HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1995-05-03
;lfxfs7r/(
TmURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA
TOWN OF TIBURON
1101 TIBURON BLVD.
REGULAR MEETING
MEETING DATE:
CLOSED SESSION:
MEETING TIME:
MAY 3, 1995
NONE
7:30 P.M.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Urn!t Presentations to 3 minutes; (5)
Speak Directly into Microphone.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact
Town Hall (415) 435-7373. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS. BOARDS. COMMITTEES
1.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
C. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to matters not already on this agenda,
other than items on the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each
agenda item at the time it is called. Presentations are limited to three (3) minl/tes. Matters requiring action
will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed
on a future COl/ncil meeting agenda,
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
17le pl/rpose of the Consent Calendar is to grOl/p items together which generally do not reql/ire discussion
and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item.
Any member of the Town COl/ncil, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for
discussion.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #1049, April 19, 1995
3. FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 TOWN BUDGET (Preliminary Budget Hearing)
4. DOWNTOWN FERRY DOCK REALIGNMENT (Accept Easement -
Resolution)
5. TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT (3/31/95)
J. ADJOURNMENT
18. LETIER FROM HENRY HEROLD REQUESTING APPEAL FEE
WAIVER (Dated 4/20/95)
17. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS:
a) Blackfield Drive/Paseo Mirasol Homeowners' A~soc.
Block Party (May 7)
b) Sam's Anchor Cafe 75th Anniversary Party (August 17)
16, MEMO FROM STATE PARKS AREA SUPERINTENDENT KEN LEIGH
(May 13 Angel Island Concert Information dated 4/19/95)
15. LEITER FROM TIBURON'S WORKERS' COMPo PROGRAM RISK
MANAGER (1995 Employee Health & Safety Survey dated 4/5/95)
I. COMMUNICATIONS
14. TIBURON PENINSULA DISASTER PREPAREDNESS COUNCIL
(Consider Formation of Tiburon Peninsula Disaster Council)
12. MEMORIAL BENCH/PLAQUE POLICY (Reconsider Current Policy)
13. TIBURON'S 1994 TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION STUDY (Accept
Report & Consider Staff Comments)
H. NEW BUSINESS
11. TOWN'S 1995 GOALS & OBJECfIVES TIMELINE (Goals Calendar/
Action Dates)
10. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR RETAINING WALL/J. MALOTI, 987
TIBURON BLVD. (Town Open Space. Hilarita Area)
9. NTC COMMIITEE BUDGETS (Consideration of Additional Costs)
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT - L. Lang, 4 Cibrian Drive
7. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DECISION - Applicant S. Brante, 1818
Lagoon View Drive
6. NEW MUNICIPAL LIBRARY ORDINANCE
a) Ordinance Second Reading and Adoption
b) Story Poles at Mar West Site
F. PUBLIC HEARING
Ik M-- ..<
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Thompson called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon to order at 7:36 p,m., Wednesday, April 19, 1995 in Council Chambers, 1101
Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ginalski, Nygren, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Ewing,
Town Engineer Mohammadi, Police Chief
Herley, Planning Director Anderson, Associate
Planner Catron, Town Clerk Crane
B. POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENDATIONS
1. Chief of Police Peter Herley awarded a Commendation for Outstanding Service to
Explorer Travis Higgins for his efforts in assisting Corporal Don Comfort with
communications during a high-speed chase in March, and for his many hours spent as
a volunteer at the Tiburon Police Department since 1989.
C. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS. BOARDS. COMMITIEES
Councilmember Ginalski made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Nygren, to
nominate Wade LeRoux to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Wolf objected
to the nomination as inappropriate because of a letter LeRoux had written to The Ark.
A consensus was reached to wait a couple of weeks on the appointments to allow for
more discussion with the candidates and among Council. Councilmember Ginalski
withdrew his motion.
D. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Joe Keller asked the Council about the status of regulating leaf blower usage. Town
Manager Kleinert responded that an ordinance regulating hours of usage would be
presented for Council approval in May,
Councilmember Ginalski volunteered to attend a meeting of City representatives and the
Marin Association of Realtors on the subject of a proposed increase to the property
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
1
transfer tax, Town Attorney Ewing said that he was also planning to attend the meeting.
E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION OR COMMlTIEE ORAL REPORTS
None.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
After amending the March 1 and March 15 Minutes, a motion was made and seconded
to approve Items 2 and 3, and to add and approve Item 11, on the Consent calendar.
All ayes were recorded, Item 4 was moved to the end of the Agenda.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
5. NEW BELVEDERE/TIBURON LIBRARY. Staff recommended adoption of the
Resolution forming a Joint Powers Agreement and Ordinance creating the municipal
library. Attorney Ewing answered questions posed by Councilmembers Ginalski and
Nygren. During public hearing, the three (3) candidates proposed by the Library
Steering Committee to serve on the IPA Agency Board introduced themselves: Sharon
Bass, 2300 Spanish Trail; Carol Forell, 2299 Spanish Trail; and Alan Littman, 100
Rolling Hills Road.
MOTION: To adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a Joint Powers Agreement
with the City of Belvedere to Create a Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency
Moved:
Vote:
Nygren, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
MOTION: To read Ordinance by title only (first reading)
Moved: Nygren, Seconded by Thayer
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
Mayor Thompson read, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE .
TOWN OF TIBURON TO ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL LIBRARY"
MOTION: To adopt Ordinance by Roll Call Vote
Moved: Wolf, Seconded by Thompson
Vote: AYES:
NOES:
Nygren, Ginalski, Wolf, Thayer, Thompson
None
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
2
MOTION: To approve the appointees to the Joint Powers Agency Board
Moved: Wolf, Seconded by Thayer
Vote: AYES:
NOES:
Unanimous
None
Alan Littman proposed that the Council adjourn in memory of the Knight family ($1
Million bequest), Margaret Jones thanked the Council and Staff for their "wonderful
help," and Councilmember Nygren thanked the Library Steering Committee for their
devotion to the project.
6. BARKING DOG ORDINANCE. Councilmember Nygren read from a citizen's letter
inquiring about the scope of the ordinance. Attorney Ewing stated his views on the
discretion of the police and how complaints could be resolved. He also cited his
experience with a similar ordinance in San Mateo County.
MOTION: To read Ordinance by title only (second reading)
Moved: Ginalski, Seconded by Wolf
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
Mayor Thompson read, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE AMENDED ANIMAL
CONTROL REGULATIONS OF TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE
INCLUDING SECfION 8.04.179 PERTAINING TO ANIMAL NOISE"
MOTION: To adopt the Ordinance by Roll Call Vote
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Seconded by Nygren
AYES: Nygren, Ginalski, Wolf, Thayer, Thompson
NOES: None
7. TIBURON'S RECYCLING PROGRAM - YARD W AS1E. Town Manager Kleinert
gave the staff report on the "Green Can" program proposed by Mill Valley Refuse
Service as a way to help achieve the Town's diversion goals mandated by AB939.
Kleinert recommended Council and public discussion at this meeting and for the matter
to be agendized in May. Rick Powell, a representative from MVRS, answered questions
posed by Council and by several citizens during public hearing. Concerns expressed by
citizens centered on the issues of storage, aesthetics, weight and mobility, and whether
the pick-ups and charges could be optional. Several citizens commented that they had
only received notice of the public hearing that day and wanted more time to discuss it
with their neighbors.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
3
Several people proposed a test or "pilot" program. Mayor Thompson said he would talk
to his neighbors about doing one in his neighborhood.
Further discussion centered on how the Town was debited or credited for landfill use,
creating a place for gardeners to haul yard waste so that it would not go to landfill,
educating the community about composting, and how Marin Resource and Recovery
Systems processed yard waste.
Item was continued to May 17.
8. APPLICATION TO AMEND PRECISE PLAN FOR FRAlGE SUBDIVISION.
Associate Planner Catron gave the staff report and recommended approval of the
amended application per the Planning Commission, with additional revisions to the
Resolution regarding height limitations.
Jim McCartin, 205 Roundhill Road, asked Council not to allow the amendment because
he felt it granted favors to someone (the developer, Thomas Monahan) who "didn't play
by the rules" at he and his neighbors' expense. He also expressed incredulity at the fact
that a "precise plan" could be changed, and that some of the changes, such as the road
being moved 10 feet, were made without public notification or hearing.
Council responded by reviewing the history of the matter and stating their various
opinions on whether or not the changes should have been approved by the Planning
Commission/Town staff. Council apologized to Mr. McCartin for lack of notice and for
being "ill-served by the process." Council discussed the proposed changes to the three
parcels in question.
MOTION: Apology to Mr. McCartin/Approve Precise Plan Amendment with specific
language added to Section 2 of the Resolution to protect the oak tree on
Parcel 1
Moved: Nygren, seconded by Thayer
Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Nygren, Thayer, Wolf
Ginalski, Thompson
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. MAIN STREET PROPERTIES - MAR WEST /TIBURON BOULEVARD & BANK
OF AMERICA PARKING LOT (Use Permits). Planning Director Anderson gave the
staff report on the history of use permits for public parking lots in Tiburon, and in
particular, the lots owned by Main Street Properties. He stated that the Planning
Commission had discussed the (latter) issue and decided to place it on their agenda
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
4
again in July, following the Town Hall ballot measures election. A temporary use permit
had been granted on all three (3) lots through November 20, 1987. Town Attorney
Ewing suggested that separate permits for the lots be granted in the future.
Councilmember Nygren questioned 1) why temporary use permits had not been required
(since 1987); 2) why the Town was allowing Main Street Properties to collect parking
revenues for a piece of land owned by the Town; and 3) how many spaces would be left
for public parking when the library and if a new Town Hall is built. Planning Director
Anderson responded to her questions.
Councilmember Ginalski raised the issue of the expired use permit and stated that it was
an issue of the 'Town abiding by its own rules."
Council directed Staff to immediately notify all fee parking lots to apply for use permits.
10. NEW TOWN CENlER FACILITIES. Town Manager Kleinert outlined the
procedure for the proposed community workshop mailers to the property owner's
associations, and made suggestions regarding the two (2) informational mailers.
Council debated the issue of whether the Town should be paying for the mailers and/or
workshop, whether the mailers could be impartial, and what to do about the story poles.
During public hearing, Richard Hinkel, 2 Malvino Court, read a letter from Carolyn
Hockley to Mayor Thompson, objecting to a quote by him in The Ark pertaining to the
use of Measure I funds. Mayor Thompson said he would talk to Ms. Hockley and asked
Council to continue with the agenda. Public hearing continued with questions about the
proposed senior housing at Ned's Way, story poles, and whether the view of St. Hilary's
would be blocked by a downtown Town Hall.
Council decided to go forward with the informational mailers. Attorney Ewing agreed
to arrange a meeting to discuss the mailers with representatives from both ballot
measure committees.
Council directed Town Manager Kleinert to have story poles outlining the new library
building erected at the Mar West site and for the proposed new facilities at the Ned's
Way site. Councilmember Thayer asked that the Library Steering Committee be
consulted before the poles were erected at the library site.
Councilmember Wolf stated her objection to the story poles, calling Council's insistence
to erect them "disingenuous," since none were erected for Measures M & I. She also
reiterated her position that the business of the Town Council should be to handle issues
of Town government and that she did not want to see this item on agenda again.
Mayor Thompson concurred that the Town should stay out of the ballot measure debate
TOWN COUNCIL MINUlES #1049
4/19/95
5
because it was a waste of Council and staff time, and because a formal campaign was
in process.
Town Manager Kleinert asked for clarification as to whether items pertaining to the new
Town Hall issue should appear on future Council agendas. The consensus was that such
items should not be on Council's agenda. Councilmember Nygren stated that if the story
poles were erected, she would concur.
I. NEW BUSINESS
11. DIVISO STREET OVERLAY PROJECT. Previously approved III Consent
Calendar.
12. HARROMAN & JAY PROPERTIES - CELEBRATIONS. It was agreed that there
should be two celebrationsnone for the close Of Jay (estimated June, 1995), and one for
Harroman, as "kite day," Councilmember Ginalski agreed to act as a liaison between
the various organizations involved for the celebration planning: Last Chance Committee,
Landmarks Society, Parks and Open Space Commission, and Heritage and Arts
Commission. No firm dates were set for the celebrations.
J. COMMUNICATIONS
13. MEMORANDUM TO MARIN MANAGERS (regarding Clean Storm Water Run-
Off Program). Town Manager Kleinert gave a brief report on the federally-mandated
program and alerted Council that future action would have to be taken by the Town to
implement the program and there would be a cost (to property owners). He stated that
it was possible that part of the overall cost could be slightly offset because the property
owners are currently funding the Town's street sweeping and catch basin cleaning
program.
Kleinert proposed bringing the item back to Council with a more detailed report.
K. STAFF AND TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
14. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY. Planning Director Anderson made reference
to a previous staff report and aerial map (in Council Chambers) and proposed to do a
study using Town staff and volunteers to keep costs down. The study would focus on the
larger lots, and counts would be taken at different times on any given day, at night, and
focus on weekend usage, starting in May and going through November.
Council member Nygren handed out a list of questions she felt needed to be answered
before the study could take place in order to determine and define the focus of the
study. Council members Thayer and Wolf suggested that the study be done to gather
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
6
data and that policy issues could be made later, based on the information received.
Councilmember Thayer directed Planning Director Anderson to start gathering data and
to explore the possibility of using a graduate s~udent to help out, and to ask the Planning
Commission to review the questions submitted by Councilmember Nygren in order to
corne up with a "scoping statement."
4. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - J. MALOTI (Town Open Space adjacent to
Hilarita). (This item was moved to the end of the meeting from the Consent Calendar.)
Associate Planner Catron recommended that Council approve a revokable
Encroachment Permit for improvements by Mr. Malott for his driveway which borders
on Town and Hilarita property. Specifically, Mr. Malott wants to build a retaining wall
(on Town Open Space) to shore up his driveway.
After a brief discussion, the matter was continued to May 3 in order to allow more time
for a) Council to walk the site; b) Town staff to talk to Hilarita (to get their approval
of the project); and c) invite Mr. Mallot to attend the Council meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
Town Attorney Ewing asked for an item, Zack v, Town of Tiburon, to be added to the
Closed Meeting agenda. The motion was moved and seconded, and unanimously passed.
L. ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 12:40 a.m.
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon,
Mayor Thompson adjourned at 1:00 a.m. sine die.
MAYOR A."IDREW THOMPSON
A TIEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
7
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MAY 3, 1995
ITEM NO. 3
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: TIBURON'S FY'95-'96 BUDGET HEARINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget hearing schedule for consideration of the Town's proposed FY '95-'96
Municipal Budget is as follows:
Weds. -- May 17 (Regular Meeting - Budget Overview)
Weds. -- May 31 (Adjourned Meeting - Review of Operating Departments)
Tues. -- June 13 (Adjourned Meeting - Review of Capital Improvement Projects)
Weds. -- June 21 (Regular Meeting - Final Review and Adoption)
The preliminary budgets will be available for the Town Council and public on May
17. The new fiscal year begins July I, 1995.
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 1994
ITEM NO. LJ
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM MAIN STREET PROPERTIES FOR
NEW FERRY DOCK
FROM:
TOWN ATTORNEY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In 1993 the Town was granted $710,000 by the California Transportation Commission for the
purpose of constructing a new ferry dock to replace the existing dock used by Red & White Fleet.
The new dock will be owned by the Town and will be located primarily on Town property.
However, because of the configuration of lot lines in that area, a comer of the new dock will have
to be located on property owned by Mr. Zelinsky and his sister, Barbara Abrams. The state has
consented to this arrangement as part of the grant funding and Mr. Zelinsky and Ms. Abrams have
signed an agreement granting us an easement over their property.
The specific location of the easement granted to the Town will be determined when the
engineering drawings are finalized, but generally it will be within the 40 feet along the eastern
border of the Zelinsky/Abrams property connecting the new dock to the pedestrian easement along
Guaymas.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Town or its lessees will be required to pay $1200 per
month to Zelinsky/Abrams. This amount is equal to the monthly rent currently paid by Red &
White to Zelinsky/Abrams for the use of the current dock. In the draft lease negotiated by staff
with Red & White for their use of the new dock, Red & White has agreed to pay all such fees to
Zelinsky/Abrams. That lease will be brought before the Council in the near future.
In addition, to this lease, there have been general questions regarding timing and processing of
the dock. We have applied for the permits required by BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineers
and should receive these shortly, The application will also be taken to our Design Review Board
in the near future. The California Transportation Commission will consider final approval of the
project and release of the money to the Town at either their July or August meetings. We are
projecting construction to begin and be completed in the fall of 1995. However, if we experience
delays construction may have to be delayed until March 1996.
RECOMMENDA nON
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution and
recordation of the easement.
EXHIBITS
I. Draft Resolution with easement agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT
FROM MAIN STREET PROPERTIES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW
MUNICIPAL FERRY DOCK
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has obtained funding from the State of California to
construct a new municipal ferry dock; and
WHEREAS, in order to construct the new dock it is necessary that a portion of the dock
be constructed on property owned by Edward G. Zelinsky and Barbara Z. Abrams; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Zelinsky and Ms. Abrams have agreed to grant an easement to the Town
of Tiburon for purposes of constructing the new ferry dock which easement must be accepted by
the Town.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
that the Town of Tiburon accepts the easement offered by Edward G. Zelinsky and Barbara Z.
Abrams, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The easement shall be executed by the Town
Manager and shall be recorded with the Office of the Marin County Recorder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on May 3, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
~... - , '\,
(
(
Recording Requested by:
Terry Hennessy
Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
GRANT OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Preamble
This Agreement made this ~Dr \.., day of fYl4).2C U ,1993, by and between
Edward G. Zelinsky and Barbara Z. Abrams, hereinafter ref~rred to as "Grantors," and the
Town of Tiburon, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee."
Recitals
WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real property (a portion of which is
underwater) commonly known as 5 Main Street, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California
(APN # 059-151-41), hereinafter referred to as the "Servient Tenement": and
WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property (which is primarily
underwater) immediately adjoining Grantors' property, commonly known as 1920 Paradise
Boulevard, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California (APN # 059-163-01), hereinafter
referred to as the "Dominant Tenement"; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has received funding to construct a new municipal ferry dock
on its property described above; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has determined that in order to make the dock as safe as
possible while meeting accessibility requirements, a portion of the dock must cross Grantors'
lot and therefore, Grantee desire to acquir~ certain rights in the Servient Tenement for the
purpose ot constructing and operating the dock.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
Grant of Easement
1. For valuable consideration, Grantors hereby grant to Grantee an easement
as hereinafter described.
I
r J j
(
(
Character of Easement
2. The easement granted herein is aJlPurtenant to the Dominant Tenement.
-- .' Description and Use of Easement
3. The easement granted herein is for the purpose of allowing Grantee and any
ferry operators authorized by Grantee to construct, maintain and operate a municipal ferry
dock on the Servient Tenement.
Location
4. The easement granted herein shall be no wider than 40 feet and shall be
located along the easterly boundary of the Servient Tenement connecting the existing
pedestrian access easement on the Servient Tenement with the portion of the dock on the
Dominant Tenement. The precise location of the easement shall be determined by the
actual location of the dock once constructed and shall be subject to approval of Grantors,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The precise location of the easement
is shown on Exhibit A and legally described in Exhibit B. Both exhibits are attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. [Note: Exhibits A and B will be added prior to
recordation once design and survey work are completed.]
Exclusiveness of Easement
5. The easement granted herein is exclusively for the use of Grantee and such
ferry operators as the Grantee authorizes to use the dock.
'. Rent to be Paid
6. Grantee or its lessee(s) shall pay to Grantors the sum of $1200 per month, due
on the first of each calendar month effective when construction of the dock is completed
and available for use by the public. This $1200 shall be the base rent and shall be reviewed
on the first anniversary of the first payment and every year thereafter and adjusted upward
(but not down) by the amount of any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Secondary Easements
6. The easement granted herein includes incidental rights of maintenance, repair,
and replacement, described as follows: the right to go upon Grantors' property with
necessary equipment for the maintenance or repair of the dock once constructed,
2
. ~ .: ..~.; ("
(
(
Hold Harmless and Insurance
8. Grantee shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantors from any claim,
lawsuit or liability involving the construction of the dock or its subsequent use by the public.
In addition, Grantee and any lessees or operators of the dock shall name Grantors as
additional insureds in any general liability insurance applicable to the use or operation of
the dock.
Ownership of Improvements
. 9. Grantee shall retain ownership of any improvements placed in the easement
for so long as Grantee owns the dock. Grantors shall have the right to review and approve
the proposed improvements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Should
Grantee ever abandon use of the dock, Grantee shall be responsible for removal of
improvements from tht: ease:nent.
Commencement of Use
10. If Grantee does not commence use of the easement described herein by
beginning construction of the dock within two (2) years of date of execution of this
easement, this agreement shall automatically become null and void, unless extended by
written agreement of the parties. The two year time period shall be tolled during the
pendency of any litigation challenging construction of the dock.
Other Responsibilities of Grantee
11. Grantee and its lessees shall be solely responsible for maintaining the dock
in a clean and safe manner. Grantee shall be responsible for any transfer taxes or other
costs associated with the grant and recordation of this easement.
Arbitration
12. The parties agree that any dispute between the parties regarding the terms or
application of this agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration.
Entire Agreement
13. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to
the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or
modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting a
subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged.
3
.'
\ ,~ \. ,
(
(
Binding Effect
14. This instrument shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of Grantor and Grantee for so long as
Grantee owns the dock.
Executed onjrmR-df70) 191-{
, at Tiburon, Marin County, California.
GRANTORS
~t(/ 9'dt~
(/ .
GRANTEE
Acknowledgment
4
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 TIBURON BOULEVARD. T1BURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (4(5) 435-7373
FAX (4]5) 4]5-2438
TOWN conNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING:
MAY 3,1995
!:
FROM:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
ITEM NO:
SUBJECT:
MONTHlY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT
MARCH 31,1995
I. TOWN OF TffiURON
Institution! Agency Amount Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $6,523,082 5.934% Liquid
LAI.F.
Federal Agency Issues
G.N.M.A $ 978 12.000% 04-14-2014
Total invested: $6,524,060
2. TffiURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency Amount Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $1,204,054 5.934% Liquid
L.A.I.F.
Total invested: $ I ,204,054
Notes to tables:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - The interest rate represents the effective yield for the
month referenced above. The State distributes the data reports in the third week following the month ended.
GNMA - Principal and interest are paid monthly on this government security.
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.
BY:
/~
Richard Stranzl, Finance Director
April 26, 1995
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: MAY 3,1995
ITEM NO. (p a.)
FROM:
TOWN A TIORNEY
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CREATING MUNICIPAL LIBRARY-SECOND READING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 1995, the Council authorized execution of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City
of Belvedere for the creation of a new municipal library. The Council also passed first reading
of an ordinance authorizing the creation of the new library as required by Education Code Section
18900. On tonight's agenda, the Council is asked to pass second reading of the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council conduct a public hearing, by motion read the ordinance by
title only and then by roll call vote, adopt the ordinance,
EXHIBITS
I. Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. _N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABI.ISHINGA MUNICIPAL LIBRARY
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION I MUNICIPAL LIBRARY R<;TABLISHED
Pursuant to Education Code Section 18900, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
hereby establishes a municipal library in and for the Town of Tiburon. This municipal
library shall be operated pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement between the Town of
Tiburon and City of Belvedere establishing the Belvedere- Tiburon Library Agency.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of
passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on April 19, 1995, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon on May 3, 1995 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
DIANE CRANE, TOWN .CLERK
Drafted 4/11195
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE
&ettyeand Diyid Allcn
Kate Solan.Baker
,lcnniferind Rlchard Barker
Ellen and Thomas Bauc:h
Helcnind HOWiord &enedia
DicJt and Ginny Boesel
AJ and Jane COOper
Stone and Sul)'Coxhead
..RotMnDaly
S'JIYii Dayldson
OotI[},ayb,
RonaElllert
Unyfeldman
DlUeGensll.'r
BarDiraand Geolil.' GnOM
JanColdbelg
)udyGrl.'bl.'r
SillieGrlffith
C<lrolynandJohnHamien
Bonnie Hall
Mollie Hofmann
JOinnl.'Horton
Robin Hudnul
8erton and Jean lacob5en
RusscllKl.'il
MargarllaLacl.'Y
George Landau
8elhand Peler LOgan
Connie MCHugh
Rhoda Me~er
DB.Murray
Coulie an.:l Pell.'rPhillips
ManhiProcler
Bruceand5ylylaRoss
;cingS.lms
PhytllsSirasy
Cherrils..:an.h
MrienneSlos.s
G.arySpralling
Peley5le!n
DayldandVick.iSlOllmeycr
Ruth SlOller
GeorseSwift
8c:niaminand Killy Wells
Nicky Wolfe
Ed and UlehZellnsky
~~:~O,~~~
26 April 1995
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURDN
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
Tiburon Town Hall
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Bob:
We appreciate your checking with the Library
Steering Committee as to our concerns with placi~ng
story poles outlining the new library on the -
Mar West site. As we understand it, this is to
aid in the analysis of the pros and cons of the
conceptual Down Town City Hall proposal, which
would be located on a lot further down on Tiburon
Blvd.
We do have concerns, and we would appreciate the
opportunity to address the Council with these
concerns prior to your commencing, perhaps at
the next Council meeting on Wednesday, May 3, 1995.
I trust that this hearing can be arranged.
Si cerely,/
.-('.~
ames K. Levorsen
hair, Building Sub-Committee
New Belvedere-Tiburbn Library
Peninsula Library Foundation
Post Office Box 483, Belvedere-Tiburon, California 94920 . 415 435-BOOK (435-2665)
1Je~ ~ b)
STURINCi COMMITTEE
CharlesAuetbach
SharonElasS
ElLenllaucn
Je&neue carr
Bryan and Ocllny Chapman
sabra Drohan
M.ukFcldman
RellandRl1aFln1c
J"-'f1ori<o
VldtlFOns
QlrolFofeU
, Wal~ccHaU
John Hotrmlre
MaliaretlO/les
BarbaralCallsh
Jim Leyorsen
AJlanUtlman
Susan Taymor-wrta
Sue Morri5
Carol and Tom Perol
Mark Pressman
Bcclr.yPringle
Barbara and Len JlOSCIS
Ruth and RIchard Rozen
BonnleSplcsberger
Marty Winter
Ed Zelinsky
fINANCE COMMITTEE
CI\ar\esAuerbach
Bryan Chapman
Henl)'Mettler
Tom Perot
Mallt PrC$Sman
Bryan Quint
John5carborough
Haskell TltcheU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Anne Appet
AnnelleRO$C
Maryfallt
Rogcrfelton
William Hoehler
AI Kuhn
AnnDCler
Bryan Quint
Henry Mettler
Mary Smith
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 1995
FROM:
JAYNI ALLSEP
CONTRACT PLANNER
AGENDA NO: -:;
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
TO APPROVE AN ADDITION/REMODEL AND VARIANCE
FOR LOT COVERAGE AND RIGHT SIDE YARD SETBACK AT
1818 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
APPLICANT:
APPELLANT:
MR. STEVE BRONTE
MR. AND MRS. PETER HORVITZ
*****************************************************************
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 1995, the Tiburon Town Council held a pUblic hearing on
an appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of the above
referenced project, filed by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Horvitz. In light
of the confusion regarding the extent of the demolition of the
existing structure and how this may have affected the findings for
granting the Variance, the Town Council remanded the Variance to
the Design Review Board.
REVIEW OF THE VARIANCE FINDINGS BY THE BOARD:
On April 20, 1995, the Design Review Board considered amended
findings for the Variance, as contained in the staff report (please
refer to the attached draft minutes of the April 20th DRB meeting) .
Staff informed the Board that the only issue to be addressed by the
Board at that time was the findings necessary to grant the
Variance. The Board voted to grant the Variance, based on the
amended findings presented in the staff report. In addition, the
Board recommended that the applicant consider ways that the
neighbor's concerns regarding privacy could be addressed by
additional screening of the Master Bedroom deck.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
The grounds for appeal, as submitted by the appellants, are that
the Variances were improperly granted by the Design Review Board.
The grounds for the appeal and Staff's responses are included in
the April 5, 1995, Town Council staff report (attached).
It should be noted that the foundation of the structure at 1818
Lagoon View remains in tact. Rather than the original walls
remaining, walls made of new materials will be set up in place of
the previous walls. It is Staff's opinion that this circumstance
does not alter the basis for making the necessary findings to grant
the Variance, since the primary basis for the Variance findings is
the steep topography of the lot. The findings for the Variance
were reviewed and amended only to accurately reflect the extent to
which the previous home was demolished.
RECOMMENDATION:
staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the decision of the
Design Review Board to grant the variance, and to direct Staff to
return at the next meeting with an appropriate resolution.
EXHIBITS:
1. Draft Minutes of the April 20, 1995, DRB Meeting.
2. Design Review staff Report for the April 20, 1995, DRB Meeting
(inclUdes amended Variance findings).
3. Town Council Staff Report for the April 5, 1995, Council
Meeting.
Page 2
~PR-23-133S JS:JJ
P.J2
E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD:
I. Bront~1 1818 I.il200n \'iew Drive. 4DDeol~Remand~d to ~i9n Re\'iew
COnlroC( PlanDcr Allscp remmded the Boalu that the onty issue before them in this matter was to consider the
revi~ed findings regarding the \'anance.
Chris Craik:r, the project architect, began by 5howing the previous and new colors for the project The new
colors he lihowed wco..rc darker Ilnd toned down.
Mr. Cr.uker said that the landscclpr, reyision ~ques.ls were made a~ listed in the packet. He added that lighting
in the driveway has been removed, and the pool house uses all the exi!'i:tmg lighting.
Mr. Cnuker abo raised the matler of il gate which WilS on the plan submitted at the meeting. He sta.ted that
the gate was SOmehow erased in pre,.-ious pJan~, He ctarified that there were actual:y two 5 foot ",TOUg"'t ITon
pres right at the ent...y.
Chairman Sadri..:h ask...::d Staff If the gale wall in hefore the Board tonight fOl' consideration.
Contract Planner Allt:ep stated that the gat(: should be di:;cu:;scd tit It later time and handled as .. sepat~te
design review application. It aiso appeared that an encro:'lr.::hment pttnut would be rcquirrd_
Chainnan Sadrich sll1!ed that it was an f!;;sl,le that needed to be discl,Jssed siuce it is a structure.
CI)r.tract Planner Allsep cmdirmed that the Eate is 5uhject to Dellign Review.
Chainnan Sadrieh asked thar the issue be bcnchl~d until it ..:oan tx: d:scus$tc.
Mr. Craiker asked jf the iate could be discussed at the Administrative Panel level.
Chainnan Sadrieh t..:,ld Mr. Craiker that Staff would dj~=u,,'J, that with him.
Mr. Craiker stated that there has b~n no change in the status of the house in reference: to the Town Council
meeting, Hl.'l said thtlt the bouse had not been demolished, Mon waps hOld been removed. but Staff identified
this ,15 illl add:tion t(l unstable walll!. He 5tated that the 'iame wall lf1Je for the roof heing removed. He !'laid l,e
foundation. tloor !\UPports i!nd floor ;tre all the s...me. Mr. Craiker felt that the main qul"i$tlon 3t hand was
whether there was a more appropriate Iocotiorl for tbe hou:~c. Clearly IS lower huuse is better without laking out
lhe pool or blocking the Horovitz's view. He st~ted th6.t lhe house's locatiun is the most 5tru~turaHy sound
place. He also noted that the reli50n lhe) asked foe two variances was specificaU)' for {he Horovitzs [0 protect
their vista. .He said the Horovit2S had no objections to tl1e two variances.
ChairtlUln Sadrieh said thOf (here has b~en a 101 of dis\:ussion on the variances and whether thi~ constitLilcd a
teer-down, He believed that the main l5sue was the balccny facing the neighbors hou,e. He !iugge!ited thaL the
applicant and the 1'leighoor dis.cu!i~ the matter. and asked if 1!Il)' new lho:JghlS had W'isen refatdine this.
