3HJ. ~lA3""~'S3aWC"aill1SS' ~"'~"S300W'<D1SS1 r-~""- ~"lt-M .iI'!l".lI - - - ---.~ 8 ~ II€n.~tt'~it ~ ';)NI H '1/ g{:-~OC-8S0 # -d-V ~. V8 'NOHnSl.l. '" " , ~ iC6(HOCIW, 'lIl i .. z ~ ~ <e: !l961>6y')'''I!Ie$lIeS ,nmL)'illIH;)W a'v'o~ lllH aNno~ 6L '" ~ I I i ~ .. UZ811ns'pllOl;j8AU~oaz ~3AVRL ~ ~ p;IIlpolV'~-Y""')j 3snOH M3N v ~ ... ~.. ~ ~ ! l:' I J@ 1 r' ~ l\ \ ., I I . I < S i 3 ~ ~ I r " S 1 I I U I i ! I I I : ~ I i i 1m l I 1 ~ [..J, ". ~ I ~ ~ ' , > . I \ , S ! I J ., ! i I I . ~. ~ ~ .e-.lI k,t ~, ~'-DI ~ ('-~L-_~ I J I I l-~ifl- II I I I I i L , , , I , . \ ! \ I , \ I I I ... , .... & ! !. . iJ~ ~ I L_~-, +- ..:~ , '" : ;~ ~'I I I I I I I I I I , '---- ~~- ' J;J:J ~~ ~i." h: ~ i ~ \ @ , '" I Ie , ; f I .. :1 , kl ~ '" ,,; ~ ~ ~ :s ~ z ::s -, D- o:: 0 0 ..J U. 0:: llJ ~ 5:~ OF . ..J~ " ~ ~ ('. N~ ~ .~ Ii '" ,,; ~ ~ 0 " :s '" < Z ~ -, ::s 0. 0:: ~ 0 0 ..J U. 0:: llJ o.~ D.. ::l~ '" ~<( i l I . ~ ; .... ~. k' ~.lI "ZI ~.. ~. ~~ ~ I , , i ~. """"""""~~" ~ ~~!!~~~!!!! i .! ."Nl')q...",,,,"IOCII~;: "' ~" 1~ n b if ~ I .I; ~. ; j I . Ii , ~, I I I -------T-.rJ 3 k' I I I I .... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---i z ::s 0. u. 0,;> 0'; o::~ "'~ I'Od SFWP.lO IIfXXfn/6lJ '6><p'~.I\Jll-st.Jejd Jt}OjJ-~.rOl'o\lP!l1 pInlll t-H1io\'l'''d ~lll-IOlO'I:H ~--------- ~ ~~- m,~ : '" .q-~ ".::";:1"3" "~...adSIH 9W"ltt1H~ ""~ ':>.NI H 'l? g{:-~O~-g90 # 'O"V " z i !nctlUM~VM~ V3 'NOl:108U. . z 0 l M;l!AallN<.JjS~ItO,<~ J. i"'"'''''' '2' H1Q]SI1W~ 0:.:::': l mlfl.L;)tllIH;)~V ii 15 ~ ~ " < M.3II\3<INO<S3.Qll<l;a3nSll1 , ~~ \!7 'Q~YJdSl(l3q.lOO.\Vf( avo~ lllH aNnO~ 6L ~ ~ . ~ rw;J.:)~~ iI 5 I O:)AliI3dOl;d~""" nzewns'pllulJ......~.Il'SOOZ 3A Vffi .. ~ ~ I ~ I SN:ol't':)<!03dSl>>l'I' J:XIIjlPlV'.IiMIU.'Y~ "M 3S00H M3N V ~ W SN'f""IO"S>F.lI~1i$3Hl. 1 i .I"/)' .hel ~ ~ ; l' < "' I ~ ! ,:C:JE] 1 ;f./ (~" . . . :: L "~.\ "(1 \ '\~ K! / "r , , , ,~L~~ , , ",-,="",::J ....01 , , Di lZ31 E:2l , , I z 0 . ~ W ...J W ::c I- a:: ~ 0 F z ~ ","" <( ; . "' ~ i " i ~ .1'" k' z o ~ W ...J W I- (/)~ ~F >~ ~=i II ',~ ~ ' it 3 s. !UII' ~~ ~3. ..! i .hl ki l ; ~ . . I " < I I , , , , , " " " I' " \ " " " \ Z " \ " 0 , " \ ~ " 'I I 1 W , , ...J I W J l- I ~ I (/) I <( , .' , W ~ I "" =i ~ I ~ ~ ~3 Ii . ~ ~l ~ ~ I I .; .; " < . I ! E .1".0' .1-.01 i ~ I . ,i .1 ~ ~ i.. ~ ~ li~; dlJ >f> ! h i;~ I f r~ 'I -, , , , , , 1 , I I 'I I, , I , , I I , , , , ~ ~ " ~ ,Z '0 I- ~ W ...J W I I- :::li o} (/)~ I E3 , r::f ~1 _____J -----1 . , 8 , , D\ , .J M=i Wd IZ'6l"SO HlOtla/W '6Mp"Z'Mlj-st..n3 SD3S-~.asrtOlTlozo\IlH ~ Z-IOW\l\A!d pa.lll Horo\:~ """~ ~-3J.'o'!Ji"'" M3\h3ljNOlS:xJ~o~c.m'm' ... t O<)'\~'(? .