Mr. Cr8.lkcr show~d some photos ~'or the proposr;:d deck which Jooks at the Horovitzs house, He showed that
you C::Inr:of see the Horovilz's roo! ",-ith the tree, in tact He a~ked the_ Board if the>, felt the Horovitz's priYa~y
has bc~n compromised,
Chairman Sadrieh asked if the apPUcint rod considered re.locati.ng the dc::.:k.
M:,. Craiker stat~d that Ihis was the onl~' praccical location' for hi~ client He said orig:naUy there wr;:re two
de~k5 They removed the cne in fror.1 and shifted onc to the side to get th.e terraced look. He ajded that his.
chen: W:lnts that ~oof deck for a beautifui view off the :11a'iter btdronm He r.1entlonl':d that they h;:ld alre",-,jy
~owered the roof spe:ifically for the neigh~s' privacy.
DRB 4/20N5
(n)rR<~~
t._~." :, ~ .~ L/''!\~j u
6
EXHIBIT NO..J..
-l'::'~'-~'3-1;:;35 -J5:33
lL~Wm(ill
;:',82
Chairman Sadneh asked why they did not want to put th.e deck in lhe front,
The applicant said it was there originally. but to get the terra.ced look, as recommended by the Board. he
changed it.
Chairman Saddeh asked jf it was a design consideration then.
The applicant said yes_
Boardmember Woo asked what constitutes a renlodel versus a new house.
The applicant said that any new con5trJ~tion has to meet new codes and is therefore a ptannini issue.
Contract Planner AUscp stated that at present the Town's zoning ordinance does not provide a deftnition of a
remodel nrsus a demolition.
The applicant summed up by saying that the ocighbor h~ complaints over G deck Lhat [he Board has approved.
He also handed out a. rcndering showing how the sLorypoles are in rhe correct location,
Chairman Sadneh opened lhc discu~sion up to the public.
AI Bian.chi. attorney for the Horovitzs. started by sayjne: lhat the project architect opposes moving the deck
because of design considerations, This surprised him because earlier Mr. Craiker indicated that he might be
a.b!c t;) talk his ct:ent into removing rhe roof deck. which would ~top the appeal, if the neighbors dropped the
variance issues.
Mr. Bianchi stated that the Staff Report assumes the applicartt has an DbsoJute right, to expand the house. He
disagreed with those findings. He also felr jt would be detrjmentw to other properties in the area. He 5aid the
applica::t knew what the property WEtS when he bought it. and this dOe$ not give him the right to mlrude on
olhers' property values. He Goted that the applicant did have a prL'viuusly appro-ved set of plans excluding the
deck that invades the HoroviU:5 privacy_ He cO;"lcludl!'d by s.ilying lhe Horovitzs want the appHcanl to improve
his property and hj~ home. but not at their expense.
J:m Ring, the architect for the Horovitz$. said that the relation!lhip of the Horovjt~s house to the de:k is the
ma~n is~ue. He said that the main living areas of the Horo-v;tz5 are affc<;ted by the dec~, and that il was not a
view blockage issue. He broua:ht some photographs to show the deck and to demonstrate the point. He
suggested a compromise that includes hi'@;h windows Bnd corner windows without a deck as was in the original
drawin&:s, He felt 'his could be done while maintaining (he flat roof. keeping the sky:iihts. and with the
garage staying where the !ltorypolcs arc now. He proposed that eliminating the deck and adding the 14 foot
lone: windows would be accepta.blc La Lhe Horovitzs, He added that they would like lo See 8n increas~ jn the
liimdscaping screen and less lighting whel"t it affeclS the Horovitz!l_
Bcardmcmber Woo asked jf the picture, being !lhown wcre :iCCurate itl. terms of the view,
Mr, Rioa: said that from thai station point they were accurate.
Boardmember Ber@:er asked about the sto:'')'poles in relation to the drawings.
Mr_ Ring l'lihoWl!d the storypoles on the roof plan!'_ He said the main concern wa!: the invasion of privocy 10 the
Horo\'lcZS ncrjve living areas
Peter Horovitz of 1810 Lagoon View s;aid his objective war; to come to conlplele understanding with the
Brontes HE !loUd they want to protect the value of their home which is up for ~ale. He added that it is not
their wish to prevent (h~ Brontes from building their new home, He summarized the prohlem!l as thc plans
being changed after the Horovitzs had approved of the variance. He gaid that they were ur:.awfU'e the pl:l.r~$ had
been changed and that they lost a buyer whose purchao;e wa,lI contl!1gent on the deck not heing built. He felt
the deck: would be invasive and would devalue his propt'rly.
DR8 4120/95
illillm~u
,
>=iP~-2:3- 1':1'33 a5; 34
[IDOOill~TI
P.213
Diane Ashley of the Marin Land company stated t!"lM her cliettt, 1vh. Bronte. waDIS a deck. which i5 125 fe~t
from the Horovitzs propC:rty, She I\dderJ thAt rhe variance has not ch&n~d lrom the orilinal one. She noted
that the fiJ's! plan with decks out frent was viable, but without the deck it would be a. detriment to the Bronlc's
future sale of the house. She concluded' th.u the affect to the Horovitr.'s house is negligible.
Mr. Craikcr declared that the montages wen: inCOrrect and that much Cannot actuOllly be seen from the
proposed ded.
111ere being no commenb from the public. Chairman Sll.drieh returned the matter to the Board.
Boardml'mber Berger said that reearding the remodeling. he had a &,ood look at the house, and that there was
no question in his mind ~hat the house would come down completely. He also saw thljl the fn1Jnd~tior. w;u
solid and would stay intact. He agreed with keeping (he house where it is currently for the sake of getting C3r~
~own there,
Chairman Sadrieh said the main di~pute wa... over the location of the dt:ck..
Bow-dmember Woo said she was led 10 belic'tc that the HOTOvit7.s ag!'eed to the plans, cU1d sh(: did not reali7.e
until Illter that a privacy problem existed. She recommended that the architect explore relocating the deck jf
it is only a design function.
Doardmembcr Berger believed that the storypoles were nccurafely rcprcsl1lnted in the photoe:rapbs from their
individual vantagr points. He stated the main question as the extent of the intrusion. He felt it was clear lhat
the Horo.,.;tzs house wtm't see too much into the deck unless someOne is at the edge of the deck. He also said
there was blocb.gc from the inner part of' the deck but not from the Out.:r part He added that ~dditional
screening would in..:rea.~ the effect of the deck, which was completely n::~sonable to ask. redesian the deck
edge or relocate the deck to the front. He uid the architects could fiiure out a diffltrenl pliolcc for the deck
rhat would be perfectl}' acceptable.
Ch3.innan Sadrieh asked how the deck could be screened if a person was at the edge of the deck.
Boardmcmber Berger J;3.id that no C'ne wants scnleoae standing at the edgc of the deck looking into ~heir
property. He said the -.:hoices were cha,ging the design ('If the loeatioll of the deck. He felt it was necessary
(0 find a comm(ln ground to accommodate the Horovitzs while eeuine the Bronte$ what they want so the
window~ and dock are out of view.
Contract Plan.1er AJtsep noted that the only rcmanded item wu,,!, the findings for the varia.nce. She stated that
even though there L~ a connection bel ween the dltck. and the variance. it has to go back to the Town Council.
Therefore. the Board can only make.. recommendation on the deck.
Boardmcmbcr Berger said th3.t the Board had asked things of the applical:t and they did them. He also sa.:.d
(hat addit.ional work needs to be done because the Horovit7.'S approval dealt with the variances. not with the
deck changei due to the Bo~d's rc~ommcndaUons.
Boardmember Woo felt that this was a difficult matter. and rhat jt was unfortunate lhar the conlmunjciltioll
between the neli:hbors had broken down. S~e said tbal tbe Board has cnreflll1y looked at all the issues over
three meetings. She added thi.t Mr. Brontc did tilt thal the Board asked, At the same time. Mr. Horovitz ha,
compelling issucs_ Sh~ r:npr:d that the communication could improve.
MiS Chairman Sadriehl Boardmember Woo grant :be ,"'atianel!': b(l,sed on the reviseo findings of the Staff
Report and with the recmT'.mendation tha.t some fonn o~ ~creening he entertained hy the 3pplic.3nt to regain
pnvac)'. The ~oluts presented for th.;; n~w tOof trim. new base and previo'Js body colors. &11 non-tlossy were
appro....ed.
A YES: Chairman Sadrieh.. Boardmembers Berger. Woo
~OES; "'one:
DRB 41<U/95
IDlli~~U
8
TOT~i- P.:.J3
(
(
FI
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.: f.l
FROM:
IRENE BORBA, ASSISTANT PLANNER
MEETING DATE:
APRIL 20, 1995
SUBJECT:
1818 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE; FILE #294013
APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECISION-REMANDED BACK TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
BY THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
ARCHITECT-CHRIS CRAIKER AND ASSOCIATES
OWNER-STEVE BRONTE
***********************************************************************
BACKGROUND
At its February 16, 1995, meeting the Design Review Board voted 5-0 to
approve the site and architectural plans for an addition and remodel of
an existing residence. The Board granted variances for exceeding lot
coverage and right side yard setback (please refer to the attached
minutes of the February 16. 1995, DRB meeting and Staff Report). As
the minutes will address there were additional conditions of approval,
that the stucco and roof colors plus an exterior lighting plan be
presented to the Administrative Panel for approval. The applicant has
provided a lighting plan which is attached and the colors for the
stucco and roof will be present at the meeting for your review.
On February 23, 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Horvitz, residents of IBI0
Lagoon View Drive, filed an appeal of the Design Review Board's
approval. The Horvitz's only ground for appeal was that the variances
were improperly granted by the Board.
On April 5. 1995, the Town Council held a public hearing on the
appeal. At the Council meeting Staff informed the Council that an
afternoon site visit had been completed and it was noted that the
existing residence had been demolished and that only the foundation and
a chimney were left standing. At the Town Council meeting the
applicant stated it had been his intent to retain the existing walls of
the house where possible, but that termite and structural problems were
discovered when the walls were exposed and made their retention
impossible.
Staff expressed concern to the Council that had the Board been aware of
the extent of the demolition. it may have reached a different
conclusion with respect to the variances, The Town Council remanded
the item to the Board to address this specific issue only and to
consider making amended findings if appropriate.
EXHIBIT NO. 2
(
(
ANALYSIS
Staff is requesting that the Board review the variance findings made
for the proposal light of this modified &itutaion. Staff believes that
it is important to note that the foundatlon of the former residence
remains intact. The difference created by the additional demolition is
that walls made of new materials will be set up in place of the
previous walls of the house. Staff is not of the opinion that this
change alters the basis for granting the variances which is primarily
the steep topography of the lot.
Staff suggests that the following revised findings may be made in
support of the requested variances:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the
same or similar zones.
Special circumstances exist in that the lot is very steep,
therefore, the request for the lot coverage and right side yard
variances. This is an appropriate location for the proposed
garage addition. Other opportunities for expansion would be to
add an addditional level which would add to the mass of the
structure and possibly obstruct views. The steepness of the lot
reduces the area where structures can be built. The effect of the
lot's steepness is to restrict portions of the lot from being
built upon which would normally be available to properties not
burdened with such steep topography.
2. The variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege,
inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of
special privilege in that the variances are prompted by the
steepness of the lot. Furthermore, similar variances have been
granted for other properties in the neighborhood. A variance was
granted to 1809 Lagoon View Drive to encroach into the side yard
setback. A front yard variance was granted in 1959 for 1754
Lagoon View Drive. A front yard variance was granted in 195B for
1799 Lagoon View Drive as well as a side yard variance in 19B7. A
lot coverage variance was granted in 1993 for IBOl Lagoon View
Drive (16.5%).
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty because of the existing site conditions (steepness of
the lot). The effeGt of the lots steepness is to restrict portions
of the lot from being built upon, which, under normal
circumstances, could be built upon. The location of the proposed
(
f
improvements is logical and practical given the topographical
constraints of the lot. The existing foundation for the
residence will remain in its current location and will not be
changed in any way. The fact that certain walls which were
originally proposed to remain will be replaced with new walls does
not change the fact that the lot's steepness causes unnecessary
hardship.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The granting of the variance for lot coverage will not be
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. in that it is
preferable to allow the expansion as proposed. rather than the
alternative of adding an additional level to the home. It is
Staff's opinion that the proposed overage of the lot coverage and
the encroachment of the right side yard setback is deminimus and
will not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.
There is existing vegetation and trees to help mitigate the
impacts of the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board reaffirm its decision to grant the variances, based upon
the revised findings included in this report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Minutes of the 4/5/95 Town Council meeting.
2. Staff report of the 2/16/95 DRB meeting.
3. Minutes of the 2/16/95 DRB meeting.
4. Plans approved by the DRB on 2/16/95.
,
..
(
(
of sunken boats in Richardson Bay.
4. Mayor Thompson noted that ajoint Belvedere/Tiburon Town Council workshop had
taken place on April 4, 1995 to discuss the new Belvedere/Tiburon library, and that the
Joint Powers Agreement, budget, and coordination with the County library system had
been discussed.
5. Torn Gram, Vice Chair of the Joint Belvedere/Tiburon Recreation Department
delivered an annual report. Mayor Thompson thanked Torn and the Recreation staff
for their continuing service and good work.
Councilmember Nygren gave a brief summary of a meeting with the Hazardous and
Solid Waste JPA concerning state-mandated recycling quotas and projected rate
increases.
F. CONSENT CALENAR
MOTION: To approve the Consent Calendar consisting of the following items:
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #1043, February 9, 1995; #1044, February 15,1995,
as amended (Councilmember Nygren noted in Mr. Littman's report on page 3, that
the library site was not "unkown"]; and #1045, February 23, 1995
7. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION (TPC use of Mckegney Green)
8. INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORTS (January/February, 1995)
Moved:
Vote:
Ginalski, Seconded by Nygren
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Thayer (not present at February 15 Council Meeting)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
9. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DECISION
Council heard staff report on the appeal of Design Review decision pertaining to 1818
Lagoon View Drive. Board members Sadrieh and Woo, Planner Borba and Town
Attorney Ewing, Attorney AI Bianchi (representing appellants), and Steven Bronte
commented on the remodel versus demolition issue, Applicant Bronte and his architect,
Chris Craiker, attempted to make further comment after public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Ginalski excused himself from the discussion due to proximity conflict.
MOTION: To remand the appeal to Design Review Board for an expedited decision.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1048
4/05/95
2
"
"
.'
.
Moved:
Vote:
(
(
Thayer, Seconded by Nygren
AYES: Nygren, Wolf, Thayer
NOES: Thompson .
ABSTAIN: Ginalski
10. BARKING DOG ORDINANCE
Town Attorney Ewing and Chief of Police Herley summarized the Barking Dog
Ordinance amended by the Board of Supervisors in January.
John Smisseart gave public comment.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To be read by title only (first reading)
Nygren, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
Mayor Thompson read, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE AMENDED ANIMAL
CONTROL REGULATIONS OF TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE
INCLUDING SECTION 8.04.179 PERTAINING TO ANIMAL NOISE"
MOTION: To adopt by second reading
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Seconded by Nygren
AYES: Nygren, Ginalski, Wolf, Thayer, Thompson
NOES: None
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11. NEW TOWN CENTER
Town Manager Kleinert reviewed staff report on New Town Hall which detailed Mr.
Hinkel's request for a community workshop, the request by Council for placement of
story poles at the downtown site, and a community informational mailer on the two new
Town Hall options. Council discussed and made comments concerning above.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve expenditures for and direct Town staff to proceed with
Workshop and Mailers
Nygren, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Nygren, Ginalski, Thayer
NOES: Wolf, Thompson
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1048
4/05/95
3
..
.
.C(
(-(
,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.:
FROM:
IRENE BORBA, ASSISTANT PLANNER
MEETING DATE:
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
SUBJECT:
IBIB LAGOON VIEW DRIVE ; FILE #294013
SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION; VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND RIGHT SIDE
YARD SETBACK
ARCHITECT-CHRIS CRAlKER AND ASSOCIATES
OWNER-MR. BRONTE
************************************************************************
PROJECT DATA
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
CASE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EMEMPT:
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
181B LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
59-041-14
294013
21, B06 SQ.FT.
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
DECEMBER 22, 1994
JANUARY II, 1995
DEADLINE: APRIL 11, 1995
HISTORY
The proposal was heard at the January 19, and February 2, 1995, Design
Review Board meeting. The item was continued to allow the applicant
time to respond to the concerns of the Boardmembers and the neighbors.
The Board was concerned with the mass and bulk of the proposal (minutes
attached) .
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition which would require
a Variance for lot coverage and the right side yard setback at the
existing residence of IBIB Lagoon View Drive. The proposal includes
the addition of a new garage and a master bedroom suite,
The proposal would add 737 sq. ft. to the existing lot coverage bringing
the total to 3,926 sq.ft. (lB.O%). The maximum allowed for this zone
is 15%. The proposal would add 2,808 sq. ft. to the existing FAR (this
includes 100 sq.ft. of the garage space allowance), bringing the total
to 4,180 sq.ft. The maximum allowed for this property is 4,lBO sq. ft.
(
,(
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel shaped
tile roof, the changing of the wood siding to stucco with the trim
color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body color India
Spice (G-44 Fuller O'Brten), lower body color Zanzibar (G-45 Fuller
O'Brien), and the accent color would be white.
The applicant had submitted revised plans dated January 24, 1995.
Those proposed changes of January 24, 1994, were reviewed at the
February 2, 1995, DRB meeting. The applicant tried to address the
Board's and neighbors concerns by reducing the overall mass and bulk of
the residence. Some of the changes included terracing and stepping
back the upper floor which than slightly increases the lot coverage
from the original proposal, squaring off the garage making it 3' from
the property line, plus some landscaping has been introduced to the
proposal.
The applicant has again submitted revised plans dated February 6,
1995. Staff has highlighted the area which has been revised. The
applicant has reduced the north end of the master bedroom to make
symmetrical front and rear facades. Also the upper floor has been
lowered in height to reflect what had been originally proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposal is exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Quality
Act as specified in Section 15301 Class A.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with
the development standards for the RO-2 zone, with the exception of the
excess in lot coverage and the right side yard setback for which
Variances are being requested.
The proposal requires
for this zone is 15%.
IB.O %.
a Variance for lot coverage. The maximum allowed
This proposal would increase the lot coverage to
This proposal requires a Variance for the right side yard setback. The
Ordinance requires a 15' side yard setback. This proposal is at 3'.
The Variance request is for a 12' encroachment into the setback.
In order to grant the requested Variances, the Board must make the
findings as required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. Staff suggests that the following findings may be made in
support of the requested Variances:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the
same or similar zones.
Special circumstances exist in that the property is very steep,
(
(
,
therefore, the request for the lot coverage and the right side
yard Variances. This is an appropriate location for the propsed
garage addition due to the steepness of the lot. The only other
opportunities for expansion of the home would be to add an
additional level which would add to the mass of the structure and
possibly obstruct views of adjacent homes.
2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges,
inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of
special privileges in that the Variance is prompted by the
steepness of the lot. Furthemore, similar Variances have been
granted for other properties in the neighborhood. A Variance was
granted to IB09 Lagoon View Drive to encraoch into the side yard
setback. A front yard Variance was granted in 1959, for 1754
Lagoon View Drive. A front yard Variance was granted in 195B, for
1799 Lagoon View Drive as well as a side yard Variance in 1987. A
lot coverage Variance was granted in 1993, for 1801 Lagoon View
Drive (16.5%).
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty because of the existing site conditions and the current
home configuration. This is a practical and logical place for the
addition.
4. The granting of the Variances will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The granting of the Variance for lot coverage will not be
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity, in that it is
preferable to allow the expansion as proposed, rather than the
alternative of adding an additional level to the home. It is
Staff's opinion that the proposed overage of the lot coverage and
the encroachment of the right side yard setback is diminimous and
will not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.
There is existing vegetation and trees to help mitigate the
impacts of the proposal.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the Variance findings.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Board finds the design acceptable and in conformance with the
Town's Design Guidelines, and if the Board makes the required findings
for the requested Variances, then the Board may wish to approve the
project, then Staff recommends the following conditions be applied:
1. This approval shall be used within (2) years of the approval
I(
<
, .
date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has
been issued or an extension granted.
2. The development of the project shall' conform with the application
dated by the Town of Tiburon on February 6, 1994, or as amended
by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the
plans of February 6, 1994, must be reviewed and approved by the
Board.
3. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior
to issuance of building permits.
4. The Variances herby granted shall only apply to the specific
project included with this application. The Variance for lot
coverage and the right side yard setback is not applicable to
future projects or other designs.
5. Skylights must be bronzed or tinted and no lights in the wells.
6. Prior to final building inspection approval, all proposed
landscaping shall be installed in accordance with approved plans.
The installation of plantings shall be verified by a Planning
Department field inspection. '
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Chris Craiker dated February 6, 1995.
2. Minutes from the February 2, 1995, DRB meeting.
3. Plans dated February 6, 1995,
(
(
4. Bronte: 1818 La\!oon View Drive. Add.Nar.
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition which would require a Variance for lot coverage and the
right side yard setback at the existing residence of 1818 Lagoon View Drive. The proposal includes the
addition of a new garage and a master bedroom suite.
The proposal would add 737 sq. ft. to the existing lot coverage bringing the total to 3,926 sq. ft. (18%). The
maximum allowed for this zone is 15%. The proposal would add 2.808 sq. ft. to the existing FAR (this
includes 100 sq. ft. in excess of the garage space allowance), bringing the total to 4,180 sq. ft. The maximum
allowed for this property is 4,180 sq. ft.
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel shaped tile roof, the changing of the wood
siding to stucco with the trim color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body color India Spice (G-44
FullerO'Brien), lower body color Zanzibar (G-45 Fuller O'Brien), and the accent color would be white.
The applicant has submitted revised plans dated January 24, 1995. Those proposed changes of January 24,
1994 were reviewed at the February 2, 1995 DRB meeting. The applicant tried to address the Board's and
neighbors' concerns by reducing the overall mass and bulk of the residence. Some of the changes included
terracing and stepping back the upper floor which then slightly increases the lot coverage from the original
proposal, squaring off the garage making it 3' from the property line, plus some landscaping has been
introduced to the proposal.
The applicant has again submitted revised plans dated February 6, 1995. Staff has highlighted the area which
has been revised. The applicant has reduced the north end of the master bedroom to make symmetrical front
and rear facades. Also the upper floor has been lowered in height to reflect what had been originally proposed.
The Project Architect, Chris Craiker began by saying that the Board had asked that the massing be reduced.
He said that he took the second floor, knocked the corners out to make the third floor appear smaller and made
the entryway symmetrical. He added that the master bedroom has been recessed back.
Chairman Sadrieh asked if it was a 6 foot setback from the second floor left and the other side matches.
Mr. Craiker said yes it was a 6 foot setback of the same amount on both sides. He continued that he had also
been asked to reduce the roof line which he kept at that height of the 6 inches. He added that now it was 2
feet below the height limit due to the slope of the hill.
Boardmember Berger asked if the height of the house had gone up relative to the street.
Mt. Craiker answered that no it had not. It was the same height as before. He said that it went from 126 back
to the original 123.3 It wasn't actually 2 feet as he had mentioned last time, but only 6 inches. He added that
it was the same elevation as the first time around.
Boardmember Berger asked if this was numerically rather than relative to grade.
Mr. Craiker answered yes. in absolute height it was the same. He said the whole house has been moved back.
Boardmember Bennett asked about the parking changes.
Mr. Craiker said that there were none. He continued by saying that they kept it the same-- 3 feet back into
the sideyard. He added that there was ample room to maneuver out of the garage (33 feet). There was a wide
space for backing up.
Boardmember Bennett agreed but asked about guest parking.
Mr. Craiker stated that there were only two spaces before and that now he was making 3 enclosed spaces. He
added [hat there were also tandem spaces in front.
Chairman Sadrieh suggested that the focus of the discussion be on the new ground that has to be covered..
ii'
-7.," ~.
~';
'. I
"'I:"lI.'\ ~....
~ f'l
" ....., ~
". ~ \!!H ~ ~
; '.~;:o....
7
19
'"'""'
'~(~ iJ'~:~~. .:1
,~ -.. \'~
J
- I :\.
( (
In reference to the color and mass, Mr. Craiker said that they had ~ne from pink palace to a darker color. He
said that the tiles are a mixture of the color displayed. He showed the Board the color boards. He noted that
this will be the darkest house in the area. In terms of the textures, he said they would be heavy to reduce the
glare. He continued that they would be muted and dull. He said that they would be using 3 tones of stucco.
The dark color was the base, the middle was the predominant exterior color and the light color was for the trim
pieces, other stuccoed pieces and as an accent. The columns and the face would also use this lighter color.
The window trim would be white. Mr. Craiker concluded by saying the color choices address the Board's
concern about the people downhill looking up at the house and keeping it as neutral as possible.
About the landscaping, Mr. Craiker said that they would be using more trees in addition to the existing ones,
and that they would change the use of the trees on the south end from pine to myoprium. He said that the
lighting was submitted today and that the lights were low, non-glare accent to existing trees so that you could
not see any lighting or fixtures.
He continued by saying that the existing pool has I big spotlight and that they'd like to replace it with 4
smaller lights in the pool. The wattage would be 100 watts and 12 volts.
Boardmember Bennett said that 2 lights in the pool would be enough.
Mr. Craiker mentioned the roof deck off the master bedroom and said that previously there were two decks.
The Board thought they added mass so the decks were consolidated and moved to the side at the last meeting.
He addressed the neighbor's concern over privacy and said to protect her view they moved the decks. He
added that the decks always existed and that the distance to the neighbors pool remained the same but the
house is closer. He said that this was not substantial though and added that it was not a "party" deck. He said
that it was a subtle private deck for the master bedroom.
He said that the view has been improved by taking a notch out of the corner of the master bedroom. He added
that they've modified as much as possible to respond to the Board and to the neighbors.
Boardmember Bennett asked where the double spotlight is
~lr. Craiker said that it was on the garage and there were two lights for security in that area.
Boardmember Bennett asked if the coach lamps going down the driveway are they going to be 8 feet above
ground.
Mr. Craiker said that no, the lights would only be 2.5-3 feet max.
Chairman Sadrieh opened the discussion to the public.
Joy Easom, a neighbor asked about the lighting around the spa and the decks off the west side.
Mr. Craiker responded by saying that the lights would go up the driveway and that there were lights on the
house and in the pool area there would be low lights on the wall. 4-5 feet tall and that there would be a change
down to 2 lights in the pool. He added that there would be a second light on the trellis area for security. and
that the decks have down lights or aisle type lighting built in low for the roof terrace. There would be no
lighting in the spa area. There would be two down lights at the gameroom in the front yard.
Ms. Easom asked Boardmember Bennett about the Myoprium.
Boardmember Bennett said that Myoprium gets pretty big and you can see through it.
Chairman Sadrieh said that they do not grow very high and added that they were evergreens and very bushy.
Boardmember Bennett recommended the Potrorm Gelato tree as it grows to about 15-20 feet and is a full tree.
............. .1
/'\'
yIr. Craiker asked if they could make different types of trees an option. i"I ", l
~ \ \ ~.rL -.
20 f) ~.~~ t. ,\ '~~l ~D1}2;~/~5
\ i~~ SfC8
(
(
Boardmember Bennett said yes, that was possible.
Al Martin said that he was a potential purchaser of 1810 Lagoon View Drive. He stated that the storypoles
show the house 17-18% above the maximum. He also said that there would be a great impact on the privacy
of 1810 Lagoon View Drive due to the garage.
Mrs. Wallace across the street said that she wanted the existing pine trees trimmed for the sake of her view.
Chairman Sadrieh said that the applicant is agreeable to settling this maller.
Joan Drakecott asked how it was possible to not have lights in the spa area.
"-\1l. CAAI~'()t 'S~a.D ThAT 'Ttt~ AflZ(......o pc..A~' "'f't) '-#Wi: L.."~Tl~" IN TJt~ :>fA' Pfd4 .
Boardmember Berger said that there would be no lighting at night. .J
Ms. Drackecott requested that the Board accept condition number 6 in the Staff Report which was in regard to
the landscaping being in place prior to a final building inspection.
Neighbor Hank Easom said the house is too big for tl:1e area and that he objected.
Diane Ahley said that the house is not going to have a big impact compared to the houses already there. She
added that the applicant has already made the requested changes.
Marian Alcutt, the Realtor stated that her client. the potential buyer of 1810 Lagoon View Drive, has a
contract with the sellers which is contingent on the client's approval and said they could lose the buyer.
Chairman Sadrieh brought the matter back to the Board.
Vice Chairman Slavitz said that in regard to 1810 Lagoon View Drive, the issue was new to him about the
impact and that he had no comment on that. He mentioned that he liked the darker colors but the main body
could be darker. He also said that the 2 different colors of the roof would cause it to stand out more versus
having one darker color. On the lighting of the trees. he noted his concern about the effect at night. especially
from downtown Tiburon. He felt too many lights were introduced. He also stated that he was glad the house
has been lowered, He would like to see the impact from the house next door.
Boardmember Bennett said the color change would allow the house to blend better with the hillside. She
agreed with Vice Chairman Slavitz about the roof. About the lighting, she said that two floodlights going into
Ms. Drakecotts backyard and the Horowitzs should be eliminated. She said that small malibu lights would be
fine, She thought substitute lighting should be used on the trellis rather than a double spotlight, She added
that the pool should have only 2 lights. not 4, She stated that floodlights in front are low enough except the
ones coming out of the ground. These spots in front should focus toward the house rather than up the hill. Her
condition for approval was that the tree is Potisporum or Myorprium. Otherwise. she found the house tine.
Chairman Sadrieh agreed with the previous comments. He thought the changes to the upper noor were more
attractive. He also commented thut it was unfair to express points after several review meetings have gone by
as they lead to delays. He said that he was comfortable with the project as it is and thac he agreed about the
comments on the lights.
Boardmember Woo said that she agreed with the comments made. She added that the colors should be darker.
She Jlso said that the storypoles made it seem like a huge house and that if it were darker it would seem to
recede back more into the hills.
Boardmember Berger commended the architect and applicant and approved of the changes made. He
appreciated the nice collaboration together with the neighbors. He stated that he was prepared to support the
project last time and that it has just gotten beller. Regarding the adjacent neighbors, he said that~he im a!&l ,"
of the deck is minimal due to the distance. as is the downward step-lighting. He said he had a h 'f!
the upper and middle colors but that the lower one is tine. He went on to say that all co~ t~ igbter on }
""" !!\," '\ ,~~' " :',' . ", - )
:;. \ ""\ :" "."\' ",l -,,~
r-, '~'1~j'"
21 f"""', - ,~ '( ,~'~ .. 4 ORB 2/16/95
,~;:I ~ ~.... ~
,,20, :.\.,;
(
(
bigger surfaces. He said that a darker color would have an immense impact. He concluded by saying that the
applicant should come back for the lighting but he approved of the massing,
Chairman Sadrieh agreed with Vice Chairman Slavitz for a more muted and darker roof color.
Boardmember Berger said he liked the li vely roof. From the street the house is tucked down. From down
below you look past them.
Chairman Sadrieh said that mixed roofs look unnatural. A prime example is the roof at the end of Turtlerock,
Boardmember Berger said that in some cases a mixed roof takes a boring look and gives it some lightness.
MIS BennettlBerger, approval of the proposal and the findings of the variance as indicated in the Staff Report
with the following conditions:l) that the colors of the stucco, roof and the lighting come back to the
administrative panel and that 2) the Ceangius trees be substituted with 15 gallon ones.
A YES: Chairman Sadrieh, Boardmembers Bennett, Berger, Slavitz, Woo
NOES: None
.~.....