>.u<.\.3"~3Cll(l"a3llll$l 1 .<'l,.l:e :"~1 'NOIS'i:I"ll3<Isel .'....I~ .. H 1/ SC-~OC-9S0 # 'd'V !!1 <8 " 0 ~ 1ilOHllMA'IM>>N V:J 'NmJn8l.L . z !j ~ tr) NlaJWWa3IdlXl IQXntt-..I) ....1 fi 9 " ~ 'UlA'(1dSIClOlll~ONI<""" ~"""....... 3WU;)3.IJH:nIV avo~ lllH aNnO~ 6L w , ~ ~ ! <JWi:)~;o.u 2 5 '" ~1\..liI3dOOIcI3tU:rll'I Z~Z"'ll'>S~eAI.:l-.eaOlll }1M VHl. .. I" i ~ SHlltl'o':lUl:a.tSllN't' PfII\PIV'*-u y.x 3snOH M3N v ~ $>H'o.o'l>NOIS9Q~ - ~ rts.;=,; ~ ~i I . / .I I--i / I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ! ~ 1 ! / . 1 '--! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I , I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I , I I I I , t ~ ! I I L_____~_______ , ~ t , I , .~~'!(!~!!!j"~~~!l 1'i!1!!!!~9 Ii! I II I I II I I ~ \ --_._----~- I (' . , f; , I Z I 0 , 0 i I- ~ 0 "---------~~---- w (/) = W I , I I I- , , I , (/) I , , , - , i I \ C) \ , \ ~ Z \ \ , Cl , I , . , , ..J , , ~ , \ :> , \~ I 00 ... , I E, " , , I , I , I , , > , , I \ , i \ , I , \ , , I , , , I \ I , I \ \ I \ I , \ / +c , , , , 'J , \ =\1 I /1 \ , \ , \ -r>> , I , \ , "''''= [\ , li,,~ - \ ~ 3 , , ' " \ ~ \ 0 . \ I , - , ~ I \ /, ~ I \ ~ \ \ '- \ \ < \ \ \ \ \~ , \ , I \ ~ \ \ , -l- I 3 I , I I I \ \ ~---~----------- ~ I i i - -----"'--.-1 . ~ i -_/- ------.----- ------- ~ \ ~ -----:---- ~-------- ~ i [( / ~n . / ~ '{ ~ [ I I' /; f7"'C' " , rl l' t1 ....0. , ,:::l:M , , , , , , , A /, , I ':L \ I I I I I I I I I > fl. 1 , J~ I I I I I I I I I , , : i I ~ , 1 I , ~ z o i= o w (/) W l- (/) C) z Cl ..J " :> b 00 ! E~ - / Hdac:tl'SOtoolJaJfIJ"lIMVl~_suuS..l.)~N~lOl:O\SlHpun<Ilj l-loro\'IJI!dp;1Oql T.Tutll\:H . . . f:\,.:,:,;\:)ll\S:,I\,\o.il~,\rU 'ih."i:b\lifill\l'RU \~KiS<." ;.iJn d",~I~~n:V:''Jl;b", ~r~:~c pia~ GITI'~rlt>If.<'l.alrJ illj OJ. ;:r~l-i ,l~ r------- : I : I , i , , I , , I , '30 , I , , I , , ~0:l1 I ~h ' P1@,' .::!t!] 120 ~~ i 8~ ! ~~ I' ~m /-~----- I ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , I , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , I\! I ----1-------------1-- : I I I : 1 I , L______ , I , , I , , I , i , , I ~~~ 5n1" ~5" d ~~ z!!' ~~ ~~ riI~ (iO m", ~~ :lIS a ~ r f:j i!l~~~~~~~~~uu :ii:ii ffi 7i'!L~ ;jm~ ,. z:z: m\J,> ~D- .~rtl~~~~~ :::!5J#~ (i"o nI~~It~ " ~m~~~~;;,~~~~ 1~~Orn~6i1"'Jl JR~:{~~~~~~~ ,,~ili ~hRi~W~ ~~~ ,i1mU~~~ r~8 ~~iii~gR~ ~~~ ~~d~~~ "5'" ~~i "nI~ j~~ ~~" h~ ~~~ rn5~ ~~8 <~& mgm 50Si' ~~@ ~ ~ :z:f~ <JnI:t ~ I' ~Rinl ,,!