.".
~,
.,
,-
\.
'\
\;0..
...j
'"
l~
/~."....... \.\
:., J.......
, ,\ ~.
'--- h~ ""l......
""-t' ..~~
\) \ ~'V
'\
" '..
" ~
4 ..
22
DRB 2/16/95
n_._ R;::'~1-13-"3S .J~:32 ID:=...,~IS ~-::;;:R!f<::~ U~C:
(
Craiker Associates
_._.._-_.~ ...... ....-....-.
Architects & Planners
__......_...__n..___
AlA lnc
r:::..... "j:]: 41 S4S9~u20
(
"515 e',J2
April 11, 1995
Via Facsimile (415) 435-0956
Irene Borba, Planner
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
BE: Brome ResUknce/1818 LagOOII VieW Drive/Our Job No. 9414
Dear Irene:
You have requested from me new Variance Findings for this residenre now that we have
resubmitted the plans for reconfirmation by the Design Review Board. You have told me the
reason for readdressing the Findings is because the house is not a remodeling but, in your
opinion, is a newly constructed home.
I find this determination arbitrary, capricious and unjustifiable. Please show me anywhere in
your code or other municipal source what distinguishes a remodeling from "new consTrucTioll ",
The Board clearly knew that substantial remodeling and improvements were planned for this
house. We at no time hid from the Board the extent of the renovation work require<! for this
house. Your Staff reports for January 19 and February 16, 1995 most correctly identify on the
first line that "applicant is proposillg T(} construct all addition ..... "
The removal of many. but nol all of the building walls while maintaining the foundation, floor,
underfloor constructIon, fireplace and chimney, swimming pool, yards. decks and other parts
of the house does not constitute a "newly consTruCTed home" by any known definition. It is most
unfortunate that you would unilaterally define what you feel is "lIewly consTrUCTed home" without
merit, ordinance, or even discussmg with us beforehand your determination.
We will comply under protest with your request to review the four Findings as required by
Section 4.03,05 of lIburOlI Zoning Ordinance for the two Variances, They are as follows:
1) Because of special circumslOnces applicable TO the property, including size.
shape, Topography, localioll, or surrounds. The stricT application of This Ordinallce
will deprive the (lpplicalll ofpriviieges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and in The same or similar ,ones.
Special circuJnSTat'ces exist in '/wT The properly is vt'1)' sleep and only one viable
house location exists. The request for The 101 coverage and Ihe righT side yard
Variances are for the benefiT of/he neighbor and no/ the owner. 711is is the mosT
appropriate 10cmioTlfor Tile proposed garage atilliTion due to the sTeepness of The
lot while protecting The neighbors' view. 1he only OTher oppOrtuniTies for
expansion of the existing home would be TO attach garage TO house and add an
additional liVing leve/which IVould add TO the mass of the struCTure oTllI obSTrUCT
views of adjaceT/l and uphill homes.
526 Third Street . San .""fael . C.,lif,,,n;,, 94901-3306 . 14151459-5020 . FAX: (415) 459-5461
8~'~-13-'3S D3:32 1D:::...,P13 '=-::;>~IKE;:;> H1C:
(
T~~ NO:4154535020
(
~51S ;::J01
2) The Variance will not constitute a gram of special privilegeJ, inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or J/milar zones.
The graming of the Variances will TWt constitute a glWtt of speciai privileges in
that the Variances are prompted by the steepness of the Wt and the desire to
maintain existing vlewJ by the neighllOr. FurthemlOre, similar Variances haw
been grOJlled for other properties in the neighborhood. No logical or practical
alternate locotions exist for the house or the garage thaI maintain existing views
and privileges for bOlh Ihis residern:e and the neighbor. A Variallce was granted
to 1809 Lagoon View Drive to ern:roach infO the side yard setback, A front yard
Variance was granred in 1959, for 1754 Lagoon View Drive. A from yard
Variance was granted in 1958, for 1799 La,goon View Drive as wel] as a side
yard Variance in 1987, A lot coverage Variance was gronted in 199J,for 1801
LlIgoon View Drive (16.5%),
3) The strict applicUlion of tllis ordinarn:e would rnult in practical dijficulty or
unnecessary hardship,
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in pracflcal difficulty because
of the existing site conditions and Ihe currem home configuration. 11ze existing
house locallon is the most practical and least damaging wcarion to up,hill and
adjacent residences exisling views. Any other location for the reSidence or
ga,'"Ilge would result in signiflcam existing view damage signflicanr wss of
property's existing use rights. This is the most practicai and logical place for the
addition.
4)
The graming of the Variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to olna properties in the vicinity,
The granting of the Variance for lor coverage wil/1UJt be detrimental 10 mher
properties ill the vicinity, in Ihat it is preferable to allow the more spread out
expansion as proposed, rather than the alterfUltive of adding an additionoi level
to the home, The proposed overage of the Wt coverage and Ihe encroachmem of
Ihe right side yard setback is minuscule and will not negat/l'ely affect the
character of the neighborlwod. There is existing vegetation and trees 10 help
miligate Ihe impacls of the proposal.
We will attend the next Design Review meeting and bring the revised colors for siding and roof
materials, Since the request was for the Ceanguis trees 10 be 15 j:allon, this will be done as
requested in the field. Should you have any questions, do not hesll.ate to call me or Christian
Oakes.
Sin#"J J:,'t-t 1,/0 -r I
~ifft-?alJ.1f[U' 13v', IM# I f//)~
Archjt~t1President coc,.., """"'_T.,_
(
(
April 13, 1995
'1 '"
, ,I
. I
I , c
I )
L
~,...
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
Ned's Way
Tiburon, CA. 94920
RE: HORVITZ VS. BRONTE (AP 59-041-14)
Dear Members,
Prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for April 20th on this matter, I would like to take the
opportunity to appraise you of the facts leading up to the present disagreement and hope that we
can arrive at a solution.
The plans for the house at 1818 Lagoon View Dr., dated December 21, 1994, reviewed by myself
with Chris Craiker and Mr. Bronte, and reviewed by the DRB at a meeting scheduled for January
19, 1995, were not objectionable. I stated my agreement with those plans in a letter to the DRB
prior to that meeting. That particular review of the project by DRB was postponed and while we
never again received notice from the town of Subsequent meetings, we continued to make
inquiries as to the status of the project. It was therefore not until January 28,1995 that it came to
our attention that the plans for 1818 Lagoon View had been significantly changed. Particularly,
the master bedroom suite had been moved from the south side of the project to the north side
facing my deck and pool area. In addition, the 5' variance for the garage had become a 13'
variance. I made repeated calls to Mr, Craiker's office where I left detailed messages on his
answering machine of our concerns. I never received return calls and soon found out that he was
on vacation. I then called Mr. Bronte and expressed our concerns particularly about the proposed
deck off the master bedroom that is looking directly at our deck and pool area, hence potentially
invading our privacy. It was my feeling after this conversation that Mr. Bronte was willing to
compromise by deleting the deck from his plans and replacing them with windows instead. Based
on this conversation, I trusted that we had reached an agreement. Prior to the February 15, 1995
DRB meeting I finally got a return call from Mr. Craiker. When I told him about my
conversation with Mr. Bronte about the deck, he said his client had never told him about this. I
placed calls to Mr. Bronte, which were not returned. I then wrote a letter to DRB outlining my
concerns about the deck and the issue of privacy prior to the February 15th meeting. As it turns
out now, my being out of town for the DRB meeting was extremely detrimental. While my
realtor, Terry Murphy and the potential buyers of my home were present at the meeting, the
concerns expressed in my letter and by them in person were not considered. As a direct
consequence of the decision ofDRB to approve the Bronte's new plans, including the bedroom
deck, at that meeting, the sale of our home fell through. No longer was this a hypothetical
situation. Our house has been devalued and we are suffering a major financiailoss because of this
DRB action. Our right to appeal the DRB's decision was based on this very real consequence.
Throughout this process we have been willing to compromise, as is evident from the time and
effort to reach accommodation on the December 21, 1994 plans. However, while we have
(
(
repeatedly expressed concerns with the January 30th plans we have received little consideration
from the Bronte's or the Town of Tiburon and it has now cost us the sale of our house. Still, we
would like to reach resolution of this issue as Jim Ring's April II, 1995 letter to Mr. Craiker
outlines and we hope that the Design Review Board will help us reach a solution.
Sincerely,
<
...----
~
Margaret ' eara Horvitz
1810 Lagoon View Drive
Tiburon, CA. 94920
415-435-6482
cc: Al Bianchi
Terry Murphy
Jim Ring
,
"
API" :3' '35 ::' 5,1 E:AI;CH: EnGEL '415' 455-4000
(
(
F' ,
BIAl."CHl, ENGEL, K=lN & TALKINGTON
ORIGINAL
co.rIDB5TX~LXTY HOTB
~h. info~..tion oont.in.d in this f.o.tail. .....g. i. l.g.lly
p~ivil.g.d and confid.nti.l 1nfo~tion intended only fo~ the u.e
of the individu.l o~ .ntity nam.d b.low. If the ~eo.iv.~ of this
.....g. i. not the intend.d ~eoipi.nt. you are b.~eby notifieS tb.t
.ny di....ination, di.t~ibution o~ copying of tbi. t.l.COPY i.
.t~iatly p~Ohibit.d. It you h.v. r.o.iv.d this t.l.oopy in .~ror.
pl.... immediat.ly notify u. by t.l.phon. sad ~.turD tb. original
.....9. to us vi. the U... po.t.l sarvia..
D:l~1
April 13, 1995
TIlIB
I
TO
I
Letter to Oe.ign Review Board
Oe.ign Review Board
Tiburon To~~ Hall
Attn: Ms. Irene Borba, Assistant Planner
(415) 435-2438
297201
DOCUX"TS
OUJI CAIJI )10.
ll\IIab.r 'S9a.
I
:
.3
TKI' II .IING IBJIT VIA RICOR RAPICOJl
J'ROJI
Albert Bianchi
Bianchi, Engel. xeegin , Talkington
PLIAlI DILIVER INXIDIATBLY.
CODlft.
Dear Irene: I would appreciate it if you could dj,stribut.
above to the DeIJign Revl_ Board 118 ~ar a. ~dble be:tore
hearing on April 20th. Many thll1lk. :tor your courte.y and
assistance.
the
tbe
OJ-
Albert BillJJelhi
If there is a problem with transmission or illegible oopies, please
contact Terry Bursoh (415) 456-4000.
TOViN 'Jr T!6UR'~"1
I [1"DftHTMENT Cc COMMUNITY
\ OEVELnm~r:-~IT
I
I APR 131995
RECEIVED i
DES!GN REVIE~J
APP ~3 "35 1::: S.2 B~HrK:H= EnGEL 14:'5)4':;b~40DJ
(
p ~.
. .C
(
BIANCHI, ENGEL. KEEGIN & TAL~NGTON
..':t''J'OBl'Il'2V8 A.'r LAW
A:"IIRl'DJ"'llI'CKI
ITA~PORD w. E..OrM
Vlet'C.U. ,... l'ALKntOt'ON'
W'''DT L. WYI.
IIC'..T 1,.. .hlUb80:lf
IJJUVN ..v..... ....,..1:..
J'ZI'P..V .. IIC.OPPW;IlT
COU'Jn'HOU$B SQUAllS
1000 l'OC;ftTK ITJtn1\ .UITl!: eoo
...... R.......lU.. CAL%J"OJINIA liJ4801":neS
T.~JI.OJl'. 141151 4,....000
T:l:ue:OPlza (411..) ..oe-I..l
April 13, 111115
0' C:OUW..lo
W. QlUOOJtV 8NC)1'.L
VIA FAX AND MAIL
Design Review Board
Qlo Tib~ron Planning Department
Tiburon Town Hall
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, calitornia 1141120
Re: Deaign Review
1818 Lagoon View Drive
Dear Membera ot the Board:
The undereigned repres.nts Mr. and Mrs. Peter Horvitz, who own the
property next door to 1818 Lagoon view Drive. Ther. i. on your
agenda for April 20, lilliS, a de.ign review appliQation relating to
1818 Lagoon View Driv.. This was referred back to the ORB by the
Tiburon Town Council.
Having studied the matter carefully, it is my belief that the nec-
....ry finding. for gr.nting the varianc. a. requested by the owner
of the SUbject property cannot legally b. made. At the same time,
my client. are not interested in blocking the project, but simply
want to .e. it reconfiqured in auch . way .a not to cau.. undue
harm to the property of my client..
In thia regard, my Qlients have retained architect Andrew James
Ring III, to do . atudy and make raoommendations for aoma modifica-
tion. which would allow the prcjeot to go forward on a rea.onable
b..ia. In this regard, I am enolosing a copy of a letter, dated
April 11, lilliS, from Mr. Ring to Mr, Chris craiker, the architect
tor the owner of the SUbject property. A. you will .e., Mr. Ring
identities a nu~ber of ohange. which, if adopted, would reaolve the
problem to the satisfaction ot my cliente. I am ,ubmittinq this in
order that the ORB will have time to review it betore the meeting.
-'
~'R :3'95 11:'52 B~AhCHI E/"KiEL 1.4~5.1456-412100
BIANCHI, E:\'OEL, KLjl~ & TALRINGTO:S
(
P,3
Tiburon Planning Department
April 13, 1995
page 2
I will emphasize again that Mr. and MrS. Horvitz are not looking to
create problems -- they are looking tor a solution. However, they
are determined to protect their rights to tne tu1lest extent.
Respectfully,
~~
Albert Bianchi
AB:tb
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Peter A. Horvitz
Mr. Chris Craiker
Mr. Andrew Jamss Ring III
Terry Murphy, CRS
04/jAf-P ",'% 12':5 B:""ICK EnGEL
. ~'.~ o. .... ..."..'(.::~~u..
(415'455-412100
"M
P.2
1tJ002
if
III
ANCREW .JAMES RING III ARCHITECT, INC.
a1 75 E.e.ST FRANCISCO llOUI.EV4RC SUITE.e. &AN A.e.F.e.a.. c.e.LIFC'~NIA 841101
m: (4111]454-13;3 ,rue, (4111) 411J.(J!84 c.e. UCENS! C5204
vii fix: 415-1159-51161 6
April 11, 1995 .Certlfled Mall"
Mr. ehrl. Cralker
CRAIKER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PI.ANNERS, INC.
526 3rt! St.
Sen Rafael, CA 94901
Re: RESOI.UTION betw.en HORVITZ and BRONT! II to design revlalon. on
proposed resldenc. e 1818 LasoonVlew Dr., Tlburon, CA. (AP 59-011'-14).
O..r Chris:
Thl. letter Is to ~onflrm my telephone ~onv.rsatlon with you thl. mornin;
regerdlng the above ,'efer.nced re,olutlon.
My client, Mr. & Mr', Peter Horvitz. property owner of 1810 Lagoon View Or.,
will withdraw their eppeal to the Town of Tlburon on both lot ~overage and
'Id.yard va~lanc.., II well II the hou.e de.lgn, Invulon of privacy and
view blockage provided the following ~omproml.el are 8C~epted without deviltlon:
A. The exl.tl~house de,lgn, meterl.ls end color. ere a~~..pted
II IndiClted on your drawing. dated Revl.lon '", Februery 6.
1995, on file with the Town of 'l'lburon, except that th",e
drawings will be revIsed to Indicate that:
1. Story pole. , , and 2 e. eurrently erected fclr the
garage locltlon. ."d halght. of bulldl"g roof tile
aet the control dimensions end drawings wCluld be
revl.ed ec~ordlngly to agree with the.. eurrent
story pole. 1/ 1 end 2. (The ettechecl photogreph
Indlclt.the.e pole. IS they currently relete to my
client'. property.)
2. The upper floor "roof deck" et the Muter aedrclOm
II deleted ill Its entIrety. No other roof deck, de<:k,
balcony, patio, bay. verendl or ~on1Igur.t1on of
similar function to I roof projection I. to be made .t
eny time which fec.. the main living leval of the
Horvitz'. property.
3. The Mut,er Bedroom northwest feeing double doors are
del.ted In thel r entirety. However. window. Ire
ae~eptable In thil northwelt facing ",ell provided th,t
their bottom window .111. are a minimum of 36" .bove
the MBR finish floor datum (111.25' .. 3.0' = +114,25')
and the total wl"dow width doe. not ex~eed +/- 111'-0"
In the wall facing the meln living le"el of the Horvitz's
property,
/'
e'/!..HPR A'gs 12':6 BIAiEHI E~IGEL
~ ~'.o ~",,, W.'(".;:.~w~
(4:5" ,1456-4000
.......n
P,3
~e03
(- r
Itr: Craiker, rei Resolution
April 1 I, 1995
Page 2 of 2
A, (continued):-
4. The flat roof ov.r the Kitchen Nook is acc.ptllbl',
provided th,! datum +110.00' is to the top of the
roof fucl;.,
S. Th. five skylightl Indlc.ted on Ihe fl.t roof OV8lr the
Kitchen.end Nook are non-glare at night; otherwl.e
the Horvitz's view will be ImpactOld.
6. The sldeyard b.tween thelJllragll and my client's fencIl
shall be I,mclsc.ped to visually screen the garage from
the Horvltl's prop.rty. The trees ..elected shOllld be
evergreen, must not grow over liorvltz'. proparty, end
mu.t not be .ttractlve to bees. The "trllh" aree shall
be screen,K! IS well. Tr.. spacl~g, .Iz., .pecles shall
b. sullabl,. for the purpose .nd mUlt be properly
Irrigated Bnd m.lntalned, and nol bIO,r.k my client'. vi.w.
B. In addition, should any other drawing revision be made for
any reason whatsoever to the de.lgn indicated on your
drawings r.vlsed II set forth above. the Ijlroperty owner.
of 1810 La51oor, View Dr., must make written approval to.th.
change. which face or Impact In any maMer 1810 Lagoon 'View
Or., prior to 'rown of Tlburon approval.
If your cll.nt I. In agr.ement wIth the .bove, pl.... revise your drawings
for my cll.nt'. spproval .nd .ccept.nce of this resolution. There ar. no other
known conc:arns of my client.
Plea.e contact me I' you have .ny que.tlons.
III
Z
i
III
III
J
.,
~
III
a:
C
~
I
cc; 1. Mr. & Mrs, Peter Horvih
2, AI BI.nchl
3. T.rry Murphy
~. PF
-
-
-
encl: .. stated, photograph depicting sto.ry poles. 1 ~ 2,
taken by Ring on 10 Apr 95, from Horvltz'e main
living level deck.
.'
-
-
(!l
z
it
UI
III
I
c(
"I
~
III
!
z
c(
L
APR ~4 ''35 ~2: 17 BIAf4CHI ENGEL 141~.145b~4~J00
P.4
(~
rr
-
CARACE STORY I'OLES .1 & 2
PHOTOCRAPH 1810 LA(,OON VIEW OR
towards lS18 Lagoon View Dr.
from Horvitz's Main Living Level Deck
by Andrew Jame. Ring III, on 10 AprIl 1995
10APIIU
"OLE '1
..,'
GA"AG! P!AK
POL! lit.
GAIUGI! WALL
attachmar.t to latter to Cralke... 11 AprIl 1995.
.1_ .,
(
r
-$-
Bright And Elegant
Light For Your
Patio
The Siemens Prime Light,
with its I-watt compact
fluorescent lamp, provides a
clear, bright light, ideal for a
patio or pool area. This light
works well mounted ona pole
about 8 feet above the ground,
or lower along walkways, The
round 1.8-watt photovoltaic
cell can produce up to 30%
more power than square cells,
making the prime light one of
our brightest garden lights.
The higMow switch offers you a choice of duration and brightness,-9 hours on low and 5
hours on high, A full charge takes 6 hours, The rechargeable, replaceable nicad battery has
a three-year life. Instant-on to -20 degrees C. 8"W x 8"H, it comes without a pole so that you
can mount it any height you like. Two-year warranty.
34-320 Prime Light
,... - '\\~"'" . ,.'- r
.... '......l. ., \, (~\ ",...:.:...... ..... : ..-,,' ; ; \
~ \, .....,.'.-'.j . .'" i....~~:,' " .
I "~-~ ~.:::' ~ 'Ji;,'f,:.~~"
.. il ;;,-If~~:-',-,,-:,,,
~v :',.', '~%.._"""l;i-'" '.
_ . r. _.::.,~.i' ,~~,:.4f''(h;~''
. " ';'''-'~''.c...,. ",f"''''~~''''';
_ ,,"_~,: "~__.-I!'I"':I"" li_~/""""'"
. . ''"~ ~,<!",., . ,1'-.",.,. .'C,
\.... ....;,'..,1 <. . ~ , j;.Y" '3--
/' ...' h~~~~~l"' - ~;o - 'q- .0;/;:' -' /.
,IN-GROUND t
If you want the effect of lighting without
seeing the source, this well light is it. It is fully
concealed by being buried in the ground,
yet its light source can tilt up to 350 and
rotate to 1800. A die-cast housing and grill
protect it. The lamps are available in
different beams from narrow to wide. In
black or bronze. See landscape applica-
tions, page 1.4 and 15. Model 6866BK.
Dimensions: 6%" Dia x 61's" Ht
Wattage: One 75W/PAR36/12V Light type (not included)
c.
~~J'
.:'1
. ,
\
~---.;.::t
~.' ""
~..:
-<
,...
J
'"
~'~-'-
--
-_.~
ta
CONTROL SPOT
This rugged die-cast aluminum spot luminaire
with glare shield is well suited for accent or
focused lighting of small areas. The size
makes it easy to conceal, and the serrated
swivels make it easy to aim. This fixture.
dramatically accents small plant groupin-gs,
flowers, statuary, and stairs. Stem-mounted
versions allow mounting heights of 17" or
29", Model 6820BK.
Dimensions: 4%6"Dia. X 8J1;"Ht X 5W'OP.
Wattage: One MR16, 12V, 20W50W Mox (not included)
~
FLOOD
These versatile
fixtures provide illumi-
nation over wide areas. This
fixture is the "wall-washer"
of the outdoors, great for
doing backdrops of trees
and shrubs, or "washing" broad areas of
lawn. Mount these up high on buildings or
, trees for effective security lighting. In black
or bronze. See landscape applications,
page 14 and 15. Model 6832BK.
Dimensions: 91lM'Wi x 93fs"Ht x 5~"Op
Wattage: One 7 5W Halogen (not included)
SPREAD-LIGHT
These small but durable stem-mounted fixtures
provide a pleasing spread of low-level down-
light for small plants, low hedges, bushes, etc.
They are a/so perfectly suited for perimeter
and contour lighting, as well as lighting border
plantings and narrow flower beds. Totally
enclosed and gasketed housings protect
lamps. In block or bronze. See iondscope
applications, page 14 and 15. Model 6852BK.
Dimensions: 3WWi x 30"Ht x 7//0p
Wattage: One 24Wj12Vj#1l56 o:One ':\'//12'1/=1141
(not included)
- ".' .'>.
.' "..:J.--~,',.
(
~
.;'',,,,is.:;--:-':>' ,'!"
(
RECESSED AISLE LIGHTS
Incandescent and Fluorescent. 3" recessing depth allows
installation in steel stud construction. Screw type, die-
cast louvered faceplates with diffusing glass back panels,
Textured gray finish. Housing of welded steel construc.
tion with gloss white baked enamel finish. Housing 7.3/4"
long x 4-5/8" high x 3" deep, Faceplate 5-1/4" x 8.1/2".
Thermally protected.
AL-1 15-25W Incandescent
ALF-1 4W, 1-F4 T5 Fluorescent.
ALCF-1 1-9W PL (1 20V or 277V)
.c,'';~~;';.i,;~'--.-.cf" .
(
(
..<, -:~.v.:._~-.-;:.~;:
.- ,-": ''--;.:'
,~ ~-r;~<: -,
i~!
-r~~
.:"0'-
* 488 Series 10DW, A-19
~RECESSED SQUARES. Specification grade quality Pre wired Recessed
Housings. Diecast aluminum frames. Matte white finish. U.L, listed for
thru branch circuit wiring. Suitable for damp locations. Adjustable socket
holder. Slip Strap Bar Hangers included for up to 24" a.c. joists.
Thermal protection standard.
:
(
(
~(1.
~~/~
~,
-/'{J.:
Cover A
Wide Area With
This Solar Light
The solar floodlight is designed to
provide a wide area of light coverage,
The two 3-watt quartz halogen lamps
can be adjusted to spotlight specific areas. The motion sensor has an
adjustable range of 3 to 75 feet, and a photo cell to prevent daytime activation.
The crystalline panel comes with a 15-foot cord to reach a sunny location, The
lights turn off automatically 11/2 minutes after motion stops. Lights turn on
up to 120 times per fuIJ charge, This is more than enough to carry
you through cloudy weather, The wall mount, "ithout lights, is 3
V4"W x'S"H x 3 1/4"D; the solar panel is 6" x 6",
36-173 Solar Max Motion Light
~&
({(t -
(
(
L ' ..
POLO~' '.
) Mounted on the wall, the 45' angle of the light makes
Polo the perfect choice for illuminating steps, address or
room numbers, or wall signs. Use indoors or out, in white
or black polycarbonate with transparent glass diffuser.
Designer: Roberto Fioroto
Dimensions: 6.6"Wi x 5.1 "Ht x 4"Ext
Wattage: One 40W Incandescent (included)
-
.
1
(
(
Wall Brackets Durable spun aluminum downlight with cast aluminum
fittings. Available with one-piece grooved aluminum baffle or black interior,
less baffle, Matte white finish standard. Suitable for wet locations.
-.
<.
(
"
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: APRIL 5, 1995
FROM:
IRENE BORBA
ASSISTANT PLANNER
AGENDA NO.:
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE AN
ADDITION AND VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND RIGHT SIDE
YARD SETBACK AT 181B LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
APPLICANT-MR. STEVE BRONTE
APPELLANT-MR. AND MRS. PETER HORVITZ
************************************************************************
BACKGROUND
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
CASE NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:
CURRENT USE:
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
IBIB LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
59-041-14
294013
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
21,B06 sq. ft.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MR, STEVE BRONTE
CHRIS CRAIKER (CRAIKER AND ASSOCIATES)
DECEMBER 22, 1994
JANUARY 11, 1995
DEADLINE: APRIL 11, 1995
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing
two-story residence which was built in 1958. The project requires a
variance for exceeding the lot coverage (lB% in lieu of 15%), and a
variance to allow a garage to encroach into the right side yard setback
(3 foot side yard setback in lieu of 15 feet). The proposal includes a
new garage, master bedroom suite, playroom and three new bedrooms.
REVIEW BY THE BOARD
The proposed project first appeared before the Design Review Board on
January 19, 1995. After public hearing and discussion, the Board
directed the applicant to further investigate ways to reduce the mass,
height and bulk; address the neighbor's concerns regarding view
blockage and privacy; and to consider landscaping to soften the mass
and create screening for the neighbors.
The Board considered revised plans on February 2, 1995, The second
submittal revised the design to reflect a terraced look. The upper
floor balconies were replaced with sloped roof areas; the two-story
living room was eliminated and the roof lowered; the upper floor was
reduced for compactness; and a retaining wall and terrace on lower
EXHIBIT N'~e t '3
(
(
floor were removed. On the north elevation, the left side of the game
room was moved in and stepped back; on the west elevation the two-story
living room space was stepped back and the roof lowered. The front
decks were eliminated and a low stepped rOof substituted; and a roof
deck over the kitchen/family room was added at the master bedroom
floor. The east elevation shows the upper floor recessed, and a deck
was removed and replaced with a sloped roof. Attached is a letter
dated January 24, 1995, from architect Chris Craiker outlining in
detail each of the changes. The Board continued the item to February
16, 1995, in order for the applicant to further investigate ways to
reduce the mass and height of the residence; again address the
landscaping; and propose a darker color scheme.
At the February 16, 1995, DRB meeting, the revised plans showed further
articulation by reducing the north end of the master bedroom to make
symmetrical front and rear facades; the upper floor roof was lowered;
and the colors were revised. These changes are outlined in a letter
dated February 6, 1995, from architect Chris Craiker.
After further public comment the Board approved the project on a 5-0
vote, adopting the variance findings and the conditions outlined in the
Staff Report, with some additional conditions.
The appeal was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Horvitz on February 23,
1995.
BASIS OF THE APPEAL
The sole basis of the appeal is that the variances were improperly
granted by the Board. Below is a listing of each ground upon which the
appeal is based, followed by Staff's response:
Ground #1:
The reasons stated for allowing the variance are
not supported by the findings.
staff Response: In approving the project, the
Board accepted as written the findings necessary
for granting the variances, as set forth in the
February 16, 1995, Staff Report. The findings
which the Board adopted are as follows:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to
the property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, the strict applicant of
this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
Special circumstances exist in that the property
is very steep, therefore, the request for the lot
coverage and right side yard variances. This is an
appropriate location for the proposed garage
addition due to the steepness of the lot. The only
other opportunites for expansion of the home would
page 2
(
(
be to add an additional level which would add
to the mass of the structure and possibly obstruct
views of adjacent homes.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special
privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon
other properties in the vicinity and in the same or
similar zones.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privileges in that the variance is
prompted by the steepness of the lot. Furthermore,
similar variances have been granted for other
properties in the neighborhood. A variance was
granted for IB09 Lagoon View Drive to encroach into
the side yard setback. A front yard variance was
granted in 1959, for 1754 Lagoon View Drive. A
front yard variance was granted in 195B, for 1799
Lagoon View Drive as well as a side yard variance
in 1987. A lot coverage variance was granted in
1993, for IBOl Lagoon View Drive (16.5%).
3. The strict application of this Ordinance 'would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship.
The strict application of this Ordinance would
result in practical difficulty because of the
existing site conditions and the current home
configuration. This is a practical place for the
addition.
4. The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurous
to other properties in the vicinity.
The granting of the variance for lot coverage will
not be detrimental to other properties in the
vicinity, in that it is preferable to allow
the expansion as proposed, rather than the
alternative of adding an additonal level to the
home. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed
overage of the lot coverage is derninus and will
not negatively affect the character of the
neighborhood. There is existing vegetation and
trees to help mitigate the impacts of the proposal.
In Staff's opinion, the reasons for granting the variances are clearly
stated in the findings.
Ground #2:
The findings are not supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
staff response: The findings are supported by
page 3
Ground #3:
Ground #4:
Ground #5:
(
(
substantial evidence in the record. The survey and
site plans clearly show the steep topography of the
lot. This steepness limits the buildable portions
of the lot. The physical conditions of steepness
contributed to the original placement of the
improvements on the lot and continues to influence
the location of improvements.
Application of the Zoning Ordinance requirements
would not cause practical difficulties or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff response: strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would cause practical difficulties or
unnecessary physical hardship due to the
steepness of the lot in those areas where an
addition would normally be built. For example, the
lots steepness caused a diagonal driveway leading
down to the house which reduces the potential for
additions to the front of the house. Steepness at
the rear of the lot discourages additions in that
area. The effect of the lot's steepness 'is to
restrict portions of the lot from being built
upon. Encroachment into the relatively flat side
yard setback is a logical response to the practical
difficulties created by the steepness of the lot.
The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
would result in additions being constructed on
steep portions of the lot not well suited for
building.
If there is any hardship to the applicant, it
is a self-created hardship resulting from actions
taken by present or prior owners of the subject
property which consciously create the very
difficulties or hardship claimed as the basis
for the application for a variance.
Staff response: The Board found that the physical
charteristics (ie, steepness) of the lot cause the
hardship, not actions of the current or prior
owners.
Granting of the variance would be detrimental to
other property in the vicinity.
Staff response: The Board did take into
consideration what (if any) impacts this proposal
would have on properties in the vicinity. The
Board considered the following areas: privacy,
view blockage, neighborhood character, colors
and materials, mass and noise. The Board concluded
that the variances would not be detrimental to
page 4
(
(
other properties in the vicinity nor injurious to
the public welfare.
With regard to the g~anting of the variance being
detrimental the the appellants' property, Mrs.