~(j "''-~ ~ <J ~ffi ~s:- m VI;::! It f!jt r I ~ :t> -0 [ ;;;:::0 mm zO 000 ;;;:m m-o z~ -iZ . m . ~ ~ i -~Q ~::I:p; ~ * ~ ~ g , ~~ ~~ :{91 " rm I;j~ 1________ -_'2a5J' ~ NJO"O.i'3Ot~____ TY !-~NE ----------- ----, 19[,_ ~.- , i .J---;---,,:!- ~ ~J!:!:'N6 ENvELoPE l-' - I .:-"'~: , ' I 130 0 Ofl : , I " I J..."" ---0+--- , I I ' -'1''''-' 1 r: I m- [ I 01 I 120 -:----~__r__"--;.G'I I 0 , ~- -~-------------~~~~:~I: , -----c. I I : 1.---. , -q., 'It ' , -------flJ~ , I '~'-r---- I I ! ot-1------ , , , --~I-r--- I : ! ---~aL i :T~~ , ,5:!F- ~c;L~tL : ! ;t~"", : I ~m _l(lj~~~ , 91 >;0 '. i rli rtf, "~\ (';CP mOll, 1'''' ' O~~ (lim , ;80 \ ~. .{ , , , rr ['" "",I'[q ~~:' ':_~<', .>..., \. [' ""<J't'" ',' ", "'S" .'.', ", -',' -', -',', k"<",",<,".,<",,_'-,-, 1,>-, ',,;~l,9'\, ""',-, ", ',- "'-, .', a.i ,-', \., ", "" 1\ """"If " " -', '" -'-, "- ~<:~~:,:'~:iil,<',',<>:~~<< I\>'-~,"~,,:,~<>,~><,,<-~~> ~ f'- -"\'-", "~"" "'-,""-."'" ';8 5[<'<"'.",..,.,...'.",';\' - ... -', '- (), -', ~ '-',.', <:'-<'~-><."<>,~,'" ,~. ~"'I":: .<~ , " '" '" m C'~~'" '!a~;'" , . j,"', '\',-',"- t~~,<:"<>-" "<>>~:,':~ ~ 1<.<" ..,'..', ': :~> ~<,:,::~.'.<:,<:-:,"~:', ~- ' i :<.~<'.'.:...':>.:. ": I I><<,~<~:,,::','~,'~:~<~__"" ! i ,"., ". "'...$i'@.'...,--"-J, 1 '\.,' '- '-"~' \,,_ et, I 1------___ : '<"<',<<~,i.::'::<,--< [I : ""-<,<>~-~,'.,:~,~' : ,.".ffl~..'.,'::-.6---J : ,.,....,..\,l1Il,....'.., I I "~~. I " ' , I , , , , I . , ~'" '. f ' ~, Jc-'" ., ~i",\'..., . m, '" ,,:, '" "'. r, i' , ~ ~: .,.,'I)~: , , I , I : " I .~t : .1 ~______ ''''''1 : 1 , , I I , 1 , I I I 1 , I I 1 , --::5 ", " ^ "" r Iii \!: " ~ Iii J \!: " ~ " '" I/: (j !!' ---l I " m (i m ~-+L-J , I I I I --c n ~" ~- ~~ " , I 1 , , , BUILDING EN'VaOPE I ~---~----------\- , '---------------r--- I ,.98- , ffi I i ~ I : ;<; ! t-" ~ I . ~ I I Z , ~ I , m I I-,,~. : m I I "I , , I i , , I , __'!l , I , i ..../( c.--~/- L-----------___________________u-L!<,,;....______~'!_~____________________..J~ ~~~ S62YJ!r251t' -' \~~~----- ..- -1,J Q I;.~80 ( "iJ l'i" :~'\ nl '" X " ~ ~ ~ ~ ) I , 1// ;;~: Z Cl-;-; '[1,,:) ('~ .-.., 'EY 80 "0;':: ~',"'] 1"., f'-" ~,,) ~ "'.....:J {,:') ~7j ..-/ / ~) - Z ------/- . , ~ Project I GRAVES I HERBERT RESIDENCE 4 INDIAN ROCK COURT TIBURON, CA 94920 -~ ! i~~ ~~[~ ~ ~ f;; 0 e ,- ,...., II t'~Jii S;r~g g"R- en rn N V..J l, ~~ g~~H g" e:: U ~."'~ _8 '" ~ > z Z ! >: [!,trl > ~'" ~ PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT o ; ~ ~ / .---L,.-.-,,-,.