Horvitz had signed a letter dated January 7, 1995,
which stated that she had no objections to the
proposal or to the two variance requests. At the
February 2, 1995, DRB meeting, Mr. Terry Murphy
spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Horvitz. Mr.
Murphy stated that based on the plans now before
the Board, that Mr. and Mrs. Horvitz had concerns
about privacy from the pool and master bedroom deck
area. Mr. Murphy also stated that the original
plans submitted to the Board had addressed the
concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Horvitz. A letter dated
February 16, 1995, from by Mrs. Horvitz, she states
that the potential buyer of their property at IBI0
Lagoon View Drive had concerns about the impacts of
the proposal with regard to privacy and the garage
impacts. She also noted that the potential buyer
would be present at the meeting to discuss the
impacts of the proposal. The Board heard and
took into consideration the comments and concerns,
and also reviewed photographs taken from IBI0
Lagoon View Drive. The Board concluded that the
impacts would be minimal.
Ground #6:
The applicant has not met the burden of
demonstrating the existence of special
circumstances.
Staff response: The special circumstance is the
steepness of the lot.
OTHER
As made clear by the meeting minutes, in additon to dealing with the
variances, the Board worked diligently to reduce the mass and height of
the proposal address potential view blockage and privacy concerns, and
ensure compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. Following
two plan revisions, the Board unanimously concluded that the addition
was in scale and compatible with the neighborhood, and would not
unreasonably impact surrounding properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Board. Direct Staff to
return at the next meeting with an appropriate Resolution.
page 5
(
(
EXHIBITS
1. Appeal application.
2. DRB minutes dated January 19, 1995,,~ebruary 2, 1995, and
February 16, 1995.
3. DRB Staff Report for the February 16, 1995, DRB meeting.
4. Application for Design Review and variance dated December 13,
1995.
5. Letter dated December 9, 1995, from architect Chris Craiker.
6. Letter dated January 24, 1995, from architect Chris Craiker.
7. Letter dated February 6, 1995, from architect Chris Craiker.
B. Letter dated February 15, 1995, from Mrs. Horvitz.
9. Letter dated March 6, 1995, from Mr. Steve Bronte.
10. Site plan and architectural drawings approved by DRB on February
16, 1995.
page 6
(
(
BIANCHI, ENGEL, KEEGIN & TALKINGTON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ALBERT BIANCHI
STAFFORD W. KEEOIN
VICTORIA W. TALKINGTON
WENDY I.. WYSE
HOBERT L HARRISON
EILEEN EVANS BARKER
JEFFREY S. SCHOPPERT
COURTHOUSE SQUARE
1000 FOURTH STREET, SUITE 600
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901-3182
TELEPHONE (41:50) 4e.S-4QOQ
TELECOPIKR (41!:'>l 456-1921
February 23, 1995
OF COUNSEL
W GREGORY ENGEL
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Irene Borba, Assistant Planner
Tiburon Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: 1B18 Lagoon View Drive
Your File No. 294013
Dear Ms. Borba:
The undersigned represents Mr. and Mrs. Peter H. Horvitz, who own
the residence adjacent to 1B1B Lagoon View Drive.
Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal of the action taken by the
Tiburon Design Review Board on February 16, 1995. Also enclosed is
a check made payable to the Tiburon Planning Department in the
amount of $300, representing the filing fee.
I would appreciate it if you would inform me of the date, time and
place for hearing the appeal. Thank you in advance for your antic-
ipated courtesy and assistance.
Very truly yours,
~~
Albert Bianchi
AB:tb
Enclosures
.,IU""
,:-'/
';.,1
[\[=\!!:
FEB 23 1995
RECEIVED
DESIGN REVIEW
~i'"
,
~.,..
(
~,
''''1
TOWN OF TIBURON
(
NOTICE OF APPEAL
APPELLANT:
Name: Peter H. Horvitz
c/o Albert Bianchi, 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 600
Address: San Rafael, California 94901
Telephone: (415) 456-4000
(work)
(home)
ACfION BEING APPEALED:
Body:
Design Review Board
Date of Action: February 16, 1995
'.
Name of Applicant: Steve Bronte
Site plan and architectural review; variance for
Nature of Application: lot coverage and side yard setback.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
The reasons stated for allowinQ the v:=.r; !'inf'j:II are not SUDDorted
by the findings.
The findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
Application of the zoning ordinance requirements would not cause
practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the zoning ordinance.
If there is any hardship to the applicant, it is a self-croated
hardship resulting from actions taken by present or prior owners of
the subject property which consciously create the very difficulties
or hardship claimed as the basis for the application for a variance.
Granting of the variance would be detrimental to other property
in the vicinity.
The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the existence
of '=-Dpri;:1] c:i rr:llmstpmrps
Last Day to File: f~8..li',I'I"1>
0.,. 5:e>c
Fee ($300.00) Paid: /
Date Received:
~.2.3/<tS
A FEB 23 1995
fff7tZl L. s: <1
C IVED
DESIGN REVIEW
Date of Hearing:
~:>--;.'~., '
(
.-(
OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD:
THE BRONTE RESIDENCE
181B LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
ADDITION/VARIANCE
The applicant is proposing to construct'an addition which require
a Variance for lot coverage and the right side yard setback. The
proposal includes the addition of a new garage and a master bedroom
suite.
The proposal would add 600 sq. ft. to the existing lot coverage
bringing the total to 3,789 sq. ft. (17.3%). The maximum allowed
for this zone is 15%. The proposal would add 2,808 sq. ft. to the
existing FAR (this includes 100 sq. ft. of the garage space
allowance), bringing the total to 4,lBO sq. ft. The maximum allowed
for this property is 4,lBO sq. ft.
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel
shaped tile roof, the changing of the wood siding to stucco with
the trim color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body
color India Spice (G-44 Fuller O'Brien), lower body color Zanzibar
(G-45 Full O'Brien), and the accent color would be white.
Chairman Sadrieh called upon the applicant to make the
presentation.
The Project Architect Chris Craiker presented the proposal. In his
briefing of the design, he indicated that the project includes the
addi tion to the rear and top of the existing structure and is
within the FAR requirement. The variances are strictly to preserve
neighbors' view corridor.
After the brief Q & A session between the Board and the Architect,
specifically on the noise issue and landscape proposal, the
Architect stated that the noise was not an issue and intended to
keep the existing landscape.
At this point and time, Chairman Sadrieh opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Joy Easom of 1828 Lagoon View Drive, Mr. Donald Wallace of 1807
Lagoon View Drive, Ms. Joan Dracott of l795 Vistazo West and Mr.
Hank Easom of 1B28 Lagoon View Drive Voiced their concerns. These
were noise from many decks, pool and spa, pri vacy and view
blockage, no landscape proposal to soften and screen the mass and
bulky and massive development.
Mr. Steve Bronte and the Project Architect explained how they have
addressed the neighbors' concerns and have reduced impact over
them.
Chairman Sadrieh tabled the subject matter for Board's comments and
consideration.
J~~ARY 19, 1995
DRB MINUTES
6
(
(-
THE BRONTE RESIDENCE
1B18 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
ADDITION/VARIANCE
The Board discussed the proposal. The' general reaction of the
Board was, that the house was huge .and massive for Tiburon
standard, very large two story element not keeping to the hillside
guideline and extremely prominent house. The Board encouraged the
applicant to reduce the mass, height and address issues of view
blockage and privacy and consider landscaping to soften some mass
and create screening to address neighbors's concern.
The Board was in agreement to offer continuation to the applicant
and so was unanimously approved.
February 2, 1995 date was set for second hearing.
J~~ARY 19, 1995
ORB MINUTES
7
-(
,-(
THE BRONTE RESIDENCE
1B1B LAGOON VIEW DRIVE ADDITION/VARIANCE
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition which require
a Variance for lot coverage and the right side yard setback. The
proposal includes the addition of a new garage and a master bedroom
suite.
The proposal would add 737 sq. ft, to the existing lot coverage
bringing the total to 3,926 sq.ft. (18%). The maximum allowed for
this zone is 15%. The proposal would add 2,808 sq.ft. to the
existing FAR (this includes 100 sq. ft. of the garage space
allowance), bringing the total to 4,lBO sq. ft. The maximum allowed
for this property is 4,180 sq. ft.
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel
shaped tile roof, the changing of the wood siding to stucco with
the trim color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body
color India Spice (G-44 Fuller O'Brien), lower body color Zanzibar
(G-45 Full O'Brien), and the accent color would be white.
The proposal was heard at the January 19, 1995 Design Review Board
meeting. The item was continued to allow the applicant time to
respond to the concerns of the Boards and the neighbors.
Chairman Sadrieh called upon the applicant
presentation.
to make the
The Project Architect Chris Craiker presented the revised proposal.
In his briefing he explained how he has addressed the Board's and
neighbors' concerns by reducing the mass and bulk of the house,
The changes included elimination of front deck, terracing and
stepping back the upper floor, lowered roof, garage setback, and
proposed more planting of trees to mitigate mass. Presented
photographs to show the house was not visible from the down town.
During the Q & A session between the Board and the applicant Mr.
Craiker explained on the elimination of two story effect, reduced
impact by shifting pool equipment and terrace reduced at the
corner.
Chairman Sadrieh opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Joy Easom of 1828 Lagoon View Drive appreciated the changes and
suggested planting of evergreen trees instead of pine trees.
Mr. Donald Wallace of 1B07 Lagoon View Drive stated his major
concern was view blockage and that the story poles appear to have
gone higher, the blockage would be more.
Mr. Dracott of 1795 Vistazo West commented on view blockage at two
sec~icns or the house and suggested taller trees to mitigate the
mass.
FEBRUARY 02, 1995
DRB MINUTES
15
.
.
"(
,(
THE BRONTE RESIDENCE
1818 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
ADDITION/VARIANCE
Ms. Diana Ashely, a neighbor, commented that the revised proposal
addresses the concerns and has reduced the impact.
Chairman Sadrieh tabled the subject matter for the Board's comments
and consideration.
Boardmember Berger commented that the applicant has reduced the
mass, eliminated deck, supports variance and was happy with the
house. However, he would like to see color scheme come back to the
Board and would recommend for approval.
Boardmember Woo Commented that she was not comfortable with the
variance, only if granted in the area of minimal view blockage and
landscaping be sufficient to mitigate mass.
Chairman Sadrieh applauded the applicant for reducing some mass,
and also working with the neighbor. However, some more effort to
reduce the mass was suggested.
Boardmember Bennett comment that the house is still massive and
bulky and is uncomfortable with granting variance. She suggested
some reduction in mass and may be some way to do away with the
variance.
Boardmember Slavitz commented that the house was still big and does
not fit in the neighborhood and suggested more effort by the
applicant to reduce mass.
The Board discussed the house at length and offered suggestions to
reduce some mass and height and also mitigating by landscaping and
color scheme and requested to produce color proposal at the next
hearing.
At this time, Mr. Wallace of 1807 Lagoon View Drive voiced that he
was most impacted by this house and Board has not addressed his
concerns.
The Board decided to visit Mr. Wallace's residence to review the
concern.
The Board offered continuation to the applicant.
February 16, 1995 date was set for the next hearing.
FEBRUARY 02, 1995
16
DRB MINUTES
(
(
4. Bronte: 1818 La~oon View Drive. Add.Nar.
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition which would require a Variance for lot coverage and the
right side yard setback at the existing residence of 1818 Lagoon View Drive. The proposal includes the
addition of a new garage and a master bedroom suite.
The proposal would add 737 sq. ft. to the existing lot coverage bringing the total to 3,926 sq. ft. (18%). The
maximum allowed for this zone is 15%. The proposal would add 2,808 sq. ft. to the existing FAR (this
includes 100 sq. ft. in excess of the garage space allowance), bringing the total to 4,180 sq. ft. The maximum
allowed for this property is 4,180 sq. ft.
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel shaped tile roof, the changing of the wood
siding to stucco with the trim color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body color India Spice (G-44
Fuller O'Brien), lower body color Zanzibar (G-45 Fuller O'Brien), and the accent color would be white.
The applicant has submitted revised plans dated January 24, 1995. Those proposed changes of January 24,
1994 were reviewed at the February 2, 1995 DRB meeting. The applicant tried to address the Board's and
neighbors' concerns by reducing the overall mass and bulk of the residence. Some of the changes included
terracing and stepping back the upper floor which then slightly increases the lot coverage from the original
proposal. squaring off the garage making it 3' from the property line, plus some landscaping has been
introduced to the proposal.
The applicant has again submitted revised plans dated February 6, 1995. Staff has highlighted the area which
has been revised. The applicant has reduced the north end of the master bedroom to make symmetrical front
and rear facades. Also the upper floor has been lowered in height to reflect what had been originally proposed.
The Project Architect, Chris Craiker began by saying that the Board had asked that the massing be reduced.
He said that he took the second floor, knocked the corners out to make the third floor appear smaller and made
the entryway symmetrical. He added that the master bedroom has been recessed back.
Chairman Sadrieh asked if it was a 6 foot setback from the second floor left and the other side matches.
Mr. Craiker said yes it was a 6 foot setback of the same amount on both sides. He continued that he had also
been asked to reduce the roof line which he kept at that height of the 6 inches. He added that now it was 2
feet below the height limit due to the slope of the hill.
Boardmember Berger asked if the height of the hOllse had gone up relati ve to the street.
Mr. Craiker answered that no it had not. It was the same height as before. He said that it went from 126 back
to the original 123.3 It wasn't actually 2 feet as he had mentioned last time, but only 6 inches. He added that
it was the same elevation as the first time around.
Boardmember Berger asked if this was numerically rather than relative to grade.
Mr. Craiker answered yes, in absolute height it was the same. He said the whole house has been moved back.
Boardmember Bennett asked about the parking changes.
:yfr. Craiker said that there were none. He continued by saying that they kept it the samed 3 feet back into
the sideyard. He added that there was ample room to maneuver out of the garage (33 feet). There was a wide
space for backing up.
Boardmember Bennett agreed but asked about guest parking.
~lr. Craiker stated that there were only two spaces before and that now he was making 3 enclosed spaces. He
added that there were also tandem spaces in front.
,",,~.. ,~"," '"""'~ .." ,~ 'OC", ,,',~ ',~"";"~ "". '":"::~; :iliIA R Y
(
(
In reference to the color and mass, Mr. Craiker said that they had gone from pink palace to a darker color. He
said that the tiles are a mixture of the color displayed. He showed the Board the color boards. He noted that
this will be the darkest house in the area. In terms of the textures. he said they would be heavy to reduce the
glare. He continued that they would be muted and dull. He said that they would be using 3 tones of stucco.
The dark color was the base, the middle was the predominant exterior color and the light color was for the trim
pieces, other stuccoed pieces and as an accent. The columns and the face would also use this lighter color.
The window trim would be white. Mr. Craiker concluded by saying the color choices address the Board's
concern about the people downhill looking up at the house and keeping it as neutral as possible.
About the landscaping, Mr. Craiker said that they would be using more trees in addition to the existing ones,
and that they would change the use of the trees on the south end from pine to myoprium. He said that the
lighting was submitted today and that the lights were low, non-glare accent to existing trees so that you could
not see any lighting or fixtures.
He continued by saying that the existing pool has I big spotlight and that they'd like to replace it with 4
smaller lights in the pool. The wattage would be 100 watts and 12 volts.
Boardmember Bennett said that 2 lights in the pool would be enough.
Mr. Craiker mentioned the roof deck off the master bedroom and said that previously there were two decks.
The Board thought they added mass so the decks were consolidated and moved to the side at the last meeting.
He addressed the neighbor's concern over privacy and said to protect her view they moved the decks. He
added that the decks always existed and that the distance to the neighbors pool remained the same but the
house is closer. He said that this was not substantial though and added that it was not a "party" deck. He said
that it was a subtle private deck for the master bedroom.
He said that the view has been improved by taking a notch out of the corner of the master bedroom. He added
that they've modified as much as possible to respond to the Board and to the neighbors.
Boardmember Bennett asked where the double spotlight is
Mr. Craiker said that it was on the garage and there were two lights for security in that area.
Boardmember Bennett asked if the coach lamps going down the driveway are they going to be 8 feet above
ground.
Mr. Craiker said that no, the lights would only be 2.5-3 feet max.
Chaicman Sadrieh opened the discussion to the public.
Joy Easom, a neighbor asked about the lighting around the spa and the decks off the west side.
NIr. Craiker responded by saying that the lights would go up the driveway and that there were lights on the
house and in the pool area there would be low lights on the wall. 4-5 feet tall and that there would be a change
down to 2 lights in the pool. He added that there would be a second light on the trellis area for security. and
that the decks have down lights or aisle type lighting built in low for the roof terrace. There would be no
lighting in the spa area. There would be two down lights at the gameroom in the front yard.
Ms. Easom asked Boardmember Bennett about the Myoprium.
Boardmember Bennett said that Myoprium gets pretty big and you can see through it.
Chairman Sadrieh said that they do not grow very high and added that they were evergreens and very bushy.
Boardmembcr Bennett recommended the Potrorm Gelato tree as it grows to about 15-20 feet and is a full tree.
.~ ,~"44
,r-
'i '!I. ;jI4 ..,~i
"" \.. 1
A
Mr. Craiker asked if they could make different types of trees an option.
20.
DRB 2/16/95
(
(
Boardmember Bennett said yes, that was possible.
Al Martin said that he was a potential purchaser of 1810 Lagoon View Drive. He stated that the storypoles
show the house 17-18% above the maximum. He also said that there would be a great impact on the privacy
of 1810 Lagoon View Drive due to the garage.
Mrs. Wallace across the street said that she wanted the existing pine trees trimmed for the sake of her view.
Chairman Sadrieh said that the applicant is agreeable to settling this matter.
Joan Drakecott asked how it was possible to not have lights in the spa area.
MR.. ~U:~.tJt SAID THAT TI1~ A,ef. trtJo 'P,"A~~ "TD U1Wti:. L.I~~TI~G'O IN ilt"- ~ ppzliA .
Boardmember Berger said that there would be no lighting at night. .J
Ms. Drackecott requested that the Board accept condition number 6 in the Staff Report which was in regard to
the landscaping being in place prior to a final building inspection.
Neighbor Hank Easom said the house is too big for the area and that he objected.
Diane Ahley said that the house is not going to have a big impact compared to the houses already there. She
added that the applicant has already made the requested changes.
Marian Alcurt, the Realtor stated that her client, the potential buyer of 1810 Lagoon View Drive, has a
contract with the sellers which is contingent on the client's approval and said they could lose the buyer.
Chairman Sadrieh brought the matter back to the Board.
Vice Chairman Slavitz said that in regard to 1810 Lagoon View Drive. the issue was new to him about the
impact and that he had no comment on that. He mentioned that he liked the darker colors but the main body
could be darker. He also said that the 2 different colors of the roof would cause it to stand out more versus
having one darker color. On the lighting of the trees, he noted his concern about the effect at night, especially
from downtown Tiburon. He felt too many lights were introduced. He also stated that he was glad the house
has been lowered. He would like to see the impact from the house next door.
Boardmember Bennett said the color change would allow the house to blend better with the hillside. She
agreed with Vice Chairman Slavitz about the roof. About the lighting, she said that two floodlights going into
Ms. Drakecotts backyard and the Horowitzs should be eliminated. She said that small malibu lights would be
fine. She thought substitute lighting should be used on the trellis rather than a double spotlight. She added
that the pool should have only 2 lights, not 4. She stated that floodlights in front are low enough except the
ones coming out of the ground. These spots in front should focus toward the house rather than up the hill. Her
condition for approval was that the tree is Potisporum or Myorprium. Otherwise, she found the house fine.
Chairman Sadrieh agreed with the previous comments. He thought the changes to the upper 1100r were more
attractive. He also commented that it was unfair to express points after several review meetings have gone by
as they lead to delays. He said that he was comfortable with the project as it is and that he agreed aboUl the
comments on the lights.
Boardmember Woo said that she agreed with the comments made. She added that the colors should be darker.
She also said that the storypoles made it seem like a huge house and that if it were darker it would seem to
recede back more into the hills.
Boardmember Berger commended the architect and applicant and approved of rhe changes made. He
Jppreciared the nice collaboration together with the neighbors. He staled that he was prepared to support the
project last time and that it has just gotten better. Regarding the adjacent neighbors. he said that the irypatf.
of the deck is minimal due to the distance, as is the downward step-lighting. He said he had a h,ull!"'lli'i~
the upper and middle colors but [hat the lower one is fine. He went on to say that all col,s .m"'ighter on
," .. ' ,
-". ,
, .. ~ .;"-'
.....-
-
21_
DRB 2/16/95
(
(
bigger surfaces. He said that a darker color would have an immense impact. He concluded by saying that the
applicant should come back for the lighting but he approved of the massing.
Chairman Sadrieh agreed with Vice Chairman Slavitz for a more muted and darker roof color.
Boardmember Berger said he liked the lively roof. From the street the house is tucked down. From down
below you look past them.
Chairman Sadrieh said that mixed roofs look unnatural. A prime example is the roof at the end of Turtlerock.
Boardmember Berger said that in some cases a mixed roof takes a boring look and gives it some lightness.
MIS BennettlBerger, approval of the proposal and the findings of the variance as indicated in the Staff Report
with the following conditions: I) that the colors of the stucco, roof and the lighting come back to the
administrative panel and that 2) the Ceangius trees be substituted with IS gallon ones.
A YES: Chairman Sadrieh, Boardmembers Bennett, Berger, Slavitz. Woo
NOES: None
,..~
,...
r
,"
...'
-'
"
~~
-
--
-
-
;/
.-/
;
..
...
22
DRB 2/16/95
(
(
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.:
FROM:
IRENE BORBA, ASSISTANT PLANNER
MEETING DATE:
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
SUBJECT:
1818 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE ; FILE #294013
SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION; VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND RIGHT SIDE
YARD SETBACK
ARCHITECT-CHRIS CRAlKER AND ASSOCIATES
OWNER-MR. BRONTE
************************************************************************
PROJECT DATA
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
CASE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EMEMPT:
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
1818 LAGOON VIEW DRIVE
59-041-14
294013
21, 806 SQ. FT.
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
DECEMBER 22, 1994
JANUARY 11, 1995
DEADLINE: APRIL 11, 1995
HISTORY
The proposal was heard at the January 19, and February 2, 1995, Design
Review Board meeting. The item was continued to allow the applicant
time to respond to the concerns of the Boardmembers and the neighbors.
The Board was concerned with the mass and bulk of the proposal (minutes
attached) .
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition which would require
a Variance for lot coverage and the right side yard setback at the
existing residence of 1818 Lagoon View Drive. The proposal includes
the addition of a new garage and a master bedroom suite.
The proposal would add 737 sq.ft. to the existing lot coverage bringing
the total to 3,926 sq.ft. (18.0%). The maximum allowed for this zone
is 15%. The proposal would add 2,808 sq.ft. to the existing FAR (this
includes 100 sq.ft. of the garage space allowance), bringing the total
to 4,180 sq.ft. The maximum allowed for this property is 4,180 sq.ft.
(
(
Proposed material and color changes include a concrete barrel shaped
tile roof, the changing of the wood siding to stucco with the trim
color in French Rose (G-43 Fuller O'Brien), upper body color India
Spice (G-44 Fuller O'Brien), lower body color Zanzibar (G-45 Fuller
O'Brien), and the accent color would be ,white.
The applicant had submitted revised plans dated January 24, 1995.
Those proposed changes of January 24, 1994, were reviewed at the
February 2, 1995, DRB meeting. The applicant tried to address the
Board's and neighbors concerns by reducing the overall mass and bulk of
the residence. Some of the changes included terracing and stepping
back the upper floor which than slightly increases the lot coverage
from the original proposal, squaring off the garage making it 3' from
the property line, plus some landscaping has been introduced to the
proposal.
The applicant has again submitted revised plans dated February 6,
1995. Staff has highlighted the area which has been revised. The
applicant has reduced the north end of the master bedroom to make
symmetrical front and rear facades. Also the upper floor has been
lowered in height to reflect what had been originally proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposal is exempt from the prOVlSlons of the California Quality
Act as specified in Section 15301 Class A.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with
the development standards for the RO-2 zone, with the exception of the
excess in lot coverage and the right side yard setback for'which
Variances are being requested.
The proposal requires
for this zone is 15%.
18.0 %.
a Variance for lot coverage. The maximum allowed
This proposal would increase the lot coverage to
This proposal requires a Variance for the right side yard setback. The
Ordinance requires a 15' side yard setback. This proposal is at 3'.
The Variance request is for a 12' encroachment into the setback.
In order to grant the requested Variances, the Board must make the
findings as required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. Staff suggests that the following findings may be made in
support of the requested Variances:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the
same or similar zones.
Special circumstances exist in that the property is very steep,
(
(
therefore, the request for the lot coverage and the right side
yard Variances. This is an appropriate location for the propsed
garage addition due to the steepness of the lot. The only other
opportunities for expansion of the home would be to add an
additional level which would add to the mass of the structure and
possibly obstruct views of adjacent homes.
2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges,
inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of
special privileges in that the Variance is prompted by the
steepness of the lot. Furthemore, similar Variances have been
granted for other properties in the neighborhood. A Variance was
granted to 1809 Lagoon View Drive to encraoch into the side yard
setback. A front yard Variance was granted in 1959, for 1754
Lagoon View Drive. A front yard Variance was granted in 1958, for
1799 Lagoon View Drive as well as a side yard Variance in 1987. A
lot coverage Variance was granted in 1993, for 1801 Lagoon View
Drive (16.5%).
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical
difficulty because of the existing site conditions and the current
home configuration. This is a practical and logical place for the
addition.
4. The granting of the Variances will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The granting of the Variance for lot coverage will not be
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity, in that it is
preferable to allow the expansion as proposed, rather than the
alternative of adding an additional level to the home. It is
Staff's opinion that the proposed overage of the lot coverage and
the encroachment of the right side yard setback is diminimous and
will not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.
There is existing vegetation and trees to help mitigate the
impacts of the proposal.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the Variance findings.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Board finds the design acceptable and in conformance with the
Town's Design Guidelines, and if the Board makes the required findings
for the requested Variances, then the Board may wish to approve the
project, then Staff recommends the following conditions be applied:
1. This approval shall be used within (2) years of the approval
,
\
(
(
date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has
been issued or an extension granted.
2. The development of the project shall conform with the application
dated by the Town of Tiburon on February 6, 1994, or as amended
by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the
plans of February 6, 1994, must be reviewed and approved by the
Board.
3. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior
to issuance of building permits.
4. The Variances herby granted shall only apply to the specific
project included with this application. The Variance for lot
coverage and the right side yard setback is not applicable to
future projects or other designs.
5. Skylights must be bronzed or tinted and no lights in the wells.
6. Prior to final building inspection approval, all proposed
landscaping shall be installed in accordance with approved plans.
The installation of plantings shall be verified by a Planning
Department field inspection.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Chris Craiker dated February 6, 1995.
2. Minutes from the February 2, 1995, DRB meeting.
3. Plans dated February 6, 1995.
~ .
.~ r; __::
.-
((
,{
/"'
. (OC STAFF USE
DATE RECEIVED: 1z{1~ "/4-
RECEIVED BY:
FEES RECEIVED:
RECEIPT NO: 8.
CASE NO.: 2 +~/3
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND DESIGN REVIEW
TOWN OF TIBURON '
1155 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
(415) 43S-"l~7
SITE ADDRESS:
II H Lagoon V..i.w VlLi..ve - T .wuJum
Please indicate with an asterisk ('") per:sODS to whom corn:spondenc:e should be sent.
QWNER OF
PROPER'IY: <;;tPlIP RJrnrr:/'p
PHONE: fAg) 7fO_7900
J.\oIAlLING ADDRESS:
.
JdP1IJF FAr./F 'HJl/F<rrUl"lJT~, ,Tn /lHO TUn,q~~ BCnd "1/TiJlI'JU1n, CA 94920
,
APPLICANT: CJta..i.kvr;- M.ooci.a1:U
(OtheI' Than OwneI')
PHONE:
(415) 459-5020
ADDRESS: S7h ThJhrt <;;thPP:/'/~rr ~n'npl rA q4qnl
ARCHITECT:
DESIGNER:
ENGINEER: ChIt.V, CJta..ikVt. AlA
PHONE:
/41';J 4Z;Q-Z;n9n
S7h TlUhrt <;;thPP:/'
~" Pnend). ri QdQn1
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO~ 059-041-14
,
!i~
ZONING:
'0(;_1}
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PRO,IECT:
EWUn.g 1,370 .0.6. hou.oe.u. be.Ui.g ILlllII0del.ed I.OIL add.Ui..o=t 2.700 .0.1..
will ad1:LW.on 01. new lowVt BRS UJt and nw Mrnrrrt "nn" mnA:/'p" Rk' ."irp in,,! gnlUl.ge.
I, the unde1'Signed owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make applicatiou.
foI' design !'eYiew of the plans submitted and made a 'Part of Ibis application in accord:1nce with the
provisions of the Town ot'dinance and I hereby ce11iCy that the iuConnation given is true and colTeCt to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
DEe 1.3 1994
12 9 94
(Date)
--"
>or
. .
. ",-case prov lQe t:Ile l:o.u(wJ.ng information:
..' (~i ..
. . . ." . ..... . ,
1. Brief7.y. reason fo. ~op'osed. pro;iect;: : .
f(
lIo"t twdrfDfr miAhoA I"n oypnnrl tlY]1.t"l.nf}. uni.n:teJtu.t1..na unu..&ab.le." J bedJwom
I,mt.C.o ~f'f flnmm""AOlrn1"p wirn ""iahhnll.hood.
2. Lot area in square feet:
'l1 ~06 1>.1..
3. Proposed use of site:
Existinq
Proposed
" 'R"O hOAir/o"'''(J
4 BR ll.u.i1u.Jtc.e.
4. ' Individual and total square feet of living areas and accessory' buildings.
Existina
,
"
,
Proposed
.
T Hn h, ItolLOe and 'l00 -6.1.. QaJt4Qe
.
4,OSO -6. n. hou.oe. and 3 =
600 1>.n. qaJt4qe.
'J ~orlJtnnm
5. Percentage of total site to be covered by:
ON GRADE ,BUILDING:
Existinq
Proposed
J.. 9'Q,{
11. 'It
--:::-
PARKING:
Proposed
.~{
Existina
~ 40:"
'l; Sj .
OTHER PAVED AREAS (ACCESS TO PllRT<TN:G, TURNAROUNDS, .ETC.)
Existinq
Proposed
7.55*
";:~.i
n
LANDSeAEING:
,...< -....
.', '''''. .~.......
Proposed
.--, .
~ . '.
Existinq
S'l,6U
6. Building heigh t and number of stories:
79;.,.7;
Existina
Proposed
1-1>:tnll.U (H;' I
3-U.olU!
130' J
., page 2
'.'
. .
-.'
(
c(
eGVERED
.'
Existinq
Proposed
One
TMee
. OPEN
Existinq
Proposed
Two 5 tJAJo :to.ndum
8. Surrounding land use: North
3 :to.ndwn
Ru.Uien.c.~
South
ReU.den.c.e
Ru.Uien.c.e
East
.~
West
R u.Uien.c.e
9. Project scheduling and phasing:
S:taJtt demo.u.ti.on .i.n. Mallek 1995
c.ono.tJw.c.:U.on .<.it ApJUl & ac.CLqJ(U[CJf .i.n. OdobeJr. 1995
10. If residential: total number of living units One.,
,range of sale prices or rents
ll. If commercial or industrial:
net rentable floor area
number of occupants
estimated employment per shift
12. If applicable, describe provisibns for:
",
".
water _service
r:yjJ.rirrg
fire protection
FyjJ.ri"'{J
storm drainage
Fyj).ritfg
sewage disposal
'FyiAi-irrg
other utilities
ExLI.t.ing
13. Any other pertinent information:
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
......
:.>
.~ .~ -7t!~{~:. ~
'",." , .....
"
....
-,
.page 3
0".-.
. :.:~'~i~.:~:."'-' .
-.
. . ~ ."
...' 0"'
.;~;:..~~.:..;.::~:~i;~~J;'~ :~~
.... .-
...-'....... ,"
. ~.iI~~;:4~]
..
I(
--(
.
..c.-
TOWN OF TIBURON
"'~'''''''''.''
, ,
-'('lio.';; ;~,I'-
'-' ':.~~~b:.~: ":.
.
"" TlBUR.ON IOUt,lIVA1U) , 'nat1~ON .. CAUPOI\N1A MnO . (..." .Us.".,.,.s
PAX (411) 4.I.....sa
~PLlCATl~i=oR. ,VARIANCE
For Staff Use
Date:
RIle. by:
Fee:
~'.'fF
ileC't. t
APPUCAl'f! REQUIRED INFORM;\TION
~ ,..... . ,
1. Asm.or's. PU"'~l No(s),
'%, ,PIOI?!'l'ty'. Ac!llr=.. 1 ~ 1 ~
',$. Properly Owner &) Name
,b) Addms
n;q-OJl-14
Existing ZOrUn&
TUJ9
LaQoon Vi~ V~ve
T.i.buJton. CA
<:rooo Rhnnro
A/.;p.i.JLe Ea.gle Inveh-tme.n.th, Ud..
"lATO Tibuhnrr RIo'" 1#9 ,"ih"h,H.,
Ph~e
(415' U9-7900,
('j Q,lQ1f1
4. AppU=t.(it~e:ell1 than owner) .) Name_l'hhi< 1'." lbo. AU
.
PhOM (,,j.T<;)',j.;q-;MO:
,b)Addreu ~o, n:...t rtU9t
san Ra.~a.et. CA 94901
.$, ,~Nanio oEPrcjeet(i!'appllcabIo) 1~1~ InQf'lf'I'" I/jOFlt -0";1'0 Qamn,.{of
.. 6, ~rlyalu: 22.~OO 1>.~.
7. Type ct'use proposed (oHice; residential. etc.)
'R()Air/OrfrilTl
8. Squu: (ootage of .aclnl.e or number ot WII13 if'residential: 1 . 370 1>. ~. ex.iA:tin/l g 2. '600 1>. ~.
new a.nd 600 1>. ^" ai1Jr1l9P
,~, P\l:'pou ct' appUcaticn (brief s;4t.lllenl o(wlatyou W1Itlt \Q ac:compUsh) PJr.a.:tec..t nv../lhbaJt6
ui~h bu d()rn~h;ng gnhngo
nnrl p/tY~i"'(J it' pn,,'tirr"rJ i."
10. SJ~
DEe:. 3 1994
Owner
X,)( Applicant (Note:. If app~am algas, an au.thori::tlica
.jpd by tho owner must be iti:u:h.ed.)
.
(
~,
..
(
APPLIClTlOll rOIl VARIANC! TOWN O~ T1BUROII 5124/91
2
." ....
C 'k (A'" ,
ral er - sSOclates
Architects & Planners
AIA Inc
r:
December 9, 1994
Ms. Irene Borba & Mr. Mohamad Sadrieh, Chairman
Design Review Board & Town Planning Staff
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
DEe 1 3 1994
RE: 1818 Lagoon View/Our Job No. 9414
Dear Ms. Borba & Mr. Sadrieh & Design Review:
This application is for a remodeling of an existing two bedroom, 1,400 s,f. forty year old home
on a steep downhill 21,806 s.f. lot for Mr. & Mrs, Steve Bronte who intend to personally
occupy the house. The application should include all necessary information for review.
The owner requests a three car garage which could be included within the building envelope and
within the maximum coverage allowed for the site. However, the desired location adjacent to
the house would block views from an adjacent home and create a more visible mass. After
discussions with the neighbors we felt that the best solution was to detach the garage, move it
into the sideyard and partially bury it in the hillside where the neighbors' existing wall and fence
shields it from their view, In order to prolect the neighbors existing views, we are requesting
two variances. (1) Coverage increase of 600 s,f.; (2) Sideyard reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet
for garage only.
The two Variances requested are to protect and enhance the adjacent neighbors existing views.
The Variance for increased coverage is specifically to create a detached garage where two
existing parking spaces are currently. This Variance is substantiated by the following:
1. Special circumstances exist because the steep site leaves no other location for a garage.
The Applicant, the neighbors and the City Design Review Standards want to design to
step and terrace down the hill thus increasing the coverage of the house and, create a
separate garage out of the view shed of the adjacent neighbors, The maximum square
footage of the house is within the existing required floor area ratio, FAR, but if we were
to conform to the strict interpretation of the coverage, the garage would have to be
tucked into the house blocking a view. This nicely terraced design of the exterior would
have to be forsaken and a three-story "box" would be generated that would be
unacceptable to the Owner or the Town Design Standards. By increasing the allowed
coverage, the design can meet the design guidelines intent and avoid a view blockage by
neighbors,
2. Our request for an increased coverage is not a special privilege but arises out of desire
to assist lhe neighbors and maintain the neighbors view, There is no advantage to the
Applicant. -
I
526 Third Street . San Rafael . California 94901-3306 . (415) 459-5020 . FAX: (415) 459-5461
(i (
((
3. A strict Application of the coverage would require a physical hardship to the neighbor
and an undesirable design of the exterior. The hardship for the neighbor would be
dramatic in the compromising of their views.
4. The Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties
in the vicinity since it will protect existing views and lessens the apparent mass of the
building. This stepping will substantially increases the cost of construction to the
Applicant, but will create goodwill for the neighbor.
In regards to the encroachment into the 15' sideyard, this encroachment is for a relatively short
distance of 30' along a 200' length of property line. It allows the Owner to enjoy an existing
condition where two parking spaces are used presently and abutt the neighbors property to the
north. We will be recessing back from the property line the parking five feet where zero
distance exists now to allow drainage, landscaping and other undesirable separation. The new
garage will be lower then the adjacent retaining wall and fence separating the two properties thus
rendering it close to invisible, Placing the garage adjacent to the house as the Owner had
originally desired will substantially block views of the adjacent homeowners'. For this reason
we are asking for the_garage to be moved in the cedarwood under the following circumstances:
4)
1)
The special and unique circumstances exist now for the adjacent neighbors views
towards the City that would be blocked by the placement of the garage in the
normal location, By enclosing the existing parking spaces on grade and
encroaching into the side yard , their existing view will be protected. There is no
other reasonable location on-site for the desired three car garage without
extraordinary expenses, extensive grading and many retaining walls.
This Variance will not result in special privilege but is protection of the neighbors
existing City views. If we build the garage where our Client prefers, it will
significantly reduce the value of the neighbor properties through important view
reductions,
v.fcc'
The site has difficult downhill topography and, while ~ s.f, in size, it does
not have any other workable space for the garage that would not result in
obstructing the neighbors views,
Putting the garage in this location will enclose two existing parking spaces while
setting them back from the property line to allow a less hazardous condition of
drainage and vegetation between the buildings,
2)
3)
COC:het
9-I1../Vuiancc.llr
2
-~---- :HN-24-'95 15:53 JD:C~RlS :RAIKER INC: TEL NO:4154595020
'Ie(,
Craiker A~~cia,tgs
Architects & Planners
----..-........---
,AlA Inc
~
~281 P02
\
f~I"- t r,..Jyr"
1),">' ,0/'"
L~?"""r
January 24, 1995 - Revised
Sent Via Facsimile (415) 435-2438
Irene Borba, Planner
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Bronte Resubmiaal/1818 Lagoon View Drive/Our Job No. 9414
Dear Irene & Design Review Board;
Pursuant to the January 19th DRB meeting, attached are ten sets of reduced and two full size
sets of revised drawings. We have addressed the Boards' and neighbors' concerns regarding the
apparent mass and bulk of the upper floor by totally redesiening this area to make it more
compact with terraced setbacks, TIle Board was favorable to the variances of increased coverage
and garage sideyard encroachmenl if we work 011 the upper floor's appearance, The changes
are as follows:
Shut AI:
Development Sunvnary - Total square footage remains the same at 4080 s, f. with
600 s,f. Garage, total F.A.R. remains 4180 s.f.; coverage has increased to 3,926
s.f. to acrommodate 'wedding cake' terraced look desired by ORB height is
reduced since upper floor moved back,
Main Floor Plan - Garage is squared off to average 6' setback from LR with 3'
minimum setback, height to remain the same; pool equipment shifted to the right
of pool and new terrace reduced in corner to accommodate downhill neighbor and
new shrub proposed; keystone walls removed from front yard; additional tree
planting provided on south sideyard adjacent to 1828 Lagoon View Drive heme
and new planing below lower grade terrace.
Lower Floor Plan - BR4 (AU PAIR) removed at this time since it requires
expensive excavation. We request review and approval of future expansion in
this area as budgets permit.
Upper Roor PIOJI - Upper Living Room volume space eliminated; MBR and
STUDY IBR4 are flipped and moved together utilizing the eliminated 20' LR
volume, thus making the upper floor more compact and terraced; floor-lo-floor
elevation raised one foot, yet with the added lerracing remains easily within the
total height limit; two front decks off MBR and STUDYIBR4 removed and one
new roof top deck placed on KlFR tucked to side; sloped roofs surround upper
floor on all elevations.
Roof Plan - Revised roof to eliminate flat built-up areas in sympathy with the
uphill neighbors view; high roof over LR dropped; sloped roofs around upper
floor shown.
526 Third Street . Son Rafael . Co/ffom.. 94901,3306 . (415) 459-5020
· t....."CW/4 C'F'f:tteRCN I
CEPARTh1ENT CF CCMMUNITY
DEVELCP'IF,!'" I
JAN 2 4 1995
RECEIVED
DESIGN ~F"l~'~1
----- :21N-24-'95 16:52 ID:CHRIS CRAlKEK INC:
T
TE~ NO:4154535020
~231 P01 ---_____
(
S/wt A2:
South E!evQJion ' Significantly changed to reflect terraced look. Upper floor
balconies replaced with sloped roof areas;' two-story LR eliminated and roof
lowered; upper floor moved in on sides, for compactness: retaining wall and
terrace at lower floor removed for natural grade; doors and windows into
unexcavated area shown dotted for future,
North Entry Elevation - Left side moved in and stepped.
West Ekvation . Two-story LR space stepped back and roof lowered; front decks
eliminated and low stepped roofs substituted; roof deck over K/FR provided at
upper floor MBR.
Easl Elevasion ' Upper floor recessed and new sloped roof provided; deck
removed and sloped roof provided; two-story LR space stepped back and roof
lowered; lower floor downhill retaining walls removed.
Shut ,0:
Cross Secrion X-X. Two-story LR removed; upper floor raised one foot but is
still lower than 30' height limit.
Cross Secrion Y- Y - Upper floor deck replaced with sloped roof.
Cross Sectiun Z-Z . Upper floor deck replaced with sloped roof,
In summary. we have significantly changed the design to reduce the overall bulk and mass of
the building looking from downtown Tiburon and the adjacent neighbors, even though the house
is not visible from their house.
The existing landscape will remain and be augmented with the additional trees and shrubs to
provide privacy between neighbors.
The colors and material palette remains the same since the Board was satisfied with the
direction.
Please let us Imow as soon as possible if there is any change in our scheduled appearance on the
Design reVie~Board FebTUlJry 2nd ~eting.
Sin
/
s , ratker, AlA
Architect/President
coc""
~14'.Iowbo.oLltr
.' (
Craikef Associates
Architects & Planners
AlA Inc
A4/(
(I
tGt1-
St.J.-bI'-i'
7,/o-/),
Ck~~'
--
February 6, 1995
Via Facsimile (415) 435-2438
Irene Borba, rl~nner
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Bronte/1818 Lagoon View Drive/Our Job No. 9414
Dear Irene:
Resubmitted are the revised drawings reflecting the comments by the Board. In summary, the
critical elements were further articulation by reducing the North end of Master Bedroom to make
symmetrical front and rear facades. This reduces the Upper Floor mass appreciably. We
lowered the Upper Floor roof back to elevation 123.5' per the fIrst submittal and revised the
exterior colors with larger samples that the previous lighter exterior body color. Material
samples will be brou ht to the meeting.
COC:b;t
--
TOWN OFTIS
I:' ,"PMiTME . UFlON
NT OF COMMU
D8/EL():O~J"NT NITY
9414\Iren:-Bo.rt.
FEa 8 1995
_~ECEIVEO
Dt:-.;!GN REVIEW I
--......--
526 Third Street . San Puzfael . California 94901-3306 . (415) 459-5020 . FAX: (415) 459-5461
02/15/1995
23:00
['1977( ,9
......\
OMEARA HORVITZ
If
PAGE 01
FROM'KONICA FAX
TO'
6197730819
~EB 1S, ~gg5
9:39PM P,iJ2
[;:IT€- /7711 / e.-
EL/-
Febl1lary 15.1995
r~K 2/1,/1'-' Me.
Tlburon Design Revl..., Board - AII.nlion: Irene
TiburoD, Calirornla 94910
ra~: 415-435-1438
R.: Application for Design Approval for 18111 LREooll View Drive.
Our necotialions wilh Ihe potenlial purcha,en of 1810 I,agoon View Drin have
bern settled, wllh Ihe e.ceplion or Ihe impact of Ihr rrrnodding being Ilrnpos.d for
18111 Laeoon Vi.", llrive.
Jt is my undrl'ltllnding tht Dr. Alberl Mart"n.. the pOlenlial pnrcha,er, will be
travellllg to Calirarnia to appelt before you 10 elllr.., his conetrns regarding the
upprr portiOIl or thc houst and masler brdroom drck as they rol,t. 10 tilt impact on
the priva.y of 1810's backyard and pool8l'0a, and onl1le visunllmJlact oft1le
garage.
Thank you for taking these concerll' inlo consideration.
1
Ja'1ftrCt 0'
1810 Lagoon
Tlburon. Calirol'ni. 94910
415-435-6481
cc: Ttt'ry Murphy I Coldwell Ballker
(
(
TOWN OF T!BUi
DEPARTMENT OF CC
DEVELom"
MAR 7 1995
RECEIVED
DESIGN REVI~
March 6, 1995
Town of Tiburon
City Council
1155 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
ref: Design Review Board application for 1818 Lagoon View, Tiburon
Dear Sirs,
I wish to address the issues brought up in the appeal of the design board review
approval for the plans for my home at 1818 Lagoon View, Specifically:
I) There is a long history of granting variances for other homes on Lagoon View
Drive, Variances have in the past been granted for both the maximum allowable lot
coverage and encroachment, the two variances that were approved for my home, There
is also a recent history of granting multiple variances for single homes, Substantial
evidence of these variances has been meticulously detailed by the design review board
staff, In requesting the variances I am asking for no special privileges,
2) Failure to receive the variances will result in extreme financial hardship for me as a
property owner. If we cannot build the garage into the hillside as proposed and
approved by the design review board then we will have to shrink the house from 4,180
square feet to less than 3,000 square feet. This w}ll make the house too small for use by
my family, It will also mean that a house cannot be built to a size justified by the price
we paid for the lot. The net effect is that a home without the variances will be worth at
least $300,000 $400,000 less than what we are proposing to build,
3) Application cf the zoning ordinance will cause great practical difficulties. The lot is
extremely steep, Less than 20% of the 21,806 square foot lot can be built upon, and it
is on this narrow shoulder that we have proposed to build our new house. The
hardships are not consciously created by present or previous owners, The lot
topography and the desire to preserve the Horvitz view constitute the special
circumstances for granting of the variances,
4) Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to other property in the vicinity,
Story poles were constructed for two months prior to the design review board approval.
All five members of the design review board visited the site an found that no views
would be impaired, Instead they found the replacement of the derelict shack that was on
the property by my new home will lead to an improvement in the neighborhood, This
opinion was confirmed by the majority of the immediate neighbors as well as by Jerry
Riessen, the president of the Hillhaven Homeowners Association (see attached letter),
(
(
Page 2
In addition to the above I wish to make clear how unreasonable the Horvitz appeal is,
During the early planning stages my architect, Chris Craiker, met with Peggy Horvitz
on numerous occasions for countless hours at great expense to myself. The house was
essentially designed around one extreme comer of her side view. Our house is only
visible from a small portion of the Horvitz house, The garage for which the two
variances were requested is not visible at all from the Horvitz house. This required us
to abandon construction on more than 50% of my property. It also will require me to
spend at least an extra $75,000 for burrowing into a solid rock mountain side to build a
garage completely out of sight of the Horvitz residence, After Mrs, Horvitz was
satisfied with the plans she sign a letter dated January 7, 1995 confirming that she had
"no objections to the two requested variances". I have attached a copy of this letter.
Mr. Craiker has even gone to the length of meeting with prospective buyers of the
Horvitz house at the request of Peggy Horvitz to explain our plans at my expense.
When the design review board voted unanimously to approve our plans on February 16
the chairman applauded us for our work with the neighbors, "This is how it should
work" he said, When the Horvitz's appealed the approval we were stunned, For them
to approve of our variance request in writing, and then come back and oppose it after
the design review board approval is not only a waste of my time and money, it is
grossly unfair.
Finally, I would like to ask that if this really is an important issue to the Horvitz's why
did they fail to appear at a single design review board meeting, despite many invitations
to do so?
I hope the city council confirms the good judgme,nt of the city's own design review
board and vote to improve the Hillhaven neighborhood by allowing construction of my
new home as proposed,
Sincerely,
Stephen Bronte
-:'
(
(
January 7, 1995
TOWN OF TIBURON
Design Review Board & Staff
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: 1818 Lagoon View Drilre Remodeling cl Variil1ll%S/Our Fik No. 9414
Dear Board Members & Town Staff:
I have reviewed the plans prepared by Craiker Associotes dated January 5, 1995 and have no
objections to the two requested variances. To my satisfaction, Mr. Craiker has revised the plans
to lower the roof to not exceed 6 inches above the existing roof in this area. Should you have
any questions, please feel free to call me.
Si
Peggy Hoi'tfitz
(
(
o .L.S. Energy'
50 CALIFORNIA STREET. SUITE 3005, SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 391,2833 Fax: (415) 391-1329 '
V'A fitX
:s;,.,.._n~T jEj l?tJ
DO'1,...J [4:<./ ,'e~ C:;;(,4~-rre-e: JI
~~~ ~ '1,-b"'dl~tJ
I; 5'5' 7ti~~r(<'~ tYVet'/,
~/:6vl"J;?~j c/-J ?"'Y'Y20 11#,./: Lne.../e t/d"..,(tr<.
De?'(r" ~.~~:
Ih /J ~~p.J/~t'~e '5 I-,{<- lJe#r~ oPt ~
I/;;t dt..xe....; ~C>~p'erJ- A.Jo~,~t-cro:; I ~d"ve.
('ev;eeJ~ -fie ;>"'-":>$ {;( 9fe ~.qJedJ ~-Jt!? ~I-
(fl] 0:JPv~ t,),~'i/ 13,..6.(7 C/".-J.:e ~",e e4jcU'.J..I~ ~-
Lv..:1( <<'C Jvrrf?",A'J .v~' -,p,/? ~ ,/J,?.P'rj
DiP,.:Jer. :z: j~u-:.e .t.t.PL>r~&J J;,.r 4: Lc,1-'.[ir~<..i,"Je ~Jc.e~--::r
/>F ':::'1:,.J;(:'~.:5 Ob",.-f ~ jJr~,oJc:..>cf? (11f1fN-~ a"...&> t1!2A(iJ,e
fk,-f 'Tjere M'1 sr; r ,6 <Z ..r Of..! e ~ liNe-es' " Dv r
;!J-Io<;a-f,-o;" /. 4!.J {'/o- /J~/e,! 4;}:i{ /:. k"6f fJ~,v-J.
:sarc)/;. /
Pr.ex " <:f2?'J.~i
(Il( /f/ttJ~~
i e..rJ'<2'P
;l."t-te oc..;,J.prj 4..JD;cc';"?:oJJ
i
I
~I':=f"-l' '-0 I
. ....-c: Vc:
DES!GN REVIEW
.:.~";
.
! \ '
/ \ \
\ \
/I \ '
~~.-,v,.~ I \
~-' ---
P-~';.;E:\i~. . \
.-,.- \ \'- ,
;.-..-..... - ,", \
- -"--
FEa\ \. \- \ \
\ .c;c.::-
..Lv", \...
I.
i
I'
:,,1
/ '
'(
/1
\.
ossume-c. \lSin~ 100.00
u..r.,,,snlloorOltl'le
UIUit,u an 5h_~ _er. ,...,iOi.. ....11
.."'ll"'qrOl,ln<lllip., one: w;,.u snou'C: 0..
Jocllted by the various ..tijjties '"'''' to
lIl'Iy coneU'uo:tion
Z. Pr>>....'y I;".. snow~ ore OIloro~irnot..
or,snOwnfor9"OD"II;PUrj)OseSonl)'.
J.
;Ul.f:!L4.LNO.TES;.
nus mOIl is lOt' lopocyopnie Pll"P01l" ana
don 1I0t repteSefll" t1ounoOf'}' su,....Y.
\
\
\
,
,I
!I
.
~
,
,-
~
>
Vertic:cl clot..", ;,
a.II....evation"l
front erHronc:e
A/'I'Qof th';lTOllerly
I
I
:1
\
,
,
\
\
\
.
20804
"
"
\
\
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'I
~,
!;
---e, ____"
\ '-I.
\
\
\
,
I
\
2t
(,
I
/
\
,
\
\
~
o
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\ \
\
\
~-
, I
\ \
\
,
\
(
\
\
\
\
I,
, "
'" \'~",'."'\~~.',
. '\ ",-
'<"'\ . -'\'\:;'
\ \ \\ ',-"
\ \.' ,
\ '. ',\ ",\ "
, \,'\\"
11"
I I ' ~. \\
\&'
I\i~\\
'I",i
, " ,~,
\ \:t. I. ';,\ ;' ///
\ 1. ,\ 1-. /.
\ ,I I
\ I <:lo:o,
\ \:/ '"
\ \ \ \ \ _ 1,: \
, \ \ \ "'\\C-'~ \
\_.\-----:-' '\ \ - ~
.--~ " \ S 10. 'I 179.71
, f\ '"
" ", "-....'Jt'.-..
\
\
\
I,
\ \;'
\
\
~
\
\ \
\ \,-
\
\
,
,
\
I
,-,
\
\
"
\
\
\
i
\
\ -- ---.
'''''n
~
\ ...1iI;t,u
\ '...,
,
,
\
.~.
\
\
\
--"--"-'-
--
~/,
"
'"
',-;'
,',/
, '
;/.~;,
~,
\
,
"148"5'.,0'
~,---,-_.,--
'~'\ N-; "g'l
-- / \ 1-'- "ooa:
'.1
I OLJ'/ ..,. I
/ /7 !
'---~
_h.'
....
: 1
. ~ ,
"
I
'\
\
\
\
\
"
'"
iI'
\.
,?,,;/
,
"
\,\~.I,~"
1,\'6,i\
\\~\
\ \\~,\\'
, \,S-"",
,~,
\';':,\,
\\~,,'
'.i
"
\\
~
~
o
~
-
~
,
8
o
\
//.~
,
\
\
\
,
.
,
,
<
<
f7..5 ""
,
.-
,
\ \ "",,'
\ i-.-----\" "-
~ :2-- 0
)~~ \ or~
~ \
,
\
-
- \
\
n.6' \
\
\
'.
\
".1. \
~
\ :
\
\
\
~ \
\
0,
'\
"
'j '--1
;\ --
,,\-. "
q
J
" --
'--C'
"
<
<
'9.8
/
"
,
/
,
,
,
'I
\
\
,
\
r
,
.
\
~,
I
,
~
~ 'i.\
"-... "-...!"-
,
'\ i \.1
\ i ,
,I
~ . I, Ii
r~' ----- , I
J!. ..J-.J
- ,- I
I:: ____
~e_a
\
,
'.
~"---,'....t-:::, I1r
'-"~ "r c..... i'
l r \' N
...... \, ii
" \ II
i\. \ Iii,
\ '\' \ ii
, "i
I \1'
II Iii
" Ii
\ \ ' Iii
: \ !, 1\ /
I, III ~ \~\(
, c \1
'- '\ c3;! \'
\ ~ \ 1\
\ \ \ \\
"
"
\ I \ '.
" \ \ \\
\ \ \ \\\.
! ",
,
,
,
<
J
<
.
,
,
'.
,
J
,
/,
\,
\
35.60'
/
I
,
,
\
-r-----,....
. (
.........
--...
.
, /
/,
\
\
\
,
\
\
I
~/
\
u
,
\
\
\
\.
\
\
\
\
~
'0
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
'\
I,
/
/
,
/
/
~
/
\
~
I)
;'
/
-'" 1- _
..e Dec.,
DAVID L.
/
<
r'1
'"
r-
)>
GO
o
o
z
/
/
/
,
Ii'
\i,
I'
~
r
II
[\
J
"
~
r
~
~
~
"
~i
,
\
'\
~
'I
\
~
~
~
/
1 aUI LAGOON .....EW
CAUf'ORNI"
~... APPLEBY ~
CRAlotER k ASSOCA TES. INC., I'''' - .
LAND SURVEYORS
TOPOGRAPHY.
"""ON
il
'\
\,
~
/1\\
1\
,
/\\\
\1
II
,\
II,
./
p./
1.-
/
;i
/
..
:"~ :j
:'j
:;t
.;;
>1
"I
, ,'I
>:i~
J
:,.',".',..:.
..',..1
:7.-.,..,..-;
. .,..1
, ,;~
"-'.'--'J
'~:::;,~~J
'1
s.
'. '-""1
".'j
"j
~>~';~..
.,., ~,'!
~~,:.>~-.
'. ;1
,;,,-4
'''-''-':-1
~~~:;:~ .
," '1
'.
~. I
;"j
...;
~
:t
.
.,~",
,
"
..
:'i
)j
','
,
ROOF !,LAN
-'
(l.S~)
-',,-
o
-'[00..0'
~
o
~
~l(.,!>ei".Ol.l
'^^
"r<-/
,
<'>'i
~
:'~ ,-~--
e.....'.'
- '
::: - 'I
I r:=--IIJ--
_ ILuJI
~" f.F"
~_Iq
'-----'i
I -,
~ JIO.01 ~
IHm
~
110,0
DDDll"4
...~
.~'~ntJD
F"U\jolCCF
TooJ
'-
0.."
F.A.R.
F.A.R. Allowable
Coverace
Coveraee Allowable
MUHeill1l
M:t~A!l~
Uv'ncAra:
. EJ:istilll;
New;
------
DEYELor:.rE.'" SlIhL\tARY . REVISED
AP"
Zenina
""'~
",,~"olty:Ptll,.;e
"-"'-......." ..... ...._-~
~~
.'-
Main Floor
Lo_rFloor
Ma;nFloor
. UppcrFlOOl
I:
1.
lit
.!U
.n
=
-
c.A:iIPN.
.. . II
iLJ
4,lliV1.r.
4,I80s.r.
3,926s.f.
J.264s.f.
,,~
)Q.ft.
und.
144$.[.
&41s.f.
,t...W:s..f.
4,0801.[.
ooo$.r.
",,"H'II
.0-2
2I,806$.f.
,
-
;L. ,
,jOi"i.O
'*2.-
.'
-~_--I_:.
-J.
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
----.--
~-~
, lUl' "'"
I !I-
i~
0' j
_>-- ~f'
, '
, '
, I
:? r. BR2.
" 1
"
,
I
\
i
PLAYROOM
-.C 1\,
(y ""'"
/V>,~
V' V t!:>...r#fV>~
,/1
,~
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
I[~T
l---Ht~ '
I .
---:.f:
."'"
---
c~...a:
~~p"et
"''''w,U. -~
--I
---"9,~r
:f.'fll
L1t~1
F,
I" I
q~l:
.""-
n
/
i
~
. 'I
i !
bl ~
.f~
I,
I 1::
10<1 11;
- ~G~o. !
' ..
I tJ/
. 1
I- 1
I
i
I
I
i
01
(,J
i
I
:~.
'BAM
___ l.2: .
.-
\.J
(~
I
,
.
l\iOtN)156\A1. .J"P""N~e. i"'\,IIoP\.ll7
'-.... ~~ UP l"O__lI,'tJ,c '" A;~a
1U""r<:: n:opftrY :r.ur ~o....:-..
,,~,
.....,."
.------
,
't._
"~IUC::"
?
LliJ
~
.~
L
C"~\Y,"\V~"i
\00.\.';'
,
- ~
d.~'
. _ ,N' ~
_ ' ! '-I o~
Fr~' I i.E9. <>
,tf"ln
_ i. tI:tj
r111 :,1""
"I ,,' 1 ,,;,. .,'.' .'.1"1' ~
...:-. ,I i . ": ~ _ to
",
i
..
,~u
1),-,.1
,-
I
I
( ,)
lbo-
",
...........
"
~-
I"
I \ "'"
__I
"
I
i
I
, \\'.)
f ../,
;, . ',~
! vI . .
',II ~) Ii
"I '. ,j
,\ J;'
: \~:'-l
I (~;;-i'
~~ ~ -~)
I ".'_ __\.
' I _ ,
*11i" 1 i
., ~ I
"""".)
'. -...",; ~ ,
. , ,
:. ~:-.- _,~ :": 1 .-0" I ,
~W" '::~...et j:
aM . 1_ ~.
",-''; i; '. .
-~ . i i
' '.
.-.~~~. ~ .
.n_ '_ ..
"=....-
.
,'~' I
=--:'~/\\~.
I ' .
-- '-I, I ~l
. {, I....
' I
o I I
(J..'1 : "
- I /,
i./~...'
I
~ I
, ,
!\l,IJ !
~I"". 0, i
r,~r~'ucer I
rU5[!OiC'/J.altes I
".rc'i!e::t:: i5I PIi::w:rs I
"'LA btc
AlI'nioI'SL
S-....CAMOl
fnsl~J
l.AX.:~
~~":....-:"..."'~--::'':'"
__10.....00:.........__
.-.........---..--
:.."':....--.--
BRONTE
RESIDENCE
1818 LAGOON VIEw OR
T1BURON, CA 94920
APN 059-Q.4\-lA.
CURRENT RESIDENCE:
260 ROUNOHlll
TIBURON, ';A 94920
TEL(415) 7li9-7900
FAX (&15) 789-5072
l .-J
r PLANS
u' JOR
MAIN r __ :)R
LOWER FLOOR
ROOF
SCALE:1/8"=1'.O"
Revisions
6" DATE DESCRIPTION
, HI.... """"""u_
l,; '....1 F\.&i~eF'"
"'",. /;l."".~V\",I~~
.~" p.lL~
I
...,
Ai
.....
, '
'0<,
JoOCopl...
"
GOO
"
-
WEST ELEVATION
'-~~'
. - .' .
-....
0",.,.. .... _<'.'
......................,. ,
""""'0
(",; PING "/"'lit.
L
g~~
" --~-~--.,...
. - JOI .----.1
)
~:-:--'_">~
i!LJ
.~ '
,
~
~
EAST ELEVATION
->
r
l
~
\
/"
'~
,
Ill.
,2.
J,
..
5.
6.
7
.
,
"
I
~h~~Jl[
im'f"!:;.I'
, ',?
:: ~ -,;".
:~
-i".:. -=-===-----_-"-
(X\ Ftl.o......
....\>01,
WJ.,dows & doors. p31nlcd ~lumiJ\"m or woOO
Ibmlmils - W.J. painted tu 1ll:11ei, wiudow rr~I1\e.s.
Jt~t~i"in& walls . r<.JU~h $lueCO r,ni~l.
T..-llises. pa;l1IC<J ,,'00<1,
Chi,,"',.)'C"p-mcl.'lsp.1rk"....c-'lwpail\lou
SluCCCl
Fll$(:in
-,
roufh'~..r","C
O:S.M. gUlIcrover
"
.
j
I'
~
'''''':>Id!
\
/
I
"
"
"-
(-- --
"
,
'''h
__--L't-::".r-
}'
j/'
./
...'''.10'......
..
/'
r!~,~~
!' '
,
(~)
'TUW'
[Xl
C><l c.V'-
""'OS
I
I :-'f"u;~yg:r;.Io I
L_____;~~(JJ}.~-1
,
,
)
-
/
"""""'''''''''
~=
W'"
I~
I!'_
,
NORTH/
SOUTH ELEVATION
-
ENTRY ELEVATION
(. ="ST ~
........""'"p
_J______________~_________
. r-
"Y....... __~
--,;.-..-..-..r..
~"IS-;:,..,a..I_i""~
.4;1'41101''''''' '\VAu....
-.-- -- ---..
/\
j (')'TJ'o" I
~--...~V\lIV~ D
, ""--
. - 1--
/1/ I
I
I
!.
,
1 """'-I.....I'\.c"".~
'''''"''
,.....
...
A'2'
of. 510..11
Re~isions
6 DATE DESCRIPTION
, I.!I., F"h'f~"'~R.
14~,'JS p.u.
.j,.~S 0,""
I
ilJ
~~ ,.
': rra~;.;:e'"
____ ~ u,.,!J ~'
'")~ood.a1.t,es
~..~=&P~I
'''''''I
n'"...Sl.1
s..~;/~=I
FAX:~:,
.......-....-..----
...........-....--..
__..._00:.........-_
..... -........................."'-...
:..~.._ro._..__...
BRONTE
RESIDENCE
r818LAGDON VIEW DR
TlBURON, CA 94920
APN 059 -041-1&
CURRENT RESiDENCE:
260 ROUNDHILL
TI8IJRON, CA 94920'
TEL(415) 789-7900
FAX (415) -789-507
,
I ELEVATIONS
i
I
I
/8'=1'.0'
Oat. !1.1~....,t"
.IOI>CapI";,, -= P.:I
CROSS SECTION Z-Z
! I
I 0) ....""
'$1...1,.e-b 5......~....,
.
--g 4',.,.ft,I,/I~U
~
- --= 0-
~ ""---' /t
~m~.
' 1 ~ .~= ~=1"f
,~--- -, I
1."1 'I
il
-~
, I
P<) ~""l-
., .
~,.:.z...l]l
...
,
"
1
~..
I
i
___ '<lolI__~PT:..~~~
-- - --_.
.
--"-"~~-~"'~----
--- -.,. - --.----~-~--r
1
. ,
E:(.h.I9<:"~1~'_~~~
.". 11..12.."+
Jol>Copl.... <:'1)0
.....
A3
.. ..."
Rev;siOflS
61DATE DESCRIPTION
l'~'$ .....,..
U~., DfL6~w.
t.~" p"""
CROSS SECTION Y - Y
, f#o~
~''', "~~iLm' OOIJ
,...,- I',
! II, - I;
, :-::.0':1 I'ID,q
em; , !
~'r.l-"'c..~V!2-e.
(.)
.---
__~I:::&v 61.,.;1
",,-"V
Oil./)
."
~:
,
-!
.-)
!
..........y;a,.~
.~~~ol..
~,v~w~t
-,
~
-.,
".. ~\?G i'Eit1-A4 ,
,'" <.... e....6:v t-q,,:;.1
__ '. e 1'(";(5' ' , ~
-_.. I.. ',..(~
Go/l-o?06.J ................. - ..... ,eI",) ~6./U- P"IO;'<..~AA
..........~ ClI~"'~ """""'1.41:>
....., I.lfT.::> S'() ~
1l.J.O'
-- --
p,",'SoI.,1'<
j,..f,)~.D"'''Ii;.W
,.
t)()PRlVo;.w';l'
CROSS SECTION X-X
~(..f;.~.
i,..-'~ 'v "
(x)
~f:"'I'.,~(1
L
~:~::>'.
~f'ffO""
"'-"T'
12~' 0:"
..I
~1
\ rf'f/b/\OI.6~Ie-l.
-.jJ.11.'2.(JI .
y-=r'40'"''
I.,-r;tf," , ~.!,::O' IJel~T, (,tL^ri
1Jj _~~_ 11.0 "I.
,. T'---' ..
~: "'",. " I . ( i:-- - .'
'JI'I'" I' "'--.
~_ Jlw"---' I
I
I
~'
,..,.",..
1()(~)IS6l""L. .J"p__tt 1"'Y'f'W
,rA44UUC:> UPIW 1O!..o"O.c..
'tN" ......~ "..,,,.~ "N'
~~/ "
n
(^
-.
......
It-
__~':::::".lDO,...r
jX:t5"6o.l;r'Y
e:i.J:,,'
z.?
~
.---
I d=.--f^)X;" ~"f
,
___...l~"l!l:-~
7':;'"
-l-~
,
, u.-E....~ I
I --..-
,I
<:,;
,
JIJ.
,; '!,F'i '"
. 'L.'[f'{)!1tker.
}JJ3f1,fPN""'{'~~
, ~ V(lo'\.~Joo~(..,-';;'
I-......;.:::tds & P!t::nr.c:
<LA ..
m~$l
S-"""CA tf!l(lJ
fUS)~
FAX:~l
..---..----
......""'..-..--....-"
__6.........__.
.__............."...._.GO--.
._'....10_"__....
~~
BRONTE
RESIDENCE
1818 LAGOON VIEW OR
nSURON. CA 94920
APN 059-04"'.1 ~
CURRENT RESIDENCE
260 ROUNOHILL
T1SUR,I.JN, CA 94920
TEL(415} 789-79
FAX (415) 789-51
SITE
SECTIONS
,
'8"=1'-0.
~,..
-~"ndl
!/~';!;:: 0'
I II' '._~< ,'e^'
' , ., ",>~",,,,,
/ ,/ I 'fi:~~<'':i'''-I:,rF{ ""'"
j;.''';';;;';)l'".vl_, ....-(j.o\,..oo~
I" II ~. "':::'::
/1 . ~ / 'l .....:' ",,,"::,:
" I . (~UI4.5'-SQ7l)
o _, / """_,
I Ie , "" /
IJf ./ I, :,
' ,I ~ '.
I , I I
' I '
/' / / \ : I
=- --1,; I /
: _. ,- ';'--=- ~ -II ~.
/ / ,':":'~-- l_.=--~ / '
:" I ,- "--~-".' I~, I ,/
/ ;Lr~-'r.,/I I "--'r;:---III II f--------;' _./_, .
. .' 'r- ':f " " ,: I ' __ I ~'
'C"'.. I ',: " I ,
'i i ,/ I ':1 . ,..'."",, I ,
' ,., I, " , ., I ,
':.0: , I I' ',I uo.', ...-L...J I , .
' " / t' ", _I, ',',C~ . , /
,M' ,.- '\ I ~ !i :I'~"",.' ~(io.') ',,1~.... - F~'J I
' 'f; , / '~ ,Ii -"~'iv-' -~==I: _~ II /
'.. . I -. II " I< . . '---.c;b; I
"'f' I '" 111~n_ i '''-J-'TT' /__. "
' ',. " , ,. '." r
_<l!: .~ I L 0 " 1,1-- " _==~ ,;:::-" -'-, I
. "I - ... , '---h~ ,
.1 I 'I t:;. -;-' , ~ u' _~' ,.{ I
I ,--= ~ " '" ' .,_ I I i
! 1 --i(; ~Pl~, ~ / ~: a...c.' . I il l II: I' . !"Y -'=- !!'"<'~'''''
,: I, ,~. J _ 0 I
~f 1, I: I. :"'_-~----,===,,-~, I -It;- ~-;~. c-..~ " ("'>-ET.".
' I. . - . '.- -.- , , ,I' : IV,",,-, '
>>-'- . I i' ' : r..',~t I "'~~' !I f '-_
. I / 1 .... 'V, : -= , (<J ,./'-'<.'.... j
/ I '~",.~ "0 L i " . h
I I "..'~' _ _~: ~~',
{, I '.~' b~ I, "ml=.,V '. i Ii. I
"I , == y '. I Ii-----!
II! ~:~Ll . ~11
'I" I !'
i' I I, II
I I "/
: ,-1 1 I !/
' ----- 'I
/ !... 0 ~--:~;';.~~""--------__ / <i ://1
' ~ ~/, --- , '" .' I '
' -,--' " ---------, ,.,,/;
I . -' c . '- ---- ,-r---, <, I
. >- . , , / ------~----------..:_- /'
/: ""-~ ~ /.. t ------ ---r'..'/'
I, --. ~ -.g- ,/ I
/t ~ / I ',' :
' / . / 1/
1......... ~~/ I /1
" . ,/
I .~. / __ '_ _', ,Q
I '-"_ . c'_ .__- '_, / /
" "-"-..-,/ o','..-.o'.. - -',1., _ /1:
I ,;? -':-";"'_ --- ,- - 1/! 1
I / /.-Y >______ ,I V ,
; .,/ ~ ':--"-.. "', I
~===. / = -"-...
./ L. ,r--,.. .
/. /....;....
./ . I
I
1
!
CROSS SECTION X-2$
'I'
~--;---------:;i
!i'
o
"-0'
........,
~
! .....l;-O
. : ( 1
.~ 11'1-- II
1.1111\ \111 --,
~:"'J
'~':..A~.",o
.....0....
~
o
"f")~f-:\O'9'z...;
"
o
---1
""".-
-
I
\-,
",
.
/
l-A(:,.-OO_N V IE 'V
TE AND FLOOR PLAN
---:+:"- -
J 1/1".'".0"
~~J
-.,
@J
rf
0+
-l
.#
..---- z..S~()F
r~~ ,.CI"''b,C
"
~
leal ~
'----.! ....I.~
~
~'....,'~.
::c
,
,
.
i fl /- 'h01P'ool<-',,:."
~....~""&
tP,,,
,.. "
,.
"
FOUNDATION/FLOOR FRAMING
-,'
::
~
--
~
- I
~ ---j
",.6
t----\
Revisions
6 DATE DESCRIPTION
,.~'" P~...","'i;
T
.
0 ;1.1.",
- -
Jol> C...,.... coo
"'~
E1
., ......
..~_u-;---.:-:
-~04~'''''_____ _
'.(#.\~~ rlAU,.
- a s~'
"
(}':;.t,,,,,
'.
'. '
,(: ..,o~-...,...
--
...... _ 4-&
~',.~,..;"'- l!il 8
-
o
: j _~z:~~.
....',,..."""=-"'.-
:~~~~~_1:
-~-- -'-- ~J-
,
1f'"""1
~'
~e.!"'~
.c__---=-
,
'<
,
v
,
..""
:-.
'".-...,~
,,:.::,~
.
tc7~'''''' _.....".
. I
' \ , -
/.~.' . ~"=-~'1"-.... ,'''~,
/ "-..:" , LI -
/t '/'-~'~,. :'';'1
I, -". "f'''1 _ _ ~
I, __ ~
.'.......1' /..- " I .
' ~o' ,_,
/.~' II t?~ 'C
'/1 ~:. (~\~')~~.
'" " --- "/ Ii,
'\, ". '" /,
.../,,) V .' .\ /J ~:.:.."J "" _
I I '-'-=1'- '"",,,,
~I I ~
'I _.-
I __ ',;__
I . _,
...................
"
.................
"
-,"
"
t::et:4 (:;~Io jp,..r:l~,
I
,
~.. ,
r
.....
"
"
--
.'
'.'~..
i'
1 .1
>---'
"".,,,,,"
c~
....-...-..---..-
-..-...---..
__"'_c..'~_
.--............,.....-."'....-
.-,,,_"'_I"__~
-~
BRONTE
RESIDENCE
181 e LAGOON VIEW OR
TIBURON, CA 94920
APN 059-0.41-1.4
CURRENT RESIDENCE:
260 ROUNDHILL
TIBURON. CA 94920
TEL(415) 789-7900
FAX (.415) 789-50n
EXISTING
PLANS
'372 SQ. FT.
c"~.. ,".os!>
SCA!,.E; AS SHOWN
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
REPORT DATE:
ITEM NO.: 1
5/3/95
4/28/95
FROM:
DAN CATRON,
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT #39405: 4 CIBRIAN DRIVE.
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH SECONDARY BUILDING ENVELOPE-
LOT 2, CIBRIAN SUBDIVISION.
Address: 4 Cibrian Drive
AP No.: 38-011-27
File No.: 39405
General Plan: ML (Medium-low density resid. -up to 1.1 du/ac.)
Zoning: RPD
Property Size: 44,431 sq. ft.
Subdivision: Cibrian
Current Use: single family dwelling (under construction)
Owner: Lawrence and Lacy Lang
Date Complete: November 17, 1994
Permit Streamlining Act Deadline: NA
(Reter to report and exhibits from 3/1/95 Town Council meeting)
BACKGROUND
The applicants, Lawerence and Lacy Lang, are requesting a Precise
Plan amendment to create a secondary building envelope for Lot 2
of the cibrian Estates subdivision . The Planning commission
considered the Lang's proposal on January 25, 1995. The
Commission denied the application citing concerns about slope
stability in the vicinity of the proposed secondary building
envelope and noting that the applicant's desire to construct a
pool in this area was not sufficient justification to amend the
established Precise Plan.
The Langs appealed the Commission's denial of the project. The
Town Council heard the appeal on March 1, 1995 and remanded the
project back to the Planning commission to consider some
additional information about the geological conditions of the
site. The Planning Commission reconsidered the project on April
12 and April 26, 1995. At the April 12th meeting, the applicant
proposed a number of further conditions on the project intended
to mitigate any impacts on downhill neighbors. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 95-05 on April 26th, recommending
that the Council approve the Precise Plan Amendment and
incorporating the conditions offered by the applicant.
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
3/1/95
1
ANALYSIS
The Commission found that any potential impacts of the project
would be adequately mitigated by the recommended conditions of
approval. The Commission is recommending conditions that would
limit development within the proposed secondary envelope to
construction of a swimming pool only. Additional conditions of
approval are recommended which would further limit the way in
which the pool is designed and constructed.
General Plan Consistencv
The proposed amendment would not change the principal residential
use of the property. staff is not aware of any General Plan
policies that would be relevant to the proposal. Staff considers
the proposal to be consistent with the General Plan.
Environmental status
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA
per Section 15305 of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council take public testimony on this
item and adopt the draft resolution granting the Precise Plan
Amendment with the conditions listed.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution 95-05
3. Minutes from 4/12/95 and 4/26/95 Planning Commission hearing
4. Minutes from the 3/1/95 Town Council meeting
5. Letter from Larry Lang rec'd 4/12/95
\dan\tc3940S.rpt
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
3/1/95
2
RESOLUTION NO. 9S-(draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCI~'OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIBRIAN SUBDIVISION PRECISE PLAN
TO ALLOW A SECONDARY BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT 2
(4 CIBRIAN DRIVE)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-011-27
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does
resolve as follows:
Section ~ Findinqs.
A. On January 21, 1981, the Tiburon Town Council approved a
Precise Plan for the Cibrian subdivision (Resolution 1133).
The Precise Plan established development parameters
(including primary building envelopes) for 11 single family
lots.
B. On June 28, 1984, the Tiburon Town Council amended the
Cibrian Precise Plan to create secondary building envelopes
on seven of the eleven lots in the subdivision. Lots 1,2,4,
and 10 did not receive secondary building envelopes.
C. On February 20, 1991, the Tiburon Town Council approved a
secondary building envelope for Lot 1 of the SUbdivision,
noting that the circumstances of the lot had changed since
1984.
D. The Town has received an application filed by Lawrence and
Lacy Lang to amend the Cibrian Precise Plan to establish a
secondary building envelope on lot #2 (4 Cibrian Drive).
The application consists of the following:
1. Application form received 9/14/94
2. Area Plan by Nero Associates received 10/18/94
3. Partial Topography by Steve Jacobs received 10/18/94
E. The Planning commission considered the proposed amendment at
a duly-noticed public hearing on January 25, 1995. The
Planning Commission heard and considered testimony from
interested persons. The Planning commission found that the
applicant's desire to construct a swimming pool was not a
compelling reason to amend the established Precise
Development Plan, especially in light of possible
geotechnical constraints on the lot. The Planning Commission
denied the Precise Plan Amendment request.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(dratt) 5/3/95
1
F. On February 2, 1995, the applicants filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the Precise Plan
amendment request. The Town Council heard the appeal on
March 1, 1995. At that meeting the Council was presented
with additional information regarding the geological
conditions of the site. The Council remanded the project
back to the Planning Commission to allow the Commission to
consider this additional information.
G. The Planning Commission held additional hearings on the
proposal on April 12 and April 26, 1995. At the April 12th
hearing the applicant presented a letter listing a number of
conditions that he was willing to meet to reduce the
potential impacts of the project on downhill neighbors.
H. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 95-05 on April
26, 1995, which recommends that the Town Council approve the
proposed Precise Plan Amendment sUbject to certain
conditions.
I. The Town Council, in its review of the project, has found
the following:
1. That circumstances have changed since 1984 in that
other homes in the subdivision have been built so that
potential view blockage may be better assessed, and the
former fire road along the rear portion of this lot no
longer exists nor is needed by the Fire District.
2. There is insufficient room within the existing primary
building envelope for construction of improvements such
as a swimming pool.
3. Creation of the secondary envelope will not have
significant impacts on adjacent properties in that:
a. Rear yard setbacks of 65-95 feet would be
maintained and existing vegetation on downslope
properties provides excellent visual screening.
b. The secondary envelope will be limited to the
construction of a swimming pool, safety fencing, on-
grade decking, and pool equipment only. No other
structures are allowed by this approval.
4. That reasonable safeguards exist and will be
implemented to provide downslope neighbors with a
reasonable level of safety against structural or slope
failure associated with any future pools.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 9S-(draft) 5/3/95
2
5. That the granting of a secondary envelope for swimming
pool use only would not be a granting of special
privilege to this property not enjoyed by most other
properties in the area.
6. That the creation of a secondary building envelope is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, and the Cibrian Master Plan and
Precise Plan, as amended.
7. That the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA per Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
section ~ Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon does hereby approve an amendment of the Precise
Plan for the Cibrian subdivision as follows:
1. The Precise Plan for the Cibrian subdivision is amended to
establish a secondary building envelope on lot 2 (4 Cibrian
Drive) toward the rear of the lot as shown on the plans
prepared by Nero Architects and Jacobs Land Surveying
received by the Town on 10-18-94.
2. Any development in the secondary building envelope shall
secure site Plan and Architectural Review approval as
required by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
3. The secondary envelope boundary shall not encroach into the
Sanitary Sewer easement located between said envelope and
the residence on the lot.
4. The secondary envelope shall be limited to the construction
of a swimming pool, safety fencing not to exceed the minimum
height required by code, on-grade decking, and pool
equipment only. No accessory structures such as cabanas or
other buildings shall be allowed. Pool equipment shall be
located on the north side of the pool.
5. Engineering details of any structural improvements,
including potential impacts on the existing drainage system,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to
construction. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(draft) 5/3/95
3
a. The design of the pool, or any other structures in the
secondary envelope, shall be based on an accurate
topographic map.
b. All structural items shall be designed by a licensed
structural engineer.
c. A detailed drainage plan shall be required. The
downhill properties should be protected.
d. A geotechnical engineer shall certify that the swimming
pool plans comply with his requirements.
e. The applicant shall secure grading permits for the
existing graded pad. The applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and
Building Official that the pad has been designed and
constructed in accordance with proper engineering
practices.
6. In order to minimize the impacts of the proposed pool on
downhill neighbors, the following parameters are established
for its construction:
a. The pool shall be limited in size to 16'x 36'
b. No diving boards shall be permitted
c. The pool shall be limited to two underwater lights or
the minimum required by Code, whichever is more.
d. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum
required by the building code (UBC) , except as may have
been approved by the Design Review Board prior to the
approval of this Precise Plan Amendment.
e. Landscaping shall be installed along the outside of all
fencing to soften and screen views of the fencing from
neighboring properties.
f. No decking shall be constructed or cantilevered over
any slopes.
g. No import or export of soil shall be allowed for the
pool construction.
7. This amendment does not otherwise affect any specific
provisions of Town Council Resolution #1133.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(draft) 5/3/95
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council
of the Town of Tiburon on , 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(draft) 5/3/95
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
5
RESOLUTION NO. 95-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIBRIAN SUBDIVISION
PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW A SECONDARY BUILDING ENVELOPE ON LOT 2
(4 CIBRIAN DRIVE)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-011-27
WHEREAS, the Planning commission of the Town of Tiburon does
resolve as follows:
section ~ Findinqs.
A. On January 21, 1981, the Tiburon Town Council approved a
Precise Plan for the Cibrian subdivision (Resolution 1133).
The Precise Plan established development parameters
(including primary building envelopes) for 11 single family
lots.
B. On June 28, 1984, the Tiburon Town Council amended the
Cibrian Precise Plan to create secondary building envelopes
on seven of the eleven lots in the subdivision. Lots 1,2,4,
and 10 did not receive secondary building envelopes.
C. On February 20, 1991, the Tiburon Town Council approved a
secondary building envelope for Lot 1 of the subdivision,
noting that the circumstances of the lot had changed since
1984.
D. The Town has received an application filed by Lawrence and
Lacy Lang to amend the Cibrian Precise Plan to establish a
secondary building envelope on lot #2 (4 Cibrian Drive).
The application consists of the following:
1. Application form received 9/14/94
2. Area Plan by Nero Associates received 10/18/94
3. Partial Topography by Steve Jacobs received 10/18/94
E. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at
a dUly-noticed public hearing on January 25, 1995. The
Planning Commission heard and considered testimony from
interested persons. The Planning Commission found that the
applicant's desire to construct a swimming pool was not a
compelling reason to amend the established Precise
Development Plan, especially in light of possible
geotechnical constraints on the lot. The Planning Commission
denied the Precise Plan Amendment request.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-07 4/26/95
1
F. On February 2, 1995, the applicants filed an appeal of the
Planning commission's decision to deny the Precise Plan
amendment request. The Town Council heard the appeal on
March 1, 1995. At that meeting the Council was presented
with additional information regarding the geological
conditions of the site. The Council remanded the project
back to the Planning commission to allow the Commission to
consider this additional information.
G. The Planning Commission held additional hearings on the
proposal on April 12 and April 26, 1995. At the April 12th
hearing the applicant presented a letter listing a number of
conditions that he was willing to meet to reduce the
potential impacts of the project on downhill neighbors. That
letter is acknowledged by the Planning Commission and
attached for reference as Exhibit "A".
H. The Planning Commission, in its further review of the
project, has found the following:
1. That circumstances have changed since 1984 in that
other homes in the subdivision have been built so that
potential view blockage may be better assessed, and the
former fire road along the rear portion of this lot no
longer exists nor is needed by the Fire District.
2. There is insufficient room within the existing primary
building envelope for construction of improvements such
as a swimming pool.
3. Creation of the secondary envelope will not have
significant impacts on adjacent properties in that:
a. Rear yard setbacks of 65-95 feet would be
maintained and existing vegetation on downslope
properties provides excellent visual screening.
b. The secondary envelope will be limited to the
construction of a swimming pool, safety fencing, on-
grade decking, and pool equipment only. No other
structures are allowed by this approval.
4. That reasonable safeguards exist and will be
implemented to provide downslope neighbors with a
reasonable level of safety against structural or slope
failure associated with any future pools.
5. That the granting of a secondary envelope for swimming
pool use only would not be a granting of special
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-07 4/26/95
2
privilege to this property not enjoyed by most other
properties in the area.
6. That the creation of a secondary building envelope is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, and the Cibrian Master Plan and
Precise Plan, as amended.
7. That the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA per Section 15305 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
section ~ Recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the Town of Tiburon does hereby recommend approval of an
amendment of the Precise Plan for the Cibrian subdivision as
follows:
1. The Precise Plan for the Cibrian subdivision is amended to
establish a secondary building envelope on lot 2, (4 Cibrian
Drive) toward the rear of the lot as shown on the plans
prepared by Nero Architects and Jacobs Land Surveying
received by the Town on 10-18-94.
2. Any development in the secondary building envelope shall
secure site Plan and Architectural Review approval as
required by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
3. The secondary envelope boundary shall not encroach into the
Sanitary Sewer easement located between said envelope and
the residence on the lot.
4. The secondary envelope shall be limited to the construction
of a swimming pool, safety fencing not to exceed the minimum
height required by code, on-grade decking, and pool
equipment only. No accessory structures such as cabanas or
other buildings shall be allowed. Pool equipment shall be
located on the north side of the pool.
5. Engineering details of any structural improvements,
including potential impacts on the existing drainage system,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to
construction. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-07 4/26/95
3
a. The design of the pool, or any other structures in the
secondary envelope, shall be based on an accurate
topographic map.
b. All structural items shall be designed by a licensed
structural engineer.
c. A detailed drainage plan shall be required. The
downhill properties should be protected.
d. A geotechnical engineer shall certify that the swimming
pool plans comply with his requirements.
e. The applicant shall secure grading permits for the
existing graded pad. The applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and
Building Official that the pad has been designed and
constructed in accordance with proper engineering
practices.
6. In order to minimize the impacts of the proposed pool on
downhill neighbors, the following parameters are established
for its construction:
a. The pool shall be limited in size to 16'x 36'
b. No diving boards shall be permitted
c. The pool shall be limited to two underwater lights or
the minimum required by Code, whichever is more.
d. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum
required by the building code (UBC) , except as may have
been approved by the Design Review Board prior to the
approval of this Precise Plan Amendment.
e. Landscaping shall be installed along the outside of all
fencing to soften and screen views of the fencing from
neighboring properties.
f. No decking shall be constructed or cantilevered over
any slopes.
g. No import or export of soil shall be allowed for the
pool construction.
7. This amendment does not otherwise affect any specific
provisions of Town Council Resolution #1133.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 95.07 4/26/95
4
4-:8~! 995 10; 46AI<1 FROt1 RAr\JD'r ~EE~BEJ::~ 415 435 6764
~4/28/1~~~ 69:cl 4154352438 fOWN OF TIBCRON
P S
~Ao:;C: "6
,
PASSED AND ACOPTED at a reqular meetinq ot the Plannlnq
Coamiaaioft of the ~own of Tiburon on Aptil 26, 1995, by the
fOllowing vote:
AYES:
COMMiSSiONERS: HeCkftann, SChrier, Siewert
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: Green~er9
COMMISSIONERS: Perlmutter
ABSENT.
~~ At~
RANDY EENIlI:RC, CHAI
~IB P1.AIfflING CO SSIOlf
A::Z: ~
d!i-J ,< ~~
SCOTT ANDERSON, S~CRETARY
TlblM_ JIl.,."lrIl c..n-I..... ~O" Na. 8SGT 4/a/~
5
J
Chairman Greenberg suggested that Item 3 be heard next and the
Commission agreed.
3.
PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT #39405: 4 CIBRIAN DRIVE. Request to
establish secondary building envelope Lot 2, Cibrian
SUbdivision. Assessors Parcel No. 38-011-27, Lawrence and
Lacy Lang, owners. REMANDED TO PLANNING COMMISSION UPON
APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL.
Catron said that this item was denied by the Planning Commission on
January 25, 1995. The project sponsors appealed the Commission's
decision to the Town Council. The Town Council considered the
appeal at its meeting of March 1, 1995. He said that at that
meeting, statements taken from a 1989 geotechnical report which
noted that there was no evidence of landsliding on the property was
presented by Staff to the Town Council. since the Commission's
denial cited potential slope instability and landsliding as a
reason for denying the proposal, the Town Council voted to remand
the project back to the Planning Commission to allow the Commission
to consider this additional information. As noted in the previous
reports, Staff believes that geotechnical concerns have been
adequately addressed for this proj ect. Both the applicant's
geotechnical engineer and former Town Engineer, Stan Bala, have
concluded that the proposal is feasible from an engineering
perspective.
Staff recommends that the Commission take public testimony,
consider the additional information submitted regarding the
geological conditions on the site and direct Staff if it wishes to
make any changes in its recommendation to the Council regarding the
proposed amendment.
Schrier asked Anderson what the Commission's review standard is for
approving or denying this application. Anderson said that all the
Commission has to rely on is what is in the Zoning Ordinance
section on Precise Development Plans and amendments thereto.
Catron said that the Town Attorney suggested that it would be
helpful if the Commission can differentiate between this project
and the approval at 2 Cibrian Drive to address any future
challenges.
Larry Lang, applicant, said that in 1991, the Wernicks, 2 Cibrian
Drive, received approval for a Precise Plan Amendment to add a
secondary building envelope. Mr. Lang mentioned that eight lots
out of eleven lots in his SUbdivision have secondary building
envelopes. He said that the difference between his request and
that of the Wernicks is that they requested 11,000 sq. ft. of
secondary envelope, which was finally approved at 4,550 sq. ft.,
while he is requesting 2,550 sq. ft. He also mentioned that his
home is farther away from the concerned neighbors than the
Wernick's house is. He ,said that many of his neighbors including
TIBURON PlANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1995 Minutes No. 735
4
'-"
EXHIBIT NO. ~
Richard Wood, 4995 Paradise Drive, have pools.
Mr. Lang said that Town Engineer Bala approved it; the Tiburon Fire
District has no requirements for the proposed pool installation and
consider it as a valuable resource in the event of a water main
failure following an earthquake; his Geotechnical Engineer, John
Hom, said that there were no problems structurally regarding the
pool envelope. He said that Mr. Hom was the engineer who worked
for Herzog and headed the whole Cibrian Subdivision. Prior to
selling a lot in Cibrian Subdivision, landslide repair has to be
done. At the January 25, Planning Commission meeting, Greenberg
suggested that Mr. Lang go to Sanitary District No. 2 to confirm
that they do not have a problem with access to their sewer
easement, if a pool is in the vicinity. He went to Sanitary
District No. 2 and they submitted a letter approving a pool behind
the sanitary easement.
Mr. Lang mentioned that the Town received a letter from the Cooks,
4985 Paradise Drive, who expressed that they have a concern about
a slide or water coming down the hill from the pool. Mr. Lang
pointed out that his pool would be 100 yards away from their house.
He also said that their fear is unfounded based on what the
engineers have said in their letters. Mr. Lang said that he called
the Cooks to ask them how he could mitigate their fears, but they
proceeded to send a letter to the Town expressing concern.
Mr. Lang said that he asked his neighbor, Richard Wood, 4995
Paradise Drive, to come up to his house to see what he is
proposing. Mr. Lang then told Mr. Wood that he would be sending
him a letter stating that he would be willing to submit the letter
to the Planning Commission containing conditions for approval for
his pool. Mr. Lang read his letter to the Commission and said that
Mr. Wood indicated that he did not have a problem with it. Lang
read the restrictions and mitigations on the approval and
construction of the pool contained in the letter which included
some of the following:
* The size of the secondary building envelope would be
limited to 2,550 square feet.
* The envelope would only be on the level area and not drop
over the slope.
* The pool would be limited in size to 16 ft. by 36 ft. and
shall be 3 1/2 to 5 ft. in depth.
* The pool would be for recreational use only and have no
diving board.
* There would be no landscape lighting used in the backyard
with two pool lights only.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1995 Minutes No. 73S
5
* The pool equipment would be placed to the left of his
home, away from the Wood's home.
* Prior to construction, a ,'geotechnical engineer will
review the site and certify the structural integrity of
the soils and the pool.
* No decks will be built over the slope.
* Prior to construction of the pool, he will request
approval by the Design Review Board.
* Prior to review by the Design Review Board, he will
review the plans with the Woods and the Cooks to ensure
that he is keeping to the design and scope of work he is
requesting.
* All drains shall be reviewed by the Town Engineer and an
independent engineer to ensure that it is correct.
* No drainage ditches will be moved or relocated on his
property.
Mr. Lang said that the request that he is asking for is no
different from any request made by any other neighbor in the
neighborhood. He feels that he should not be held to a higher
standard than what was already approved previously, especially when
what he is asking for is less than what was approved before.
Siewert asked Mr. Lang what was the problem with the Wernicks next
door that he mentioned. He replied that the Wernicks brought in
2,500 cubic yards of dirt.
Perlmutter asked Mr. Lang how he would drain the pool, if needed.
Mr. Lang replied that it would drain through the storm drains.
Schrier asked Mr. Lang how he would respond to his neighbor's
privacy issues and he replied that the perimeter of his yard is
surrounded by 30 to 40 foot eucalyptus trees. Also, he said that
his secondary envelope is far away from his nearest neighbor.
Schrier asked Mr. Lang if he would have problems with a deeper pool
for safety reasons and he said that he did would not. Mr. Lang
said that the pool depth he proposed was sufficient for his needs.
Greenberg opened the public hearing.
Richard Wood, 4995 Paradise Drive, said that it was agreed many
years ago that secondary building envelopes would not be allowed
for 2 and 4 Cibrian because of the privacy issue. He said that
Precise Plans need to be adhered to and that there should be no
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRtL 12, 1995 Minutes No, 735
6
more changes to Precise Plans unless there is an overwhelming need.
He said that he spoke with Mr. Lang and he is willing to agree to
the conditions, as precisely presentea in his letter.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed at 8:15 p.m.
Siewert said that the Planning Commission cannot foresee all of the
variables that can occur once raw land is developed, and the Town
should be able to amend Precise Plans with discretion. She said
that there can be reasons to change them. Siewert supports this
application.
Perlmutter
permission
Commission
said that since the neighbor at 2 Cibrian Drive got
for a secondary envelope, this puts the Planning
in the position of having to approve this application.
Schrier said that the Planning Commission is not bound to approve
this application. Each Precise Plan amendment should be looked at
on its own merits. He still questions whether there is any slide
danger, but no evidence has been presented to indicate that there
is still danger. He said that he would approve this application.
Heckmann said that he supported this application when it previously
came to the Planning Commission. He feels that the soils concerns
have been adequately addressed. He said that with the conditions
proposed by the applicant, there should be limited impact. He
favors this application.
Greenberg said that she cannot support this application. She feels
that Precise Plans should be adhered to, unless there is an
overwhelming need to change them.
It was moved, seconded and unanimously carried to continue this
item to the April 26, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, to allow
Staff to edit Mr. Lang's additional conditions and attach them to
the draft resolution.
irman Greenberg suggested that Item 2 be heard next and the
Comm' sion agreed.
2. 223 IVISO STREET: Conditional Use Permit to operate a HAM
radio tation and install a HAM radio antenna. Malcolm
Misuraca and victoria Brieant, owners and applicants.
Assessors cel No. 59-131-07 (ReSOlution).
Catron said that this 'tem was last heard on November 9, 1994. At
that time, the Commiss~ approved a temporary permit, which will
expire on April 15, 199 to allow the applicant to use the
antennas existing on th~ sit the proposed antenna.
7
TIBURON PLANNtNG COMMtSSION MINUTES OF APRIL 12,
I
Mayor Thompson read "AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIFYING NED'S WAY AS THE LOCATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF TOWN HALL FACILITIES". '
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt first reading
Nygren, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Nygren, Ginalski, Thayer
NOES: Wolf, Thompson
ABSENT: None
Town Attorney Ewing stated staff recommends the following resolution.
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
3.
Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Ordering and
Calling a Municipal Election in the Town of Tiburon on June 6, 1995,
for the Purpose of Placing Measure on the Ballot.
Nygren, seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRECISE
PLAN AMENDMENT (4 Cibrian Drive)
I
Dan Catron, Associate Town Planner, reviewed the appeal by Lawrence and Lacy
Lang who wish to establish a secondary building envelope on their property at 4
Cibrian Drive. They have been denied a second envelope by the Planning
Commission.
Larry Lang, applicant and appellant, explained that he and his wife were trying to
understand the basis for the Planning Commission's denial of their request for a
second envelope on their property. He outlined the background, showed drawings,
photographs, and a soils report and stated that he was very willing to work with the
Design Review Board to come up with design solutions to resolve any outstanding
concerns regarding privacy. Other properties in the development have been allowed
secondary envelopes, and they felt their request should be honored because the land is
safe from landslides, has been fully engineered, and is technically stronger than it was
originally. Associate Planner Catron confirmed that there were no known slides on the
property.
Richard Wood, explained the history of the development of the area from his
perspective as a long time resident. When the site was developed, an agreement
between the developer, the planning department and himself specified that two lots
were not to have any secondary envelopes primarily to allow for the privacy of the
existing homes. A Precise Plan had been established and the residents expected to be
able to rely on it.
I
Dan Cook, resident of Paradise Drive, said that the only changes that have occurred
from the time when the Precise Plan was approved is that lhere is a different Planning
Commission and Town Council.
EXHIBIT NO. 4
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1046 3-1-95
4
I
Lacy Lang said that she and her husband were aware that there was no second
envelope on their property when they built their home, but now she has children and
would like a swimming pool so that her children could entertain and make friends.
The Council, while sympathetic to the Lang's, felt the issue should be sent back to the
Planning Committee because additional information was being presented regarding
geological conditions of the site. Councilmember Ginalski said that evidence of abuse
of discretion by the Planning Committee was not evident and the issue should be
remanded.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To remand the Precise Plan Amendment back to the Planning
Commission to allow the Commission to consider additional information
regarding the geological conditions of the site.
Nygren, seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Ginalski, Thompson, Thayer, Wolf
NOES: Nygren
4.
4950 PARADISE DRIVE PREZONING (ORDINANCE, 1ST
READING)
Mayor Thompson called to waive staff report and called for all in favor of a
resolution of the Town Council.
I
Motion:
Vote:
Thayer to read by title only, seconded by Nygren
AYES: Nygren, Ginalski, Thompson, Wolf, Thayer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
F. NEW BUSINESS
Motion:
Moved:
Votes:
I
5.
ACCEPTANCE OF TOWN'S 1993-1994 MUNICIPAL AUDIT
To accept Town's 1993-1994 Municipal Audit
Thayer, seconded by Wolf
AYES: Unanimous
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1046 3-1-95
5
.
(
(
Mr, Richard Wood
4995 Paradise Dr.
Tiburon, Ca, 94920
3/6/95
RECEIVED
APR 1 2 1995
Re: 4 Cibrian Dr. - secondary envelop
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for taking the time to come up to our home to look at the proposed envelop
I'm requesting, I realize this is a difficult issue for you and the Cook's because of the
nature of what happened when the envelop was approved on lot 2 in 1991. I can assure
you that the horror story that resulted will not take place on my site. I would like to
alleviate your concerns by proposing the following restrictions and mitigations on the
approval and construction of the pool. They are as follows:
'1) Limit the size of my envelop to the 2,550 sq, ft, requested. The envelop will stay on the
level area and not drop over the slope,
2) The pool will be limited in size to a 16' x 36' and shall be 3.5 to 5 ft. in depth,
Recreational only, No diving boards,
3) No landscape lighting will be used in the backyard, Two lights in the pool.
~) No additional soils is required to be brought to the site, All soils from the pool will
remain on the site,
S; Landscaping will be used to screen the downslope fencing, The maximum fence height
will be the building code for pools,
6) No accessory structures will be built in the envelop,- ie, pool house, cabana The only
thing we may need is an area for the equipment. I will place the equipment to the left of
my home away from yours,
7) Prior to construction a geotechnical engineer ( soils) shall review the site and certify
the structural integrity of the soils and the pool.
8) No decks will be built over the slope,
9) Prior to the construction of the pool I will get approval by the Design Review Board.
Prior to the DRB review, I will review the plans with you and the Cooks to assure you
that I am keeping my word as to the design and scope of the work l'am requesting,
. 10) All drainage shall reviewed by the Town engineer and an independent engineer to
assure that it is correct,
ram willing to submit this entire proposal to the Planning Commission as a condition
for the approval of the secondary envelop, I would appreciate it if you could speak with
the Cooks on my behalf I will gladly meet with them too, Our family is looking forward
to moving into the neighborhood, We are moving to the area because we also appreciate
the quiet and privacy afforded us by living on the Paradise side of Tihuron Thank you for
your consideration,
Sincerely,
cc: Mr, & Mrs. Cook
. .
EXHIDIT NO. 5"
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
MA Y 3, 1995
ITEM NO. 9
SUBJECI': NTC BUDGET EXPENDITURES (Post-Measures M & I)
TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
BACKGROUND
After the results of Measure I, the two (2) Council-appointed Committees with
alternative NTC proposals were each appropriated $5,000 by the Town Council to assist in
their program and conceptual planning efforts.
To date, each Committee has essentially expended this budget allocation for
architectural costs associated with conceptual plans for their alternate proposals.
A specific cost relating to the Downtown Committee's February 4 Alternative
Workshop at the Tiburon Peninsula Club has not been paid. The billing amounts to $1,576
for services and expenses of the San Francisco Urban Design and Planning firm, Freedman,
Tung & Bottomley.
This matter comes on now for Council's consideration to increase the Committee(s)'
budget appropriation for the purpose of payment of all or a portion of this additional cost. v
EXHIBITS
1) Finance Director's Memorandum to Town Manager, dated 4/24/95
2) Invoice from Freedman, Tung & Bottomley, dated 3/24/95
TOWN OF TffiURON MEMORANDUM
Date
April 24, 1995
To:
From:
ROBERT L. KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
Subject:
NEW TOWN CENTER EXPENDITURES
DOWNTOWN PLAN V, RENOVATION PLAN EFFORTS
This memorandum outlines the year-to-date costs associated with the two (2) post-Measures M &
I efforts, Each Alternative was authorized to spend up to $5,000, to be funded from the General
Fund New Town Construction Reserve
1. Downtown Alternative
Jim Gillam - (Architectural), Downtown Administration Building.... $ 2,000
Eric Glass - (Architectural), Ned's Way, Police Building....................,3,006
Total Costs: ,...."..,.."..,..,..,..,..,......,....,..,.."..,....,..".."........,..,.... $ 5,006
2. Renovation Alternative
Callister, Heckmann - (Architectural), Ned's Way Renovations........ $ 4,975
Total Costs: ....,..,.."..,..,..,.."....',..,....,..,..".."..,....,..",..".."........, $ 4,975
-@;z
fAHDMAN
I U N G &
80ll0MUY
UIO~11 Ou_gn a Pl'l'lnin~
0: Jtr i C~ A evializati on
StrQ'l & FllHi Oesigr,
I N V 0 I C B
TQIIN OF 'UBURON
AT'm I NICKY WOLF
COIlNCIl.HEM!lBR
TrBURON 'lOWN Il1>LL
1155 TI8QRON BLVD.
TI8UROH, CA 94920
!'ARCH 24. 1995
PIIOFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED !lILLULr;:
PROJECT NO, 1041-01
PRESEN'lATION ON CIVIC CENTER PLANNING orrORTUNITIES
S~VICES ENTERED 02/03/95 THRU 03/02/95
FLAT FEi:
MIl.I:AG!
8LU1PRIN'lING , PHOTO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1500.00
10,26
66.08
1576.34
CURRENT CHARGES
$
'"
Post'lt" brand fax l'an6mittal me"'.o 7571
TO , rom
0,
Co,
Dept.
Phono"
Fllw
Fox,
47 Keall'l'fSlrut
$".100
Sil'lFfll'lCisco CA.
i4'0e,llll
415l9194S!
.
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 5/3/95
REPORT DATE: 4/28/95
ITEM NO.: /0
FROM:
DAN CATRON,
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 987 AND 989 TIBURON
BOULEVARD- ENCROACHMENT ON HlLARITA PROJECT DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE
*****************************************************************
BACKGROUND:
This project was removed from the consent calendar and continued
after brief discussion from the Town Council meeting of April 19,
1995. The project was continued to: 1) allow Councilmembers to
visit the site, 2) to allow Staff to solicit comment on the project
from the Hilarita, and 3) to invite Mr. Malott to attend the
Council meeting. A letter from William Kuhns, attorney for the
Hi1arita, is attached as Exhibit 2. Councilmembers may access the
site via the driveway to 987 and 989 Tiburon Boulevard. Mr. Malott
has indicated that he will attend the May 3rd meeting. Please refer
to staff Report and exhibits from the April 19th meeting for a
complete project description and recommendation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Letter from William Kuhns dated 4/28/95
3. Minutes from April 19, 1995 Town Council meeting
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT MAY 3,1995
1
RESOLUTION NO. 9S-(draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING
AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
ON TOWN OWNED OPEN SPACE.
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 58-151-26
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does
resolve as follows:
Section ~ Findinas.
A. The Town Council has considered a proposal by James Malott
to encroach upon Town of Tiburon open space property with a
3' high retaining wall and associated landscaping. The
retaining wall and landscaping would be constructed in
conjunction with a driveway improvement project for the
properties at 987 and 989 Tiburon Boulevard. The proposal is
shown on plans received by the Town of Tiburon on 4/5/95.
B. The Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission reviewed the
project on April 11, 1995 and adopted Resolution 95-01
recommending that the Council approve the proposed
encroachment permit.
C. The Town Council has found that the proposed encroachment is
minor in nature will not adversely affect the functions,
aesthetic qualities, or other values of the open space
lands. The project will help stabilize the slope, reduce
sloughing into the existing "v" ditch, and provide better
access to the landscape areas for maintenance and fire
protection.
D. The Town Council has found that the project is exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section ~ Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon does hereby grant a revocable encroachment permit
for the above referenced project subject to the following
conditions:
1. The permittee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
Town of Tiburon for any damages or liability arising out of
the construction and/or maintenance of the improvements
contemplated by this project. All costs associated with the
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(draft) 4/19/95
1
PXHIBIT NO. I
project, including but not limited to construction,
maintenance, irrigation, insurance, legal costs, etc. shall
be borne by the permittee.
2. Upon receipt by permittee of a certified copy of a
resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
requesting the permittee to remove the improvements on the
public land, the permittee shall, within 45 days, remove, or
cause to be removed, the specified improvements. All costs
of such removal shall be borne by permittee.
3. The applicant shall provide written clearance from Sanitary
District #5 indicating that any and all requirements of the
sewer district have been satisfied with respect to the
construction of improvements within their easement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town
Council on , 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 95-(draft) 4/19/95
2
TEL ,,'0,
~)r
j': l(,:C:, :'",)1
WILLIAM A, KUHNS
Ai IOI?NFY Al L^W
1~~O TI~URON BO....LFVArW, M..llTE .l'J
POST OFrlCE llO)i 1 (101
Rrl.v(Ol:~L CA 9.1Q~O ~:319
TflfPllONE (41~) .Il35.2111
April 28, J 99)
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 1995
TOWN OF TIBURON
, PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
TIBURON PLAJ'o.'NING DEPAR'lMUNJ
Tiburon City Hall
liburon. CA, 94920
RE: JAMES MALOTT/THR HILARIT A
Gcntlemen:
I represent the Hilar!ta Apartments and have been authorized to comment "'" the rending
Jallles Malott proposal for landscape improvements for 'IS? and 989 Tih,,,,,,, BOl\levmd,
We have Vi3il~d the she wld reviewed the plans, We have 110 ohJcel;on ;0 the pr<)pcoscd
pr~ieet provided un acceplahle agreement bctwecn !he HilRrita and tho 11t0perty owners is
reached on the i"ll<lwing points'
I, Th~ Hilorita is protected from any costs, liability or responsibiht;e,
with regard to the project:
2, Us< orHilarita propel1y is permitted under a Revocable Fncroachm"n!
or 1 ,icense; and,
3, U.e of any open space is prohibited ji" guest parking so a', to ,dlnw
adequate emergency vehicle aCces, at all !;,nes,
If you have any questions, pIeuse don'! hesilate in contacti!1g me.
Very truly YOUI.';i,
f)f~ ctd-
William A, Kul1lls
WAK:ak
EXHIBIT NO. Z.
data and that policy issues could be made later, based on the information received.
Councilmember Thayer directed Planning Director Anderson to start gathering data and
to explore the possibility of using a graduate student to help out, and to ask the Planning
Commission to review the questions submitted by Council member Nygren in order to
come up with a "scoping statement."
4. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - J. MALOTI (Town Open Space adjacent to
Hilarita). (This item was moved to the end of the meeting from the Consent Calendar.)
Associate Planner Catron recommended that Council approve a revokable
Encroachment Permit for improvements by Mr. Malott for his driveway which borders
on Town and Hilarita property. Specifically, Mr. Malott wants to build a retaining wall
(on Town Open Space) to shore up his driveway.
After a brief discussion, the matter was continued to May 3 in order to allow more time
for a) Council to walk the site; b) Town staff to talk to Hilarita (to get their approval
of the project); and c) invite Mr. Mallot to attend the Council meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
Town Attorney Ewing asked for an item, Zack v. Town of Tiburon, to be added to the
Closed Meeting agenda. The motion was moved and seconded, and unanimously passed.
L. ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 12:40 a.m.
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon,
Mayor Thompson adjourned at 1:00 a.m, sine die.
MAYOR ANDREW THOMPSON
A TIEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1049
4/19/95
7
EXHIBIT NO.3
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MAY 3, 1995
ITEM NO. /)
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: TIBURON'S 1995 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
At the recent Town Council and Department Head Retreat, a preliminary list of
proposed 1995 Tiburon goals and objectives was considered by the Councilmembers and
Staff. A final list of goals was then agreed upon and prioritized by the Town Council.
These goals were subsequently assigned tentative implementation and completion dates by
Town staff.
Attached for Council's final consideration and acceptance are: 1) Tiburon's 1995
Goals Calendar and 2) Tiburon's 1995 Action Calendar, The former outlines the specific
project or task, its approximate starting date and estimated completion date, The latter
displays the month of the estimated project completion and when action is required by the
Town Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Please review both the 1995 Goals and Action Calendars for final revision and
modification. Upon acceptance by the Council, these goals calendars will be utilized by the
Council and Staff in focusing the Town's 1995 work program,
EXHIBITS
1) 1995 Goals Calendar
2) 1995 Action Calendar
--l
>a
N
'"
00
--l
en
...
'"
en
...
'"
N
o
'"
~
<D
<D
'"
Gl
o
Ol
Iii
'tI
Ol
'"
Cl)
~ (') (') ~ ~ 0 >- 0 ~ ::0 "0 E; c:: (') z 0 r ...,
g ~ " ~ ~ " ~ '0 ~ " " ~
,\ ;i f!J. '" >- 0. '" '" 0
0. ~ [ '" ~' !!'. "
'" ~ i5" .g- < (') .g- o-; ;;
'" '" (') " "
" ~, '0 S. !!. "0 '" ~ ~
'" t11 g t11 0 0 ~ ~ 5' t ~ " i t"l
" 3 --<' "" ~ ~ ..,
.g " " i
"" ~ en -g. (') ;i " f "0 ~ :r: '"
"'- ~ ~ -6 -< l ~' " " ~ Ilo
"" 15 3 i5" -6' a ~ '\\l
ri !l " " "0
~ " '0 e; " !!. ;;. " ~
~ .Q " 5 a 13' 2' " a ~
"0 ~ 00 tJ:J en ~ (') Of 'I!l
~ 0 g, q 0 ~ " ~ " '"
~ ~ " 3 1;]
in' ~' .g 0. ~ 0 "" in'
'" 0 "" ~' I1l> a.. ::0
0 ~ '" ::2. 8, ~ 8 I
a 1i en 3 " ~r 0' "" ::0 S.
~ [ " ~ a
13' 0 !!'. ~ ~ ~
~ '0 ~. g" !!. ~ g " '" ~
::0 >a i[' "
" "0
8 ~ ~ g, ~ " >a Of g" 3
g en ri
g" 0' a '" >- ~ !!'.
13 " " '" 15
~ "" ~ " ~ "
m "0 en "0
" a ~ " '"
a 1 ~ ""
"
~
" ~
'"
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ~
: . . . : . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . '-0
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . '-0
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . )>
. . . . . . . . . . . -
. . . . . . . . . . . ~
. . . . . . . . . ~
. . . . . . . . . '"
. . . . . . . . . '"
. : . . . . . . .
-' . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 0
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . z
. . . . . .
- . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . 0
. . . .
. . . .
. .
. .
. . '-0
. .
. .
.
.
. ....,
.
.
.
. ~
.
.
.
I .
.
. )>
.
.
. -
.
. ~ ~
~
. ""
.
.
.
. '-0
.
.
.
.
. '-0
.
.
, )>
en
~
C"l
o
>
I:"'
rIJ
n
>
I:"'
t"I
~
~
-
\0
\0
Ul
...,
o
~
o
"'1
...,
63
c::
E5
z
<0
<0
'"
G)
o
Ol
Iii
'll
Ol
(Q
to
'"
~
1'1l
('l
:r
{l
~
'"
....
'"
'"
('l SO
~ !j,
~ ~
o S-
f ~
." ~
~ ~
"" g
..., '" or
I g ~
. 0
.:;
f
a,
"
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
:
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
'"
('l
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
'"
""
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
'"
I
'"
~
."
~
~
."
'\!i
5-
"
."
g,
~'
f
e.
."
g
~
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'"
o
~
~.
.G'
';;!.
0'
!!t
g'
>Tj
~
'"
f?
('l
~,
'"
j
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
""
>D
~
.g
~
~
,r
"
'"
0'
~
>Tj
~
-<
a
>Tj
g
8
'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
""
00
1
r;
g;
'"
~
o
"
'"
~'
Cl
"
~
S'
fl
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
""
-.J
~
('l
~
-
-<
a
~
"
s
~
1
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
'"
~
~
~
'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'
""
V>
f
o
~
'"
e,
a
"
."
~
~
~
S'
I
8
."
~
o
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
....
~
:s
~
o
~
"
S'
"
""
"
."
d
cr'
~
."
;;
8
~
"
S'
!!t
'"
"
""
~
is
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
: I
. ,
f--j
. ,
: i
. I
~ 1
. '
. :
.-
.
.
.
~: i
. I
. ,
.
. i
.. ,
. I I 3: ~ I
M' -H l' -- --: :#:
H - 1--'
-U-J--=-
:! I
. I
,-I-,+_! i -I---
1_ ~' 1
""
'"
~
'"
o
~
('l
o
iF
E:
~
'"
~,
."
g.
g-
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
""
c::
'0
'il
."
"
('l
I
o.
"
0,
o
"
'"
~
'"
r;
S
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
...,
~
."
('l
:;.
"
"
~
o
"
...
."
I?l
,.,.
S'
""
'"
2'
."
".
'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
""
o
>D
c: ,--
" I
[;-1
~i
c:
"
."
S
OQ
o
-,
~
:;.
"
'"
?
0.
o
'2
if-
=;
"
"
3
'0
~
o
~
"
3
"
"'
...
~
"
S
r;
"
'"
"
"
"
."
~I
3 I
.-1----.--
. 'I .
. .
. .
. .
-- . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.-- .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
- +--
-1---
'1---
00
...,
~
"
o
~
0.
S'
~
"
"
'"
"
"
U;.
0.
"
'"
."
:<l
o
....
M
('l
...,
'"
Ilo
~
'"
~
~
'-0
'-0
?
-
-:g
'"
'"
o
z
CJ
'-0
>Tj
~
?
?
~
--
~
o
~
'"
("')
~
t'j
~
~
-
...,
o
~
o
"r1
...,
Eil
~
o
z
~
~
(Jl
~
'"
~
00
~
-.l
~
~
~
U>
~
~
~
w
~
'"
~
~
o
w
'"
w
00
w
-.l
w
~
w
U>
~
<0
<0
U1
Gl
o
Dl
pi'
'tJ
Dl
(Q
(1)
W
("l C/J tIl 0 .." :r: ("l ("l ("l .." \;" tIl ...., ::0 ::0 .."
l '" .g ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ El '" ~ " " i:<l
~ ~ e:, ;;; <: :$, 0
'" '" " tJl g: ii 1'l
S- a C/J ~ " " ~' ~ 0 '"
~, i5' t'l
J " " ~ 1; 1; ~ ~ ("l ("l ~
::0 fl :r: '" 0 r '" '"
("l ~ t"" -l tJl :I., ., ~
" i 8- 5' ~ 0 ~ .[ " C/J
.." <:' 0 1i 1;
~ ~ ~ ~ " Ilo
g ~ a t"" ~
.g c::: .." I - -
(';' " .g (;l Ei' 5' '" ~ ;:
1'l ",' ~ tJl
'" 0 ?l Cl ~ ~ ~ g>
g <: .." ~ .." ~ ';;j '"
!'l. ~ .g "" ~ ~
So '\1l " ~
g" " ~ 5' a
:r: ~ ~ -l ...., 00 llI> ~ (';'
~, '" ~ ~ !!
e. ~ .." 1:' ( ....,
., '" '" El C/J ~
00 ("l ~ " f
" '"
llI> i 00 8- .." o.
~ llI> " ~. '"
~ " g ....,
~ "
"
Ro .'" '"
~ ~
.." " ~
.[ 0-
0 '-' ""
C/J
("l ~
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 3::
. . . . . . . . . .
! . . . . . ! . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . '-0
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . '-0
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . )>
. . . . . . -
. . . . . . '<l
. . . . . . . . '<l
. . . . . . . . '"
. . . . . . . . C/J
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .' 0
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . z
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 0
. ! .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . . '-0
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . ....,
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . 3::
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
.
. )>
.
.
. -
. 3:: '<l
. '<l
. '"
.
.
.
. '-0
.
.
. .
. .
. . '-0
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . )>
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . C/J
. .
. .
~
o
E=
rJl
n
)>
t"'
t"i
~
~
-
'-'l
'-'l
Ul
>-i
o
~
o
>r1
>-i
63
~
o
Z
TOWN OF TIBURON
Action Calendar
1995
Complete Microfiching Records (back-log)
Harroman Land Use Approvals
Shoreline Clean-up
Develop One-Year Budget for 1995-96
Establish New Library
New Computer Program
Open Space - Public/Community Ceremony
Purchase Harroman Property
Re-evaluate False Alarm Ordinance
Adopt Street Improvement & Maintenance Program
Develop Equipment Depreciation Allowance
Downtown Railroad Marsh Maintenance Program
Leaf Blower Ordinance
Resolve Corinthian Stairs Problem
Upgrade Communications System
Replace Trucks
Community Survey Police Services
Green Can & Yard Waste Program
Purchasing Procedure Ordinance
Complete Blackie's Pasture Parking & Minor Improvements
Complete Tiburon Ridge Trail
Revise Personnel Rules & Regulations
Develop Emergency/Disaster Information Page
TOWN OF TIBURON
Action Calendar
Complete Downtown Parking Study
Council Workshops with Heritage & Arts & POSC
Mill Valley Refuse Service Franchise Agreement
Revise Application Forms for Consistency
Traffic Ordinance Revisions
Update Municipal Code
Community Development Fee Schedule
Conduct Emergency Disaster Operations Exercises
Ferry Dock Improvement & Realignment
Implement Volunteer Program
ADA Compliance
Assist in Developing Additional Revenue Sources
Develop Guidelines for Front Yard Fences
Resolve Drainage Problem - Place Moulin at Sugarloaf
Update Hillside Design Guidelines
Traffic, Circulation & Parking Studies
1996
Implement Community Oriented Policing Program
Incorp. Secondary Ridgeline Policy (General Plan)
Revise Chapter 14B (Public Facilities Fees) and
Revise Chapter 19 (Encroachment Permits, etc,)
Revise Chapters 13 C (Septic Tanks),
TOWN OF TIBURON
New Town Hall
Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Minor)
Elephant Rock Renovations
Paradise Drive Pre-Zoning
Undergrounding of Utilities (on-going)
Action Calendar
M EMOR A ND'V M
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 3, 1995
ITEM: / 2-
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: MEMORIAL BENCH/PLAQUE POLICY
BACKGROUND
The Town's initial policy regarding "memorials" read "Names of individuals shall be permitted
for buildings, monuments, fountains or structures located upon Town-owned lands where
warranted by significant contribution to the community". (Exhibit 1)
This policy was reconsidered in 1988 at which time the POSC recommended that no public
memorials of any sort shall be installed on public lands. The matter was referred to the
Council's Public Services Committee. However, no specific action concerning the Town's policy
was acted upon.
In June 1992 the Town Council revised the policy by stating "Individuals (living or deceased)
who either have made a significant contribution to the community, or who have provided
significant funds or property, may be honored by an appropriate plaque on any building,
monument, fountain, street, or other structure located on Town-owned property. (Exhibit 2)
In May 1993, the Town Council specifically addressed and approved the installation of memorial
benches. The cost to the applicant and payable to the Town was set at $1,000 per bench, Since
that time approximately seven (7) such benches have been installed along the Tiburon Shoreline
from Elephant Rock to Blackie's Pasture.
ANALYSIS
The Supt. of Public Works indicates there is no longer a significant need for benches along
either the Richardson Bay or Paradise Drive shoreline. The last memorial was installed adjacent
to an existing bench by Elephant Rock. The donor purchased the plaque for the $1,000 fee,
The POSC has currently two (2) new requests for memorial benches and one (1) drinking water
fountain on hold until the Council has considered the matter.
Citizens have complained to Town Staff that the Paradise Drive Shoreline Walkway resembles
a "cemetery" with the headstone by the benches.
Many of the individuals being honored or memorialized are not know to lhc community, but only
to perhaps I or 2 people.
Some of the memorial requests are for individuals wh!3'have never lived in Tiburon.
The amount of funds received by the Town does not justify the continued installation of such
memorials.
RECOMMENDA nON
The Town Council direct (I) that no further memorial bench/plaques be installed or considered
by the Town; (2) that the current Town policy for such memorials be revisited by the POSC and
Heritage & Arts Commission, and (3) that a new policy be recommended by the POSC and
Heritage & Arts Commission, and (4) that this policy be considered by the Town Council.
EXHIBITS
I. Naming of Town Owned Parks, Lands and Facilities, adopted 2/6/80
2. Town Council Minutes #942 of May 6, 1992
3. Revised Naming of Streets, Parks, Lands, and other Policies, adopted 6/16/92
4. Proposed 1988 Memorial Policy
5. Excerpt of Town Council Minutes #975 of May II, 1993
EXHIBIT NO. I
OF TI BURON
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO.
TO:
ADOPTED:
2/6/80
ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS
FROM:
TO\'IN MANAGER
REVISED:
SUBJECT: NAMING OF TOWN OWNED PARKS,
LANDS AND FACILITIES
At the regular Council meeting of February 6, 1980, the following
policy for naming of Town owned land and facilities was adopted.
1. Except as otherwise provided below; the Town-owned lands
shall be named with geographical or local historical
significance. The policy shall be flexible and consideration
should be given to the appropriateness of the name.
2. Significance of the name shall be explained with any request.
3. Consideration shall be given to the naming of Town-owned
lands for individuals only when the land or the money for its
purchase has been donated by them, or when warranted by some
community contribution or service of major significance.
4. Names of individuals shall be permitted for buildings;
monuments; fountains or structures located upon Town-owned
lands where warranted by signficant contribution to the
community.
PROCEDURE :
Requests concerning names to be given to the Town-owned land and
facilities or structures located thereupon shall be made in
writing to the Town Manager. He shall review the request and
submit it to the Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission for
recommendation regarding appropriateness. If the request is for
the naming of Town park lands, the Parks and Open Space
Co~missjon should also review the reauest. The comments of the
Commission Should then be forwarded to tile Town Counc,l by the
Town Manager for review of the request. The decision of the
Council shall be the final step of the naming process.
The Tiburon Heritage & Arts Commission has compiled the following
list of names acceptable for use when names are needed for a
project:
LOCAL HISTORICAL NAMES
First Postmaster, Charles Chapman
First Fire Chief (1941), August Oldag
First Police Chief (1972), Maurice "Mike" Lafferty
~.. .
~.._..o....-:..~_,........_....._._ ...-...
EXHIBIT NO. ~-
MEMORIAL POLICY (POSC Recommendation - Richard Hill,
Chairman)
POSC Chairman Hill reported that a unifying memorial policy is needed to deter the
proliferation of signs within the Town; the POSC is recommending a reaffirmation of a
policy proposed in 1988; noted that this policy addresses normal requests and gifts of
moderate size, but does not adequately address major gifts to the Town. He noted that
a resident currently is offering a gift of $10,000 to replace the play equipment at the
South of Knoll Park in memory of a family member with the appropriate recognition,
and a decision regarding the definition of a major gift needs to be determined by the
Town Council. The POSC recommended that a major gift be defined as a gift of
$10,000 or more which will cover a significant percentage of the cost of a high priority
Town project. Additionally, the POSC recommended the Town Council reaffirm the
memorial policy with the understanding that matters relating to the community plaque
be reviewed when the Town Hall location has been determined; and requested that the
Town Council consider under what circumstances exceptions to the general rule would
be allowed,
There was discussion regarding the need to amend the proposed policy to allow some
flexibility; therefore, Vice-Mayor Friedman recommended policy #3 be amended to read
"No other public memorials of any sort shall be installed on public lands unless specially
approved by the Town Council."
Councilmember Thayer noted a memorandum from the Heritage and Arts Commission
from 1980 regarding this issue and recommending requests be reviewed by the Heritage
and Arts Commission, the Planning Commission and POSC before approval by the Town
Council.
Nat Marans, Spanish Trail Road, noted an unauthorized memorial on a bench near the
Donahue Building which should be removed.
A resident stated that it is her family that is offering a gift of $10,000 for new playground
equipment and requested the current policy be modified for major donors because there
is a condition of the gift that the playground be named in honor of her husband's
deceased grandfather.
Mayor Kuhn suggested this matter be referred to the Council Public Services Committee
to consider the issues of which commission should have jurisdiction over the policy and
a policy for major donations. The Town Council concurred.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Nygren requested Item 2, AWARD OF CONTRACf (Blackie's Pasture
Grading & Drainage Construction Drawings - Bracken & Keane) be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice-Mayor Friedman noted that Item #3's resolution should be amended to
appropriately reflect the Town's resolution format.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #942 5/6/92
3
4" ,
EXHIBIT NO. 3
TOWN OF TIBUIWN
. CATEGORY:
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT:
NAMING OF STREETS, PARKS,
LANDS, AND OTHER POLICIES
ellRPOSE
1. Except as otherwise provided below, Town-owned lands shall receive names of
geographical or local historical significance. This policy shall be flexible and
consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the name. (Refer to
attached list of Local Historical Names.)
2. Significance of the name shall be explained with any request.
3. Consideration shall be given to the naming of Town-owned lands or parks for
individuals (living or deceased), only when the land or the funds for its purchase have
been donated by them.
4. Individuals (living or deceased) who either have made a significant contribution to
the community, or who have provided significant funds or property, may be honored
by an appropriate plaque on any building, monument, fountain, street, or other
structure located on Town-owned property.
SUMMARY
1. Requests concerning names to be given to the Town-owned land and facilities or
structures thereupon shall be made in writing to the Town Manager.
"
2. The Town Manager shall review the request and submit it to the Tiburon Heritage
& Arts Commission for its recommendation regarding appropriateness.
3. The comments and recommendations of the Commission should be forwarded in
writing to the Town Council, via the Town Manager. A copy of this report shall be
sent to the Parks and Open Space Commission (POSe),
4. The decision of the Town Council shall be the final step in the naming process,
REFERENCES
Originally Adopted 2/6/80
Revision Adopted 6/16/92
n \.
Rum Runners. Bootleggers Lane. Bottle Point. Revenuers Reach - names from Prohibition
, '
era.
The Freda (32' sloop built in Tiburon 1886 ,for Joe Tracy, Jr. known as the founder of the
Corinthian Yacht Club.
Tropic Bird (brigatine used as a residence)
Flora Temple (old sidewheeler)
Ukiah (ferry built in Tiburon in 1890); later rebuilt and named Eureka in 1923
The Charles Oldag (tugboat operated in Tiburon 1918)
..
. .
'7
EfamITNO. 4
.
PROPOSED TOWN POLICY FOR THE PLACEMENT OF
MEMORIALS IN TOWN PARKS AND OTHER
PUBLIC LANDS
FROM TIME TO TIME, THE TOWN WILL RECEIVE REQUESTS TO HONOR,
IN SOME WAY, DECEASED FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THIS IS FITTING
AND PROPER.
1. IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE TOWN TO ESTABLISH AND
MAINTAIN A TRUST FUND DEPOSITORY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS.
THIS DEPOSITORY SHALL BE USED TO PURCHASE AND MAINTAIN A
COMMUNITY MEMORIAL PLAQUE TO BE LOCATED AT TOWN HALL
LISTING NAMES OF THOSE BEING HONORED.
2. THE TRUST FUND DEPOSITORY SHALL ALSO BE USED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONTINUED BEAUTIFICATION OF THE TOWN OF
TIBURON AS RECOMMENDED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL BY THE
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION.
3. NO OTHER PUBLIC MEMORIALS OF ANY SORT SHALL BE INSTALLED
ON PUBLIC LANDS.
I
,
[
f
EXHIBrr NO. 5
Council member Nygren stated that if the marsh portion is abandoned, parking should
be defined closer to the bicycle path and landscaping should be done closer to the
Boulevard. She noted her concern with providing permanent bathrooms, noting who
will clean them and her concern with vandalism.
Town Manager Kleinert presented the Commission and Council with a diagram of
the Town Engineer's proposed improvements to implement charged parking.
Discussion ensued regarding paid parking in Blackie's Pasture. Councilmember
Thompson felt the plan should be implemented this summer. Nygren felt the area
closer to the bridge should be used for the parking area, due to drainage problems
it is a drier area in the Winter. It was discussed that the money that is raised from
the parking lot will go into the Town's General Fund.
It was the consensus of the Council that the marsh program should not be pursued
at this time, the area be cleaned up, parking organized and eventually some form of
landscaping installed.
SOUTH OF THE KNOLL PLAYGROUND
The Commission noted that profits from the Tiburon Classic 8 Mile race will be used
for the older children's playground equipment.
MEMORIAL BENCHES
Chairperson Klairmont reported that several people have contacted the Town and
want to provide a memorial bench. She stated the Town's policy in regard to such
donations is hazy and requested Council's clarification.
Commissioner Wiviott noted the Town has identified several areas where benches
are needed. The cost for each bench, plaque and Staff time to install and administer
the request is $1,000. Councilmember Nygren suggested that an inflation factor be
attached to the base year cost.
Council concurred that if benches are needed, it is appropriate to fill the need with
memorial benches.
MAR WEST FLOOD PLAIN LANDSCAPING
Commissioner Wiviott noted the preliminary landscape plan has parking provided on
the flood plain property, She requested direction from Council as to whether or not
parking is allowable on the flood plain property. Council conveyed that no parking
is allowed whatsoever on the Town's flood plain property. Commissioner Allegra
was appointed to serve on the Flood Plain Landscaping subcommittee with
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #975
5/11/93
3
"
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MA Y 3, 1995
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
ITEM NO. I ~
SUBJECf: TRAFFIC SAFETY
BACKGROUND
In November, 1994, a Traffic Safety Enforcement and Engineering Team associated
with the University of California extension program conducted an analysis of the Town's
traffic safety programs. They focused primarily on Tibmon's traffic safety efforts and traffic
engineering, This traffic safety evaluation is attached for Council's consideration and it has
been reviewed by the Town's Traffic Safety Committee. The Committee's specific
comments are attached as exhibits.
The study makes several traffic safety recommendations and indicates that the
evaluator was impressed with Tiburon's traffic safety record in general and the Town's
Police Department's efforts specifically.
The engineering study likewise makes several recommendations relating to Tiburon's
traffic engineering program and specific comments relating to Tiburon Boulevard in the
vicinity of Reed Ranch Road and Greenwood Beach Road.
The report also defines and illustrates thirty (30) traffic safety and engineering
policies familiar to most citizens.
This traffic safety enforcement and engineering team is available to conduct follow-up
visits if the Town so desires.
EXHIBITS
1) Traffic Safety Analysis, dated 11/94
2) Town Engineer's comments dated 4/26/95
3) Planning Director's comments dated 3/13/95
4) Police Chiefs comments dated 4/7/95
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN MANAGER
April 26, 1995
FROM: TOWN ENGINEER
SUBJECf: TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION,
ITS REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 1994
I have reviewed the above-referenced report and find it to be quite thorough and
comprehensive. The Engineering Evaluation Section points out some of our greater concerns
and makes useful recommendations. The Bicycle Safety Section is rather brief and it would
be good if they could expand on their findings or if we could obtain a separate bicycle safety
study, as they recommended.
Overall, I find the report to be a good source of information for our future tasks and
projects.
s;~
Sia Mohammadi
Town Engineer
SM/JP
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ROBERT KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER ,_~~
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~
1994 TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY
MARCH 13, 1995
I have received and reviewed the above-referenced document per
your request, and have the following comments:
1. The quoted population of 8,800 for Tiburon is somewhat high.
The state Department of Finance gave Tiburon's 1994
population as 8,227.
2. Mastarm street signs are recommended by the study. While
they are very useful to out-of-Towners, I find them somewhat
out of character for Tiburon-------too suburban, perhaps.
3. A mastarm signal at Beach Road would improve visibility of
the signal light. I have almost run through red lights at
that signal myself due to poor signal visibility, especially
on very bright days.
4. I am not particularly impressed with either of the
"Suggested Rechannelization" diagrams for the Blackie's
Pasture and Reed Ranch Road intersections of Tiburon
Boulevard. First, acceleration lanes are more frightening
to most people than "hiding" behind a median strip. The
acceleration lanes also seem to fly in the face of Tiburon's
aging population of drivers. Second, the added "stop" signs
and traffic markings associated with these changes will
cause more confusion than resolution, in my opinion. Third,
small raised traffic islands, such as those proposed, give
me the creeps.
5. The suggestion that a Caltrans person be added to the Town's
Traffic Safety committee makes so much sense that it is
scary. But I remain very skeptical of the Caltrans
bureaucracy. How could we be sure that the Caltrans
representative would have any real clout? Caltrans
personnel have told me that the current push in Sacramento
is for more of a "partnership" relationship between the
state agency and local governments. If this is really true,
perhaps we should try to implement the suggestion.
That concludes my comments. Please call if you have questions.
~
"
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMf1RAJiD1lM
TO:
ROBERT L. KLEINERT
TOWN MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 7,1995
FROM: PETER G, HERLEY,
CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: UC BERKELEY TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Below are some pertinent comments and thoughts relating to the UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies
and University Extension's "Traffic Safety Evaluation: Enforcement and Engineering Analysis" of the Town of
Tiburon's traffic enforcement program:
The Study praises the Tiburon Police Department and its traffic enforcement program, stating that the results
of the program are excellent and should be used as an example for other cities to follow, Based on statewide
comparisons, the Department ranks high (86th percentile) for fatal andlor injury accidents per WOO residents,
This is particularly important as we have lost one officer due to budgetary constraints,
"The department has compiled an amiable safety record", ,especially when the volume of out-of-town traffic,
number of bicyclists and driving environment are considered," "In the Evaluator's judgement, the traffic
safety program's success can be directly attributed to sound management, in-view preventative patrol and
an excellent traffic law enforcement arrest index. Motorists have learned to expect a police presence and
be stopped and cited if they violate the law, Traffic safety is directly correlated with the quality of life in
the community, "
"The Evaluator is favorably impressed with the traffic safety record and will share this success story
with other California communities."
"The Evaluator was favorably impressed with the Tiburon Police Department and what it has been able to
accomplish in a very difficult traffic environment. "
While the report states that we have two trained motorcycle officers for traffic enforcement, we recently lost
one of the officers,
Relating to" Alcohol Involved Accident" ranking, we rank 290 our of 315 cities surveyed (92nd percentile),
It appears that our "reputation" for strict drunk driving enforcement has had its desired effect." "As a result,
the number of nUl involved accidents and arrests have decreased faster than the statewide average."
It is recommended that a representative of Caltrans is should be on the Traffic Safety Committee, This is an
excellent recommendation as questions or concerns arise relating to matters on Tiburon Blvd., a State
highway, In the future, when any items come up which relate to Tiburon Blvd, and Caltrans, Caltrans will
be invited to attend the Traffic Safety Committee meetings,
The report provides some worthwhile suggestions in relating to signs and traffic control devices, their
erection and inspection.
^
.
The Evaluator feels that more officers should be devoted to traffic enforcement duties, I agree with him;
however, based on the limitations we have due to budgetan' constraints, there is little more which can be
allocated to this area,
An interesting point noted in the report deals with a tremendous decrease in revenues generated from traffic
citations for cities, Effective January I, 1992, legislation changed the percentage of Vehicle Code fine
monies returned to the city's traffic safety fund,
Per the national average for cities with a population below 10,000, the Tiburon Police Department ranks far
below the number of police officers per 1000 population, The average is 3,0 per 1000, while Tiburon's is
1.59, The National Police Agency Average is 2,2 officers per 1000 persons while the California Municipal
Police Agency Average is 1.8, ranking Tiburon even below the California average, Years ago, there was
a "mystical" number 1.5 per 1000 population espoused which has no relationship to reality, It is my opinion
that not only are we below the California average and below the national average for cities under 10,000
population, but we are below what 1 feel is a level to ensure the safety of the community as well as meeting
the community's high expectation of quality service,
SUMMARY
The Traffic Safety Evaluation conducted by the University of California of the Tiburon Police Department's and the
Town of Tiburon's traffic enforcement program was very well done, It had a high level of praise for the members
of the Police Department as well as made worthwhile suggestions to enhance the program even more, I found few,
if any, suggestions not worth analyzing and pursuing, Further, 1 feel a letter of thanks from the Town should be sent
to the University thanking them for their efforts and for the professional approach they took in not only analyzing the
traffic enforcement program, but, also, the outstanding and complete report they provided,
PETER G, HERLEY,
CHIEF OF POLICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MA Y 3, 1995
ITEM NO. / tf
SUBJECI': TIBURON PENINSULA DISASTER PROGRAM
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
BACKGROUND
In 1990, the Town of Tiburon and the City of Belvedere adopted the Tiburon
Peninsula Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan. In conjunction with such a plan, there is a need for
ongoing emergency/disaster planning, organizing, and coordinating of emergency
preparedness activities. The State of California requires that cities and counties are
responsible for the preparation and implementation of such disaster plans in the event of
an emergency. In recent years, there have been disaster exercises and a local disaster
planning committee has inherited some of the basic planning and organizational tasks,
However, this committee's primary role and responsibility is that related to care and shelter
and organizing the volunteer resources on the Tiburon Peninsula,
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) That the Town Council acknowledge the need and support the formulation of a
formal Tiburon Peninsula Disaster Preparedness Council. This council would oversee the
planning, training exercises, and future revisions to the 1990 disaster plan. The council
should meet regularly, have the assistance of both city and town staffs, and report
periodically to the respective councils and boards.
2) That the Town Council consider the following interested residents for appointment
as Tiburon's representatives to the Peninsula Disaster Preparedness Council:
a. Judy Bloch
b. Frank Buscher
c. Elva Edger
The individuals would serve with representatives from the City of Belvedere, RUSD
and a local medical representative.
EXHIBITS
1) Letter from Fire Chief Rosemary Bliss to Town Manager, dated 3/8/95
2) Memo from the Joint Recreation Director to Town Manager, dated 4/12/95
.i
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTJON DISTRICT
TO:
Bob Kleinert. Tiburon Town Manager
Ed San Diego, Belvedere City Manager
DATE: March 8, 95
FROM: Rosemary Bliss, Fire Chief
~~cg~OW~[Q)
_u MAH? '/ 1995 '"
f8W~ MMU~@~rn3 ~r:r:lfJ!Z
roWN DF llaUf'({jN
RE: Peninsula Disaster Preparedness Council
BACKGROUND
The California Government Code requires cities and counties to provide for
the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and
property within their jurisdiction in the event of an emergency; the
direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the
emergency functions of their jurisdiction with all other public agencies,
corporations, organizations and affected private persons.
The Town of Tiburon and City of Belvedere each adopted the Tiburon
Peninsula Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan in 1990. Under this plan, the City
Managers are designated as the Emergency Services Directors with the
Police Chiefs serving as their Assistant Directors.
The Belvedere- Tiburon Recreation Department is responsible for Care and
Shelter within Annex G and for Volunteer Resources under Annex K of the
plan, To accomplish their objective of developing a volunteer corps to
coordinate and manage the shelters and assist with ether functions, the
Recreation Department established a Disaster Planning Committee chaired
by volunteer Judy Bloch, Although their part of the Peninsula Disaster
Plan is very specific, several issues outside of their responsibility have
been directed to Mrs, Bloch's committee over the past four years.
As we recently discussed, it appears that there is now a need for Tiburon
and Belvedere to consider appointing a Peninsula Disaster Preparedness
Council to assist the city managers in overseeing ongoing disaster
planning, organizing training exercises, and periodically updating the plan,
This Council could also appoint task forces from the resource group to
evaluate and resolve issues that are of a technical nature.
~,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Proposed Disaster Preparedness Council:
Belvedere Council Member
Tiburon Council Member
Reed Union School District Administrator
2 Belvedere Residents
3 Tiburon Residents
Medical Professional
(Chair to be elected annually by the Disaster Council members)
Staff resources to the Disaster Council:
City Manager of Belvedere
City Manager of Tiburon
Police Chief (rotate annually between Tiburon/ Belvedere)
Fire Chief (rotate annually between Tiburon and Alto FPD's)
Public Works Sup!. (rotate annually between Tiburon/Belv,)
The Disaster Council would initially be charged with the following
responsibil ities:
-Familiarize selves with the existing Tiburon Peninsula Multi-
Hazard Disaster Plan
-Initiate staff review of their respective annexes annually
-Schedule with City and Town Managers EOC training exercises
-Encourage community disaster preparedness training
-Appoint task forces to resolve specific questions and Issues
-Prioritize recommendations for improving resources
-Report to Tiburon and Belvedere City Councils
-Appoint representative to Marin Disaster Planning Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
1. City Councils support formulation of Peninsula Disaster
Preparedness Council and solicit interested residents to serve,
2. Disaster Council shall meet a minimum of 6 times per year,
3. Disaster Council will be an oversight committee of the Tiburon
Peninsula Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan and shall report to the City
I'
J
Managers and City Councils.
4, The Disaster Council and its individual members shall have no
authority for disaster mitigation or emergency response and shall
not interfere with the operational sections of the plan, Their
responsibility shall be strictly to assist in the maintenance and
training phases of the Peninsula Disaster Multi-Hazard Plan.
5. The existence of the Disaster Council shall not preclude Tiburon or
Belvedere from proceeding with the development of their respective
disaster planning programs.
revised: 3/16/95
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 12, 1995
TO:
Robert Kleinert, Tiburon Town Manager
Ed San Diego, Belvedere City Manager
FROM:
Barbara Creamer, Recreation Director
RE:
Proposed Disaster Council
You requested that Judy Bloch, the chair of the Tiburon Peninsula Disaster
Preparedness Committee, submit names of residents who have demonstrated their interest
in disaster planning and would be willing to serve if a Disaster Council is formed,
The following names are being submitted by Judy for consideration if the formation of a
Disaster Council is approved :
Medical Representative
Belvedere Representatives
Tom Cromwell MD. 435-2069
Paul Garbarini 435-0483
School District Rep
Barbara Brookins-Schneider 435-1197
Frank Buscher 435-9872
Judy Bloch 388-2696
Elva Edger 388-0930
Sheila Puckem 435- 7844
Tiburon Representatives
If you have any questions feel free to call me,
marin county risk management authority
marin cities liability management authority
DOUG DAWSON JEAN BONANDER DARRELL HEPPNER
Chairman Vice Chairperson Program Director
City of Mill Valley City of Larkspur 367 Bancroft Ave,
P.o. Box 1029 400 Magnolia Ave. po.. Box 958
Mill Valley, CA 94942 Larkspur, CA 94939 San Leandro, CA 94577
415,388-4033 415,927,5000 510,632,2200
800,662-8469
FAX 510,632,2475
April 5, 1995
Robert Kleinert
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Blvd.,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: 1995 Employee Health and Safety Survey
Dear Bob:
L/eM Is
City of Belvedere
Belvedere - Tiburon J.R.C.
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Fairfax
City of Larkspur
City of Mill Valley
City of Novato
Town of San Anselmo
City of Sausatito
Town off Tiburon
Twin Cities Police Authority
We are pleased to enclose your Employee Health and Safety Surveys.
For your convenience two separate reports were prepared:
1. Administration/Public Works
2. Planning.
Each report has three separate sections:
A) Questionnaire and checklist
B) Recommendations via an Action Plan
C) Summary of Section 3203, Title 8
Plus information on accident reporting,
accident investigation, safety policy,
noise control, hazardous communication
and right-to-know.
In addition, attached to my letter is Bill's overall
recommendations to the Town, as the employer. Should you have any
questions, don't hesitate to call.
;"
Yours/truly,
. I f7
~//!,
Darrell Heppner
v
DH/es
enclosures (2)
NICKEL ASSOCIATES
1282 Stabler Lane, Suite 630-136
Yuba City, CA 95993
(916) 755-0727
March 30, 1995
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Loss Control Program
The following is a summary of consultants comments from the
Employee Health and Safety Survey. Specific departmental
recommendations are included under a separate cover.
The council has the ultimate responsibility for the loss control
program. It is well documented that the council delegates the
implementation of the Injury Illness Prevention Policy (IIPP) to
the administrator, managers, supervisors and all employees, They
are held accountable and responsible.
It is recommended that the total departmental cost of the worker
compensation claims (including indemnity and medical paid to
date; excluding reserves) be provided to each department
supervisor. Consultant discovered that most department
supervisors are unaware of the excessive costs of the claims.
The information can be obtained from the Renaissance monthly
claims run. It is of paramount importance to exclud~ any reserve
amounts from the costs per claim totals. This process would aid
in enhancing the willingness of supervisors to take ownership and
responsibility for managing their own departmental losses.
Consultant found the Town of Tiburon's IIPP to be a well written
standardized policy that is followed through out all departments.
It was noted that in the Public Works department each employee
has their own individual set of Material Safety Data Sheets.
This is an example of the high quality work that made the Town of
Tiburon a pleasure for consultant to review.
William L, Nickel
(916) 755-0727
i'1a in l:Jl s't , i::-"', [;:'IF;
T~L:l-"15-45E-7924
Per [;)95
14:44 ~J,JC2 P,Ol
IrATf (W CALfF'QRHIA _ JHE "f''sounca, AOENCY
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PETi WllBOH. OOtl'MnoI
To: Bob Kleinert
Tiburon Town Manager
~';
,;"ll
i,-,\
'j)
...:i' I
l!.J
1"-",
r"'.
1:_ ,i:
I ,,',
iJ II
1 '; ~. - r
, ,
From: Ken Leigh
Marin Distri<:t
State Parks
;\:
-"
;',
/"~GLj{;; UFFICE
r;,:: Tl8URON
"',
.~.t~,,,,, (.!
i V\'~ I'.
Date: April 19, 1995
OR\G\NAL
Subject: ,",ngellsland Concert
Information Sheet
As we discussed today, I received an application for a special event on Angel
bland. I received this application last nie-ht and wanted 10 give you the detail. as I know
them at thia time,
UAll: - The proposed concert would be May 13th, 1995
:rim!.:. The proposed time is from 3:00 1',01, to 4:30 p.m.
flag: - Ayala Cove picnic area
Anis1 - Akira limbo with Paul Taylor. 111i. is billed as a smooth jazz concert.
SJl.QIW2I: - Includes Angcllsland Company, AngellsllUld Association, Red and
White Fleet and KKSF Jazz Radio and there maybe others - possibly Angel Island
Ferry,
Alte'ndance - It is estimated to be 1200 total, some indications are that is quite
high for a KKSF concert but that is unknown 85 yet It is also oxpected that 60%
or more of the attendance will come from Sftn Francisco
Other: . It is also my understanding that the Angel Island Association (the
volunteer, non-profit organization that supports many activities) may tile for a
one day beer and wine license,
Olller: - I am checking on the amplified music issue, ) have been told the
instruments are acoustic but there bc a microphone on staff, That is stiU heing
discussed,
I am still working on details but this is vicwed as low key and It test case Please
give me a call if you have questions or concerns you wish to discuss ] will keep you
ad\'ised of the slatus as we go through thc process
ThanKS,
.
Ikt1l1 Jb
I.
,.,'
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tlewt Ifc)
SPECIAL EVENT PEIUqT APPLICATION
DATE ~A' 7 )q9J-
\ I , (' I II - I
Sponsoring Group or organizationJ3.IQd~~o~ 0 r. ,f?.stQ ~so
+-\.nrn"'-DLUr-Lr-S .f\-;s:s:oc~ "" . /
Per\r;bi1 Making Application ~"I'":\:- qu.,...tHome Phone lj 3I-~..l-s-.f'
Relationship to Sponsoring Group ~{~~,
Address.3j< Blac~f7E.iO~ D,
Type of Event_R~ q
Date(s) ReqUested_tJ.oo"" I
\.
# of Participants Expected S-O # of
Work Phone -
Hours~
Spectators ---
Safety: Describe Need for Traffic Control, Crowd Control,
,\,r,j- \.. 11\ I' r 0- \u,
~ h,r~..(cD \)\'.
\)\'-
parking'_{\\ott I.Ah\\ \-,1"'. \\~ 0 r
~ ~\- "S~v\dl \-,~ r\ cs..../J n*-
'~ ~ <: r, \~ c\.c-~ ~
Ie
'1
First Aid: What Arrangements will be made? ~~-\ '~rQ
o..,"r~'\L'c ~ [~ 1'\'i.9-J-'b1o 'h~m$ ,
l'
Clean-up: What Arrangements will be made? ~. "",\, ~ S G.J;;
rc~ "\'<:,-- LAJ' \\
r\.",,,, '" "f a-~ "-'-l'c,,"*-.
,
using sound amplification equipment?
Do you anticipate
(Please indicate extent) No
:::T 0 s-\-
r.
Roo rn R r,y .
Publicity: Please indicate advance pUblicity given the
event: f\\f') ;\i"'~ ~ \'\'\~, V\Ab~ do
Sponsorship: If other than listed organization, identify
and indicate extent .of involvement: ---
.-
.'
Insurance Company:
sCOrrSp4LE (!'v51A.~c..L C-f/I,
Policy Number: C l SOb/;; l/ 0 g-/?
Covers What?
Type: 6-tNf-AA-L- /...l.4-J!.tlL"1
How Much? J ~ iN PI 0(10 /,1~ Oil'} 077J
,
application:
Other: Please list other items which are pertinent to your
Please attach a copy of the bUdget for the event.
Sl.L ~td) *-'.'-.~" ~'" ,,,'-On...,
I have read, understand and agree to all the terms of this
application and the Special Event Policy of the Town of
Tiburon.
APP(9)VED: a
-Adt: ~L~~
Planning Director
r
Date
4!2011~
Date
~"h~
I Djite
~;ZO'9~
Date
~~J
Block Party !II
DATE: May7th
TIME: 4 pm to 7 pm
PLACE: The very top of Blackfield Drive
MENU:
Light Appetizers
BBQ Chicken Sandwiches
Hot Dogs (for Kids of all ages)
Three side dishes
COST: $15 per Adult (11 years and up)
$7 per Child (5 to 10 years old)
All paper goods at1d ice will be provided
PLEASE BIIIG yoUI OWl:
*Beverages
*Dessert for sharing
*Picnic blanket and/or card table with folding chairs
Please .,ote that seati.,g is U",ited
:?<.........................................................................................
Name:
# of Adults:
Total Enclosed:_
# of Children:
Make checks payable a.,d tltail to:
Janet Quint, 343 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon 94920
*Se.,d pro"'pt pay",ettt .,of later tha., April 30, 1995*
Still have questions?????? Call ~anet at 435-6558 or Michelle at 435-1646
. '>' ~".~
.., l' \0
TOWN OF TIBURON
~Jvt Ilb)
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION
DATE 'i' I 1 - '\ S
Sponsoring Group or Organization SAvv\ IS (.\(V\.ct-to--(.L
Person Making Applica tion...PJ2-1 Av\ ~ I 1..-5 <JV\ Home Phone
Relationship to Sponsoring Group C)U - 0lAJV\ ~
Address '1-1- Mf'>0.,V\ "S ,. Work Phone '..ns -'+51... ::r
Type of Event 1 STJ:\A:tJrJ 1\JC:::')1...<;~ pA-a-TY
Date(s) Requested krAC",\A.Si ,~ (C('1S Hours-=l p""" --\.::, ,PIV\
)
~
,..{.:~<::; - 'f S L=t-
# of Participants Expected
-
# of Spectators
Safety: Describe Need for Traffic Control, Crowd Control,
.
Parking. S A-vlAS' W I,\..A- ~ ~ CJ?-. ~ 1)
c....o-Y\. WGl- <Z::. IT.. ,
First Aid: What Arrangements will be made?
w(/\
Clean-up: What Arrangements will be made?
tJIA
Do you anticipate using sound amplification equipment?
Publicity: Please indicate advance publicity given the
..
event: l-l VII\, l TL.-o - M.05\\-'-1 0-1 \}..l()i2..{) D~ ~-ci
Sponsorship: If other than listed organization, identify
and indicate extent of involvement:
.J(p<:
.
~, ."
, ~
Insurance Company:
~evv\/I(V\ 5
~.o
Policy Number:M'2-)< P-OIOO n SC( Type: Gev\- L-( ilrl6ILt1\-f
Covers What? How Much? 3 N\ r L-
Other: Please list other items which are pertinent to your
application: 11-1-1<; ~ wILL ~ p~
501.kt.-y c5'V1 '(ItE p~ I S es 09- <:; fTw1. '') w 1'1'* T\.Te
rrY\LLf ct+Av\ ~ ~ tJ~ V~4'ri/l'\V\ '" 8el r'1 G-
uJF MlA~LL.. at-! T'l~ D~\N ~ ,A;~-it~n,oJooJ
Please attach a copy of the bUdget for the event.
I have read, understand and agree to all the terms of this
application and the Special Event Policy of the Town of
Tiburon.
-~ ~
Applicant
'{-18-g5
Date
APPROVED:
G} ~
" I
'1"\/,
4~l(5:
Date
Y~r
I ate
ij-;zo~
Date
4'1-u/tJr
I D<yt:e
1JeA J g
HENRY HEROLD ARCHITECT
ARCHITECTURE' PLANNING
INTERIOR DESIGN
6 MARSH ROAD'TIBURON, CA 94920' TEL: 415.435,1649' FAX: 415.435,5321
RECEIVED
APR 2 0 1995
PLAN19r%N&O:J,L~~~g~EPT.
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA.94920
April 20, 1995
Subject: Request for Due Consideration to Waive the Appeal Fee.
Dear Board:
This is a request for fair and due consideration to waive the
disproportionate Appeal fee of $300.00. The initial apPlicant
has only paid $50.00 for the removal of eiqht trees as a second
application. (The $300.00 amount for appeal for a residence that
requires over $1,000.00 for application fees for the applicant
is justified, and possibly too smal10 As it is) it is inequitible
and the whole fee structure should be reevaluated. ( Perhaps 50%
06 the applicant's Planning fee as a simple yardstick.)
Further, I am an Owner of one of the Condominium Units that were
available to only middle income owners through the Marin County
Housing Authority. Therefore, a consideration to waive is justly
due as a non-profit entity.
I have witnessed this consideration given to the TPC (a well-to-do
Private non-profit Club) on this basis. There is just precedent.
Finally. there has been considerable past abuse of the Tree Ordin-
ance policy relative to our Common Area which should be taken into
account.
Therefore, on the grounds put forward I respectfully request that
the disproportionate Appeal fee be waived.
Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
~ -f/-~
Henry Herold